Tom and Paul read meditations

What is Tom and Paul read meditations?

A lighthearted reading of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. Join us as we read his private journal from 2,000 years ago and talk about how it makes us feel.

Speaker: All right.

Good morning, Tom.

Speaker 2: Hello.

Good morning, Tom.

Hi.

Speaker: Hi.

So here we are another week.

A new book per Marcus.

That's right, yeah.

Speaker 2: My, my Apple Books
app says we're 67% done.

So two thirds.

Speaker: Okay.

I have, I'm seeing six.

Yeah.

Two thirds.

What?

What are you

Speaker 2: saying?

Speaker: I'm saying 69% in my little, oh,

Speaker 3: okay.

Speaker: Kindle lab.

So yeah.

Anyway, yeah.

Two thirds, possibly even slightly more.

Yeah, which I guess matches the book.

We're about to start book nine out of 12.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Wow.

He really evenly spaced these books.

That's impressive.

Yeah.

Good,

Speaker: good job.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Yep.

It was literally like age count
limit, like the, like a book

was just X number of pages.

Speaker: Yes.

Or a scroll of a certain
length or whatever.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Some cow hide.

Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yeah.

Could be.

Although it doesn't feel like that.

Certainly if you look back at our episode.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker: Obviously some of that is
our own speed of progressing through

it, but some of them feel longer.

Speaker 5: Yeah.

Agreed.

Speaker: Yeah.

Oh boy.

I just looked at our first
entry for this new book.

I know.

And it's, it is gargantuan.

Okay.

We're gonna

Speaker 5: it with my peripheral vision.

And it has caused, it has spiked
alarm signals in my brain.

Speaker: Yeah.

Okay.

Yikes.

All right, we're gonna, I, it
looks like he's got some, he

is built up some longer ideas.

Speaker 5: Yeah.

Speaker: Between the books, so Okay.

We're gonna have to maybe
take things in pieces.

Speaker 5: I, I agree.

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 3: Anything we wanna bring

Speaker 2: to the pod today?

I guess Tom and I have been talking
about how we're sleeping works.

Speaker: Yes.

We're both we're both commiserating
about not getting the youthful perfect

sleep we are accustomed to getting.

Yeah.

And we're wondering about how much
of that is that we're getting older

and how much of it is maybe just.

Stress and changes in our
lives in a more short term way.

Speaker 2: Mostly.

I just wanna know if someone could just
tell me, oh no, this is the new normal.

Then it's okay, great, I'll, I
can get used to this new normal.

But I, but if that's not the
case, like we're both sleeping,

what, like seven hours?

It's fine.

Yes.

But it's not it doesn't feel the same.

And so we're, I'm just trying
to figure out if I should be.

Happy with this or not?

Speaker 4: Yeah,

Speaker 2: I guess I
could just ask Chad, GBT.

But yeah, I trust the rest of the
world on this because people used

to, like I've always been such
a great sleeper growing up too.

Yeah.

So I feel I'm different, not me.

Speaker: Yes.

Agreed.

Not me.

Is there anything Marcus can
teach us about this particular

challenge we're facing?

It's not really an a moment
where we need to take action.

No, necessarily.

Speaker 2: This is, it's hard
to not see this as just the

most straightforward, stoic

Speaker: yeah, I guess so.

Suck it up.

Yeah.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

It would be interesting.

We did get a glimpse at some
point of Marcus talking about how

much he likes sleep specifically.

Yeah.

This was a while back.

But he has wrestled with the bed
problem in philosophy of Yeah.

Why bother getting out of bed?

Speaker 2: Yeah.

That's right.

Speaker: And if I, if memory serves
the reputation of this particular

book is that he's a little bit of
a, maybe an insomniac himself who's

writing these things late at night.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Yeah.

So he probably has dealt with this
challenge as well, but, 2000 years ago

Speaker: Yeah.

I wish he would've written something
maybe a little more specific about it.

Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.

Yeah and I guess we don't know
how old he was back when he wrote.

I think that might have been
chapter two or chapter three.

Whereas now we're in book nine,
so maybe he stopped writing about.

His beauty sleep, so maybe there's, yeah.

Maybe that's also a sign for us.

Speaker: Yeah, that's true.

Okay.

Maybe that's indicative of Yeah.

It just is what it is.

Yeah.

Yeah, my, my one other personal update,
which is also like a, we're getting older

update for this podcast is that a couple
episodes ago we, the, our listeners

heard about how I had thrown out my
back playing pickleball with with Paul.

And I just want to triumphantly
announce that we played pickleball

again last night and I feel great.

Yeah.

So I am, yes.

Speaker 2: I was legit
worried about you, I was, yes.

Speaker: Yes, I was trying to

Speaker 2: watch out because I
know you get excited sometimes.

Speaker: Yes.

I love the competition and I wanted
to participate and this time I

did a little bit of stretching.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker: Did great.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Yeah.

Speaker: So in some ways, we don't let's
not just go softly into that good night.

Let's

Speaker 2: yeah.

The other thing I wanna know about all
this aging stuff is obviously come on.

Are we really gonna start
complaining about this now?

Or so I'm trying to figure out
like what the right balance is.

Should we just, is the right answer.

Just like a happy life.

Don't be grateful for what you have.

Don't complain about these things.

Or is it normal and okay to bring
them up and think about them.

Yeah.

Is it just a natural process?

I guess maybe some folks who
are listening to this who maybe

have crossed that barrier could
chime in at some point, be nice?

Speaker: Yeah, sure.

I think, there's room
for both of those things.

I think having friends to validate
the experience, especially

peers who can validate the
experience of aging and all that.

Speaker 4: To

Speaker: me makes sense and seems like
a part of the human experience, but

also turning into a mid thirties person
who just talks about how old they

are and what's wrong with their body.

Yeah.

It makes you a kind of unattractive person
to be around in some ways, I feel like.

So yeah.

And

Speaker 2: it seeps into
your psyche too, right?

Like the more I have these conversations,
the more I start thinking about my Yeah.

Speaker: You, it becomes
how you see yourself.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

It's terrifying.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think yeah maybe it just
requires some, a bit of perspective,

surrounding ourselves with Yeah.

