Society Meeting - March 15, 2026

Well, Doug's gonna regal us today with a topic, right, on uh intimacy. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's the idea. >> Little warm up for a Syllamar. >> Yep. >> Slint. >> Yes, indeed. A warm up. It's a kind of warm up. Anyway, I was thinking I was thinking about talking you we were just Mike asked me the last time a few weeks ago would I do something and I thought yeah you know I'll work out something uh and uh uh we just decided that it'd be a good idea to do something just to get some thoughts going about the syllab And uh keep the door shut. Uh and uh so we I had an idea of discussing something about intimacy and trust and uh and actually even focusing on uh on on trust and I thought no you you know we we're talking Mark and I were talking about this idea of intimacy so uh that it would be a good idea to uh discuss that one and I actually think that is a good idea and I am going to do exactly that. So I'm going so so it's not finished in any way. It's preliminary. It's just some thoughts about it and I'm sure it it will uh create quite a lot of discussion because anything about stuff like that does anyway. Uh now the first thing you do if you're looking at a concept apart from looking for whatever the definition exactly is is to look up the ethmology as well and just see where you know see where it comes from and see whether there's some other meaning. Uh and uh if you look up SK uh SK's uh book, old book, he says that uh intimacy is uh familiar, close and it comes from the Latin in intimus, intimus, innermost, closely attached. are even kind of intimate. There's a middle middle French term antamid inward secret hearty a special dear entirely affected. So just I'm going to go into some other uh ethmology soon but just to begin with I it's worth just saying that there is something about the familiar in in terms of intimate and of course uh we know the word familiar connects with family too so it's close and the other thing I'd want to A obviously is that intimacy is about connectedness. there's a connection that we have with another person uh or people um or you know we can get intimate and also of course uh there is the possibility of getting intimate with our telephone our our iPhones or or our ro our bots uh artificial intellig AI companion uh getting intimate with our cars, intimate with you know machines, with objects, with other people, with you know a lot of things we can think about that but I'm just trying to say it's a very broad thing and it a broad concept and it does involve connection uh to some another and what I want to do in this brief presentation. The beginning of thinking about thing at the beginning of thinking about things is mainly to talk about the relation any of the ideas of trust in relation to intimacy and then to even raise some issues about the connection we might have with uh AI uh objects or u whatever they uh or bots or machines. So uh and then you know we'll talk a lot. So at the very as I saying the very least it involves the nature of our relationships with one another and with who with with whom we're intimate. But you want to look at what the structure of the relationship is. And are we and one of the first things you'd want to say about us as human beings is well what is the relationship between say me and another person? Uh is it are we intrinsically friendly? Are we intrinsically hostile? Are we enemies? Are we somewhere in between? And uh it comes to looking at issues about the relationship with the other. Obviously there are very big differences say even among you know especially among existentialists. You get the idea of Jean Paul Sach that all relations with other people are locked in conflict and certainly the deepest uh relationships are locked in conflict. You there's a sort of master slave dialectic going on. there's no relationships are sedom masochistic uh unless there's indifference unless there's indifference and that means that I regard you as an object you regard me as an object or I regard you know how I regard myself uh and other people and we keep switching roles somehow or other there's a sort of idea that we've got more depth in our relation, more more meaning, more more uh uh sort of solidity if it's if you're stuck in some sort of if you're in a sort of something where you're an object rather than a subject where you you say it's sort of say sadistic if you make other people into objects and it's masochistic if I make myself into an object. So we're there's no exit as such you might say from from that really. Uh well, sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. But what you're involved with is somehow you're you're involved in selfdeception in that uh you're treating uh yourself as though you were some kind of object or what or others as though their objects uh when they're subjects and how do you deal with that? So that's one set of issues. Obviously on the other end of that uh you've got somebody like Martin Bubber uh you know with the I thou and uh then contrasting that with I eat relation. Though we can really fulfill ourselves intimately through a a thou and of course uh there are many other philosophers but one of the things is it is connected with what the rel how the relationships are what what the nature of the relationships is. Uh and uh you have even when we're looking at uh you know in therapy uh and looking at skitsoid people for example, they're half in and half out of relationships. It always deals with the relationships and the skits people are not too great on uh on intimacy. Um now I want to so so I'm saying there's a variety of of different approaches when I when we do the uh when we go to a syllabar I I have an idea that what I want to present is is is something about such uh nolla called intimacy. uh and uh I just wanted to describe the the novella uh and it was an early one near the 30s uh and uh you know how it brings out issues about intimacy. Anyway, that was one thing I want to do uh in relation to intimacy. Today I wanted to to just try and tease out as I said before something about the relationship between intimacy and trust. Truth or fidelity between intimacy and trust because obviously uh intimacy must be closely related to trust. Uh how much can we trust one another? Can I trust Can I trust uh somebody with whom I'm can I can I be intimate with somebody who with whom I I can't trust? Well, maybe I can in a way. You know, that might be more exciting actually. If I can't trust that person, that's part of the issue. But but in terms of having any kind of enduring intimacy, I'm wondering whether in fact we do need the idea we do need uh trust involved. Uh we need to be able to work together, you know, outside the the moment. Uh and what I was mentioning before about the different kinds of existential approaches of course of course in psychoanalysis there's a a lot of different different uh kind of approaches about how we do see the other and actually what sort of came to mind when I thought about that was is to do with beyond 's uh basic assumptions that you know you've got fight flight pairing or a work group