Prima Secundae
Lecture 80: Mutual Indwelling and Zeal as Effects of Love

Transcript
================================================================================

Now, whether mutual inhering is the effect of love, right? I notice in union you might think of it as simply as being, what, in the same room, talking together, right? Or even if you're hugging or something, right? It's just a contact of surfaces, right? But mutual inhering is something more, what, intimate or inward, right? The second one goes forward thus. Thus, it seems that love does not cause a mutual Now, how would you translate it? Hesionum, I would translate it, dwelling within, you know? Mutual in love. Yeah, okay. That the lover is in the love, right? Okay, that's the idea of inward, right? Ine converse, right? Well, what is in another is contained in it, right? But the same thing cannot be containing and contained. Therefore, through love cannot be caused a, what? Mutua, mutual inherent, right? That the love is in the lover and the reverse, right? So if the wine is in the bottle, the bottle can't be in the wine. The present is in the box. The box cannot be inside the present. Maybe dissolving there to the imagination, right? And also, different senses of the inn, also. Yeah, but there's something about, to the material here. Moreover, nothing is able to penetrate to the insides of some whole, right, huh? Except through some, what, division. But to divide things which are joints, secundum rem, does not belong to the desiring power in which there is love, but to reason, right? So, you know, Thomas says that, what, distinction is presupposed to order, right? So when Shakespeare says, reason looks before and after, that includes, that it looks for, what, distinctions, right? So if you look at logic, you can see a lot of, you know, talking about all these four-fold distinctions here in logic. There's all kinds of two-fold and three-fold distinctions, too. Therefore, it's not an effect of love, but it's something of reasonism. And that's an interesting thing, but there's a connection there between the knowing power, right? And if through love, the one loving is in the loved, and they converge so, right? And it follows that in this way, the love is joined to the, what? One loving. Just as the one loving to the one loved. But love is a, but the union itself is love. Therefore, it follows that always the one loving is loved by the one, what? Loved. Which is clearly false. Rosalind does not love. Therefore, there is not, that mutual adhering is not the, indwelling is not the effect of love, right? But against all this is what is said in the first epistle of John, chapter 4, verse 16. Who remains in charity, in God remains, right? And God in him. Well, that sounds like mutual indwelling, right? But charity is the love of God. Therefore, for the same reason, each, any love, right? Makes the love to be in the one loving, and the reverse. Now, Thomas is going to point out many ways that this takes place, right? I answer, it should be said, that this effect of mutual indwelling can be understood both as regards the, what? Grasping power and as regards the desiring power. For as regards the grasping power, the loved is said to be in the one, what? Loving. Insofar as the loved continues to dwell, right? In the grasping of the one loving, right? According to that of St. Paul in the Philippians, in that I have you in my, what? So if I love you, I keep you in mind, huh? There's no grandchild in that, keep you in mind, right? Okay. Now, in that sense, what the loved is in the, what? Lover, according to the knowing power, right? Remember seeing that, hearing the advertising for a perfume, you know. If you wear this perfume, he won't be able to get you out of his mind. That's pretty good advertisement, isn't it? It has that effect. But no, it's reversed now. Because you say mutual and hazio, right? In the only. But this is inside the knowing power. The lover, the lover, is said to be in the loved, according to what? Grasping or knowing. Insofar as the loved is not content with a superficial, right? On the surface, grasping of the loved, huh? But it, what? Strives, yeah. That the, what? Particular things, right? The singular, which pertains the love. I know. Yes. Seeks them out. And thus to, what? Enter into the inside, right? Right, huh? Okay. So Warren Murray says to me, you know, did I like Mozart's stupid or something? I said, yes. You know what he does there at the end of the fourth movement? And I said, well, kind of. He says, well, he combines four melodies together, right? He said, he does. So I've not penetrated exactly, right? So I'm going back and putting up in this thing and trying to check out that, right, huh? And, uh, he was there, there, he did Don Giovanni during the grand ball scene there, right, huh? There's three different kinds of dances that are performed and then all of a sudden Mozart's just combined the three together, you know, my God, what's this guy doing, you know? See? But if, you see, I'm trying to, what? Penetrate this, right, huh? You know? Okay? Or if you have a painting that you like, you know, you keep on kind of studying it, you know, and you've had to notice things that you didn't notice before. Okay. And thus, about the Holy Spirit who is the love of God, right, it is said in the first epistle of the Corinthians that he, what? Searches even the deep things of God, right, huh? Okay. Scruti, scrutinizing. Scrutinizing. Scrutinizing, yeah. The, uh, the Trinity, right, huh? You know? A little bit. Yeah. Trying to understand it, you know? Go through one of these articles and the sentences sometimes, difficult thing. I think I'll let that rest of my mind now look at it again tomorrow, you know? And see if it makes more sense to me. Or it dwells anymore, you know? See, something of those things. And as regards, so he's saying, you know, first he made the distinction, right? That there's going to be mutual in dwelling, right? Both on the side of the knowing powers. He's shown that now, right, huh? Okay? I keep the thing I love in my mind, I keep the musical modes in my mind, but I try to, what? Penetrate into that, right, huh? Okay? But he says, this is also on the side of the, what? Desiring power. That the loved is said to be in the one loving insofar as through a certain, what? Yeah, agreement, right? It's in his, what? Affection, right, huh? And that he delights in it or in his goods, right? In their presence, right? And in the absence through desire he tends, right? In the thing love through the love of wanting, right? Or in the goods that he wills for the loved through the love of, what? Friendship, right? Not from some extrinsic cause as in one desire is something on account of another, right? Or in one which is good to another in account of something other, on account of the, what? Agreement of the love interiorly rooted, huh? And that's what Shakespeare says in Macbeth there, right? The king doesn't know. He's planted you, right? I'm sorry. Whence love is said to be, what? Inward, intimus, huh? And he spoke of the bowels, I guess, huh? Of, what? Charity, right? That's the root word. Mercy. In Hebrew. Yeah. The inner parts literally refers to a woman's woman. So it's sort of that, that's her love for a child, even physically inside her. Yeah, the note of humankind is so. You see, you know, the part there that he made an impression upon her or she made an impression upon him, right? Some of you are impressed upon the heart, right? The loved is in your heart, right? But a converse, though, the lover is, what, in the loved, but in another way, through the love of wanting and another way through the love of, what, friendship? For the love of concubiscence does not rest in just any outside or superficial attaining or enjoyment of the loved, but he seeks to perfectly have the thing loved, as it were, arriving at, what, the inwards of it, right? So when you go to the wine tasting, right, just swing the wine around, ah, you get inside it, right, huh? Get over there and breathe over it, you know. I see the guys are really good at this, right? I mean, they can tell you what the greeting cycle. So Brother Mark was pretty good at this, you know, and, you know, you go to the old days, they used to have the wines that they would be a mixture of different grapes, right? So we're tasting one of these things, and my brother Mark asked the guy what he uses in there, you know, he's kind of cagey, because maybe this guy's a spy, you know. And my brother Mark said, well, don't you use a little bit of this? And he started telling me what it's in the wine. The guy says, go on to the back room here and try some of these combinations, see which one you think is good. We said, Brother Mark, you know, huh? You know, he's penetrating, right? But it's made out of, right? But even some is, you know, you know, a lady likes a salad dressing, right? You know, they want to know what the ingredients are in the salad dressing, right? Or you've got a sauce of some sort of the meat or something, you know, huh? You know? Incense, yeah. We use the connoisseur to find incense. We use incense to blend, I think. Good, very good. I smell the incense when I come into the church. We use it three times a day, so. Yeah, you know, sometimes I smell, you know, I didn't smell the day, but sometimes I do, you know, I can smell better. But he says, a converse, though. The lover is in the love in a different way, through the love of wine and love. Okay. Okay, that was the love of wanting, right? The wine, right? But in the love of what? Friendship, right? The lover is in the love. Insofar as he regards the goods or the bad things that happen to his friend, that's happening to himself, right? It's his own. And the will of the friend is his own, right? Your will is my command. As if he himself and his friend seems to undergo or be affected with the good or bad things that happen to his friend, huh? It's been interesting of St. Alphonsus de Goury, right? The Glories of Mary, right? Where he talks about Mary's partaking in the suffering of our Lord on the cross, right? So what he suffered on his body, she suffered in her heart, right? So she seems to be on the cross with him, right? But this is the lover being in the what loved, right? An account of this, it's a property of friends to will the same things, right? And to be sad or rejoice in the what? Same, according to the philosopher. That means the philosopher, right? In the ninth book of the Ethics. And he also says this in the second book of the Rhetoric, huh? And thus insofar as the things of the friend, he estimates as his own, right? The lover seems to be in the love, right? As it were, made the same to the loved, huh? But insofar as, conversely, he wills and acts in account of his friend as an account of himself, he is aware of regards the friend as being the same as himself, right? Just as the loved is in the one loving. And it can be also a third way of understanding this mutual indwelling in the love of friendship according to the road of what? Loving and together. Yeah. Returning. And this is the one that touched on rejection there, because now he's loved in return, right? The pangs of unrequited love, as Hamlet talks about, right? Okay. Insofar as the friends mutually love each other, right? And they will and do things, good things for each other, right? And he says, by the first objection, right? That the love is contained in the one loving, insofar as it is, what, impressed, huh? To a certain, what, agreement, huh? She made a big impression on her. You say that, right? You say that, you know, in daily life. But conversely, the lover is contained in the love, insofar as the lover seeks in some way that which is inward to the beloved. Now, nothing prevents, in a diverse way, for something to be contained and contained, as Aristotle says. The genus is contained in the species. Species in the genus, right? Genus in the species is the third sense of end. Species in the genus is the fourth sense of end. You all know the eighth sense of end, I assume. In the order there, right? Okay. Okay. Now, the second objection is talking about, what, division, being the work of reason, right? And Thomas says, well, that's reason for that. The second should be said that the grasping of reason precedes the affection of what? Love. And therefore, just as reason, right? Searching out. Yeah. So the affection of love enters into the love. This has been said, right? Remember the first time with Brother Richard and Marcus, you know, they brought home the magic flute of Mozart, right? And they played the whole thing, and I listened, you know, I was a pretty docile guy. Nobody really heard anything, you know? It wasn't really, you know, penetrated, right? But then as I listened to these things more, I really said, oh my goodness, you know? You know, I mean, the excellence of Mozart's music is unbelievable once you start to hear it, you know? And he said, the more I heard it, right, then the more my... So the reason is like the needle and the thread is like the heart following it in, you know, huh? And so the thread couldn't get in by itself, right? And the heart and the love couldn't get in without the knowledge, right? Now the third objection was the one that he touched upon at the end of the article, right? This mutual inhesion from what? Mutual love, right? But that's not always followed by love, right? So what Romeo has mutual inhering in the first ways, right? By knowledge and by love. For Rosalind, right? But he doesn't have mutual love from Rosalind, right? But then he has that from Juliet, right? So he says that argument proceeds from the third way of mutual indwelling, which is not found in every love. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God, and thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas, Deo Grazias. God, our Enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelica Doctor, pray for us, and help us to understand what you have written. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So up to Article 3, the third effect of love, with their ecstasy, right? Ecstasis in the Greek, right? Outside yourself, yeah. Is not an effect of love, or is an effect of love, right? To the third end, one goes forward thus. It seems that being outside yourself is not the effect of love. For ecstasy seems to imply a certain alienation of the mind, right? But love does not always make out alienation. For those loving are sometimes, you know, sui-competence. Not nincompoop, right? Yeah. Controlling self. Get a hold of yourself, we say, you know? Take out their wits about it. Yeah. Therefore, love does not make, what? Ecstasy, right, eh? Moreover, the one loving desires to unite, so far as possible, the thing loved, right, eh? Once he can unite it to him, himself, right? Therefore, more does he draw the beloved, the loved, to himself, right? And then he, what, goes out into the loved, right? Extras, say, exiens, on going outside himself, huh? Does love make you go outside yourself? Does love put you beside yourself, okay? Moreover, love unites the loved to the lover, as has been said. If, therefore, the one loving tends outside himself, that he might, what, go out to the beloved, it follows that he always loves more the loved than himself, right? Which is clearly false. Therefore, going outside oneself is not an effect of, what, love. But against this is what Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names, that the Divine Love makes ecstasy, right? And that God himself, on account of love, has undergone, what, ecstasy, right? I notice here, in a little footnote in my text here, huh? I don't know if you have it, but anyway. He gives the Greek there, great shape, ecstasis, right, huh? We got a little more, like we have in Latin, in English we have an S there, right, after the X, right? But here it is just E-X-T-A, that's close, so, yeah. But notice what he says here, great shape, ecstasis. It is, that is, ecstasis, right? Exitus ostatu, but ecstasis reminds me of that thing there where our Lord is having a conversation with Moses and, Isis, isn't it, about his coming excess, right? About his ecstasy, right? Okay, because he's undergoing ecstasy, right, and dying for us, huh? Okay. Since, therefore, each love is a certain likeness partaken of the, what, divine love, right? As it said there by Tanishes, it seems that every love causes, what, ecstasy, huh? Well, what