Curt Jaimungal, Better Left Unsaid Analysis |486|

Curt Jaimungal, examines the hijacking of progressive discourse.

[box]

Listen Now:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Subscribe:

[one_third][/one_third] [one_third][/one_third] [one_third_last][/one_third_last] [/box]

Click here for Curt Jaimungal’s YouTube Channel

Click here for Curt’s film: betterleftunsaidfilm.com

Click here for Forum Discussion

Skeptiko-486-Curt-Jaimungal

Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:00] Welcome to Skeptiko, where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics. I’m your host Alex Tsakiris and today we welcome Curt Jaimungal to Skeptiko. Curt is a very accomplished filmmaker and actor based in Toronto. You know, I initially contacted Curt because I was super impressed with his YouTube channel, which I’m actually showing up on the screen here and some of his, just excellent interviews on consciousness, atheism, free-will and all the interesting stuff we love to talk about on Skeptiko, highlighting one that he did with Donald Hoffman, with over 143,000 views. Fantastic. We all know Don Hoffman was one of my favorite guests to have on and is featured in the book that I have. So since my initial contact with Curt, he has released this pretty amazing movie, just extremely well done movie called Better Left Unsaid. So I thought what we do is kind of shift the focus a little bit over to this movie and I’m showing his IMDB page, which is quite impressive as well. But we’ll just kind of talk about a bunch of different things. I’m going to of course, give him the usual Skeptiko inquiry to perpetuate doubt, treatment. He won’t escape that but he’s a really smart guy, so I know he can take it. Curt, welcome to Skeptiko and thanks so much for joining me.

Curt Jaimungal: [00:01:42] Thank you so much man, I appreciate it. By the way, I read your book, read it last night. It was way, it was far better than I expected not that, not that I didn’t expect it to be.

Alex Tsakiri: [00:01:52] Wait a minute, what kind of backhanded compliment is that?

Curt Jaimungal: [00:01:56] I was a, I was impressed and especially the, let’s say the first 66, the first two thirds. It’s almost exactly in line with what I’m interested in anyway.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:02:09] Yeah, I think there’s a great intersection there. But I think we can help people maybe jump into this even better. If we share a trailer from the new film, This is Better Left Unsaid and I’m going to play it and we’ll just kind of listen and then we’ll ask Curt to comment on it and tell us in his own words, what the movie is about.

Audio Clip: [00:02:35] Our four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The world is upside down. I thought the whole idea was to not judge people by their skin color. That’s what racism used to mean. I can no longer teach contemporary moral problems , anything that involves issues of race and gender seems to be a minefield. Racism has been redefined, Sexism has been redefined. This is all through the culture. And if we can’t talk, what’s left? I’m not a Nazi. Why are we not taught the historical consequences of those who viewed the world through optics of groups that have power and groups that don’t. Is this not the central problem of our time?

Alex Tsakiris: [00:03:28] Powerful stuff, Great stuff. Tell us more about this Kick starter, super successful Kick starter that you did, you obviously have resonated with a lot of people. Tell us about what the movie is all about and what the reaction has been so far.

