I went on to show how this historical myth is effectuated, that is to say, how we are all taught to believe in it, how our sense of identity is shaped by the family, by the school, by society, and yet how at the same time each one of us has a certain complicity in this. It's not something, you see, you can blame society for. When you try to fix the blame anywhere, I was pointing this out, it's impossible to do. Every time you succeed in getting rid of the blame, you take it back to the snake in the garden and then to the law of God, and yet, the more you pursue that sort of inquiry,

[01:13]

if everything is determined, then you realize what B.F. Skinner so signalingly fails to realize, that when you've established deterministic connections between events in such a way that you are totally not responsible for what you do, the implication of this connection is that the events you've described are not disconnected, that is to say, they are all one event, and so you are the event, so you're once again responsible. And it's so funny about Skinner because he's such a militant behaviorist, and it's also so odd that a man who believes that all behavior is determined and that any freedom of will was complete illusion, should write a utopia, Walden too, and should make recommendations for certain changes in child raising, you see.

[02:13]

He's an avid reformer. Like Calvinists, who also believed in predestination, were very, very ardent do-gooders. But of course, he doesn't follow his thinking through, he doesn't see that causality is an unnecessary idea. When you have, you see split events into separate compartments, and you've named them as distinct events, and the same goes for things, because a thing is the same as an event. There's no difference, except that you use a noun for a thing and a verb for an event. But when you see you have split events apart, and you've forgotten that you've done that in the first place, then you want to find out how they're connected, and you invent a ghost called causality, to be responsible for the connection of one event with another.

[03:16]

Well, you don't need the ghost. All you have to realize is that the split between the events was arbitrary. They were the same event, only an event has varying features in it, just as a tree, which is a thing, has trunk and branches and leaves, but they all go together. You never saw a leaf growing in mid-air in no relation to a trunk. Same way you don't see human heads wandering around, or feet just pattering across the grass. Now, a human being is all of a piece. I mean, it is possible to live a sort of deprived existence if you have limbs amputated or teeth extracted and so on, but after a certain point you will stop existing altogether, if we pull you apart enough. But you see, a leg doesn't grow on a human body in the same way as a wheel is fixed onto an automobile. When you were an embryo, you had embryonic legs, and gradually the whole thing swelled

[04:19]

and grew and assumed certain proportions all over, but you weren't screwed together, although you may have been screwed into your mother's womb. So, in the same way, therefore, that the various so-called parts of our bodies arise together, or as the Chinese would say, arise mutually, so we exist in our physical environment. And just as when you watch the behavior of water, you can see pulses in it, you can see forms in it, you can see patterns, so in a very similar way, we are patterns of the universal energy, and just as a whirlpool is a constant pattern in water, but no water stays put in

[05:22]

it, so in much the same way, we are a constant pattern, our physical energy, in which nothing stays put, in the same way that a given club, a golf club, is the so-and-so country club, and remains such for years, but all the membership changes, all the buildings change, so we do, because what the club consists in is a pattern of behavior, and so too we are patterns of behavior, but we are indissolubly connected with the entire universe, and when we die, you might simply say, the universe has stopped waving in this particular way that we called John Doe, and so to ask what happens to John Doe when he's dead is like asking what happens to your lap when you stand up, because lapping is really what you're doing when you sit down,

[06:23]

you're lapping, just like you're fisting when you close your hand, a fist isn't a thing, it's a process, because it vanishes the minute you open your hand, so if you look upon beings and everything as doings, as events, it becomes very simple to realize that if anything can be said to be doing us, it is everything there is, it is the whole total energy of the cosmos, and this is our self, if we have any self at all. So Skinner sticks to his causal connections and his determinism without seeing what this determinism implies. Now you see, the minute you see what it implies, that there aren't separate events, there's one event, then the determinism idea completely vanishes, because

[07:32]

to establish a deterministic point of view, you have to have two factors, the one that determines and the one that is determined, the active and the passive, something that is pushed around by an external force, but now we are in a position where there isn't anything to be pushed around. The patterns aren't something pushed around by energy, they are the energy, they are forms of the energy, they're not shoved. You see, that's another thing, all kinds of determinism, again, go back to the beginning of 19th century science to the work of Newton and to Descartes, they go back to a model of the universe which we won't yet call fully automatic, but we will call it the billiard model. All these ideas

[08:33]

of atoms, our original thought of atoms were as balls, like billiard balls, that were all being knocked around by each other. And so we still, that kind of mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, is very, very strong in psychological thinking. When you hear of motivations, of drives, of urges, of outlets, as a matter of fact, along with the billiard model, a very powerful model in psychological thinking is the hydraulic model. In psychoanalysis, the dammed up forces of the libido, stream of consciousness, all sorts of figures like that enter in. And so the mechanics of hydraulics, the mechanics of billiards, all involve a

[09:36]

view of the world as atomized into particles, which are definitively separate from each other, and which are pushed around. And so the human being becomes a particle, in the sense that although he is composed of many particles, nevertheless he constitutes a particle which is pushed around by environmental and hereditary forces. But when you realize that the analysis of the world into particles, as if you were to say, well, what is really here is the particles. Everything else is a kind of construction of that. These are the

[10:43]

basic building blocks, and they are what is really here, what is really going on. You are taking a medieval school of thought to an extreme. You know, in medieval philosophy there were two great combative schools. One was called nominalism and the other realism. Realism then didn't mean what it means today. Realism was the belief in universals, that universals or ideals, again not moral ideals but ideal forms, really existed. That is to say that every human being was against them of a universal called humanity. And humanity exists in the same way as a tree exists, according to realistic school of thought. The nominalists, on the other hand, got the name of their school from the fact that they

[11:44]

said universals exist only nominally, that is to say only in name. There is not such an entity as mankind. There are simply people, this person and that person. But now, if you press nominalism true to its conclusion, there isn't such a thing as an individual human being. There is only a collection of particles. And these particles have an inconvenient way of being divisible with every new step in physics. We've got molecules and we've found atoms and we've found electrons, we've found neutrons, neutrinos, we've found mesons, protons, and finally antimatter. And well then, nobody knows when it's going to stop. So you finally, in your endeavor to find the real particles, you start splitting specks of dust infinitely. And somehow you suddenly get a feeling that somewhere back along the

[12:44]

line you missed the point. And you've got to go back and take another look. Because you see, of course one feature that all this way of thinking leaves out, you look at particles, you can look at a collection of balls or of stars, but what have you forgotten when you were looking? I'm going to talk a bit more about what I call the myopia of consciousness. You've ignored the space between them, as if it wasn't any importance, as if it were nothing, you see. And that's simply because the way we think, as I think is sufficiently proved in Gishtau's psychology, the way we think is that we notice, but you cannot notice without at the same time ignoring. You notice the figure and ignore the background. You

[13:51]

notice what moves and ignore what is relatively still. Despite the fact that you couldn't see the figure without the ground, or you couldn't notice motion without something relatively still, but you screen that out. Our senses are in the first place a screening apparatus. They respond only to a very, very narrow band of the total spectrum of measurable vibrations. And they screen out x-rays, cosmic rays, gamma rays, and so on. You don't have special instruments to notice them. But after our senses have screened the physical world, our consciousness screens it even more. And we respond to, sensuously and physically, all kinds of things that never enter into our consciousness at all. So in this process of ignoring, one of the most

[14:54]

important things that we ignore is space. And we don't see that space is as real as solids. That in fact, the reality of the physical world is a space-solid thing, not solids in space. And this then arouses the interests of physicists who begin to talk about properties of space, curved space, expanding space, just in the same way as architects are aware that space is important, and painters are aware that space is something there. I mean, consider the motion of your hand like this. The molecules of your hand have vast spaces between them, relative to their size. So that if you magnified your hand so that a molecule was the size of a tennis ball, you look out of the window and you'd see a flight of tennis balls moving

[15:58]

around in the sky, apparently all moving together as one, but with no strings attached between them. You'd think this was extraordinarily odd. But there's something that we don't understand yet, physically, about a space relationship between them. Space has unnoticed properties. And it's in here, of course, probably that research on gravitation is very possibly not the form of magnetism, but a form of the shape of space, a hunting of this kind. But we ignore it anyway. Space isn't there for all practical purposes. And so this is what the particulate theory of the world tends to overlook. But of course, there have

[17:10]

been philosophies, metaphysics, which went in exactly the opposite direction. They ignored the particles and concentrated on the space. And those forms of philosophy, which generally go under the name of idealists, I mean, we'd say Berkeley to Hegel, Bradley, and to some extent the Buddhists, tend to be saying that space is the basic reality. But they also equate space with consciousness. It was apparent to men living before 1500, as far as we know, it was part of their common sense, that space was the same thing as your mind. And to see things in space was the same as to see them in your mind. Dante reflects this kind of

