Reclaiming the Dead by Emile Alexandrov

Fedorov would get enraged. He would get furious. Would be like, "No, I mean this literally. Like literally, we need to go back to the cemetery and literally resurrect people." Because we're resurrecting all these humans, we won't have space on Earth. So, we need to send those resurrected humans to other planets. And then he said literally things like we have to colonize the solar system and then eventually turn Earth into some sort of space-faring planet that can float around according to our will. He said mad things like this. We have this romantic exchange between him and this woman. But she left him and went for someone successful because he was walking around Moscow with barely any clothes and it's minus 10°. But he's a really peculiar character, really unusual. Right, I've been reading him for a long time and I can't wrap my head around it. The guy like, "What is What What was going on in there? Instead of aiming cannons at the enemy, we need to aim the cannons up to the sky." Why? He wants to change the weather so he gets more crops. He would use metaphor like that. So, it rains now, grow more food. She doesn't starve, he doesn't starve. He would use language like this to make it provocative. But she is considered somewhat heretical because he thinks that we are responsible for bringing the kingdom of God here. We are the ones who are supposed to do the kingdom. >> We are honored to have Emil um remind me your >> Alexandrov. >> Alexandrov with us today. And uh I'm really grateful that Emil reached out to me recently and said that he was going to be in the states for some other research you're doing, I guess. >> Yep. >> And was kind enough to come and present on uh Nikolai Fyodorov and um Russian Cosmism. And so we're we're privileged and uh blessed tonight to be able to hear about Russian Cosmism from a Russian who's well-versed in Russian philosophy and many other uh branches of philosophy as well. But I'll leave it to um Emil to give us some more details about himself and kick off the discussion. >> All right. Thank you very much for that introduction and uh thank you, of course, for the invitation. And thank you all the MTA group. Very nice. The biggest garden salad I've ever had in my life. So I went to eat a garden salad and I thought that, you know, garden salads, like they are in Australia, are really small. So I ordered two. It was a mistake. You know, it's just shoveling lettuce. I just gave up after the Okay. So as um Carl introduced uh me earlier, I'm doing some work with the University of New Mexico. That's why I'm in the United States. Currently, I'm doing work at Waseda University. So I teach philosophy as an academic. Uh I'm an assistant professor of philosophy and my specialty is metaphysics. But I work across many cultures. Um Greek and Arabic is my specialty. Uh classical Chinese and Russian is just because I have Russian background. Um now, with regards to Fyodorov, which we're going to be talking about today, uh Fyodorov is actually not very um how do I say not very academic as a subject matter. He isn't studied seriously. There's very little scholarship on him in a scholarly setting. You don't see him being taught in universities as extensively as you would see Aristotle, for example, or Nietzsche. >> Can you say the name really slowly? >> Which name? >> Uh it's a bit Yes. >> Fyodorov. Fyo Yeah, that's >> there's a Y. So, some people spell it with an E. But it's if you put the Y, it pronounces better. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, Fedorov. Yeah. Uh so, as I was saying, he's not he's not considered a serious philosopher for academics. I beg to differ, right? I've done a lot of work on Fedorov. And he is a very impressive figure. Most of the texts that we have from him is in Russian. We have minor translations. So, you get a basic gist of the ideas. But the vast majority of his work is untranslated. And you're talking four volumes, each something around 5 600 pages. Right? And a fifth volume of like miscellaneous writings, letters, you know, that sort of thing. So, what I hope to do today is I'll give you guys a background to his life, so you understand this unique character. And then I'm going to talk about some of the ideas that I see very consistent, radically consistent in fact, with the MTA. Okay? Um So, firstly, let's just talk about where he was So, this will be uploaded. You guys will be able to see this a bit later on the internet, so you can get the details. So, the first thing was he was born in 1829, and he was an illegitimate son of Prince Pavel Ivanovich Gagarin. Now, Gagarin was uh it's a very famous name in Russia. Maybe you guys know Yuri Gagarin, the first first dude in space. >> Cosmonaut. >> That's right, cosmonaut. But it's also the uh it's also a very ancient family, a Rurik family. Rurik is like the founding uh state, if you want to call it, of Russia. And that's how old the name is. But he didn't inherit that name because he was a bastard son, as they call him. So, he got the name, um, Fyodorov, right? Uh, from his godfather rather than his his his actual father. So, then he went and he studied in Odessa, in Ukraine, which is today Ukraine, which incidentally is where my family's from, right? And, uh, he studied in the Lyceum, which was, uh, a cosmopolitan university. It was designed by the French, actually. At the time, the French had very good relations with the Russians, so they had these, you know, universities. So, so that's where he studied. He was too rebellious. He didn't finish his degree. He was too creative, right? So, he got, eventually, I think he either got kicked out or he left. Um, and then from there on, he went and became a school teacher. Okay? And this is where the accounts we have of him as a school teacher really show the the, um, the true essence of his character, right? He was unusually ascetic. He was not a priest. He wasn't a monk, right? But he was extraordinarily generous, okay? So, for example, I'll read this out what I have here. "When a pupil's father became seriously ill, Fyodorov repeatedly gave the boy all his money for treatment, and after the man died, sold his official teaching uniform to help pay for the burial. Reprimanded for appearing without the uniform, he refused to explain himself and nearly resigned before the principal learned what had happened and persuaded him to remain." Right? He did things like that, right? Um, other examples, there are stories where, um, he would go home, and if he had if he noticed he still had money in his pocket, he would give it away. And if he found that he had money and he was at home, he would be so upset that he actually had money left. He wanted to be empty every day. Give everything he has and go to sleep. That's That's how he lived, right? >> Was Was he married? >> No. >> Same thing. >> No. Um that said, I didn't put that I didn't I didn't put that in there. So So So see how I talked about five volumes of works? So the fifth volume is a bit of letters that we have her in. He was in love with this woman, and she And he was working at the library at the time. And so we have this romantic exchange between him and this woman, but she left him and went for someone successful because he was walking around Moscow with barely any clothes and it's minus 10°. So how you know, so that's the only uh intimate side we have to Fyodorov. Apart from that, he's a really peculiar character, really unusual, right? I've been reading him for a long time, and I can't wrap my head around the the guy. Like, what is What What was going on in there? Okay, so eventually I'll skip this part where he moved through various jobs, but eventually after going from one school to another school, he ended up in a library, okay? Uh the Moscow State Library at the time, okay? And um At the time he worked 25 years there, he met all the most famous Russian writers. This is where Fyodorov is really interesting. He was just in the circle, okay? So he met, for example, Leo Tolstoy, uh Vladimir Solovyov. Vladimir Solovyov is like the most He's the famous Russian philosopher. Uh Afanasy Fet, uh Valery Bryusov, Nikolai Strakhov, uh Pasternak, you know, these are all famous figures. And then here's one really important for our talk today, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, so the father of rocket engineering, right? In fact, he encouraged him to study, even though Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was a school teacher by engineering standard, but he was a genius. Right? And so uh Fyodorov used to give them the books. What does that mean? Uh so, let me talk a little bit about his time when he was actually in the library. So, he wasn't only really good at his job with finding like books and whatnot and knowledgeable, he knew content related to other content via different disciplines. It's extraordinary because the library was massive. So, he would So, an engineer would come in and say, "Look, I need text on, you know, whatever." And he would recommend this book and supplementary material, and then this person would come back and say, "Thank you. You saved my life with this. Like, how did you know I needed to know this as well?" So, he did things like this, right? He was really, really articulate. Okay? Now, uh I'll read this part here. So, he he never He never married. He lived alone in extreme austerity. Uh he rented tiny rooms, slept on a trunk. Yeah, he slept literally on the trunk where you would put clothes in. That was his pillow. Right? That's his whole life. Whole life. Um he owned almost no furniture, ate very little, and continually gave away money and possessions. Yeah, so he abhorred money and was anxious that he might die with a few coins in his pocket. He arrived at the library before it opened, remained after closing. Yeah, and he only slept a few hours, spent much of the night reading and writing. So, he used to sleep 3 hours, then he'd wake up at night, drink tea, read, go back to sleep for another 1 or 2 hours, and then go to work to the library. Now, he died of pneumonia in 1903. Um according to one account, he had regularly endured Moscow winters on foot in a thin ragged coat, but became ill shortly after friends persuaded him to dress warmly and travel by cab. So, his austere life oral teaching and philosophical conversations at the library earned him the moniker the Moscow Socrates. Right? So, because he walked around everywhere, um I don't know if barefoot, but that's what Socrates did, right? So, now here's the other interesting thing. Uh so, we have only one painting of him. He because he refused to be I'll pass this around. Um uh he refused to sit for a portrait. So, what happened was he was drawn um without his knowledge by a guy called Leonid Pasternak, the son of the famous Boris Pasternak. Now, that's unbelievably coincidental. I mean, I don't understand how that even works. But in any case, uh Pasternak's uh son painted him, and that's what we have today. So, you can pass this around. So, that's the only image we have of Fyodor of what he looked like. Okay, so that speaks so much for his character. Um So, Tolstoy >> Was he active Russian Orthodox or not? >> Yes, so very very. And if you read, so this is the other thing about a lot of his Russian text why it hasn't been translated is because you need to have a very deep background in theology to know what he's talking about. He talked about everything, for example, the size of the cross to how mass is conducted. He he was I mean, the knowledge is incredible. And so, everything that he did and all the concepts and ideas that he developed are rooted in Orthodox Christianity. I'm going to emphasize that. Right? So, everything I'm going to talk about now is related to his Christianity. He sees it completely inextricable. Okay, this is crucial. Okay? Okay, so do we have