Conversations with Gods, Deities, and Avatars with Kingsley Dennis

So Kingsley Dess, thanks once again. It's been five years, we just figured out. Since you've been on the Metix Podcast, so it's good to see you again. Now James, it's good to be back many years, but always worth a conversation. Exactly. And this time we're talking about a book of yours that is different to your. The things you often write about, this is a book called Sage Talks, which is you. And this was published by Aeon, and I'll say a big thank you to them for getting me a review copy. This is you, in short, conversing with Gods. And I will let that just sit as it is. So Kingsley, I guess tell us a bit about where Sage Talks came from and then we can move into what Gods are for you. Yeah, sure. It sounds odd saying I've been speaking to Gods and dieters or advertisers. The book actually has a longer gestation than most things I've written, because actually I started writing these conversations. I started them. I went back, have a look to find out. It would have been around 2017. So it's not just like a one batch job, is it worth? And around 2017, I remember I'd started work on writing a book which came out being called Bardo Times. And up to that stage I've written about conscious evolution and all these consciousness themes. But this book was the first book actually where I started to look at what I call the hyper reality of life. You know, I looked at the nature of hyper-normalization and stuff of this similar lacqueror. Because for me the world was going weird around 2017. So I thought to myself, I'm writing about this, but actually I've got no one really to discuss it with. I mean, to bounce off with what's really happening in the world. And so I just had this notion of like, if I've got some questions, who do I ask? So I started to sit down and think of what kind of dieters would match the kind of question I have. So the first initial kind of iteration of these conversations was in 2017. And then I went back to the Natsumor conversations over the years. And I kind of like finalized the conversations specifically for this book 18 months ago or a couple years ago, 18 months ago. So really, there's been conversations, the whole 25 conversations are all mixed in time chronological order. And they've been going on for almost 10 years. So that's basically how the book came about. It's just conversations I've had over the last 9 or 10 years wanting to bounce off someone other than me about, you know, just tell us who can speak to about the world. That's not in the same water as it is, you know. Yeah. So what is a, you used quite a few terms as a God's deity to advertise. I mean, what are these using those terms? Are they separate? You know, is it key to distinguish or are these? I guess I'm asking you what your metaphysics is with regard to the gods. Well, I think it's, it's, it's, I use the term God's avatars and diet is also because some of those terms are used by the traditions that I looked into. It was really, I think, I mean, the publisher thought that this book was a kind of pagan book at first because the idea that you're, you're connected with a pantheon of diet is. And a pantheon of diet is usually usually connected with pagan traditions or because I've looked into the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Hindu gods, etc. For me, it's important to distinguish from the monotheistic tradition of the absolute God because, you know, if anyone tells you that they can give a definition of the absolute God to me, their lying or delusional, we don't have the comprehension or language to spoke us people about the absolute. So for me, I, I use the term gods diet is an avatars specifically to say this is not the absolute. Yeah. So what we could call lesser gods or, or, or, or aspects or archetypes or features which get have been known as representing what have been called diet is in certain traditions. So I feel like I'm connecting with you could say an aspect of or forces or archetypes that in certain traditions represent these gods. So it's not the absolute overall cosmic mind or whatever the term you want to use. So you know, it's it's a less around than that. And what was your mode or method of talking to them? It's really quite simple and I didn't know anything else that anybody else would do. And that's also one of the points I wanted to make by putting out this stuff because at first, as I said, for nine, 10 years, I kept, I kept it to myself. Because I didn't feel like it was anything special. But it's the conversations that I want to get over what I do basically is I have an initial theme in my head. And so, like I say, the nature of chaos in the world, the nature of time, the nature of our cycles, the nature of nature and agriculture of negative forces. And you know, I pick the theme and then I obviously form that theme. I then say, well, what aspect or what deity, what representative entity in any of these traditions I'm looking at represents that theme. That's how I picked the diet. It wasn't just taken out the air. They had to be a they were representation of that theme. And so I sit down as you would any any time of writing. And just blank my mind. And when I felt like I was sufficiently free of any influence or disturbance, I'd open a page. And I'd write the first line, like, you know, hello, whatever, who are you know, Ariaman, Janice, mom, us, hello, are you there. And that is way for for some response to kind of come to me to my mind. And then and then just start writing from there. It's simple as that. It's just how you would start a conversation. So when you say, I think esoteric about you. Well, some would say there is. So when you say, when you say a response, you say, are they, are these gods speaking in your mind? Or is it automatic? What some might say is automatic writing or? Yeah, I think it seems like a bit of both my name. Well, I've never had automatic writing. And I've never had a trend sword or a disassociated voice in my head either. So it comes as a voice in