 My research is in phenomenology. I look at patterns. I look at not just cause-effect dynamics, but the synchronicity of things. The distinction I'm talking about is between giving sacredness and making something sacred. Because my mind almost went to their oh, so we have to make it sacred, but that's not it. So when I give attention, a reverse process happens in my attentiveness in which I become a witness that I'm giving. My sacred act is my attention. If I don't take responsibility for my sacred activity of attentiveness, the world appears finished. And if the world appears finished, nothing is sacred. And so the critical thing, part of it, is that what do we need from each other in order to expand the agreements here to include realities far more complex than what we want to have by ourselves? If I come upon someone that's crying and I want to know why, what laws of physics should I use? Do you take out a ruler and measure how far the tears are dropping? The rate of the tears? That's what I do. Sometimes the way that we know it is us give that person a hug. We're now articulating the memory of some of those things in a field we call artificial intelligence. It's so potent that we're at risk of using something that we don't know the ancient wisdom about. We think we're discovering something new. We're in a recapitulation of ancient times with a new application of things that we are now fascinated by. Part of Kyle's question earlier was, how do you know all this stuff? You know, maybe one level of answer he's looking for is like you are grounded in that lineage going back to India through theosophy, anthroposophy. And africanosis, africanosis, the tradition in which I trained in South Africa and West Africa, they still do science according to their will. Not a science according to fixed laws. To them there are no fixed laws.