any questions about his character before I Yeah. >> Did he receive any fame in his lifetime? Like any notoriety while he was living? >> Uh not quite. So, he In fact, we only have his writings because his followers um that were really really enraptured by his writing, they preserved these texts and collated into a coherent volume. Most of his writing was sporadic. Right? So, not really. Um, however, Dostoevsky heard about his ideas. And Dostoevsky being the author, right? Um, Dostoevsky said that this is the most authentic idea I've ever seen. Something along those lines. And Tolstoy was complete Tolstoy was in regular contact with him, completely, you know, enamored by his ideas. Solovyov, also the famous Russian philosopher. So, amongst the intellectual circles, he was recognized. But outside of that, nobody. Nobody knew him. Yeah. Okay, so we good? I can talk about his ideas? Okay, so, um, what's the general idea? What's the about Fyodorov? Well, it's what we call cosmism. Right? They call it cosmism because it's based on the common task, Obshee Dyelo, in Russian, right? The common task. Okay, so, the idea is that there is a universal practical vocation. Every human being is obligated to contribute towards the universe. That's the first thing. He starts off with that fundamental premise. By virtue of you being alive and being human, being conscious, being a sentient being, you are obligated to extend your compassion, your care, your virtues towards the other. Immediately. You have to become selfless. That's the starting point, right? Okay. So, then what does he see as the main problem? He sees that what we do is we think. What's the first thing we do as sentient beings? We contemplate. We think. We reason. Right? And so, from there Fyodorov looks at the world and he recognizes, wow, we have an entire trajectory, history of philosophy and science, where we sit there in abstraction often for the rest of our lives without ever bringing that abstraction into practical use. Right? He looks at that. And then he goes into the philosophical details and he brings in Aristotle and all these and says there is a separation between theory and practice. That's the first thing Fyodorov says. Now, the problem is theory and practice is a is something like for example Marx would try and figure out Marxists, you know, that this the whole thing about Marxism that's why they make everything economic. Right? There should be theory there should just be economic. Right? Um Fyodorov says the main thing is compassion. If you want to find unify theory and practice, you have to do it under the rubric of compassion. So immediately as soon as you act on impulse toward compassion, the contemplative project is itself already unified with practice. Right? So that means education comes hand in hand with this process. Everybody needs to be educated to the highest level possible. Okay? So the main the main formula if I'm to talk about his idea in one sentence that common task represents the collective duty and organized labor through which humanity is to transform the world as it is into the world as it ought to be. Okay? So before I get into the main idea that comes after this the first thing he recognizes is how the world looks. Okay? If you look at the world, you see that it's chaos. He looks at nature on a fundamental level and he says it's chaos. For example, you might be at work one day and you get struck by lightning. You have no control over your environment. That's nature. So, he says nature is chaos. It's unregulated, and it's not for you. That's how the world is, but not how it ought to be. This is just a fundamental idea he starts off with, right? So, then he says, "Well, okay. So, how do we go about dealing with this problem?" Well, we come back to the issue of of compassion, right? And realize that a lot of people die with nature, with chaos. And so, nature has one problem, but there's also enmity because people aren't working on compassion, right? People care for one and another only on the basis of some personal gain. So, this needs to be fixed. So, what he goes with is what This is the famous idea. This is what he's really radical for, the universal resurrection. Okay? Vseobshchee voskreseniye in Russian for whoever wants to hear it in Russian, that's what it sounds like. So, the ultimate aim of the common task, the goal I talked about with compassion and stuff, is the literal and bodily restoration of every person who has ever lived. Right? So, not just, you know, one generation, quite literally every single person that has ever lived in the history of humanity. Right? And not merely longevity for the living, immortality of soul or survival through memory, descendants, or historical influence. Resurrection must be universal rather than selective. Why does he want this to happen? Coming back to compassion, because we are talking if we are going to be honest with ourselves and talk about universal reconciliation, universal compassion, right? What's the term universal means? It means absolutely everybody, including those who have passed away. Now, let's go back to nature and chaos. See how he says that nature is chaotic and completely uncontrollable. Well, if you resurrect every single human being, that means you are transforming, this is where it gets radical, reality as itself, quite literally, into how it should be as in the kingdom of God. Okay? That's why he says this message is Christian fundamentally. And this is I'll get to this a bit later. But this is also why he needs texts like the Old Testament, the New Testament, because this is not purely a scientific endeavor. It's a religious one. Right? Okay? So, again, I want to make another thing clear. When Fyodorov talks about a Christian, he's not talking about someone who goes to church only or even someone who's faithful. He's talking about every single person that is actively aware of what the problem is and is actively working towards it. Right? That's what the message is. >> And you think anybody who had that attitude is a unbaptized Christian. That kind of idea. >> More or less, yeah. Yeah. So, because love and compassion is at the root of his philosophy, you cannot be Christian if you don't have love and compassion for literally everything. Everything, everyone. So, for example, I don't have this in the paper uh because I've read all his stuff, so it's all in my head. Um the conscription basis, you know, when someone gets conscripted to military, and he looked at that. This is what Fyodorov was really good at. He noticed how conscription works. There is this universal calling when a nation calls its people to fight. He says, "Well, we need to universally conscript everyone to this goal, but instead of shooting So, at the time it was cannons for him. He's like, "Instead of aiming cannons at the enemy, we need to aim the cannons up to the sky." Why? He wants to change the weather so it gets more crops. He would use metaphor like that. So, it rains now, grow more food, she doesn't starve, he doesn't starve. He would use language like this to make it provocative, right? And he has some really interesting essays. He talks about people who are the true Greek gods, the ones that learned about, you know, meteorology, right? So, learned about weather phenomena and how it impacts crops and things. He said, "Those are the real Greek gods." And they used the science. They did that to improve our state of being, you know. >> You might be interested in William James who wrote the famous essay, "We Need a Moral Equivalent of War." And he said the enemy is nature. >> Yeah, well, William James is a socialist. >> You know, let's tame nature. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Put the cannons up. >> Yeah. Well, that's what he That's what he says. Put the cannons up, yeah. Okay, so uh do we have any uh questions about these main ideas? No, it's Yeah, go ahead. >> I think a lot of Christians believe in a universal a universal resurrection, but they believe that God will do that work. >> Yes. >> Right? So, did he believe like did he not believe that God would do that work and that he's leaving it to humans? Or was he trying to like make Christianity palatable to the secular people? I'm just wondering how did he >> That's an excellent question. Um this is where he differs. Um I should speak to his reception in the Orthodox Church. He is considered somewhat heretical because he thinks that we are responsible for bringing the kingdom of God here. He doesn't think that there is the conventional eschatological So, in if you look at traditional Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, the ancient church, the way they see it, um the the the um the final day is sort of bodily resurrection and all that stuff. It's an eschatological narrative. At the end, God calls it quits or whatever, right? Um Fyodorov doesn't think that's the case. He reads the New Testament in a way where we are obligated to act on this. We are the ones who are supposed to do the kingdom, right? >> wrote in the text? >> Yeah. Yeah, that's one way to look at it. Well, I think that. Yeah. Um but this is radical, by the way, right? So, if you go to any Catholic or any Orthodox say that, then they'll be like, "No. That's not how it works." Yeah, so we're good. I can get into the All right, so um a lot of what he does relies on the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, right? So, the the Orthodox tradition uh Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox, whatever, goes back to ancient Greece. And there is this idea of deification, right? So, um I I imagine most of you guys in the Latter Day Saints or in church of England. Okay, so um what we have, the distinction with Catholicism and Orthodoxy, is really deep, right? For those of you that are interested, you should read Bradshaw's book, who Stephen and I were talking about this. There's a book Eastern and Western Christianity by David Bradshaw. He explains the differences. It's very complicated. But there is one only one difference I'm going to capitalize on here for the purpose of this talk, and that is uh this idea of theosis. Uh the idea of um how do I say deification is taken literally and mystically in the Orthodox Church. If you go to any Orthodox Church, the priest has almost like a divine propensity towards making you, you know, get gaining your salvation in so far as you put the work, of course. It's really a mystical union. The Orthodox tradition is much more like that. Um I don't want to speak too much more on this because it'll end up taking me to Rome and why Rome is a bit different, the Latin tradition, Catholics, they're a bit different here. But we just have to take that. So, he takes the theosis, which is central to the Orthodox tradition, right? And he takes many central figures. One of them is Athanasius of Alexandria, right? He's one of the early church fathers. So, Fyodorov converts deification into a practical program grounded in Athanasius' proclamation that and this is the famous phrase, "Christ became incarnate that we might be made God and inherit incorruptibility." So, Athanasius says this. So, Athanasius reads that Jesus came so that we can become like God and inherit incorruptibility. The translations for the Greek the Greek term aphtharsian, it's either incorruptibility or some people translate it as immortality, right? I'm not that good at classical Greek, so I can't jump on which one I prefer, but the idea is imperishability of some sort, right? So, that's one major figure, this sentence. The other example is Maximus the Confessor, another major Orthodox figure. He takes quotes quite literally and maps it onto his philosophy. For example, "Humanity is a natural bond uniting creation in God. For the whole universe is a human being. And the human being is the universe. So these are all church fathers, right? Can you already see the consistencies with NTA, right? Uh this mediation culminates in a reciprocal deification. God becomes human. And here's what Fyodorov really wants. Through love for humanity. Okay? While humanity empowered by that divine love, which is already intertwined, right? Makes itself God. So this this I'm not paraphrasing here. I this is these are literal quotes. Right? From Maximus the Confessor, for example. And he's what 6th, 7th century. So it's a long time ago. Right? So the Logos thereby quote divinizes man through his love for God and humanizes God through his love for man. That's another direct quotation. Perpetually willing in all things to accomplish the mystery of his embodiment. End quote. Right? So these are phrases that Fyodorov said, look, it's in our tradition. It's there. Text is explicit. There's nothing, you know, you can't hide away from it. Okay, and then of course there is the Gospel of John, right? So some of the passages he works with um the decisive one is this and I quote whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do. And greater works than these will he do. So this is right out of Gospel of John. So a command that Fyodorov extend to extend Christ's restorative work universally culminating in the resurrection of all the dead. Okay? So this is basically um some of the uh examples that we have from like you know, the doctrine of theosis, right? This deification, how they take. So, if you go to any Orthodox church, um they'll read this out in mass, you know, they'll read this They might interpret it differently, right? But, they will read this out, right? So, scriptural examples, and this is this this for me, by the way, is what really I found interesting. Um when I started to study Fyodorov all these years, I'm not a new I'm not a uh biblical scholar, so I don't know the Bible that well, right? But, then I dug into the Bible to see why Fyodorov keeps referencing, for example, you know, John or 2 Kings, you know, the resurrection narratives are all over. I had no idea. The amount of times you see resurrection in the Old Testament, it's unbelievable. So, I've got a few examples. For example, we have, and I quote, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I'm going there to wake him up." This is the resurrection of Lazarus. This is when Christ raises Lazarus from the dead, right? Um there's another one, restoration through prayer joined to deliberate bodily action, right? This is how he links it to bodily action. Elisha restores the Shunammite's woman's son after praying and stretching himself over the child, whose quote, "Flesh waxed warm." And quote, "Then the child sneezed seven times and opened his eyes." Right? The child is brought back to life. And then another example, and this one for material remains, because Fyodorov thought that when we're doing this resurrection work, we actually have to go out into nature and collect particles, right? We actually he he's explicit that we need to pick up nature, tie it all back together. I'll explain the deeper meaning of this. But, he finds uh material remains mediate restored life when a dead uh when a dead man's body touches Elisha's bones, he revived and stood up on his feet. This is from 2 Kings. Right? Another example, resurrection restores broken relation between parent and child. Um Christ raises the widow of Nain's son, commanding, {quote} Young man, I say to you, get up. {end quote} The dead man sits up, begins to speak, and is returned to his mother. This is from Luke. Right? So, this is just a few selections, right? Of of stuff. Um Right. So, this idea of collecting particles, let me go to this for a second. So, resurrection must be universal. So, the deeper meaning behind this, and this is very philosophical. So, we talked about how nature's chaotic, and that you have all these particles everywhere, spinning around, doing its own thing. When Fyodorov says that we need to collect particles to resurrect human beings, what he's talking about is the bringing together, on a metaphysical level, of everything on the base of love. Right? This is, by the way, very ancient Greek principle. It goes back to Empedocles. Those of you familiar with ancient Greek stuff, right? So, love unites, strife separates. Right? So, the kingdom of God, really, in Fyodorov's understanding, is the putting into work love, compassion. Right? Bringing things together. It's a resurrection. When you you bring people back to life by collecting particles, you're you're really enacting compassion. And so, the other aspect of resurrection, apart from that collecting, is divine human cooperation. You can't do this on your own. This is the other thing. Everybody needs to work together. So, the resurrection of life must become the organizing purpose of religion, science, and history. This is the This is the very important point, I think, for MTA. Fyodorov is deeply anchored in history. I mean, when I when you read his four-volume text, the amount So, remember this is well before computers. He'll talk about some obscure event in Roman history or Indian history and he'll tie it in together and read into it, interpret it, showing that he's he's thought about those events and how they link to that and this. This whole project is fundamentally historical. Okay? There are some theologians throughout time, for example, Hugh of uh Victor of Saint Hugh, who I talked about momentarily with you. Um he reads Christianity through history. History is like a narrative. You can't just look at history as a random series of events. Fedorov looks at it, too, exactly the same way. So, when you look at history, you have to sort of capture the narrative so that it comes in and hones in onto universal cooperation. Right? So, I'll give you one Just so I'm clear, I might be a bit obscure here. Um so, Homer, the famous Homeric epics, you know, Iliad, Odyssey. So, in the Odyssey, when Odysseus is out, you know, um trying to get back to his to his ancestral home, to where his son is, to where his wife has all these suitors. So, he reads this, right, as a narrative of fathers trying to come back to their sons. Um but the father's dead, so come back from death back into life. He reads things like that. This is like an ancient Greek epic, right? Or Alexander the Great, for example. This is another really good one. I like this one. It says Alexander the Great, when he went all the way to India, what he was doing was he was spreading an early form of Christianity. This is like 300 years before Christianity, right? He's going all the way to India so he can unify the peoples, right, under the same idea. So, he does things You see this how he reads history into the narrative. Okay, and so the last one, resurrection must become practical. So, theosis must pass from belief and contemplation into a universal coordinated scientific task directed towards the conquest of death and the restoration of all. All right, so um this is where the Soviets loved him. So, he died in 1907. Was it 1907? I think it was 1903. Yeah. 1903. So, he died 1903. So, well before the Soviets took power. 14 years later, 1917, October Revolution, of course. So, the Soviets Anyone who's interested in Soviet history, you'll find the Soviets were very ambitious. They were very space-faring. They were cosmic in outlook. Well, they were very influenced by Fyodorov, very, very much, because Fyodorov actually gave practical ideas, you know. He said, for example, you know, we need to terraform planets and grow food everywhere. And then because we're resurrecting all these humans, we won't have space on Earth, so we need to send those resurrected humans to other planets. And then he said literally things like we have to colonize the solar system, make it a whole, and then eventually turn Earth into some sort of space-faring planet that can float around according to our will. He said mad things like this. Um but the point is the Soviets really liked this, right? The Soviets were very scientific. The problem is the Soviets couldn't accept the Christian component. And of course, they were very anti-religious. Um so, in some sense, he was not accepted by Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviets also. Right? So, that's why he wasn't read so much early on. But nonetheless, if anyone So, there's a lot of literature on this, by the way. Any of you interested in Russian Cosmism, right? There's a very good book by George Young. It's a fantastic read. It'll outline for Russian Cosmism and how it started with Fyodorov. Right? He really influenced the Soviet space project to a large degree. Okay, so um I won't talk too much more, but let me get into his idea of the cathedral. Right? This is the This is the really interesting stuff. So um the main problem we talked about is the difference between theory and practice. Right? So, Fyodorov thought that we need to have what? An organizing principle where people come together. So, how do we make this practical? Like he's, you know, I I don't want to talk about this. I'm already sounding like a abstractor, you know, doing abstraction only. So, this is how he's thinking, right? And he's like, how do I make it practical? Well, he talks about the cathedral of divine wisdom. Right? So, what he does is he takes the temple, the church, whatever, the library, and the museum, and unifies them into one. Right? That's what he calls the cathedral of divine wisdom. Um it is the tablet he calls it the tablet upon which universal resurrection is inscribed. It unites Hagia Sophia with the temples of of Athena and the Muses, so the ancient Greeks as well. Embodying the unity of theory and practice. Okay, so why why the museum? How are museums uh How are museums used? Generally speaking, we put artifacts of the past that we enjoy for our pleasure. Fyodorov calls that dead matter. Because taking pleasure in dead, you know, the dead shouldn't be just enjoyed for what they achieved. They need to be brought back. So, the museum is to remind people that we need they need to come back. Right? The temple is for the worship path. This is in you know, inextricably bound to religious worship and whatnot. Right? And the library is the knowledge component. And then he calls these three together the cathedral of divine wisdom. Right? And so it is like a religious scientific and data collecting center. All in one. Right? This is how he makes it practical. And then Um This is where it gets a little bit philosophical. I hope you excuse me on this, but the idea is by making this concrete, right? Anytime we have a thought, right? Let's say You know whenever you have ideas, but they never come into fruition? He calls that non-being. Right? Um Whenever you have an idea that comes into fruition, it's in being. So really on an ontological level, let's say if we talk philosophically for a moment, um there's a distinction between non-being and being that is always at work. And you can only unify them when you have already unified those three dimensions. The religious, the data collecting, and the museum, which is the artifacts of the past. Right? Um so in other words, by living in that cathedral of divine wisdom, and everybody has effectively made themselves an a an extension of this work, there is no non-being. It's always being, and it's consistently being. You You see what I'm saying? So it extends out. Every person is already acting out the resurrection work. This is how he sees it. And so then it becomes at this point a process of steady growth rather than wasteful non-being thoughts. Right? You don't peel away and think something completely irrelevant to the universal task. Right? And so this is why he says, this is his exact words, um in building the temple, one creates oneself into a church. So that's what he means, quite literally, you become an extension of that cathedral of divine wisdom. Right? Once you