my head. And so I go with it and start typing. And then you know, and initially I'm I'm skeptical thinking, well, you know, I'm just telling myself, I'm just talking to myself. And so, but I go with it. And what I, I mean, I've always found whatever writing I'm doing, unless I'm doing the writing, something isn't flowing. If I'm sitting there like that, the thing's going to come, I have to be in the flow. And then it seemed like you open up a channel of inspiration or what they want to call it. So in this terms, I start writing. And if it seems that the information is saying something that I perhaps wouldn't say in that way, then I feel like I started a conversation. Yeah. You know, if it, if it just feels like I'm saying, well, that's exactly the way I would write it, then I stopped because it feels like I haven't made a connection. So these conversations are ones where I started writing. And it just felt like I was being, I was writing something that wouldn't come out in a way that I would normally express it. As if, I don't know. So that's, you know, that's part of the conversation we're having now. Why is that? How does it happen? Yeah. So, so yeah, and I noticed as well that sometimes some conversations were faster than others. So sometimes I found that I would really try to type quite fast to keep up with the flow of thought. And I stopped to analyze what I was writing. I cut off the conversation. So that to me also was another telling sign was the speed and me having to not kind of bring my intellect to the four and analyze it. Just let it come through. So I only read the conversation after they were finished. They were written. I couldn't really read them. I could, I could follow them to ask the questions, but I wasn't absorbing the answers so much. Okay. That's a pretty simple process, then. So the 20, so there's 25 in the book that you can verse with. So the reason, did you sort of feel you had 25 or what was the, obviously you had these questions that you wanted to ask them and then found the deity that was relatively speaking of that question. Did you have these questions that you sort of desired to be answered in a different way beforehand set out or did these also come to you? Well, let me say because it came over a number of years, you know, themes cropped up at certain times and sometimes themes cropped up depending on what work I was working on. working on if I was working on a certain book you know certain theme about the nature of cycles and the nature of illusion, delusion. These themes came up years apart because I say some of the conversations like with Monos and the idea of trickery and delusion came up while I was writing barter times in 2017 because I was dealing with hyper reality. And then some themes about cycles came up much later while I was dealing with different works. So the themes came up differently and I would take time out. I took as a personal project really. I never intend to publish it. And in fact, I actually showed the book to the publisher A on a while ago before the final book, before the previous book, threshold came out. I showed them this book. And they liked it. And so it's intriguing. Can you do more because I didn't have enough material? And I wasn't expecting to be fully published. So I was gauge in their interest. So I thought, what are I need to have more conversations? So then at some point I sat down and said, what questions have I not asked that I still have in my mind? So there was some questions that I sat down in one point and said, what questions can I come up with? That happened to about seven conversations. The other 18 or 17 had done over the years very organically. Okay. Well, I guess they're not in chronological order. So there's 25 there, but they're all different times and different years. Okay. Well, I guess before we get into some other more specific questions into the specific some of the most into specific gods and the questions relating to those gods, I mean, I'll just give you an opportunity of these 25 maybe to introduce us to some or, you know, any that maybe stand out just before we go forward. Yeah. I mean, there was sometimes I found more humor than I was expecting. And which I think some of them came with, I mean, also, also, there was some humor in diet, as I thought would be more heavy going. I dark the dark one because, you know, I wanted some darker themes, like chaos and nature of evil. And I thought, you know, this would be heavy going, but there was some diet is on heavy themes, which didn't come across as that scary or that heavy to me. So I thought, oh, you know, there weren't. That wasn't what I was expecting. I, I think I mean, I remember, I felt like I got a telling off with one of them. I remember ra, Egyptian son God coming across the light. Well, I think I've got a kicking not be asked from that one. It felt like it just got, you know, kind of chastised a bit about, you sure, you're, you're, you're up to scratch with your questions type of feeling, you know. And they were one or two, which I felt like I went in with the question and they gave me something different on a different question, but they just changed the subject. From from my head, I think it was, I remember, I remember coming out of a later, this was a later conversation with a whole Mazda, your Persian deity. And this is later, this is, you know, later in the book. And I went in and wanted to kind of like ask them how you related to Araman and the other Persian entity. And they gave me, they gave me a conversation on the nature of the construct of our world and didn't want to talk about Araman, it didn't seem like. So there was some sort of like, you know, read directions that I wasn't expecting. So, yeah, on something like that. And I have to admit in some conversations, I'm more or less forgotten. Really? Yeah. I have to go back and read them. So I mean, the, the diet is what seemed to have a stronger in our terms personality or stronger effect. I remember other ones, I'd have to go back and read it to really remember