does Thomas say now? The answer, it should be said, that someone is said to, what, undergo ecstasy, right? To suffer ecstasy, but in English we could say undergo, when he is placed outside, what, himself. And this happens both by the grasping power, the knowing power, and by the desiring power. Now, by the knowing power, the grasping power, someone is said to be placed outside himself, when he is placed outside the knowledge that is proper to him. Either because he is, what, sublime to a superior, as man, when he is elevated to comprehending some things which are above sense and, what, reason. Sense being the source of reason, right, in some sense. He is said to undergo, what, ecstasy, right? And this is on the side of the knowing power, right? Like St. Paul made when he's carried up to the third heaven, huh? Insofar as he's placed outside the natural knowledge, the natural grasping of reason and the, what, senses, huh? That must have happened to Thomas there before he finished the summa, right? It's out of straws, right? Or because he is, what, depressed, huh? To lower things. As when someone falls into fury, right? And amensia, without mind, huh? He is said to undergo ecstasy. Was it Nebuchadnezzar? Who was that was down there? Yeah, Eden Grant. Yeah, yeah. He's ecstasy poor, right? Okay. According to the desiring power, or part, one is said to, what, undergo ecstasy ecstasy when the desire of something carries it into another thing, right? Going out in a way outside himself. Now he makes another distinction, huh? According to the two kinds of love, huh? But we'll see that. The first ecstasy love makes by way of disposing us for this, huh? Insofar as it makes us meditate about the thing, what? Loved, huh? But the intense meditation of one thing draws one or extracts one from, what? Other things, huh? So you can make it a little elevation, right? The body's almost like stiff, huh, sometimes, huh? So it disposes for the ecstasy that is on the side of the knowing power, right? But according to the ecstasy, but the second kind of ecstasy, that is according to the, what, desiring power. Love makes this directive, right? Not just disposing. But now he makes a distinction between the two kinds of love. Simpliciter, right? Simpliciter, right? My old friend, simpliciter. The love of friendship, right? That makes one go outside oneself, simply speaking, without qualification, right? But the love of wanting or concupiscence, right? It makes one go outside oneself, not simply, but secundum quid, right? For in the love of wanting or concupiscence, in a certain way, the lover is carried, I guess, her to his carrier, outside himself, right? Insofar as not content to rejoice about the good that he has, he seeks to enjoy something outside himself, like rip or float, right? Or even the music of Mozart, right? But because that outside good he seeks to have for himself, right? He does not go simply, without qualification, outside himself, but such an affection, in the end, is concluded within himself, right? So I go out, go out for the candy to bring it into myself, right? So do I already go outside of myself? No, it ends up in me, right? The candy in my mouth, right? Okay, rip or float in my mouth. Mozart in my ear, right? But in the love of friendship, huh? The affection... of someone, simply without qualification, go or exit outside themselves, huh? Why? Because he wishes to his friend good, and he acts for that good, right? As it were, having care and providence over the other, right? On account of the friend himself, right? So then you have ecstasy. Yeah, that's what our Lord had on the cross, right? Now the first thing about alienation, right, huh? Well, Thomas said, that ratio proceeds about the first ecstasy, right? And the second one, which is saying that the lover desires to, what, unite the love to himself. Well, that argument proceeds by the, or about the love of wanting, right? Which, granted, does not simply make ecstasy, right? But only in a qualified, what, sense, right? When it helps, oh, eat something. People say that sometimes, you hear them say that, right? It's the kind of, you know, they need something, you know. And they go into the store, and they get something, I've got to get something to eat, you know. That's not me. Simply speaking, that's not ecstasy, right? Yeah. Well, one is, in some sense, going outside oneself, right? In some qualified way. To get something to bring back to oneself, right? Fast food things and so on, right? Do you remember that? Next time you stop at a fast food, McDonald's or whatever it is. McDonald's cheeseburger. It's not really ecstasy. Winning. The third objection is talking about, you love another person more than yourself, right? To the third, therefore, it should be said, that the one who loves, to that extent, goes outside himself, insofar as he wills the goods to the friend, and acts for that, right? But this does not mean that he wills the goods of the friend more than his own, right? Whence it does not fall that he loves the other one more than himself, right? So, that's the famous thing when they talk about, you know, the soldier gives his life for somebody else, right? Does he love the other person more than himself? Yeah, yeah. But is he choosing the greater good for himself or for his friend? Yeah. The act, right? So, God the Father loves God the Son, right? He dies on the cross if this is not a greater act, right? But to some who consider it just the goods of the body, it seems