have it built and everybody's got their task. And then uh its builders become a living ecclesial community giving construction, education, and collective labor a liturgical character. So you see, when you go to church and read out prayers and hymns and things like that, Fedorov says those prayers and hymns are good, but they need to be literally scientific also. So you don't just worship, you worship through the task. Right? Um so it's really intrusive. You see what I'm saying? Um and then all of this becomes really how do I say? Ultimately, and this is for me the most stuff, right? I mean, we can get into it if you guys want, but it's all about recollection. Platonic principle, of course. >> Anamnesis. >> Yeah, anamnesis, correct. Yes. So this goes back to Plato's idea that every time you recollect something, you are not really remembering, you are unforgetting, because you already know it. Okay? So this is this is the Platonic idea. Fedorov gives it a practical task. He says that that's what we're doing. So by unifying, we are recollecting. We're bringing what's already there. We just need to do it. Right? So this is how he sees the task. Um and uh from here, I mean, he Look, of course, this is very rudimentary what I'm doing here. This is very uh introductory to his ideas, but he then develops a a system of 12 steps, right? He calls it the Pascal questions, right? You guys know about the Pascal the the event the Christian event. Okay, I'll read this answer. From the 2nd century onwards dispute over pasture from the Greek passion Hebrew Pesach concerning whether Christ's death and resurrection should be commemorated on the 14th of Nissan or always on a Sunday. There was this you know tension between Christianity and Judaism when they should commemorate Jesus. Um his death and resurrection and whether it should be Sunday or Saturday, right? Um so in the Council of Nicaea in 325 it established a common Sunday observance independent of the Jewish calendar. So the Christians developed their own independent Jewish calendar. So he took that word Pascal um and he made it uh it's really interesting. He took that controversial event in Christian history and called it the 12 Pascal questions. How to answer that problem, right? Now I won't read out the 12 because I think I've already spoken too much. But what I will do is I'll take I'll tell you the the just really quickly some of the important ones. The first one and this goes back to everything I said at the start is death-bearing nature. He says that nature is a dealer of death right now. Now I do a lot of work in Buddhism Buddhist scholarship and I gave a talk on Fyodorov and Buddhism actually um when I was in Japan only a couple months ago. And the the Buddha sees a similar thing but he calls it dependent origination, right? Everything sort of comes into being and then pass away into being and this is the root cause of suffering. That's the general Buddhist idea. Um the Buddhists of course they tell you to basically regulate inward contemplation so that dependent origination no longer impacts you. And then you can escape. Fyodorov goes the other way, right? He says that this he agrees with this dependent origination stuff cuz death-bearing nature but you need to go out into the world and literally stabilize the world. Like literally manipulate the world into where it's just love and compassion unified. So, this is the number one Pascal question. From there every all the rest of them follow. And then the rest is really interesting stuff because it shows that he is definitely engaging. I know this because this is kind of my job that he's engaging with a lot of the ethical principles of many of the traditions, whether it's Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek stuff. So, he talks about that for example, there's over sexualized feeling. Everybody just wants to mate based on pleasure only, not for the purpose of reproduction. Right? And then he talks about the difference between city and countryside. He said everybody's congregating city, why? Because you want to make money. The countryside, the land gets left out. Right? This is one example. Uh human immaturity. He says that humans are immature. They take interest in things that are completely irrelevant to anything. Like you have 80 years to live, 100 years to live, and you take interest in things that have nothing to do with compassion or others. For him it's like this is the waste, immaturity. Um Another example he gives. Oh, yeah. So, religion. And this is where he's controversial probably why Orthodox Christianity they would have read this and not like this. He says religion has become dead. He says we have to transform doctrine, ritual, and ideolatry. Ideolatry, he came up he came up with this word, we're worshipping idols just for the idol's sake. It's not having any use in this compassion project. So, we need to transform all of that again into the resurrection project. And then of course there is the the the divide reason theory and practice. This is another major example. Okay, so that's I don't want to talk much more than that. I'll leave it open to questions. So, this is his basic ideas. So, we can go with questions now. >> Yeah. So, um earlier you spoke about uh the world being transformed through love. >> Yes. >> And love um causing God to become man, but also in the reverse direction man to become God. >> Correct. >> Um it sounds very mystical as though uh he's just describing some um mysterious process that we don't understand. >> Plus >> worse, but later on you talk about how he felt that science in the library was involved in this process as well. So, I'm wondering if this is more of metaphorical description from him, but he still has the in mind that this will need to be worked out scientifically as well. >> Yes. So, this is the very difficult dimension, but you know, here again, this is why he says history is important. Um I'm going to go with the Greek example, so you understand what he's what he has in mind. So, if you look at a lot of the early Platonists and some of the Aristotelians be followers of these major Greek philosophers, they would look at geometry and say geometry is really practical, gets results, we can, you know, build buildings and have amazing structures. But these Platonists would say that's not what geometry is all about. Geometry is about seeing intelligible patterns in reality and recognizing the higher order. In recognizing the higher order, what you see, you see the geometry is nothing but expression in mathematical form in space of love. Why? Because intelligible order, reason, rationality is inextricably bound to love. When things are rational, they are good by default. This is the connection, right? So, the idea is when you use science not just to build the nice building, but to use it in so in to make it love with God. Then it's a little bit different. This is how he sees it. Right? Now, we're saying it's mystical, but look, this was already used. I mean, the the the Pythagorean tradition did this for a while. I mean, they made discoveries in mathematics, but along the route they also had salvific principles at work. It was soteriological. You know, people did this and they got salvation. So, that's what he had in mind. I hope that makes clear. >> So, um would it be accurate to say that he is really just speaking um at a different level or is a different symbolic level here, but he has in mind that there are operative processes involved that might be more scientific as well? >> So, remember he a lot of his texts were written with the expectation firstly that nobody was going to read it. And then secondly that the reader was really really adept at the content. So, he expects someone to really know this stuff, the Greek stuff, the Greek background, especially the Christian theology and all of this stuff. So, when he says, for example, that science needs to have compassionate principles at work, he would expect that the people reading this stuff already understand this. They know the history that we have had this already. There's evidence that this works. And so, it's not necessarily I should actually be um clear about this. Uh Fyodorov never wanted to write esotericly. He didn't want symbolic interpretation. This is one big problem he had with the famous Russian philosopher Solovyov. Solovyov, which everybody reads him, he's well studied. This he's he's taught in universities. I know this. Whereas Fyodorov's not. So, the Solovyov, when he looked at Fyodorov's ideas, he said, "No, no, this is all too esoteric, even for me. It's too symbolic. What do you mean, resurrect everybody? We couldn't do this literally. We need to think about it this on a metaphysical level. And Fyodorov would get enraged. He would get furious. He would be like, "No, I mean this literally. Like literally, we need to go back to the cemetery and literally resurrect people." Right? So, he's not into esoteric writing. >> One more question. >> Yeah, yeah, of course. >> Uh you spoke about ideolatry >> Mhm. >> as a new a neologism that he came up with. Uh is he trying to say essentially that ideology can become a form of ideolatry? Is that what he's trying to say? >> Yes, but he's meaning it primarily on the use of um uh religious symbols. So, it at this point he he really didn't like mystical rights that were were left in the church. Or like uh you know, any ascetic, in fact, he didn't like. And so, he said that whenever Okay, so uh this is kind of probably important background. So, the Russian Orthodox tradition has a very deep mystical element. Probably even more so than the Greeks. They were famous for their icons especially. Right? So, Russian iconography is world famous because they took the Greek and they made it even more mystical to another level, especially in the Middle Ages. Uh there's a really good film if anyone's interested in this, Andrei Rublev. Uh you might have seen this. It's great, right? Yeah, this is where you see this stuff where the early Middle Ages Russians were doing this. So, Fyodorov was in this sort of context. And he saw that this mysticism was giving salvation. It was, it worked. But what did it work for? For one person. Right? So, in other words, one person would learn how to use the icon, see God, and get salvation, and freedom, and everything else. And that's what he meant. It's like, "No. No, no, no. It needs to be universal." So, these icons, they need to be transformed. And this is where science comes in. >> And there there seems to be more than a notion of love as an interpersonal experience. And so, I'm curious with his theology, >> Mhm. >> was God a person? >> Oh, this is where it's very difficult. Um okay. Uh How do I approach this question? So, there is an issue with Christianity in the Middle Ages, the distinction between imminence and transcendence. Right? Now, everything about Fyodorov you read, right? You read about this idea that God is present in all things. Right? Now, this is Fyodorov would say, "Okay." But here's the final problem. God is simultaneously immanent and transcendent. This I think is where MTA might start to think, you know, we got to work this out. Uh The Russian Orthodox tradition has this idea that salvation is never guaranteed. You might do everything perfect. You might even get this universal resurrection on the road. You might become a Fyodorovian, but transform the world into a, you know, a planet as he sees it that's space fairing. We're doing We've achieved what he wants to, and still salvation might not be there. That's the transcendent element for the Russian Orthodox tradition. That's what Fyodorov means. So, God is simultaneously immanent. We need to do this work, but we need to do it even if we know we're not going to be saved. If you like Dostoevsky, or if you like this idea, you'll find it in Dostoevsky, I should say. This is a Dostoevskian idea. This is Russian Orthodoxy, basically. >> This is a theme that recurs in our uh discourse as well, where I I know Lincoln has said this often that like we should behave as though even if God doesn't turn out to be real or if some of the promises of God turn out to fail, we should still act as though they will and do our best to kind of like be an imperfect substitute for that. So, like we should still fight for the cause even if >> Exactly. >> even if it's a lost cause. >> Yeah. >> a It's almost a like a like a self-enforcing gamble because uh the idea of salvation leads you to suspect that the kind of person who would get saved is the kind of person who would do it anyway. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Just because it's right, not because they were going to get something out of it. >> Right. >> You >> And it seems like Jesus also exemplifies that, right? >> Mhm. >> I've heard of it. >> Well, like like you know, I think if if he's dying on the cross, he thinks um >> Yeah. >> you know, >> of the other robber while he's getting crucified. >> forsaken by God, but I'm going to go through with it, you know. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's true. >> Yeah, that's that's basic. So, if you have that element, you've got a core system already in Fyodorov's ideas. Um in fact, this is the only way in which salvation can become a coherent if it is not guaranteed and it's acted upon, which also, by the way, and McKay, I have a feeling you don't like this. This is where uh this is where God is transcendent because you don't know. Everything we're reading here, everything we're talking about here, you don't know. So, this is the mysterious element to transcendence that is inseparable from Fyodorov. >> I have a question from one of our remote >> Of course. >> Ben Peters, who's also a Russian scholar, >> Mhm. >> um at he asks, "How to resurrect according to Fyodorov, literally? What kind of specific scientific techniques does he propose to realize the universal resurrection? How in specific would, say, piloting the planet Earth around the solar system help realize the resurrection? Are we gathering the trace traces residuals of our ancestors, the trace residuals of our ancestors? >> Yes, so that letter bond is basically the answer. You literally collect the traces. He uses the term traces. >> And is this because he thinks that somewhere out in space is where >> That's right. >> traces are? >> Yeah, he says the He says they go everywhere. The entire The entire universe is basically evidence of traces. >> What makes him think that it's pre-information bearing? What What makes him think that, um, say, the remnants of the dead are out in space somewhere instead of like just on the planet? >> Yeah, so we're thinking 19th century science. He's thinking, to the best of his ability, >> Yeah. >> So, it's really wild. A lot of the stuff is theoretical. >> Okay. >> Um, even this idea of piloting the planet, like, I don't know. I I'm I'm not an, you know, astronomer. >> sci-fi movie that's called Wandering Earth, and they do that. >> So, what happens to like the sun and like the moon and like Okay. >> is dying, so they start using the crust of the Earth as rocket fuel and build mountain-sized engines, and the Earth falls into a deep snow where the atmosphere falls to the ground as snow. >> Like, there's a blue planet >> Everyone lives underground, and the Earth just starts >> firing and >> I definitely can show you this movie. >> I tried to show you this. >> So, this is This is What is this movie called? I got to watch this. >> Wandering Earth. It's It's a Chinese Indian movie. It's really good. I did not mean >> I'm good. I'm >> great, actually. It's highly relevant. >> Um, yeah, so Tsiolkovsky, one of his, uh, one of the guys that really uh, Tsiolkovsky, who was also deaf by the way, the father of rocket engineering. By the way, when the Germans were going through Soviet Union at the time, uh they found these manuscripts in the basement. So, they found what Tsiolkovsky was writing all these formulas. And uh von Braun, the famous uh German who became a rocket engineer himself, he saw the documents. He's like, "What the hell? Schoo- school teacher knew this?" The- well, Fyodorov, he was inspired by Fyodorov, Tsiolkovsky. >> So, uh Ben Peters mentions another um interesting uh author who has this concept of a spaceship Earth. Hey Ben, do you want to just speak up and share it with us? >> A spaceship. I love that word sticking. >> Yes, hi. Am am I audible? >> You are. >> Okay, great. Well, thank you so much. Um this is so fascinating. Professor Alexandrov, anyway, like the this long tradition can be traced through the hippies and Buckminster Fuller in the '50s, '60s, and the '70s, who has a beautiful um book called the operating manual for the spaceship planet Earth, which extends kind of actually a lot of the theories of um Vladimir Vernadsky um and you can see this into a kind of new spirit uh worldview. Anyway, the Earth is a spaceship. Step off. Hop off. >> And what does Buckminster Fuller want to do with his spaceship? >> Well, I mean, he has a little bit like Fyodorov um this world history of revolution and transformation. He wants to see a total class economic transformation at home, and then he wants to see us to kind of steer into a brighter Star Trek like future. It's not quite clear to what end. It's certainly not a Russian Orthodox resurrection, but it is a kind of bold vision of a of a future. Um Yeah, like it's half half in play in his case. I don't think it all is literal or as serious as Field of Dreams. >> I see. Okay. So, I'm getting the impression that you guys want to convince me this is possible. >> I think we're trying to make sense out of something that seems really strange, but um I guess from the >> It's not a major concern of Mormon tradition. >> I would hope not. >> I guess like you're saying his cosmology is not as advanced as modern science. And so >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> So, this is just this makes sense for some reason in his cosmology. >> It does, but you know, um he he had a lot of wild theories. It wasn't just that. I mean uh but Okay, for example, he thought that um uh a lot of the species, for example, sharks and things like that don't need to be harmful towards humans. >> Mhm. >> So, he says that they can be reoriented in a way in their nature where they become friendly. I mean, what does he what is he talking about exactly? You know what I mean? Shark attack Yes. >> Also, marine creatures can develop behaviors and habits. Like I've seen people on YouTube who became friends with their jumping spiders. So >> So >> Wow. >> He he is a Here here's a You guys a very interesting anecdote. I think that I The reason about the sharks, I think it might have a biblical uh story. >> The lion and the lamb. >> Oh, okay. Well, there you go. See, this is it. You know why I remember this is because I remember when I was like a little kid, Jehovah Witnesses used to come and knock on the door. And one of them tried to, you know, told me the stories. And then I was like really interested I was always scared of sharks and I was like, but what what about the sharks? Will the animals there hurt us? And he was like, no, the sharks become your friends. So that's what I thought maybe this is what Fyodorov had in mind too. Yeah, please. >> Um, I think this is really interesting. Um, what it sounds like something that's really important to him is the closing the gap between the theory and the practice. >> Yeah. >> So I think the theories are really interesting. In practice, does living this these ideas mean that is he expecting people to live the way he lived where they kind of give up all of their material possessions and come home with empty pockets every day and think about ways that they can lift up everybody else. Like what what is his what of his ideas look like in practice for the average person? >> Um, quite literally as you said that. I mean, giving up everything, no material gain. Um, so in effect, this is it's it's aesthetic, but it also is very consistent with the desert fathers of of Christianity, early desert fathers. They were all about giving. Um, but the problem is that Fyodorov understood he was intuitive enough to understand that everybody can't become ascetics. We need scientists, we need engineers, right? So, um, the thing is I know this sounds strange, but he thought that this was inevitable. And so he thought by giving away his stuff, he's just speeding it up. Right? So he thought, oh, look, I did what what I could do. I articulated what we're already doing. I'll just give up my stuff. Um, one more thing I'll add to the theory, um, so uh, the deeper philosophical element of the separation between theory and practice, he goes back to the to the mystical traditions and says that um, they are actually glorifying death by making non-being and thinking a dead principle. Right? So, that's why he said whenever I give money away I haven't thought a dead thought. If that makes sense. So, it's quite it's it's a literal enactment of what he's thinking. >> And have his ideas transformed the way that you live your life at all? >> Me personally? >> Yeah. >> Um >> Is it just interesting for you to study here or has it changed your view at all? >> Uh well, you know, I don't like to >> I don't know if that's an appropriate question but I have to ask. And by that I mean do you have any change in your pocket with you? >> Just curious. >> Well >> We take Visa card. We take Visa. >> Well, when I was when I was talking to Carl downstairs I like pulled out my pocket and noticed that receipts were all falling on the floor. So, yeah, I don't have I spent it all. >> It's true. Your pockets are empty. >> You're >> You're safe. >> Yeah. Um no, so about Fyodorov. So, um look because I work in academic philosophy I work with really complex thoughts. Right? You you think like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Kant. Um uh for whatever reason Fyodorov is really close to me, like really. He really speaks to me. I I I don't get it like the thing is some ideas are profound. Like you read Ralph Waldo Emerson. I love Ralph Waldo Emerson, right? He's profound. But this resurrection idea there's something to it, you know? Um so, I would say definitely it's influence. It changed my life in fact. When I think about it uh so, when I was teaching in Russia um my Russian colleagues were were like I don't get why you really like this guy. Um but one of them said something really interesting. He said to me um and he was also you know, an excellent scholar. He said what we need to do if you want to really make Fyodorov taken seriously again, we need to demythologize him." So because that's how everybody accepts him that he's mythologized. Right? So everybody's like this is myth. And that's what Solovyov said, you know, the Russian premier philosopher. So in that sense I think there's more to it. I think I'm not I don't read Fyodorov just because I enjoy his ideas. No, I really think there's something there. >> You should tell them when you did to the Senate of Man in the airport. >> No, no, that's that's come on. That's enough. Too much. No, no, no. >> It's in the lease Senate of Man >> No, no, no. That story is not coming. >> Um Let me >> So go ahead. Go ahead. >> If I understood you earlier and seeing you were saying he conceived of some kind of radical freedom but the universe is open. It's up to all of us. And yet you said it's inevitable. >> Yes. Yes. >> So how does that work? >> Yes. Um okay. The Despite the fact that nature is already chaotic, it's fundamentally good. Why? Cuz God created him. Right? Now this is the message we understand. We work towards it. We work towards this good universe and improve it and everything. But God is also