Leaving Molinism with Max Andrews (Part 1 of 3)

Technical Delay and Show Introduction

All right, welcome to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Elias Ayala and today we're going to be discussing the topic of Molinism, and this is typically within the discussions of One second, let me see here.

Okay, so my guest is having technical difficulties, so if you'll hold on I'm gonna try and get find a way for This person here to join, let me see here. Hmm. Okay, let's see here. Invite a guest upload image.

Da da da da da. Okay, I've been communicating with our guest via Texting and he is having difficulty with his His text, so I'm going to invite Max Andrews in just give me a moment. I'm gonna do that through email.

Let's see here. All right, let's see. This is good because then we have a little time to get some folks to come in so. Https. Okay I Believe that is correct. I'm gonna send it. Okay, all right. Okay, so We are having a little bit of technical difficulty, but hopefully our guests will be joining in just a few moments.

I sent him a link and hopefully he can get on otherwise. I know you guys don't want to look at my face all morning so Just real quick, we'll give him a little time to to do that. He's having difficulty with his text messaging.

So I assume he has to go in through his email or something like that. Okay, so We'll give him a few moments to to come on. But in the meantime, I'll just kind of make a couple of announcements again. If you guys have been enjoying the content of the YouTube channel, it would do do me a great favor to subscribe.

The goal is to get a lot of interesting guests to cover some really important topics whether it's related to theology apologetics or Christian philosophy or anything like that and so Hopefully we'll be able to put some more content out there that folks will find Useful just as a way of focus reveals apologetics is an apologetics organization that seeks to promote not just apologetics in general, but a presuppositional apologetics as a methodology and so If you guys are interested in Presuppositional methodology and things related to that you can check out some debates that I have done using that method which is available on the YouTube channel revealed apologetics as well as on the The podcast on iTunes.

All right. In regards to future guests. I am hoping to get a professor James Anderson from Reform Theological Seminary to discuss the issue of transcendental arguments and so those who are familiar with presuppositional apologetics will understand why that's why that's important and So we have we do have Max Andrews in the studio, so I'm going to add him in just a few moments but Yeah, so we're looking to get Dr. James Anderson as well as Guillaume Bignon who is a Calvinist philosopher who wrote a book.

I think it's blaming God excusing sinners. I always get that mixed up. I don't know what's going on. So again, so some interesting guests coming up in the next month or so, and I'm looking forward to having You know those folks on to discuss some of these important issues.

Why Max Andrews Left Molinism

All right. Well right now I am going to invite Max sorry, I did that without warning. So I'm very excited we have Max Andrews with us and the topic is a very Interesting one, especially for myself and that is the topic of Molinism and Just before I introduce Max and give him an opportunity to share a little bit about what he's been up to I want to share with folks.

People have been following me In my videos and just discussions that I that I've done in the past on apologetics live and different podcast episodes folks know that I used to be a Molinist and It's not a dirty word, it's not like I used to do drugs or anything like that, you know, I have Molinist friends.

They're they're great men of God. Just just disagree and so When I was studying these issues, I came along a website Centenius am I pronouncing that right Max? Yeah, that's right. Yeah, so centenius and This was a website put together by by Max and this is when he was a Molinist and I actually heard that you might be flattered by this but I actually heard in some circles that that folks were calling you the young William Lane Craig and It seemed as though you had a really good grasp on these issues and you had really great resources On that website along with I believe two books.

Is that correct? Yeah, there are two ebooks that went out. That's right. And so that was my first exposure to Molinism and then of course you had on your website the Molinist Directory in which you had a bunch of other resources and that's when I heard of a little book.

Let me see if I have it. I might not have it in this. Well, I know. Oh, there it is. Good. There we go. And that's what on your website. I found out about this book Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keith Lee who's a professor over at Southeastern Seminary and when I read this book, I Went into an intellectual an internal struggle as to how to make sense out of all these things and one thing led to another and I became a Molinist for Some time and so that that access point really was through your website your books.

And of course introducing me to other folks like Kenneth Keith Lee and others. So then you disappeared. I don't know what happened all of a sudden. I visit the website. It's like website down. I was like, oh what's going on man?

And then I heard that you were studying in the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and Just heard things here and there and then of course, I heard a long time ago. You were no longer a Molinist. So I was like what's going on here?

So so all that to say I have Max Andrews on on the show here to discuss with us a Perhaps he can define Molinism for people who haven't watched my past episodes that cover that topic and then be What led him to be a Molinist and then what led him to kind of leave that position and at that point?

You're going to go into some of the things that have been the result of your study and your research. And so I think folks are going to be very interested in hearing what you have to say in that regard.

Now a couple more things and then I'm gonna be quiet and allow you to take the floor here. The plan here for folks who are interested in this topic and are interested in what max has to say. We're going to try and do a three-part series so max is going to be on two other times other than this one to kind of unpack some of his Findings and research and kind of take the time to explain things.

So if folks have questions, this is the beauty of live stream. You have questions, please Send them in on the comments, but we're not going to address them in the first two videos in the last Interview we'll take well max will take your questions and try to unpack them as they are relevant to the specific things that he is Going to discuss with us today.

All right, does that make sense? You guys are good. All right. All right max. Who are you? What is Molinism and why'd you leave?

Max Andrews’ Background and His Definition of Molinism

Well, I guess a brief synopsis about my academic background. I did my bachelor's of science in Religion at Liberty University. I went on to do my Master's in philosophy there as well. And then the transition started when I started studying My PhD in philosophy of science at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland so that's kind of the academic background to everything and I Don't think I would have started identifying as a Molinist until probably the beginning of my master's degree when I started putting everything together or prior towards the end of my bachelor's actually and I would define Molinism as.

Holding on to this main tenant or this main idea that God has middle knowledge now there they would say that there are three logical moments to Divine knowledge. The first one would be natural knowledge that God knows everything that can happen.

Skip the middle knowledge go to the third point. There's everything that God knows that will happen or his his will and in between there is Hypothetical counterfactuals. God knows what would happen in any given circumstance.

And so it would be an application of Of that idea of divine knowledge that God controls everything via his omniscience rather than his power or any other attributes.

Okay, and what was what was the second? Well, well let it let before we get to that second question. Let me kind of insert a new question that I didn't ask at the beginning is so you define Molinism. Okay, and it's this.

It's a view of God's omniscience as you suggested there where God has three logical moments Natural knowledge middle knowledge free knowledge. And in between the middle knowledge and free knowledge you have is divine decree, of course and And it's a very interesting way to kind of Understand God's knowledge.

What is some of the historical background as to why this view was developed?

It was developed in response to the Reformation by a counter a former named Luis de Molina and He his commission as a Jesuit was to try to Preserve some idea of human liberty human free will freedom with the idea of this Determination amidst Reformed thinking and so he came up with this category of thought called middle knowledge.

So in nature it was Catholic in nature, which I Don't think is a good objection to it.

But it came off as counter reformer, right? Right? And and I think that's a that's a good point that you made up. I think a lot of people I have a great complaint about criticisms of Molinism. It's kind of like a lot of reformed critics of Molinism do the same thing that we claim Armenians do to Calvinist.

When that misrepresentation they kind of simplify issues. You know a lot of people will call Molinism kind of a sophisticated form of Arminianism. And and how can you be a Molinist? You know, it was developed by a dirty old Catholic and and not just any old Catholic it.

It was a Jesuit basically. Jesuits are the special forces of the Roman Catholic Church, you know, how can you? Follow a view that was developed within that context. Well, that's that's a genetic fallacy.

It's a logical fallacy. It's not a good objection. And I think that's important to keep in mind. All right, so. So you're a Molinist now through your studies. I think people are gonna be very interested in this and it's you can give us kind of a general answer to this question and get more specific if you can because I think people are gonna want to know why did you I guess what made you begin to doubt Molinism as an adequate view of God's omniscience and.

And in the other ways that it may have applied what made you begin to doubt that and then perhaps you can give us some of the. In a short snippet some of the best reasons why you thought it was a good idea to say.

Yeah, I'm not sure I hold to that position anymore. I.

Think the answer is a bit broad but simple in the sense that I was doing my PhD research on essentially the many worlds interpretation in a quantum physics and I started discovering that there were grammatical reasons for In Essence changing my worldview and so You know everything begins with how to understand everything.

That sounds a bit tautological but you know that is everything begins with how to understand worlds. And so my understanding of worlds became dynamic in the sense that they're constantly splitting and reforming.

And You know, this isn't based on physical evidence per se but it's based off of grammatical reasons that you know, we'll eventually get to. And then when I held to the idea that You know world split.

They had this ripple effect throughout the rest of my theology as far as you know. The applications of it in essence turned my worldview upside down.

Now when you talk about many worlds for those who don't have kind of the philosophical background in many in Possible world semantics and things like that what do you mean by many worlds and splitting of worlds as some people who might not have a Philosophical background might not know what you're what you're getting at there.

It's a bit nuanced.

I think that might be a question better answered later on as we get through it that way we kind of You know start very simple and then build up the case, but I guess to give a broad answer now I would define world as a proposition or a maximal state of affairs which is you know can always change and what is I think a Hallmark of the theory that I'm proposing is that there's Only one logically necessary proposition.

So think of you know, the ontological argument is an argument for the metaphysical necessity of God. This isn't really an argument it's just putting forth specific grammatical rules for exegeting reality.

So it will kind of build up from there, but you know, I think that would be a good starting point. Great now.

I think that's very interesting when I asked you before. What made you begin to kind of doubt Molinism as a particular view. You you said that the reasons were grammatical. I think that might sound interesting for people because we're gonna be talking about some really interesting and perhaps abstract and it might be difficult for some people to grasp, but I think it's still.

Reading through your outline that you sent me. I at first I was like ontic grammar, which you'll explain what that means. What's this all about? But I think you're as I was reading especially when you got into the issue of the Trinity and things like that and we'll get There.

I I think you're on to something as much as I was able to understand. So I'm very interested in seeing you kind of lay out what you mean. By having grammatical reasons to kind of understand many worlds in a certain way or things like that.

Now before we get into into that kind of analysis there. Revealed apologetics is. When I started this my attempt was to promote an apologetic that is grounded in Scripture. Now I believe philosophy and theology are they go hand in hand when you say I left Molinism for grammatical reasons and you begin to unpack these philosophical concepts.

Which I think are important before we get there. Were there any specific biblical reasons? That considered with your philosophical reasons. Where did it make you change the way you looked at the Bible and how you often use the Bible to defend a Molinistic position.

Yeah, it it starts with a Revealed aspect of who God is and I guess kind of part of the backstory here. Is that? It was December 11th 2016 when I first put this theory together to and I realized what I had before me.

I was so incredibly terrified Because I knew that I couldn't escape it because because of the grammatical reasons and it starts with the revealed aspect of who God is in the sense that God is I am and so in a sense, I Tried to avoid using the synonymous God Semantic because God can be misleading if God is the center of your worldview.

Then you've got questions of you know, who is God? How do you define God? God is not a proposition etc. And so the Starting point for this theory this worldview is Based on a revealed fact about who this God is as I am and without That revelation we would have no way of of knowing this.

Hmm.

Okay. All right. Well great. Well, I want to read for folks. You're very brief. You have a a more technical abstract to your book. I mean you can talk a little bit about the fact that what you're about to explain Is laid out in more detail in a book that you I believe you said is available for free, right?

Yeah. Okay. Why don't you tell people where they can find that real quick and and uh, maybe they can uh. Get their hands on that and read through a little.

Um, I can post the link in the chat. Eventually. It's on my academia .edu Profile. So if you go to academia .edu and search max andrews, you should be able to find me and it's under drafts. Okay, and I also post primarily a lot of my interaction on uh, the book and the theory itself is through my twitter account, which is it's been underscore max.

Ich bin underscore max. And there's a link there and you can download it there as well.

All right. Very good. Well, i'm just gonna quickly, uh read through your general abstract. It's just a little paragraph so people can get a context of what we are going to be diving into. All right. Here is your general abstract you write all of us have theories of everything.

That is we all have a theory of everything which is a worldview. How do we overcome the indefinite article. A To attain the definite article the in this book. I present a four sentence isomoric formalism Wherein we can achieve understanding of the theory of everything.

It is the case that if one were to deny the theory one would need to use the theory to do so. By trying to prove it false. The theory is proven true. Thus the best way to learn the theory is to try and prove it false.

With an understanding of these four sentences we can navigate the way through our entangled reality and discover truth goodness and beauty. All we have to do is split the particle which is something you can do just by using your brain.

It turns your world upside down. Okay, very intriguing. There's a lot to unpack there. What I what I like about this is i'm I love on my spare time when i'm bored I want I drink I drink lots of coffee and I study transcendental arguments um, and I know you said that you're not going to lay out an argument here, but there's kind of a Transcendental aspect to this in that you suggest you said that by trying to prove the theory false.

You you the theory is proven true. So there's kind of a almost a transcendental necessity. To the grammatical observations you're about to lay out such that we can't avoid it. To avoid it is to demonstrate.

I think that's fascinating.

Yeah, that that's a correct assessment and I want to bring I guess I could call this a disclaimer or What have you not but a note prior to beginning? Um that i've had a very strong desire to be wrong about this theory.

Um, you know confirmation bias occurs when there's a desire for something to be true and conflicting data is ignored. Um consider this position kind of an inverted confirmation bias. That is you know, I have a strong desire to be wrong about this and I've spent the last three years kind of in silence from the theological and apologetics Sphere because i've been working on this theory and i've been trying to prove it wrong for so long and it's been incredibly frustrating.

Um, because I kind of feel this sense of of jonah in the sense of you know, I have this thing. It's true. Um, it terrifies me. But I don't want to be the one responsible for this. Okay. So, uh, you know i've wanted to be wrong about this so, you know harsh criticism and.

And whatnot is is welcome, right? Okay.

Well, well great and i'm sure people who uh are watching now and people who will dissect this later Uh will be more than happy to try and offer a reputation. Uh, yeah, and that and that's uh, that's really good now now real quick before you unpack that um, people might be interested.

So I kind of entitled this leaving molinism. Uh. People and you don't have to go into the details of this but um leaving molinism someone said well I hope he is leaving molinism for something better. So so how would you define your position now?

Um, How would you identify yourself theologically people might be interested in that?

Um I guess this position is quite a an original unique position. It's closer towards if we were to use categories that we're already familiar with I would say that the application Of this theory is more consilient with Calvinism, you know, I I don't have any Any qualms with five-point calvinism, you know, you and I talked about this earlier.

One of the Uh points that I I think was most obvious to me was the l the limited atonement That seemed most obvious to me. I don't know why. Well anyways, uh, um, but yeah, I think Calvinist would be closer.

But if you want to be specific as to the use of the theory in the application therein, I call it ontic grammar you know ontic from ontos or ontology being so it's the idea that That particles of speech kind of in logical space Are kind of isomorphic one in the same with physical particles.

Uh, so we'll get into that shortly. Sure so so if this view catches on it, you know. Someone could identify themselves as like an ontic grammarist, you know. All right. Yeah. Okay. There we go. I adhere to ontic.

Uh, uh gram vils of calvinism. That's right, I think attempting to name this I might appear to be pentecostal and start speaking in tongues it's very uh, Linguistically confusing. All right. So why don't you unpack this?

So, um I've read the the general abstract you talked about having theories of everything. Everyone has a theory of everything. A worldview a network of presuppositions in terms of which all of reality is is reality is interpreted.

Why don't you begin to unpack? Um your position if you were to if you were in front of like an audience right now, uh giving a paper. How would you kind of?

Lay out your perspective. So, um, I guess the the thesis statement to the uh to the book Is that the theory of ontic grammar. This theory provides an objective grounding by which one can understand words sentences propositions in worlds via the logically necessary divine object, which is Also known as a myriological singularity or a syntactic singularity.

Which is I am that of the judeo-christian worldview. So that's the thesis that i'm i'm going to be defending throughout the book and throughout this this outline interview.

Okay, so why don't you start unpacking that. So, uh, If someone were to say well, what what is this? What is this ontic grammar? Why is it important? Why does this relate to your whole no longer? Understanding molinism, uh in the way that you did before and and now you're changing this perspective.

Why don't you unpack? Um. Grammatically and perhaps even metaphysically talk about what's going on there that uh that we should know about.

Uh, well, I think we would have to begin with. You know the important question. And I think the most important questions we can ask are what explains meaning and meaningless nothing and everything. And so when we ask what is meaning, uh, we would have to say, you know, it's the correct association of words within a language Uh by which we can build up other words and propositions and sentences.

Uh. Yeah, go ahead. So so basically you're asking what are the preconditions for for meaning and intelligibility basically.

Yes. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, and then what something that uh I guess the mathematical aspect about the theory is that it deals with universals in the sense of uh Restricted universal and an unrestricted universal.

So I imagine when you're going through an airport the Security agent she might ask you is everything out of your pockets and. A responsible passenger should probably be prepared by that point and say yes, everything is out of my pockets but everything is restricted in that sense and You don't have an elephant in your pocket.