With all kinds of folks.

Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yep.

I like that.

Cool.

I think maybe one other thing we can
tease is this is not with a hundred

percent certainty that this is gonna
work from a technical perspective.

Yeah.

But this coming week or maybe our next
episode, or if not our next episode,

then the following episode, yes.

We are gonna return to.

A format we've done once before, which is
recording while driving to and from Tahoe.

Oh, yeah.

And possibly with some special
guests important people in our lives.

So it might be chaotic.

We may be passing a microphone
or two microphones around

in the backseat of a car.

But get ready get excited.

Listeners, this is the only kind
of a non-traditional format we've

ever done for the podcast, I think.

Look forward to that and maybe we
can get some of these gargantuan

entries out of the way and line up
some easier stuff for that episode.

Yeah, I think if I have to read pages
at a time uninterrupted in the car,

it's gonna be worse for everyone

Speaker 2: involved.

Yeah.

No, you're gonna, our Better house
might not even engage with that.

Yes.

Speaker: I agree.

Yeah.

Okay.

But the asterisk on that,
it might not happen.

Speaker 5: All right, let's do it.

Okay.

Speaker: Okay.

But yes, let's not put it off any longer.

Let us, let's dive into this big block
of text book nine, entry number one.

I think Paul, given how long this is Yeah.

Feel free to interrupt me and I will
probably like pause midway through and

we can chat and then I'll keep going.

Yeah, no.

Okay.

Number one, injustice
is a kind of blasphemy.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Pause.

Speaker: Okay.

We're not gonna get through this century.

Speaker 2: So I think this sentence
makes sense so long as it's a

human conducting the injustice.

Yeah.

That tripped me up for a second.

I was tr I was thinking Oh wow.

Yeah, but if it's in, if it, so this
idea that if you're thinking about

injustice done to you by nature, like
for example, the fact that you pulled

your back playing pickleball, right?

That is technically an injustice, or
you could see that as an injustice.

But I don't think that's what
he means because that's not

blasphemy, that's nature.

What's blasphemy is if you do
something in just to another human.

Speaker: Yeah.

I agree with that.

Yeah.

Yes.

Fair point.

I agree.

I think injustice in his sense
definitely is a sort of active

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker: Pe like people
are responsible for it.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker: Cool.

Okay.

Nature designed rational
beings for each other's sake.

To help not harm one another
as they deserve to transgress.

Its will then is to blaspheme against
the oldest of the gods and to lie

is to blaspheme against it too.

Quote, nature end quote means the nature
of that which is, and that which is, and

that which is the case are closely linked.

So that nature is synonymous with
truth, the source of all true things.

Okay.

Let's pause there because
that was, you wanna

Speaker 3: pause there to Yeah,

Speaker: let's keep

Speaker 3: going.

Speaker: Let's unpack that
sentence because he is getting

quite philosophical here.

I think.

Speaker 2: Quote,

Speaker: nature means the
nature of that, which is

Speaker 2: uhhuh.

Speaker: The point here, I guess is
that nature is not an abstract concept.

Nature is it's the instant stuff.

It's,

Speaker 2: yeah,

Speaker: there's no such thing as nature.

Beyond the nature of the things
that are actually around.

Speaker 2: He says closely linked.

He's,

Speaker: he didn't

Speaker 2: say are the same.

So I guess the visualization I have
in my head is that, this, like that,

that a famous quote, like the arc of
justice bends towards, or whatever the

like arc of history towards justice,

Speaker: moral arc of the universe
bends towards justice or something.

Yeah,

Speaker 2: yeah.

So I guess I'm imagining these two arcs.

One is what actually is

Speaker: uhhuh?

Speaker 2: Then the other
is, which is the case

Speaker: that, which I don't understand.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Okay.

The

Speaker: distinction at all between that,
which is, and that which is the case.

Speaker 2: I am, this is, I'm giving
Marcus a lot of credit here, but I, okay.

I think what he means is there's
what should be and what is,

and those are the two lines.

And.

His point is that they're closely
linked and they're not that far.

Like they're not that far at any time.

And so to think that, or to lie
effectively where you make statements that

are very different than what actually is,

Speaker: are is also very
distant from what should be,

Speaker 2: is also very
distant from what should be.

Exactly.

So like we are interpreters of nature.

Like I, for example, like
there's a giant flood, right?

And it's you could say that this is
terrible and how could God do this to us?

But to some degree it's
this is what, yeah.

I guess nature, like this
is what should happen.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker 2: And yeah I mean it's a weird
way to tie it to lying, but I guess,

Speaker: yeah.

Yeah, it's interesting.

That's, I think.

I'm interested in this
equivalence he draws at the end.

I like what you're saying this,
so that nature is synonymous with

truth, the source of all true things.

Yeah.

That, that's a very deep way
of saying what, something that

he's beaten around before.

But

Speaker 4: yeah.

Speaker: Yes.

The important stuff that, that and
I should be clear that when he, when

I'm saying nature is anonymous with
truth, at least this translator has

capitalized the t the big capital T truth.

Speaker 5: Yeah.

Yeah.

Speaker: So the point being that the
true important stuff of the universe,

which is what I interpret that capital
T is to be, he says, is just nature.

It's the stuff we're surrounded with.

There's no part the implication
there is that there's nothing,

we're not missing anything big.

Speaker 2: Okay.

He is defining nature
for us, which is cool.

But what, sorry, I'm still reading.

So that nature is synonymous with truth.

I'm still reading nature as
the kind of what should be.

Not, and not necessarily what is, even
though those two are closely linked.

Am I stretching this
thing too far or do you

Speaker 3: I, do

Speaker 2: you agree?

Speaker 3: Do you think he I

Speaker 2: think I what is truth?

And that's it.

So don't worry about anything else.

Or is he saying like one
level removed from that?

Speaker: No, I think I agree
with what you're saying.

Okay.

But his point is, it's like the
distinction is almost artificial.

Like the only thing that's like the
only distance between his kind of

like the way the universe should be
and the true nature of all things.

And then the.

The way we actually Yeah.

Find it is us and our tendency to lie
about it or distort it or whatever.

Yeah.

