Why We Dream! Locals Questions Answered

Name: Why We Dream! Locals Questions Answered
Uploaded: 2024-02-09T15:58:51+00:00
Duration: 31 min 41 s
Channel: Stefan Molyneux

00:00 All right, some questions for freedomain.locals.com. Thank you, of course, for all of your interest

00:04 support. You can join the community at freedomain.locals.com. You can, of course, support the show at freedomain.com/donate.

00:11 All right. What is the useful context in the expression, "That which can be asserted without

00:17 evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? I actually think it's closer to, "That which

00:22 is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." The listener goes on to

00:27 write, "Analysis shows it to have the wrong structure, applying either the formal meaning

00:31 of the modal verb 'can' (have ability) or the informal incorrect meaning 'have permission'

00:36 we still get that anyone is able to and permitted to assert anything and dismiss any assertion

00:40 without any reflection upon its possible truth at all. My estimate is that the expression

00:45 has no value because it adds nothing. If you wish to dismiss an assertion it is obvious

00:50 that you cannot be denied either the ability or the permission to dismiss it. Your dismissal

00:54 of the assertion has no effect on the truth value of the assertion and the truth value

00:58 of the assertion has no effect on your ability or permission to dismiss the assertion. Explain

01:03 to me if I got something wrong here." Yeah, no, that which, no, so I think that the general

01:07 expression is, "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

01:12 So a child says, "I have an invisible friend," right? And you say, "Oh, well, so I can't

01:20 see him. Can I touch him?" No, you can't touch him either. "Can I smell him?" No, "Can I,

01:27 does he say anything?" No, right? So you say, "I have an invisible friend, there's no possible

01:31 way to detect it." You don't need to have a standard of disproof for that which can never

01:39 be proven. So if you were to say, "In another dimension, I am the king of Saudi Arabia,"

01:48 right? "In another dimension, I am the king of Saudi Arabia," what efforts should we take

01:54 to dismiss or disprove this assertion, right? The onus is on the person making the claim

02:02 to make the proof. And if somebody makes a claim which cannot be proven, you can dismiss

02:09 that without any counter work or counterweight. That which is asserted without evidence can

02:16 be dismissed without evidence. So, and things which technically I guess could be true, right?

02:26 So that, I mean, there are things that can't be true, there are things that can be proven,

02:32 and there are things which could be true but cannot be proven, right? So that which is

02:38 impossible can't be proved, can't exist, right? So I don't need to scour the universe to find

02:43 out of a square circle, right? A shape that has both a square and a circle at the same

02:48 time as contradictory properties. I don't need to scour the universe to prove that there's

02:53 no such thing as a square circle, right? That we understand. Now, if I say a horse with

03:00 a horn on its head exists somewhere in the universe, well I'm sure that a quadruped with

03:08 the characteristics of a horse that has a horn on its head, I mean technically that's

03:12 possible, right? I mean there are antelopes that have horns, I know, not on the front

03:15 of their head. There are rhinos that have horns on the front of their head. So it's

03:19 not self-contradictory to say that somewhere in the universe that exists a horse with a

03:25 horn on its head. Now it wouldn't be identical to an earthly horse but close enough. Yeah,

03:29 in the hundred billion stars in each of the hundred billion galaxies surrounded by half

03:34 a dozen planets, I'm sure that somewhere there is a horse with a horn on its head. Now we

03:41 can't say there is but there could be, but there could be. And of course this is a statement

03:48 that could never be disproven. Even if you had an infinity of time and energy you couldn't

03:55 disprove this statement that there exists in the universe a horse with a horn on its

04:00 head. For the simple reason, of course, that the width of the universe is greater than

04:06 the requirement to evolve a horse with a horn on its head. So even if you went to every

04:11 single planet in every single solar system in every single galaxy and scoured it and

04:18 scanned it and didn't find it, well by the time you were a third of the way across the

04:23 universe, I don't know, like four billion, I don't know how big, I mean I know how old

04:27 it is, but let's say it's, I don't know, 15 billion light years across, by the time you're

04:33 the third of the way across four or five billion years is more than enough for something to

04:36 evolve. So by the time you're a third of the way across the universe where you first started

04:42 maybe some barren planet has now developed life and right so you simply cannot possibly

04:49 know. And even if you were to set up some sort of, I mean let's get really absurd, right,

04:53 even you set up some sort of visual monitoring system to scan every planet, well your monitoring

05:01 systems couldn't deliver you information faster than the speed of light so you couldn't get