Tokyo isn't in your pocket. You know, do you want to suck out all of the air molecules out of your pocket? So it's very restricted in a sense, but you're still using the word everything so it's it is a universal affirmation of something.

Or you just say, you know, I have nothing in my pockets um, but would also be you know, if we want to speak in the sense of an unrestricted nothing. That's what a lot of atheists might think in the sense of you know, there was truly nothing, you know the universal negation of anything and that stands As logic it logically impossible under this theory, so we've got a logically necessary something.

Which is unrestrictedly universal. In the sense that it's mathematically grammatically impossible that it not exists. And thus it's logically impossible for there to be the universal unrestricted or an unrestricted universal.

Nothing. And now you would say that that unrestricted universal is the metaphysical context out of which meaning itself grammar. Mathematics or anything? Without that metaphysical context. There's no meaning or coherency.

Would you agree with that? Right, right. So without this singularity without this point by which we root all meaning uh without that then you know, we we couldn't have any type of.

Coherence or language. Okay. Well, uh, all right. That sounds cool. So, all right, buddy. What's the precondition for knowledge man? Go go for it. I'm packing for it. Well, um.

Let's see the precondition for knowledge. I I think um It's the correct association or the correct semantic mapping Of the reality around you. Okay um, so I would say that You know, it's it's not just uh an issue of a justified true belief or justified Or a true belief with warrant I think that there has to be a correct mapping of that and a lot of us don't have that correct association of Of words and particles around us because we don't know who we are and so In the end it's understanding what it means for us to speak.

I am or to understand I am who I am. And so if I were to ask somebody, you know, who are you they might say, you know, i'm a father. I'm a dad. I'm a brother. I'm a teacher And my name is max or you know go on and start giving examples.

But eventually the only thing that we can know As a starting point is that we are who we are And then from that point Then we can build up knowledge and understanding from that. And there's a thought experiment at the end of the book that we'll get to in the At the end of the next episode In which I demonstrate, you know um To understand the theory you kind of have to deconstruct everything that you think you know now Understand who you are understand what it means to say.

I am who I am and then It just turns everything back upside down.

Everything is reconstructed for you now when you say understanding who we are. Are you kind. It almost sounded like you were. Starting with some sort of like cartesian axiom, you know. Are you saying that we start with ourselves?

And then in order to understand ourselves there needs to be a broader context in which that makes sense and then we have to consider how The fact of ourselves relates to other facts and the way we speak about those facts is.

Is that kind of what you're saying or no?

Uh, it's close, um, okay. To the epistemic process. May be that we understand that we exist prior to understanding that. The divine object exists that I am exists. Um, so the epistemic process may go take you for a little loop like that.

And I think that's probably the nature of feeling like your worldview gets turned upside down. Because you start with yourself. And then, you know, it kind of loops back towards, you know, god the divine object.

So would this be the difference between and i'm not sure you're familiar with this language. Uh, but when people discuss issues of like presuppositional apologetics and transcendental arguments and worldview issues.

Uh, we make the distinction between proximate starting points and ultimate starting points. Would you say that our proximate starting point is ourselves and our epistemic equipment? But our ultimate starting point is the metaphysical reality of the ontological trinity which gives context.

To the proximate if that makes sense, right? Yeah, I um.

That language could be used here. I try to avoid using the language of metaphysical Uh throughout the book because I think it can be misleading. And so I typically use the two categories of just physical and logical.

Okay. All right, so, uh, okay and so if we're going to relate this to to molinism, I guess the two key Foundations of molinism would be god has middle knowledge and would would libertarian free will be a key foundation.

I hear people Uh kind of say well really it's just a view of god's omniscience and although libertarian free will is connected to that. That's not necessarily what defines middle knowledge where you have kind of a mere molinism perspective.

Um, how would you what? What would you say the two foundations if or what are the foundations for molinism and what is it about your view that um. Brings you to different conclusions as to how to understand that does on your view does god have middle knowledge?

How does that relate to possible worlds and contingencies and things like that? Can you unpack that a bit? Um.

When it comes to whether or not god has middle knowledge under my view um. Sure I've got no objection to that per se. What I do with uh hypothetical counterfactuals is that what I eventually do is that um, I relate them to probability values uh in the sense that um.

You know because there's an analog between uh physics and Logical space between physical space and logical space. Uh, there's just in this in the same sense that some. No, i'm getting ahead of myself there.