the gist of the conversation. Yeah. So I guess before just another, another question before we get into the specifics of these questions, there are many that there are quite a few listeners that I mentioned who'd say, well, what Kingsley is talking about here is discussions with his unconscious or with possibly with the collective unconscious. And so that's the question of real. Now, that's a huge question. Are these gods real? I couldn't even tell you. Do you not think it matters? No, I don't, not the end of it. I mean, if I thought that I was really conversing with the gods and I took it 100% seriously, I take it seriously, but if I felt that I'm here talking with gods, I think that would be that quite damaging. That's it. It would be damaging, I think it could, it could interfere with what I, whatever I call my ego, it could say, whoa, I'm a conversation with God, you know, I'm whatever, what like other best sellers, or I could feel like, well, you know, I've, I've made to get through to them. Now, I have this special contact. And I think that's dangerous. So I've always taken it quite lightly by saying, I actually don't know if I'm speaking with that deity as represented in the tradition itself. That's my intention. So I agree with you. And I think that's a valid question. Could I be speaking with an unknown part of myself? Yes, I could be. Goodbye. Could I be speaking with what we call the highest self, which is beyond the body, but certainly not a god. Most likely, me, most likely, very possible. So I've left that open. And I never want to claim that I am definitely going to spend speaking with gods because I think that, you know, if you, when you, when you narrow that down, it gets dangerous. What I will say is that I feel like I'm having a conversation with a part, with something or some part that with human beings don't generally have conversations with. And I think that's one of the points I want to get across with is that we know we should have these broader conversations. And the modern world has really closed down a lot of conversations online with whatever into or dumb down conversations, I would say, in a lot of ways. So yeah, I can't tell you if it's the god for sure, but the possibilities are open. And I would say to any born, what try yourself and see what conversation you have. So you kind of went very deep inside. And this brings me to the first conversation that I want to draw in, which is your conversation with Hekate. It tells us that in a meaning lives inside of us and not out there in the world. Do you think this is something that we can, we can still believe, still get back to? Yeah, I think we ought to get back to it. And also that kind of notion wasn't only from Hekate. It came across another conversation by saying, look, you know, you have this conversation about have you really looked deep within yourself as well as if a sense, you know, we can have this conversation, but you don't necessarily have to rely on something external to you. You can find the answers yourself. That kind of sense was coming through. But of course, the world around us is a kind of response or participation or construction from what from our ideas. And an architect doesn't build a building before he has an idea. We don't do anything in the world unless there's a primary idea or process or thought or or urge or nudge first. We manifested. It's just that usually we don't often we don't reflect on that space between the idea and the nudge or urge and the manifestation. We have a thought boom. We say it, we do it, you know, mush to the to the chagrin of the modern world or the world in general. So there's that relationship where I think humanity or in general life lives in a world of ideas and we have manifested that and how we constructed externally. And then we respond to our constructions. And that leaves you know, if you want to go further back, the question is, well, where do our ideas and thoughts come from? Because more and more, the kind of scientific materialism has been kind of denied. The idea that our thoughts or consciousness is a byproduct of just our brain synapses. You know, more and more we have evidence of the brain living or conscious living beyond brain death. The idea is we don't just create thoughts we receive as well through our brain practice. So sometime you know where that inspiration comes from. So creativity, we're not just the starting point of creativity. We are a conduit for it. And therefore the world we material world we see is a part of that flow and that conversation. What are the limitations of that construction? We are the limitations. So the more, for example, you can give ideas to 10 different people and they would express it differently depending on their condition, their social circumstances, their resources, their belief systems because we filter everything through us. So you know, life, if you go back to Plato and the world of ideas, I don't want to sound too philosophical, I'm not an expert on Plato at all, but you know, there's a world of primary ideas and that filters through to this our material world. We could say, you know, humanity has always been inspired. That's an nature of life. But we've manifested it differently according to our thought processes. A certain idea would have got, wouldn't be manifested very differently, you know, during the medieval ages or during the time when religion was the major dominant narrative. It's expressed differently. So I think the more we open our filters and expand our cognitive senses and capacities, the greater we can manifest those ideas. And that perhaps is how progress happens. We could be negatively expand in advance and we're able to manifest our ideas in better ways or much more efficient or productive ways. You see, we've humanity's always been inspired. Now, it's kind of a recently recorded episode on inspiration and the muse and this relationship you're having with these gods is a bit, it's a bit muse-like, you know, this thing that's talking through you or helping you out or this form of communing. Now I wonder then, do you think obviously it's the case that inspiration hasn't completely gone because we're just kind of where would we even be without imagination and inspiration. But I wonder if you feel there is a specific type of materialist inspiration. We're in, you know, we are supposedly though I think we're sort of exesying it now. Maybe you can comment on the cycle there exiting the so-called secular materialist age. I think it's at least worn out. Is there an inspiration specific to it? Because it seems like a very limiting inspiration oddly enough. The second materialist. Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting that because I could say, I agree with you, coming out of some age and going to the other. But you see, when you're transiting ages, you get this kind of vague blurry realm in the middle. And that's exactly what I was trying to point to in my previous work, Bardot Times, by saying we're in this Bardot zone, kind of neither dead or alive, kind of, you know, in the Buddhist sense. So you get these anomalies. And for example, I think transhumanism is one of these anomalies because behind, I mean, I don't want to go off topic, but I think the subject is related because transhumanism, there's a strange kind of spiritual materialism behind it. And in these kind of tech circles or Silicon Valley circles, there's this idea of a kind of techno god, an AI god, the idea that there's going to be this immortality that coming through transhumanism, which is a kind of false transcendence. And many of these tech proponents do talk about that the AI would write the next holy book, as it's being famously said, or we'll start to replace our religions, etc. So this idea, because I do feel we're moving from this secular material age. So some of these connections to you could call the the animates, the sacred, which is these perennial traditions is coming back again, but because the second material age hasn't fully played out is getting meshed. Yeah. The idea of animism and the spiritual path being meshed with material secularism, what do you get? You get this notion of kind of technological spirituality or AI gods. But I think that's a kind of anomaly in the middle zone. What say talks is kind of looking back at is kind of the original contact, the more kind of organic contact between organic beings, try to find a contact with something sacred beyond material realm, but be a bridge into material realm for it. And I think that's what the muses were. There were inspiration manifesting through material vessels, the human being. And whereas the current case is the material vessels of themselves, like kind of themselves are saying that they are the place of inspiration, even though they seem only in a sort of, in that typical Tolkien-esque sense, they seem only to be able to bastardize the sacred. That doesn't seem to really be a, you can't have the organic arise from this age, it seems. It always fails because it always seems to, we see this with second religiosity, right? It always wants to wrap it up in its own language and never allow it to be its own thing. So it'll take the spirituality of whatever religion. But then, the longer you scratch the surface, you realize, this is just a political movement. Or this is just whatever it is, but you're hunting around for that seed of organic spirit, organic, whatever it is. And you can never quite, it smothers it to the degree that it's no longer there. Like you were saying about your editing process, as soon as you sort of interject and say, "Well, actually, I don't want it to be that way." It's gone. Yeah, it's a sense we were always trying to catch something and to box it up. And it seems also part of our old patterning, or the patterning, our mental behaviour patterns up to now. You could say that of the last epoch, that idea of, we have to put it in a way that fits the form for where we are now. So like the old tale of the old woman sees a crow land on a window, she goes, "Oh, what a lovely sparrow, but you've got a wrong beak and a wrong wing." So she grabs it and starts to keep it. We take something which may be slightly outside what we're thinking and then we try to fix it into our patterns and behaviour. And I think that's still happening now. You know, in this kind of liminal in between zone, we may be getting new ideas inspiration, but if we try to fit into all patterns, then we have this, you say, bastardised version, we try to give it the old vocabulary and we kind of come out with this hybrid. And we get cultish movements, we get, you know, techs, saviourism and similar thing. So I think we haven't arrived where we need to go yet and we haven't left where we leaving yet. And that's part of this cauldron that we're in now. Perhaps creative imagination is a way to try to keep a less corrupted channel open or contact open. Do you have new gods? Getting that gone back to your usual question, what are the gods? I mean, you know, because what it won't help is if we just replace, you know, substitute one for the other, but we haven't learnt anything. You know, so do we need the gods? Or can the gods be inspiration and guides, but not be put in a pedestal like we have so far? I mean, your work kind of silently beneath the surface, I think, does point towards something that you might see in someone like Rudolf Steinau or other esotericists. Some idea of a larger evolution outside of material evolution because the way you're speaking about this, you know, we need to learn something. What are your thoughts on, you know, these conversations seem to gesture towards that idea of this isn't just knowledge and again, in that material sense of like, I use this, I get some gain, this is knowledge genuinely to help and move forward humanity. So do you see these conversations as a part of that idea? Or are you skeptical of the, you know, we need to get to some point, we have some, or we're in some phase of evolutionary spiritual change? A bit of everything. You know, I'm not a, you know, I'm kind of a