An Introduction to Phenomenology ｜ Guest： Michael Millerman ｜ 5⧸2⧸25
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
187.2714
Summary
In this episode, Michael Millerman joins me to talk about his new show on Blaze TV, Back to the People, hosted by Nicole Shanahan. We talk about phenomenology and why it's important to understand what it means to be a philosopher.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
We hope you're enjoying your Air Canada flight.
00:00:10.720
Fast-free Wi-Fi means I can make dinner reservations before we land.
00:00:25.260
Wi-Fi available to Airplane members on Equipped Flight.
00:00:33.500
I've got a great stream with a great guest that I think you're really going to enjoy.
00:00:37.280
Before we get started, I wanted to let you know that we're excited to officially welcome
00:00:41.980
Nicole Shanahan and her show, Back to the People, to the Blaze family.
00:00:46.080
Nicole's a Silicon Valley attorney, entrepreneur, and advocate who spent years fighting for
00:00:52.960
She's been a major voice in the Maha movement and worked along RFK Jr.
00:00:56.720
to push for a government that actually works for the people, not just the elites.
00:01:01.100
On a brand new show on Blaze TV, Back to the People, Nicole is going to dig into the conversations
00:01:08.020
She brings together experts, activists, and everyday people to tackle tough issues and
00:01:12.460
share untold stories while finding real solutions rooted in truth and humanity.
00:01:17.420
You can grab a sneak peek of what Nicole is doing on her Blaze TV show if you head over
00:01:25.500
That's YouTube.com, Nicole hyphen Shanahan, or you can just type her name in the search
00:01:31.460
We want to welcome Nicole and excited for her new show.
00:01:40.040
Heidegger is a very complex philosopher, one that I found particularly challenging, but it
00:01:45.860
definitely opens up a lot of interesting things.
00:01:48.220
I had definitely read a lot of Dugan previously, and Heidegger underlies a lot of what he talks
00:01:53.740
about, so it's great to have that context now and better understand these things.
00:01:57.900
And I thought it would be good to do an introduction to the idea of phenomenology, because it is
00:02:03.300
a different way of looking at philosophy, I think a way that many people are not familiar
00:02:07.260
And I think it would be good if we had a general understanding of the movement and how it led
00:02:11.340
up to people like Heidegger and what it's done to modern philosophy.
00:02:17.280
He teaches philosophy, has a great school of his own, has written many books on both
00:02:32.880
And how is it different from the philosophy that most people are probably familiar with?
00:02:38.140
Well, phenomenology is a method of doing philosophy, you could say.
00:02:46.960
So if people think about philosophy, they may think about concepts, arguments, logical relations
00:02:52.220
between concepts and arguments, answers to questions like why be moral or what is justice?
00:03:01.060
A phenomenology is a little bit different in the sense that the aim is to describe things
00:03:08.480
And behind that aim, there's the recognition that for the most part, we don't do that.
00:03:14.860
We put something in between ourselves and the world that we're perceiving or the world
00:03:20.980
We put in our assumptions, our opinions, our judgments, and most damningly, in some sense,
00:03:29.520
And so the intuition or the hunch of the phenomenologists is that we don't see things clearly
00:03:34.980
because we have too many things in the way and we also move too quickly.
00:03:39.080
And therefore, the task of phenomenology is to remove things that are impediments to our clear vision
00:03:45.340
and to slow down and describe the world as it is for us or the world as it occurs to us.
00:03:51.420
And that's why at times the descriptions can seem, they can seem so simple as almost to be self-evident.
00:03:57.560
But in a way, the whole point is that things that should be self-evident to us are buried
00:04:02.360
under so many obstacles that we just need to work on restoring that first contact in a way.
00:04:11.040
Yeah, I think for a lot of people first looking at this, and I certainly have some amount of
00:04:15.220
that reaction myself, you look at this and you say, oh, well, this is just overcomplicating
00:04:20.400
These are things that I should know already, or we already know this.
00:04:29.640
Why am I always going back and breaking this down and adding layers of complexity to something
00:04:36.400
But the more you look at it, the more you look at the way that they are analyzing these
00:04:44.460
But it takes a little bit of time to get your brain to start moving in that direction or
00:04:48.900
to stop leaning on all those assumptions that you had already had.
00:04:52.520
And I want to get deeper into, obviously, where this got started.
00:04:55.720
But before we do, let's hear from today's sponsor.
00:04:58.680
This episode of The Oren McIntyre Show is proudly sponsored by Consumers Research.
00:05:02.580
You've heard about Larry Fink and BlackRock and ESG and all the ways that they're ruining
00:05:07.580
your life, making your groceries more expensive and making your video games more woke.
00:05:13.040
Well, Consumers Research has spent the last five years making Larry's life hell, and they're
00:05:19.040
Their work and its consequences have been profiled by The Washington Post, New York Times, and
00:05:24.060
most recently, Fox News business reporter Charlie Gasparono wrote a whole chapter in his book,
00:05:29.600
Go Woke, Go Broke, on how effective they've been at dismantling BlackRock's ESG patronage
00:05:36.480
He's making Larry Fink lose the last bit of hair on his balding head, and you should follow
00:05:41.760
Will's work on X so you can laugh along with him.
00:05:44.620
His handle is at WillHild, at Will, W-I-L-L-H-I-L-D, on X.
00:05:53.680
So like I said, this is a very different way to look at philosophy, and it takes probably
00:05:59.380
a decent amount of hubris to say, well, everybody else has gotten this wrong, and I need to start
00:06:04.060
stripping all these assumptions away because, you know, all of philosophy before this is
00:06:11.580
So who decides to take this step for the first time?
00:06:14.360
When do we start to see phenomenology come on the scene?
00:06:18.360
So there's, you know, a history of the thinkers who went through this process, but I would
00:06:24.200
say that the easiest way to think about it is starting with Descartes, and it's interesting
00:06:29.800
because you said, you know, who are we to cast aside how philosophy has been done or what
00:06:33.600
we've thought, and Descartes is known for his radical doubt of all received wisdom and
00:06:38.100
even the radical doubt of what we take to be obvious and trivial, namely that we exist
00:06:46.220
So Descartes, by radically doubting to the very roots of all questions, he discovered
00:06:55.960
Everybody roughly knows, even if they haven't followed Descartes' actual steps for themselves,
00:07:01.120
which, by the way, I want to say here parenthetically that it is important in phenomenology to reproduce
00:07:05.120
the steps, so that if people can do it for themselves and see it for themselves, that's
00:07:10.360
going to be the best way to see what the method yields.
00:07:13.940
So he asks us to radically doubt even the existence of external objects of ourselves and all the
00:07:22.840
In doing so, he discovers this fundamental fact that in order for there to be doubt, there
00:07:29.160
So, you know, the I exist because there's no doubt, you know, there has to be the somebody
00:07:35.440
So when Descartes puts everything under the question and discovers this realm of consciousness,
00:07:41.840
he goes back to now offer arguments for the existence of God and so on.
00:07:46.240
But some of his readers, like Edmund Husserl, who's extremely important for Heidegger and
00:07:50.740
who in some sense is the most important root here of phenomenology, he stopped and said,
00:07:55.660
wait a minute, Descartes, you've discovered this realm of consciousness where we can actually
00:08:01.000
stay a little bit longer before bouncing back out to our proofs of the external world and
00:08:07.780
So Husserl takes the results of Descartes' inquiry and says, let's stay for a minute in
00:08:13.220
that state of doubt where we have uncovered the consciousness, but we haven't yet, as it
00:08:21.680
So the connection between Descartes and Husserl is very important.
00:08:25.760
And then the next, the simple, you know, if you had the three greats to my mind, that
00:08:29.200
line up here would be Descartes to Husserl, Husserl to Heidegger.
00:08:32.640
But if we stop for a minute with Husserl, he suddenly says something like the following.
00:08:38.040
So just imagine whoever's listening to this, wherever you are and myself and yourself, we
00:08:44.000
put aside the question of the quote unquote objective existence of the external world.
00:08:49.300
We're still left with our experience of something.
00:08:52.660
I mean, I still see you, my computer, pen, coffee cups, right?
00:08:55.560
I mean, there's still a world of appearance that's there for me, even if I don't have a
00:09:02.460
And for Husserl, that's the way the world is for us in our consciousness, independently
00:09:12.740
So what's happening in my acts of consciousness when I look over there or look over here?
00:09:18.280
Again, it sounds very basic, but the idea is that these basic structures, in some sense,
00:09:23.660
like I said, we're, we take them for granted so often that we've never really identified
00:09:29.380
And so Husserl made it his aim to identify these structures.
00:09:34.140
So for instance, when you hear a piece of music at any given time, all you're hearing in the
00:09:39.740
piece of music is that, you know, the specific note, let's say that's playing.
00:09:43.680
And yet, you know, phenomenologically, you also have the experience, the memory of the
00:09:48.140
previous notes and the anticipation of the coming notes.
00:09:51.160
So everybody listens to music, but not everybody has tried to describe the structure of the
00:09:57.220
experience of time perception in listening to music.
00:10:03.020
And I just want to add one important detail here.
00:10:05.480
So how we get from Descartes to Husserl, again, Descartes discovers this realm of
00:10:09.360
the, of consciousness by doubting everything and discovering that something remains despite
00:10:16.840
Husserl examines that whole realm of consciousness, tries to map it out and sort of exhaust the
00:10:26.660
Heidegger says, the phenomenologists have put us on incredible ground here by describing
00:10:32.520
things that we take for granted and helping us to see what we are.
00:10:35.440
But there's something that they are taking for granted, which is putting a limit on what
00:10:41.340
They are taking for granted that the basic human experience or the basic category or the
00:10:52.720
They treat consciousness as the fundamental ground.
00:10:56.180
And the world that we have in our consciousness is the one that they examine.
00:10:59.900
And Heidegger, quote unquote, radicalizes phenomenology.
00:11:04.960
That's his presentation of it by saying that, no, consciousness itself is something that we're
00:11:12.520
Like, in other words, the phenomenologists, they assume less than the other people did,
00:11:16.780
but they still assume too much by assuming consciousness.
00:11:19.100
So Heidegger pushes us into being and existence.
00:11:22.220
And suddenly a whole world opens up for him that is even broader than just what's happening
00:11:30.680
So yeah, Descartes discovers the territory, Husserl maps it out in more detail.
00:11:33.980
Heidegger radicalizes it, breaks through the barriers of consciousness as the basic
00:11:39.780
domain and brings us into existence, human existence.
00:11:45.140
And therefore, not just perception, but emotion, attitude, comportment, and all of these other
00:11:53.380
Yeah, I feel like the one trick that the phenomenologists keep playing is that the new one
00:11:57.860
says, no, you took a little too much for granted.
00:11:59.920
And the next one says, no, you took a little too much for granted.
00:12:03.780
There's one, one more thing that you took for granted that I'm not going to, and I'm going
00:12:11.580
And, you know, I discovered something that you presupposed and that makes me superior to
00:12:16.960
And I think maybe every philosophical method has these pitfalls.
00:12:19.820
Again, they, they culminate in comic situations, you know, like you can say, you know, you can
00:12:24.760
spin out a whole comedy about who presupposed more and who presupposed less.
00:12:27.780
But I do think that Heidegger's insights about the limitation of taking consciousness as the
00:12:34.740
Heidegger obviously himself omitted many things from his primary area of interest.
00:12:38.780
So in a sense, it's very important as we read these thinkers.
00:12:41.780
And as we think about them, you know, the two pitfalls are like, we reject it too soon
00:12:48.500
So Heidegger, you know, as his intelligent readers noted, he doesn't write very much about
00:12:53.080
morality as though morality is not a part of human life.
00:12:55.500
Whereas, you know, it is a part of human life and it needs to be understood.
00:12:58.980
He was monomaniacally focused on the, on getting away from consciousness as the ground and going
00:13:05.640
And in his obsession, he made incredible discoveries that have touched every field and every thinker,
00:13:16.080
Although you're right that there's that sort of comic one-upsmanship too.
00:13:21.640
So we've got Descartes, as you point out, who's got this separation of experience, the
00:13:27.860
You could say probably someone like Kant, obviously making a pretty important contribution
00:13:35.320
Though, obviously, then when you get to, you know, someone like Husserl, that's a very big
00:13:43.300
Obviously, you said we're moving from consciousness to being.
00:13:45.960
But what other shifts are occurring as you move away?
00:13:47.920
Because obviously Heidegger has a lot to say about Descartes.
00:13:52.600
You know, he goes in quite a bit of detail, critiquing, talk about what he got right and
00:13:58.260
So what are the big shifts there between those two schools?
00:14:03.500
And about, Heidegger says a lot about Kant as well.
