 The universe is ultimate reality, which is some people refer to it as God. Some people would refer to it as the one monad. The universe has its own much more powerful kind of God mission, where it literally apprehends everything at once. We get to sense and control the universe through the body. That's how we can have a metaphysical nature and once have a physical body, reality is a combination of energy and information. The information determines how energy is distributed in the terminal now. That's why Telsus has to factorize itself into content and media. This is irreducible. You can't quantize reality any more than that. Can't get any simpler. What must the structure of that medium be in order for you to have the ability to bring observer and percept and recipient together in a perception? What must that medium be? That's what the CTMU asks. Everybody comes up with great ideas all the time. The object is to interpret them in one unifying frame. The CTMU is designed to be that unifying framework of foundational language in which all of these other insights, as great as they are, can be interpreted together so that conflicts and paradoxes don't arise among them. The one thing that characterizes great art is the number of different ways you can interpret it. That means that it's very hard to maintain a stable correspondence between people, the observers of a work of art, and the work of art itself. Its meaning ends up being ambiguous because when you add everybody's opinion of what it means, they tend to cancel out. This is what the mathematics is for. It restores that cancellation. You've actually got a correspondence that you can put your finger. Although I admit the value of the artistic interpretation aspect, because that's what really engages us. Bringing all those different engagements together, that requires logic and mathematics. Both sides have their purpose and they have to come together. As it happens, however, the world of current tendency is towards centralization, the centralization of wealth and power. Now we've got this tiny little handful of no-goods that are basically trying to tell everybody else what to do as they accumulate all the wealth and all the power for themselves that negates the entire purpose of the universe. It kills the point. We need to spread things around. We need to have more of what is called individuals, decentralization, as you put it, instead of centralization. Are they going to let the telec recursion of the rest of humanity come to fruition and give humanity what it wants? Or are they simply going to continue with their ongoing agenda of accumulating more of the wealth and power for themselves? You eventually choke off telec recursion. You stop the intentionality, the positive intentionality of other people from ever coming to fruition. That's what they're doing. So if there's no means to stop them, all right, then we've got a problem. Very few of these people appear to want to restore that balance. They just want to, they appear to want to get richer and richer and richer, thus making society more asymmetrical and more unbalanced. That's a problem. These people are trying to shut down the mass awakening that you want and that I want before it even happens. Hey everyone, Atlas here. I'm intro-ing the interview we just did with Chris Langen. It was super powerful on many different fronts. One of my favorite interviews. We interestingly spent the first hour or so about consciousness, the nature of reality, the one infinity and played with several of Chris's technicalities and his mathematical framework. We then naturally progressed in the second hour to talking about meeting basic needs and actualizing our fullest potential and this rock, as we called it, of separation, this rock of ego and this rock of many of the matrix control systems that are in place that are preventing the collective awakening and decentralization and universalization. And then at the very end, it was fascinating. We explored how important it is for these beautiful artistic syntheses of science and spirituality, these distillations of the nature of reality that are made visual, for them to incorporate mathematics, for them to incorporate logic, for them to incorporate a coherent systematization language framework for there to be a even more cohesive understanding of who we truly are and why we're here and how to awaken and what we awaken to. I am so pumped for you to enjoy this interview. I'm also pumped for you to support Chris if this resonates with you. He's independently bringing forth his CTMU. I would love for you to check out more of his work and to support him if this resonates and enjoy everyone. I'm pumped. This is it. This is us bringing forth the nature of reality more and more. Us awakening, reality awakening to itself, life awakening to itself, the one awakening to itself through the dance of a universe and sentience. Do I understand that you want to talk about just generalities more or less? Yeah. So let's go ahead and dive in. I'll go ahead and intro the show. Okay. Hey, everyone. Welcome to Simulation. I'm your host, Atlas. Super excited for this interview with Chris Langen. Chris, thanks for coming on the show. You're very welcome, Atlas. My pleasure. And I'm super excited. It was last year that I initially stumbled across your work. It was when I was seeking the nature of reality answers. And I remember coming across CTMU and being really excited about it. And it led me into so many interesting understandings about consciousness and about the universe and about infinity. And that was super pumped for me. And then I had messaged you interested in interviewing you. But back then, it would have been a lower quality interview given today, one year later, what I know, this is going to be really epic with my realizations and my conviction. And so I'm so excited. And actually it was because Kurt Jaimungo, who we also had on the show, he had interviewed you. And then I had mentioned to him that I was so excited to interview you and that he linked us up with Gina and then again, now with you. And so I'm jacked. I'm so excited. Heck yes. So yes, like we talked about, I am interested to chat with you about yes, the nature of reality, consciousness, infinity. And I feel like one of the best places to start is just going directly at the source of how the universe comprehends itself. And would you say that that's obviously cognition? It's a form of cognition, although it's not the same as human cognition. The universe has its own much more powerful kind of cognition, where it literally apprehends everything at once. But it does so through the eyes of all of its secondary tellers, which of course are includes human beings like us. So how does the universe comprehend everything at once? Well, now if I were the universe, I could tell you that. Unfortunately, just like you, I'm a localized creature within the universe. So my perception is usually limited, unless I'm getting some kind of help or I'm occupying a higher form of consciousness. Usually, I can't see very far beyond my own low count. So the reason our consciousness is that way is so that we can survive on this level of existence, which is terminal reality. So we have to stay in touch with it. That means we have to, we can shift our focus, but our focus always has to be in terminal reality, at least when we're actually coping with threats, dangers, things that we want, things that we need to do, we have to stay attached to them. And that's what our consciousness is doing. There are however higher forms of consciousness that it is very hard for us to conceive using just the form inside our heads. But if you can deduce, for example, that the universe has a kind of sentience, and that sentience is necessarily different from our level of consciousness in certain respects, then you may safely ascribe it to the universe because it's a matter of logical necessity. Cool. So where is the universe's sentience if it's not localized within the sentient creatures? It's distributed over everything in the universe. In the CTMU, the points of the universe are events, which actually contain states, interacting states, they interact in events. And these are the points of the manifold. The sentience of the universe is distributed over all of those points so that it misses nothing. In other words, people wonder, what is this higher sentience? What is the mind of God? What does it perceive? It perceives everything through every point. Okay, so the sentience is distributed across a manifold? Yes. You know what a manifold is, right? Many fold. That's one way of looking at it. It's also a certain kind of space. You can ascribe properties to it. For instance, it's locally euclidean in most cases, which means that we have something approximating euclidean geometry in our separate frames of reference. The conspensive manifold of the CTMU differs from ordinary manifolds in certain respects. One of those respects is, of course, point structure. I've just described points in a different way than most mathematicians who would describe the points in an ordinary manifold. In an ordinary real manifold, for example, which is a manifold parameterized by real numbers, points are zero-dimensional cuts in the manifold. The cut is something, of course, that has to be bridged from one point to another or one section of the space to another. So they'll actually separate the space. That's what a cut does. But of course, then if you separate the space, the space is not connected and it falls into pieces. Also, of course, a cut is of zero dimension within the spaces. Actually, it has no size. It doesn't take any space up in the manifold. Therefore, it has extent zero in the manifold. Now, if you add up all of those points, because we all know a manifold consists of its points, it can be decomposed to its points. If we take the extent of all of those points and add them up, again, we get zero. So that leads to a paradoxical construct. It's oxymoronic to talk about a real manifold whose points are cuts. So we must redefine the manifold in such a way that it makes sense. And that's what a conspensive manifold is designed to do. Okay. So we have the universe comprehending itself in a distributed way. Okay. And then this feels like it plays really well into the conversation of the synthesis of science and spirituality, because on a spiritual level, there's so many mystical wisdoms around consciousness and around awareness. And then on a scientific level, there's so much excitement around physics and around quantum mechanics and biology and chemistry, these very materialistic building blocks. And so the two are ultimately one. And let's see if this is aligned with what you were saying a moment ago, which is that consciousness or perception depends upon the material or the physical. Well, consciousness is dual. When I say dual, what I mean is if somebody into Asian philosophy would say non-dual, those would mean the same things. But actually, we use dualism for that concept, for the concept of two things being separated, and duality for the idea that two things coincide in one particular point. Now, consciousness must have this duality. In other words, we have to have a set of patterns, which in the CTM use code syntax, in terms of which we see the world. And then we actually have to have a body with which we are in contact that is actually in the world. So this serves as a kind of sense or control. We get to we get to sense and control the universe. That's how we can have a metaphysical nature and once have a physical a physical body. Beautiful. We say that we say that every physical point in the conspensive manifold has a metaphysical neighborhood that do a certain mathematical considerations. In effect, in the conspensive manifold has to be both interior and exterior to every point. But we use certain distinctions like those between semi languages in the CTM in order to separate them so that we can consider them separately. Nice. Great. So then this not this two-ness and this not two-ness are simultaneous so that both the metaphysical and the physical nature are both can be separate and viewed that way, but they can also be viewed as the same as dependent on each other. Yes. And in the conspensive manifold, basically things states collapse out of events in which they are actually combined. They are acquired together by something called a telon and then they collapse by quantum wave function collapse so that medium is separated from content. The state exists as content within a medium and those two things are factored apart and made temporarily dualistic so that you seem to be set apart from the terminal domain in ordinary terminal consciousness. You actually seem to be separate from the world. Okay. Well, here's me out there is the world, but on a deeper level of structure in the conspensive manifold, you actually cannot be separated from the world. You're embedded in it in a very real way and you can't extricate yourself. Yep. And you used the word sensor earlier and I think that's a very important word. So out of infinite potential that we are, would you say that we are infinite potential? Yes, of course, a lot of people mean a lot of different things by infinity and by potential. So you have to kind of define what those are, you know, and the CTMU does that. If we get into all the technicalities, we're probably going to start losing some people, but yeah, infinity is all about discernment. It's all about what you can discern as a specific element in the set. You know, can't or define the set in terms of two operations. Discernment and aggregation. Aggregation is basically creating the intention from the extension of the set. Whereas discernment is the opposite direction. Use the aggregation to identify the elements of the set rather than, or anyway, you've got to use both, you've got to both use the intention of the set to identify the extension and the extension from the point of view of a point within the set. You've got to be able to identify the intention. So that's the kind of duality that you need to make consciousness work in the terminal map. Cool. So with this infinite potential that we are, we then use the the substrate or the technology or the design of energy that manifests as universe recursively like cells that then enable us to have these sensors. Is that how you also see it? Well, yes, what happens is the universe is quantized in terms of things called syntactors that can actually accept input from the universe and then return output in the forms of state transitions or behavior. So on one side of that, you've got acceptance, which in computation theory, you know what an acceptor is, right? It's just a little, it's an automaton that accepts input from the outside world. And then becomes throughput and it's processed inside the syntactor and then it's used, then it's classified actually becomes a classifier. And then you get output that can actually be returned to the world in the form of an external state as opposed to the internal state of the syntactor. Now, customarily, mathematicians define a manifold in terms of points with no internal structure. We've got no structure at all because they're cuts. In the CTMU, points are defined in terms of states that are syntactors and actually have this input output capacity. And the input capacity is the sensing capacity. That's what makes it a sensor. And then the controller part is the way we can actually control what our bodies do by using internal designs, it's a possible design, right? Intentionality. Yeah. Right. And that is that exists in the manifold in a semi language that is actually located in the future. So that things flow out of that semi language to the output language from future to past. Whereas there's a contributing semi-model that actually flows in the opposite direction. Cool. A recorded semi-model and an advanced semi-model. Nice. So there's both. So there's both this inputting of sensations that dance in what we could say is an empty, cognizing mind. And then there's also this intentionality or will, choice, that then we are the painters. God is the painter through these sensors that are these human body vehicles. Well, to be very colorful about it. Yes. That's a metaphorical way of expressing dancing and painting on the, on necessarily the concepts that I ordinarily use to explain a book. They certainly do fit so I can actually empathize with you in front of expression. Do you feel like there's benefit of leveraging the like artistic way of expression with dancing and painting as sort of an explanation of infinite potential and using these universes to do so, but also at the same time having this very logical and conceptual and idea based, the simultaneity of those two. Well, those are both very closely connected and both necessary sides of reality. Cool. A reality would be with nothing to us if we couldn't be creative and artistic. We're all creating our destinies as we move from past to future and from future to past. And this is something that's very important to us. There would be no point to having a reality at all at all if we couldn't do that. So this idea that the real that the terminal manifold space time is just some kind of theater in which inert particles bounce into each other and the certain phenomena happen under the direction of physical law that that's not a world that anybody would actually want to live in. We actually have to have mentality. We actually have to have intentionality and the other things that we know subjectively. And so the manifold of reality must be designed to accommodate it, which unfortunately the Cartesian manifold, space time manifold, most manifolds as conceived by mathematicians and physicists do not. That's why we define the manifold in a different way in the CTMU so that we can sense and control and perform the creative functions that we associate with actually living on this planet as a human being. Cool. So let's play with the painter analogy a little bit more. So do you see us as God? I see us as there is in the CTMU of God. It's it's basically synonymous with ultimate reality or Neoplatonists might have called it the one or the monad. Yes, this is God. And God actually that that monad actually has the properties that we describe to God, including sentience. So so yes. Cool. We're all God in that sense. But there are differences between us and God. Okay. Although we all share one ultimate identity, we're all canonically identical in all God. Nevertheless, we we are not God. We can't simply realize our thoughts just like that. Okay, God can do that from his own perspective instantaneous. We, on the other hand, have to sometimes work very hard to make things happen because we're all working with and against each other. We've got to allow for what everybody is doing to reality in order to make our own particular realities mesh and fit together. God doesn't have that problem. He tries to ease our interactions for us. He makes them happen as smoothly as possible. That's another feature of this manifold montage. Actually has levels of organization that permit this to happen. Cool. Go ahead. Go ahead. Would you call God an unbounded energy? I would not call God a mere energy and physics energy is defined as the capacity to do work. Yes. Okay. But if you're going to talk about and of course in energy energy and physics is the ultimate reductive substance of reality, everything reduces to energy. That's great. E equals mc squared means the matter and energy of the same. So the universe that appears to consist of matter actually consists of energy embedded in some kind of space time media. Okay, that's what physicists think. But when we talk about metaphysics and we talk about God, we have something called information, but also plays into this. Information is a more complex entity that requires linguistic structure to exist. In other words, language is the vehicle of information. You've got to have attributes and you've got to have values and you've got to have an attribution operation, which is mainly logical. But these things, you've got nothing. This is often overlooked by mathematicians and physicists who more or less add the content of their own minds to reality and think that it's all out there in reality without recognizing that they're really adding it to reality and they're really performing certain functions that reality does not perform with. Nice. So potentially rather than the phrase reality is energy doing work, you would say reality is information doing work. No, I would say that reality is helices, which is a combination of energy and information. Nice. Basically, the information determines how energy is distributed in the terminal amount, the terminal domain in space time. So information determines how the energy is distributed. That's correct. The kind of information we're talking about right now. There are many different kinds of information, but the kind that we're talking about, which is opposite to metaphysics, is the kind that we mean. So telsis or telsis. Do you have a preferred pronunciation? I usually pronounce it telsis. Telsis. Okay. And then now let's play with the word telsis. This is very important. So this comes from Greek telos, right? Right. And it comes in telos meaning purpose. Yeah, there you go. That's right. And then meaning that there is an end, there is a reason for this. There's an explorative process that this is. It means that there is an ultimate monic metasubstance that actually contains its own ends, its own purposes and actualizes those purposes from potential, which means that it must factorize into potential and actuality. That's what it does via an operation called conspension, which contains another operation called telecrecursion. Yep. Okay. So from the infinite potentiality, there's an actualization of set potential using telecrecursion. There you go. Okay. And then now telecrecursion plays one of the simplest ways to see it from what I see is a cell. So the procedure calls on itself to cell, hits a certain checkpoint in its cell cycle, and then it divides and there's two cells. And so it's recursive in that sense. And then don't agree? No, I'm losing your entire cell analogy here. What do you mean by cell? Well, for example, within us humans, there is a, there's a teplos, you could say, which is that the human breeds with another human and then produces a cell. It survives and reproduces. Okay. And so that's recursive in the sense so that the human's made and then the human procedure calls on itself to make another human. Yes. And in the process of mitosis, you know, cellular division, two things are made out of one cell replicates. Okay. But you also have this process that precedes it, where two things come together, man and woman come together and mate. And then the DNA is actually combined, right? One strand from each. And then from that, we get a basically a one cell, which then divides repeatedly from one thing into many. Okay. Yeah. So is that what you mean? Yeah. And so then would then infinite potentialities operator be this tele-recursive process to actualize the potential? Yes, we can say that yes. So like you know what an operator is. I mean, that's very simple. Just something that operates on something else. So. Yeah. So then humans could be seen as said, tele-recursive operator. That's right. That's right. Okay. So then our nature being this infinite potential and then in the process of actualizing that tele-sys, tele-sys, the actualization of that uses the human operator, the body as the operator, as the sensor. As the sensor control, divide reality into three levels, primary, secondary, and tertiary. And basically the tele-sys from the primary operator is being apportioned among secondary operators who then sense it and control it actually configure themselves as causal patterns to make things happen. Cool. So the vehicle itself is the operator is both for sensing as well as for will or for intentionality. Yes, exactly. It's the sensor control and actually takes things in which is sensing. That's the input part from the outside world. And then it returns states, external states to the outside world, thus controlling, making things happen. Then the reality being information, doing work or tele-sys, doing work, there's a feedback process of the sensing and of the intentionality that plays into the information. So that's all information. As I explained, tele-sys does not do work. To do work, you've got to move something through a medium. Tele-sys factorizes creating content in the medium. It actually generates the medium. It's not working on something within a medium. It's generating the medium and relocating things by rescaling them within the newly generated medium. And the medium is the universe. Is that right? The medium is yes. That's the medium aspect of the universe. Tele-sys generates the universe. Tele-sys has to be quantized in order to generate the universe. So tele-quanta generate the universe. Yes. Tele-sys is usually used to describe what the quanta of tele-sys are made of. In other words, what are they? You say, well, you know, tell or it's all great to talk about tellers. What is the tell or made of? Then you answer that question by saying tele-sys. Right? But tele-sys is always quantized. It's got inter-closed systems, systems with various levels of closure and coherence. And so the things that are actually creating things are tellers that once again are sensor controllers. Take the universe, they take the universe in, and then they acquire that using a plan or something that they want to happen, which then takes the data that is received from the outside universe and rearranges it or organizes it into causal patterns and actually bring those things in. Cool. So it's fair to say then that the universe is the tool that we use to actualize infinite potential. The universe is not a tool. The universe is ultimate reality, which is some people refer to it as God. Some people would refer to it as the one, the monad. Right? But this is one design format, right? A universe is one design format. Okay, design format. Let me think about that for a second. The universe is basically something that exists unto and for itself. It can be a tool for itself. It can be a tool for you and me to live our lives and to actually have experience in the sense that we're parts of it and therefore the universe is doing it for itself. All right? What we can't say is that TELUSIS is a tool. It's not. TELUSIS is the monic substrate of reality and it is something that is ultimate. It has that kind of ultimate C2. So we've got to make sure that we understand it's just a set of priorities on how things happen. In the CTMU, you don't have causation in the ordinary sense. You've got something called medicalization that actually distributes over entire time. It's a whole new perspective. It's hard to learn how to think in CTMU terms. Now, basically it's the way my mind works as opposed to the minds of most other people. I can understand how their minds work and what their picture looks like. People have a hard time understanding what the CTMU picture looks like. You've actually got to use terms in a different way. You've got to understand the structure or the metasyntax before you can understand how the terms are properly used. So we're having a little bit of a communication problem because of the way we're using the terms. You've obviously developed a mastery of some CTMU terms, but the way they fit together can be tricky. Follow me? Totally. Same thing with other spiritual and scientific languages as well. Even a simple word like mysticism or yoga can be not understood properly. It just means becoming one with God or union with God. Mysticism is also considered by some to mean non-duality in the Asian sense, which is just the merging of things into one, which is precisely as you said, merging with God. Yeah. Beautiful. So would you say that there's a process that God goes through, that sentience goes through, where there's like the illusion of separation and that then there's a remembrance of oneself as the universe, as God? Yes, you could phrase it that way. There is this remembrance in terms of regressing two to one. You can sort of remember what it is like, some of the criteria that God had to face in order to make it exist. So there's definitely that. Would you say that that's a core component of the game that is this process of sort of falling asleep to oneself as infinite potential and then remembering oneself as infinite potential? Yes, you could say that, but also keep in mind that we've got to put some definitional constraints on the infer. We can say, okay, infinity is unlimited. It's something that's unlimited. But if it's totally unlimited, then it obeys no syntactic invariance that we like to express it. So we have to attach constraints to infinity in order to even understand and comprehend. We have to attach finite to it. This is known in the integral calculus, you've got to bound your indefinite integrals. You got to have a starting point and point boundary conditions in order to actually actualize things and make them make them comprehensive. So this is what we have to do. Cool. So you said that there's a monic substrate, one substrate. That's right. And that's what Thalesis, Thalesis is. Yes, Thalesis is one way to express the fact that there is a monic substrate. That basically reality is one thing. One thing that contains many things, but in order to be one thing, it has to be monic. Yeah. So that's the way we satisfy that requirement. Cool. And then of course, the fact that it is simultaneously many things, we use this relational structure called syndifinesis for that. We use a mapping called a muomorphism, which means multiplex unity, or many things out of one thing. Yeah. It's all about the myriology of the universe and its parts, the relationship. Cool. Yeah. Amen. So we have a monic substrate that is purposeful in its actualization of infinite potential. Yes. It actually implicitly carries intention, form of intentionality. Yeah. It's self-actual. It interacts with itself and basically forms intentions which it then realizes. You can't start from the bottom up and take a bunch of things and say, well, somehow they come together and somehow they interact with each other. But I can't explain how. No. You've got to start with the connectivity. You've got to start with that monic oneness. And then you break that thing up into the parts that interact with each other and it provides them with a way of interacting and relating to each other. Yeah. See? So you can't come at it backwards from the bottom up. You've also got to come at it from the top and the top down. Right? You've got to do both of those things simultaneously. And that's really what non-duality means. It's not when the non-duality means to a Buddhist, for example, who has a much more simplistic way of looking at it, but you've actually got to have both of these things or if you really want an explanation of non-duality. Totally. Totally. Like a simple, very, very simple way is like there is a physical appearance of a glass of water, but it's also appearing to perception. Right. There's the simultaneous. And to have the perception, you not only need the glass of water, you need the medium in which it is better. In other words, I have to be able to see the glass. I have to be able to see the boundaries of the glass. And I have to be able to see where the glass is not. I have to see the absence of that glass in the surrounding medium. That's the only way that I can identify. That's why Telesis has to factorize itself into content and media. Right? And this is irreducible. You can't quantize reality any more than that. It can't get any simpler. You can't say, well, on one hand, we have states over here in the medium over there. No, you've got to relate those two things. And the only way to do that is on the quantum problem. Cool. And so that plays deeply into entanglement, this simultaneity, the entanglement of perception with the object. Yes. When you quantize reality in that way, basically they're quantized together. The object and the observer, they're all together. Totally. They're united on the quantum level. This idea that you can take a quantum of different things and then bring them together. What are you bringing them together? I mean, what is that? What kind of assumption is that? Okay, well, I've got all these different things and I'm bringing them together. In what? In what medium are you bringing them together? What must the structure of that medium be in order for you to have the ability to bring observer and percept and recipient together in a perception? What must that medium be? And that's what the CTME wants. It gets rather elaborate, as I'm sure you're aware. You have a metaformal system and then you get into something called quantum metam mechanics. And of course, you've got the simulation, self-simulation of reality as a function of all of the considerations we've discussed so far. So, you know, it gets rather complex. This is mathematical metaphysics. This is not the kind of metaphysics that you may be used to, okay, where people get together and it's, you've got a nebulosity over here and they've got an ambiguity over here. And, you know, whether they kind of get very touchy-feely about it. In the CTMU, everything is logical and mathematical. We've got to take these ambiguities and these touchy-feely things and organize them mathematically. So, that's what the CTMU is about. This is the problem that we have. We've got to understand reality or we can't properly relate to reality. We have to know how we relate to it. Otherwise, we're never going to have the perfect world we want, okay? We've got to learn this. And then we've got to work to achieve the kind of world we want using that information. CTMU is meant to bring us, bring everybody this information because kind of mass awakening and tell people who they are and what reality is and how they relate to reality. Right? That's the purpose. Cool. That's the CTMU. Tell us. Nice. Yeah, I would concur that there's quite a bit of ambiguity in the normal dialogues that happen across the world about the nature of reality. And it's exciting to have a mathematical, logical, precise way of sharing with people what is the nature. And yeah. And then that leads to, like you were describing, that leads to basically mastery over reality and having abundance in basic needs being met and actualization of everyone's potential. That's right. We have to understand what reality is in order to get what we want out of it. And we have to understand how we relate to it to understand how we do that. It's really right on the ground floor. And all these scientists and materialists who say, well, metaphysics is impossible. We can't really achieve that kind of knowledge. These people are saying, well, we can never achieve the kind of world we want. It's rotten. There's nothing truthful about it. It's dualism. It's the idea that we're somehow separate from the universe. It exists totally separately from us. We can never know it completely because we're just imposing our own mental preconceptions on it. So we can never really develop the relationship that we want to have with reality. That's what they're all saying. And a lot of these people out there that are trying to actually characterize the nature of reality labor under this pathetically wrong assumption. So the CTMU has meant to correct that as well. You follow me? Yeah. There's all of the ambiguity CTMU is aiming to help correct. Yes. There are a lot of just plantaroneous assumptions and oversights that even very accomplished scientists and mathematicians labor under. Like separation. Like the nature of separation. That's right. And what it takes to overcome it and how we actually relate to the world. We see these separations. We see the separation between ourselves and the world. How do we get over that? What brings everything together? As John Wheeler put it, why one world out of many. In other words, we all have our own separate world. How do they come together? The one world. It's about how we figure that out. That's what the CTMU is. It's the structure of that myriology, that overall relationship between us and we're in. So we are the one actualizing infinite potential using universe, body, etc. Well, yes. But as I say, once again, when you say we are using, okay, and, you know, we are the one we're overlooking important distinctions, the distinctions of level distinctions of type, right, that we have to take account of. In other words, the first thing that somebody says, if you say, well, you know, we're God, you know, each of us is God, they're going to say, well, then why can't you just make anything happen just like this? Okay, you're hungry. Why don't you have a hamburger in front of you, right like that? Okay, if you're God. Okay, so you have to come up with all of the distinctions and all the structure that separates you from the actualization of that wish, which is namely to eat a hamburger. Okay, that's what metaphysics is all about. It's all about explaining how intention becomes fact, right? And in the ordinary view of the universe, there is no such thing as intention. Okay, there are only facts and intentions at best supervene on the facts and there's some kind of illusion in and of themselves. All right. On the other hand, what you seem to be saying and what a lot of people actually believe is that the facts are the illusions and they're coming from something deep, some underlined in. What the CTMU says is that both of those things are happening. Totally. They have to be, they have to be. There's no separation between fact and intention or between physicalism and consciousness. No ultimate separation, no. Yeah, it's all the same. But it's a useful distinction to make, to serve us in different ways until we start addressing the big questions. Yeah, okay. Practical questions like, okay, how do we do this? How do we do that? What do we want here? Okay, yes, we have to separate those things. And it's often very useful for us to do so. But you want to start addressing the big questions. What is reality? Where did it come from? What is life? What is consciousness? Now you've got to get metaphysical. Now you need the mathematical mechanics of the CTMU to put all that together. Anybody who tells you any different really doesn't know what he or she was talking about. It's as simple as that. Yeah, and we could say that the different concepts and ideas that are within CTMU could be brought forth also through other similar concepts or ideas that are just called different words. Yes, well, the way we, the way I usually phrase that is that all of these ideas have value. Everybody comes up with great ideas all the time. The object is to interpret them in one unifying frame. Yeah. So the CTMU is designed to be that unifying framework of foundational language in which all of these other insights, as great as they are, can be interpreted together so that conflicts and paradoxes don't arise among them. Yep. Beautiful. I like how you said that when we say we are the one or we are God, that the first sort of distinction or little flag or asterisks to plant there is that, well, if you are, then manifest a hamburger right now. Yeah, I like that. It's a very simple one. And then we could say that, well, in 200 years, 300 years and we're closer to the Star Trek future, that we can use this mass energy equivalence to go ahead and turn a pure hamburger right in front of us as needed. So we are approaching said ability. Well, we're not necessarily approaching a mass synthesizer that you can actually just feed generic molecules into another producer hamburger. We may be more than a couple of hundred years away from that, but the universe is what does that. And the thing that is confusing about it is that the universe does make it possible for us to get what we want. But it's not quite as easy as it looks because, you know, the universe is a complex place. That's part of what makes it so satisfying to us. I mean, here we are surviving in it and we're actually getting things done despite all of its complexities. So the complexity is part of what we have to accept. It's a part of life. Right. But in order to deal with that complexity, we have to understand what it is. Right. What it is and how it emerges or emanates into the world. That's the important. Yep. In other words, when you want a hamburger, you don't have any money, you go get the job, you make a little bit of money, you put the money in your pocket, you go down to McDonald's and you buy your hamburger, then you eat the hamburger. Okay. So there it is. It's just there's a few steps in there designed to accommodate the complexity of the universe. Even if we never get to a hamburger synthesizer, it will just produce your hamburger. Nevertheless, the universe is making it possible for us to satisfy this intention. You see? Yeah. Cool. So then part of the shift into abundance and and maximizing our potential is to have a more decentralized or universalized ability to manifest intention. Yes. If everybody had, if everybody was highly intelligent and wanted to play along with each other about the rules, according to the golden rule, shall we say, the world would be a much better place. As it happens, however, the world, the current tendency is towards centralization, the centralization of wealth and power. And now we've got this tiny little handful of no goods that are basically trying to tell everybody else what to do as they accumulate all the wealth and all the power for themselves. All right? That's not an ideal world at all actually that negates the entire purpose of the universe. It kills the point. All right? So we need to spread things around. We need to have more of what is called individuals, decentralization, as you put it, instead of centralization. See? Everybody has to take responsibility for human destiny. It can't just be put in the hands of a few filthy rich oligarchs, you see? Those who look upon everybody else as an animal or some kind of a stimulus response machine or a consumer automaton, okay? We've all got to take responsibility. We can't just dump it in the lap of some filthy rich oligarch who then is going to do things his way. And then when we're dissatisfied with the results, and we certainly will be, because his interests come first. All right? Then, you know, there's no point in complaining about that. We've all got to take responsibility. All got to become highly intelligent, educate ourselves to that effect, learn what reality is, learn what we are, we are, learn how to cooperate with each other, and then everybody gets what they want. See? That can be done. That that telecyst can be fulfilled within the universe, okay? But humanity, human destiny cannot be fulfilled with this centralization. We're going to have, you know, one planetary global government, you know, with this bunch of, you know, these people live in bubbles. They don't understand what it's like to live in the real world. We can't have a bunch of creatures like that telling us what to do. All right? That takes away our freedom. We can no longer actualize ourselves as we would otherwise do, right? Because they're constraining everything we do, okay? They're control junkies, they're control freaks who are telling us, you know, do this, do that, don't do that, do this. You know how it is. I mean, people need their freedom, right? We inherit freedom from the one from God. So naturally, we want to be able to use it. You tell me how some of these potentates, these oligarchs, fit into them. You want to do what Joe Biden tells you to do? I mean, I don't, you know, I don't, I don't see any sign that Joe or any of the rest of these people are as smart as I am or even as good as I am. I don't want to do what they say. I don't regard them as being good enough or smart enough to be calling the shots. Right? So we have to, everybody has to take individual responsibility and that's a big look. We've got responsibilities and then as a function of those responsibilities, then we have rights and we have true freedom. As a result of that. You following me? Yeah. For sure. This is one of, I would say society's favorite conversations right now, which is the decentralization or the universalization of power and of freedom. Right, but it can't be done without responsibility. Most of these people, for example, especially the radical left, you see that a lot of these people, you know, to hell with authority, you know, we're going to have, you know, power to the people and the people are going to own the means of production and let's have communism. I don't realize that communism really plays right back into the hands of the elite. You've got a centralized, you know, party apparatus and then you've got these high party officials that basically own everything and control everything. They are nothing but proxies for the capitalistic elite. Okay? These people don't understand that in order to have the kind of world we want, it needs to be some kind of a platonic paradise where everybody is rational. Everybody understand. Everybody has compassion. Everybody has empathy for everyone else. Everyone is obeying the golden rule. People are actually out there getting a job. People are incentivized. All of these things are necessary to have that kind of world. They don't realize that. They think, well, I'm just going to sit back and there's plenty of money. They could just print it up. So I'm going to collect the money. No, I don't have to do anything that he's not doing. And so nothing gets produced and when nothing gets produced, nobody enjoys himself. Right? I mean, you know, that hand girl we were talking about, that's got to be produced. There's not just going to be a matter synthesizer that makes it for you anytime soon. So people actually have to be willing to do their parts. They're going to have moral responsibility and they've got to actually be able to get their hands dirty, get out skin their knuckles and produce things. And that's not what we have. We've got a bunch of people who think these maleducated, you know, especially gets worse with every generation. There's more of this bubble thinking, this idea that, well, mom and dad never had to work. They had bucks. And I'm going to live that way too. I'm going to speculate for a living, just like mom and dad. And I'm not actually going to do anything. That's for the little people. You can't run a world that way. Even people that are smart that have all kinds of ability, they have to get out and work too. And I don't just mean speculating and making phone calls and giving orders to other people. I mean, actually working. You know, I mean, I had to work all my life. I'm reputed to be one of the smartest people alive. And I had to get out there and bust my knuckles. I did all kinds of hard work for a living from being a cowboy to construction worker to being a bar bounce. Okay. But all these little torps are too good for that, you see. Well, we're owed, we deserve a paradise. So we're going to get it right now. And here's how we're going to get it going to take power away from everybody who has it and give it to ourselves. It ain't that easy. No, it's not that easy. You understand that, right? Of course. Yeah, there's no, there's no like shortcuts to the actualization of the fullest potential of the individual and of the collective. And the hard work that the blood, sweat and tears that goes into the process is exactly why the one is doing this. It's not for a effortless, frictionless, smooth ride, but it's for the polarity and for all of the insanity that unfolds on the roller coaster joyous and treacherous at the same time. It's a law of being. There is no satiation. There is no satisfaction without effort. If you take away all the effort, then what is satisfaction? If you immediately get everything that you want just by thinking about it, you know, basically it comes down to the difference between between sadness and happiness. If you don't know what sadness is, you have no way of knowing what happiness is. You've got to have that contrast between the two. Sadness is the absence of happiness and you've got to experience that before you actually know what happiness is. You've got to experience some effort before you know what satiation is. Okay, you've actually got to get out there and work before you can really enjoy the fruits of your labor and the labor of others. And this is what people forget. They think they can have half the equation. Well, I'm going to have the rewards but with no work going into it. Okay, where there is no effort, where there's no risk, there is no reward. But there's no expenditure of anything. You don't get anything back. It's simple. Nice. Yeah. So this also plays really interestingly into the future paradigm of this replicator or this matter synthesizer where if you can just think your intention and have the manifestation in reality that where is then the effort? Remember what I was saying about abusive content in order to identify the water glass that you were holding up there? It's got to be in a medium and you've got to be able to see the glass, see its boundary, and then see the absence of that glass outside. In order to experience happiness, you've got to be able to see the outside of that happiness. You've got to be able to see where it's not happy. And you can then make the distinction between the two. All right? But that distinction is impossible if you don't know what sadness is, if you don't know what unhappiness is. Once everything is pure happiness, where's the happiness? You've simply got a zero. Okay? The pointer that used to point toward happiness has now gone to zero because there's no other side and then that means the side disappears as well. Are there different flavors of happiness though? Sure there are. As many as you can imagine. But there is effort associated with each one. In order to achieve it, there has to be, you've got to put something out when you don't get anything back. All right? That's what all these rich people who are out there are think, if everything comes easy, nobody has to complain. These right-wingers out there working on farms and working with animals, they all suck. Because basically this can be a big paradise where everybody just gets what he wants right now. How ass am I? How utterly absurd? Is this what they're being taught in college? If so, I'm really, really glad I never want it. Nice. Yeah. We have to make our own sort of education in life. It's called the School of Hard Knocks. School of Hard Knocks. Yeah, nice. What's the word? Autodidact. Yeah. Yes. But of course, that takes discipline and not everybody has discipline. There are a lot of people who are just not equipped to really be autodidact. Most people, I guess maybe you have to put them in some kind of education environment where they're being pushed constantly to learn this, memorize that. But then they become nothing but parents. And that's what the university system produces now. A bunch of little parents that get up and just regurgitate whatever they were told by their so-called instructors in this place. And the world is deteriorating rapidly because of this. It consists of a bunch of these little squawking parents. Can't produce anything. Have no original thoughts. You understand? I mean, you can't run a world. One time. That's not what the world is, okay? I wrote. The world is a rough and tumble place and we're in it and we're going to have to live and we're going to have to skin our knuckles a little bit. And then we get something back out. Isn't it wonderful when we do, okay? But this idea that you can just live in your little bubble, all walled off from all the unpleasantness outside and just continue to speculate and get your money through the bubble and get whatever you want. I mean, this is just ridiculous. I don't understand how people could possibly believe this, but a lot of them do. Increasing number do believe. That's pathological. That's a social pathology that we have got to break out of immediately because it's killing us. I remember writing maybe around two years ago or so. I was just really excited about learning about how there were 100 billion or so people before us that had lived and died to build this abundant world that we live in. And I wrote something about like us today where many of us are very blessed because we're not farming but we're on Twitter and that plays really well into these classic people that you see at, I don't know, whatever side of the political spectrum they're on, but they're on Twitter and they're sending their little messages and stuff like that. And virtue signaling. Yeah. And we all know that when you sort of take a break from what you look like on the internet, and Richard Dawkins has called this the extended phenotype, people are really obsessed with how their extended phenotypes being portrayed in the social space. And like you were saying, virtue signaling and whatnot, if you sort of take a break from that and you turn inward and you really feel into like who am I, what am I, what is I, that type of thing, that's where you get to this monic substrate. That's when you get... That's exactly right. And that extended phenotype is probably the best idea that Richie Dawkins ever had for himself. The thing is, these people that are trying to implement the extended phenotype are doing it in these extremely artificial media. I mean, that's not really what the environment is. That's not the natural environment that they're feeding back into. It's a totally artificial environment that has no natural reality to it whatsoever. So that's where the extended phenotype goes bad. Right? Nice. Yeah, because when you're just sending a message, a little tweet, you're playing in some sphere that has so many perverse incentives in it, whereas if you're, if you're turned inward and you're there in like pure service to another human, like face to face, completely different feeling than being behind a phone or a computer and trying to prove your point. Yeah, and actually getting out into the real world with a shovel or a pick or an axe, that also makes a big difference too. This digital existence where everybody just sits at a keyboard taps away all day. If you don't know what real existence is all about, actually what it takes to really produce things, then you think that this is what life is. You have a terribly skewed picture of reality. That's what so many of these people have. Especially like the phones and the computers that they are using or like the electricity that powers them and powers their home and powers their fridge and their stove and washing. No conception of what makes any of it. Yeah, that type of thing. I would love for that turn inward to the one to also be a towards how the physical works and how to make basic needs available and universalized and actualize all of our potential. Because the contrast like we were just describing is when you're just behind a keyboard or a phone and you're just trying to prove your point on the internet. And so that's the contrast. And that's just the simple turn inward and the turn towards being more and more in service, service to others. That's a really, that's an interesting way to look at it, but in pure service to others, not in a way that's, oh, I'm going to serve other people because I want to be seen or I'm going to serve other people secretly for myself or or I'm going to serve other people so that I can be worthy or that I can have a greater social presence. These are many traps that we can fall into along the way to prove my point. Yeah, I mean, the whole thing is so superficial. You know, the entire information economy has been perverted to this, you know, this bubble. It's a bubble where people live in this bubble and they don't understand what service to other people is really about. Okay, those farmers that everybody has taught that all, it's certainly all the liberals and Democrats speak very poorly of farm. Well, these are Trump supporters. These farmers, I mean, what a bunch of scum. Look, they have to work with their hands whereas we're college educated, you know, we get to sit and tap on our keyboards all day. That's, of course, totally, it's entirely negative in its consequences because these people actually think that tapping on their computer is somehow being of service to other people. It's not. Okay, the people who are producing the food, getting out there working with their hands, building things, digging coal out of the mines, right? These are people who are actually constructively involved in helping other people because they're producing things that other people need, right? You're just sitting, you know, being some sort of a God forsaken little troll on your computer. You're not producing anything that anybody needs, right? You're just feeding your ego, you know? Do they think I'm smart? Do they think I'm good looking? You know, am I going to be an effective influencer? I mean, come on. Who has any respect for people? I don't understand how you can, right? But then again, I grew up among, you know, real people who are out working in the real world. When you don't get a college education and you have no college degree, you have no choice but to go out there and work in menial occupations with people who actually have to produce things. So you develop more respectful. And that's what this society now lacks. It lacks any respect for people that actually know what it takes to produce the things that other people need to live, right? Yeah, because you're going to have to go to the grocery store and get what the farmer made. That's correct. That's correct. Maybe people are not dependent on your tweet. Right. People couldn't give a hoot less about your tweet, okay? They can't they can't eat it. You know, it doesn't provide them with shelter. They can't drink it, right? They can't even watch it like a football game, okay? There's no excitement in it. It's just your private little ego thing that you're doing in order to be better perceived. If you think is better perceived by other people. But if those other people are not worthwhile, I mean, if they don't really have worthwhile perspectives, then what does that work? I love that the private little ego thing. It's a great way to put it. Yeah. Basically what it's all about these days with most of these most of these people. That's great. So good. And so then we could say that the one of the most accelerating ways to actualize our potential is to pop the bubble of the private little ego thing. How are you going to do that? Okay. How are you going to pop them? These people think that they can go out and, you know, ride in the streets and burn buildings in the loot and they think that they can scream, you know, and run around beating people up if they for instance have a some kind of a demonstration in favor of gun rights or something like that. You know, running and beating them up is the thing to do. I mean, these people are not, it is not a viable strategy. If everybody does what they do, the world would collapse in turmoil. Let me give you an example. You wouldn't have anything left after not very much time at all. Really? Let me give you an example. So you ask, like, how do we pop the little private ego separation bubbles? So it's actually like already happening, like cosmologically, it's already happening. It's like a feature of reality is the awakening process. And so when you look at a very simple catalyst, it can be something like one of the people that we were just talking about for them to see someone else that has a greater degree of equanimity, patience, love, wisdom, discernment. When they see that type of person, when they see that type of energy, even though they may not themselves right away, I'm going to make that transition as well. That it's like the seed has been planted and that it does get watered gently over time. Well, it's nice when it does. Sometimes the seed gets planted. There's fertile ground in which the planet and sometimes it gets watered and nurtured, and people wake up. But there are a great number of people out there who aren't waking up. Okay, they can see it all around them. They can see that there are people who actually perform necessary functions for their own existence, but they don't appreciate that. They're phenomenally unappreciated. They've been to university and they know that really the cool thing is to have a lot of money and live in a really nice house and get things and have lots of stuff. And those people, the ones that are out there producing the food and everything, they're not with it at all. Who wants to be like them? I mean, it's sweating, they're grunting. Is there out there working and producing the food? Who wants to be like that? And this is the way a lot of them think and you can show them any amount of sacrifice on the parts of such people and they don't care. It's like, water off a duck's back. Okay, and those people are a problem. We've got many, many of those people out there. Right? They have nothing but contempt for the people who actually do things. You know, it's cool to be a socialist or a communist now, but this is basically the backbone of socialism. Everybody gets out there and does his share. Everybody gets out there and works. These people have no idea what that means. They think, well, it's basically about rioting in the streets, screaming and yelling, accusing other people of not doing their part. Maybe we'll become members of the new Politburo when the new socialist utopia springs up, but they're not. There's not enough room in that little Politburo for all of these liberals who think that they're going to be in it. They're not going to be in it. Somebody is going to say, okay, well, here's a shovel. You go over there and you dig that ditch and you do it pretty quick. Otherwise, guess what? It's going to be like the killing fields. All right, and we'll just eliminate you because this is how a lot of them talk too. They've been talking that way for a long time. Communism is not a good thing. It killed between 100 and 200 million people in the 20th century alone. These little kids don't understand that. I guess it doesn't get mentioned in the classrooms that in the universities that they pay so much to go to, that their parents pay for them to go to. It's one of the most important statistics. I agree totally. So it really feels like 200 million people horribly killed, murdered on many occasions tortured. Yes, I would say that's something that we can't exactly ignore, but they're all ignoring. And we can also shift more of our civilizational conversation towards decentralization technologies. So the slow biomimicry of how plants and mycelium communicate underground to basically embed that into our social contracts. And so there is a big shift that's happening also with that. But just collective intentionality towards decentralization is another big way to actualize our potential. Yes, but of course that potential has to be realized in the forms of these people picking up garden spades and getting out there in the dirt and planting the seeds and growing the food and understanding how that feels. All right. No, everybody can't be a big shot that's pointing at this and that and telling other people to do that. Yeah, look at the people who think that they're entitled to live that kind of life and you actually measure their IQs and you see what they've got upstairs and you actually take a look and see what they've accomplished in their lives. You realize these people aren't qualified to tell anybody else to do anything. What are they thinking? They're thinking they're going to be in the catbird seat and they're going to be calling the shots and telling other people to do their work when in reality they know nothing. They've lived in this little bubble all their lives and they don't understand what it's actually like to get anything done. And that's who's trying to run the world right now and that's why the world is falling apart. That's why our economy is going straight to hell. Yeah, two points there. Yeah, two points there. One of them is that not all of the 2,200 billionaires around the planet are total chumps and they aren't. Yeah, well, can you can you point out, can you point out a really productive billionaire who's got not worked with his hands and actually produced something as opposed to hiring other people from the best colleges and universities and pointing at certain things that they want done? Can you name a billionaire like that? I've been looking a long time myself for a really valuable human being who is also a billionaire. Yeah, and I'm coming up dry. I'm coming up empty, okay, because that's not what kind of people these people are. They're sociopathic usually, narcissistic. Sure, sure. I mean they've got the dark tetra going. You understand? That's why they're billion. I don't disagree that what appears as the majority have the intentionality of the collection of materialistic possessions in order to flaunt a social status. I definitely don't disagree with that. And even furthermore, I definitely don't disagree with how there's an oligarchical civilizational dynamic that's happening with a control substrate for sure. But simultaneously, I don't see it only as this was the second point. I don't see it as only grabbing a shovel and gardening or to produce food locally. I know that that was likely just an analogy that you were using, but I actually see the person that is working on the computer, but somebody that is creating the decentralized fabric or social contracts through tech infrastructure. I see that as somebody that is also doing the work. You think tech infrastructure is decentralizing anything? Well, my last interview, the one that I had with Kurt Jemungal was canceled on all Apple mobile devices. As far as I know, it's the first video that has happened to. What they're doing, what these big tech people have done by creating their decentralized platforms, has made it possible for themselves to censor anybody who's saying anything they don't like. And that's what they're doing. So now is that a positive thing? So just to clarify, because I didn't know this, so Apple podcasts, iTunes, they did not allow the public. All of their mobile devices, the ones that use the YouTube app have blocked my last video. All right. That's it. I mean, this kind of thing happens to me all the time. I've been to platforms several times, hounded off various forms that are run by people who simply don't share my philosophical perspective. So it's very important for you to understand that these techie billionaires that are allegedly bringing all this decentralization, it's not decentralized at all. They have central power of censorship over these media and platforms that they run. And they're using, they're using to the detriment of all of us. Point one out who isn't. I mean, you just show me the billionaire. I mean, I understand that some guys are in the field and they're trying to make a dent in it, right? But they're not really succeeding because they're not getting the cooperation of the other billionaires out there. That's the problem we've got. They've had it too good for too long. They did too little work. They got too much of a return. They got too much reward. And now they think that they know it all and they're the ones who should be calling the shots forever and telling you what to say and think. And among the things that they don't want you to say or think, among those things are the CTMU. All right, I've seen this happen now for about 30 years. They want you to have an artificially messed up view of reality and yourself because that's what suits them. They can continue to run the world that way. If you are not smart enough to stop them, if you don't know what reality is or how it works, you're going to let them continue to get away with this. That's why these oligarchs are consolidating all the money and all the power. An ever tinier handful of them have more and more of the world's wealth. You think they're going to give it back? Who's going to make them? Figure it out. Yeah, so this is where my excitement around the vision of decentralization and universalization acts as a forcing function for the sharing of power, the sharing of actualization of intention. The dismantling of the control fabric, the matrix system. So anyway, yeah, that was really fun. We definitely passed a solid amount of time and energy on that and it was really beautiful. But I'm very positive and optimistic about decentralization and universalization and the sharing of power and the sharing of actualizing intention across the world. Why are you optimistic in light of the events over the last two years? Well, it's not that I don't know the data of the other side. I do know the data of the other side. So it's basically you survey the landscape of information. But then, for example, my intentionality, like we talked about with the sensor and the intention being the human vehicle of the one, that my intention is towards the positivity, is towards the optimism, is towards the universalization and decentralization. Absolutely, yes. But is it going to be allowed to happen because that universalization that we're talking about is being chopped off? All right, there is a, I don't know, there's a small group of people who want all the wealth and all the power. Are they going to let the telec recursion of the rest of humanity come to fruition and give humanity what it wants? Or are they simply going to continue with their ongoing agenda of accumulating more of the wealth and power for themselves? This is a problem. If you mechanize things the way they've mechanized things, you eventually choke off telec recursion. You stop the intentionality, the positive intentionality of other people from ever coming to fruition. That's what they're doing. Okay, so if there's no means to stop them, all right, then we've got a problem. And I think it's necessary for us to understand the nature of the problems that we face. Cool, agreed. And it feels like one of the means is the meeting of basic needs worldwide is the decentralizing away from centralized banks and decentralizing away from centralized energy infrastructure as well. Exactly. Things like that, things like the money supply have to be decentralized. But if you get up to the central, in other words, like blockchain, for example, not even blockchain is foolproof in that respect because it can be somebody can pull the plug on the internet. I mean, there's an internet kill switch. All of these governments have their fingers on that kill switch. They're only going to let decentralization proceed so far before they use that switch. You know what is that? They're very jealous to send the international banking community is very jealous of its power over money. They're not going to let it go just like that. How do you stop? How do you take the power of money away? If you were to start printing, if you were going to say, okay, I've just invented the Atlas doll, okay, we're going to, we're all going to trade in Atlas dollars now. And I'm going to take the money monopoly away from these oligarchs. And you know, I'm going to have my own little share of it here. So we're going to use Atlas dollars. You've got to get other people to accept the Atlas dollars. In reality, what's going to happen is that is the the Bureau of the Treasury, you know, the all kinds of federal agencies will converge on you and land on you and accuse you of counterfeiting and undermining the very fabric of reality by printing your own kind of money, right? And nobody else in the world is going to accept it. And with this decentralized economy, where we're getting goods and services from all over the world, okay, you're not going to be able to get what you need because nobody else is going to accept your money, for example, in another country, right? So how do you decentralize that when they don't want to let go? Nice. Well, these are the problems that we face. I mean, I'm a realist. I like to be, you know, realistic about our prospects. How do we get to the kind of world that we want? Well, we have obstacles now. The obstacles are huge. We need to take extraordinary action to make any progress at all. People have to realize that intentionality is a large part of it. Having those positive thoughts and envisioning the great kind of future that we want, that's a huge part of it. We've also got to address the obstacles. Okay, it's going to be risky and it's going to be dirty, but we have to do it. Yeah. I wish there was a way to sugarcoat it, but there ain't. You know, we have all kinds of history that we can look back at and see, you know, these parasitic divergences have happened many times in the past, and they never lead anywhere good. Eventually, they lead to the dissolution of society and foreign invaders come in and take everything over. And then things are rebuilt on a different footing someplace else. We're out of someplace else. There's no place else to go and start over. Okay, so this is a juncture in human history that is very important to us. Okay, it's a singularity. We're either going to have a human singularity where everybody takes responsibility for human destiny, or we're going to have another kind of singularity. The tech singularity with all of these oligarchs owning all of the technology and control. And if you let them put the technology in you, they're going to control you as a function. See what I mean? These are all questions that mankind has never been faced with before. We've never had to deal with that kind of question. We need to deal with that kind of question right now. Or it's going to be too late. So from how I see it, Chris, I see it like this. The more that the individual turns inward, which is usually catalyzed by their