Discussions, incl. FW Lawvere, M Wright

0:00 Thank you for your attention. A long-awaited, he's been working on it for many years. I haven't seen it yet, but I believe it has appeared. It was announced coming out this year. It was one of the first acts after the era of communes, I admit. It was precisely the republication of it. This will be very interesting. I'm not quite certain he's prepared yet, but he's known for quite a lot of places now. He's only coming up with several years now, but I think he has finished it. They were both in London at similar periods. They were both in London at similar periods. They were both in London at similar periods. The father of William James, Emerson, Leopold, maybe all of them. They were part of the church. Some do, of course. I never met anyone who even thought of this question and had an answer to it. I mean, they know who the two guys are, at least they know that much, but they never even thought of the question whether they might have met or had something to do with it.

2:30 Is Swedenborg an old subjective idealist? I just don't know the content of it. I just remember, I remember his letter, I think it was sent to me the other night, he was in practice, and I was trying to remember the way he signed off his e-mails, and it said, You're in the everlasting place. Which could be a perfectly, slightly, flowery, vibrant thing. By the way, by the way, I had occasion to write to him recently. Why? Very long, outrageous lies involving me. I forget what the other one was, but one was that I had personally invited him to a meeting in Florence, to which the unfortunateness didn't come. Excuse me! Yes, I meant to tell you... I'm most accurate about that. It illustrates what a total liar he is.

5:00 Yes, completely unprincipled. The idea that I ever held myself out as accurate as your agent is unbefitting to me. I think it's true, Chris Einstein did ask me if I'd invite, perhaps if I'd invite him to speak, as if he'd told him about the meeting. Yeah, no, well I know that you were involved in negotiation with these people, and I told you... Oh, that sounds... This is a very definite statement. He was trying to promote himself in every possible way, and he thinks that even if he didn't participate or even go to the meeting... The fact that me personally, I use the word personally invited, you see, and I wrote to him and he said, no, this is not. And then he said, no, this is completely accurate because it was your personal agent who told us. And therefore, you see, I hoped it would make you mad. It makes me mad as hell. Because I knew it wasn't true, of course. Well, thank you. I'm glad you did realize that. You don't think I'd go around saying, I am Google. No, I knew perfectly well. I knew perfectly well that you did not represent yourself that way, but that's what I think I'd like to follow up and share with you before I send it. I'm very annoyed about it. But I mean, the impression is that... That's the thing that breaks down all the time. I'm surprised at Bradford's, because although I disagree with his ideas and his position, I have thought, I don't want to keep it going at all. From what I, from the Dean of the Academy, he was a personal, a personal, I mean, quite, quite, judging from, judging from the letter, his response to me was totally, I suspect, you know, if you, I don't even recommend that you do, if you want to, but as well, I said, water off a duck's back. He's so thoroughly convinced that truth equals what you can get away with. What was the other thing? The other thing was that there were two things. Well, there were many lies, but two which involved me directly. One was that you were Presley. But he didn't say that in the actual document that he's presenting for employment. That's only in the letter to me, and it has an explanation. And the second one which involves... I'm trying to think what it was now. I don't think it involves you. He was promoting this, um, his, uh, his mentor, uh, Malleus.

7:30 Yes, which I think doesn't actually work mathematically. I think it doesn't actually work, but what we're going to understand is that it can be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, I told him this was false. He said, as long as there is a 30-page paper, we'll prove it is a functor after all. I said, well, I'm not going to earn the damn papers. I mean, something as simple as that isn't a functor. He should have taken it back. He took out so many facts. He hopes to get away with it, you see. All this, this is 30 pages of disinformation that we should accept. It's obvious falsehood. No, but I wasn't even going to talk about mathematics. The Vita Sheeter goes a long way, which is full of nonsense like this of a mathematical and physical character as well. I don't want to respond to that. I don't want to respond to these two. That's because they suggest that I in some way support them. Because he was Chris Eichenstein's curator, he's put a lot of value on ideas of Chris Eichenstein.

10:00 Well, Chris Eichenstein, I did see Chris Eichenstein, Chris Eichenstein, Medusa's 10th book. Actually, they had a meeting on applications that she'd given out. But actually, one, two years ago, they had another video about that. Well, I never got a lot of stuff. These guys are criminals, so he was fought. We went Lombeck. So I found recently that actually Lombeck...

12:30 Lombeck still takes him seriously. He was a student of Lombeck too. I stayed with his family. He developed a sufficient personal relationship and on that basis he didn't want to completely... This explanation... It's possible, I mean, I'm thinking, I'm not sure, but it's possible if this second thing had to do precisely with that conversation, which he described again, taking his axiom that I'm a prestigious person, therefore this prestigious person actually discussed seriously with me the foundations of physics, and again, that was a far land on fire effect, no way.

15:00 And you said, my whole, it's such an insane degree.

42:30 You can do anything about it.