Curt Jaimungal: [00:03:46] Sure. So the reaction hasn’t, the reactions been extremely positive from everyone who doesn’t identify as being a leftist and people who identify as being not on the left but a part of, let’s say, the extreme left or radical left, they tend to not like the film. People who are center left, center and center right seem to extremely enjoy the film. Okay. As for what it’s about, my background is in math and physics so I’m extremely analytical. And I hear it insensate clamoring of people on the, let’s say, the radical end of the left and I’m trying to make sense of it, especially in the university that’s where I was trained. So I’m like, okay, what’s going on when people say that white people can’t be racist and that it’s an inveterate part of their constitution. Racism is almost like original sin in the Christian doctrine. Can’t get rid of it. You’re born with it. You get they don’t like to be called essentialists. Essentialists just means that there are subsistent qualities that you can’t get rid of. It seems contradictory but part of what I like, part of one of the reasons I like your book, by the way, Alex, is that even though I’m, let’s say, a mathematician or a physicist by training, I’m not a mathematician like man, that’s an honor that I can’t claim. I’m not a physicist either, I just have training in that. Now, even though I have, even though I have training in that, most physicists, as you know, most physicists, and most people who call themselves scientists dislike ambiguity, they dislike, what they can’t define. They dislike what they can’t prove or disprove, and they dismiss almost, they have a swift dismissal of what seems contradictory and meaningless. So I share almost all the traits with scientists except that, I find that part of, maybe that’s my artistic side. Anyway so I’m trying to analyze this and see why, what sense is there in the senseless? That’s what this movie is about? How did it get this way? What’s right about what they’re saying? What’s wrong about what they’re saying, from my perspective, with an analytical background? That’s pretty much it.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:06:06] So you, you touched on a couple of interesting things there, I might just return us to Donald Hoffman, since we both have a lot of respect for the guy and you did an outstanding interview with him and he was super impressed by your interview, which is always a great measuring stick, I think, you know, because YouTuber comments to me, aren’t quite as significant as when Don Hoffman says, Wow, you really did a good interview, I gotta take that as a, as a higher compliment, which he did for you. You know, when I talked to Hoffman, one of the really interesting exchanges we had was, I was talking to him about spirituality and I was talking to him about Eckhart Tolle and he paused for a minute and a smile came over his face and he says, I have a lot of respect for Eckhart Tolle and I meditate on a regular basis. And then he told me a story that I think gets to the first part of what you’re saying. He says, One day, I was giving a presentation and somebody came up at the end in a very kind of smirky way said, the language of God is silence, everything else is meaningless and Hoffman said, he stopped for a minute, he thought and then he said, Okay, I can live with that. If we’re going to be silent, then I can be silent. But everyone who has a religious point of view about what God is, about what spirituality does, it ultimately follows that up with pages upon pages upon books upon volumes, about not silence, about what the rules are and he said, so if we are going to speak, let’s try and be as precise as possible and he said, as a mathematician, that’s what I love about math. It keeps me in check in terms of being precise. And I wonder if there isn’t a strange link to what you were saying about your analytical approach and how much frustration you feel with academia, which has come, it has overtly just disassociated themselves with precision, with reality and we can argue that part of that is a reaction to what they see as an absurdity that was done in the past, either from a social justice standpoint or from a religious standpoint. But still, we wind up in this place where they’ve kind of left the dock of reason and don’t even pretend to have it need to go back to it and that’s what I think your movie does. Just an incredibly direct and well argued way of just exposing that for what it is. So what, do you have any thoughts on on that?

Curt Jaimungal:[00:09:16] With regard to academia leaving precision, I think what you’re referring to is the non STEM fields, STEM fields are all about rigor and I like that, but the non STEM fields, their job is to be not precise so that’s not my problem. My issue in the film is you have to have a value so you have to say, What is this for? Is this for the flourishing of society? Is this for the pursuit of knowledge wherever it takes me? So you have to have some value, you have to have some aim. What seems to have happened in the non STEM fields is there’s something called modernism, which is actually, people misuse, it’s modernity, It’s not modernism, even though I use the term modernism in the film, it’s just because most people use it that way. Modernism is the art art artistic movement, modernity is the philosophical framework comes along with that. So what came from modernity was the enlightenment or enlightenment spread modernity, one of those two, then you can think of that as skepticism. When I was talking to Michael Shermer, I asked him what’s wrong with post modernism because to me, post modernism is the same as skepticism, just applied universally. He didn’t give me an adequate answer except to venerate science and just say, well, that’s what we shouldn’t be skeptical of. Anyway, going back to the non STEM fields, they have a postmodern bend, which means they dislike all values. Well, where will that lead you? It seems like they don’t dislike all values, it also seems like they’re influenced by what’s called Marxism, and Marxism in and of itself doesn’t seem so bad on the face of it because it’s all about sharing ,it seems even Christian. But yet, it seems like there’s something more darker and pestilential under the surface. So the non STEM fields are influenced by post modernism, marxism and a few others, even some of what I like, like existentialism, they’re influenced by, but I don’t bring that up in the film. It was just a moot point. So the non STEM fields, when you talk about lack of rigor, I don’t care about that, that’s fine because art is lack of rigor and also remember, at part of my core, it’s like rigor and art because I’m a filmmaker, so I like art. It’s just the value. What are you critiquing underneath? Are you critiquing, and what do you aimed at? It’s basically what are you aimed at? That I ,I’m not quite sure of and I don’t necessarily agree with, in the non STEM fields.

Alex Tsakiris:[00:11:48] See, I kind of look at it slightly differently and my approach is that, fundamentally, there’s only two questions that we’re asking across the board. Whether it’s Don Hoffman at Caltech as a physicist or whether it’s one of the wacky, quote unquote, philosophers that you’re talking to in the postmodern academia. And the two questions are, Who are we? Why are we here? Essentially that’s the question, It’s also the question of religion, that’s the question of religion, Who are we? Why are we here? My feeling about the soft sciences academia are the they’ve built their castle on sand, on a foundation of sand, it doesn’t hold because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of consciousness. They’ve bought into this, Michael Shermer supported idea that consciousness is an illusion, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain and that, therefore, there can never be a moral imperative. There can’t be,if the universe is meaningless, if for biological robots in a meaningless universe, there cannot be a moral good and bad. And so I think that the slight of hand that’s been done and some of them are aware of it, and some of them aren’t, is that if you don’t understand consciousness, if you accept the radically absurd idea, that consciousness is an illusion, then you can’t go anywhere. What do you think about that?

Curt Jaimungal:[00: 13:30] Okay lets get to the fundamental nature of consciousness afterward. I’m going to comment on what you said directly with two religious references. So there’s someone named Hildegard De Bingen I believe she was a Christian monk I know it could be completely mangling this but in the Middle Ages, and she has a passage that resonates with me.

Alex Tsakiris:[00:13:51] That you’re a Christian right Curt?

Curt Jaimungal: [00: 13:55] I don’t know what I am, I’ll say that.

Alex Tsakiris:[00:13:56] Okay.

Curt Jaimungal: [00: 13:56]

I’ll say, in many ways I hope I’m a Christian or in many ways, I hope that I hope that I’m a Christian. We can talk about that after. So, Hildegard said: ‘ And pride germinated in the first Angel, as he no longer could comprehend the source of his own light and so he spoke to himself. I want to be master and whatnot above me.’ Now, there’s so much in that passage. Pride germinated in the first Angel, so talking about Satan. Then he spoke to himself meaning extremely individualistic. Now that means like I’m, I’m a fan of individualism, but I think individualism gets taken to an extreme on the extreme left, which is about collectivism and I’ll tell you how that plays later. Well, I can give you a sneak preview right now, because they say I assert what meaning is. So if I dress up like a girl, it doesn’t mean I dress up the girl because who cares about what society says I create my own meaning and if I dress up like a boy’s so on, so on, so I create my own meaning that’s extremely individualistic, okay, so that’s cool, that’s what Hildegard, No Hildegard also said that, again, I apologize for my lack of coherent thinking. Hildegard also said, I want none above me, I want to be master. Now that seems to be what divides the religious, or some of the religious from the atheistic, which is I don’t want an external imposer of values. I want to run it and RJ kabhi said, something interesting, I think is from the 1800s, he said that you have to excuse me, because I’m trying to remember these quotes. He said, That man chooses either God or nothingness, okay. Now, either there’s a God or there’s nothingness, now let’s say man chooses nothingness, then man turns himself into a God. Why? Because it’s impossible, If there is nothing, that everything I see is merely an apparition. I mean, it’s impossible that that is not the case. In other words, it’s all an illusion, like you referenced with Michael Shermer. Therefore, I’m the only thing that’s real therefore I’m God. So Jacob, he said, It’s either God exists beyond me or I am a God, there is no third option.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:16:17] There is a third option and that’s the point, consciousness is an illusion, is an assertion that there not is nothingness to be above, but that your existence doesn’t exist, the voice inside your head is not real. And so I kind of feel like, when you go around this, you kind of miss two things that I think are central. One is the absolute absurdity of that and I think you as a spiritual person, who obviously understands that you are more, that you’re not meaningless that you have. You have free will, these obvious things are taken off the the equation. But the other thing that I think people who haven’t processed the Christian thing completely, they kind of don’t see how Christianity has been complicit in this whole thing, and how they’ve set it all up and that a lot of this stuff that we’re seeing on the left is reactionary to the absurdity of a pedo pope, the absurdity of a cosmology within Christianity that is completely ridiculous and yet, we have to placate and be nice to Christians and quote unquote, respect Christian beliefs about Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark or the special day or any of the rest of that stuff. So there’s two parts of that. One is that Christians have to understand the absurdity of their proposition and of their cosmology and that the reactionary component of that, and then secondly, I think to misunderstand Shermer, and to suggest that Shermer is an atheist in this kind of gnostic, create better than the creator Gods. I don’t think that’s where he’s coming from. He’s asserting that there’s, he’s okay as a biological robot in a meaningless universe who dies and then there’s nothing, he hasn’t processed how absolutely ridiculous that is.