one trick pony when it comes to, you know, grand ideas. I do feel that humanity on the whole is part of a long evolutionary journey of trajectory on this planet as part, you know, within a cosmic context. We're part of a developmental unfolding. The question is, how much can we force that path through ourselves and how much should we allow it to come through us? So in one sense, I, you know, I concur with Stein or another esotericist, why I say, in we're part of a much grand picture, we're part of something which is a cosmic movement. And so events or currents would happen beyond our knowledge will filter down impact the earth. So I agree with that large picture, but some there are some voices which say you know, therefore we should steer our evolutionary direction. Well the question is like if we don't know where we go in and we don't really know who we are as human beings yet, do you really want to put the half blind driver, you know, in the front driving seat. So there are forces which I feel are welcoming our contact but also saying well you know you have let things happen through us as well, you know, try to feel into where you really feel best to go but you're not ready to, you know, with this humor is to jump in the front seat. And I think again that's what some of the tech trans humans are trying to do by saying well you're not allowed to be a good thing, let us go and try and do it for ourselves. But you know what that will end up with only those in the 0.5% financial bracket will be able to afford whatever concoction may come up with anyway. So I think we have a we're not quite ready with human hubris to understand where we're going but we can recognize that we can be a part of of a greater journey. Well it seems then that the primary sort of inspiration we can say or faulty inspiration of the model or the material world as you said is this clutching this holding. So we get something we say right that's mine and then we we no longer allow anything else to come in we're going to figure it out that it's going to be done once and for finally some peace and quiet for us right. But it seems that with some gods that might be able to be like you believe that can be done. And I think we can look at the different we could dare I say frame every different schism of a certain religion like Christianity could say that each people who thought right we took it now it's done in this box. And this where I want to bring in. Mama's Hermes Mercury the tricks because I feel this is where we need them which is the tricks to gods and there's been a I think Lewis Lewis hide wrote a book about tricks to gods. There's been a couple of other but I couldn't name them but there's just been the feeling a few people have thrown in these seeds of like look what you need right now probably isn't more like guidance because the modern material world is very good at saying right. Now I do this now I do this and then we go here and we need someone to kind of kick us up the ass or someone to like pull back the curtain at the last moment because we're so used to control and systems and bureaucracy we don't need bureaucratic gods we need someone to say well maybe that's not you know I that's not how the universe works like it's not completely in your control. There you go I've just I don't know excuse my French I've just fucked you over now what you're going to do but it was for your benefit you could maybe maybe how do you feel about these guys my favorites. Yeah I know I agree with you and again going back to your earlier comment do I think I've been with gods one of the reasons why it's dangerous is because if you did believe like the gods I say in this because of our conditioning we probably say I have to do everything they tell me to do because I don't want to disobey the gods you know the old thing about six. Think about sin and and just you know divine disobedience and all these conversations there was there were no orders given to me it was like a lot of it was you know a bit playing around a bit vague and saying well you know first off you know you can't ask a you can't ask good enough questions because you don't have to frame thinking that well either so yeah and the tricks the gods you know like like mom must played around with me a bit and played a bit with words. And I remember something I a phrase put caught my head I remember one of one of the things I said to mama so I said can you give it to me straight and I think I think you reply was no I'm going to give it to you bendy or something like that it's the idea of they're not going to give it on a plate to us. And that's the nature of the world is that we are you say the condition to you know obedience to authority we want to be told what to do makes life easier for us and which was bit of the kind of religious impulse in the first place you know the I the dominance of the orthodox religion was because you know we are that we know don't you about don't you about worry about God you will tell you what God is saying we are the broker on this planet forgot you know so so and that that kind of kind of disempowered us and the tricks the gods are saying well you know you've done a pretty good job of kind of screw yourself up already look at look at the things anyway so part of what I think the tricks the gods idea is is to allow us to let off steam and also to kind of show us that you know life you can have a bit of fun anyway. Any kind of plan build a builder like a bit of fun into it so you've got your scape clause because he never goes to where you think it's going to go we take our tell ourselves to seriously and I think that's part what's happened through perhaps this dogmatic orthodox religious impulses that we've got a bit to see us and up our own asses you know we get it wrong we make mistakes humans are very valuable but that's also what makes us resilient makes us fun makes us interesting and makes us unpredictable and I think the end end of the day when it comes to whatever control systems or authorities and tyranny unpredictability