And his point is that's still
relatively, you shouldn't do

that 'cause it's blasphemous.

But also those things are pretty close
to one another nature or whatever

the fabric of the universe Yeah.

Keeps what is and what should
be pretty close together.

Yes.

I'm almost reading this as there's
no, there's so little distance.

That's what he means by synonymous that
like nature and truth, we should just

use them interchangeably basically.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

This reads almost like proto
scientific method or proto atheism.

Speaker: Rationalism.

Rationalism.

Yeah.

Agreed.

Although

Speaker 2: we don't really know
what he means by nature still.

Speaker: Yes.

It's interesting 'cause in some
ways I agree with you that it feels

very rationalist, this idea that
Yes, like truth is nature and yeah.

But then also, I don't, I think
Rationalists would be much less

concerned with the concept of blasphemy.

He is very hung up on don't
do blasphemous things.

And a rationalist would say no such thing.

Speaker 2: think I guess
wouldn't a rationalist say that?

Religion is blasphemy.

Speaker: I see.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

Yeah.

Like any, anything non empirical is Yeah.

Something that,

Speaker 2: that's you're, yeah.

Yeah.

Lying about nature.

You're making things up.

I'm, I think I might be
stretching this too far.

Yeah.

I wonder what he means, but I,
there have been so many times

throughout this reading that I felt
like Marcus is headed straight to.

15th century renaissance thinking here.

Speaker: Empiricism.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Empiricism.

Yeah.

And like instead, we did this
long detour into like deep

religious thought spirituality.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yeah.

I like that lens.

I think you're totally right.

I agree that it feels like he doesn't, I
guess what he's missing there is this the

actual scientific method of yeah, okay.

How do you study nature and Yeah, exactly.

Refine your theories and
do that kind of stuff.

He's not there yet, but the like
philosophical underpinning of it I agree.

I think is here,

Speaker 2: it's all relative, right?

It's like we understand more maybe or we
have a deeper set of rationalizations,

but we still don't understand a
bunch of there are still things

where we just, it's just religion.

We just have to trust.

Yeah.

Even though we're quote unquote
in the scientific method.

So I maybe it's like arbitrary, like
they understood some things or they

thought they did like atoms and Right.

Four elements and what else do you want?

Speaker: Yeah, I think, I mean from what I
know about these guys, I don't think they

were, yeah, this, I don't think Marcus was
coming from a place of we know everything.

I'm not curious about how the physical
world works or whatever anymore.

That's true.

But yes I like your point.

I think it's interesting that yes, in
some ways this is wrapped up and he is

talking about the oldest of the Roman
or Greek gods, and it feels like this.

Could, one, one naive
read is that he's just

Speaker 4: sure

Speaker: talking very quite religiously,
but in another way I agree that this

is the bedrock for a scientific.

Speaker 3: Yeah.

Oldest of the gods does
put a hierarchy to it.

Speaker: Yeah.

He's never really said that
before that I remember either.

Speaker 3: It's like all those other gods

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: Don't matter.

Yeah.

Boy, okay.

Yeah.

Who knows.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yeah.

He's as always an interesting
melange of like stuff that

we're like, yeah, definitely.

And stuff that's not, that doesn't
really resonate as much for us.

Speaker 3: Uhhuh.

Speaker: Okay.

Let's keep going.

Speaker 3: Yep.

Speaker: To lie deliberately is
to blaspheme the liar, commits

deceit, and thus injustice.

Speaker 2: Okay.

We know.

Yeah.

Speaker: And likewise to lie without
realizing it, because the involuntary

liar disrupts the harmony of nature.

Its order.

He is in conflict with the
way the world is structured.

As anyone who is as anyone is who
deviates towards what is opposed to

the truth, even against his will.

I'm gonna pause there because that's
also a tough sentence for me to parse.

Wow.

A person, A per, okay.

I get the okay.

It's bad to lie.

It's also bad to lie even if
you don't realize you're lying.

Yeah.

Because then you're working
against the purposes of truth

and the structure of the world.

Speaker 2: And what does it mean to
why, when you don't realize it, it

just means being ignorant, right?

Speaker: Yeah.

That's how I interpret it.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

But that, okay.

Anyone who deviates toward
what is opposed to the truth.

Okay.

Even against his will,

Speaker 2: I think he's just
repeating the, he's yeah.

Okay.

Speaker: Even if someone
compels you to lie, Yeah.

Or, and even if someone compels you
to do or say untruthful things that

you don't realize are untruthful.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker: All of these are the enemies of,

Speaker 4: yeah.

Of,

Speaker: of the system, of the world and,

Speaker 2: yeah.

Speaker: Blasphemers.

Okay,

Speaker 2: so he's anti
lying and anti ignorance.

Speaker: Yes.

Okay.

He goes on nature, gave him the
resources to distinguish between

true and false, and he neglected them
and now can't tell the difference.

Speaker 2: Okay, cool.

Speaker: Yeah so he's got very little
sympathy for ignorance, basically.

I interpret that it's like
human humans have been given

these rational gifts to Yes.

To not use them is to blaspheme against
the people who gave you those gifts.

Okay.

New paragraph, but this entry
continues and to pursue pleasure

as good and flee from pain as
evil, that too is blasphemous.

Someone who does that is bound to find
himself constantly reproaching nature,

complaining that it doesn't treat the good
and bad as they deserve, but often lets

the bad and enjoy pleasure and the things
that produce it and makes the good suffer

pain and the things that produce pain.

Moreover to fear pain is to fear
something that's bound to happen.

The world being what it is,
and that, again, is blasphemy.

If you pursue pleasure, you
can hardly avoid wrongdoing,

which is manifestly blasphemous.

Speaker 4: My

Speaker 2: God.

Okay.

That's a, he's on a roll now.

He is just

Speaker: Yeah, I agree.

I like how at the beginning of new
books, he's clearly had some new ideas

and really needs to get them all out.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Mals and he is
hitting everything around him.

Speaker: Yes, that's true.

Yes.

He either warned or remembered the word
blasphemy before writing this book.

Speaker 3: I,

Speaker: I I see what he's saying though.

It's this is something we've seen from
him before where this, this really does

sound like stoicism in the modern sense.

Yeah.

Where the idea is yes.

Don't just chase pleasure
and especially I think when.

We hear him talking about this.

We have the idea of higher order
pleasures and lower order pleasures.

Yeah.

But when he talks about pleasures,
we, I'm assuming he's talking

largely about lower order

Speaker 2: pleasures.

Yeah.

Look, this is what I like about stoicism.

Like it's, it takes a stand,
like it would be easy to say.

You don't know what sort of that,
you don't know that pleasure.

So the pursuit of pleasure is evil.

And fleeing from pain, like how do
you know, like what you know and to

delve into this whole kind of nihilism
track and stoicism like makes a stand.

It's no, we know.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yeah.

That is interesting.

Yeah, it's a pretty, I've never felt
that this directly, like he really sets.

A very high bar for humans.

That, that's the big difference that
you're, that I'm hearing you draw is you

could imagine a philosophy that says,
look, it's really hard to be human.

We don't know what's going on.

Yeah.

Any decision you make.

Is fine.

Yeah.

Because you're operating with
very limited understanding.

Yeah.

And that part of me is sympathetic
to a philosophy like that.

But I agree with your point that stoic
as and in particular this entry is saying

something different is saying not Okay.

You've got these rational gifts.

You have to use them.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

You have

Speaker: to.

Otherwise, like any, anything else is

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: Spitting in the face.

Speaker 2: So it's a it's like
a little game, like imagine.

The analogy of like we're, we're like a
child stuck in a room with nothing to do.

And like different philosophies
give you different games to play.

Nihilism is just, you sit there
and look into the corner and

then so's here's a fun game.

Don't pursue pleasure or
good or flee from pain.

Yeah.

Find meaning in.

The, and it's just it's okay,
this is a game I can play.

All of a sudden now I'm entertained by
this interesting challenge that like, we

as humans have a really difficult time.

It's like doable, but not, it's always
a little bit outta reach and the kid is

able to entertain themselves, for a while.

Speaker: Yes.

Although doing it in an empty,
like practicing stoicism in a truly

boring environment seems like the
hardest version of stoicism to me.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I, you're right.

I guess we're not in an empty room.

We're just a board kid or something.

Yeah,

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: Or just humans thrown
into kind of something that, we

don't understand meaning here,
so we have to create our own.

Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

Interesting.

I, yeah, I agree.

I like this.

I like that.

It does set a high bar for
humans, but then in other ways

it's not asking that much of you
to just exercise your rational.

Tools.

Yeah.

When you can and yeah.

It's also not a philosophy that,
we've heard this before with Marcus.

It's not a philosophy that
dwells a lot on regret or yeah.

Punishment or whatever for
having messed up in the past.

It's all about, okay, yeah.

What's about to happen.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: Make your best choice.

Speaker 2: It's a pretty fun game.

And you can rather than rationalizing
things around pure pleasure, you

rationalize them around whatever,
doing right to other people.

But you can still you can get away
with pretty much anything you want,

rationalizing things that way too.

It's not like that hard.

Yeah.

It's a doable game.

It's, and then you can, you get on top
of that, you can feel good about it in

a way that's even more valuable than if
you just did exactly what you wanted.

It's like a, it's like a more
sophisticated way to seek pleasure

Speaker: just to justify
what you wanna do.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: They, these guys are
hedonists they're se they're

Speaker 5: absolutely obsessed
with seeking pleasure and

they've just whatever.

And they do it.

And they

Speaker: built a system
of justification for it.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

Okay.

We're getting close to the
end of this entry number one.

Speaker 2: Alright.

Good job, Tom.

Speaker: Some things
nature is indifferent to.

If it privileged one over the other,
it would hardly have created both.

And if we want to follow nature to be
of one mind with it, we need to share

its indifference to privilege, pleasure
over pain, life over death, fame

over anonymity is click blasphemous.

Nature certainly doesn't.

Yeah, I don't know.

I don't know about this line
of reasoning, Marcus, but fine.

Yeah, fine.

This is less, less persuasive to me, just
the idea that because it exists in nature,

we should prioritize all things equally.

Speaker 3: Yeah.

It feels a bit forced.

Yeah, but that's fine.

Speaker: Okay.

Last paragraph.

And when I say that nature
is indifferent to them.

I mean that they happen in
differently at different times to

the things that exist and the things
that come into being after them.

Through some ancient decree of
providence, the decree by which

from some initial starting point,
it embarked on the creation that we

know by laying down the principles
of what was to come and determining

the generative forces existence and
change and their successive stages.

Okay.

That's a lot of just like wind up
that just explains his understanding

of how nature works, which is cool.

I mean like his understanding of
nature articulated that way is a very

kind of just something in the world
was like, there should be things that

exist and those things should change.

And that those are the
laws of the universe.

And then everything else just has
been rolling in motion from there.

Interesting.

Which is cool, but I, is that an

Speaker 3: our perspective of nature?

Speaker: It's.

Not all that different, right?

Yeah.

It doesn't involve a big bang,
but it's like and what it doesn't

involve is like on, on the first day
God makes light or whatever, right?

And then like that's.

This seems to be, and I don't
know, maybe he believes in that or

something like that too, but this
seems to be a very sort of abstract

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: There's only two constants in
the world which are existence and change.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

What I don't fully understand is
what is the line between this fact?

Okay.

Nature is just about existence and
change and this big leap he makes that

we exist in the world to help each other.

Yeah,

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: To it.

But it feels like you made it up.

Speaker: I agree.

That's a great question.

I feel like, yeah.

So how does he arrive at that
latter conclusion that we

exist to, to aid one another?

My sense is just that he.

He thinks that we arrive at those types
of, that, that type of inclusion just by

observing the world around us and trying
to figure out the puzzle, basically.

And so he's looked at human existence
his whole life, and the thing that

makes the most sense to him is
that we're here to help each other.

Speaker 2: Okay.

So that's him

Speaker: Yes.

Being

Speaker 2: no,

Speaker: arguably, yeah.

According to his set of rules, but I
don't think it's like something, as

far as I can tell we haven't heard him
derive it from first principles of the

existence of the universe or whatever.

I think it's just his game is
to look around at the universe.