transcendent. Do we really know what we're doing? Would the message change? What will happen in 1,000 years? What happen in 5,000 years? We don't know. So in other words, every every single act and I hope I'm not getting too complicated here. And this is a fundamental right Yeah. So there's a fundamental idea in Russian Orthodox thinking and that is creation, creativity. Um how does creativity function? This is very important and this is really deep. This really keeps me up at night. Creativity is ex nihilo, created out of nothing. So, let me be clear here again. Whenever you create, let's say software, you already have the base structure, right? You tune what you already have into creating something, right? That is more suitable. Am I right? Is that a That's fair, right? Uh creativity for the Orthodox tradition is not that. It goes back to the Greek word, which I don't remember we spoke about this, Steve, today? Poiesis. It goes back to the word poiesis, which means it creates completely out of new, ex nihilo, out of nothing. What does that mean? That means we don't know what the next step is, what the next thought is. Because every thought is completely out of new. It's not related to an antecedent order. There's no link. Right? >> How does that even work? >> Yeah, this is it. That's transcendence. >> Okay. >> So, in other words, some things are related. You create software, like I said, using that same analogy, on a base reality. But true creativity, true poiesis, is out of completely nothing. It exceeds. It is the transcendent in the imminent. This is the mystical component of the Orthodox. >> Mhm. >> So, that's why coming back saying it's inevitable, well, this is God's understanding only, right? We can only create. This is what makes us human, but we don't know what we're creating towards. >> So, you probably know this already, but in Mormon theology, Joseph Smith makes it quite quite a strong point of going back to the Hebrew and pointing out that the Hebrew says that the gods organized matter from chaos rather rather than out of nothing, right? And that the ex nihilo creation posited by classical Christianity is is in essence idolatrous is some kind of false notion that is not biblical according to Joseph anyway. She this he he much preferred the idea of thinking of gods as emerging from pre-existing things and then choosing to organize the things that that they found themselves in our midst. >> That's right. I mean in fact I have it in the notes you notice I have it so when I upload this you see I did go into like um I just didn't want to talk too too long but I got into the King Follett discourse, right? >> We'll do it again. >> Yeah. What you guys have it you can you don't need to sit in your phone. >> Oh yeah. >> Well, okay. So Steve heard all my thoughts already now I'm saying it again. So look I mean the Hebrew bara created, right? So you have this So you have Clayton's report Okay, let me read that Clayton's report 1844. This is this is you this is you guys, right? The word create came from the word bara Hebrew bara created. Don't mean so it means to organize. Right? Same as a man would use to build a ship hence we infer that God had materials to organize from chaos chaotic matter element had an existence from the time he had. So the pure principles of element are principles that never can be destroyed. They may be organized and reorganized but not destroyed. So this is Joseph Smith's basic idea, right? Now then this is what I noticed earlier. We have another thing from him. Eternal intelligence. This is Have you guys read this? You probably all have. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle. Right? We talked about Steve and I were talking about this. Another rendition we have um from another person who was recording it was uh Woodruff. Woodruff he he had intelligence is eternal and it is self-existing. Okay, so here's the thing. Um organizing So, when I said that creation ex nihilo creation ex nihilo isn't creating matter itself out of nothing. It is the thought form. So, here he's consistent with Joseph Smith. If we read intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle or that it is eternal in itself. Um this By the way, I Look, I haven't studied Mormon uh theology long enough. You need Give me another year or two. I'll be I'll be back. I'll give you a call. >> Sounds good. >> All right, let me study it properly, but let me give you my uh initial thoughts. Um in Greek thought, intellect, the mind is the highest principle. And it is free from matter. It impacts matter, but it's free. Right? This is a huge thing with Aristotle and Plato. These are the guys that came up with the idea. Okay? So, what he's saying here is >> Sounds like that. >> almost, you know, I I don't want to just map or someone else's Greeks onto Joseph Smith's words, but when you talk about intelligence existing upon a self-existent principle and it is when he says it is eternal, especially, right? This is what it means to create ex nihilo. It's the thought form that is is out of nowhere and then the matter follows. So, even if you organize matter, that's no problem. Matter can be immanent. McKay, you're still in the picture, it's It's But the thought is out of nowhere. We can't see an antecedent thought because thought is eternal, self-existing, truly on its own. All right? Did I Did I make sense? >> When you have When you have that year or two of Mormonism under your belt, you'll see that that is only one way of looking at the Latter-Day Saints. There's the idea of sempiternalism. >> Mhm. Mhm. >> Eternal history. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, the mystery is no beginning. >> Yeah. >> Period. >> So he >> Ex nihilo, but no beginning. >> But that's Aristotle, too, though. Right? >> And in split the idea that the problem in in Mormonism is if there's always change, does it go up, down? It It isn't transcendence. >> Mhm. >> It's all Joseph Smith says spirit and matter are the same thing. >> Yeah, yeah, he I know this. >> In that sense, it's not transcendence. It's all perspectival. >> I know. I know. >> You see the same. And so, why is there differences between the gods? >> Mhm. >> What did they choose differently to become different >> Mhm. >> since they all were are the same ancient age, so to speak. And so, uh Lincoln's been working on a third way somehow a path that isn't isn't fixed and final by its historical aspect. >> Mhm. >> How we can actually look back and say, "Even looking back, there is freedom to redo the past in a sense in that middle ground." >> Mhm. >> Um you know, there's some very interesting things going on within the Latter-Day Saint theology right now. >> Yeah, yeah, I know. I know this. >> There's new LDS theologians. >> I know. We have >> hard time finding the latest stuff, but uh >> I I noticed some of the Stephen and I were talking about the senior scholars in German thought are now reaching into LDS um philosophy or theology, whatever they're they're calling it. Um uh because it seems like it's controversial to call it theology. That's what I'm hearing. I don't know. I mean >> They're all good. Yeah. >> They're good. You can call it theology. >> Yeah. >> I think it's fine. It's just that um because the church is somewhat young, I think there is a little bit of concern about um the like practicing theology as being a form of kind of speculation about deep doctrines that people aren't that you know, some of our leadership is probably thinking well, they need to just work on the basics, you know, and not like speculate about lots of weird things. And I think I think there's some leaders who don't have that training who are just uncomfortable with it and maybe don't uh they think it's a bunch of nonsense or whatever. I I don't know. I'm I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I this is the impression that I get. Um so, I think this may be why we have church education. >> Mhm. >> You can go into church education, but you can't go into theology at least at the a church university. But, I do see this changing because we have a lot of young uh scholars going and studying theology at other universities like Harvard Divinity School. >> Okay. >> And then and then doing Mormon theology after they graduate. But, it's kind of sad that they can't do it in our in our own Yeah, in our own universities, right? So, >> Theory and practice. Heavy into practice. In our Latter-day Saints are into practice. >> Yeah, I I can see Look, I mean, I can see that definitely. >> I was wondering though >> Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. >> No, that's okay. That's okay. You're good. >> You you were talking to me earlier about some of what you see as the the goals of the association or what should be the goals and some of your ideas about um what makes us interesting and unique and how you think it might be interesting. >> expand on this slightly before you answer it that way? >> Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. >> Earlier tempted us with a with claiming you said there were some things that you saw that were overlaps or symmetries or some consonances between federal law and Mormonism. I'd love to hear those and then how they fit feed into what Carlos >> Look, I see I see Yeah, so this is the thing and maybe I wasn't explicit enough. It's not consistent. There are no inconsistencies at this point. I don't see any. I see of course inconsistencies between the Russian Orthodox Church for example and Mormon Church right there in the Church of Latter-day Saints I should say. But in terms of the MTA and what Fyodorov did there's complete parallels. I don't know. I have to think about the inconsistency. This idea about transcendence that I was talking about this is a very deep philosophical principle. It won't reach the vast majority of people. It's too It's too complicated. But everything else is So what So do you can you tell me an inconsistency that pops into your head? Perhaps I can ruminate over because there isn't any. >> He might be somewhat more platonic than the average Mormon. >> Yeah, but here's the thing though. What I'm reading from the King Follett discourse it seems like Okay, which comes back and reminds me of what what you were mentioning. It seems like you will have you guys can correct me here. Intelligence exists upon self-existent principle. Is he conflating intelligence with spirit? >> I don't think so. >> Oh, see See, this is the issue now. I need to know. >> But this has been debated in by our own >> Okay, so it's undecided. >> So let me let me chat fill you in on sort of what has been said about this. So, um Joseph Smith, throughout his life, sometimes seems to use certain terminology interchangeably. So, there are times when he speaks of intelligences and times when he speaks of spirits >> Mhm. >> almost as though they were the same thing. >> Mhm. >> And it's unclear. However, subsequent scholars, like Joseph F. Smith, or was it Joseph Fielding Smith? No, it's Joseph The person who compiled the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith. >> That's Joseph Fielding. >> Yeah, Joseph Fielding Smith was attempting to harmonize these different usages of Joseph Smith. And so, he thought, well, clearly he used different words, and so he must have meant something different. So, then Joseph Fielding Smith tried to harmonize them by saying, "Intelligence is a pre primordial state of spirit, which is a primordial state of of soul, which is spirit and body connected." But, it's not totally clear, in my opinion, whether that's actually what Joseph Smith intended or whether it was just Joseph Fielding Smith's interpretation of what Joseph was saying. >> So, this So, this is a distinction that would need to be worked out very carefully because it's important. Um So, let me let me tell you why I picked up on it. Um Clayton, he adds Um >> add one other thing, which is that regardless of who's right, in many uh modern Sunday School manuals, intelligences are treated differently from spirit. >> Yeah. So, I'm reading it. Personally, I read it as different. But again, like I said, I am not confident in how much I've thought about this and worked on it and written about it, you know. Um so, here's one example as to why I see it different. So, um Clayton, after he says So, Clayton has the idea that intelligence is eternal and it is self-existing. Um whereas the other quote by I'm not sure who it was, has intelligence exists upon a self-existing principle. It's almost the same. These are two records, right? But, here's what Clayton adds. Uh that these spirits are susceptible of enlargement. Now, uh this is why it helps to know the Greek background. This is why I said it's really Platonic. Um the Platonists believe that the intellect is exactly like this except it's eternal and it is absolutely susceptible to enlargement per person. So, in other words, some people can cultivate the intellect to higher states of awareness. Now, um for example, the Platonists will say these are people that become prophets. They see more, they hear more, and then they eventually say more. That's what enlargement of intellect is, not spirit, because spirit is an embodied principle. So, you can't enlarge the embodiment condition. You can enlarge only Is Is that making sense? This is the intellect. This is a This is Greek stuff, right? I see this is consistent with what he's saying. Uh with with That's how I read Joseph Smith at this point. >> has been in Platonism, right? >> Yeah, yeah. This is My PhD was in Platonism, basically, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, you you guys see the So, if you take spirit as enlargement >> If If can he can he make that work? I think there is a fundamental agreement >> Mhm. >> needs >> But, there is some agreement >> that that uh there's an ontological monism in the sense of all things are the same stuff. >> Mhm. >> Matter, spirit, intellect isn't separate. Now, the form >> Mhm. >> See where I'm getting at? That's where we're all still working on as Latter-day Saints. >> The form. >> The form of that >> Mhm. >> same stuff. >> Mhm. Mhm. >> You see it's it's a question. And it >> So, it's it's like we already have It can have said this as well where he talks about how spirit is really the configuration of matter, right? Not like it's a pattern of information, right? You're taking what makes your spirit you is that you're organized in a unique pattern that makes up you. >> Rather split the history. >> Rather than that it's some kind of like thing that's separate from your body. >> But they But these again, like like I say, these are all Greek ideas. These have been taught over for hundreds and thousands of years. That's what I'm telling you. And the other thing we have to keep in mind. So, obviously the Bible itself is also important for the Latter-day Saints, right? Well, the Bible was influenced by the Greeks. >> By Mesopotamians. >> Yeah, and of course, yeah. >> I had So, you have some fun with this. One of my LDS teachers years ago, his name's Hugh Nibley, and he was a centrist. He believed that the Greeks got it from some primal early LDS culture. Now, you laugh at him. But his idea when the when the Mormons go to their temple >> Yeah. >> the ritual is that God gave all the Christian truth to Adam and Eve. >> Of course, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the That's right. >> diffused and then messed up by the Greeks. >> Yeah. >> You see where I'm going with that? >> I like the Greeks. >> It's a very interesting This is a very old LDS idea. >> Well, I mean, if you think I mean, the the Book of Mormon goes 600 BC, right? 500 BC is that? >> I think >> it's just that Hugh Nibley loved to find Mormon principles in really ancient records. >> Yeah. >> He would go to Egypt and he would read the hieroglyphics and he would say, "Well, this is just like our temple ceremony." >> Yeah, yeah. >> So, he'd say it was just a permutation that went awry from the real stuff. >> Yeah, yeah. >> He and Peter would have gotten along really well. >> Yeah. But, look, to be honest, the the early the early Islamic tradition of Golden Age, they that's what they said. They said a lot of the the principles of Christianity and Judaism and Islam are Adamic principles. >> Adamic principles. >> Yeah, so they say that even so, they loved Plato and Aristotle they even though they were pagan, they still liked them. >> Yeah. >> And they're like, "These guys were just working with Adamic principles." >> There you go. >> Yeah, you I mean, you can read it like that, of course. I understand that. But, in terms of like working out this distinction between spirit and and intellect, this is really important for the Greeks what they clarified is that spirit is not thought. Thinking itself is the most divine component. And in fact, this is where we have a really controversial thing. I put it in the footnotes because I don't know how everybody would feel like this but about it. But, this is what I found from the text. It says um God never had power to create the spirit of man at all. So, that means intellect if you read it Platonically, that's what Plato would say in the Platonists. They would say that the intellect creates spirit. Spirit is a manifestation of a little thought. >> There's a scripture in the D&C that says intelligence or the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be. >> Mhm. >> Um yeah. >> Will you repeat what you were just saying a second? Are you saying that you think Plato would agree with? >> Uh yeah, this idea that spirit well, to make it as clear as possible, the spiritual soul, let's say soul, because that's the language you would use, CK for example, is derivative of intellect, nous. They are two levels. Only because we So, they're not really two levels, but we have to think about it like that because we inferior to this high understanding. So, the intellect, right, is the root of the soul. So, that you have a soul, okay, is because you are embodied. If you are not embodied, you're just intellect. Does that make sense? >> Tie it back to the quote that you were pulling from Joseph Smith about God God not having the ability to create. >> Well, this is insofar as we understand God is the self-existent principle that's already completed, the intellect. If that makes sense. Because if we're saying that there's nothing beyond that intellect or intelligence, then that's that's what God is. >> So, you don't find a tension between what Joseph is saying there and your understanding of what he's saying in the Bible. >> No, not really. Because in fact, when I was reading this, I was thinking, I mean, when you say intelligence exists upon self-existent principle, um I can give you the Enneads of Plotinus, which is one of the most famous Plotonic text, and I'll find you passages like it, and I'll show them to you. So, it's almost word for word. And we know for a fact that he didn't read the Enneads. >> Sure. >> Yeah, I know for a fact that >> Because you're okay. You're >> Because we know Ralph Waldo Emerson >> even didn't have the translations of the Enneads. >> All right, and it was later, right? >> So, yeah, I don't see the Yeah, I don't see um inconsistencies, yeah. Yeah, I hope that helps. >> Is there It would be great for me in reading the Timaeus, >> Mhm. >> it seems that the idea was God created because he was perfect in all >> The Timaeus. >> to demonstrate he didn't have envy. >> Mhm. >> And so he had to create stuff that he didn't envy. He should prove I mean this is the one of the most wonderful passages I've ever read. You know, why create? Well, I've got to prove to myself that I'm perfect. So I've got to be tempted with envy. So I'll then create all this the plen- in the plenum. I create everything. And I don't envy any of that. >> Yeah, that's God loving himself is sort of a creation. Yeah, yeah. >> Well, it's it's it's not really loving himself. It's not envying what he has created. It's very So interesting. Humanistic personal fantastic. >> The Timaeus. >> of the telos. >> Yeah, the Timaeus by the way is a Pythagorean idea. That's it's Pythagorean. It's not just Plato's Plato's Pythagoreanism. >> Right. >> So forgive me for interrupting things. >> Interrupting for a sec, but for those of us who don't love geeking out on philosophy quite as much as Randall. I'm hoping you can bring it home with more pragmatic terms as to like >> Okay, yes, please. >> Um cuz you spoke to me earlier about some of the things you see as maybe perhaps part of our mission as as an organization and some of the ways we could find inspiration in the works of Philo. >> Okay, so um I I would I'll say a lot of what I already said to you. >> Yeah, yeah. >> The first thing I would say is um these doctrinal things that we talked about just now, you need to think them through. So you need to work them out. So for example, um uh you need to read it to actually understand the ontology. When I when I started So Steve is one of my best friends now. And he's, you know, member of the Latter-day Saints as well. And I started reading it then. Um I read the Book of Mormon, read everything, a lot of the text, secondary sources, too, all that. I'm still not very confident on knowing the material because it takes time. As a scholar, I know how it works. Um but it seems to me that uh there is no consistency amongst the scholars who are studying this stuff. So, at least in So, the first sign of a mature scholarship is consensus. The first thing is you need this I would say you need consensus. Now, specific to the MTA, the MTA does need that anchor. You need that philosophical anchor. You need to actually know the direction. The mission statement is brilliant. I like I told you, I'm completely on board. I'm fully on with you on this. But it has to have that consistent um ontological backdrop. It has to. Otherwise, when you get to sticky points, you won't know how to deal with it. You won't know whether or not you're contradicting your own framework. So, this is where you need a philosopher. That's why I said you need the rigor of a philosopher to work this out. >> I I don't Not that I don't want to appear skeptical to that claim, but I would say that there is this very strange aspect to Mormon tradition, which is that um we retain this tentativity because at any moment of uh the current president of the church could change policy or >> Of course, yeah. >> say something that um supersedes any prior uh prior revelation. >> Mhm. >> Um and but more often than not, what seems to happen in our tradition is that from each decade to the next and each sort of phase of church development to the next, they just kind of stop talking about one thing and start talking about something else. >> Of course. >> never there's never an official repudiation of these things or very rarely. >> Mhm. >> Every once in a while there will be a repudiation like when the priesthood was extended to all worthy males in 1978. But but otherwise it's usually done just by changing the emphasis. And so there's a lot of slipperiness in Mormon practice by design, right? And so I guess what I'm getting at is um we resist this cod of this desire to codify everything theologically and and philosophically um maybe on purpose. >> That's a very good point, but I think you must have misunderstood me a little bit. >> Okay, it's possible. It's definitely possible. >> I was not speaking about the actual church and the saints themselves. I was talking about MTA. You guys >> Sure. Sure. >> Specifically you guys. >> Mhm. >> Um that other component for me, the ODS looks like literally the most common sense equal religion, the most successful perfect I kept telling Steve I'm like, man, it's so perfect family units