05:06 that. So you can never disprove something like that which is possible. And then there

05:13 are things which are possible and proven, right? So there is such a thing as a horse,

05:20 yes there is such a thing as a horse, you can go out of the city and see countless country

05:25 fields full of horses, you can go up and touch them and right, so yes there is such a thing

05:30 as a horse. You could also say that there are things which could be proven but aren't

05:34 provable in the moment. So if I were to say there's a big lump of gold on the far side

05:42 of the moon, that statement could be verified, you know, as soon as people go back to the

05:47 moon or whatever, then you could look for it and so on. But of course I cannot say that

05:53 I know for certain that there is a lump of gold on the far side of the moon. I can't

05:58 say that I know for certain because I haven't been there, I haven't seen it, I don't have

06:01 any direct... Now I could say there could be, yeah that's certainly within the... I

06:06 guess some meteor could have hit and deposited a lump of gold on the far side of the moon.

06:10 So it is certainly possible that there is a lump of gold on the far side of the moon.

06:17 It could be proven if you were to go and scour the far side of the moon for gold, it could

06:24 be proven, but nobody can say that it is true at the moment because there is no evidence,

06:30 direct evidence that has been accumulated. So it's possible, it could be proven, there's

06:35 no proof yet. And then it's possible it can never be proven, right, so you can't say there's

06:41 no place in the universe where a horse with a horn on its head exists. You can never prove

06:47 or disprove that. And then there are things which are self-contradictory and require no

06:54 disproof because their self-contradictory nature disproves themselves. So if I say there

07:00 is a magical horse somewhere in the universe whose nature it is to travel backwards through

07:06 time, we would know that this is not true. We wouldn't need to scour the universe because

07:11 there is no entity, certainly no organic entity, that is capable of traveling backwards through

07:17 time. For the simple reason that evolution has to go forward through time from less complex

07:22 to more complex. So if you have a creature as complex as a horse, it would never be moving

07:26 backwards through time. Also there's no creatures that move backwards through time. I don't

07:30 think there's anything other than maybe some bizarre subatomic quark stuff. I don't think

07:34 there's anything that travels backwards through time. So we know that that's not true. So

07:40 that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Now the problem,

07:45 of course, with this formulation as a whole is that while it is technically and logically

07:51 true, that if somebody asserts something without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

07:57 That's not how the human brain works when it comes to evaluating truth and falsehood.

08:05 Sadly. And in a future world where children are better educated and so on, this hopefully

08:12 will be different. But right now, this is not how most human brains evaluate truth.

08:20 Most human brains evaluate not truth but threat. And of course our brains were largely developed

08:30 to evaluate threat. I mean, almost all of our, I mean, if you think of the pain receptors

08:36 in your nervous system that's designed to evaluate threat. When you think of nervousness

08:41 that's designed to evaluate threat. And of course our fear response is far higher than

08:46 our happiness response. And so on. So our brains are developed not to pursue truth but

08:55 to process threat. And threat is a greater risk to us than lying. Which is why people

09:05 lie in order to maintain their status. They lie in order to maintain their attractiveness

09:10 through makeup or hair transplant or wigs or whatever. So people lie all the time to

09:16 maintain their status because lower status is a great and grave threat to us. So what's

09:24 more dangerous? Telling a lie or telling the truth? Well, of course in most circumstances,

09:33 if you have the king is coming to town and you say that's just an ordinary man with some

09:39 metal on his head. Is that true? Yeah, of course it's true. The king is an ordinary

09:44 man with a piece of metal on his head and some gems, right? That is true. Throughout

09:49 most of human history though, of course, telling that truth would get you imprisoned, punished,

09:54 put in the stocks, killed, your reputation would be destroyed, your family would be ostracized

09:59 and genetically this would be very, very dangerous. So in the choice between telling the truth

10:07 and surviving, people choose to survive. And of course, as everybody knows, there's a whole

10:12 bunch of Voldemort topics in the modern world that people choose not to talk about because

10:19 it's too dangerous. So it certainly is true that which can be asserted, though that which

10:24 is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but that's just not the

10:28 way that our brains operate. So what happens in general is people say, or the brain works

10:39 in the following manner, which is how social media and sort of the modern world works in

10:45 a nutshell. The brain works in the following manner when it comes to evaluating things,

10:50 really morally. The brain says, "If you are hated, you must be bad. If you are hated,

11:00 you must be bad." And that's why people pour such prodigious energy into hating others,