00:14:05.800
I mean, for Heidegger, a lot of these thinkers, he can, he puts them into periodizations or
00:14:11.960
I mean, the whole of Western philosophy is like the biggest category that has been a mistake
00:14:17.880
Within that, there are certain phases and for sure, you know, Descartes is a phase and
00:14:24.120
In some sense, Kant culminates the phase that Descartes started because he's still too, he
00:14:31.320
still can't, there's still, they meet a limit, a limit point.
00:14:34.920
So without getting overly theoretical about it, let's just walk it back again for a minute
00:14:41.880
The, like for Kant, we don't have to answer the question about the, what is the external
00:14:51.260
So here he shares the view that all that we have access to is the way the world occurs
00:14:54.940
to us or the way the world appears to us in brackets in consciousness or for transcendental
00:15:00.740
subjectivity to use some of the jargon from Husserl and, uh, and Kant.
00:15:05.080
But it's important to understand, uh, I think it's important to understand as people think
00:15:08.920
about this, that in order to get this as the phenomenologists do, you can't treat them
00:15:17.300
So again, there's like, okay, let's start from the basic thing.
00:15:21.100
You see a world around you that's indisputable for everybody, right?
00:15:26.580
Then you can ask all kinds of questions about it.
00:15:30.940
Um, if I, I have cause and effect relationship.
00:15:39.360
So the notion of a cause and effect relationship seems like something that is a rational relation
00:15:45.660
and discovery that applies not just because I happen to have derived it from my experience
00:15:51.180
of the world empirically, like tomorrow, maybe cause and effect will break down just like
00:16:01.580
Empiricists like David Hume had argued that cause and effect.
00:16:04.200
We don't actually know that it, it's not a law.
00:16:06.480
It's just something that we've, you know, you've perceived it X amount of times, like
00:16:15.820
Sorry to say, you know, so cause and effect works today.
00:16:18.520
It works tomorrow, but maybe one day it'll stop working.
00:16:20.800
Kant said, no, that can't be right because that seems to deprive the world of rational
00:16:27.280
Because if you think through your experience of the world, not just cause and effect, but
00:16:31.440
unity, difference, existence, change, sameness, number, these basic rational categories seem
00:16:40.320
to be something that don't come to us from the world, but that as it were, we impose on
00:16:46.400
So these philosophers, they think through this puzzle that there's a relationship, not
00:16:50.540
just between, like I said, we can sort of bandy it about more or less trivial, trivial, or
00:16:55.180
people can treat it more or less trivially subject to the objectivity, but it's like all
00:16:59.220
of the categories of thought or rational categories that we bring to bear on our experience of the
00:17:06.220
And again, if we derive those from the world, that would be very strange, but then how do
00:17:13.680
And so for instance, I, I feel myself sitting in this chair.
00:17:20.580
So I'm like one of the things in this room, but at the same time, my reason is not in this
00:17:30.120
It, it imposes the categories of existence onto this room.
00:17:33.700
So that idea that we have one foot in the world and one foot, as it were making the world
00:17:40.340
constituting and configuring the world, giving the world its law, the laws of reason and
00:17:45.520
rational categories, that split between the empirical self and the transcendental self
00:17:51.500
is a huge problem for philosophy, for philosophers, for Heidegger and for Kant.
00:17:57.980
Kant had certain points that he reached where he talked about, I could tell you the jargon,
00:18:03.660
But basically it's again, this point where somehow these two worlds meet, but without
00:18:08.980
really be being able to say how it's a mystery.
00:18:12.220
It is a profound mystery that we're, we have one foot in and one foot out of the world.
00:18:16.200
And, you know, Heidegger tried to deal with that mystery.
00:18:18.360
Hustrel tried to deal with that mystery and it, it duplicates or divides the self into the
00:18:25.340
And one of the things that Hustrel did, he has a work called Crisis of the European Sciences,
00:18:29.560
where he says, look, um, we scientific moderns have a model of the world that is primarily
00:18:37.740
Um, you know, it's, it's algebraic, geometric, it's, we have like a mathematical world projection,
00:18:44.240
you know, you can cast the mathematical net over the whole world and suddenly it's, you can
00:18:49.840
deal with it because it's measurable, it's predictable, you know, it's happening a billion
00:18:52.660
miles away and so on, but he said, you know, what is it in the human experience that allows
00:18:59.380
us to produce a mathematical model of the world?
00:19:02.940
You actually, that's another one of those things that you cannot just take for granted.
00:19:09.440
He's like, we we're left with this problem that in order to have a modern man, in order
00:19:15.480
to have a solid foundation, self-understanding and foundation of the world has erected a theoretical
00:19:20.960
construct, which is solid so far as it goes, but it rests on this invisible, mysterious
00:19:31.900
How does human subjectivity produce a model of scientific universality and rationality?
00:19:39.660
That's why Hustrel's books called Crisis of the European Sciences.
00:19:41.800
That's why Heidegger and Being and Time at the start, the first, whatever, 10, 20 pages,
00:19:47.340
The foundations of the sciences are in a crisis everywhere is in a crisis.
00:19:51.700
And this crisis forces us to go back to the basics, you know?
00:19:55.620
And again, the crisis is that we seem to have a solid foundation, but on the other hand,
00:20:01.000
And we can't give an account of how the nothing gave right, you know, it's kind of like, how
00:20:05.800
You know, how, how does scientific modernity create a universal model from the mystery of
00:20:12.800
So people who think that religion is less rational than science, they're create the puzzle
00:20:16.620
of creation of the, of the making of the world exists in both cases.
00:20:21.260
In the other case, man is the maker, but the mystery of the making of the world remains.
00:20:24.560
So these are the sorts of puzzles that pushed Heidegger and Hustrel into like, okay, wait,
00:20:31.200
We can't, and Kant in a way, because Kant also had to say, you know, we can't answer questions
00:20:35.800
about the quote unquote real world because we don't have access to it.
00:20:38.200
We have to limit our inquiry to what we actually have access to.
00:20:41.380
So then the question is where they place the limit, why they place it there, and whether
00:20:44.540
they ultimately overcome these mysterious puzzles.
00:20:48.340
Well, we're going to dive deeper into the phenomenology itself, but before we do, let's hear about
00:20:54.100
Hey guys, if you've been watching this show for a while, then you know that around here,
00:20:57.540
we encourage something that conservatives usually don't do, you know, winning.
00:21:01.680
That's why it was so great to see Donald Trump's electoral victory along with the cultural
00:21:05.960
and political momentum that the right just hasn't had in a very long time.
00:21:09.760
Well, we also know that the fight is far from over, and at some point, the left will start
00:21:16.060
If you like what I'm doing here and you want to keep it going, then head over to Blaze TV.
00:21:20.520
They have the behind the scenes content, exclusives, and documentaries that you're just not going
00:21:25.900
And it starts at just $8 a month, basically the price of a fancy coffee, when you use the
00:21:33.780
That's only 26 cents a day to stand with a platform that stands with you.
00:21:37.960
So go to blazetv.com slash ORIN and subscribe today.
00:21:46.100
The promo code is A-U-R-O-N, and you'll save 20 bucks right now off the annual plan.
00:21:51.720
So as you pointed out, we have Husserl, who is kind of probably the pivotal figure, probably
00:21:58.840
the first person to be using this method in the way that we would recognize it now.
00:22:04.860
But then you have Heidegger, who was his student and is writing in large amount in response to
00:22:13.460
What significant changes, what would be the differences between the phenomenology of Husserl
00:22:24.300
So again, to my view, in radicalizing, as he puts it, Husserl's emphasis.
00:22:29.920
So let's take what would a Husserl approach to phenomenology simply stated, okay, because
00:22:35.040
Husserl wrote thousands and thousands and thousands of pages, right?
00:22:37.360
It's dense, difficult work as you get into this, but very simply stated, again, like
00:22:45.360
Analyzing the structure of what's retained and what's anticipated in a perceptual act.
00:22:52.680
And even just recognize, so even for example, again, if people try to replicate this, it
00:22:58.680
would be the best, but I guess it's hard to do on the spot.
00:23:07.940
So Husserl actually thought it was important to catalog the acts of consciousness.
00:23:13.940
Maybe I can be roughly aware of something happening.
00:23:17.900
That's another way of comporting my consciousness, right?
00:23:24.980
One of the breakthrough discoveries, this again, I believe that it may sound weird to people.
00:23:28.900
It sounded weird to me too at first because it seems so trivial, but it ended up being
00:23:32.380
quite interesting, is that all acts of consciousness are directed.
00:23:37.360
Which means that, and he calls that intentionality.
00:23:41.320
So for example, if I'm listening, my act of listening has the structure of listening to
00:23:51.740
There's a structure to these acts of consciousness.
00:23:53.800
In fact, one of the strange things when people read, I think Heidegger, for example, or Dugan's
00:23:59.020
Heideggerianism or Husserl is they'll sometimes, you'll see in their writing, it'll say, you'll
00:24:05.000
see a formulation like listening for dot, dot, dot, or listening to dot, dot, dot.
00:24:09.220
You know, and normally we take dot, dot, dot to mean, you know, I'm passing over something,
00:24:13.940
But here it's because they're like, we can't fill in the blanks because we're just discussing
00:24:19.380
You know, so attending to something, listening for something, listening to something and so
00:24:26.800
So he catalogs the acts of consciousness in that sense.
00:24:29.560
Again, tries to understand the relationship of one to another and so on.
00:24:34.980
Setting aside Heidegger for a minute, I want to say something else here about Heidegger.
00:24:39.620
There are two sort of two important operations in Husserl's world, which is that number one,
00:24:48.980
the doubt, doubting the existence of the external world.
00:24:51.980
Like that's a necessary step in order to get into the world of phenomenology.
00:24:55.220
In some sense, you have to go through that trial by fire of actually for yourself doubting
00:25:01.760
If I talk to my wife or if you talk to your neighbor, you talk to anybody who doesn't really
00:25:06.520
care about philosophy or do philosophy, they do not have the natural view of the world
00:25:13.080
that the world is there for them in consciousness or for consciousness.
00:25:19.880
It's just the natural attitude to the world is objects, stuff.
00:25:25.440
When you radically doubt the existence of the external world, you sort of bring everything
00:25:34.100
You're now treating it as for you, for the mind, for, as an appearance and so on.
00:25:39.820
So that is called, that's one of the operations that Husserl does.
00:25:46.380
So again, one is bringing the world from object of existence to phenomenal existence.
00:25:50.240
But then there's somehow an even more interesting thing, which is you go from describing the
00:25:55.260
objects and your perception of objects or things in your perception of things to now describing
00:26:13.260
My arrow of intentionality, my, my sort of directionality of action and attention is outward.
00:26:19.480
Then you put your attention on the relationship between attention and things.
00:26:23.540
And then somehow gradually to use a phrase that I first heard from Dugan, maybe he stole
00:26:31.660
It's a beautiful image because the waterfall takes us out into the world.
00:26:38.120
Climbing the waterfall means phenomenologically trying to get closer to the source of intentionality,
00:26:43.720
closer to the center of existence, closer to the core of consciousness.
00:26:48.280
And here there's an element where phenomenology, even in Heidegger, although in a slightly different
00:26:52.600
way becomes almost as it were mystical or religious, because when your primary focus is the world
00:27:00.180
out there and analysis of the relations of your attention towards the world out there,
00:27:06.000
It's sort of like describing a periphery of consciousness.
00:27:08.540
But as you gradually climb the waterfall, so to speak, back into the center of consciousness,
00:27:13.400
you discover these hidden realms of human subjectivity or interiority that classically is where man meets God.
00:27:23.620
And I hope you and your listeners won't mind me mentioning Dugan once more because he has a brilliant
00:27:28.860
lecture series, unavailable in English, okay, only in Russian, called Phenomenological Readings of
00:27:34.320
Aristotle, where he actually goes through all of this in a way that I find very helpful.
00:27:37.920
And the beautiful thing, this helps us to see that there's a, you can take phenomenology and
00:27:42.780
its modern versions and reread some of the older thinkers, including Aristotle, including Augustine,
00:27:48.620
including a Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian mystics, and others, and now try to
00:27:53.960
understand what they're saying from the perspective of a phenomenological model.
00:27:58.860
Again, the model, this beautiful image, just imagine a circle, outside of the circle are
00:28:05.600
We bring them onto the periphery of the circle where we treat them as objects of conscious
00:28:10.480
And then we go towards the center of the circle as we pay attention to what it means to have
00:28:16.020
And in that center of the circle, as it were, in some of these mystic or religious accounts,
00:28:20.320
we meet a different intentionality, angelic or divine.
00:28:25.040
And in some cases, a demonic or satanic intentionality.
00:28:30.600
So you can do sort of like a phenomenology of satanic possession and stuff like that as well.
00:28:35.940
One other thing I have to say very briefly is that even though you have the serious phenomenology
00:28:40.620
of Husserl and Heidegger, the term phenomenology has also become popularized.
00:28:46.400
And now you can have like, you know, phenomenology of whatever, right?
00:28:51.680
Phenomenology of being poor, phenomenology of a foodie, phenomenology of a foodie, right?
00:28:57.260
Like phenomenology of anything, which just means I'm going to describe my lived experience,
00:29:02.260
Phenomenology of being an oppressed minority and so on.
00:29:06.760
But the idea there is I'm going to describe my experiences in a lot of detail.
00:29:10.220
Um, but I would say the more serious approaches is, uh, the one that we've discussed.
00:29:15.600
If you Google, what is phenomenology or put, put it into YouTube, like the third video you
00:29:24.600
So that, that, I mean, that's important too, because the idea there is, look, we're going
00:29:31.700
We have maybe uniquely, uh, privileged access to that experience.
00:29:35.860
And, uh, and you need to understand the life world of a person.
00:29:39.840
You can only get it through their description of it.
00:29:41.800
And I think there are like a million dissertations now that are like that, like the phenomenology
00:29:45.500
of a hungry graduate students who's working on their dissertation, dissertation is the
00:29:49.700
So like this description of one's own experiences.
00:29:54.200
Obviously it become, it can become, um, it can become trivial if it doesn't actually aim
00:30:02.140
to discover what for Husserl and Heidegger is the important thing to discover.
00:30:05.420
Like what are the underlying structures, right?
00:30:07.160
What can we learn about God, man, and the world?
00:30:10.460
Um, not just how can we justify our perspectives, um, by describing them from a first person point
00:30:17.920
So this is probably a good time to acknowledge that Heidegger, uh, you know, one of the
00:30:22.240
reasons I felt I just had to read him was that basically everything in one way or another,
00:30:27.180
uh, seemed to be referencing back to him, you know, just kind of, uh, he seemed to be a,
00:30:31.920
a, so when you clearly had to tackle in one way or another, uh, before, before understanding
00:30:36.880
a lot of what was going on in modern philosophy, unfortunately, this means that, uh, his work
00:30:42.080
is often used to create this like extreme relativism.
00:30:45.660
This is where, you know, some people will use it to justify kind of the woke, uh, mindset,
00:30:50.660
these kinds of things, uh, you know, and, you know, because we're just, we're just shattering.
00:30:58.460
He has deconstructed reality and therefore reality is fake and we can construct our own
00:31:04.520
It's all power and it's all, uh, you know, whatever we want to manufacture that, that is
00:31:08.580
something that can, people can take away from this.
00:31:11.660
Uh, so what do you think about the way that perhaps the left or the deconstructionists have
00:31:17.480
Do you feel like that's something that Heidegger would have hated or he would have acknowledged
00:31:23.020
What would you think would be the response to that?
00:31:25.280
So first I want to say, I think this is a great topic.
00:31:27.800
It is the topic of my dissertation and book beginning with Heidegger, where I treat receptions
00:31:31.580
of Heidegger across the political spectrum, intelligent, I hope receptions of them, including
00:31:35.900
Dugan's, including thinkers on the left, like Rorty and Derrida and, uh, and, uh, Strauss
00:31:42.500
So first thing, any great thinker will give rise to many different responses.
00:31:48.760
I mean, given the variety of readers and the richness of a great work, you can expect
00:31:58.940
Then you do have the phenomenon of the use and abuse, uh, like Nietzsche said, the use
00:32:03.580
There's also such a thing as the use and abuse of philosophy, you know, to provide legitimation
00:32:13.060
Although, you know, everybody I think is, and can be.
00:32:16.340
So number one, Heidegger's work is just so rich.
00:32:20.460
Heidegger's influence on French leftism is a fact, a documented, hugely indisputable,
00:32:27.160
And indeed many American, uh, academics learned Heidegger indirectly through the reception
00:32:36.960
So for them, Heidegger is almost like equivalent to Derrida's version or to some other version
00:32:41.980
or, you know, to even more watered down versions.
00:32:46.920
I think that if a person's impression of Heidegger is at a few steps removed from what seems
00:32:54.460
like a dominant ideological source, there's a huge benefit in just going back to Heidegger
00:32:59.860
And in fact, like my interest in this question is funny because at one in the same time as
00:33:05.180
a graduate student, I was doing a class on leftist political theology, which owed a lot
00:33:11.460
to Heidegger as I was discovering through my readings.
00:33:14.240
And I was translating a Dugan book on Heidegger, which owed a lot to Heidegger, obviously, in
00:33:20.100
So I was like, how are both of these people considering themselves Heideggerians, whereas
00:33:24.280
they actually probably think of themselves as mortal enemies?
00:33:32.280
And how can we triangulate and figure this all out and see, you know, like who's just
00:33:36.240
abusing it, who's making a legitimate discovery, and what accounts for these radical differences?
00:33:42.060
It's a, you know, again, that's, I thought it was an interesting enough question to do
00:33:46.100
So the, I would say this about the leftist deconstructive Heideggerianism, okay?
00:33:51.100
Some of it is very stupid and can just be dismissed.
00:33:54.660
Some of it is pretty interesting and can be treated as such.
00:33:58.120
And some of it is like quite thoughtful and a high level and deserves our attention.
00:34:03.480
So my personal opinion, you know, Derrida, when he writes about Heidegger, is up there
00:34:07.240
at that high level, and I just pretty much ignore the other two categories, okay?
00:34:11.160
But it's true that there are a lot of people who have just weaponized their understanding
00:34:16.280
You know, there's a phenomenon, I learned this from Alan Bloom's book, Closing of the American
00:34:20.040
His phrase encapsulated it for me for all time, the Nietzscheanization of the left, right?
00:34:25.300
There are left Schmittians, so there's always somebody who's willing to weaponize, but they,
00:34:32.080
So in the case of Heidegger, I mean, Heidegger has, there's quite a bit that they, that they
00:34:35.660
left out, but schematically, Heidegger argues that Western philosophy has come to an end.
00:34:43.440
Nietzsche's the end, and Heidegger assesses the significance of that end, as well as the
00:34:49.080
Leftists like that because the end of something sort of leaves them free to play, you know?