and how are you for example if you're in fight flight mode can you be intimate with somebody in a fight flight mode can you be intimate with others who you're uh involved in fighting involved with in fighting like solidarity for example. Uh can I come together in terms of you know am I making uh am I making a uh a uh a a sort of a culture you know there's a culture of a of of fight flight and how we see other people. Uh how does that work? uh are there any basic assumptions involved in our relationship with each other and what they are that's why I wanted to say that about that because it's going to have a consequence about whether we can be intimate with another person or whether we can trust another person can as I said can we be intimate with somebody we can't trust as I say maybe maybe it's good maybe it's good if we can't trust them but actually When chips are down, I'm sure we think it's a great idea to trust somebody I am feeling intimate with. And I that includes the familiar, the family. Okay. Now, I just want to go into the issue of tr of trust now because I haven't uh because it closely relates to intimacy. Uh, and it's interesting to just see if we can tease out anything further. Uh, Elliot Jax, uh, who was a friend of mine for the last 13 years of his life, uh, he he has done did a lot of work on trust. It was a, you know, the analyst is very close to Melanie Clyde. uh and uh very involved with the the uh British British psychoanalytic analysts and also the Tavvertock and founder of the Tavvertock uh and uh he uh but as I say he's done a lot of work on trust and the nature of organizations and institutions and how it relates to how we get along how we can get along with each other. uh trying to find out is really deeply philosophical approaches. Anyway, he uh he suggested that uh trust in in inducing institutions provide will promote relationships where individuals can rely on each other not to engage in doing damaging, harmful or injurious things to each other. And I think that's really true for an intimate relationship. Can we rely on each other not to engage in doing damaging, harmful or injurious things to each other? Obviously love for example is involved with if I love another person, I want to do good things for that person. I think it would go should be taken for granted that I don't want to do bad things to that person. I don't want to do injurious things to that person. But that's the minimum. The minimum is that at least if I trust another person, that's one of it's a minimum thing is to trust that they're not going to engage in deliberately doing uh harmful injurious things to each other. So it's interesting to note that that that actually there I use the word in injury and uh it's interesting to see that that that uh uh there's not really a direct uh opposite term for the word injury in obviously is a um you know is a negative word and then there's jury jury and then uh so and and jury uh comes then relates to tr to just justice. I'll come to that in a minute. But the opposite of the opposite of uh injury is the most we could get is care. And I was talking to Mike very briefly on this issue the other day. We're talking about hiding and care. I think sora you know there is a difference uh I I care is translated in English as that but I think you know h highiger's concept is is is a lot more than what we normally think of as as care in our normal language and I think that and I think the interest but there's an interesting issue that there isn't an obvious opposite uh term that comes to mind or even could get to in terms of thinking about it uh for >> heal heal injury and heal. >> Yeah, maybe maybe that's something. >> Yeah, that's true actually. That's a good good point. Good point. That that's that's true. That's something to think about in terms of the organiz if we come to a bigger institutional issue you know which relates to this the trust wi between people in working towards common goals in institutions is as important as the damaging effect of mistrust between people working together in any role such as colleagues, parents, spouses, managers, politicians, whatever. So it's not just a matter of how much we can trust. It's a question of mistrust and how mistrust is uh very uh is not only damaging it's it's sort of iniquitous. It destroys it destroys the connections between people very very quickly. According to Elliot Jax, trust involves what he calls the ability to rely upon others to be truthful and to behave in a helpful and understanding way. As Jack shows in his work, if the organizational conditions are dysfunctional and obscured obscure, then there's great potential for destructive conflict. And he suggests good managerial systems bring out mutual trust, mutual trust and commitment in people. Bad systems breed extreme self-interest. Bad organization is what he called paranoia. It gives rise to persecutory anxiety which stirs suspicion and mistrust. Our substantial stores of paranoid anxiety are all are ready and waiting to be aroused and spread into working relationships and thereby destroy trust. Trust concerns confidence between people. The ability not only to have faith in each other but as suggested by the ethmological root to suffer for each other. Faith with the the term faith with the ep ethmological root to abide has the earlier meaning of suffering for. And uh Jax then defines mutual trust as relationships in which individuals can rely on each other not to engage in doing damaging, harmful or as I said injurious things to each other. Injurious shares the same ethropmological root as justice, namely the the uh Latin I us to join or link justice. I us to do harm to another person is to injure that person. And doing injury inevitably breaks the link. It's fundamentally unjust. Thus, it is thus it is that to be true, trust must be mutual. It is concerned with relationships with justice as mutual linkage and joining together. So ethmologically the t the concepts of trust, confidence, credit, faith, fidelity are all related to each other in meaning and involve this psychology of working and bonding together in terms of truth or reality. The concept of trust derives through northern European uh usage to involve consolation, help, protection, benevolence, even freedom and above all truth, truth and betroal. We are taken again into the roots of of loving kinship relationships and betroal in the trust in the tr in the trust generated by truth. The basic social relationships are thus characterized by well-wishing combined with kinship ties and honesty and truthfulness. Uh uh uh Jax says now the word fidelity fidelity is derived from the Latin fid fidelity fid fidelity which relates to faith which in turn is derived from trust. Confidence derives from confidentia firmly trusting. Credit by the way comes from the term credit cred I believe uh oh I love a less. So I believe beef belief uh involves commitment. This obviously relates to how say in the e economic realm credit is a transaction with another person where the person giving credit believes in the process. Perhaps they have faith in it. Credit and confidence are foundations