and resilience is some of our greatest assets. How do you think the sort of the societies that had tricks to gods around would differ to ours. Well I don't know much about the societies but there was a sense that you know anything could happen and there's also you go for example I've been a few times to India and they have a very kind of stoic sense of their gods like this could happen tomorrow or today and like well you know that's just the nature of life is so unpredictable and the gods can intervene and if they do great if they don't well you know albeit there is a sense of flexibility and I think when you have different diodes and different characteristics and they interplay in life they you know there's this kind of personification or diification of forces and aspects with these gods and so all the time they're weaving through life and so that means you don't put yourself at the top of the pyramid like everything comes from me you realize that there's an interplay of forces and I think the trickster gods allow that interplay of forces with unpredictability so a we're not the top of the tier and b we're probably not going to be able to you know pull off our object is so concretely like we think we can because the trickster gods represent forces of of an essay unpredictability collapse things go in topsy turvy and because we live in especially in the secular materialism we've wanted to cut out unpredictability if the algorithms get the society they want they will cut out all unpredictability everything is structured everything is known everything is contained the trickster gods are saying no it's not like that you know if you think everything is going to be contained then you're going to slip on a banana skin which which which goes behind the current mass global slipping on a banana skin because everything's falling down now it is and but again I think we need that I think and that reminds me of a conversation with a reman if you want to go into that because you know we're talking about this deep materialism and things that go in so wrong and one of the thing interesting points that I'm I thought aromenal be you know very negative and because aromen is a person god of of seen as a negative force of containment control and and the deadifying and the crystallizing of the human spirit deep materialism in other words and aromen said well there's deep materialism and a I'm feeding it because that's the direction you're going but and I said well we we don't really need that the environment's response was you need it until you get to the point where you realize you don't need it thing is we probably haven't or a lot of people haven't realized the detrimental effects of deep materialism so it's like a hungry person gorging on food you keep on eating keep on eating to the point you vomit yeah you sick yeah and I didn't use that metaphor but I'm more saying you're the point of deep materialism now is you're going to keep going to the point of saturation until you pull yourselves back yeah until you get to that stage you won't have the whatever epiphany or the realization or the revelation to pull yourself back so you are saturating yourself right now and I thought that was an interesting take because maybe we need an extremity in order to pull ourselves back it is I don't know if it what I don't want to sort of label it as bad good or any but any preference on it in a sense but it seems to be a key attribute of human development both on the mass scale and individually that the only way out of anything is through it. You have to burn out whether it's, you know, whether it's quite literally the largest thing of getting through materialism because it's detrimental to us or even something like you know a supposedly low level addiction like smoking. There is just this process of having to absolutely burn through it until you're, you internalize what you were mentioning there that sickness. So when you go back to it, it's gone because you know it's detrimental and I wonder, you know, I wonder if this, I think it's probably a part of hope on my end that this lean towards AI, lean towards technology as the savior of every single thing. You know, the ultimate map over the territory is the final, if we can just replace absolutely everything with material, then we'll be fine. But it's, you know, we are realizing that, well, no, because everyone's even more unhappy, even less attention, even less connected. And everything, you know, I think someone probably needs to create a law, you know, a cosmic law for this with regards to materialism that every time there's sort of a material leap forward, it actually has the opposite effect of its intended effect. So, you know, social media has made us all more distant, for instance, as the classic one. And it seems absolutely, or AI is, AI, you could put it to AI that it's meant to make us more knowledgeable, but actually it just means we'd no longer even need to deal with knowledge, something else just answers for us. This is our, this is our burnout phase, but it seems at the other side of that is a pretty empty husk of a human being that I don't know what will, maybe we'll be so empty that we'll just lay anything in. We'll be pretty sad if we get to that stage, but it's a remedy. It seems to me, and again, from these conversations, and I remember Aramun and maybe another one saying this is that, you said, you label it good and bad, they're not our labels, they're your human labels. You know, these are forces, these are attributes. They're only good or bad in your categorization. And so, and as you're saying, you know, human knowledge, for example, may be dumbed down by, by technological structures and AI, but until we get to that point, we probably won't fully appreciate what is knowledge because we need contrast. If we lived in a world of light forever, we wouldn't know what, you know, what darkness was or what the opposite was, because we need this contrast. So, these are forces, which I think bring out something, because unless there's friction, you