00:34:54.600
And they can always point to something in the past and say, oh, that's, that's, you thought
00:35:05.040
And moreover, I can show you how it configured power relations and so on.
00:35:08.380
So they love the idea of an end because it leaves them free to play.
00:35:11.620
And they use that playfulness to mask in some sense, a will to power and whatever else
00:35:17.380
But a huge component of Heidegger's thought is another beginning, another beginning of
00:35:22.660
philosophy, another disclosure of being to humanity, a new foundation, as it were, a new
00:35:28.460
He's an, he's an epochal thinker and who sees himself as inaugurating a new era or epoch.
00:35:33.120
They just ignore that because that's like, oh, that's too, whatever, right?
00:35:43.660
Dugan, by contrast, just to give an example of the different modalities here of Heidegger
00:35:48.540
reception, Dugan puts the other beginning and Heidegger's thought as the centerpiece
00:35:52.900
of his understanding of Heidegger, the centerpiece of his interpretation and presentation of Heidegger.
00:35:57.720
In fact, Dugan's first English, first book on Heidegger, he published several, is called
00:36:02.880
Martin Heidegger, The Philosophy of Another Beginning, showing you how central this idea of
00:36:07.960
Another Beginning is and how much it distinguishes him from, you know, you could say that if
00:36:12.160
a leftist wrote a book on Heidegger's, again, roughly just to encapsulate the point, it
00:36:16.080
would be like the end of philosophy could be a normal title, whereas the philosophy of
00:36:21.040
Another Beginning shows you the different routes that they took here.
00:36:23.800
So my view is you have to read the best representatives of serious schools of disagreement and of
00:36:36.020
You know, so I learned from Rorty at the end of the day, even though I kind of despise his
00:36:41.760
I learned from Derrida, even though initially I went into the project really disliking Derrida
00:36:45.860
because I thought he was just a, you know, neo-Marxist, whatever Jordan Peterson calls him
00:36:54.100
So I'm like, you may think that a philosopher, you may think that an ideologue, let's say a
00:36:59.740
leftist, is always going to read philosophy in a way that's useful to his leftism.
00:37:03.760
That means that his politics comes first and the philosophy is weaponized.
00:37:08.220
That's what I thought I was going to find in Derrida.
00:37:11.320
So in the best case scenario, you find an intelligent thinker who takes the philosophy seriously
00:37:15.040
and who thinks through the relationship of the arguments to the political positions.
00:37:19.760
So because of Heidegger's greatness, because of his influence and importance, it's true
00:37:27.940
that pretty much every intelligent European intellectual, at least, read him, debated
00:37:32.860
him, discussed him, fought over him, fought over his legacy, you know, admired him, hated
00:37:39.700
That includes Jews, despite the fact that Heidegger was a Nazi.
00:37:43.200
You know, that includes Democrats, despite the fact that Heidegger was a Nazi.
00:37:46.560
OK, it includes everybody, because that's just, you know, you cannot get around a brilliant
00:37:52.060
All that you can do is try to make sense of what it means.
00:37:57.900
So to sum that all up, there's, again, a cheap appropriation, as there is of Nietzsche, which
00:38:06.000
You know, there's a cheap appropriation of heroism, cheap appropriation of Romanism.
00:38:09.840
They're cheap appropriations of everything under the sun, of communism and of anti-communism.
00:38:13.460
Um, they're all somehow socially and politically significant, but intellectually, you know,
00:38:20.240
But the best of the best thinkers, yeah, we should understand their disagreements over
00:38:26.520
Well, speaking of, I know that Leo Strauss is somebody who you highly respect and have
00:38:32.680
And, and if I have it correct, uh, natural right and history is itself a response to
00:38:40.600
Uh, so this is obviously someone who he respected the thought of, but was, I don't think I'm
00:38:48.120
What do you think about the disagreements of those Strauss's reaction to Heidegger's work?
00:38:54.440
Um, Strauss said some things about Heidegger that make it extremely clear how highly he
00:39:02.060
held him, you know, and he said, there's no, basically for him, Heidegger was an unprecedented
00:39:10.020
He made the intellectuals of the time seem like orphans.
00:39:13.020
These are all things that Heidegger, like intellectual orphans.
00:39:15.140
These are all things that Strauss wrote about Heidegger.
00:39:17.400
He said, he's the greatest thinker of our time and so on.
00:39:20.380
So Strauss clearly thought that Heidegger was a, a brilliant man and a true philosopher
00:39:27.600
Um, there's a beautiful quote by Strauss, I maybe not, we'll not get it here word for
00:39:32.000
word where he said that, uh, he said that, um, liberalism is in a crisis, which by the
00:39:37.780
way, we all know now and are experiencing now and are sort of living through a specific,
00:39:41.980
um, iteration of this phase of the crisis of liberalism.
00:39:49.340
But the great, but the problem is that the greatest thinker of our time is Heidegger
00:39:53.080
So like liberalism needs some sort of intellectual support, but the greatest thinker of our time
00:39:57.980
is actually, you know, in some sense, the greatest critic of liberalism too.
00:40:02.400
And that puzzle is very important and, um, somehow of the greatest significance for Strauss.
00:40:09.240
It's a hidden dialogue in a certain sense, because, you know, Strauss, whereas he has books
00:40:13.680
on Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, Aristophanes, Hobbes, Machiavelli, and all these other thinkers,
00:40:18.060
um, Heidegger is like more often than not an unstated, invisible force.
00:40:25.520
He does write about him a little bit, but like he natural right in history doesn't say
00:40:28.680
I'm writing this against Martin Heidegger's being in time.
00:40:31.080
But if you know the intellectual scene and setup and scenario, then you know that Heidegger
00:40:36.300
So, um, there, this is this, the details here, even in on tyranny, where Strauss has a debate
00:40:42.640
with Kojev, they both refer to Heidegger in that debate in a very important and, uh, and
00:40:50.760
Heidegger was monomaniacally focused on the question of being, as I mentioned earlier,
00:40:55.080
He thought it's the most important question because think about it.
00:40:59.700
You can't talk without saying this is, that was, I am, you are being saturates our language
00:41:09.500
Somehow it's the water in which we swim and yet we don't pay attention to it.
00:41:17.400
He said, I can't help, but be a man of one book, even though he wrote so many books,
00:41:21.060
his one book is the question of being, the meaning of being, being in truth.
00:41:26.860
And when Strauss looked at this, he thought that Heidegger had made some important oversights.