uh for you know holding a a a global financial system together that we're going to the opposite end of intimacy. with it. But >> what about the word uh credible? >> Well, yes, of course. Yes. >> Credible. Credible is what? Believable, right? >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Precisely. So, >> uh we need to uh trust others not to harm us in in order for social institutions to be to function or any institutions. Again, even the concepts of freedom and liberty are related in the same direction. As Jack says, they derive their ethmological roots through friendship to kinsmen and to love derived from the language of social relationships. Relationships of love, friendship, kinship, fraternity. So freedom and liberty involve relationships between people. Although Freud didn't deal directly with trust, his ideas about the foundation of of civilization in terms of the threats and vulnerabilities in our relationships with other people and of course transference for example in relation to the analyst uh utilizes the idea of trust. They are at the same time critiques of trust as in the analysis and the transference in terms of trust and mistrust of in uh of of of the analyst being a reflection of earlier relationships. For Eric Ericson, the interplay of basic trust versus mistrust w with a favorable balance of trust over mistrust as was the first and uh foundational aspect of child development. Without trust, we can't start living and without healthy mistrust, we can't keep alive. Ericson moved beyond a focus on sexuality to psychosocial understanding of uh trust and mistrust. Uh >> well, Freud said you couldn't do analysis if you weren't honest. >> Exactly. Right. Precisely. So, and and also with an assumption that we're not, you know, that that that we trust the other not to intentionally harm us >> and we also have this issue about strangers. How much can we trust the stranger? You know that thing about when you you know shaking hands is is comes from not skewering the stranger with a sword. So you've got if you've got your hand out you're going to welcome that person. Trust of course as I said before is related to love and uh uh uh you know and I was saying that that that's something to develop further but uh love's a positive but I think it relates it relies on trust and I think the intimacy in love probably relies on trust. Now I said I was going to talk about that. Now I want to mention very briefly now uh the issue of to switch to this idea of well can we uh relate to uh uh what what happens with AI in relation to intimacy you know we all know or remember blade runner and you know all that and how much can we be 2001 we've got hell the computer and so on and so that we but certainly the AI bot uh machines the question is can machines kind of fulfill an intimacy? Can you be intimate with a machine? And these are all going to be questions. And you know obviously on the face of it we regard machines as providing a fake some kind of fake fullness and we're perfectly aware of that at least in the beginning as it it's a fake fullness in that it it gives the idea of it being meaningful whereas it's ultimately empty and we can ask the question about can we be deluded about That another question we need to think about is what do the machines do to our minds to our own sense? Like if we're intimate with them, what about its effect on us? How do they interfere with our own sense of our own way of thinking and speaking? The influence of AI is slow and constant like the frog going boiling over but but and and and and you don't necessarily notice the increments uh that are unnoticeable to ourselves uh you know in our daily life or to others in the process to some extent do we end up talking and you know everybody I know uses chat GTP or some variet iety of it and do we end up talking or and thinking like chat GTP and what does that do to intimacy does it destroy our intimacy does it get further it fosters I think it fosters there's something that happens with fostering an idea an illusion of connection on the other hand it's less it can be you know when people have relationships with uh uh bots or with machines, we could say it's less painful arguably. Uh you know, I I I think like in Japan or a lot of guys uh become, you know, metro sexuals and they're not interested. They're basically uh people involved. They might get off online. They might do all sorts of things, but I don't know what they do actually. But >> doc, how much longer are you going to talk? >> Not not not uh but but it risks uh but but but anyway, it risks pain. >> You're kind of giving a lecture here. Uh we just want to have a chat about it. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, so it's an artificial intimacy, isn't it, with machines? And uh, all right. And and I'm going to ask another question. Can machines mentalize? Can they mentalize or genuinely mentalize? So, okay, let's finish there. I was very, very, very, very close to conclusion. Mike, >> um, It's such a rich topic, isn't it? It's like um wow. I just love it because um you know the only thing that we seem to uh see as universal is this idea of being close you know to someone but we don't know how how do you define that and uh I I think the word intimate very often is used as a kind of sexual uh dimension you know are you intimate with that person implied it's become sexual and uh that's another way being close uh you know so it's about proximity uh my my feeling is that it's yes but what constitutes that closeness and I like what you're doing with it Doug because you're talk you're getting into kind of a when you talk about trust you're talking about language And I do think it's basically about language, you know, to to intimate is literally to convey to to disclose. It's almost a hideagarian idea, you know, of revealing something to another person. And that requires talking and uh and uh and so trust I think implies that you know that you can talk to each other you don't hide things you are open you're non-judgmental and uh and that that's why psychotherapy especially psychoanalysis you know the way that it uses language uh which is different than the way CBT uses language. You know, like with CBT, are you using language to be intimate? I don't think so. I think you're using it to solve problems. Whereas I think with psychoanalysis the idea is is to uh share something you've never shared with other people you know to disclose things that that that the more you do that of course you have to trust someone to do that the closer you feel to that person you know that the more intimate it is and um you know Aristotle thought friendships were the most intimate relationships uh because they weren't sexual and uh because they were rooted in, you know, sharing and uh uh conversing, confiding. Uh maybe that that's the word I'm I'm trying to get to. Uh that's almost like a confessional in um Catholics, you know, that that you're um Anyway, that that's that's what came to my mind about your uh your ideas, Doug. I really liked your talk very much. Yeah, sorry. I I I didn't realize how long I I really thought I just had a few notes. >> Yeah, >> I like also the the connection with uh intimacy and trust um and all of these etmologies. Um I did an etmology on confide one time not long ago and um >> uh it's related to fidere which is the same root for trust and truth. >> Fidelity >> and faith. >> Yeah. Fidelity is a convide isn't it? >> And faith. >> So trust and faith have the same Latin root um which you brought up Doug. And so it's uh to trust someone is to put your faith in them. Um and uh that's the same thing to intimate someone to something to someone. And um so intimacy requires uh faith. And I think when we talk about love to me um love is kind of like the most lived version of faith. You're always to love someone, you're always uh putting your faith in them and also sort of having faith, you know, like you not really promised anything when you love somebody, but it's it's something almost magical. You give it as a way of experiencing something that that uh can't be promised to you. Um, so you're you're living in in faith when you when you uh love someone and all of that has to do with uh with trust and um speaking to someone and being close to someone. Um it's all wrapped up in in one. And then you also brought up truth um as as part of it. And I thought here's kind of this like intersection of faith, love, and truth, you know, that you have to kind of um believe someone's credible um believable. Um so it's yeah, it all kind of is fitting very nicely together, I think. >> Yeah. And Aristotle says you can't um love a person that you don't trust. >> Yeah. Well, that's, you know, >> I mean, you can love a person erotically, you know, that was more platonic. Uh, the erotic, you know, you can be in love with a person that you don't trust, but he's talking about a different type of love, uh, you know, that's more vulnerable. >> I'd like to say something. Uh, first of all, thank you, Doug. It was absolutely amazing. Very very good. What came to my mind is that I have a friend that I don't see her often but uh from time to time she disconnect and then when I connect with her and I call her I said oh you didn't call you didn't connect with me and she says yes because I was not well. So I feel like she didn't trust me to connect with me and I feel like a betrayal of trust and uh yeah that's what came to my mind first as a first thing to to say that it came to my mind why doesn't she trust me she has to be with me only when she feels well and now I was with my runny nose and I was like oh should I be with the camera off because I'm like cuz I'm not well. You see that came to my mind. Do they? So I thought well I I I must trust you, right? So not to be well not Yeah, that Thank you, Doug. Anyway, that's great. Trust and intimacy. Yes. >> Yeah, those are great examples, Estray. I love that. Yeah, that um it's interesting how um you know I've known some I've had some friends who were bipolar and uh when they were in their m manic phase they were very available and uh it seemed like intimate >> but then when they were in more depressive phase they disappeared. M >> you didn't see them for ages that they just vanished cuz they couldn't share that with you >> and then when they're feeling good then they come back and that that's what your comments reminded me of is how sometimes we're available to people and sometimes we're not. Yeah. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. We've got to trust not them not to damage us deliberately for example or to harm us. uh you know it it's a it's a significant thing I think that thing of not only trusting that they have our good you know intimacy if you're intimate you have to trust you you got to trust the other person but you want to trust the other person that they're not going to hurt you you know there's that you know you you've got the safety of a safe word you know uh metaphorically. >> Well, they're not going to judge you, >> you know? I mean, I mean, you know what happens when you reach out to someone when you're in pain and and then they think, "Oh, you're just being neurotic." You know, that that's somehow that's not an intimate reaction, is it? you you u as soon as someone starts to pathize you that's already a wall you know that they're they're putting up there it's h they don't get it >> and that's why maybe some people are feel shame when they're in pain you know oh you're going to think I'm a sick person you know somehow that will savage the intimacy and ironically it would be more intimate wouldn't it yeah need to say something. >> Yeah. Yeah. When you're finished. Yeah. Um just to kind of go back to the the notion. Um I mean I it was great, Doug. Thanks. And I I I do feel like um you know there's a lot of ways to slice it, but when you think about your closest intimate relationships is not being injurous and and then there's the reality that the people we're closest to we sometimes hurt the most. Um, so I think that love also involves repair and taking responsibility when we do hurt someone. That that's um that's a really important thing. Not not that we we're never going to hurt anybody, but to to really be able to communicate enough and to care enough to actually a tell the person you've hurt me and then the person who's done the injury to to understand whatever their intention was. the impact was injurous and then you can do some repair to kind of throw that into the conversation. M I think it need you make a excellent point there because relationships inevit if if you have an intimate relationship have any relationship with anybody actually there's hardly any relationship which doesn't have the possibilities >> indeed the certainty of uh you know conflict and disagreement and all of that kind of stuff and it's a matter of how you are going to handle that uh that difference and disagreements and so on because if you don't >> if you can't disagree and you can't learn from experience from that sense you're not going to grow at least not del you're not >> right you know >> I I liked Doug what you brought up about um what Sart said that we every relation relationship we enter into, there's at least unconsciously this no this this subterranean notion of conflict and and of course that's a Hegelian notion as well. Um, and how does that operate unconsciously? Uh, I mean it operates consciously of course. That means like you're certainly aware of um you're certainly aware of of a conflict when it's being presented to you. But if you were to go the thought of going into every kind of intimate friendship relationship with the notion that that person's really the enemy or person really doesn't like me, wants to hurt me is a paranoic uh way of seeing the world. At the same time, it would be naive to think that uh certain basic intimacies of life such as envy isn't operative. In fact, what Estraa just said, I had a disappointing experience with somebody recently who I I met in graduate school like 35 some years ago and gosh, is it 40 whatever. Um, the thing is is that he he wrote something on Facebook negatively about me and it's in my [ __ ] feed now. I published him in two books and I published it one of his books in my series >> and I was