11:08 because hating is translated by the brain into being bad. You know, why would they hate

11:16 you if you didn't do anything wrong? Why would they say such bad things about you if you

11:20 didn't do anything wrong? Why would you be so attacked if you weren't being offensive

11:25 or bad or something like that, right? Now, of course, there's no epistemological truth

11:32 in the statement, "Because you are hated, you must be wrong," because everybody knows

11:36 we can think of countless people throughout history who were both hated and right and

11:41 in fact were hated because they were right. I mean, Jesus, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato,

11:48 Zechariah, Zechariah, Zechariah, Zechariah, Zechariah, Zechariah, Zechariah, Zechariah,

11:51 and so on, right? What's that joke I read this morning? Sir Isaac Newton died a virgin.

11:55 It's like, well, that's what you get for inventing calculus. And we can think of countless people

12:00 who are persecuted and perceived to be in the right due to their persecution. I mean,

12:05 I did the whole truth about Nelson Mandela. You can look at, nobody says, "Well, Martin

12:10 Luther King Jr. was hated enough that someone shot him, therefore he was wrong," or Bobby

12:13 Kennedy or whatever, right? Or JFK. So, everybody knows as a matter of fact, and this is known

12:22 to everyone, that people are often persecuted because they're both right and good, but they

12:28 like to do that when the person has already been killed and everybody accepts that the

12:33 person was persecuted because they are right and good. Nobody defends Miletus in his accusations

12:40 against Socrates. The person's already dead, it's a long time ago, and everyone already

12:45 agrees with you, so then you can come out in defense of someone long after the fact

12:51 when it poses no risk to you whatsoever. In fact, it would pose a risk for you to defend

12:55 Miletus. I mean, not much of a risk, it would just be, you know, kind of intellectually

12:59 provocative, but it's, you know, 2,500 years ago, who cares in particular, right? But in

13:05 the moment when somebody is being attacked, we perceive that as dangerous. If you ally

13:13 with someone who's being attacked, that is dangerous. And of course, the demand is that

13:20 the person being attacked be denounced as immoral. And okay, I just like, I just read

13:25 this whole book about the Salem witch hunts, the Salem witch trials. Everybody knows that

13:30 the people who were accused of being witches were not witches, and they were unjustly persecuted,

13:35 tortured, burned at the stake, murdered, based on the hysterical pronouncements of early

13:43 teen girls. I mean, just way crazy stuff, right? Me too, on, I don't know, murderous

13:49 steroids or something like that, right? And most people, of course, have been the victim

13:54 of some kind of whisper campaign, some kind of rumor spreading or something like that,

14:00 right? But in the moment, good translates into survival, and bad translates into danger.

14:10 So if somebody is being attacked, it means that they have aroused the ire of powerful

14:14 people because the ability to attack and be believed is one of the hallmarks of power,

14:19 right? If somebody says the king is bad, that person is in trouble. If the king says somebody

14:24 is bad, that person is in trouble, right? So the ability to accuse, the ability to slander

14:34 is a hallmark of power. So when people in power say, "Bob is evil," I mean, that is

14:41 asserted without evidence, or the evidence is sketchy, or there's tons of counter-evidence

14:45 or whatever. But the purpose of those in power in saying Bob is evil is to separate him from

14:52 everyone else because everyone else says, "Well, gee, if the people in power are saying

14:59 Bob is evil, then if I defend Bob, I'm going to share Bob's fate." So the question is not

15:05 evaluated according to its truth value. The question is evaluated according to its risk

15:11 or its danger. People don't evaluate the truth, they evaluate risk, because that's what our

15:15 brains do. And so when Bob is called evil by people with power, the purpose is to separate

15:22 any support from Bob. So, you know, the only people who say, "I stand with Bob," are only

15:30 doing that when Bob is not being attacked by anyone in particular power. Now the ability

15:35 to accuse, to threaten, to separate from support, to ostracize, to isolate, is one of the hallmarks

15:44 of power. So I don't think it's particularly useful when people say, "Well, that which

15:49 is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." So people say, "Bob is

15:53 bad," Bob is evil, people in power say, "Bob is evil." Very few people will say, "Well,

15:59 you haven't provided any conclusive proof as to Bob's evil, and therefore I'm going

16:04 to dismiss your claim." That's not the way that society works, and that's not the way

16:08 that evolution works. Evolution is survival is everything. And if lying enhances my chance

16:17 of survival, then a liar I will be, but I will be true to my genes. True to the genes