everywhere. Everyone's lovely. Everyone dresses well. Nobody swears. Lincoln does everyone swear? The The For me like for example like for me I pick up on these things like I can't even watch Joe Rogan's podcast because the the profanity is too much. Believe it or not for me it's like too much and I'm like, oh my god, I can't. So um I don't see it here. Like I've known Steve 5 years. I haven't heard him swear once. I'm trying to like trigger him to do it, man. >> It is pretty funny this part. Even in our own conservatism we're quite different from other sort of crass forms of conservatism. >> Yeah, it's not And that's the thing. It's not overt. It's almost like So I that's what I'm saying. So coming to the >> It's polite. >> It's yeah, but it's etiquette and it's also grounded in tradition. You see Look Yeah, I mean you have other traditions like this too. If you see pious people from other tradition, they have this. But that's what I'm saying. That's why it's successful. But, I was speaking specifically to the MTA. You guys have a project. That's what I said. You guys have to work on that ontology. Right. Right. I'm not saying the ODS. ODS is functioning done There's nothing to do with it. It's perfect. Leave it and be Um but, the MTA needs because you have a project that is quite literally unprecedented in scale and unbelievably ambitious. Of course, you have to have an ontology. Right? Even let's take a very radical example. Look at Marxism. Marx with all of his anti-philosophical speculation is literally one of the deepest political philosophies. Right? And he changed the world regardless of whether what you would say about Marxism or So, that's an example. Right? You need to have that in That's That's all I was saying. >> Yeah, but what about us having MTA >> Mhm. >> having schools? Schools that are coherent schools that are in contestation. But, if we understand it, >> Mhm. >> would that work? >> Yes. Well, that's what >> what I'm saying? That's different ontologies perhaps at some deep level. >> Yeah. Well, this is what Fyodorov is telling you to do. You need to do it. The schools is fundamental. The education is But, here's the problem though. And this I think uh I would be concerned myself. You don't want to have schools rivaling abstract ideas. You're beyond that stage now. So, you don't want one school of nominalism and another one of realism. You know, you don't you don't want that. Debating the ideas like that. You need to have schools in the sense that you have a unified goal. Look, you need solid philosophers dealing with this. Because for me it seems like the premises are pretty clear. Right? You just need to work it out and make it explicit. So, no no rivalry in abstraction. Just you know, make the project clear and end goal and then, you know, lean it into the scripture. That's it. >> So, so you feel that we would be strengthened by solid philosophical foundation. >> I absolutely fundamental, yes. Yes. >> And as for examples of like cases where um uh that solid philosophical foundation would would serve us. Would it be like um like sort of acceptance criteria for for resurrection or is like this the person that like you know, used to be. Um like what it or or what other like things you speculate um uh don't have clarity because of our lack of philosophical foundations. >> Yeah, you'd have to work all these out. That's that's what you would do. Um because I mean, let's talk about generally speaking the transhumanist movement in itself is new. Like outside of your project, people don't know what they're doing out there, you know, you know. So. >> Yeah, but I I've been recently saying I feel like transhumanists have suffered in many cases because the aesthetics that they use are really poor. >> Yes. >> I was just speaking about this at a conference I was invited to and saying that like the aesthetics that are >> Thanks for coming down. >> Um the uh the part of what makes them seem repellent to others is that their view of what uh an ideal human looks like is so um so much worse than what we already are. It's like plastic and chrome and Barbie and Ken Barbie kind of like caricatures, right? Like >> Yeah. >> Um it's really quite grotesque in many ways. >> Yes, so if you read for example some of the famous sci-fi literature like take for example neuromancer, you know, something like this. What you see is the envisioning of what the future human is like. It's a hybrid. Um so you have like prosthetic arms, you know, or someone with an extra eye so they could see further. See, this is why um for example, many Christian traditions like your traditional Catholic or whatever, they're very very cautious about transhumanism because they believe in what I was explaining to Steve earlier, in the divinity of the human so that the human being as they are is already complete. And in fact, we should live a normal life and die and then go to the to the God's resurrection, God's way, the Christian narrative way. So it's a sensitive topic for conventional Christianity, right? Whereas for Fjordor like we take his example, it's like there's no definition of what the human is. It's limitless. Right? But then for you guys, you would have to take his example. You have to recognize what are the boundaries? What is heretical? What is no longer human? What is, you know, counterintuitive to compassion and all these So these questions are very deep and you know, does does for example not having one organ more more than one organ? All these questions, they're all you have to work to work them out. >> I think they're also challenging because we recognize that our perception of what forms these future humans may take will will also evolve. >> Yes. >> Yes, exactly. J- just just like um ancient humanity had certain conceptions of what God was like >> Mhm. >> that we now think of as barbaric. >> Mhm. >> Um but for them it may have been improvement on their existing prior moral codes. >> That's right. And if you take Fyodorov's idea, he wants he sees human beings as fundamentally um uh They should be well, effectively they're already immortal, but they need to enact it. So, everybody is already something that should be immortal, living forever. >> Yeah, that's very LDS, too. Yeah, for sure. >> Wait, yeah. >> I've seen I've seen it, yeah. >> What did you What? What we worry as Latter-day Saints, I'm addressing everyone in the room as well as you, about the notion that the body in its beautiful aesthetic now was designed functionally for a telos that this body would fulfill. A little bit of Aristotle here, but a lot of the idea of the gods having lived forever, always doing new stuff for new teloi, >> Mhm. >> therefore needing new forms. >> That's right. >> the resurrection to me has always been a problem in my philosophical mind, cuz it fixes the idea of a body with 10 darn fingers. >> Mhm. >> You know, it doesn't work for other teloi that I could see infinitely we might have, and therefore redesign bodies, redesign worlds, redesign gravities. If you see how radical it could be, given the But now the question is, what do we want I'm a pragmatist. What do we want to do next? >> Mhm. >> Right? What is the function we want to do next? Therefore, what do we design? And so, how would you think of resurrection >> Mhm. >> in that very radically uh historical pattern where you did have these forms, but you change forms to meet new needs. Could Could the body be a resurrected body be something that is that flexible in future in your mind? >> Well, that makes perfect sense what you're saying. It's It's It's It's a question that needs to be asked. But, let's define immortality on its own. Let's say we achieve immortality. It's It's contradictory to think it would look the same as this. Because, literally, for example, everything that is about me reflects mortality. Right? My skin is going to get more and more wrinkles by definition of being mortal, being human, being alive. So, in so far as I become mortal, will I still be the same? Will I still have wrinkles? Obviously not. So, yeah. I have to answer to your question. >> Ready, you're saying resurrection is kind of fuzzy. Was it Was it family for for for you? >> Of course, yeah. He He's He's spoke to this Again, you see You see We were We were saying, "Ah, Fyodor of his 19th century science." We were laughing at him, you know, with this planet idea. How much do we know? What are we talking about here? What do we What do we need? 10 fingers or what? Maybe we need 12, I don't know. The idea, right? It's And Fyodor of actually says this. He had the good sense to say this. He said that I don't really know what this looks like. >> Oh. >> Yeah. Then So, you know, immortality is the goal. And you see already he's I mean, you're abstract. Right? And the I would agree and this is a I think a very important insight you brought up just now. It will be continually revised. As your understanding develops through time, through history, through the enactment of the resurrection goal. >> He did emphasize that it was embodied immortality or re-embodied. >> Yes. That's the That's the other thing. It's an embodiment. Yeah. Yes. Uh Yes. >> Just like his name. I'd like your general thoughts on this. I know there's a Christian transhumanist association. Like why isn't there an overrepresentation of the Russian Orthodox in there? So you said it's like a good fit for that. I don't know that much about what they do. Like do you think they're sort of like a a I would guess you're pro them, but do you think their theology isn't work quite as well as as MTA? I would I would guess you'd say it wouldn't, but yeah, I'm curious what you think about or maybe the Russian Orthodox Church has its own group within it that is really transhumanist and >> Okay, it's a very good question. Uh I'll answer it this way. The primary reason is because the Russian language world is completely outside of your purview. >> Outside of >> Your purview. >> So you don't get to see it. >> Yeah. >> Um and that's because uh This firstly, there's not much interaction anymore between the Russian speaking world and English world. Take it from me. I was there for 3 years. Uh Coming back to Russian Orthodox Church, if we're specific with them, they're not really uh pro this uh transhumanism stuff. >> Right. >> Yeah, they >> You said I thought you said that earlier on, but that they ought to be like subscribing to there. >> Yeah, they they're sensitive about it. However, the Russian state, the people, the Russians are >> Mhm. >> They are the most transhumanist. >> Yeah. Well, they just >> I know I know I know in the secular realm they are. >> Yeah, but a lot of them are spending like >> 20 billion dollars on longevity science. >> Yeah, and the longevity stuff going on there is mind blowing. >> And they've had cryo as long as Oh, well. >> Goes back to the Soviets. >> Yeah. >> So here's what I would say about this. I would say that this cosmic perspective is deep in the Russian people. The church itself wants to be a the church, but the actual the way the Russians think is fundamentally transhumanist. They they love this stuff. You see immortality projects, there's so much literature on this. You can see some lots of lots of scholarship on this topic. People go to Russia and they study well all the stuff that they're doing, you know? And it even goes back to like Lenin's time, right? Right afterwards they were already doing stuff. So, that's transhumanist question. The church, no, not so much. Yeah. >> I think I'm in the interest of time, I think we should thank Emil for coming and we can continue individual discussions for as long as you guys want, but I guess one those guests who might have come to support Emil and maybe some friends of yours not to keep you stuck here all night. >> So, we can have a chance to go home. Yeah, for sure. >> Yeah. But thank you so much for coming.