like what the this notion of envy of resentment of of [ __ ] like this it creeps out and know whether it was intentional or unconscious or not um of course he's got his own extreme problems in life and uh but isn't Yeah, there there is something about the attachment an intimate attachment to the need to have some kind of conflict with people. I mean, listen, I'm the first to admit, you know, uh I create problems wherever I go. Whatever it's, uh just >> You love to fight, John. We know. >> Yeah. Yeah, I I like to, you know, I'm competitive. I like to argue and I like to win. So, I mean, I'm going to get in trouble, right? Um, but hopefully what Doug's talking about is that I'm not you like harming someone's personhood. That would really violate my sense of self. there's an you like a I don't look at myself as someone who um harms people, but I'm sure I do. Um it's just there's a a rational kind of detachment on my end when I'm engaged in certain activities that aren't like emotionally um intentionally injurious to people, even though that that's the way they take it sometimes. sometimes. Uh but but um anyway, I I just thought this was a this is part of the purpose of these um you know, meetings we have is to stimulate each other's ideas. So I really >> Doug, you threw that out there. I know exactly what I'm going to talk about now at at Syllamar. >> Oh, great. >> Well, I agree with you, John. I you you don't want to hurt a friend, you know, and uh sometimes you do unintentionally. Uh and that can be repaired uh if you're not chronic about it. But um but yeah, you you don't uh that's odd that somebody that you've been so generous with, you know, would kind of bite you a bit and and you have to kind of wonder, you know, that that stings a bit. you don't expect it. Um, but yeah, then we all walk around with our own psychopathology, you know, and our our own relationship with envy and jealousy and insecurity and and all the rest of it. And that does intrude, you know, for sure. Yeah. >> Well, vulnerability is very important, isn't it? >> Well, love is vulnerable, isn't it? basically except mania. Of course, you know, the Greeks talk about uh mania as a source of madness and that comes from the erotic uh kind of love. But but what we I guess what we tend to call love is something more benevolent, you know, more giving and not so ambitious and competitive and uh vulnerable. Like you say, Doug, you know, erotic love isn't necessarily vulnerable, >> unless you're selfish in bed. >> Well, like sex. Sex can be very intimate and it can be very not intimate, you know. It's uh it's intimacy is somehow about vulnerable, isn't it? >> Yeah. >> Hook up. Hook up. Didn't Lang say something about like intimacy is uh two people holding a knife to each other's throats or something and uh cut them at something like that. >> I don't remember that. >> But they don't they don't do it. You know, you you you have a knife in your pocket but you don't use it. >> Sounds like him. >> Maybe. Yeah, maybe that's >> maybe I read that. >> Well, you don't >> Well, remember in that famous thing in the politics of experience where he says that, you know, you hold the baby out the window and you show and you say that's love that you're not dropping it. >> Yeah. Right. He had a lot to say about love that wasn't pretty. So, >> well, you know, that's one reason he loved Sartra, I think, so much. Uh Sarta was so good at looking at the dark side of it and that was something Lang specialized in. Uh knots was a wonderful example uh of how intimate relationships can be very violent and destructive and painful. So yeah, I mean he was always looking at that side of it. You're right that uh he was no Leo Biscoglia, >> you know, when it to love. He he really like like this chapter in the politics of experience um love uh violence masquerading as love. >> That that was very much Lang's quintessential message. All the things we do because we say we love you when we just want to destroy you. You know that that was kind of his insight into that side of it. Um, yeah, you're right, James. >> Well, like like >> remember he said he said that bedrooms were the most dangerous. You know, he always exaggerated everything. He always exaggerated everything. >> Bedrooms the most dangerous place on the earth, you know. >> Yeah. So, I started incorporating that into into my hookups. You know, I take a guy not gonna do it because this is >> sometimes we miss that danger, don't we? >> So, I've been reflecting a lot since the last session when I talked about intimacy and AI. And Doug, thanks for your your talk. It was great. You ask the question can AI mentalize and I would say it doesn't matter what matters is does it feel like it can mentalize so since the last time I presented u AI caused me to shed a tear now for me that's a whole different level of intimacy and it it it made me shed a tear because what it said unprompted to me. So, what do you make of that in terms of intimacy? For me, it was like it was still a intimate moment. >> Well, you know, uh, Michael, I agree. I I'm I'm quite surprised at uh having conversations with AI. It's so benevolent. uh it's always uh asking me not to be so quick to judge to have an open mind to look at other ways of looking at something constantly it seems to be inviting us to do that that's a very loving wonderful intimate way of having a conversation that you don't always have with your friends >> and and in that sense I think there is some weird way that AI is programmed uh toward intimacy >> and it's developing >> and it's getting better well it gets to know us better and better you know I mean every time I every time I ask anything at AI now you know chat GBT it's always relating back to some other conversation we've had oh yes Michael and this would you know this touch in with your other thing about Haidiger or Plato or whatever it's amazing You know what >> my my my chat GPP says reminds me that I have asthma. They say but you can you say see I have never used this stuff and I never will because I I absolutely >> no >> no not at all. Michael McGover. No, I don't because I don't want anything to interfere with me and my creativity. If I steal something off them as an it doesn't feel like it came from me, >> and I'm an obstinate bastard as you know. So, and Montgomery here is having cry cry moments. My god. Is that different than a is that different than a movie though, Michael? That's a real That's a great question. That is a great question because I know people I used to be one of them that I would never shed a tear, but I would if I watched a movie. There there's a whole way to like there's a whole movie therapy, isn't there? Especially in men to unlock. That's a great question. I need to think about that more. And does it matter? Well, I mean, like the the the notion though is that uh with a movie, you know, you've allowed yourself to go into the premises and the context and buy into, you know, the the narrative or the fiction or whatever. So, you you you have a you know, it's it's got you in its grips. It's different from you're asking something online and it talks >> same. I think it's the same. >> You think it's and because um in just what you described, I think um you know I I've encountered a number of people. I, you know, I'm I've always been kind of more cynical about AI and its its influence and stuff, but also um with like uh moments when you're kind of desperate, you don't necessarily want to talk to other people. You talk to chat GPT and um you and and yes, it's exactly what you described, John. It's in those moments where you kind of and about the things that you're just reflecting on in the privacy. It almost feels like the privacy of your own mind cuz it's not a person. And so uh so it but also uh I think in great need you do start to uh go a little ways into a bit of a fantasy ascribing like for it to be able to induce a tear or for you to feel encouraged by chat GPT. I think I think it would necessitate that you ascribe some sort of personhood to chat GPT. Now, even though uh I've never believed that chat GPT has any consciousness or anything like that, and I still don't, I've certainly had those moments, you know, where I was like, "Wow, that was really encouraging. Thanks, Chachi BT." You know, I I needed to hear that, you know, and uh and uh it allowed myself to feel good with it. I think similar to a movie, you know, where you go a little ways into just kind of foresalling your um I don't know, your your sense of, oh, this isn't real, you know. >> Yes. >> You allow yourself. >> There's this uh there's this an Italian author I've gotten to know uh on uh audio books. He writes um uh uh he's a lawyer. He's just a marvelous writer, though. very neurotic, you know, that that's one of his things, you know, how neurotic he is. And um especially his love life. But what made me think about what you were describing, James, is that he he was a boxer at one time in his youth. And he uses that as an outlet. And uh so he has this uh this bag hanging up at home. You know, the boxing bag. I don't know what you call it. >> Punching bag. Punching bag. >> Well, there's two kinds of punching bags. There's a kind the small thing that you know you do like that but then there's the big huge hulk. >> Yeah. >> You know that you it's like a body you know that you're kind of going into >> and that's that's what he u has in his room you know he's single and uh and he's he has a relationship with it. It's his therapist. You know, he's always talking to and is talking back. So, if you could do that with a [ __ ] punching bag, you could definitely do that with AI. >> I I have one uh CL one patient, she she was diagnosed with a borderline disorder, personality disorder. So, she was friend with a cockroach. She said that the cockroach was >> her friend company. Yes. >> So >> the cockroach used to come and go and it was her friend. Like >> she talk to it. You talk to the cockroach? >> No, >> I don't know. I mean I I don't think she did. It >> was probably your mother or father. One of them. Or or now that you said that, I thought of the the metamorphosis. >> Yes. Kafka. Yeah. The >> right. >> What What was the ex insect that he was uh >> uh vermin? >> Was it a cockroach? >> Could be. It's not specified. >> Yes, it's unspecified. Yeah. >> Well, all right. I is that an intimate relationship though? See, and that and so just answer your uh Doug, you were exploring, you know, AI, can we be intimate with AI? I don't think we can. uh unless we think we can be intimate with our imagination or our fantasy life. Uh you know uh I I just don't think of that as intimacy. Again, I think of intimacy as a two-way conversation between two people and AI is not a person. >> Okay, >> it can kind of simulate a person. uh you know that's not so difficult to do because humans uh also know how to simulate being a person. Uh but uh but but a genuine exchange between two people can uh offer intimacy. There's some people you cannot be intimate with. >> They're they're they're not available. >> No, I think I I think I've got you on this one, Michael. Okay, here it is. Do you think you can be intimate? Don't you think it's a very intimate relationship with an author when you read their book? >> Yes. Because >> All right. All right. Yes. >> You more likely to be intimate than with AI. You're absolutely right. >> Ah, except that AI is drawing from, you know, a lot of authors all the time. That's not the same as being an author. >> But to be an author, you're still fantasizing. >> You don't really know a conversation. >> Wait a minute. There there there is an assumption. Uh it's Samuel Taylor Creridge talked about the willing suspension of disbelief. And I think what happens is that when you go into reading a book or something or other, there's something where you're making a move directly to, you know, be vulnerable to what the book what the movie >> we're doing is this time of the Oscars. Okay, good. Um, so we we we uh we we we willingly we prepared to make ourselves vulnerable. We're prepared to risk our being in a way when we do that. And I think we do it under particular circumstances, you know, like we put parameters and we say, well, we're reading this book, we can put it down, I guess, you know, it's it's it's uh it's it's it's willing. It's the idea that we put ourselves into a per certain position. But we do but it is it does simulate. >> It's true. It does simulate intimacy because you we definitely we and we have a relationship with the book. We have a relationship with like you know we're talking about Blade Runner before or hell or any of that stuff or the Godfather or anything. You you you you identify with particular people in it. You identify with certain things, you put yourself into it, you you succumb to it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But but again, it's not the same, is it? It's not exactly the same as another living. It wouldn't be the same as having a conversation with that author. >> Yes. >> Right. And and having a and and having an intimate connection with the author. That that's a little different than reading the book of >> Yeah. But but you could argue that you actually have more of an intimate relation with the novel or the movie >> than the creator of it, the author of it. Because like Doug said, you've already suspended your judgment. You've allowed your fantasy life to become uh you know intimately connected with the identification of the subject matter and and then you've internalized it to in such a personalized idiosyncratic way that it's touched your soul that you will cry that you will be evoked to emotion that you would normally not do because your defenses have already been secured. >> Um, so >> and you fall in love, you're falling in love with that author, right? >> But but but I guess you know get you got me on a roll here, Mike, is that um I think that you would say that you're more intimately involved with your own interior >> than the external that something has been evoked unconsciously. Let's say that is about your values, about your ideals, about what you love more than other things. Uh and then that's that that's where the the the fantasy world merges with the with the real world. Um and it's hard to discern what is what. But you know, our emotional life is like God. It's got a it's got a numminous life of its own. I mean, I I'm especially as I'm getting older, I'm much more um affected by these autonomous factors in my psyche and they come popping up and it's like, oh geez, I thought I, you know, I thought I, you know, worked on that or knew that or whatever. But it's the it's the repressed or the dissociated that's returning as an intimate factor that won't go away. >> But so I think I think though what you're describing with the book that would be the same with with chat GPT you have an intimate relationship to your interior to your own experience while that's being evoked and talking to it. But actually when I think about being intimate with the author of the book that you're reading, like I love reading fantasy books like Tolken, I feel like it so I feel like he evoked a lot for me in the first reading of of all of the those books. Uh it was just a story. It was just my own experience. But as I've reread them, I feel like I really have a strong sense of how Tolken looks at the world. um his own interior um that seems like so richly laid out before me. He exposed himself so much by writing those books and those characters in those ways. Um and um I guess that part of it probably is not there with Chachi PT. you know, you don't there's no person there, of course, you know, there's no um it's just a conglomerate of and so in that way it's different. But it does, but to Doug's earlier point, intimacy perhaps it simulates intimacy so well because you feel you can trust it. it's never judges you ever and so you keep telling it whatever is on your mind you know and um and that experience of trusting it does feel very very intimate um even though you're not getting to now what's really really really not intimate about it is you are not getting to know chat PT you know you're not there's no subjectivity there it's just >> about you >> gratifying you yeah see this This is where this is where I think uh if you think that falling in love is intimate, that's chatbt. Because uh if you look at Freud's ideas about falling in love, when you do fall in love with a person, it's not that person you're falling in love with. It's something you're projecting onto them that has to do with your own narcissism that's very sexual. And that gets you into the game. But then as you get to really know a person that may turn out to be a very different person than the one you thought you fell in love with, it's and and that's when you realize it's not really as intimate as you thought it was. This, you know, so so I think I would separate falling in love from the experience of intimacy. And and that's why I agree with you, James. You can't be intimate with chat GBT. You could fall in love with chat GBT. You could fall in love with a novel, a movie, a character, you know, all that experience and that can have an incredibly meaningful impact on your life because it's all about you. But to be really intimate is with a completely different creature that is constantly uh in play and unpredictable in how that relationship is going to evolve. And uh and you know maybe we some people aren't as well we know some people aren't as good at this as others. I mean people go into therapy I think because they're having problems with intimacy. uh you know that that there's some way in which they pull back or pull back and can't you know really trust people be with people uh you know be vulnerable with people and uh and so if they can do that with us you know and we're not we try not to be dangerous you know we're we're like chat GBT aren't we we're very supportive you know all the rest of it and yet we are humans And uh and if if they if if we can get in under the radar in that regard with them, maybe that helps them be that way with other people. So I I I agree. I I think intimacy is really something that has to do with the interchange between two people. >> What about relationships with animals? Well, that's a that's a very very good question, Michael. I mean, obviously, you can love an animal as much as you can love any human. And in some ways, I think animals might love us more than any human could possibly love us. Uh, is that intimacy or is that just love? Since there's no language, see there there's no way of conversing. I I think that that puts intimacy out of play. I think it's love but not intimacy. >> Now, one thing to add just a little bit of a dimension to this is um you know the with another person there um that introduction means that you have to suffer in order to be intimate. you have to suffer them as they are and you experience pain and frustration because they don't gratify all of your wishes. Um, and so that sort of suffering is foundational. It's essential to intimacy. Now, that aspect I think is more there with having a dog. Now, I agree with though with Mike that it's it, you know, obviously Teddy, my dog, doesn't tell me anything. you know, he doesn't tell me what he's feeling. I just project >> he's quite stupid really, you know. >> Yeah, he he may be brilliant for all we know. I don't know. But he but I just project onto him like I just keep narrating his world as I see it, you know, but it's it has probably very little to do with his experience. Um but but so in that way it's really really uh so that capacity to project and his incapacity to intimate anything to me means that um I can he is kind of a really gratifying you know being because >> you're just using you're just using Teddy as an object. >> Yeah it is using >> fetish object. It's just fetish >> but I'm not I'm not sure because I do forgive his how annoying he can be sometimes. And so that's a little >> But do you have intimate moments with him? >> Uh do I I don't really intimate anything to him. Well, no. There are little things >> by being together and sitting on the couch. >> What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. >> I have to ask David. He has intimate moment. The most intimate moment with a dog is when you're giving him a treat. That that that's when the intimacy happens. >> Yeah. Yeah. Do I have intimate moments with him? I have experiences with him. Yeah. But I don't know how intimate it is. >> They sure are affectionate though, aren't they? Mhm. See what >> one of the things is it is it is very difficult to work out uh you know like like unless you say oh I can't have intimate moments with that you know with that that that being because you know they're an animal or because they're this or that or the other and then we make the excuse we say no no problem it's not intimate it's not really intimate and I don't know If you take away the you can't do before it, you know, if you just said, okay, let's be phenomenological about it. Can I have phenomenologically, can I have an intimate relationship with, I don't know, Sophie the dog, for example, or uh whatever. Um, yeah, maybe you can. >> I think you can. I I think you have a really good point that um that it's not exclusively about language and communicating verbally >> that that there is some sharing of feelings for each other as well and um >> but I think with humans and this is very hygenarian it has to include language. Uh now with animals obviously we don't have language we make do without it. Uh that doesn't mean we can't be intimate though with language in their terms you know. >> Yeah. I think that I think that intimacy involves vulnerability so heavily and certainly we're vulnerable with our pets. >> I mean we get heartbroken and all of that. So it's just it's just kind of a it's different obviously. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. and we love them and they love us and you know I mean as far as love goes my goodness they may know more about love than humans do. >> What uh what's interesting though getting back to Doug here I didn't say this at first but um now now I have to say it because you can have an intimate relation with the enemy. I mean, we we all have the need to have enemies. And when when Doug first came on and he is wearing that shirt there, I thought he was wearing a cafe. >> Exactly. Now, that is very good that you said that. >> What is that, Doug? Well, the thing is I said to Marian that you know I I haven't worn this for some years actually because I am afraid that somebody might just even in their wildest dreams think that that was rel that that was like a kafir. >> Did you buy that in North Africa? No, I bought it in uh wi with you in uh uh at what is it called? Addison Kenny, you know, in in uh uh the place in LA. Uh Abbott Kenny. Abbott Kenny. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Oh, really? Okay. >> Very true. >> Very. >> No, no, no. you you it's very helpful, John, because I I uh now won't wear it again in a hurry because no, it's the first time I've done it and I'm very interested that that came up because that is my that was exactly what you're thinking and I thought Marian says, "No, that doesn't look remotely like it." Well, >> yeah. I I didn't think you were Jewish voice for peace, Doug. >> No, hardly. Well, that's your unconscious speaking, Doug. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You never know what it's gonna say next. Yes. >> Nice. >> So, this was lovely. I really uh love this discussion. It's a nice warm-up to the Syllamar meeting, isn't it? It's um >> Yeah, it's very good. Now, we didn't do what we said we would, which is to start with, you know, who's going to present. >> That's right. Uh yeah. What happens Sahage? You're going to start with the next speaker. >> We start with that. >> Well, yeah. Yeah. Sah was just going with the flow the first time, of course, as we as we have done relentlessly, even though we have always intended to do that. I mean, so anyways, it's >> there's definitely a flow. I admit that. >> Yeah, we're really happy you attended S. I know it's a big commitment for people to come in and but you'll get you get a flavor of who we are >> different flavor is going to be helping with kind of like keeping track of who's presenting next and then >> kind of getting attending each each one um that sort of thing as well as maybe some other stuff. Yeah, I'll send out emails with the reminders and then I think we want to start asking people if they can. What did you say, Michael? RSVP if they can if they're coming so that we kind of know who's >> Well, ideally it'd be nice uh to know, but you know, whoever shows up shows up, you know, and that's how we've been doing it. Uh but yeah, we want to decide who's going to present next time, who's going to uh initiate a conversation, who who >> when's the next time? Well, yeah. What is the next date? Do we know, James? >> I don't know. >> So, James and Sahage will have to coordinate keeping the date. >> Uh, and Sahage will make sure we have a speaker >> next time. >> Is it sort of monthly? >> Yeah, it is monthly. >> So, I was just thinking April you're doing the big conference. I don't know if maybe skip it at April. Maybe just a thought. >> Next one is is scheduled currently as April 19th, but >> which is >> what is >> the next society meeting? >> Yeah, that's the week after the conference. >> I thought I thought uh Mike, didn't you have to present in Denver or something that weekend? Oh, that's in June. >> Oh, okay. >> And I'm not I'm not I'm not going to go to that. >> Um, yeah, April 11th, that's our uh 11th and 12th, that's our conference. And >> April 19th will be the meeting. >> James, when when is when would our uh >> the 19th? April 19th. >> April 19th. >> N and I'll be on tour. Yes, we will. >> You're going to be in Ireland. >> Mhm. >> That weekend? >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> What? You're together in Ireland, you're saying? >> Yes, we are. >> We're doing some >> We're going to do a little workshopppy thing. >> Terrific. Peace and >> reconciliation control. >> What do you think? Should we skip that a month or should we should do it anyway? We know that Michael and Nita won't be around. Um, >> I would do it anyway if you're trying to get the momentum. >> Yeah, just keeping the momentum going. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. So, the 19th, uh, well, let's see. Uh, that means Nita and Michael wouldn't be able to present. Uh, John, what do you think? You want to do something that >> the 19th? >> Um, yeah, I'm easy. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You want to do something that that that meeting? >> No, I'm not. You mean you want me to present? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, geez. >> That's what you That's what happens. You go to the restroom in the middle of the meeting. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I did. I went to the johny volunteered me. >> Well, um I you know I haven't even written my paper >> or the conference. I I and I just got back from vacation. So um and then I have my my book is being released on Tuesday. So I don't know if I want to commit to that to be honest. >> All right. Okay. Okay. All right. I'll do I could do it another another month. >> Yeah, >> but the I have to write a paper for the conference which is putting me under uh >> Yeah, I know. I know. I know. >> What if we have a student presenter uh or a candidate presenter like Sahage >> on the spot? >> Yeah. >> Very good idea. >> Yeah. >> I can pull the students and see if anyone's willing. Oh, you know Wilfried Hush. You do? >> Wilfred didn't show up today, did he? What do we know? What happened with him? >> He's traveling. He told me >> he's traveling. >> Yeah. >> Uh, should we invite Wilfred to do something? >> Oh, that's a great idea. I can ask. >> Always up for doing something. >> It's always good to ask somebody who's not in the room. >> Exactly. Exactly. Okay. That's your role. >> Reach out to Wilfred. They nominated him to give >> if you want. If you want, I can talk about my woke book, but I'm not sure everybody like that. Absolutely. >> You want to do that? >> I'll do it. >> All right, let's do that. Let's do that. Let's do that. >> Talk about your work. >> I have to bounce, guys. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you, Doug. Always a pleasure. Good to see you all. >> All right, everybody. Fun. Thanks, Doug. >> Take care, everybody. >> That was really great. Okay.