16:23 often means false in philosophy. And I don't condemn this at all. I mean, I'm thrilled

16:32 to have the brain that I have, I'm thrilled to have the life that I have, I'm thrilled

16:36 to have the health that I have, and I wouldn't be here if my ancestors had decided that the

16:44 truth was more important than survival. I'm sorry for me to laugh, right? But my ancestors

16:50 made their necessary compromises. My ancestor William Molyneux, who was best friends with

16:56 John Locke, they were hunted all over the Irish countryside by the king for various

17:00 things that they had said, and they hid and they ducked and they, I'm sure that they tempered

17:05 their speech and all of that, which, you know, people have to do on a regular basis in the

17:10 world. I mean, the Internet's helped a little bit with that, but not in any permanent or

17:14 perfect way. So survival, survival is good. And of course, the bad people know that if

17:21 they threaten people's survival, other people will fall in line and will say whatever the

17:27 people in charge demand that they say, they will turn on whoever the people in charge

17:31 demand that they turn on, and they will ostracize whoever the people in power demand that they

17:36 ostracize and, of course, but that's kind of humiliating. And so people will often join

17:42 in the moral crusade and convince themselves that, "Oh yes, Bob is a bad guy, and he should

17:49 be ejected, and I join," right? So you merge with the attacks of those in power so that

17:56 you don't feel the humiliation. It's a lot easier for most people psychologically to

18:02 believe that they're on the side of good rather than say, "Well, I'm forced to betray my friend

18:09 by those in power. I guess I now see where I stand in the pecking order," and that's

18:15 really humiliating. And also that doesn't really help with your survival too much because

18:21 if you're too humiliated for too long, you might blow up and fight back and then suffer

18:26 a pretty bad end. So yeah, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without

18:31 evidence. It's true, but it's not true that that's how people process information. They

18:36 process information based on threat. They don't process information based on truth.

18:41 All right. So question, "What's the effect of losing a child and parents, particularly

18:45 when other children are still around? Grief is inevitable, but what if it affects the

18:49 parent's ability to provide the needed care to the other children?" Well, it's, I mean,

18:54 this is obviously one of the most brutal questions around. I don't have any particular answers

18:59 to this other than to say death is one of those stimulants that can really help remind

19:07 you to live your life as richly and deeply and powerfully and honestly as possible. All

19:13 the troubles that you have in your life compared to what you think and feel when you're dying

19:18 are unimportant, relatively unimportant, not all of them, but most, right? So death is

19:24 a way, it's how you judo move death, right? Death can either drag you into the grave or

19:29 propel you into the skies. The great beckoning crooked bony finger of death is, "It's so

19:36 sad that your life will be forever in shadow and forever half destroyed." Or you can judo

19:43 death and say, "The fragility of life and the inevitability of death has convinced me

19:50 to live as richly and deeply and powerfully and courageously as possible." It can bring

19:57 even more love to your other children when you've lost a child because then you appreciate

20:01 the children, right? I mean, every parent has this story, right? Every parent has this

20:07 story. So you're in a social group, you're among friends and you hear some story about

20:12 a child's illness and like a serious illness, dangerous illness, a maybe life-threatening

20:18 or permanently disfiguring illness. And what do you do? I mean, that's awful and you provide

20:23 massive sympathy, of course, and then when you see your children next, you give them

20:28 a big hug and a kiss and you remind them just how much you treasure them. Loss can absolutely

20:36 be a fuel for increased love. And the idea, of course, of thinking of the child speaking

20:44 from beyond the grave, while obviously a little odd, can be quite helpful. I mean, I've thought

20:50 of this, right? Statistically, I'm likely to die before my wife does. Women outlive

20:55 men. Now, when I think of being a ghost floating around my wife's life when I'm dead and gone,

21:03 right? As the Marlon Brando said towards the end of his life, it's like it's so weird to

21:06 imagine not being here. So would I want my wife after I'm dead to be miserable for the

21:13 rest of her life? I would want her to laugh, I would want her to enjoy her life, I would

21:19 want her to remember with great affection the relationship that we had, but not to the

21:25 point where she can't, she's like choking with sadness and grief. I mean, I was in a

21:32 play called The Bear by Chekhov. It's a short play where a woman is overwhelmed and overcome

21:37 with grief. And that's the Hamlet thing, right? You know, father also lost a father, so this

21:43 is uncle, and this excessive grief is... So yes, you grieve, and then you use that grief

21:51 to further fuel your appreciation of life. I would want, I will want my wife, I mean,

21:57 obviously not to, I don't know, boogie-woogie at my funeral, but I would not want her to

22:02 be miserable for the rest of her life because I had died. That would be sad for me, and

22:07 if I were a ghost I would encourage her to continue to enjoy life, to not half join me

22:12 in the grave, so to speak.