basic needs being met, that then the individual figures themselves out as the one. And when they figure themselves out as the one, then every action that they have becomes infused with that knowledge. They become monastic. And then they work on the purification of their action to be more and more aligned with pure service to the collective. And in that process, what happens is their actions end up being meeting the basic needs of other selves or around upgrading the energy infrastructures to be more decentralized, more universalized ownership. Not always that way, but I would say that the spiritual realizations trigger the external materialistic universalization. Yes. Unless the universalization is being impeded by people that already own all the energy infrastructure, the monetary infrastructure and everything else. It's those impediments that we have to deal with other than that, everything that you said is perfectly. Cool. So then there's almost a, for you, there's a distinguishing of dealing with the impediments. And for me, there's not so much a distinguishing or between that rather that the awakening of the individual creates more and more of the planetary collective. If it is allowed to, if it is allowed to. Okay. Once again, if it is not being obstructed, if it is allowed to happen, then yes, the way reality is structured, it will happen. Okay. But we've got a problem now. Too much of the wealth, too much of the power has become centralized. That centralization resists decentralization. That's what you call an impediment. This is what we have to cope with. We let it go too far. Okay. This mass awakening that we need, it took too long and these forces of centralization are moving too much faster. You follow me? And then this is the real world situation. I'm not just talking about a pair of perspectives, yours and mine. I'm talking about facts. You take a look at it. There are certain, what we're living in now is a system called monopoly capitalism. Okay. Not only is all the money and all the power centralized, but the markets are controlled. All right, grocery stores all over the country are drying up right now because the food supply chain is drying up. Okay. Is that because, what is that because of? It's because the people that own the companies that produce the food are choking off the supply. They're doing it so that they can basically starve the public into submission. People are already complaining about it. They're going to be complaining about it a lot more. You know, when you take a look at people like, you know, George Soros, you know, and Klaus Schwab, they don't fool around. Okay. There's not the little angel perched on your shoulders saying, well, you'd better move in the other direction. They're determined that you don't move in the other direction. They're going to take control of it. Right. So you have to realize this in order to resist. Understand what reality is. And then you can do something about this. So part of our positive intentionality is going to have to be negatively manifested. We're going to have to remove the obstacles. You want to get the point A from point B and there's a big rock in your way. You either have to figure out a way around it or you've got to move the rock. So that is what we also have to think about doing. It's not just the positive actualization, although that is exactly what the CTMU is about. You've also got this other aspect to do with it. They've mechanized causation so that now it's not so much about telecrecursion. It's about what they force to happen. Do you understand? For sure. Yeah. So there's a natural force that is the cosmos wanting to go itself and to realize itself. And then there's what appears to be a more unnatural artificial force, which is ego, which is control. Right, which is these 2,200 billionaires or whatever you want to call them. Some of them are trillionaires. Of course, they're not on the Forbes richest people list, but they're there. And these people are used to having everything they want, and they're never satisfied. They don't know what it's like to do without anymore, and it takes more and more for them to even feel as though they're gaining anything. So they're sucking everything out that exists that we need into their own sphere, their own control sphere as fast as they can. And we're just starting to feel the results. It's going to get worse and worse and worse. So CTMU, this is called a parasitic divergence. They're basically in parasite mode. These billionaires, they don't work. I've worked a lot harder in my life than they have. I've created a lot more value to human time. For instance, the CTMU, but they're stopping me from dissipating my work and getting it out there. Well, meanwhile, they're fattening like hogs. Okay, so I look at this and there's just no answer, but it's about, all right, we have a problem. It's a bad problem. We have to solve it. It's not going to be easy, and it's not going to be, it's not going to happen overnight, but we've got to think along these lines. While we're, while we're positively imagining what our future should be and actualizing it using telecrecursion, the power of our minds alone, of our intentionality, while we're doing that, we're going to have to start dismantling some of the craft that stands in our way. You see what I mean? For sure. So for a long time, I thought that the elite were the kinds of people who, you know, basically rational people who were going to cooperate towards this end, let's restore balance. You know, that's, that's the way you get a sustainable society is you restore the balance to things. Very few of these people appeared to want to restore that balance. They just want to, they appear to want to get richer and richer and richer, thus making society more asymmetrical and more unbalanced. That's a problem. I'm curious, do you feel and see the simultaneity where everything that is already unfolding with the one is already both perfect? And there's also, like you described, this rock of like centralization and ego that's in the way. So do you see both at the same time? Yes, I see the perfection of reality of its overall structure, but I also see the perversion of that perfection. Yeah, I was just people who are using their free will, their own free will, to bind it in bad and deleterious ways. Yeah, I was going to say you just seem very polarized towards the rock. And I've interviewed people before that sort of see it both ways in terms of they can see the perfection and they can see the rock at the same time. And those are very, you know, that's high level simultaneity. That's really high level consciousness. Precisely. You have to be able to see both sides. Yeah, power to the people that can see both sides at once. Totally. But if you're only seeing the positive side, you're not seeing the rock, and you're not admitting to yourself that it needs to be removed real quick, then there's a problem. Here's what I would say about that is just that it feels like your polarization towards the rock side of it may be a little bit, it feels very aggressive towards that. And I agree, it's very important to have a insight around the rock of centralization and ego that's in the way of the actualization of the universe. You believe in evil, Atlas? Do you think there's such a thing as evil in the world? It sounds to me like you're like psychoanalyzing me and saying, well, okay, I'm looking at you now and what is the aggression in you all about? Okay. And to do that, it almost seems as though you're distracting yourself from the idea that there are any real objective problems out there that have to be dealt with. No, no, no, not at all. Is that accurate? No, I wouldn't say that because I have this, I'm like feeling into the collective and feeling into the universe's intention. And what it feels like is that the, it's like a cosmological, it's like a clock, in a sense. It's like, yes, like you asked the question, do I believe in evil? I believe and feel that the manifestation of the entirety of what we are is a rhythmic interchange between them. And that, you know, very well symbolizing the Taijitsu, where you have the Yin and Yang, but they are inside of the monism, they're inside of the one. Yeah. And so, and so I would say that the simultaneity of that is great. Like, for example, Chris, I love your analysis of the rock, and I think it's really important and many of the guests that have come on the show have seen that. And it's really important, the really high level ones. But then also there's this like, the rock is embedded within the perfection of what everything is. And the more that we sort of at a grassroots level inspire people to decentralize and to universalize and to actualize and to meet basic needs and that type of thing. With our intentionality, the rock almost also naturally becomes less and less of an issue. It's not natural. The rock is an artificial construct. You've got a very tiny handful of evil people who are determined to keep it right where it is. They don't want the rest of humanity to move that rock, because that would detract from their wealth and their power and their degree of control. We have to be honest about what human beings are about human nature. Okay, not if this, this, this idea of positivity, of positively imagining our future, very, very important, you can't underestimate the importance of it. But on the other side, you also can't underestimate the importance of a small handful of no good mix or trying to obstruct it. Okay, you can't, you can't discount one and you can't say, well, just naturally, you know, the the telec recursion, the positive telec recursion of humanity is going to succeed and it's going to win in the end. Well, it always wins and costs. Okay, and apparently, this, this tiny handful of billionaires, trillionaires, whatever you want to call, they're determined to make that cost very, very high. And if they make it too high, then we're not going to make it through the great filter. The species will actually come to nothing. Okay, we have to fight to survive. That's what the world of evolution is. That's what, that's what that's what natural selection is all about. Every species alive has to fight to keep itself alive. Right. And you've got to fight in the right direction. You've got to make your battles count. Okay, so that's what we have to do too. And now the enemy is largely within having defeated all these external enemies. Now we've got an enemy that has sprung up within the humankind itself. Interesting. Cool. So, so you're speaking to the, the need at a, at a metaphysical natural selection level to, like you said, that the, the rock has sprung up the ego, the separation has sprung up from within. And now to polarize towards service to others, towards light, towards the one towards God, towards no separation, towards universalization, towards that is the key. We have to polarize very aggressively towards that. Right. And that does have to be a touch of aggression. It's not just my aggression. Although I do sometimes feel aggressive about this situation. It had better be everybody's aggression. Because that's the only way it's going to succeed. I can sit here and feel as aggressive as I want to and nothing's going to happen. People have to understand the problem so that they too have become aggressive about solving. It's the only way it's going to get solved. Cool. Cool. Nice. That was a, that was a fun, like second hour or so on, on that subject. I, I thought that was really interesting. I think we've been going for about two hours. The first was more about the nature of reality. Well, it was funny because the second was also about the nature of reality, but it was very, very practical in terms of what we see at a civilizational level, and less so about how the one actualizes infinite potential using universes and sensors in intention. And it's, it's quite interesting where we played super cool. Chris, super cool. You know, the CTMU is very complex. It's not a, it's a mindset that you've actually got to learn. You actually got to cultivate it in order to, in order to apportion things in the proper way in order to get the syntax. And see my problem is when somebody talks about metaphysics, standard metaphysics, they're using a whole different syntax that I consider to be completely inadequate. That