It'd be like,

What are the rules here?

What's, what are we supposed, what
is everyone supposed to be doing?

Yeah.

And that's what he's concluded
we're supposed to be doing.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Yeah.

Speaker: Which I like by the way.

I if that's your, if that's, if you
look at, you spent 50 years or whatever

looking at human beings from his
vantage point and your conclusion is

we're supposed to help each other.

Great.

That's pretty nice.

Yeah.

I dig that.

Speaker 2: I don't wanna
break that part thing apart.

'cause it's the best thing.

Yeah.

Speaker: Okay.

Speaker 2: Thank you.

I feel like yeah, Marcus
really laid it out for us here.

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 3: He kinda,

Speaker 2: you

Speaker 3: know.

Speaker 2: Don't lie, don't pursue
pleasure and flee from pain and

Speaker: yeah, live, live honestly,

Speaker 2: live honestly in nature

Speaker: And presently Yeah.

Don't run away from your existence.

Yeah.

Yeah, I dig it.

I think that's actually this is a
nice articulation of stoicism that,

that we hadn't quite had before.

So I dig it.

Speaker 2: Great.

You did a good job reading all that, Tom.

Speaker: Thank you.

I only screwed up a couple
times, so pretty proud of myself.

Number two, real good luck would
be to abandon life without ever

encountering dishonesty or hypocrisy
or self-indulgence or pride.

Speaker 5: Okay.

Speaker: But the next best voyage
is to die when you've had enough.

Speaker 5: Whoa.

Speaker: Or are you determined
to lie down with evil?

It hasn't experienced, even taught
you that to avoid it like the

plague because it is a plague.

A mental cancer worse than anything caused
by tainted air or an unhealthy climate.

Diseases like that can
only threaten your life.

This one attacks your humanity.

Wow, okay.

He is really on the war path
against dishonest, hypocritical.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: People,

Speaker 2: so when he's saying the
next best voyage is to die when you've

had enough, he's saying basically it's
better to kill yourself than or just

to die, than to like succumbs of these.

Speaker: I think so.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Yeah.

Speaker: That's how I interpret it.

Speaker 2: I.

Because it's not, there's a way
to interpret it where you're like,

you indulge in all these things
and then you've, you're, yes.

Speaker: You've had enough is a little
bit of a, of an odd phrase there.

I have

Speaker 5: people and now I've
had enough and I'm ready to

Speaker: Yes.

Yes.

I think he beat it in the sense of I've
had enough putting up with the evil and

dishonesty and hypocrisy around me and
not, I've enjoyed those things enough.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Okay.

So yeah, very dramatic.

Yeah.

I like it, right?

Like this kind of thing is what keeps,
whatever, like this keeps people

alive in really tough situations.

It's like there's some meaning in life
outside of just survival or like the yeah.

Speaker: It's,

Speaker 2: yeah.

It's, yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

He, okay.

He is really not happy with
the, with lying though.

No.

More, more so than I remember
him being in the past.

Speaker 5: Yeah.

He was really upset.

Something happened.

Somebody, yeah.

Speaker: Somebody lied to him
and he is not pleased about it.

No.

But I do think, like from
everything we know about him and his

philosophy, it makes sense to me that

Speaker 2: yeah,

Speaker: lying for him
is like the ultimate

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: Sin.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Yeah.

I think there's something very there's
like a big dopamine spike when you take

the, agency to make a decision like
this where you're like, nah, I'd rather

basically die than do, than be dishonest.

Yeah.

Speaker 4: Like

Speaker 2: very, it's like a
really nice feeling, right?

You have this you're like

Speaker: moral.

Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.

You're on your moral high horse.

You get to take that to your grave.

You can always be like at least I
didn't do that, at least I'm the

kind of person who didn't do that.

Speaker 3: Yeah.

Speaker 2: You

Speaker 3: care.

Speaker 2: No one can
take that away from you.

It's like an incredible feeling.

Yeah.

Speaker 4: So

Speaker 2: in some ways yeah,
I, I had a similar thing.

I'll share a little story.

I, was I left Keeper and Intuit
reached out and it was like, listen, we

really want you on the TurboTax team.

Really, like what?

Like it was, it felt a little
bit like a conversation with,

with the devil a little bit.

Yeah.

Not that they're evil or anything,
they're being very rational.

Listen, you have a ton of
experience we want and.

They were like making statements
about what I should, could expect

in return and I was just like, no,
this goes against my principles.

Nice.

It felt great.

It kept me, yeah, totally.

This was before I was even like getting
any interviews at other companies, but I

just felt like I've done the right thing.

Like even if sort of something
doesn't work out, like it's,

Speaker: yeah.

Nice

Speaker 2: down kind of thing.

Speaker: Nice.

Yeah.

I love that.

I do think I, I totally agree with you.

I think that kind of like

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: Feeling that you're
describing that internal feeling of

nice, I made a good choice there.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker: For Marcus, that is the
only thing that's what he loves.

He loves that feeling.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker: Yes.

I think that's a really nice
example of the kind of feeling

that Marcus is just all in on,

Speaker 2: basically.

It's a great, it's a great it just,
it can't be taken away from you.

Speaker: It's like I get
that's the big thing, can

Speaker 2: back that anytime.

Speaker: Yep.

And always come back to it.

It's there.

You did that.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

It's hard to tain that anyway.

Hard to be like, no,
you were being selfish.

No, yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

It's.

It builds your esteem of
yourself, it builds your self

Speaker 2: esteem,

Speaker: Your humanity.

Yeah.

Totally.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

So it's like very valuable.

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: Like how many other
things like that are there?

Even if I go out to a nice
restaurant, like I don't get to

hold onto that for very long.

Speaker 3: Yeah.

Speaker: Whereas

Speaker 2: this like the gift I
keeps on giving it's fantastic.

I can tell my grandkids about this.

Speaker: Yeah, that's right.

I think that's totally true.

Yeah.

I think that to me.

Is a lovely way of framing stoicism
that is quite different from whatever my

initial impressions of the philosophy.

Yeah.

That try to live in such a way that you
find yourself making decisions like that.

Yeah.

Is that's, that is something
that really resonates

Speaker 2: with me.