00:41:33.880
Now we said that some philosophers are going to exclude something, but this isn't a case
00:41:39.860
So whereas Heidegger looked at the history of philosophy from Plato to Nietzsche and then
00:41:43.620
another beginning with an eye to the various phases of the interpretation of being, Strauss
00:41:51.980
He looked at the history of political philosophy from the beginning to the end and its various
00:41:57.660
phases to see the transformation of the key notion.
00:42:00.560
So for Heidegger, it's the history of philosophy and the key notion is being.
00:42:03.720
For Strauss, it's the history of political philosophy and the key notion in natural right
00:42:09.980
How did Socrates and Aristotle talk about nature?
00:42:12.200
How did Hobbes, Machiavelli, Locke, and Rousseau talk about nature?
00:42:18.540
That becomes the central category, natural right.
00:42:21.340
Is there anything that is just by nature, anything that is right by nature?
00:42:24.520
That led Strauss through the whole canon of the history of political philosophy.
00:42:30.520
And if we see it like that, then the key question in a way becomes, why did Strauss make political
00:42:40.740
So Heidegger made being the center of his project.
00:42:43.700
And that was his philosophy means the study of being for Heidegger in some sense.
00:42:47.420
It's not like you have 10 different things and being is one of them.
00:42:52.100
Philosophy and being in some sense are equivalent for Heidegger.
00:42:55.700
So you have Heidegger philosophy being and Strauss political philosophy and these different
00:43:02.100
And so the whole puzzle is why did Strauss consider political philosophy to be so important?
00:43:06.680
And why did he think that Heidegger's overlooking the realm of the political was not just a moral
00:43:12.700
error, but a fundamentally philosophical or intellectual error.
00:43:17.280
Because you could say, look, as far as being goes, Heidegger got everything right.
00:43:23.260
The only problem is because he didn't care about morality or write about morality, he sort
00:43:36.040
And therefore you have barbarism, Nazism, and, uh, and, uh, genocide.
00:43:40.900
If only Heidegger had cared more about morality, then we would have less guilt in celebrating
00:43:47.840
So you can imagine a view like that, which just criticizes him for like failing to do
00:43:54.440
Strauss doesn't, as it were, reduce his criticism of Heidegger.
00:43:59.200
By the way, he doesn't have a criticism of Heidegger.
00:44:00.820
He has a, an understanding that he thinks is, is limited in some sense, but it's not quite
00:44:05.900
So it's not just that he says, Heidegger, you should have talked more about morality
00:44:11.440
The question is this, is the domain of the political and adequate reflection on the domain
00:44:27.140
And therefore we have to measure Strauss's response.
00:44:30.300
Strauss seems to think like Socrates, that the realm of the political is the
00:44:35.020
realm of our opinions about good, bad, just, unjust, beautiful, ugly, right, wrong, and
00:44:39.920
that we get to, as it were, wisdom, or at least we get to the life that seeks wisdom
00:44:49.160
In other words, by going, by taking political life seriously.
00:44:58.660
Plato cared about politics, political life, and its significance for philosophy.
00:45:03.500
You know, Heidegger, he just didn't in the same way.
00:45:09.040
And again, to try to state this as simply as I can, the real question is, is that primarily
00:45:17.320
a moral failure, if it is one at all, or is it primarily a philosophical failure?
00:45:22.240
And Strauss's main disagreement, so far as I can tell, again, there are details here, right?
00:45:27.380
But as far as I can tell, Strauss, unlike Heidegger, thought that political life, the notion of
00:45:33.280
the political was essential to philosophy, unlike Heidegger.
00:45:39.300
Everybody who knows something about Plato probably knows Plato's cave allegory, probably have
00:45:46.980
Well, that's in a book called The Republic, Politeia in Greek.
00:45:51.480
Plato presents, oftentimes, his philosophical ideas and insights and reflections in a very
00:45:59.440
political context and in reflection on political notions.
00:46:03.820
So Strauss, in that sense, is a proponent of Platonism, whereas Heidegger is an opponent
00:46:09.140
of Platonism because he sees that in Plato, our interpretation of being took a wrong turn.
00:46:14.700
So that's another way of understanding the difference between Strauss and Heidegger.
00:46:17.220
They have a very different attitude towards Plato.
00:46:18.780
And for all the significance we've given to Heidegger in this conversation, obviously,
00:46:22.700
infinitely important to understanding contemporary thought and the landscape of contemporary thought,
00:46:32.200
You know, again, Strauss wants to return to Plato and Heidegger wants to overcome Plato.
00:46:36.860
And that, in some way, is another way of putting their disagreement in a nutshell.
00:46:42.160
So, obviously, we've gotten to Heidegger and some of the reactions there.
00:46:47.520
We don't have a giant amount of time, and I know this could be a large question, so maybe
00:46:53.180
we'll do our best to kind of summarize it and come back and do some more discussion on the
00:47:00.480
But what about the post-Heideggerian phenomenologists?
00:47:05.360
We've discussed Dugan a few times and his importance, but are there other people in the
00:47:12.780
tradition that we should understand after Heidegger?
00:47:15.300
So, yes, but I have to say I know less about them, okay?
00:47:20.680
But I'll name probably the most famous one in a moment.
00:47:23.560
So, there's post-Heideggerian political philosophy, which I think should be isolated as a very
00:47:29.180
All of these readers who read and debated with Heidegger with an intention to say something
00:47:36.540
And there are many thinkers there besides the ones we've mentioned.
00:47:38.960
There's Emanuel Levinas is one, for example, who said that he tried to...
00:47:42.740
He took Heidegger but tried to make ethics the center of his system instead of ontology.
00:47:48.340
Again, it's the big, big world of people who read Heidegger in the realm of political and
00:47:52.200
social philosophy and in many other fields, incidentally.
00:47:55.760
In medical fields, even in business, leadership management, there are Heideggerians.
00:48:01.380
In artificial intelligence and computer science, there are tendencies in Heidegger study.
00:48:07.740
So, the Heideggerian AI, incidentally, is a very interesting, I would say, field.
00:48:10.440
Understanding Computers and Cognition is a book on that topic from the 70s.
00:48:14.100
But sort of like, strictly speaking, a philosophical phenomenology.
00:48:18.060
The big name for me, and I haven't studied him, but he would be the first person I go to
00:48:26.920
It's called Phenomenology of Perception or something like that.