don't get things being brought out, unless you get thunder and rain, you don't get the seeds to grow, you need combinations. And what I learned from these conversations is that the forces which we label as negative forces, these are combinations which eventually will bring out something from that. So, we may get to a point where people say, you know, I thought I was going to be made, you know, whatever, more knowledgeable, with more information from the internet. I thought that I'd be a happy human being, but I'd been done down. I can't remember any phone numbers anymore. I can't even write a full conversation with that user emojis. It comes to a point where something is shown to itself through these contracts. So, that's what I feel these forces are. They get from this extremity to actually reflect and show us something which we perhaps missed or which needs, you know, rising again. So, you don't get things rising in a static environment. So, again, I think Aramon pointed this out as well, that these are forces which would lead to some rising or reaction eventually. They're not just flat-lined forces. And speaking of, you know, knowledge and how we're handling knowledge, Thoth and Sarah Svarty has both had something to say on what we're doing with knowledge in our time. Yes. I remember Thoth more because it was more recent conversation. So, I was what I think was talking a bit more abstract about knowledge in a general conversation. I remember Thoth, an interesting point that I remember from Thoth was saying that knowledge is emerges on the planet or it's available as it's like a quantitative thing. Knowledge is available at certain times that helps humanity to take that knowledge and use it. If humanity is given too much knowledge at a certain time, it could lead to our annihilation. You know, for example, if all of a sudden, if 100 years ago, all the governments on the world got knowledge of whatever, the laser, a laser, whatever, scalar weapon, that probably used it 100 years ago. I don't know. But that kind of analogy that we're not inwardly mature enough to be on receiving enough certain types of knowledge. But on the other hand, if we don't get enough access to knowledge, we stagnate. This path of development can't keep going. And if we stagnate, then eventually we're going to entropy. So, Thoth was saying, knowledge is just not some kind of vague subject or word. It's a quantitative thing. And as part of the developmental journey, it does exist. But we get access to it, according to our capacity, maybe our capacity of cognitive capacity, our perceptive capacity, our capacity to receive inspiration, we receive it. And then there's a fine line between making use of it, not two extremes, one or the other. So, as a point in time, people say, you know, there were people like you know, Darwin, who had a similar idea of the theory of evolution as another scientist. There was, you know, Newton and his theory and his calculus, same times another scientist. So, ideas and inspiration starts to kind of be available at a certain time and it starts to pour in to human life. Is that an accident? Well, according to Thoth, not really. So, it makes us think that there is some external kind of moderative flow of forces that make sure that development on this planet neither stagnates nor explodes. Yeah, I was about to say, it sounds like either there's something there that's looking after us or there are sort of inbuilt cosmic buffers to say, you don't get to do that because it wouldn't. I wonder if that's just a stoppers destroying ourselves and everything else. I mean, inbuilt buffers sounds pretty good to me. I mean, if there are natural universal laws, it makes sense that you can only comprehend the law when your whatever tools or perception, your capacity to access that law comprehend it is of an equal level. So, when a certain species or humanity has cognitive tools of understanding a perception to that level, it starts to connect with that information or knowledge that that can make sense from it, which is why you get certain stage of development along the lines of human civilization. Hundreds of years ago, we didn't look further than the horizon. Then we look to the stars, now we're looking to the solar system, then the galaxy, but each kind of wave or each epoch of humanity, our cognition expands. And as that expands, it seems we are inspired by a greater or a vast range of knowledge or information. As this sort of changed your sense of the divine of God? And I'm not really sure if I had any definitions of God's or not, but it's made my made my sense that they're not as far as ways we made them out to be. And they're not as diified as we made them out to be. I think the religious impulses, conditioners to think of there are these, whatever, divine intelligences so vast and they're out there. And we can't make contact with them. And if they tell us something, we should just rave up and bow and accept it. I think that's an order paradigm. What's making me understand is that the human being is a participant in a larger cosmos. Therefore we have a right to try to make contact with that larger environment. We have the right in the capacity for that. We're just that we've not used it. We've underused it. And maybe there are inspirations or divine forces or intelligences, which are very available to us. And the beginning of the book, I had a little essay saying, where have all the gods gone? And where have they gone? Yeah, where have they gone? And my realization is that they didn't go anywhere. We went away. Not then. Where did we go? close them. We closed our senses down. Yeah. Went into like went into our just our self, lower self. Not even that. I think we contained ourselves in our in our material goody box. Yeah. We thought we had everything available to our rounders. We had to world our fingertips. We could make anything we want. We were kings of the castle. We stopped looking beyond ourselves or even feeling that there was something beyond us. You know our far ancestors always had this idea of animism that you know there were everything was intelligent and full of forces in the cosmos. When we went into the scientific revolution and beyond I think we just closed everything down into the metal box of our world. And so these these whatever forces or dices or intelligences or inspiration or creative imagination. Would everyone to frame it as I call it. We just closed down contact with we basically just put cotton wool in our ears. And that's one of the messages I felt came through from the book or the conversations is that anyone could have these conversations and they're rightfully ours. We just knocked ourselves on the head and filled our ears with cotton wool. So do you think do you hope these kind of these conversations kind of open open the reader up more to sort of help regain those senses that we've closed off? You know I would like to think so. I mean I the reader can or anyone who comes across them. I mean I can make their own mind about not wanting to say what you should feel. But I've tried to normalize them as much as possible. As I said I don't automate the mesoteric. My process was as normal as possible just like writing you know create a space blank your mind and just try to have a conversation being that space. I'm not trying to I think do any ritual. I didn't light any candles. I didn't put you know I didn't do anything. It was just a kind of mental space and decluttering. So I'm trying to normalize it and saying you know I don't think I'm weird or no way to never be in the last decades. And we can do this without we shouldn't be afraid to have these conversations. I'm glad we can talk about it normally and you know you even you've approached it as normal as any conversation of you know previously. So I don't think it's esoteric or metaphysical. I think it's an aspect that is open to us but we just haven't opened that door fully yet or we closed it for a long time. Do you plan on continuing to use that aspect? I haven't done any for a while but I think again I you know for completing the book I had a good run of conversations and like I didn't want to kind of make it a continual thing. I don't want to make anything a habit. So you know whenever I do something for a time I give it a rest. I would like to go back to having these conversations and seeing where they go. I mean I've had it few one or two just vague conversations again just pre-might personally. Nothing that I kind of kind of finalize into a you know whatever a thematic conversation but I've done the one or two or twice when I feel like I want to kind of have a chat with something beyond myself but neither do I want to make it a habit and nor do I want to feel like it's a dependency. Like I won't make a decision until I have a chat because then we again same thing as always we outsource our independence to something beyond the human being and that's just the same trap. I think we should have a conversation but keep it flexible and the conversation should be allowing us to develop our self-trust to listen to ourselves more if anything else. What are you working on now? I've been doing one or two shorter essays. I would like to kind of I've got ideas to work on our novel. I want to be a designer but I'd be more playful not so heavy not so wanting to or needing to comment on everything that's happening in the world. I'm trying to bring it back to being human. Try to feel about you know where we you know just trying to turn a ground things and I haven't written much for a while. I've been work as I said before we started recording. I've moved house. I've been working in the garden. I've been doing other physical jobs and decorating. I've taken a bit of time off and I've actually enjoyed the space. I do a lot more quiet sitting. I wouldn't call it meditation. I'm quite sitting listening just kind of be with myself. I feel like we have to disentangle ourselves from the you know the flocks on them, jetsome of the toxic world which is coming that way. I spend more time taking walks in the forest. I take I'm a bit easier on myself. I don't with myself into work every day like I used to do. Like got a bit of a desk nine o'clock. Go a bit of a desk. I've always admired that phrase which is attributed to Pablo Picasso. Inspiration exists but it has to find you working. So I've always sat at the desk to write. I'm taking a bit easier on myself now and I think maybe that's reflection of the times I don't know but I think we have to in a whole maybe we have to all take a bit easier with ourselves. So I've stopped. I'm putting out bits on substack and essays and I'm re I'm re-serializing stuff I've done before like the Japanese wisdom poetry I'm putting out. But I'm kind of I'm putting feelers out with a moment. I'm not rushing into anything. Is there anything you'd like to add about the sage talks? You feel his key? You'd like to add in? And the thing's specific. I mean what overall came from from the talks was a sense that you know we have we have it all we have you know we just didn't take responsibility for ourselves. We can have conversations we can ask these questions and also I found that sometimes I've in hindsight maybe I didn't frame the questions as good as I should have done. Maybe that's reflection on us in general that you know we should take time to learn how to ask ourselves the right question before running ahead. And finally the thing I'd like to another thing I want to say is that we shouldn't stop having conversations with ourselves, with our neighbors, with our friends. I mean good conversations over beer or glass of wine or over a campfire or over a food you know not letting mobile phones getting the way. You know conversation is a good art and maybe that's another point from the book. The art of conversation isn't over yet. So I mean I would not well that's a nice place to finish up. I'll be sure to put the links for sage talks and your own website in the description below but Kingsley Dennis has been a great conversation. Thank you. Yes James, enjoyed it. Thanks.