Yeah.

That's much more empowering and much
less about don't do this and more.

Yes.

Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yeah.

Nice.

I dig that.

We have another meaty one here.

Not, maybe not quite as
long as the last one.

Speaker 5: Yep.

Speaker: Okay.

And I think it might be relevant to some
conversations we were having earlier.

Speaker 5: No.

Speaker: Number three, don't look
down on death, but welcome it.

Speaker 5: Classic.

Speaker: It too.

Is one of the things required by nature?

Speaker 2: Yeah,

Speaker: Like youth and old age,
like growth and maturity, like

a new set of teeth, a beard.

The first gray hair like sex
and pregnancy and childbirth.

Like all the other physical
changes at each stage of life

are dissolution is no different.

Speaker 2: Lovely.

Actually.

Speaker: Yeah, I agree.

It's poetic.

Speaker 2: The first gray hair.

Speaker: Yeah.

The new set of teeth is evocative too.

Speaker 2: The new set of teeth.

Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

So this is how a thoughtful person
should await death, not with

indifference, not with impatience, not
with disdain, but simply viewing it as

one of the things that happens to us.

Now you anticipate the child's
emergence from its mother's womb.

That's how you should await
the hour when your soul will

emerge from its compartment.

Speaker 2: Okay.

It's interesting.

So he's saying not with indifference.

My naive interpretation is we
were supposed to be indifferent.

So it does

Speaker: Sound like he's describing
indifference to me, actually.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

But now he's giving he's giving
you're not indifferent to like

child a child's birth mother's womb.

So what is it that we're supposed to feel?

I guess

Speaker: the first
sentence is, welcome it.

Welcome it.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Yeah.

Sure, sure.

Speaker: Yeah, so it's interesting because
he gives us this long list of things

that we just called poetic, but some of
those things that he lists we welcome.

But other things I would argue people
don't welcome the first gray hair.

Yeah.

Is maybe something they
don't welcome so much.

Yeah.

Old age.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Yeah.

But that analogy is a very intense
one that like, obviously you

welcome the birth of your child.

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: And that's how you should
feel about your own death at that point.

You might as well speed it up or Right.

I don't know.

I guess you could speed up the birth,

Speaker: but also not within patients.

Yeah.

Yeah,

Speaker 2: that's a good point actually.

You can't speed up the birth
of a child like it's gonna be.

Yeah.

Speaker: It's gonna be, although,
but I, that doesn't stop us from

feeling impatience when, we're
close to something like that.

Speaker 2: Do people feel impatient

Speaker 3: for the birth of their

Speaker 2: child or do they just
feel, I don't know, actually.

Neither of us have been
through that experience yet.

Yeah.

We haven't

Speaker: been through that experience.

I feel like I know people who have
said that at some point they just

wanted it to be over with, which
kind of makes sense to me too.

Speaker 2: Okay.

That's a bit of impatience but maybe
this analogy's actually brilliant though

in the sense that I think it's like it
is gonna happen when it's gonna happen

and I'm gonna welcome it and Yeah,
like it's gonna happen on the schedule.

Okay, maybe there's a little
bit of a patience, but.

Speaker: Yeah,

Speaker 2: it's a, it's
an interesting analogy,

Speaker: but that again sounds
pretty close to indifference.

It's gonna happen when it's gonna happen.

I can't control It is, but

Speaker 2: that's the beauty
of it, is it's not indifferent.

'cause you're, you are
excited for the birth of

Speaker: a child.

Okay.

But you just can't control
when it's gonna happen.

Speaker 2: It's just gonna
happen on a nine month timeline.

It's just, that's just how

Speaker: right.

Speaker 2: So it's yeah,
like in my, whatever.

In my old age, I'll die.

That's just how it's gonna be.

And I'm excited for it.

Speaker: Yeah.

That's the, that, that's the tricky,
that last sentence, what exactly

is the thing that you're feeling?

Because I don't think he's Exactly.

Prescribing excitement.

Speaker 2: Yeah,

Speaker: yeah.

Just an embrace in the way
that you love the world.

That you love nature.

You should love your own death too.

Yeah.

Okay.

Speaker 3: Interesting.

Speaker: There's, okay, this continues.

Maybe he will give us
a little more clarity.

Okay.

Or perhaps you need some tidy aphorism
to tuck away in the back of your mind.

Consider.

Yes, we

Speaker 4: do.

Speaker: Yes, I think we do.

Marcus.

Consider two things that
should reconcile you to death.

The nature of the things you'll leave
behind you and the kind of people

you'll no longer be mixed up with.

There's no need to feel
resentment toward them.

In fact, you should look out for their
wellbeing and be gentle with them.

But keep in mind that everything
you believe is meaningless

to those you leave behind.

Because that's all that could restrain us.

If anything could, the only
thing that could make us want

to stay here, the chance to live
with those who share our vision.

But now look how tiring it is.

This cacophony we live in enough to
make you say, to death come quickly

before I start to forget myself.

Like them.

Speaker 2: Wow, Marcus.

He like reached out of the page and
grabbed us by the head on this one.

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: Holy cow.

Marcus spoke to us from 2000.

You need some tidy aphorism?

Speaker: Yes.

I don't know that.

Did he give us a tidy?

He said he kinda

Speaker 3: no he didn't.

Speaker: Perhaps you need a tidy aphorism.

Sounds like I'm about to
drop some fire on you.

And then he didn't really,

Speaker 3: he's just like
slightly kinda, yeah.

Speaker: It's like the
beginning of a rap verse.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Wow.

Okay, so he's answering
our questions directly.

Go, Marcus.

Speaker 3: Yes.

Speaker 2: And he's saying

consider two things
when you're oh, really?

We're supposed to think about death.

Like the birth of a child.

Yeah.

Yes, because the na no one cares
about you being gone and you'll

no longer have to deal with.

All the shit you don't
want to deal with in life.

Speaker: Yes.

Speaker 2: That's what he's saying, right?

Speaker: I think so.

Yeah.

I, let's dive into this a little bit
because there was a part that I'm a

little bit confused by and I want, I
wanna see if you understand it better.

So he says, consider these two things
that should reconcile you to death.