00:48:29.000
And he's somebody who said, just like we had in Husserl, sort of this attention to
00:48:34.460
cataloging and describing the acts of consciousness and their structures, in Heidegger, you had
00:48:39.440
categorizing and schematizing human existence and its structures.
00:48:45.280
So, I think Merleau-Ponty said, hey, there's so much more going on in perception that we
00:48:50.880
haven't quite cataloged accurately and haven't described in full detail.
00:48:55.520
So, Merleau-Ponty, he would be the person that I would turn to for that.
00:49:00.660
And I think he's the most significant name, at least like in my model of the schools of
00:49:04.440
phenomenology, independently of the specifically political reception of Heidegger.
00:49:09.320
Speaking of Heidegger in other disciplines, have you read Ian McGelchrist's work, The Master's
00:49:17.380
So, I haven't read The Master's Innocentary, but I've listened to some of his interviews.
00:49:20.260
I have discussed his book with people who have read it, and I have incorporated some of
00:49:25.100
his insights into a separate curriculum that I made for philosophy and business, targeted
00:49:32.580
The only thing is, I found many parallelisms between what I heard about McGelchrist and
00:49:36.640
what I heard him say in his interviews, and some of these other thinkers, except that he
00:49:40.660
maps it all fundamentally onto the hemispheres of the brain, which is a very interesting model
00:49:46.240
and probably very insightful in many different ways, whereas for some of these, especially
00:49:51.220
German-trained thinkers, they wouldn't like that because it's too bodily of a starting
00:49:58.860
They would see the hemispheres of the brain being a reflection of the division of the
00:50:06.780
But yeah, he seems to be doing very interesting work.
00:50:09.060
You've been reading him lately or listening to him?
00:50:11.000
Yeah, I met him in London, and I didn't know who he was, and so I got introduced to
00:50:17.260
him, and he started telling me about his work, and I was like, oh, I'm reading Heider.
00:50:21.720
Do you have anything to say about that, like an idiot?
00:50:31.780
I found it a very interesting companion to kind of be reading that alongside being in
00:50:38.580
I think, as you say, it would probably be a little too biological reductionist in some
00:50:43.660
ways for people, but I think it's helpful, and ultimately, I don't think that's what
00:50:48.440
I think he's, I think, you probably want to read the book for yourself.
00:50:54.940
But that could be a longer, again, a much longer discussion, so I won't take us down
00:51:00.820
that track, but I don't think that's exactly what he's doing.
00:51:03.160
I think he's showing that many of the Heideggerian insights manifest themselves in the
00:51:08.520
scientific research of how the brain is perceiving the world, but not making the argument that
00:51:19.740
Again, I haven't read the work, so I can't comment on it in detail.
00:51:22.520
But the parallelism seemed nice and interesting.
00:51:24.860
And I do want to put in here a plug for the importance of reading Heidegger, even if it
00:51:29.480
I know you just went through being in time, start to finish, so you can attest to its density
00:51:33.600
But it's one of those things that, having read it, you'll now have a better understanding
00:51:40.380
of the many, many ways that Heidegger comes out.
00:51:42.840
So even in Jordan Peterson's Rules for Life, before he gets into the first rule, he has
00:51:48.840
like a, or I think in the first rule, he has a little footnote, again, either for the
00:51:53.140
preface or for the first chapter, where he actually credits Heidegger with his understanding
00:51:57.280
of the use of being that he's going to use throughout the book.
00:51:59.440
You know, and again, people in completely other fields, maybe, you know, they don't
00:52:03.740
care about politics, they don't care about Derrida or Dugan or Strauss or any of these
00:52:06.740
people, they go into, you know, psychoanalysis, or again, some medical field or some business
00:52:12.040
field, and Heidegger's insights are operative there.
00:52:15.360
I mean, one of the most interesting things for me, if I can say this super quickly, this
00:52:18.820
was always kind of funny for me, and always just unusual, given the circles in which I
00:52:24.340
travel, which is at one point, I discovered that there was like a self-help branch.
00:52:29.440
Of Heideggerian studies, you know, that has no interest in political theory and Nietzsche
00:52:33.920
and, you know, these debates, but that actually is like, you know, they took Heidegger and
00:52:38.660
they made group seminars designed to help people discover their own structures of existence.
00:52:42.820
And they're actually pretty interesting and insightful.
00:52:44.720
And the guy who made them, you know, he considers himself a Heideggerian too.
00:52:49.040
So all over the disciplines, Heidegger's influence is present, whether it's implicit or explicit.
00:52:55.200
So reading Heidegger is like, you know, all of that is going to be just better for people.
00:52:59.460
Here you encounter it in Ian McGilchrist, somebody else will encounter it somewhere else,
00:53:06.200
So it's, read Heidegger, it's worth the effort.
00:53:09.980
Yeah, it is certainly a climb, but if you put the time in, I think you will discover some
00:53:18.000
Well, we're going to go ahead and wrap this up.
00:53:20.240
Mr. Millerman, where should people be looking for your work?
00:53:22.940
Where can they get some tutoring, some classes if they would be wanting to learn more about
00:53:28.260
So my online course is in private tutoring at millermanschool.com.
00:53:32.360
My book on Heidegger, you go, I think heideggerbook.com should take you there.
00:53:36.120
I have a personal site where you can learn more about my other writings.
00:53:40.160
That's probably the easiest way to get it is duganbook.com.
00:53:43.360
That's my Dugan book, but it also brings you to other things I do.
00:53:46.760
I'm on YouTube, youtube.com slash at Millerman, or just put Millerman into any search engine.
00:53:55.380
I have courses on, several courses on Heidegger, in fact.
00:53:57.920
And for people who don't want to buy a course, I have a lot of lectures on Heidegger on my YouTube
00:54:01.320
as well, because I'm just trying to introduce people to them all the time.
00:54:05.020
So hopefully between those two options, people find something they like.
00:54:10.540
Well, if it's your first time on this YouTube channel, please make sure to go ahead and subscribe.
00:54:15.240
Click on the bell, the notification, all that stuff, so you know when we're going live.
00:54:18.900
Unfortunately, today is a pre-tape, so if you had any of your questions from the audience,
00:54:24.820
if you did any Super Chats, thank you for supporting the show.
00:54:26.720
But obviously, we won't be able to address them today, unfortunately.
00:54:29.780
If you would like to get these broadcasts as podcasts, you need to subscribe to The Ori
00:54:34.400
McIntyre Show on your favorite podcast platform.