22:13 Steph, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura says that the Bible is the only source of

22:18 truth. This seems self-refuting as even the Bible doesn't say the Bible is the only source

22:22 of truth. Thoughts? Honestly, that's theology. I'm a philosopher, so I don't have much to

22:28 say about theology. I certainly, I mean, I was raised a Protestant. I never heard that

22:34 the Bible was the only source of truth. I think, I mean, people certainly said it was

22:38 the source of moral truth, and it was the most, the Bible was the source of the most

22:41 important truths, but calculus is valid and true. Calculus isn't in the Bible, and I'd

22:49 never heard any priest when I was growing up in any of the churches that I attended,

22:53 and I attended a lot of churches for a long time, particularly in boarding school. I never

22:58 heard any priest ever say that nuclear fusion or fission is invalid because it's not in

23:06 the Bible, or that air conditioning doesn't exist because it's not described in the Bible.

23:12 So I'm no theologian, of course, but in my experience, in my studying, I think, of course,

23:20 they would say that the most essential moral truths and the most essential spiritual truths

23:24 and the most essential metaphysical truths are in the Bible, but the Bible is the only

23:29 source of truth? I've never heard of that. I've never heard of that at all, and I mean,

23:33 the fact that I've never heard of it doesn't mean that it's not believed by some people,

23:37 but it certainly isn't any kind of mainstream Protestantism that I was ever exposed to,

23:42 and I did quite a lot, and I've read quite a lot, and so on, right? So, all right. All

23:47 right, what's your favorite medieval weapon? I see you as a Zwihandr guy.

23:52 Well, I think that the broadsword is the only super straight weapon. Love me the broadsword.

23:59 The longsword with its 1d8 is lame. The broadsword with its 2d4 is excellent. I like weapons

24:08 that are sturdy and can take a lot of punishment. That's why I liked the Hawker Hurricane in

24:14 World War II. The Spitfire was kind of like a ballet dancer, and the Hurricane was kind

24:19 of like a tank. So, that would be mine. All right. Can you discuss dreams, those that

24:25 happen during the night? How can one discern which dreams are truly worth sitting down

24:28 to analyze? How should they be analyzed, and how much time should be dedicated to it? Isn't

24:33 it more crucial to journal, exercise, and meditate? As a stay-at-home mother of three

24:38 young children, hey, congratulations, there isn't much time left at the end of the day.

24:42 That time is typically allocated for household chores, exercising, meditating, or journaling.

24:46 Should a dream analysis also be included in my prioritization? I've always been a person

24:50 who dreams a significant amount, starting from my childhood. In my teenage years, I

24:53 focused heavily on this aspect, believing these were prophetic dreams from God. I was

24:59 intensely religious. However, I severed ties with my religious beliefs and became an atheist

25:03 at 20, completely ceasing to pay attention to my dreams, dismissing them as mere confusion

25:08 with no significance. Perhaps it's time to reconsider their importance. Yeah, that's

25:12 a great question. Now, as a woman, obviously massively appreciate and love women and femininity,

25:20 but the idea that I would tell you how much time you should spend on your dream analysis,

25:25 sorry, I can only give you some principles, I can't give you some practices. So, beware

25:33 false dichotomies. Beware false dichotomies. So, if you say, "Well, I have to do my household

25:41 chores and I have to exercise." Well, your meditation or journaling, well, journaling

25:46 can involve your dreams. You can have some great thoughts while you listen to household

25:50 chores. You can also think while you're exercising and so on. So, dream analysis. So, dreams

25:58 are what, think of them as waves that wash over a barrier, because the barrier of principles

26:07 is too low. I'll give you an example from my own life, and neither of these are proofs.

26:13 These are just sort of examples and a way to start the conversation. Certainly, analogies

26:17 are not proof, my experiences are not proof, but I'll tell you how my thinking has evolved

26:21 in this. So, when I was enmeshed in a whole series of amoral or semi-corrupt relationships

26:29 in my twenties, I had very sort of vivid and powerful dreams. And when I was no longer

26:38 in those amoral or semi-corrupt relationships, those dreams ceased. Now, the reason I was

26:45 in these amoral and semi-corrupt relationships was because I was not applying my philosophical

26:51 principles in any kind of fundamental, universal or absolutist style fashion. It was momentum

26:58 of history, it was it's too much work to find new companions, it was a lack of knowledge

27:03 of what it is to be truly loved, which I didn't really experience till I met my wife. So,

27:10 you know, it's like being in prison, honestly, it's like being in prison. And being imprisoned,

27:16 I was imprisoned by my lack of integrity. And I didn't have much excuse, because I had

27:22 been studying at this point philosophy for like 10 years. Now, I don't, I'm not mad at

27:29 myself, I don't blame myself, but I do have to be accurate about myself, and that I was

27:33 not living with integrity. Philosophy was talk, research, study, debates, arguments,

27:40 perspectives, but it was not to be lived in empirical and actionable ways. Now, I get

27:49 all of this, you know, you don't start off as a health care provider injecting things

27:54 into people, you start off injecting, practicing your injections into oranges or things like

28:00 that, right? So, I was in a realm of theory, I was in a realm of practicing things rather

28:06 than doing things, like practicing as in rehearsing rather than practicing as in I'm a practicing

28:11 lawyer kind of thing, so to speak. So, I was all theory and little practice. And again,

28:18 that's fine, you have to have the blueprints before you have the bridge. But I was having

28:25 vivid, very vivid and powerful dreams, which I've sort of talked about before. I was having

28:29 very vivid and very powerful dreams, because I was not living my values. I had not found

28:35 fault with the values, but I was not living them. I was essentially a Platonist, in that

28:41 the theory is more important than the practice. Although I was an Aristotelian in my metaphysics

28:47 and epistemology, in my practice I was detaching theory, sorry, in my actual life I was detaching

28:53 theory from practice. So, dreams can be very strong indicators of where you're not living

29:02 your values, and certainly they were very important indicators of where I wasn't living

29:06 my values. And they're worth examining from that standpoint. So, a lot of my dreams were

29:13 basically "which means what? Which means what? You believe in this, that and the other, which

29:17 means what? What does it mean? What does it mean?" If you're overweight, you're incredibly

29:23 frustrated at being overweight, you read all of these diet books and all other kinds of

29:28 stuff, at some point your dreams are going to be like "can we actually lose some weight?"

29:32 Like "I really hate being overweight, I really want to lose weight, I'm reading all of these

29:37 books on health, nutrition, education, right?" And this goes on for years, your dreams are

29:42 going to get pretty vivid, because your unconscious is going to be like "can we just do it? Can

29:45 we do it? I mean enough preparation, can we actually just do it?" You know, if you buy

29:50 a membership to a climbing gym and you buy all of this climbing gym equipment and you

29:55 get the chalk and you keep driving to the gym and sitting in the parking lot, at some

29:59 point you're just going to have some pretty vivid dreams about climbing. It's going to

30:03 be like "stop teasing me, can we actually do it? Stop circling, stop doing the drive-bys

30:08 and actually do it." So, and again, there's a certain amount of prep that's necessary,

30:12 a certain amount of prep that's important, but if all you're doing is practicing your

30:16 backhand and your overhand in tennis, at some point you're going to have dreams about actually

30:20 playing a game, if all you're doing is practicing and not actually playing. So I think that

30:24 dreams are when the unconscious is striving to have you actually act out your values,

30:31 but you're not doing so, which again I understand and sympathize with, I think the dreams will

30:34 say "yeah, it's time, you should absolutely do it." So how much time should you spend?

30:39 I mean, what I would do is look at places where my values weren't being enacted. Look

30:44 at places where my values aren't being enacted and see if I can close that gap a little bit,

30:49 right? Because what's going to happen is later on in life, all you're going to remember is

30:52 not your fear of living with integrity, but your lack of integrity. I mean, sort of when

31:00 I look back at why I wasn't living with integrity, again I have sympathy and I understand, but

31:05 all I, I don't really remember the fears of it, all I really remember, which is all that

31:08 really matters in a way, is that I wasn't living with integrity.

31:12 All right, let's do one more. No, I think I will, no, I'll wait for the next one, do

31:19 that later, but I appreciate you guys listening in. I hope that these are helpful comments

31:24 and feedback and freedomain.com/donate to help out Le Show and I look forward to your

31:31 comments and thank you so much for these questions. I look forward to more of them. They are great

31:36 brain food for me. All right, take care everyone. Bye.

Why We Dream! Locals Questions Answered

Category

Transcript

Recommended