Curt Jaimungal: [00:18:20] Yeah, I would say that he, well, first of all, I like Michael Shermer, let’s get that out of the way..

Alex Tsakiris: [00:18:24] I do too, he’s one of my favorite frenemies, I always call him. Hey, I’ve had him on a couple times and always have good times, good natured guy.

Curt Jaimungal:[00: 18:31] And he seems to love the film Better Left Unsaid and that, you know, that puts him in the, in the ranks for me, okay, with regard to what he says you have to also disentangle. This is why part of the film is, firstly, an exposition as to what’s happened in the past couple of years then a historical analysis and then a psychological and almost, well, as you get deeply psychological, It’s difficult to not sound religious or let’s say mythical. Then it gets psychological and mythical toward the end. As for Shermer, as for people who say that it’s meaningless, I’m also skeptical that they don’t underneath because there’s a difference between professed beliefs and what they actually believe. I’m skeptical that they don’t actually believe that. Well, they’re humanists so that means that they believe that they can try their own values.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:19:27] Well, they believe values are a social construct, which doesn’t require any of the, again, I think you come at this from a Christian lens, where you don’t really accept the extent to which these people have bullshitted themselves into taking this absolutely philosophically absurd position, that any culture throughout time would roll on the ground laughing with the idea that consciousness is an illusion that you don’t exist in that you’re not in there. It’s an absurdity that I think you’re trying to kind of wrestle into something that makes sense, rather than just calling it for what it is, and then the real question that falls out for me for that is how have they perpetuated such a silly, silly idea? And that’s where you have to ask the question, is there a social engineering motivation behind it?

Curt Jaimungal: [00:20:20] When you say that I’m coming at it from a Christian lens, what are you referring to? Because I don’t consider myself necessarily to be Christian or whatever it may be.

Alex Tsakiris: [00:20:28] Because when you say, when you say that you got to believe that Shermer can’t really believe what he’s saying, I get you. I’m saying that differently, though. I’m saying no, he has bullshitted himself as the other atheist have into really believing that life is meaningless, that the world, that the universe is meaningless and that life is meaningless. And they are now in a state where they really believe that, they’re not going to bed and tossing on their pillow with the idea of wrestling with that. You and I can’t quite get there because we can’t even really wrap our heads around how someone could embrace such a silly idea. But I’m suggesting that they really have there’s no, there’s no fake to it.

Curt Jaimungal: [00:21:24] Well, even if they say they have no values, their body acts as if they have values because they move. So they value something above sitting still and they value something above not talking if they talk just by their actions, they convey their values.