And the two things are the nature of the
things you'll leave behind with you, or

sorry, leave behind you and the kind of
people you'll no longer be mixed up with.

And then he says there's no need
to feel resentment toward them.

I'm interpreting that to mean
both the nature of the things

and the people, like he's saying.

Okay.

And not just them, there
could just mean the people.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: Okay.

But I'm interpreting that to
mean that he's saying like,

when you're thinking about death,
it's an odd thing because he is

saying remember how crappy the
world is or something to like Yeah.

The people, you're the people who are
around you and the nature of life.

You should be fine with
letting go of those things.

Speaker 2: I think that's right.

That's how I read it.

Yeah.

Speaker: I don't know.

Something that about that to me is
not that satisfying just because in

a lot of ways his description of the
na, like the nature of the world and

stuff is that it's all pretty good.

It's as it should be.

Speaker 2: Ah, I see.

Speaker: And then he's here, he
says, yeah, but doesn't it all suck?

Like it's fine.

Speaker 2: No, I think Marcus
has always been super judgy.

This, he's like judgy judgers and like
his whole thing is that he knows how

to live and everyone else is horrible.

I agree

Speaker: with that.

So the part where he says the kinds
of, you get to leave these people

behind, that feels like classic artists.

Yeah.

That's obvious.

Yeah.

The nature of the Yes.

This idea of you should be fine leaving
behind the nature of the world that.

That you're leaving behind
That to me, I don't really,

Speaker 2: yeah, it's

Speaker: a, yeah.

Somehow if he actually

Speaker 2: his own philosophy, he would
appreciate the nature of the things.

Yeah,

Speaker: exactly.

Just one entry ago, he's talking
about how cool it is that nature and

truth are so closely aligned here.

Yeah.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

I guess this comes back
to he never directly says,

it's really hard to do this.

I'm really struggling to live this way.

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: But underlying truth throughout
all of this is it's really difficult.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker 2: And he doesn't actually,
think this way unless he really

sits down and forces himself to
so just that peeking through, i,

Speaker: yes.

Yeah.

I like that read on it.

It is confusing a bit because
he is, he's a guy who likes

some big, bold, sweeping Yeah.

Philosophies.

And so then when they contra or they
feel like they come into tension

with one another, it can be hard.

It alienates me a little bit from

Speaker 2: him.

Yeah.

Now he, Marcus is not a man who is
who's going to get trapped in his own.

Logic.

Yeah, logic cages.

Like he can transcend.

Yeah.

Speaker 4: Yeah.

Speaker 2: No issue with that.

Which I kind of respect man.

Like he's not Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yeah.

He's

Speaker 2: not like he
understands everything here.

Speaker: Yeah.

This isn't a proof.

Yeah.

He isn't proof.

I'm interested too in this little
sentence about the only thing that

could make us want to stay here Yeah.

Is the chance to live with
those who share our vision.

That seems, I haven't heard Marcus say
this before, but yeah, it seems true.

The only thing that Marcus really wants
in the world is a bunch of other people

like him who get, get how to be alive
and experience the world in the way

that he wants to experience the world.

I think

Speaker 2: Marcus is slipping.

I think he's really, his true
colors shine here that he actually

doesn't like, it's really hard.

Live this way, and

Speaker: he's struggling with
the people around him who,

Speaker 2: and he just wants to
hang with people like him and, yes.

Yeah.

Speaker: Loneliest man.

Which of

Speaker 2: him?

But

Speaker: loneliest man in
the world, as they say.

Speaker 2: World.

Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

He's coming across as very lonely here.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

My favorite part of this entry is
the very end, the quote come quickly

before I start to forget myself.

Yes.

Comma, like them.

What I love about that
is the comma, like them.

Speaker: Yeah.

You don't need it.

Speaker 2: Like you, and it's just a final
little, I'm better than everyone else.

Yes.

Speaker: Totally.

Yes.

And by the way, home quickly before I
start to forget myself, like them sounds a

little bit like impatience to me, Marcus.

Speaker 3: It sure does.

Yeah, sure does.

Yeah.

Speaker: Okay.

Whatever.

We're just, we not that fun to play the
Marcus as a hypocrite game for too long.

No,

Speaker 2: But I think we just
accept, we're not it's not novel.

Yes, of course we're all hypocrites.

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: And that's maybe what
makes it a more interesting read.

And makes him a more person.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yeah.

Agreed.

Yeah.

I, but I guess I will say with,
despite all the dunking we're

doing, that last sentence like

Speaker 5: Yeah.

Speaker: Is an interesting one too.

Come quickly before I
start to forget myself.

Like that as a standard for how long
to live and then try the thing to

hold onto for as long as you can.

Yeah.

Is admirable to me too.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

It makes sense.

Setting,

Speaker: setting, setting
aside the like them part.

It's

Speaker 2: probably a right line to draw.

Speaker: Yeah.

Okay.

Number four, we've gotten, yes,
we've gotten past the really

long ones now, at least for now.

To do harm is to do yourself harm.

To do an injustice is to
do yourself an injustice.

It degrades you.

Yep.

Speaker 2: I love this.

It's actually really
powerful, this idea that yeah.

It's this little juujitsu move you do
where you just fully embrace selfishness

and you say, no, it's, it is all about me.

But through that, it's still a guide you
than having to deal with the external

world, which you don't fully understand.

So it's a really lovely, remember, I
think I've told you about this, where

earlier in my career, I remember just
like explaining to someone that like I

was, I don't know, I was like a junior
PM somewhere and I was like, no, listen,

everyone in this company works for me.

Speaker: Like I, I don't
think I've heard this story.

Speaker 2: Yeah you haven't heard this.

It's it's like it a pretty empowering
way to think about work where

you're just like, listen, I'm here.

Building my career, doing what I
need, and everyone around me is

here to service that need of mine.

And like my manager is here to I can
get them to do what I need from me.

I need resourcing from, from this person.

This person's gonna teach me
something that I need to know.

It's yeah, it just puts
you in the driver's seat.

Empowering.

Speaker: Yeah, it's

Speaker 2: empowering and it's
still it's still a, you still

have to deal with other people.

You just deal, you just
appreciate them more.

Speaker: Yeah.

Interesting.

And obviously the peril of that
philosophy, if you do it wrong,

is that you're treating other
people as pawns and not well.

Totally.

Speaker 2: Totally.

Yeah.

The reason people don't talk about it
that way is because it sounds yeah.

I guess the funny thing about it
is it works if you are low on the

totem pole and it doesn't work.

Yes.

Speaker: That's right.

Yes.

Okay.

You didn't actually have the
power to be, to treat people as

pawns or abuse them at the time.

I wouldn't

Speaker 2: get very far if I treated
people that way, but like the jujitsu

move of thinking about my work that way,

Was

Speaker 3: That's cool.

Speaker 2: Interesting.

It's like I, so I guess
that's related to this whole

Speaker 4: yeah.

Speaker 2: Reorient the whole world
so that you are the center of the

universe and then there's something,
even though that sounds like a

horrible thing to do it's actually a

Speaker: useful framework.

You end up deriving morality from it,
despite the fact that it sounds immoral.

Yeah,

Speaker 2: yeah, exactly.

Yeah.

You can derive reive morality
from that standpoint.

And it's a more controllable

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: Set of outcomes.

Speaker: And this I'll, I'm sure
I've said this before on the

podcast, but I'll just say it again.

What I like, I definitely
really like these entries.

To me, they're very highly connected
to like non-violence movements.

Gandhi is who comes to mind
when I read an entry like this?

Yeah.

That's this

Speaker 2: is a very g Yeah.

Gandhi statement.

Yeah, exactly.

I think he actually said this Yeah.

Speaker: In some yeah.

I wonder what.

Speaker 2: Did Gotti read this?

Speaker: Yeah, exactly.

I wonder how explicit the relationship
between this kind of philosophy and those

more, more modern philosophies were, to

Speaker 2: be fair, this is
this is at the core of all of

Speaker: every religion.

Yeah.

Marcus does not have a
patent on this idea for sure.

Yeah.

But anyway, that's, that, that
is what comes to mind for me.

Speaker 3: Yeah.

Speaker: Okay.

Number five is extremely
short, and you can also commit

injustice by doing nothing.

Speaker 5: Yeah, sure.

Thanks Marcus.

Yeah.

Like he's not giving us a way out,

Speaker: yeah.

I think he's realizing that this,
the past couple bullet points were

too long and he is gotta, he gotta
increase his bullet point count here.

Yeah,

Speaker 2: yeah.

Start the sentence with, and, yeah,

Speaker: exactly.

Yeah.

Doesn't need to be a full sentence.

Speaker 5: Moving on.

Speaker: Yes.

Okay.

Number six, maybe last one here, I think.

Yep.

Objective judgment now
at this very moment.

Unselfish action now at this very moment.

Willing, acceptance.

Now at this very moment
of all external events.

That's all you need.

Speaker 5: Oh,

Speaker 2: there you go.

That's nice.

You're in control.

You are in control.

Speaker: Yeah.

Speaker 2: It's something's happening,
like something horrible is happening.

It's nope.

Objective judgment.

Speaker 3: Yep.

Speaker 2: That's what you need right now.

Unselfish action, willing acceptance,
like those are things you can control.

That's nice.

And there's no, and there's
nothing preventing you from

enacting them immediately.

Speaker: Yeah.

That may be, as far as I'm concerned,
the most succinct expression of the

philosophy we have yet encountered.

Speaker 3: I like it.

Speaker: I dig it too.

Yeah,

Speaker 3: it's wordy.

Speaker: Yeah.

It's, yeah.

It's a little wordy.

And now, at this very moment is a
bit of a mouthful, but also the rep

repetition of it is emphasizing something.

Yeah.

Very important to the idea.

Speaker 2: It's like a prayer, right?

Speaker: Yeah.

It's more meant to

Speaker 2: be a prayer than
a con concise statement.

Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

Yep.

Speaker 2: All you need,

Speaker: yes.

And, but the yes, the emphasis
on what's happening right now.

How should I respond is.

I think that's great.

This

Speaker 2: is good.

You could pull this little section
out when some, when something

happens or someone comes to
you for advice this is great.

Speaker: Yeah, I agree.

It's a little wordy for fridge
magnet, but it's, yeah, it's in

that neighborhood for me, for sure.

Speaker 2: Objective
judgment, unselfish action.

Those feel, I guess action
is the difference there.

It's more than just judgment.

It's an action and then acceptance.

Speaker: Yeah.

Okay.

Those are

Speaker 2: definitely, those are
like per perpendicular to each other.

Yeah.

Speaker: Yeah.

I think so.

It's inter, it's an interesting
sequence that he's put them into.

I feel like the action
comes last out of these.

Speaker 2: agree.

I agree.

It seems

Speaker: like if anything,
acceptance should be first.

It should be like, okay, I accept
that the world is what it is.

I'm I judge it and I'm clear
about what that is and then I

make an action, but he doesn't

Speaker 2: sequence it.

Yeah.

I guess he's, I guess this is the way
you would react to if you're on the

battlefield and you need to make, you need
to act quickly so then you reorder things

like you're gonna accept this later.

Speaker: Yeah.

Okay.

So yeah, step one is just what's going on.

What is the state of the world?

What do I need to do about it?

Okay.

That's fine.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Now that this has happened, it's yeah.

So this is the, this is the
Warrior's code instead of Yes.

Okay.

Speaker: Yeah.

It's a little faster too, than trying
to come to terms with everything, but

before you decide what to do about it.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker: That's cool.

Interesting.

Speaker 2: Yeah us tender
fingers that wouldn't understand.

Speaker: Yes, that's right.

Yeah.

Cool.

Okay.

This

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker: Nice.

I think this is, that's
a good place to end.

Maybe something to take with us between
now and our next recording is that, that

little sequence is that okay with you?

Speaker 2: That'll be great.

Tom, I'm I couldn't help myself.

I looked at the next one.

It's gonna be a fantastic
way to start the,

Speaker: okay.

Speaker 2: The car.

Speaker: Okay, great.

Looking forward to it.

Speaker 2: Perfect.

Speaker 4: All right.

Bye.

More episodes

Chapters

What is Tom and Paul read meditations?