[18:10]

thinking. And so you could conceive, then, infinite space or infinite mind as being... I mean, when people try to formulate an idea of God that's more or less sophisticated, instead of thinking of an old Draco-Mohammed golden throne, they think of infinite space. But again, you see, this is a sort of one-sided attitude, that what is there is not just space, but something we don't have a name for, space-solid, and the two are in a polar relationship to each other. You don't have one without the other. They are the fundamental, as the Chinese would say, the yang and the yin. The yang is the positive, the solid, the masculine, and the space is the yin, the womb-like, the enclosing, the receptive, and the feminine. The space appears to be passive, the solid appears to be active. But they are terms of

[19:13]

each other, and our intellectual thinking is unable to think of them simultaneously. Or we have difficulty in doing that, because all intellectual and logical thinking is in an either-or dynamics, because logical thinking is based on classification. It is a sorting of experience into intellectual pigeonholes. And the nature of a pigeonhole is such, the function of a pigeonhole, as you ask the question, is the thing in it, or is it outside it? Is you is, or is you ain't? And this fundamental either-or is possibly part of the way we think, because neurons either fire or don't. Computers work on a zero-one system of binary arithmetic, and out of that either-or we construct fabulous patterns. But what we

[20:24]

can't quite get into our ordinary logic is that either and or are not mutually exclusive. The inside and the outside of a class, although from one point of view they are mutually exclusive, from another point of view are inseparable. You cannot have the inside unless you also have the outside, and the boundary between them is shared in common. And that's the thing we don't notice, you see. That's fundamental. Now, why not? I don't know, it may have something to do with the zero-one nature of our whole neurological structure. But I think, on the other hand, that since it is possible for a human being, in some sort of non-logical

[21:25]

way, to be aware of yes and no singing together, one of the things that ever so many people report as a result of LSD experiments is they suddenly realize something that they have great difficulty in explaining to their friends who are supposed to be sober, that things go together. They see that inside implies outside, that self implies other. You wouldn't know you were yourself unless there was something you could feel to be other. You wouldn't know what other meant unless you knew what self means. And the person instantly sees that

[22:26]

that is not a separation but a connection. So, under that state of consciousness that is relieved of the myopic, ignoring qualities of ordinary conscious attention, you become aware of connection. And that's why people start to describe the experience as harmonious. They don't mean harmonious in the sense that it's sweet, but harmonious in the sense of concordant, reciprocal, related, making sense, fitting, all the piece, this kind of feeling of harmoniousness. And you become, for example, aware of that all defined forms have fuzzy

[23:28]

edges. As if, you know, in order to have a line of particles, which is clear, there are the square core particles, as it were, I'm using social terminology now, which form as it were the backbone of the shape. And then along the edges there are all kinds of little ones that are bouncing off, you see, and maybe kind of cops along there saying, ha ha, keep in line, keep in line, keep in line, you see. And the little things are bouncing, they're not going to keep in line quite. But if they didn't have that go out away from the core, the form would have no strength. I mean, if there weren't some revolutionaries in this table, my hand would go clean through it, wouldn't be able to stand up. But those revolutionaries are being kept in line so the table doesn't explode, you see. Now, then when you see that, you suddenly realize that all sorts of human beings we think of as deviant, or as wrong, or as down at the bottom. Look at the scale of society. At the top there

[24:33]

are people living in palaces, at the bottom there are bums in Skid Row, and frightful creatures in awful slums in Calcutta. And you suddenly see this spectrum, whoosh, like this, and realize that what we've done is change our level of magnification of our people. While we were looking at it like this, we stepped back and looked at it like that. You say, by Jove, yeah, don't they go together? How would you know you were rich if somebody came and took them? How would you know you were nice people, living in the better districts, unless the people you don't approve of? How would you, what would you have to talk about in order to know you were nice people, except how awful and nasty people?

[25:37]

You know? So you suddenly start seeing this. And then because of that, you see, you get this impression of a harmonious world. And as that becomes deeper, the feeling that self implies other. You see, then, that yourself, in some way, by polarity, involves everything that you have hitherto defined as other than yourself. And that kind of connectedness becomes extraordinarily clear, and it's only difficult to talk about, because it is the major point that's screened out in most human thinking. It's not inseparable. Just as it has been difficult for lay people to understand relativity, just as it was difficult for people to understand

[26:48]

that the world was round, that the planets were not supported in crystal spheres, all these, when they were new ideas, were very, very difficult to assume. They were flatly opposed to common sense. But now, we are getting accustomed to the relativistic idea, so soon it will be possible for everybody to understand this idea as perfectly plain. Something that's not almost an idea, but something that is almost a sensation, as it were. The go-withness, I call it, of things. Well, you see, part of the problem of understanding go-withness is not merely that our conceptual framework has been inadequate for it, but also that our way of using our senses isn't quite up to it. And that is because, as I

[27:55]

mentioned yesterday, we have worked out a way of using our consciousness since many thousand years, which has specialized in an analytical way of looking at things, hence the particles, hence the quest for the particles, you see. We found that way of looking very, very profitable as a magical tool, that is to say, as a way of exercising a control over nature. But just as all those species, which in the course of evolution overdid a certain adaptive feature, tend to become extinct. Saber-toothed tiger's teeth would grow through its lower jaw. The

[29:02]

dinosaur had to have two brains because it was so big. One in its head and the other in its rump. And the brains didn't always get together. By the Ford Foundation, when they had an office in Pasadena and an office in New York. So, in this tremendous specialization in conscious attention, the advantages of it also show up in very serious disadvantages. In other words, to make the effort to sustain this kind of attention, we've had very much to emphasize individual separateness. We've had

[30:04]

to rub that in. And always the great task for the teacher in school is to say to the children, now pay attention. I want your attention. And so we do all sorts of funny things. We shout and wear orange shirts and all sorts of funny things to get your attention. Now maybe though, if I were a really skillful teacher, I wouldn't try to get your attention. I would get the message over to you without your knowing that it was being communicated. Like subliminal advertising. Sleep teaching. Although I must say, I tried an experiment on my wife while she was asleep some time ago. She'd fallen asleep with earphones on listening to music. And I changed the record and put on a record of myself reciting haiku

[31:04]

poems. And I turned up the volume, and I was with a girl, and she didn't budge. Then I woke her up and said, tell me a haiku, darling. And she had the sweetest idea of one. Well, I guess she slept pretty soundly. I hoped she would recite one when I had those records with me. It was automatic then. Anyway. Now, in this great human development of specializing with our conscious attention, and therefore the kinds of controls that go with it, we have neglected the other faculty, and significantly we see a great deal of psychotherapeutic thinking

[32:04]

descending from Freud. We speak of these two aspects of man as the conscious and the unconscious. The unconscious mind, and that seems to be an extraordinarily paradoxical expression. How can you have a mind that is unconscious? Well, the terminology is not satisfactory. And furthermore, although Jung is quite different in this respect, and in some way Brodeck too is different, Freud's conception of the unconscious tended to be, due definitely to something other than intelligence, a complex of blind forces, the animal in us, the primitive in us.

[33:09]

And even in some Jungian thinking, I'm thinking of psychic energy by Ernst Harding, there's a basic assumption that at the root of our nature, there is a sort of primordial fly full of reptilian creatures that live by what is called in the Hindu philosophy, the law of the shark, the mātyajñāya, where eat can be eaten in fruit, and copulate and eat and copulate and eat, and so on and so on and so on. This is somehow, you see, the idea that this thing is fundamental to life. It goes with the same idea, you see, that the fundamental energy of the universe, metaphysically speaking, is mere energy, is in some ways good. Like this, you know, without any characteristics or quality or anything like that, you see. But that came out of the psychology that then required a put-down notion of the nature

[34:17]

of the universe, the reaction against the idea of the person born. But, you can look, though, at the unconscious, or I often just say non-conscious, functioning of the human organism, and while you may not approve of some of this from a kind of British standpoint, nevertheless, you must admit, such organizations, that neurologically speaking, which defies our interests to a large extent, is remarkable, to say the least.

[35:17]

And what we shouldn't call it the unconscious, as a matter of fact, it's all highly conscious. It's aware, let's say, it's sensitive, it's responsive, but it doesn't seem to require particular awareness, it doesn't require attention. It works without that. But, if we are somehow not with this kind of awareness, we are missing an awful lot. You've been listening to Alan Watts with Part 3 from July Kids. If we make this assumption, that events are indeed distinct from each other, then we've

[36:38]

got to do one of two things. On the one hand, we've got to say, this event in particular is the cause of the trouble. Or else, we're going to say, yeah, but events are so related to each other by causality, that you can't blame anyone alone, because what caused it to be the way it is? But you see, in either case, the difficulty in the problem is created by treating the events as really separate. So then, if you go back to what I might call the ecological scene, you isolate a given event and say, look, this is the thing. You just change this. You'll find that this specific bacteria is knocked out by this specific drug.

[37:41]

Alright, knock it out, and then you get rid of this condition. And this works beautifully for a time. Until, suddenly, new problems start coming up. We are keeping too many people alive. The world is becoming cluttered with people. Or, then what are you going to do? Alright, now the specific thing here is end of it. You see, that's the next thing. We're going to interfere there, and we're going to make it possible for people to go on making love, but not so many people come out of those others. Well, in time, that's going to create some trouble too. Goodness only knows what it will finally do to people to interfere with the fundamental reproductive cycles. I mean, it will get by. We'll muddle through as we've muddled through everything else. But you've got to keep going. You see, once you

[38:45]

start moving in and interfering with a certain part of nature, you've got to jump in somewhere else, and somewhere else, and somewhere else, and somewhere else, until you are in the situation of the sorcerer's apprentice. And you can't go back. You can't say, oh well, that's not interfering anymore. Because then you suddenly discover that your existence is interference. To be is to interfere, because everything you do affects everything else. And even if you sit perfectly still, and don't move a muscle, and don't even wiggle a thought, you're still interfering. After all, you're breathing air. You're exerting a certain weight on the planet. You're, all kinds of bacteria are buzzing in and out of you all the time. Just like you an old tree, and the birds come around, and things fly in and out of you, and so on. You're

[39:46]

interfering. And the tiny little interferences, like sitting in a room, can have incredible consequences. Why? You see, what the moral of the whole thing is, is very simple. The moral of the whole thing is, you see, that you, as an event, are not really different from all other events. There is just one event. And that's what's going on. That's what really is you. Only you can't admit it. Because the game we're playing in this culture won't allow you to admit that. Because it would be tantamount to saying, I am God. And with our conception of God, that's a very socially disruptive thing to say. Because when a person says, I am God,

[40:55]

we say, OK. None of this has to do with you. Huh? You can always tell the truth doesn't have to do with me. But, you notice that when anybody says, I am God, in our culture, the assumption is that he's saying he ought to be venerated. I am God, and all you people should bow down and offer respect, you see. Or, then they say, as a comeback to that, we don't think we ought to bow down and respect you. All right, if you're God, perform a miracle. Because God is supposed to know how everything is done. Now, in India, their gods work differently. Or, they're God, because all the gods of India are really one. They don't know how they do

[41:57]

things. They don't have to know. Just like you don't have to know how you open and close your hand, you just do it. You don't have to know how to grow hair, you just grow it. Until you don't. And then you can say, well, obviously I'm not growing any more hair because I want it to stop. So, the Hindu god, you see, he's represented as having ten arms, say, Shiva, or Kanu, with one thousand arms. And if they were asked, how do you use so many arms at once, they would say, I never need to think about it, I just use them. But you see, when we say, how do you know, what the question we're asking from our Western background is, can you put it into words? Can you explain how you do it? And what we mean by explain is translate into language. Well, as I might say to you, I guess I can

[43:04]

explain how I do it, but it would take forever. Because I would have to explain this, and how that goes with that, and that goes with that, and that goes with that, and finally we'd get somewhere near explaining how I created the universe. But after all, why sit around and talk about it forever and ever when you can actually do it? So, when, from the Hindu point of view, God is regarded not as know-it-all, in the sense of knowing in words how the trick is done, and not necessarily as someone to be peculiarly singled out for reverence, but the Hindu knows the same Godhead is in everybody. And so as a matter of fact, when meeting in the street, the Hindu does in a way practically acknowledge

[44:09]

that his neighbor is God because he makes the sanitation. And that is honor to it in you. And if so, likewise return it. I mean, instead of the Chinese shaking hands with themselves, they are making the same gesture of reverence and respect to another person because you're it too. We shake hands, and that's quite clear that the right hand doesn't contain a sword. The positive side, of course, is the physical body contact that's pleasing to. But here, then, you see, is the view of the individual no longer separated from

[45:22]

everything that happens by being defined as an individual event. Now watch how this happens. In childhood, you see, is the moment at which this particular game is laid on us. Because every child, as we were discussing in the discussion period this morning, is as soon as possible taught to identify himself and his property. What is, who Tommy is and what belongs to Tommy and so on. And so what the child is told is this. You are, in the eyes of your friends and parents and so on, you are responsible. You are a separate independent source of actions. And if we like what you do, we'll give you goodies, and if we don't like what you do, we'll ban you apart. Now just examine this situation for a moment.

[46:31]

People say to the child, you are free. You are an independent source of action. But the implication is, and by God you'd better be. You see? It's saying, it's the paradox, you must be free. Now, the way in which he puts the must on is this. It's very difficult, practically impossible for an individual human to resist social conditioning. For example, you can play a game. You can send two people out of the room, and then the teacher says to the rest of the group, now when these people come back, we're going to set up two chairs here, and we don't know which one of them will sit in which chair. But everybody, the one who sits in that chair, we will agree with everything he says. But the one who sits in that chair, we will disagree with everything he says. And you may find that the person

[47:38]

who sits in the agree-with chair is a very inarticulate, kind of fumbling person. And the person who sits in the disagree chair is very keen-minded and very articulate. But within a few minutes of this conversation, provided the two don't know the rules of the game, the inarticulate guy in the agree chair will be making a very good conversational scene with the group. The articulate guy in the disagree chair is going to be stammering and flustered, because the group exercises such power in controlling the behavior of any one of its members. Now, if this is true of an adult, just think what it is for a child. There is no way in which a child could resist the definition of itself as a free and independent being. You see, just because this definition is not true, for that very reason it is made

[48:45]

to seem to be true. The child cannot resist the conditioning. The conditioning is defining him as free by the very technique through which he is not free. Do you wonder people grow up confused? And so that is why there is a human problem. That is why there is a sense of something being wrong. Why we are all blocked in some way. This curious definition which takes, of course, the classical form of the double bind. Damn if you do and damn if you don't. So when this is inculcated, naturally, when the child has been isolated in this way, he feels voluntary, but at the basis of being voluntary is involuntary. He

[50:07]

feels involuntary, I mean the things happen to him, and yet basically feels it. This is a great puzzle, you see. Also, by virtue of being defined in this way, he feels he doesn't belong. This was all part of the game because when the children came into existence here, people said, looked down their noses and said, little children should be seen and not heard. Yeah, all right, we'll wait and see. You know, if the child does something wrong and says he's sorry. No, it's not enough to say you're sorry. We'll see whether you're really sorry over the next few days, whether you repeat this kind of misbehavior again. And, you know, the child wonders what's going on here. He doesn't really know what sort of a game this is, but the child is made to feel on probation. Maybe, maybe, maybe we'll give you a go here.

[51:12]

And so coupled with this, coupled with the definition of himself as being separate, it is therefore a very deep and important taboo planted against the recognition, which the child has intuitively at the beginning, that his life, individuality, body, or whatever you want to call it, is inseparable from all this. That it's simply a hoax that himself is this so-called ego. But what myself and yourself really is, is the works. It includes all galaxies, all whatever. Only, just as when you take a chicken and you put its beak

[52:13]

on a chalk line, and the chicken can't get off the line. So you could make a person's awareness of self myopic. You could say, now listen, you're you, Steve, and it's called Johnny, and that's that, and he'll better be you, because we want you in a class. We want you in a bottle. That's the game. And so, although however much you may have a sneaking suspicion in the back of your mind, and who doesn't, you know, you have a sneaky suspicion in the back of your mind that all is not well with this definition, that somehow or other you have a vague, funny memory of having always been around. You can't put your finger on Where were you before you were born? It's a funny thing. And everybody knows it, but

[53:19]

nobody will admit it. There's a little reserved power in myself. Officially, not even a needle is allowed to pass. Unadditionally, a carriage with four horses may be driven through. So you see, officially, nobody may admit to being who they really know they are. Who do you think you are? God or something? But inevitably everybody knows it. But it's part of not admitting this, you see, a very important element in the fully automatic model game of the universe, and our common sense as we now have it, that this is quite inadmissible. That there really is nothing behind it all.

[54:19]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