Uh, let me not get to that analogy just yet. So i'll stop at that point. Um when it comes to human freedom in my position I really don't have that much of an opinion about it because I don't really think it matters that much.

Okay, um, I would say that yes, we do have Freedom, but it's it's not a main tenant. That's not something that is as important to the it's. It's further down the epistemic road and I would say yes, we do have freedom um.

But I don't really care that much.

Semantic Engineering and the One and the Many

Okay. All right, fair enough. All right. So, um as i'm looking at your outline here. You kind of outline each chapter in in your book and I suppose that you're building on a logical order laying down the framework.

Or the foundation rather than building off that so perhaps We could unpack a little more, uh by having you summarize for example, you've entitled chapter one semantic engineering. What do you mean by that?

And why is it important to talk about that at the beginning as you then continue to lay out? You know in more detail your perspective.

Okay, so the primary question wanting to be answered in this chapter is myriological that is what is the relationship between A whole and its parts and the whole and the parts that i'm concerned with here are words.

And sentences primarily propositions. Okay and so to define a word in linguistics A word is defined as something that's freestanding, you know. Basically, you can pull open a dictionary. Look at a word and its meaning is freestanding.

In the sense that you can read the definition and the word can stand on its own but my case is that I guess more fundamentally that you know words are symbols and Symbols point to other words which are also symbols and you know words are particles of speech.

But there's much more to it in the sense that words aren't simply freestanding we have to consider the context around them because some words can You know change change the semantic domains Can vary widely and you need other words to understand other words.

And so you get this sense of entanglement that everything is connected. But there's no real starting point quite yet. So if we need this word, you know, if we look up the word Symbol in the dictionary and we read the definition and we can say okay.

Well, we don't know what the word. You know lexicon means so let's look up the word lexicon. And so we go to lexicon and we read the definition of lexicon and then we don't know the definition or the meaning of the word Language and so, you know, there becomes this regress of you know, everything is kind of supporting itself here.

So where's the starting point if there is a starting point? And so, you know in Engineering a structure is a load-bearing material something that can support weight say yeah. Here semantic engineering are words that can support meaning.

So if we just have this unstructured chaos to language then Everything is meaningless. In the literal sense that we're just we're just playing with toys when it comes to Our language and it's very unsophisticated crude language that we use.

But I don't think any of us really use language in that sense. We use words as if they actually have meaning and so I I give this is an epistemic chapter for understanding the relationship of words with other words and then um.

You know starting at that point as an epistemic starting point as words that refer.

Okay, and I think that's very important. Uh also to think in terms of what what makes a a good starting point for a worldview. It's not some you know. Oftentimes people would say a starting point it has to be like this one thing.

When in actuality it could be a bundle of things if you're familiar with the reformed. Uh, philosopher gordon clark, um, he was a a christian rationalist and so he um kind of Based his worldview on axioms and the axiom that he started with was the proposition The bible is the word of god written.

And so while that's one proposition what's housed in that proposition Are a bundle of things all of the concepts found within the bible that provide this foundational web upon which you can build the rest Of your worldview.

So I think that's important when you said that words stand alone, but they really don't have a kind of a An applicable meaning unless they are Connected to other words in a sentence in a paragraph or something like that.

So so starting point doesn't necessarily have to be one thing. But if whatever it's going to be it has to support meaning by being sufficiently connected to everything else, right? Okay. All right. So you're so basically semantic engineering is discussing the muriological nature of language.

Um understanding how parts relate to the whole which indirectly is another interesting point, which is directed is is Related to the philosophical issue of the one in the many which is a more fundamental problem in the study of metaphysics and ancient Greek philosophy, so hopefully we'll get into that as well.

I think people who are interested in the the presuppositional approach will find that aspect of the discussion a little helpful. Um, but okay so setting down linguistic foundations understanding words in the context of other words.

All right so your your second chapter Is where when I when I first heard this I was kind of like oh man. Like I don't know what if I read this book i'm probably my brain's gonna fall out of my uh, uh, my ears.

You you entitled the the chapter two ontic grammar. I was like, what is that? I don't even know what that means the ontology of of grammar. Um, why don't you unpack that for us precisely? So, um.

To understand the transition between chapter one and chapter two um. What we're looking for in this Structure of a worldview that we have where words are connected to other words and they're entangled together what we're looking for uh is Uh the particle which is also the whole now that might sound like a contradiction in the sense that well.