Hi, I'm Jesse Hirsch and welcome to Metaviews, recorded live in front of an automated audience.

Today I'm really quite privileged and honored to be joined by Jim Marshall, who strikes me as an incredibly smart individual who has a really interesting concept to share.

And of course, before we do that, we always like to structure our program with a few segments to get things off for our listeners.

And you know, today in news, of course, the big news going around right now is this could be the end days of TikTok.

The Supreme Court is currently having a hearing, although incoming President Donald Trump does say that he can make a deal.

So you never know how that's going to swing or how that's going to play.

That's the big news right now on the Meta Views newsletter.

Now, Jim, I always ask people at this point if they have any news that they would like to share.

Could be personal news, could be world news, could be local news.

Well, I should let you know that the Supreme Court has already upheld the ban on TikTok, so thank you.

So TikTok is going to be changing hands.

So there's a lot of discussion now about who's going to buy it, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Very rich businessman, he's talking about buying it and he says if he buys it it'll be, you know, what everybody wants it to be.

And I believe him because I've been listening to this guy for a long time.

Right on.

And this is exactly why I have a news segment, right?

Because it's great to start off and in this case have the guest bring breaking news of what's happening right now.

And to your point, it'll be interesting to see what deal unfolds.

Cuz Kevin O'Leary's not the only person who's gathered a consortium.

So I think this is high stakes and it'll make the next few days, I think really interesting.

Now our second segment on every show we call WTF or what's the Future?

And this is where we like to ask our guest, you know, Jim, is there anything about the future that you're excited about?

And this could be near term future, long term future.

But what are you looking forward to?

I'm excited about going to heaven and becoming an angel.

Right on.

Which for me is the next big thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That is a fantastic way to be thinking about the future.

And I think a really good way to start our discussion because.

Because what I do with every guest is I kind of try to take three themes that allow us to Weave a conversation to really get the most of the guest's insights and intelligence, but also allow our readers to connect not just to your subject material, but think about how it applies to the world around us.

And that's where I wanted to start with the concept of synthesis.

Because when I was researching you and kind of looking up your story, I was immediately impressed and blown away at the breadth, the width of your knowledge that, you know, we live in a society, unfortunately, that involves a lot of specialists, right?

People really do deep dives into particular areas, particular specialties, and there aren't enough people who connect the dots, right, who are able to really transcend disciplines, go into different subject areas.

So this is really a two part question which you can answer as you wish.

How did you do that?

How did you decide, or accidentally even, how did you end up coming across such a diverse range of areas of expertise and disciplines?

And how does that relate to this theme I'm introducing today of synthesis?

I'm trying to synthesize ideas, synthesize concepts, and as I'm saying, connect the dots.

Okay, first of all, I was a born polymath.

I have no memory whatsoever of a time when I was not intensely interested in learning everything that taught in every university.

Now, of course, that's impossible, but the point is, the drive was there.

I wanted to learn.

I wanted to know.

I can still remember the exact moment when I discovered, to my surprise, that some children didn't like school.

I couldn't believe that I loved school.

I was thrilled to take my briefcase and go to school and learn long division or whatever it was they were teaching that day.

And so I went to school for 28 years and frankly, I would have gone longer.

But you don't live forever, you know, when you have other things to do, life happens.

So if I knew I was going to live another 30 or 40 years, I'd probably go back to school.

Well, let me ask you.

It doesn't matter what subject.

Let me ask you a quick follow up there because we're in a moment where education, I think, has an opportunity to really transform.

And part of this, of course, is the rise of AI, the role of the Internet, mobile, smartphones and classes, how.

I'm a big fan of lifelong learning, as you clearly are.

How do we make education more accessible and exciting so that people don't think it's something they finish when they're young, but it's something that they just find joy in constantly?

Okay, there are a couple of answers to that, both of which are germane.

First of all, the biggest problem is that language is not well taught.

Most people do not know the language well enough.

Now, when I say most people, this includes people with graduate degrees.

I have known many people with graduate degrees.

Well, if I could just jump in quickly.

If I could jump in quickly.

I think this is a consequence of the specialization that they learn jargon but not actually language.

Please continue.

Yeah, so I think the school system to begin with should add another hour, not take anything away, just add another hour to every day of school, all the way from kindergarten up to graduating high school, of just vocabulary.

Because as some.

Somebody who is very literate.

I live in a world of what I consider to be illiterate people.

Now, when I, when I say live in a world talking about, I cannot, you know, I spend a lot of time on the Internet one way or another, I cannot find anybody who knows language as well as I know it and as well as the people who I learned from.

Well, and.

And that includes professional speakers.

And to your point, I'm a student of the great Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan, and he talked a lot about how language is shaped by media and his greatest fear, and this was one of the reasons why he went, he was Catholic and he went to mass every morning because he feared that electronic media was killing the printed word, that it was killing literacy, because people were no longer becoming literate.

They were still oral in the sense that they could speak.

And social media, it's a very oral medium.

Right?

It's people talking even if they're typing what they're saying.

And you're quite right to note that there's a kind of loss of literacy.

So let's kind of segue this in into your concept of septemics.

If I'm pronouncing it correctly.

You are.

Why don't you give us the kind of high level explainer, walk us into this.

Because what blew me away about this was again, similar to your own intellectual background, it's transdisciplinary.

You're connecting a lot of the dots.

That's right.

So give us that meta view, give us that big picture of septemics.

Okay, so the first thing I should say is that I am the discoverer of hitherto unknown natural phenomena which greatly aid in the understanding of people, from which I created a revolutionary practical philosophic system called septemics and published it in the book Hierarchies of Human Phenomena.

Sepemics is a philosophical science based on the fact that many phenomena related to human beings occur in A sequence of seven levels.

Literally, the word septemics means of or pertaining to seven Septemics comprises a collection of scales or sequences, each of which breaks down various human phenomena into a hierarchy of seven steps.

There are 35 such scales, each of which is unique, and together they span the spectrum of human experience, by which I mean any problem, dilemma, situation, difficulty, etc.

That any person has can successfully be analyzed by one or more of these skills, usually more than one.

So can you give an example, hypothetical, in the sense of a person that's not necessarily real?

We don't want to violate anyone's privacy, but can you sort of, whether an archetype or perhaps someone from your past, without naming them?

So let's apply this as a kind of example.

Okay, so let's say you have a friend, your friend Fred.

Every time you see Fred, he says, jesse, I don't know what the hell I'm gonna do.

My wife, she's driving me nuts.

She's doing this and that and that.

And I think she's fooling around with some guy.

We're not getting along, right?

So you get tired of listening to this after six months, and you say, fred, come here, let me show you something.

And you open the septemics book to the scale of relationships, and you put it in front of his face.

Now, because this is natural law, he will get it if he can read English.

So he looks at it and he'll say, huh?

You mean there's a scale of relationships?

And you say, yes, this relationship that you've been complaining to me about for six months, where is it on this scale?

I guarantee you he's going to want to know that because he's having trouble with this.

So he looks at the scale, and in a matter of seconds he will find a bracket.

He will say something like, well, I can see right off we're not at level one, two, or three because that's the top of the scale and we're having all kinds of trouble.

You say, okay, you got it down to four, so why don't you just read the text and then you can get it exactly.

Guaranteed he's going to want to do that because you're opening a door for him.

So he reads the text and he comes back.

He knows the relationship now, he knows the scale.

And he says, well, now that I read this, I can see we're at level five, the one we're having a lot of trouble.

That's near the bottom of the scale.

And he will have a realization.

He'll Say that explains why.

Bop at a bop at a bop at a bop at a bop.

So let me ask a question based on a phrase you used a little earlier, which was, if I recall it correctly, a kind of science philosophy.

Philosophical science.

A philosophical science.

And let's tie that to what we sort of agreed on in the context that we're dealing with pervasive illiteracy.

And one of the consequences of pervasive illiteracy is people have lost access to philosophy, right?

They're not reading the classics, they're not reading contemporary philosophy, they're not being exposed to that level of ideas.

So if I understand you correctly, you're sort of providing a framework by which people can access kind of the philosophical needs that they would require to get through life.

But they don't have, let's say, the knowledge that you have, they don't have the literacy that you have.

So this allows them to kind of, I don't want to use the word shortcut, but achieve the same thing a philosopher would through time, but they're using it through, through this framework.

Is that a correct analogy?

I don't think the average user is going to get a philosophical impact from this.

Now, somebody who is very learned, like for example, if Jordan Peterson were to read this book, he would see the philosophical depth in it because he's a very well educated person with several college degrees.

But the average person, that's not how they're going to experience it.

Like this friend Fred, what's going to happen is he understands his relationship better.

He's thinking about Mary, see?

And then you say to him, well, that's great that you found you at level five.

You know, you can move this relationship up to level four.

He says, you can.

You say, yeah.

It tells him in the book how to do that.

Oh.

Then you say, well, wait a minute, Fred, let me show you something else.

And you show him the scale of sexuality.

He's going to look at it, he's gonna get it.

He's gonna say, because it's natural law.

So he said, oh, this makes sense.

There's a scale of sexuality.

I never heard of this.

And you're gonna say, yeah, you don't have to tell me if you don't want.

But for your own illumination, where are you on this scale?

Guaranteed, he's gonna want to know that because he's having trouble.

So he looks at it and he'll throw out some of it.

He'll say, well, I can see right away, 6 and 7 have nothing to do with me.

So it's got to be one through five and say, okay, go ahead and read it.

You can get it.

Well, he knows who he is, right.

And so he reads it because, well, now that I've read it, I can see him at level four.

This is not hard to get, see, because it's natural law, and he has a realization as a result of it.

So to bring it back then, to this concept of the future, where would Fred be as a result of septemics?

Like, if you think about it, from, you know, the hero's journey.

Right, right.

Where does Fred end up as a result?

Okay, so first of all, I could keep doing what I've been doing for the last three minutes and say, show you how this would.

He could look at the scale of allegiance.

He could look at the scale of motivation.

Right.

For when you have a romantic relationship, it's complicated.

Right.

So you could easily have 20, 25 different scales that apply.

And in each one, he's going to look at, he's going to say, oh, that's where I am.

And he has a realization now.

Every time he has a realization, he is unraveling this knot in his mind.

See, it's getting clearer and clearer now.

What he does with that is up to him.

He might say, you know what, Jesse, I'm going to get this book and I'm going to show it to Mary and I'm going to straighten out our relationship right now.

Mary might say, oh, very interesting.

Let me see this.

Or she might say, take a hike.

I'm not reading any books.

We don't know.

Right.

So then the other thing is he also could say, you know what?

Now that I see all this, I realize I'm wasting my time in this relationship.

Right.

This is a train wreck.

Because that, that's, that's what I was going to ask.

And again, I'm kind of bringing it back to the philosophical, because that appeals to our audience is part of the goal.

And in particular, the use of the word hierarchy and levels is part of the goal.

Transcendence in the sense that he's trying to elevate himself to a higher point of happiness, a more functional way of living.

Better relationships, better work.

Is that in essence the goal here?

Certainly the second part of what you said there.

In other words, this facilitates the solving of problems regarding human beings, because that's.

Where I wanted to bring us to this third theme of discordance.

And discordance in the sense of a disconnection of meaning, a disconnection of understanding, as well as a Disconnection of shared meaning and understanding.

Because it feels that to me, that is the consequence of an over specialized society is you have a lot of people in echo chambers and silos.

Does septemics allow for that response to discordance?

Does it allow for, you know, you gave the example of within a relationship, sort of, you know, addressing the potential discordance or dysfunction in a relationship.

Am I correct in thinking that septemics could be a tool to address this discordance that we're dealing with?

And I don't know if you agree with me that there's a discordance, but I'm really trying to juxtapose this synthesis and discordance in terms of what I think has resulted in your brilliance, has been your ability to synthesize all these different ideas and now present it in a way that is very accessible.

Right.

And is very useful to people.

Yes.

I'm curious then to hear whether you think septemics is a response to discordance or a potential counter to discordance as.

It'S a solution to discordance.

Please elaborate because this is user friendly.

I went through a lot of trouble to make this easy for people to understand, assuming they can read English.

And I know I succeeded at that because some version of this book has existed now for 29 years and I've been watching people use this.

Okay?

So if a person read English reasonably well, and most people in industrialized society now can, even if they're not, even if it's not their first language, they can use this to fix their lives.

Although technical question.

Yes.

Do you think, and only you could answer this.

Do you think that the insights, the wisdom, the tools in the book would be lost in translation?

And I say this obviously because we're living in a world now where people are using Google Translate, they're using translation tools, they may be translating your book without your knowledge.

Would you be worried that some of that might be lost?

Yes, because I'm an extremely literate person.

Okay.

I was writing poetry in Latin for recreation when I was 17, so I know the English language about as well as William F.

Buckley.

So I absolutely cringe.

Okay, quick thought that anybody's going to run this through Google Translate and try to make sense of it.

Hot pursuit then.

And this goes into the audience at home.

Jim and I were having a really fascinating conversation before we pressed record to the point that I wished I'd pressed record.

So I have to ask you the totally meta views, random question.

What do you think William F.

Buckley would say?

About Mr.

Trump, because they're two distinct personalities.

Well, I think at.

I think he would say very much what the people at his magazine have been saying, which is that when he first came on the scene, they opposed him, but he won them over.

And so now they don't oppose him so much in general.

That is what has happened.

I mean, he just won the highest number of votes ever for a Republican.

I mean, he won the popular vote, which hasn't happened in 20 years, for a Republican.

So he has been winning people over.

Now, I'll tell you, when he first ran, I did not vote for him in the primary, but he won me over, and I think he would have won.

If you listen to the people from national radio, which I do, he's winning people over.

He's winning all kinds of people over.

He's doing very much what Ronald Reagan did.

You know, Ronald Reagan in 1984 won 49 states, a massive landslide that will never happen again.

Okay?

So he obviously was connected to not only Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, all people who never voted before.

Okay, It's a win, 49 states.

So this is similar to what's been happening where people were skeptical of Reagan and he won them over.

And that's what's happening with Trump.

Lots of people, Democrats, are saying, yeah, okay, I get it.

You know, one of the reasons why I podcast is I like to talk to smart people like yourself.

I also loved school.

I love learning.

I love talking to knowledgeable people.

So, you know, let me try to throw you a curveball as we start to wrap this up.

If President Trump were to invite you to Mar a Lago or to invite you to the White House and say, jim, how can septemics heal the nation?

Right.

How can we use septemics to deal with the division in America, the anxiety in America?

A, would you be up for that call?

And B, how would you respond to such an opportunity?

I would be up for the call.

I would say to him, this is natural law.

These scales exist the same way that the Pythagorean theorem exists, the same way that the three laws of motion exist, the same way the periodic table exists.

They're inarguable.

And if you study them, you'll see that you'll get it.

It's not hard to understand this because it's natural law.

And because it's natural law, people get it.

People across the spectrum get it.

Now, there are people who.

Who are not going to get it because they're inaccessible.

Psychopaths, sociopaths, maniacs, lunatics, professional criminals, war criminals, serial murderers, you know, they're not, they're not part of this.

But he would get it and certain people would get it.

Well, and in the language of deal making, what would be the return?

What would be the payoff?

And I don't mean personally, because I thought you made a great case with Fred.

Our kind of fictitious example, really the example.

And here at Metaviews, we often get into this a lot.

We like to look at the big picture, the society level.

Give me the payout.

In terms of how this could heal.

America, if this book were to proliferate, it would have a greater impact than the Bible or the Koran or the Tao Te Ching, because it's natural law.

It's just like how much of an impact did Newton's three laws of motion have?

Right.

It's earth shaking.

It went right into calculus.

Okay.

Which is a very useful, continuously applied thing in science and engineering.

So this is real.

It's accessible to anyone who can read English and wants to help himself or others.

And so.

Well, Mr.

Trump, if you're listening, please reach out to Jim Marshall.

I think he'd very much be up for the task.

Now, Jim, we like to end each show with shout outs.

And these could be shout outs to real people, dead people, fictional people.

I'm gonna go first.

I want to give a shout out to Marshall McLuhan only because he came up in today's conversation and he was a thinker.

I enjoyed a lot.

And I want to give a shout out to my friend Rick Salutin, who right before this show I was just emailing about coming to his class at the University of Toronto and talking to you.

Jim really reminded me about, you know, even now when I'm not a student, I love to show up at universities and get free education, sit in in classes and talk to the professors.

So, Jim, before we go, do you have any shout outs?

Anyone you want to let know that you're thinking about them?

I have a message for the people of Earth who are decent, sensible people.

And here's my message.

The data in this book is vital for every person and can help you to achieve your goals faster and easier by explaining what might otherwise seem to be inexplicable or random.

Right on.

Thank you very much.

Jim Marshall.

Septemics.com if anyone, I assume if they go to the site, your contact info or they can contact you through there.

Is there any social media that you would like to promote?

Not particular.

I mean the website is really the best place to go.

Because it's, it's crafted in a specific way to explain what this is to somebody who doesn't know anything about it.

And I've been told many times it's a good site.

People get it.

You can hear what readers have said about it, what journalists have written about it, what the reviews are.

You can read sections of the book itself.

And there's even a 15 minute introduction to septemic recording that you can listen to.

Right on.

So it's very easy to go there and get what this is about.

Right on.

Thank you very much, as always.

This is Jesse Hirsch for Meta Views.

We put out our episodes as often as we can.

We love talking to people like Jim.

If you have an idea or book that you want to get out, please, please be in touch.

And we'll see everyone soon.

All right.

Thanks, everybody.

Take care.