Alex Tsakiris:[00:21:42] And again, I just think you go back and talk to Shermer and ask him and see what his answer is but what I’ve done with Shemer…

Curt Jaimungal: [00: 21:50] You can ask him do you value science, do you value truth? And he might say yes.

Alex Tsakiris:[00: 21:54] He values it as a social construct.

Curt Jaimungal: [00: 21:58] That’s fine, that’s fine. He can say values in a social construct.

Alex Tsakiris:[00:22:00] No I don’t think it’s fine at all. I think it completely skates the issue. The issue is, as you’ve put your finger on, I think, is there a moral imperative? That the question is, who are we? Why are we here? And the question that falls out of that is, is there a moral imperative? Is there a good? Is there an evil, which Shermer will say and what they all say is, well, that’s really a moral, that’s really a social construct. There isn’t any real objective, good or bad. And you would I say, what I say, well, of course there is, from the time that we’re a little kid and we stole candy from the candy store. We knew it wasn’t the right thing to do and we knew it is more than a social contract it was just something that wasn’t right at a higher level that we didn’t really understand but we intuitively we got it.

Curt Jaimungal: [00:22:57] I don’t see what you’re saying is contradicting what I said. So there’s two sources of values, or at least in Jacobs formulation, that is either objective or external which is God or it is you, it is men. Even if man says it’s socially constructed that’s still man creating it, that’s almost by definition man creating it. So that’s in line with what I was saying. I don’t think we’re in disagreement?

Alex Tsakiris:[00:23:21] No, well, again I think…

Curt Jaimungal: [00: 23:24] Tell me that you disagree that I agree

Alex Tsakiris:[00: 23:27] Well the part that I disagree with is that man is the same. Man is, you can what they’ve done here the sleight of hand is to suggest that they can live with consciousness as an illusion and then we can still talk about man and not being gender specific. But they are, when they say man, they are really alluding to consciousness, to a self of who, a sense of who you are in yourself. So their inherent contradiction that we have to get to the bottom of if we’re going to make any sense of this is that they are self contradicting themselves when they say that there’s a social construct created by man. There is no man if consciousness is an illusion.

Curt Jaimungal: [00: 24:20] Well, about consciousness is an illusion just so you know, I’ve never understood exactly what that means. For example, Dennett, I think is a proponent of the illusory nature of consciousness. And I read his book, I read at least one of his books, maybe two or three. And I think Darwin’s Dangerous Idea is another one. But I don’t quite, I don’t understand what it means for consciousness to be an illusion so I don’t, I can’t argue that that view is in contradiction or in coherence with something else because I don’t actually understand what it means.

Alex Tsakiris:[00: 24:56] But hold on…

Curt Jaimungal: [00:24:56] Hopefully when I talk to…

Alex Tsakiris:[ 00:24:58] Full stop, we have to be able to process that because that’s what the whole thing is built on. The whole thing is built on consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain. That there is no you in there. Now, philosophically that requires a miracle because the only thing you can know philosophically is that you are in there. I don’t know if you’re in there, I don’t know if you’re AI, but I know I’m in here. So what the sleight of hand that they’ve done with Dan Dennett and I always play Neil deGrasse Tyson because he’s the kind of one of the modern mafia…

Alex Tsakiris: [01:00:17] I love where you’re going with that and Kirkegaard Fear and Trembling unto death is awesome, it is skeptic coasts you know. When I started this show and I named it Skeptiko, because I have a Greek heritage half on half my side and I just was looking up Skeptico and I just didn’t even know what it meant, five years later, I went back and read about these philosophers and their ethos, Inquiry to Perpetuate Doubt. They were saying the exact same thing that Kierkegaard was saying, that doubt is the most spiritual, doubt is the most spiritual because you are in the state of openness, once something is decided and I would suggest that even faith, you know,Thich Quang, the famous Buddhist teacher, Vietnamese Buddhist teacher nominated for the Nobel Prize and obviously, super well known. I love his riff on faith, because faith is an impediment. Faith is a barrier. Faith is a way of holding back from truly accepting your predicament, from truly being open. I’m not saying I said…

Curt Jaimungal:[01:01:36] That sounds like the opposite, that sounds like the opposite of what Kierkegaard is saying of faith.

Alex Tsakiris: [01:01:43] Well I think all these things, it gets into a semantics kind of thing. Because I love what you just said about about Kirkegaard, In terms of, you know, if you believe in God, that you’re a believer and you’re not leaving open, you’re not open, you’re not open to the experience, how can you be open to the experience if you’ve already decided and so maybe you’re using faith in a different way than I would, but it was interesting for me to connect that with Thich Quang, who said, you know, people who have faith, quote unquote, will not be able to see, will not be able to accept the transcendence because they’re closed. They’re like, No, I just follow this.

Curt Jaimungal: [01:02:26] Mm hmm, I see what you’re saying. Yeah, well, that’s interesting, let me think about that.

Alex Tsakiris: [01:02:35] Hey man, you have been one, this , the most amazingly interesting, turn it on its head interviews I’ve ever done. Let’s return to the, to the movie, if we can.

Curt Jaimungal:[01:02:49] Yeah sure.

Alex Tsakiris: [01:02:50] Tell folks what the best way is for them to connect with Better Left Unsaid. Who it’s for?Maybe we could go back to the beginning.

Curt Jaimungal:[01:02:58] Yeah, yeah.

Alex Tsakiris:[01:02:59] Who’s the movie really for? Who’s a targeted at? Who’s going to get the most out of it? And then how do they get their hands on it?

Curt Jaimungal: [01:03:06] The people who will get, likely get the most out of it are people who are in the center, center left center, center right. If you’re, it seems like if you’re more than center left, that you won’t like it, and same with if you’re more than center right because I do have my critiques of the extreme right. The movie, again, is focused on the left. Now, people have said that’s biased. It is, it actually is biased, because I’m focusing on the left but in a sense, it’s also not. It’s almost like they’re saying, well, you know, there are other problems in the world, yes, there are other problems in the world. So when someone, let’s say, designs a table cleaner, like an all purpose cleaner, are they doing the world a disservice because they’re not working on the abolishment of nuclear holocaust or the abolishment of the potential of nuclear holocaust? Well, they’re focusing on something else. So I’m focusing on the problem of the extreme left and during that journey, it also takes me to the problem of the extreme right and I see it in a similar manner of the horseshoe theory though, well, it’s extremely close to the horseshoe theory.

Alex Tsakiris:[01:04:13] Touch on that a little bit more, because I thought that was a great, great point.

Curt Jaimungal:[01:04:17] The horseshoe theory essentially says it’s almost like non duality, it essentially says at the extremes, they become the same, which means the extreme left and the extreme right have more in common than they have dissimilar. And it seems like the only thing they have dissimilar is the extreme right as racial inferiority or some genetic inferiority of some other group, it pretty much just seems like that racism, it pretty much just seems like, couldn’t figure out what else separates the because fascism as much as the left or the extreme left dislikes it, the sorry, let’s say the communists dislike fascism. I would say fascism is closer to communism than fascism is close to capitalism. And one of the reasons is that well, there’s a term called Gleichschaltung, It’s a German term and it means the political unification, the unification of economic, cultural and social institutions. The standardization sorry, of that, and that’s a term that was popularized in 1930s Nazi Germany. So the standardization is a form of, is what fascists like and as well as you know, like you said, we get into semantics, what is communism? What is Marxism, what is socialism and so on. And I actually like semantics, I dislike when people say, you’re just quibblin ,you’re hairsplitting. No, I yes, yes, you’re right because the term quibbling ,quiddity, okay, what is quiddity means, it means a hairsplitting distinction but it also means the peculiar essence of something, the odd eccentricity of it and I’m interested in that. Either way, getting back to communism, Marxism, and the association between that and fascism. Well, it seems like at the extremes, they have something in common, what do they have in common? That is what I propose in the film, I come up with some tenants, I think four of them and you’ll have to watch the film to see which four. I think now that I’ve had some distance, I can distill that down to three, I think three of them implies the fourth or the fourth is not required. But either way, there’s three or four tenants that unify both the extreme left and the extreme right and their, I want to say equally pestilential, because it’s difficult to say, what was the cause of people dying? So was it communism that caused millions of deaths? Or was it you know, causation is an extremely, extremely difficult thing to point out? So for example, when people die from COVID, what was the cause? By the way, I’m germaphobic, extremely ,so I love the lockdown. Like I love when people wear masks, I’m like, I would want to wear masks my whole life, I would want to disinfect my hands. I’ve been doing that, I disinfect my phone every single time I come in and my wife, she gets mad at me because she’s not allowed to take her phone out of the house and bring it in without it being disinfected. So I’m a fan of that, so what was the cause of COVID? Was it that there weren’t more people like me that are germaphobic? Or was it that there was a government that was fast and loose with some policies of travel and cross animal contamination and so on. What is the cause? It’s not clear what the cause is, so that’s another reason in the documentary, I steer clear of saying communism causes these deaths. Instead I look at some of the deaths that I think are extremely closely tied to the philosophical doctrine underlying communism and those are much less deaths, but there’s still plenty and the same with fascism. So either way, at the extremes, the philosophy that foments both communism and the extreme right seem to be similar. And I outlined what that is in the film.

Alex Tsakiris: [01:08:08] Uniquely, even though it’s been done before your spin on it really drove it home to me in a way that I hadn’t, had never really thought about so yeah. Where do people find this really great documentary?

Curt Jaimungal: [01:08:27] Better Left Unsaid, Better Left Unsaid Film.com, Better Left Unsaid Film.com is where you can find it, you can also just search Better Left Unsaid on YouTube and the trailers there. The links are in the description of the trailer as well as I think there’s a Twitter account too. Yeah , that’s that

Alex Tsakiris: [01:08:44] It’s been fucking great. So great having you on, you’re such, you embody so many of the wonderful things that you talk about in the greater sense of light and goodness, the movie brand sports, so…

Curt Jaimungal: [0 1:09:04] Thank you, I appreciate that.

Alex Tsakiris: [01:09:06] You’re glowing man, glowing. Awesome.

Curt Jaimungal: [01:09:10] Okay, I want to say one other, I want to give a tweak about the film.

Alex Tsakiris: [01:09:16] Yes.

Curt Jaimungal: [01:09:16] And amendments. Okay. So there are two versions of the film like I mentioned, there’s a public version that’s an hour and a half, then there’s the director’s version, that’s my version, it’s two hours long. The director’s version is sesquipedalian, It’s also tedious and abstract. So people, if you like this podcast, you’re more likely to like the two hour version because it means you’re someone who engages with ideas and you like to think, but for the general public, like let’s say you’re listening to this and you’re thinking well, my friend should watch this ,they should probably watch the public version, it goes by much quicker. It’s not slow. The directors version is more for academics and it can be boring if you’re not an academic. Even if you’re an academic it can be boring. You’ll see. So when you go to Better Left Unsaid Film.com, I think in about one month, so February 2021, or March 2021, you’ll be able to choose between the public or the director’s cut. If you buy it from iTunes, you won’t be able to you have to do it on our website, because iTunes doesn’t allow two versions of the film. So we’re just gonna release the public version on all the other streaming platforms. But the director’s version is same price, you get access to both if you buy it directly from the website. So I just recommend going to the website and then buying it.

Alex Tsakiris: [01:10:34] Fantastic and we’ll have this out, we’ll try and sync it up with exactly the date that it comes out so people can listen to it and immediately pop on over so you and I offline will kind of figure out the best way to do that. But again, a man, Congratulations, job well done and thanks so much for joining me.

Curt Jaimungal: [01:10:57] Thank you, man. I appreciate it.

 . [box]