This episode is about sense-making... if you are not sick of that term yet, trust us, you soon will be.

To get things rolling, Matt and Chris launch the podcast with a pair of rants. Chris vents about the lab-leak theorists who plague his mentions and Matt gets triggered by US libertarian takes on the military dictatorship apparently taking over Australia. He needs to get his thoughts out there before the secret police come and drag him away.

Then we get the point (relatively quickly this time - see, we're getting better!) and leap into a truly indulgent level of sense making meta dialogue. Matt and Chris talk about a conversation between David Fuller and Jordan Hall, who are themselves discussing another conversation that Jordan Hall had with someone called Brandon Hayes.

Yes, in this episode, you'll be listening to a conversation about a conversation about a conversation. It's like a podcast version of Inception, including a large amount of ponderous and ambiguous dialogue - you'll have to dig deeper, engage your sense making muscles, and it'll maybe make sense once it's all over.

Anyway, so Brandon Hayes is a 'Propertarian', which appears to be an anti-semitic, ethnonationalist 'philosophy' with fascist and eugenic elements created by an odd American man called Curt Doolittle, . Cool, cool... David Fuller is raising some very legitimate concerns, and pulling Jordan Hall up on what seemed to be a rather generous and pally interview he conducted with Brandon.

But it's Jordan's responses that really sparked the interest of the duo. He responds and explains. Or does he? There's a lot of reflections on the co-participatory seeking of Truth, the importance of the conversational process, the transformative nature of challenging relationships, but no real interest in the actual content of what people believe and promote. In this framing, a conversation with an anti-semite who promotes a neo-fascistic ideology becomes primarily just a stepping stone on a spiritual journey of transformative self-growth.

As Jordan says, the literal content is just the superficial pitter-patter on the neocortex. But he's interested in something deeper, ineffable. The language Jordan uses is a tour-de-force in guru-esque 'sensemaking'. In a linguistic sense, he's like the bastard lovechild of Jordan Peterson and Eric Weinstein.

Anyway if that sounds good to you then tune in, check it out, and if you manage to stick it out all the way to the end you are rewarded by Chris and Matt mulling over the validity of a harsh one-star review.

Links

The Debaters

Should we all do pottery? And love lineups?

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts