417—No “NEXUS” Without Shared Value: Response to Yuval Harari
417—No “NEXUS” Without Shared Value: Response to Yuval Harari
Stories of value cohere — even when they are largely fictional from historical perspective — because they contain the deeper truths people resonate with.
This is Part 4 of a series critique of Yuval Harari. Read Part 1 HERE , Part 2 HERE, Part 3 HERE
Summary: This week, we return, in more depth, to the question we touched in the last episode: why do stories cohere between human beings and create intimacy and trust between them, even if they are, in some sense, fictional? The answer is, intimacy is rooted in a shared experience of value. Stories of value cohere — even when they are largely fictional from historical perspective — because they contain the deeper truths people resonate with. That’s what creates intimacy and trust, which are inextricably linked. The only alternative is totalitarian control. Sometimes, people cohere around anti-value — a distorted value, a pseudo-value, but the only response to anti-value is a greater coherence through value. Or, said slightly differently, the only response to outrageous pain is Outrageous Love.
(This piece is a lightly edited transcript of a live talk [October 6, 2024] given by Dr. Marc Gafni on the weekly broadcast One Mountain, Many Paths, founded by Gafni and his evolutionary partner Barbara Marx Hubbard. Thus, the style of the piece is spoken word and not a formal essay. Edited by Elena Maslova-Levin).
Stories are not all equal
Why do these conversations matter?
Why is this such a big deal?
Why are we spending this fourth week on this conversation around this position of postmodernity that Yuval is putting forth? (And again — not as any kind of personal ad hominem attack on Yuval, God forbid. Blessings.)
This matters because the future of the world depends on getting this right.
The narrative — the story, and the story about story — that Yuval is expressing has become, without a doubt, the dominant narrative in the mainstream of culture. Our policy makers, our philanthropists, our thinkers, our politicians, our economists are not listening to Yuval per se — rather, he is listening to the mainstream of culture; he is not thinking it through anew, at least not in terms of the essential nature of Reality.
Yuval is saying insightful things about artificial intelligence. He is pointing to very real dangers of existential risk, which we have been pointing to, here in One Mountain, since we began. Yuval and I are aligned on that in a very serious and deep way. We both see the danger of existential risk, and we are reading the sources, I think correctly, in a way that’s deeply aligned.
We agree on the interpretation of existential risk, and we agree on the need for a new story.
But what is the nature of that new story?
And what is the nature of story itself?
There is nothing I could do to share more clearly how critical it is: our capacity and need to discern between stories; to understand that some stories are better than others, that stories are not all equal. There is a clear distinction between this understanding and the old position (which used to be the dominant narrative), in which my story became the only story, and I couldn’t take your perspective at all.
The old version of reality was: my story is right, your story is wrong, I can’t take your perspective at all. I can’t feel you. I can’t sense where you are coming from even. You are just evil, and the other, and the enemy. That’s the old version.
We are not saying that. We need to evolve beyond that. We need to realize that we can really sense and feel where you are coming from, even if I understand that you are fundamentally wrong.
Learn about our different newsletters here—the first one (Center for World Philosophy and Religion) is all our posts together—the other ones are the different sections you can subscribe or unsubscribe to separately by managing your subscription:
And manage your preferences here:
And there is some standard by which we can establish whether something is closer to right and closer to wrong. Story is not just story. Story has to be aligned with something larger —
with some larger set of goals in the world,
or some larger set of truths,
or some larger Field of Value.
Story becomes more or less right when it is aligned with the rightness of the universe. Not in the old dogmatic sense: I am right, you are wrong, completely binary, always straight good and evil. No, it’s not completely binary, but there is some binary, there is more good and more evil. There is more light and more darkness.
Yes, there is light in the darkness. Yes, there is darkness in the light. That’s true. It’s a deeper, more yin-yang, inter-included world than we initially presented it to be. That’s absolutely true. It’s not just light and darkness. There is light that comes from the darkness. That’s true.
But there are fundamental distinctions in the world. There are.
There are some bright lines of right and wrong in the world.
There are bright lines of good and evil. It’s not moral equivalence all the way up and all the way down the evolutionary chain.
There is the ability to make distinctions.
There are stories that are better than other stories — not because they are told better, not because they are presented better from a propaganda perspective, but because they are more aligned with the good, the true, and the beautiful.
And yes, we can make discernments about the good, the true, and the beautiful. They are not completely relative. They are not merely subjective in the sense of having no correlation to a larger objective order of truth.
Join weekly Evolutionary Sensemaking with Dr. Marc Gafni
LIVE every Sunday in One Mountain, Many Paths, 10AM [Pacific Time online:
There is a shared Field of Value
There is an order to the Cosmos. There is a coherence to Cosmos, and we need to be able to access this internal field of coherence.
It is the story in which we all live together.
It’s the musical score. A shared story of value is the musical score in which we all live together. In that musical score, there can be many instruments. There can be a Unique Self Symphony. There can be discordant instruments that sometimes clash with each other. There can be instruments that emphasize different notes, and different dimensions, and different octaves, and different tonalities, and different musical values in Cosmos. Those instruments can even play up against each other, but they are all part of this field of music — and this field of music is a Field of Value.
There is shared value. There is a shared grammar of value, out of which we can even compose sentences that profoundly disagree with each other. We live in the shared Field of Value. Before there are any individuated values, there is a Field of Value. That is the Field of Music. That’s music itself. It’s She Herself, in the language of the lineage, it’s the Goddess Herself. It’s the Field of Eros itself, it’s the Field of Intimacy itself.
Intimacy as a value of Cosmos.
Intimacy as an expression of the omni-coherence, an omni-value of the whole thing.
There is something called the good.
Now, how you apply the good, it’s always an important question. There are real dilemmas. There are real, appropriate, sacred, wondrous debates about how we apply the good, and there are different individuated prisms and perspectives, but all of those perspectives have to come out of a Field of Value, where we recognize certain fundamental orienting or ordinating values.
Those values evolve.
There is an evolution of value. We know more, we feel more about value than we did in many ways 5,000 years ago. There is an evolution of value, even as there are wondrous unique insights from 5,000 years ago — from native traditions, from profound esoteric traditions that we need to integrate. But we need to integrate carefully. What’s the intuition that was right? What’s the important understanding we need to take into account and carefully weave it into the New Story?
That’s what we are. We are weavers. We are tailors of ErosValue.
We are tailors of Eros and tailors of value. We are weaving the garb of a shared story of value as a context for our diversity.
October 7th
If we don’t have a shared story of value as a context for our diversity, we have hell.
We have hell. We have October 7th.
Tomorrow is the anniversary of October 7th, when Hamas terrorists went in and intentionally, with horror beyond imagination, drove nails into women’s vaginas and cut their breasts off as they raped them, and cut their limbs off in front of their men.
There is no moral equivalence whatsoever between Hamas and the Israeli army,
Israel is a pluralistic democracy, which desperately desires peace, which would make peace with any of its neighbors, and has tried to do so dozens and dozens of times.
But after October 7th we had an explosion around the world of support for Hamas’ actions, suggesting that somehow Israel was colonialist — European colonialists taking over the natives in the Middle East. This narrative is utter nonsense; it has no relationship to the true historical narrative, and it’s tragic beyond imagination.
At the same time, there is a shared value of life.
When Israel, this tiny country of eight million people, where the shopkeepers, and the doctors, and the lawyers, and the kindergarten teachers are the soldiers, because there is no standing army — when Israel responds and bombs, and there are tens of thousands of people killed, because Hamas and Hezbollah, which are literally bastions of terror evil, intentionally locate their centers in the middle of hospitals, and in the middle of nurseries, in the middle of schools, wanting to have civilians killed — and people are tragically killed because Israel has no choice but to respond.
If Israel doesn’t respond the entire Western world will disintegrate; nonetheless we are devastated. Our hearts are ripped apart, and ripped open, and destroyed by the suffering of every single child — Jew or Arab or Christian or Muslim or Druze. Because there is a shared value of life, because in the plotline of Reality life is a value, and when life is crushed, we are devastated, even though there may be no choice.
America may have had to bomb Hamburg in order to bring Nazism down. Many, many, many young men who were drafted into the German army were killed, and their children were left orphans and tragedy ensued for generations in Germany. Nonetheless, it needed to happen. However, I don’t rejoice. I am not weirdly triumphant. My heart is devastated — because there is a shared story of value, and in that shared story of value, life and human life is a sacrosanct value.
Even when we have no choice but to take human life, we are in a shared story of value. There is no one who is an ‘other,’ everyone is in the story. It has to break your heart open, and it has to break Netanyahu’s heart open. It has to.
We are going to have a deep, deep, deep Israel conversation to try and understand how we got here. I am not doing that now, but you have a promissory note on that, 1,000%. I am completely aware of the inability of people to do good sensemaking here. I am tragically and deeply aware of this. My colleague Douglas Murray has talked about this quite accurately. And one of the people I disagree with most in the world, Sam Harris, actually got this one right. He has done a bunch of great, great podcasts. You should listen to them carefully.
Tragically, this is a place where there is a bright moral line, which is real and which needs to be taken into account.
I am not saying in any way that Israel is all perfect. Israel has made mistakes, but if you cannot draw a moral line between Hamas terrorism and a pluralistic democracy, in which women are empowered, which has 20% non-Jews who participate fully in the government, which is a thriving example of a certain kind of pluralism, with all of its flaws — if you can’t draw a distinction between that and Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas and the Houthis, then we don’t really have any place to go.
There is an enormous amount of information, but you’ve got to find your way — through BBC and South African television, and French television, and Belgian television — to real sources, and be able to make distinctions. We will reflect on this more deeply together; we will do that.
But now I want to come back. I couldn’t not mention October 7th today, it’s real, and it’s painful, and it’s horrific.
Stories cohere human beings because they create intimacy
I want to recapitulate very briefly some of the things we said last week, but I want to do it in a very slow, gentle way. I want to talk about two things — I want to talk about story, and I want to talk about trust. That’s really what we are talking about here.
Yuval, if you’re watching, brother, mad love to you, and great to be in conversation with you. And great to be in conversation with this set of ideas, upon which I believe the future of the world rests. I believe that we can actually get to a shared deeper understanding together.
Yuval writes, our superpower is our ability to invent and believe fictional stories — in his children’s book, Unstoppable Us: How Humans Took Over the World. In this book, speaking to children, looking children in the eye, Yuval says essentially the same thing: there are stories that are nonsense — he uses that word, nonsense stories — there are fictional stories, and yet, we believe them because we cooperate based on nonsense fictional stories.
He goes to great lengths to say that these stories cohere us not because they have any shared truth. They are nonsense, they are fictional stories — and yet, they give us the capacity to cohere. That’s his fundamental position, and he repeats different versions of it again and again and again.
In his book Nexus, he repeats the same position quite clearly. It’s in two places. It’s in the prologue, and it also shows up in chapter 2. If you want to look this up yourself (I want you all to be able to do real work, you can look at the prologue directly, page XIV, and then it’s in Chapter 2, pp. 28 and 30). I am giving you the exact sources so you can really look it up and not rely on me.
In the prologue, Yuval is very, very, very clear that these great mythic stories cohere people not because they are telling the truth. His exact point is, there are some stories that tell the truth, but these great stories that cohere us — the religions that cohere us — are fictional stories. He goes on to talk about other, more modern, fictional stories, but at the core, what he is talking about is what I would call stories of value. There are stories of value that cohere us, says Yuval, but whether they are pre-modern, traditional stories or modern stories, they are fictional stories. They are all made-up stories.
For example, the Stalinist story. The whole world gets on board on the Stalinist story. It is based on cruel fantasies and shameless lies, and yet, it didn’t collapse. Yuval says, these don’t collapse because you don’t need things to be true in order for a story to work. That’s his point. Now, if you take a look a little later, he says, basically, stories are false memories, fake memories implanted into history.
Yuval’s claim, throughout his books, is:
Fictional stories are what coheres human beings.
That’s the human superpower.
The cohering power of stories — that coordinating power, that power that generates cooperation — is not based on any sense of the truth of the stories.
It works because you need intimacy to create trust.
If you only have intimacy by actually meeting each other, there can be no more than 150 of us (the so-called Dunbar number). For example, there are 150 people in a small band of Neanderthals, because they actually met each other. Neanderthals are ancient humans who lived at the same time as Homo sapiens, and in the end Homo sapiens triumphed and Neanderthals disappeared. Yuval says, Neanderthals never get beyond small bands, they don’t get beyond the Dunbar number. They were able to create bands of coherence because they could create trust, because they meet each other directly at the water cooler of prehistory.
Yuval got this wrong. He got it wrong in a big way. Actually, if you read him carefully, there are one or two places where he almost admits that he got it wrong.
Yuval says, the reason these stories create coherence is because there is another kind of intimacy — created not by meeting each other in person, but by meeting each other in the story.
We meet each other in the story. A thousand of us can meet each other in the story, 2,000 of us can meet each other in the story. Now, we can have bands of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 10,000, which are obviously going to have more innovation, and more creativity, and more simple power, and more survival capacity than the small bands. Thus, it is language as a story-telling capacity that allows Homo sapiens to triumph (which Yuval says appeared 40,000-50,000, but in fact it might have been much older; there is no consensus here). Why? Because stories create intimacy, because they could meet each other in the story — even though the story is actually not true. It’s fictional, Yuval’s word. It’s a figment of our imagination, Yuval’s words. It’s nonsense, Yuval’s word. It’s just a mere social construct, a classical word that Yuval adopts and deploys. It’s a mythology that has no relationship to truth.
That is exactly not right.
Intimacy is created by shared value
Many things create intimacy. But at the very core of intimacy — at the very, very, very core of intimacy — is a shared interior experience of value. In other words, you don’t have intimacy unless you have shared value.
Shared value between us creates intimacy.
The reason a story coheres is because it creates a shared experience of value, even though it may be largely a fictional story
Lots of it is fictional: Mary is not a virgin postpartum, impossible; immaculate conception, Jesus conceived not through a human being, probably not. Medical claims of the Catholic Church were invalidated once we started doing dissection and counted the amount of bones in the human body. Galen’s claims, which were called theological truth by the church, turned out not to be true.
In the Bible, there are stories that intend to be mythic, not historical — so, from a historical perspective, you could call them fictional. For example, according to many readers, the Garden of Eden story and the early Mesopotamian origin of the human beings — those stories are in part fictional.
Clearly, Stalin’s purges were based on cruelty, and fiction, and horror. Obviously.
And yet, stories cohere, at least for a time. Why do stories generate coherence?
Stories generate coherence because it is not just that we are physically listening to the same script, and we recognize each other because we saw the same play — no, it’s because we saw the same play and had a similar experience of interior value in the play. Intimacy is based on a shared experience of value, a shared experience of interiority, a shared experience of profound feelings that are valid and have value.
This is why, last week, I shared the story of Julia Roberts and Richard Gere, in the movie Pretty Woman, who go to an opera together. She is a courtesan without education, and yet, she turns out to be so completely refined, and they share this deep inner experience. How does he know? Because they are watching the opera together, and he sees this tear flowing down her face, and his heart is crying at the same time, and he understands that they’re having a shared experience of intimacy — a shared experience of intrinsic value, the intrinsic goodness of the opera, this love story that they’re watching in this opera.
Intimacy is created by their shared experience, and empathy, and identity, and emotion, and resonance. They resonate with the value in the story. They are resonating together with the same value, and when they look at each other, they don’t just see a skin-encapsulated ego, they see the interior of shared resonance, which is based on shared value.
That’s why stories cohere. We trust each other because we meet each other in a shared story, which is a shared story of value. If we don’t meet each other in a shared story of value, we can’t trust each other.
Love story holds a true story of value and challenges totalitarianism
What’s the ultimate shared story of value?
The ultimate expression of a shared story of value is a love story, like the entire story of Winston and Julia in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Nineteen Eighty-Four Orwellian totalitarianism is an early antecedent, as we talked about last week, to the postmodern position that Yuval is voicing, along with the Skinnerian totalitarianism.
The Ministry of Love in Nineteen Eighty-Four agrees with Yuval. It says stories are nonsense, fictional, completely made up. The story has to be completely controlled in order to control society, continues the brotherhood (or the Big Brother, or the party — the Ministry of Love in Nineteen Eighty-Four). In order to cohere society, the story has to be completely controlled, and there can’t be any story that stands against the controlled story.
What stands against the controlled story?
What story of value stands against the fictional story, the contrived story, the made up story, the nonsense story that’s controlled by the state, the propaganda story?
What story stands against that?
A true story of value.
And what is the vehicle of Reality that holds a true story of value?
A love story.
The love story between Winston and Julia starts with Winston writing to Julia, I love you. Winston writes to Julia an Outrageous Love Note. These are the Outrageous Love Notes of Krishna to Radha and Radha to Krishna.
In the Outrageous Love Note —
there is a truth,
there is a value,
there is an intrinsic goodness,
there is a knowing of value
— that Reality is value, that it’s valid, that the valence of my life, the unique valence of my life is the source of my valor, my heroism (value and valor have the same original root, val-). It’s the source of my Valentine, my love, my Eros.
It’s Eros, value, validity, valor, heroism.
It’s all part of the same cluster of Reality that’s held in the love story. The love story is a story of value.
The love story challenges totalitarianism.
The love story challenges a postmodern reductive materialist vision, in which nonsense stories, fictional stories are said to be the basis of cohering Reality.
No, no, if you argue that a completely fictional story coheres Reality, and there is no deeper story of value underneath, you cannot create trust. Based on a story like this, you can only rule through terror. It’s terror against trust.
You can’t create trust unless there is shared truth.
It’s either trust or terror, and terror can impose a story, even though it’s nonsense and fictional.
Or — a story can create coherence for the reason precisely opposite to what Yuval says — not because it’s fictional and nonsense, but because even within a fictional story and a nonsense story, there are deep mythic truths that are incarnating values which are true. Therefore, when we both hear this story, this great story — even if it’s filled with fiction, it’s also filled with truth, and that it’s the truth of value, and we resonate with that truth. In that shared resonance, we are intimate with each other, because intimacy is based on shared value.
For example, at the beginning of Nineteen Eighty-Four, after Julia writes to Winston, I love you, on a piece of paper, she says, when you make love, you’re using up energy, and you feel happy, you feel good afterwards, you don’t give a damn about anything. And they — the totalitarians — they can’t bear you to feel like that.
Because when you feel like that, you are experiencing the self-evident value and goodness of Reality.
Winston says to Julia, they can’t make me stop loving you. On the Inside of the Inside, I am always going to love you, and even if they make me betray you in this world, ultimately the love was always true, and the love was always real. Even betrayal is not the end of love. Jesus and Judas embrace in the end. We emerge out of Dante’s Inferno, and we find each other again, and again, and again. Wow! That’s part one.
Coherence around anti-value
Now, part two.
There is a second quality that creates coherence — anti-value; and this is very deep and very subtle.
We just did an entire series of talks on the Tree of Life with our friend Andrew Sweeney. The Tree of Life is a structure in the interior sciences, which tells the story of Reality; it had great influence on the Renaissance. It’s about ten Sefirot, literally ten luminations. Ten luminations are ten illuminations (sefirah, sappir, sapphire light), and they are also ten stories. The Tree of Life is about ten stories, and these ten stories are rooted in ten distinct values of Reality.
In the lineage of the Tree of Life, Solomon writes, Ze le’umat ze bara elohim ‘This, corresponding to that, Cosmos manifests’; meaning, just like there is a Tree of Life rooted in stories of value, there are also stories of anti-value, and they have their own generative coherence. That’s very important. Think about the orcs in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. They cohere around anti-value. There is an Eros to anti-value.
In the end, anti-value is a distortion of value. It’s a distorted form of value. Power is a desire for coherence, and when used in beautiful ways that serve love, it’s a great value. But when power dissociates from love, when power alienates from love, it becomes anti-value.
When power alienates from love, power becomes pseudo-Eros on steroids. It’s alienated from love. It’s alienated from Eros. That pseudo-Eros on steroids becomes exponentially alluring and seductive, which is what Tolkien wrote about when he wrote about the Ring of Power. The Ring of Power becomes an anti-value, and it generates its own power of coherence.
The only way to overcome the coherence of anti-value is to create a greater coherence of value.
I am going to give you an example.
If you read Yuval’s book, Nexus, carefully, he talks about outrage being a value that the algorithm — as an independent hyper-agent — found to be useful in fulfilling its prime directive. Facebook gave the algorithm a prime directive, LinkedIn gave its algorithm a prime directive, TikTok gave its algorithm a prime directive. The prime directive was maximum user engagement — staying on the site, eyeballs on the site for the longest amount of time, because that generates the most information that can be gathered by the algorithm — personal information about your patterns and micro-patterns, which can form the basis for predictive analysis of your actions, which is then sold by social media to third parties. That’s the basic model — as, for example, Jaron Lanier, a computer insider has explained (and so have dozens and dozens of leading data scientists from Silicon Valley I’ve talked to). That’s how Alex Pentland has explained it (in his papers, not his popular writings).
The algorithm realized, oh, my job is to create engagement. By algorithm I mean, in this case, machine intelligence, artificial intelligence. It then went and made a decision — by itself, not instructed by Facebook — that outrage really works to cohere people. You can really cohere people with outrage, big time. That really works. And in Burma, Myanmar, and in Brazil — and in multiple places around the world where social media algorithms were the primary form of communication — the algorithm made a decision, as a hyper-agent, to exponentialize outrage. This meant prioritizing stories that were lies and distortions, vicious, clickbait, outlandish, almost grotesque depictions of other human beings, in order to generate outrage, which then generated eyeballs, which generated engagement, which generated coherence — but it was the coherence of a lynch mob.
The coherence of a lynch mob begins as a dedication to some truth and justice, but then the lynch mob gets overtaken by anti-value, and then the anti-value energy begins to cohere and distort the lynch mob. The amygdala is hijacked, and anti-value begins to cohere. When Hitler gave his speeches, he was cohering based on anti-value. There was an original spark of value even in national socialism, which Hitler appealed to. Pride, national pride, dignity — speaking to people that were humiliated; there is a lot to say there.
There is a reason why between 1928, when the Weimar Republic was in control in Germany, and 1933, just five years later, Hitler became the absolute dictator. What happened? Hitler actually spoke to some root values, but then the anti-value of what’s called in the lineage Sitra Achra ‘the other side’ took over.
The only response to anti-value is Outrageous Love
How do we cohere more deeply than anti-value? Through value.
We’ve been saying it for years. Now, it begins to become clear.
We live in a world of outrageous pain. We also live in a world of outrageous distortion, and sometimes outrageous ugliness. A world of outrage, of anti-value coherence. The response to outrageous pain, or outrageous distortion, or outrageous lie is Outrageous Love.
Our love has to be outrageous. Our love can’t be a tepid, flaccid, insipid social construction. The coherence that is generated by Outrageous Love is not that of a social construction (= I am telling a nice story). I’ve got to love outrageously.
Outrageous Love is not mere human sentiment. It’s not fiction. It’s not a fantasy. It’s not nonsense. It’s not a fictional story. It’s not a social construct.
Outrageous Love is the heart of existence itself. Outrageous Love is what I experience in great love. We access it in the first stage of falling in love, and we access it again at the later, deeper stages.
We often fall in love (station one), we then fall out of love, and we get in the power struggle (station two), and then, if we can stay deep enough and go deep enough, we fall in love a second time at level three, which is this post-tragic level (station three). We fell in love, we fell out of love, and now we are falling in love again, after all of the pain. We go from ecstasy to pain to transcendence, and we have Outrageous Love again at level three.
But whether it’s Outrageous Love at the first station of falling in love or it’s Outrageous Love at level three, it is this quality of simmering, throbbing, pulsing, deep, subtle, nuanced, gorgeous Outrageous Love, which is the very heart of existence itself that has the capacity to cohere.
Outrageous Love is a value of Cosmos.
The ErosValue of Cosmos is Outrageous Love.
It’s Outrageous Love or ErosValue which coheres. That’s what creates coherence.
Intimacy and trust are inextricably linked
You cannot trust without shared truth
What Yuval bemoans is, oh my God, why don’t people trust each other anymore? People should trust each other. Why are people willing to trust AI? They don’t trust each other.
Because, brother, Yuval, you can’t really trust unless there is a shared Field of Value. And ultimately, in the long haul, that shared value can’t be a social construct.
It can’t be: we are sharing a figment of our imagination.
It can’t be: we are sharing a fiction.
It can’t be because we share nonsense.
We trust each other because we share value. We recognize each other in the depth of shared value. Therefore, we become intimate.
Intimacy and trust are inextricably linked.
We are not intimate because we share a technical story, the same mechanical script. We share intimacy because we trust each other, because we are both experiencing the same interior feeling, which comes from the recognition of value. That’s the interior science equation of intimacy:
Intimacy equals shared identity, which is rooted in mutuality of recognition, and mutuality of feeling, and mutuality of value, which then creates mutuality of purpose.
And I just want to say, just to the people in the community, who say, why does he get lost on this Israel thing? I am not going to talk about it, but the Israel thing keeps me up every night, not just because my son is in battle right now in Southern Lebanon, not because of that (although also because of that, of course), but because how can Israel stand for Outrageous Love and defend itself at the same time?
Oh my God, how do you do that?
How do you be Outrageous Love?
How do you stand for what you need to stand for (and I think the world will collapse without it) and have to bomb and commit acts of war?
How did the Allied soldiers do it?
War is a horror.
What Israel has had to do in Gaza is a horror.
It rips my soul apart every single night.
There is nothing easy. There is nothing light here.
We are going to come together next week and we’re going to go deep into what it means to trust.
This is Part 4 of a series critique of Yuval Harari. Read Part 1 HERE , Part 2 HERE, Part 3 HERE
Join weekly Evolutionary Sensemaking with Dr. Marc Gafni
LIVE every Sunday in One Mountain, Many Paths, 10AM [Pacific Time online: