Love & Philosophy

It's reasonable to care. Exploring philosophical, scientific, technological & poetic spaces beyond either/or bounds. From the heart. Deeply researched. Mostly unscripted. Hosted by philosopher and cognitive scientist Andrea Hiott. A project with Making Ways. Buy the book Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness. And join the Substack.

Love & Philosophy is a society podcast hosted by Beyond Dichotomy | Andrea Hiott, with 110 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80. PitchCentric scores this show on Booking Probability, Listen Score, and live audience signals refreshed every 24 hours.

Beyond Dichotomy | Andrea Hiott hosts Love & Philosophy, a society show with 110 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Love & Philosophy

  #95 Inventing Temperature, Operational Coherence, Activist Realism and more with Cambridge philosopher of history and science Hasok Chang

  Aug 27, 20261h 8m

  Send a love message Philosopher of science Hasok Chang (University of Cambridge) joins Andrea Hiott to trace the through-line of his work — from Inventing Temperature (2004), through Is Water H₂O? (2012), to Realism for Realistic People (2022) — and to think together about what it means to treat knowledge as something we do rather than something we merely possess . The conversation begins with why Inventing Temperature has quietly become an inspiration for neuroscientists: it shows how a felt quality (hot and cold) can become a trustworthy number (temperature) — not by discovering a pre-given fact, but through a messy, iterative, bootstrapping process of invention. From there, Chang and Hiott move through the ideas that organize his mature philosophy: epistemic iteration , operational coherence , active/activist realism , path dependence , conceptual engineering , and a pragmatist re-reading of truth that no longer leans on correspondence to an inaccessible reality. A recurring theme: Chang describes each of his books as costing him “an article of faith” — first foundationalism , then monism , then the ideal of pure science — and how each loss opened onto a more dynamic, practice-based, and pluralist picture of knowing. Hiott connects these moves to her own navigational approach to mind and NAEC , where cognition is understood as a body’s coherent, aim-directed action in the world rather than the storage of static representations. Full show notes here. Hasok Chang is the Hans Rausing Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge. Trained first in physics (Caltech) and then in philosophy (Stanford), he is known for “integrated history and philosophy of science” and for what he calls complementary science — using historical and philosophical study to recover scientific questions that mainstream science has forgotten or foreclosed. His three main single-author books are Inventing Temperature (Oxford, 2004; winner of the 2006 Lakatos Award), Is Water H₂O? (Springer, 2012), and Realism for Realistic People (Cambridge, 2022). He is a founding figure of the Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice (SPSP) and the Committee for Integrated HPS. Andrea Hiott is a philosopher and cognitive scientist developing the navigational approach to mind — the view that mind is “the body’s navigational action in all spaces of life, from the geographical to the emotional to the social to the virtual.” She hosts the Love & Philosophy (Beyond Dichotomy) podcast and Substack, and her work draws on hippocampal research, 4E cognition (embodied, embedded, extended, enactive), and the ecological tradition. Her book Holding Paradox: A Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness is forthcoming. Her recurring interests — holding apparent contradictions open, “way-making,” constellation/kaleidoscopic thinking, and moving beyond either/or — frame her questions to Chang throughout. Chang’s three books at a glance Book Year Central question “Article of faith” Chang says he lost Inventing Temperature 2004 How did scientists learn to measure temperature reliably without already having a trustworthy thermometer to check against? Foundationalism — the idea that knowledge rests on some ultimate, secure foundation (fundamental laws, or raw experience) Is Water H₂O? 2012 Was the consensus that water is H₂O actually forced by the evidence — and should science ever settle on a single account? Monism — the idea that there is one world, one truth, and one job for science: to find it Realism for Realistic People 2022 What would scientific realism look like if we started from practice and everyday life rather than from correspondence to an ultimate reality? The ideal of pure science — knowledge first, application second (he moves openly into pragmatism ) Key terms & concepts (glossary) The definitions below are general but we're staying faithful to Chang’s own usage. Epistemic iteration. Chang’s name for how inquiry actually makes progress: we don’t begin from a secure foundation, but knowingly start from an imperfect position and then use the results of inquiry to correct and refine that very starting point — a self-improving loop with no bedrock underneath. In Realism for Realistic People Chang invokes Peirce’s image that inquiry “is not standing on the bedrock of fact… It is walking upon a bog, and we can only say, this ground seems to hold for the present.” The aim is not coherence as such, but the ongoing improvement of coherence. (In the conversation, Chang stresses that he first thought iteration solved only the narrow problem of validating measurement standards, then came to see it as a very general pattern of learning.) Operational coherence. Roughly, “a harmonious fitting-together of the elements and aspects of an activity, which is conducive to the successful achievement of the aims of that activity.” It is Chang’s practice-based replacement for truth as correspondence : instead of asking whether a proposition matches reality, we ask whether an activity’s parts hang together well enough to reliably achieve its aim. Crucially, coherence is always defined relative to an aim — without a stated or assumed purpose, the word “coherence” has no meaning. Epistemic activity. “A more-or-less coherent set of mental or physical operations that are intended to contribute to the production or improvement of knowledge in a particular way, in accordance with some discernible rules (though the rules may be unarticulated).” Examples: measuring, detecting, predicting, hypothesis-testing — but also mundane actions like lighting a match. System of practice. A coherent, interacting set of epistemic activities carried out with a view to achieving certain overall aims. (This is the unit Chang argues can be legitimately plural : several incommensurable systems of practice can coexist productively within one discipline.) Active knowledge / “knowing how.” Chang’s term (in Realism for Realistic People ) for knowledge that resides in ability and action rather than in propositions — knowing how to do something rather than knowing that some statement is true. He argues proposition-based epistemology simply isn’t the right tool for evaluating methods, instruments, or institutions; for that we need to look at the coherence of what we do. Active realism vs. activist realism (a terminology note). In Is Water H₂O? Chang introduced active realism : the view that realism shouldn’t be sitting back satisfied that we know a lot, but should be an attitude — even an “ideology” — committed to continually learning more and better about reality. In Realism for Realistic People he renamed it activist realism , to avoid confusion with his separate notion of active knowledge (someone might wrongly hear “active realism” as “any assured possession of active knowledge”). “Activist” better captures the ever-learning, never-shrinking commitment. (The two terms are easy to run together in conversation; Chang’s clarification here is the reference point for both.) Support the show Buy Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness by Andrea Hiott Sign up for Making Ways newsletter and projects. Please rate and review with love. YouTube , Facebook , Instagram , Substack .

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #93

  #93 Is there a Cure? Reconsidering Freud, chemical imbalances, transference, functionalism & embodied science with Mark Solms

  Aug 7, 20261h 37m

  Send a love message Mark Solms began translating Freud's neuroscientific writings in the late 1980s, then gave twenty-nine years to revising the translation of Freud's psychological works. In this episode, Solms joins Andrea Hiott to talk about his new book, The Only Cure: Freud and the Neuroscience of Mental Healing — and to make a surprising case: that far from being the discredited figure many take him for, Freud built a model of the mind, from the inside, that modern neuroscience is now confirming from the outside. Together they explore multiple memory systems and the unconscious as things we repeat rather than remember; why transference is a far bigger phenomenon than its jargon suggests; the damage done by the "chemical imbalance" story of depression; the stubborn role of time in real change; and, in the end, care — the idea that psychoanalysis is ultimately a cure by love. Throughout, they return to the show's animating theme: holding paradox, and refusing the false choice between the subjective and the objective, feeling and fact. ( Please see here for all the papers to really look into the serotonin debate. It is nuanced and requires study and deep thought.) Andrea & Mark also discuss dual-aspect monism, subjective and objective perspectives, multiple memory systems, unconscious processing, state-dependent memory, and transference as the enactment of non-declarative “action policies” that therapy makes visible and revisable through repeated working-through over time. Solms links these ideas to care, politics, and mortality, ending with Freud’s “cure by love,” followed by Andrea reading Seamus Heaney’s “From The Cure at Troy.” About the guest: Mark Solms is a neuropsychologist, psychoanalyst, and world-leading pioneer of neuropsychoanalysis. He discovered the brain mechanisms of dreaming, serves as science director of the American Psychoanalytic Association, and is the translator and editor of the Revised Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. His previous book was The Hidden Spring (2021). 00:00 Welcome and Guest Intro 03:50 Freud Translator Journey 05:20 Why Call It Cure 07:00 Reframing Freud Today 11:41 Freud as Neuroscientist 19:57 Memory Systems and Unconscious 31:41 Subjective Meets Objective 39:08 Chemical Imbalance Myth 43:23 Needs Feelings and Therapy 51:03 Pills Versus Talking 52:09 Limits Of Medication 53:31 When Pills Help 54:41 What Is Transference 56:04 Infantile Amnesia 57:17 Interpreting Patterns 01:01:25 Why Therapy Takes Time 01:04:46 Cost Versus Care 01:10:59 Teddy And Polypharmacy 01:19:20 Short Termism Trap 01:23:13 Cure By Love 01:25:37 AI Therapy Limits 01:31:25 Mortality And Meaning 01:34:55 Closing Thanks 01:36:09 Heaney Poem Easter Egg KEY THEMES Freud was a neuroscientist first. Over 23 years he contributed to neuron theory, neuroanatomy, and clinical neurology. His 1891 work on aphasia reframed language as a psychological function — the seed of psychoanalysis. Because his neuroscientific writings were never translated into English, this side of Freud stayed invisible. Two perspectives on one thing. Solms argues for dual-aspect monism: the subjective and objective are two views of a single reality, not rival teams. Feelings can only be empirically observed through introspection — leave them out and you lose half the causal picture. Memory, the unconscious, and transference. Freud anticipated the modern model of multiple memory systems decades early. Unconscious memories aren't recalled as images; they're repeated as "motor policies." Transference is that repetition made visible — and naming it gives the patient the freedom to revise it ("free won't"). Against the "chemical imbalance" myth. The claim that depression is a serotonin deficiency is, for Solms, both conceptually incoherent and empirically disproven. Bad feelings are signals of unmet needs. Medication has a real but limited role — it changes your state, not who you are. Time, care, and cure by love. Real change is slow because procedural memories are "hard to learn and hard to forget." Therapy works partly as re-parenting, drawing on the mammalian capacity for care. Cure and care share the Latin root cura — and Solms ends on Freud's phrase that psychoanalysis is "a cure by love." NOTABLE MOMENTS "One doesn't cure symptomatically. One cures causally." "They're not remembered, they're repeated." "It's called not free will, it's called free won't." "Computers don't give a damn." "Reality always wins." MENTIONED & FURTHER READING The Only Cure: Freud and the Neuroscience of Mental Healing — Mark Solms The Hidden Spring (2021) — Mark Solms The Revised Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (2024) — translated/edited by Solms Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness — Andrea Hiott Referenced thinkers & ideas: Sigmund Freud, Baruch Spinoza (dual-aspect monism), Hilary Putnam (functionalism), Edward Tolman (multiple memory systems), B. F. Skinner, Donald Hebb, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, 4E cognition and enactivism, Philip Ball, and Freud's letter to Einstein. Support the show Buy Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness by Andrea Hiott Sign up for Making Ways newsletter and projects. Please rate and review with love. YouTube , Facebook , Instagram , Substack .

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Love & Philosophy

  #92 Molyneux's Problem and Questioning the Perception/Cognition Border — with philosophers Janet Levin and Brian Glenney

  Jul 27, 20261h 53m

  Send a love message Molyneux's Question with Janet Levin and Brian Glenney Love & Philosophy — Beyond Dichotomy In 1688, an Irish scientist named William Molyneux sent John Locke a letter with a question in it. Suppose a man born blind has learned by touch to tell a cube from a sphere. Suppose he is given sight, and the two objects are set on a table in front of him. Could he tell, by looking alone, which is which? Locke said no, and put the question into the second edition of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding . Berkeley said no more emphatically. Leibniz said yes — with a hint, and a little time. And three centuries later the question is still open, only now it's being asked in operating theatres in New Delhi, in habituation studies with ten-hour-old infants, and in the way a skateboarder looks at a handrail. Janet Levin and Brian Glenney have been in conversation about this problem since Brian's dissertation defense in 2007, where Janet was on his committee. They still disagree — productively — about whether you need to move your body in order to see. This episode is that disagreement, twenty years on. Janet Levin is recently retired from the philosophy department at the University of Southern California. She works on the mind-body problem, phenomenal concepts, and what she calls the philosophy of philosophy: whether thought experiments are worth anything, and whether they can absorb empirical information and still count as philosophy. Her 2008 paper introduced the distinction between temporal and epistemic immediacy that has shaped how the Molyneux question is tested ever since. Brian Glenney teaches at Norwich University in Vermont. He wrote his dissertation on Molyneux's problem at USC in 2007 under James Van Cleve and Janet Levin, wrote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the question, and has since argued for a pluralist answer — that the question has many correct answers depending on who is being asked about, and how. He also works on skateboarding, urban space, and the sensory expertise he calls the skater's eye. Full show notes 00:00 — Why a navigational approach to mind keeps running into this question 02:20 — Introductions: phenomenal concepts, sensory expertise, and Bernie Sanders at the skate park 05:20 — Janet reads Locke's own statement of the question, and his answer 08:00 — Why this was supposed to be the crucial experiment for empiricism vs. rationalism 10:30 — The 1688 letter Locke never answered, and the 1693 one he did 12:00 — Molyneux, Dioptrica Nova , and the attempt to give empiricism experimental oomph 14:00 — Why Locke buried the question in a passage about perceptual learning 15:00 — Common sensibles: what touch and sight might share 17:00 — Locke's "at first sight" trick, and what it forecloses 19:30 — Passivity vs. activity: if you move your head, is it still perception? 20:40 — Leibniz's cheat code, and the birth of epistemic immediacy 22:20 — Janet's distinction: temporal immediacy vs. epistemic immediacy 24:15 — Held (2011) and the best evidence for a "no" 27:30 — Andrea's caricature: two languages, or one idea? 29:30 — Why restored vision isn't normal vision — and the paradox that follows 31:00 — Vision and touch as English and Russian; Leibniz as the bilingual child 33:30 — Janet on phenomenal concepts and why Molyneux caught her 35:40 — Did you know Adam Smith had a theory of perception? He wrote it at fifteen 37:50 — Brian finds his own ancestor in the archive: George Glennie, Aberdeen, 1796 40:15 — The moon illusion, and how Janet and Brian actually met 41:20 — The dissertation with six chapters, and the one revision that changed everything 42:30 — Maybe there isn't a single correct answer 47:15 — Project Prakash: five subjects, three days of play, and a fast yes 51:30 — Janet's counter-proposal: what if you only tweak vision? 55:20 — Bumpy pacifiers, baby chicks, and the ten-hour-old infants who disagree 58:50 — The six-month-old who recognizes its own hand 01:01:00 — Nobody frames it as empiricism vs. rationalism anymore 01:03:20 — The couch potato perceiver and the sentient statue 01:05:50 — Could virtual reality run the experiment we can't? 01:07:00 — Path dependency: every subject arrives with a history 01:11:20 — The blind Rubik's Cube puzzler, and whether expertise transfers 01:15:00 — "Give me something I care about": motivation as the missing variable 01:19:10 — Why does perception have to be passive at all? 01:22:20 — Andrea: what if it isn't yes or no? 01:26:50 — Ned Block and the border between seeing and thinking 01:29:20 — The skater's eye: knowledge in the heel rather than the head 01:33:00 — Enactivism, affordances, and the motivation Brian adds to them 01:36:30 — Janet puts a lock on the back gate 01:39:20 — Do you still care about this? Plato's cave, Reid, and the seduction of the external world Some words that come up Empiricism / rationalism — The organizing quarrel of the era. Empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) hold that knowledge is built up from sense experience. Rationalists (Leibniz) hold that some ideas are innate and amodal — not owned by any single sense. Molyneux's question was supposed to settle it experimentally. Common sensibles — Properties like shape, figure, and distance that seem accessible to more than one sense. Colour isn't one; neither is roughness. The question is whether a common sensible is genuinely shared, or whether you have to learn to correlate two separate streams. At first sight — Locke's three-word addition, and, as Brian argues, a trick: it more or less guarantees the answer is no, if perceptual learning is needed to make the correlations. Temporal immediacy vs. epistemic immediacy — Janet's distinction. Temporal means the first instant after the bandages come off, which is probably what Locke meant. Epistemic means the identification is made by perception rather than by inference or association — so you wait until the person actually has the wherewithal to see, and only then test. It reframes what a fair experiment even looks like. Perceptual learning — Changes in what you can perceive that come from experience rather than reasoning. Locke's newly sighted person sees a flat, variously coloured circle before they see a sphere. Passivity vs. activity — Locke assumed perception is passive reception, and that anything active is cognition. So: is moving your head still perceiving? Is watching an object rotate? The whole episode circles this. The perception/cognition border — The contemporary form of the same question, now central to philosophy of mind through Ned Block's work. Phenomenal concepts — Concepts of what it's like to have an experience: to see red, to feel something smooth. Janet's long-standing interest, and her route into Molyneux. Affordances / enactivism — Gibson's idea that we perceive the world in terms of what it lets us do, developed by Alva Noë and others. Brian adds a motivational layer: the skater doesn't just see that the handrail is skateable, they want to skate it. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690; Molyneux's question added to the 1694 second edition), Book II, Ch. IX, §8. Full text at Project Gutenberg Molyneux's first letter to Locke, 7 July 1688 — the one Locke never answered. The second, in 1693, is the one that made it into the Essay . Molyneux had in the meantime dedicated his optics treatise Dioptrica Nova (1692) to Locke. Marjolein Degenaar & Gert-Jan Lokhorst, "Molyneux's Problem" , Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — the standard scholarly overview. plato.stanford.edu/entries/molyneux-problem Brian Glenney, "Molyneux's Question" , Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — Brian's own entry, and the best place to start. iep.utm.edu/molyneux Michael J. Morgan, Molyneux's Question: Vision, Touch and the Philosophy of Perception (Cambridge, 1977) — the classic history. Denis Diderot's Letter on the Blind (1749) is where the two-dimensional version of the question first appears — roughly fifty years after Locke Support the show Buy Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness by Andrea Hiott Sign up for Making Ways newsletter and projects. Please rate and review with love. YouTube , Facebook , Instagram , Substack .

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #91

  #91 Rethinking Biological Agency & What Really Matters in Life with Charlie Munford and the Agential Biology Institute

  Jul 17, 20261h 32mS3

  Send a love message Charlie has been gathering some of the best scientists in the world to rethink what agency is together and form new connections outside the usual academic constraints Join Andrea in NYC this week here. Today's guest is Charlie Munford, president of the Agential Biology Institute, and he has been gathering some of the best scientists and philosophers in the world together to rethink agency. Andrea and Charlie have a personal, meandering conversation that moves from family life stories to foundational questions in biology, education, evolution, and meaning. Munford recounts growing up in Mississippi, wilderness canoe trips, Yale literature and polo, organic agriculture studies in Cuba, farming and a New Orleans wild boar sausage business, and a later personal crisis that pushed him into researching chronic disease and biological agency. He argues mainstream gene-centered biology assumes blind variation, but evidence for inherited acquired changes and directional adaptation (horizontal gene transfer, planaria pattern memory, small-RNA inheritance in worms and mammals, maternal grooming effects, genetic assimilation) suggests a missing causal layer and universal cellular learning. They discuss natural selection, Darwin and Lamarck, Barbara McClintock, a Karl Popper “active Darwinism” lecture, ABI’s testable hypotheses, and openness, creativity, and care. 00:00 Welcome and Brooklyn Invite 04:20 Meet Charlie Munford 04:35 Banana Couch Story 05:49 Kids and Creativity 08:48 Mississippi to Yale Adventures 15:17 Farming Cuba and Sausage Business 18:40 Crisis Sparks Biology Questions 21:38 Agential Biology Explained 30:04 Lamarck Darwin and Natural Selection 36:45 Evidence for Inherited Change 46:21 McClintock and Popper Teaser 47:51 Cells Sense Not Code 48:36 Genes Aren't Difference Makers 49:45 Popper Versus Selfish Gene 54:06 Agency Without Theology 55:11 Horizontal Gene Transfer 58:34 Three Testable Agency Ideas 01:00:00 Popper And Falsification 01:06:05 Episolution And Cellular Mind 01:12:58 Harmonic Resonance And Sleep 01:17:12 Attention And Surprise Learning 01:20:33 Personal Journey And Meaning 01:26:24 Love Openness And Invitation 01:30:16 Otter Story Farewell Support the show Buy Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness by Andrea Hiott Sign up for Making Ways newsletter and projects. Please rate and review with love. YouTube , Facebook , Instagram , Substack .

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Episode #90

  #90 Life in the Paradoxis: Johannes (Yogi) Jaeger & Marcus Neustetter on Art, Science and The ZoNE

  Jul 7, 20262h 17mS3

  Send a love message Andrea, Yogi and Marcus are forming Paradoxis. This is one of the conversations towards that, a Third Space episode of Love & Philosoph . Philosopher Andrea Hiott sits down with artist and facilitator Marcus Neustetter and biologist-philosopher Johannes "Yogi" Jaeger for a wide-ranging conversation about working in the space between art and science. The two have collaborated for about six years as part of The ZoNE , a transdisciplinary collective they run in Vienna alongside artist Bronwyn Lace and curator Başak Şenova. Marcus and Yogi introduce each other, then talk through how their collaboration actually works: not illustration-for-hire, but a genuine co-production where a text and a drawing "wrap themselves around each other" into something neither could have made alone. From there the conversation moves through constraints and "staying alive," productive tension, performance and vulnerability, the trickster, space and context, institutions and gatekeeping, conflict and tolerance, and finally care and love. The episode also introduces the paradox project (referred to in the audio as "Paradoxis"), a shared piece of writing on treating paradox as a practice and performance, and the idea of building offline "circles of trust," a concept Andrea draws from her earlier conversation with Parker Palmer. Read PARADOXIS here. Watch the ZoNE talks here . Link to Zone talks Andrea mentions on the Zone channel with one of her favorite philosophers. And the one with Julian Gough on Egg and Rock . Topics covered How Marcus and Yogi met and why they were both looking for a "third space" between art and science The Perspective Studio methodology and collective co-creation Constraints, co-construction and "staying alive" as an organizing principle drawn from evolutionary biology Productive tension vs. problem-solving; adaptation over optimization Finite games vs. infinite play, and "serious play" Performance, persona, authenticity and vulnerability The trickster figure and the danger of putting narcissists "in charge" Space, context and embodiment (including a 10-second listening exercise) Institutions, gatekeeping, decolonizing spaces, and the "plastic mushroom in the Pompidou" Conflict, tolerance, "overlapping consensus" and "coherence from difference" Care, love, and the shadow — seeing "the person behind the persona" People, projects and references mentioned Love & Philosophy — Andrea Hiott's podcast and Substack The ZoNE — the art/science collective (Lace, Neustetter, Jaeger, Şenova); see also the Makers page and Actions/notation log The emerging book Beyond the Age of Machines / Expanding Possibilities — the manifesto and chapters referenced throughout, published chapter by chapter Perspective Studio — the workshop/facilitation methodology Andrea Hiott's Holding Paradox and her Embracing Paradox guide Andrea talking with Parker Palmer — "circles of trust" James Carse — Finite and Infinite Games Hanzi Freinacht — "serious/existential play" Tyson Yunkaporta — Sand Talk (the trickster) Ludwig Wittgenstein — "whereof we cannot speak…" Plato — the allegory of the cave Michael Schmidt-Salomon — the paradox of tolerance John Rawls — "overlapping consensus" Carl Sagan — the gas-giant "blobs" thought experiment Patricia Martin — Will the Future Like You? Declan Donnellan and Sophie Fiennes — on performance and theatre (episodes Andrea mentions are forthcoming) Anathi Konjwa and Micca Manganye — performers in Marcus's Johannesburg short-film anecdote Steven Hobbs — Marcus's longtime South African collaborator Full intro and notes here . Care is not the opposite of love. It is the very urge of life. 'Caring for what?' is the primary question. That we have a choice about what we care for and how is what makes us human, but it's quite the challenge and responsibility. Let's help one another handle it. Support the show Buy Holding Paradox: The Navigational Approach to Mind and Consciousness by Andrea Hiott Sign up for Making Ways newsletter and projects. Please rate and review with love. YouTube , Facebook , Instagram , Substack .

  ListenShow Notes

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.