doesn't make any sense to me, which is why metaphysics hasn't really gotten anywhere in the last two or 3000 years. It's why people are still looking back to, to Hinduism and Buddhism and, you know, early Christianity or the Hellenic period and saying, well, you know, that's when they figured everything out and we've done nothing since then. And it's true. It's because they're syntactic blockages. The syntax of standard metaphysics just doesn't support any kind of progress in the field of metaphysics. So I haven't been using that syntax for a long time. I've adopted a new syntax, which makes it hard for me to understand sometimes the viewpoints of people who use the old syntax, the one that has been proven time and time again, not to work. So that would, that would be, that's the way I would characterize my problem. Interesting. So when you feel like you weren't being understood, it was because you feel like maybe I was coming from some of the older syntax and you were coming from some of the newer, more mathematical syntax. Right, exactly. That's, that's, and it's, it's part of the course. I mean, I often feel that way. I have these forums that I run and sometimes, you know, people that just show up, you know, they start using the old syntax. And I sometimes become impatient because, hey, you know, what are you doing here if you're going to use the old, if you insist on using the old syntax, use the new stuff that I figured out. I mean, the papers have been out there for, for years, many of them. So go ahead and read them and, you know, familiarize yourself with that and then come back and we can have a conversation. That's why sometimes, you know, get criticized for jumping on people because, you know, there's sometimes not that this is true of you at all. I mean, I think you're very easy to get along with, but a lot of people tend to be very presumptuous about the sufficiency or the adequacy of the older syntax of metaphysics. That's a mistake because it's not adequate at all. They actually tend to become a little bit self-righteous about it. Like, well, all the metaphysics of the last 2000 years and the great metaphysicians in academia say, and to me, that counts for nothing. They're all using an adequate syntax. They have nothing to say. I mean, sometimes they say something that's valuable and something that's meaningful, but it all has to be reinterpreted in a system that has the proper syntax to organize it all and make it all fit together. Otherwise, it counts for nothing. You see what I mean? But that's just my problem. And we're trying to get over that by actually, you know, making people understand what the new syntax is. They're talking, good sign is people are talking about non-duality and, you know, Buddhism and Hinduism and a lot of the old school stuff. And a lot of that talk is productive, I think. So they're kind of starting to break out of the old way of looking at things, but or at least the western way of looking at things. But nevertheless, there's still room for improvement. Very interesting. So what I would also ask is, I've spent a good amount of time now publishing visuals around the nature of reality, a book that I published called High Level Perception and more, given these like the show that I host simulation and all of the different direct messages that I deliver to the audience along with these interviews, I have these really, I have these nice visuals that I produce around the nature of reality. And so Johann Wolfgang von Goethe has a really good quote, and it goes, metamorphosis, so the caterpillar turning into the butterfly, and light prismatically refracted are indicators that the greatest educational lectures belong in the artist's sphere of work. So in a sense, how I interpret that is that what I'm doing with these visualizations of the nature of reality are things like taking, if you take the one and you look at it like this white light, prismatically refracted into these seven seemingly different levels of consciousness, let's say, or levels of perception that are all like matryoshka dolls. So they're nested within each other. You sort of start at this very red, orangey, yellowy, to match in the chakra, as has been said, that is a little bit more survival-based or ego-based separation-based, and then it opens up to this green, blue indigo violet when you reunite with the one, when you await one, and that's recursive like the Oroboros. So you see, what's your take on the artistic side of it, the artistic visual side of it, because you're very mathematical, syntactical. What's your take on the artistic, on the visual side of it, being able to deliver almost potentially a Michelangelo style of deliverance of the nature into the hearts of people around the world rather than what seems like this heavy mathematical one? Well, there are lots of analogies that I have used that, you know, quasi-artistic that people could use to understand the CTMU, but one of the things that I have to say about works of art is that one thing that characterizes great art is the number of different ways you can interpret it. You will find as many different interpretations of a good piece of art as there are people who look at it. That means that it's very hard to maintain a stable correspondence between people, the observers of a work of art, and the work of art itself. It's meaning ends up being ambiguous because when you add everybody's opinion of what it means, they tend to cancel out. This is what the mathematics is for, you see. It restores that cancellation. You've actually got a correspondence that you put your finger. So although I admit the value of the artistic interpretation aspect, because that's what really engages us. Bringing all those different engagements together, that requires logic and mathematics. Both sides have their purpose and they have to come together. Totally. So basically, the way that I would bring in your mathematical, logical side into what I was just explaining would be, well, how do you define the one or the white light? How do you define the prismatic refraction? How do you define the red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, levels of consciousness or levels of perception? How do you define those? And how do people shift upwards in them? And then what is the nature of that cyclic process that we are? Well, we define the one as reality, which is an intention, extension coupling, rn equals rx. I've actually written that down. And then what you just described with the colors, that's a lattice. That's a logic structure called a lattice. And moving, and that lattice is self-dual, which means you can move both up and down using dual operations. Something called stone duality. You can do this with these mathematical facts, help us organize what you're talking about into something that everybody can understand on an equivalent basis. In other words, you see a piece of art, you have your own interpretation. I see the same piece of art. I have my interpretation. How can we come together on what that piece of art actually is? Well, it's using this kind of concept. Concepts like logic lattices and logical identities and sets that have extensions and intentions. These are important aspects of us actually agreeing on what it is we're looking at. Now, that's what metaphysics, that's what our reality theory has not had. Everybody has their own perspective. Nobody can come together because there is no common foundational language for all of them. That's what I've tried to provide. That's what CTMU is. It's a common foundational language with the structure that we need to all come together about what it is we're looking at. Very cool. I feel like you're a role model and inspiration for me in that sense of taking what I've distilled as the synthesis of science and spirituality and making it even more logical and mathematical along with my artistic and visual side of it. Potentially even playing more intimately with CTMU, with you in the longer term as well and seeing how that unfolds. I would love to play on this again. Potentially we could do another one of these maybe at the beginning of next year or something like that. We could revisit this as I also make better and better models that are artistic and that use a math and logic in them to also see and get some of the reflections from you about how they look like and whatnot. Excellent. Excellent. I try to do this with my stepfather as a painter. He actually paints pictures that give you a visual representation of box sonatas and things like that. And there's actually a mathematical structure there too, but he's got that synesthesia going between the music and the visuals. And I see that's what you're trying to do and it's a valuable thing and it's very interesting. And of course I would want to help you do that constructively of course. And if you have any questions that you would like to ask, if any parts of this interview appear to be inadequate from your point of view, follow me and let me know. Get some more questions together and even in the short term I'd be happy to answer. Awesome. This has been such a blessing and such a pleasure. Yeah, it has been certainly. Yeah, you're really cool and my heart is with our relationship. It's really beautiful. Okay, thank you so much and I appreciate you too. And I look forward to future correspondence and collaboration. Awesome. And then let me wrap the show also quickly, Chris. I'll say to our audience, thank you everyone for tuning in. We love you very much. We're really grateful. We would love for you to like the video. It helps the algorithm. Also subscribe to the channel if you haven't yet. Leave us a comment below with your thoughts on what we discussed during the episode on what Chris was sharing. And also check out the links in the bio below. You can find the ctmu.org link in the bio below. And you can also find other ways to support Chris. Chris, would it be nice to put your Patreon down there? Is that the best place for people to support? Yes, I guess that's as good as any. Great. Cool. So we'll have the Chris Langen Patreon page. Yeah, there's also a ctmu page that Gina might have put up. I think she did. So yes, either of those pages will be great. I've got a lot of good material on there. It's occasionally little videos, you know, little dialogues that we do, plus writing that I do on some of the deeper aspects of the ctmu. So by all means, look at them. Perfect. So we'll have the Patreon down there as well. And thanks everyone for tuning in. We love you very much. And we'll see you soon. Peace. Bye Atlas. Really blessed by our relationship. And thanks for your inspiration on shifting me more towards the math and the logic side of things. I think that's really important. And also thanks for shifting me even towards the rock and being even more aware of the rock. I think that was another important. I've been becoming very aware of that rock lately over the last couple of years with this mask and vaccine nonsense. Yes. Actually investigating what is in the vaccines. This is a bad situation. I agree. They're not real vaccines. This is not a real crisis. The lockdowns are all fake. They're designed to destroy the economy. These people are trying to shut down the mass awakening that you want and that I want before it even happens. And this bit with Apple cancelling the last video actually blocking it from all Apple mobile devices. That's just a taste of what's to come. So understand their enemies of the mass awakening. They don't want it to happen. They want human humanity to stay in the dark so that they can continue to run things their own. And that's what I've been becoming aware of. And that's why I seem aggressive. I feel aggressive. I love you and I love that vibration actually. It's really insightful and important for us moving forward to actually succeed with this planetary awakening. It's perfect. Thank you. So I really feel like in a sense like a younger like a younger in a sense version of you that's really excited about it from a scientific math perspective but also from a like a spiritual consciousness artistic perspective. And it's really beautiful. Well, I hope it's a lot easier for you than it was for me. And hopefully for the next generation right for the little 15 year olds right now that are excited about it, you know.