that the soldier is loving the man he dies for more than himself, right? And that's to say, you know, that you just see the goods of the body, right? Body of life. That's an interesting effect of love, right? It's the first effect of love, union, right? The second effect of love is this mutual indwelling, right? The third effect of love he gives is going outside yourself, right, huh? Okay. But now that comes up with zeal, right? I guess, you know, maybe in reading this article there is, I guess the Latin word zeal, zealous, you know, can mean what? Envy as well as what? Zeal, you know, in English you have two words, you know, so part of this may involve the fact that the word is a little bit of collocation, right? To the fourth, then, one goes forward thus. Thus, it seems that zeal is not an effect of love. For zeal is beginning of what? Contention, right? Quince it is said in 1 Corinthians chapter 3, that there is between you, what? Zealous and contentia, right? But contention, fighting or something like that, is repugnant to love, right? And therefore, zeal is not an effect of what? But now you're getting to a kind of different, you know, effect of love. The zeal in respect to those things that are what? Either impeding you to getting the thing you want, or you're moving against the thing that threatens what you love and so on, right? So if you're using my kids' target practice, right? And I'll have some zeal, right? Move against you, right? But it's proceeding from my love of my children, right? Not from my love of you. That's an effect of love, right? That I get concerned, you know, shooting out. My parents told me when they moved in, the guy had barbed wire next to our house. I said, get that out of here, so I've got to put a real fence in, you know? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was zeal, right? Yeah, yeah. It's kind of funny. People on one side, you're very friendly, you know, and your ball bumps over here, you go, get your ball a problem. Of course, the other guy, your ball bumps in his yard, Mr. Anderson, can you get the ball? Oh, it's a damn nonsense. It's amazing. There's two neighbors, right? Yeah, yeah. Night in bed. It's like one of our neighbors over here, he's, I don't think he's in his right mind, but anyways, years ago, we had a friend who lived on the other side of the town, and he could go through the woods from his house. He drove here several miles, but if he came to the woods, it wasn't that far. Yeah, yeah. But he had to cross part of this gentleman's property, and so anyways, they were both members of the American Legion, local chapter of the American Legion, and so one time this fellow went up to, oh, Mr. So-and-so, ah, well, please meet you. He said, you know, I live just over here, and sometimes I go over to the monastery, and I go right in the corner of your property. I shoot trespassers. The greeting he got. Oh, well, okay, I won't do that anymore. Moreover, the object of love is the good, right? Which is communicating of itself, right? But zealous, huh, is repugnant to communication. For to zealousness, moreover, the sense of jealousy, right? Not envy, it's jealousy, right? But to jealousy, it seems to pertain that someone does not undergo or allow consortium joining in the love, right? Just as men are said to be jealous about their wives, and so I thought it was not going to take that, right? They're going to share it with somebody else. Which they do not wish to have in common with others, right? Therefore, zeal is not an effect of what? Of love, huh? That's zealous, I see, you know. You probably translate it, right? It seems to cover both jealousy, and the words are related, I guess, zealous and jealousy. Yes, that's what God says. And zeal is what it is. Yeah, God says that's what I am, a jealous God. Moreover, zealous is not without, what? Hate. Just as not without love, for it is said in Psalm 72, I was, what? Therefore, it ought not to be said to be more an effect of love than of, what? Hate. Hate, hate. See how Thomas has ordered these, the first three effects of love. It's being closer to love than this. But against this is what Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names. That God is said to be zealotes, huh? Jealous, so he said. An account of the great love which he has for existing things. But Thomas says, I answer. It should be said that the zealous, zeal or jealousy, in whatever way it is taken, right, arise from the intensity of what? Of love, huh? For it is manifest that the more some power intensely tends towards something, the more it repels everything that is either contrary or repugnant to it. Since, therefore, love is a certain motion in the, what? In the loved, towards the loved, as Augustine says in the book on the 83 questions, right? Intense love seeks to exclude everything that is, what? Repugnant to it. This is kind of a guide to something other than the good itself, right? Now, again, he sees a distinction here. This happens in a different way in the love of wanting and in the love of, what? Friendship, right? For in the love of wanting, who intensively wants something, right? He moves against that which is repugnant to the achievement of it, right? Or the quiet enjoyment of what he, what? Loves, huh? So this political campaign is going to be something. Some of this. They both want to be president. And in this way, men are said to, what? Yeah. We're jealous of the ones, huh? Lest to the consortium of others there be impeded the singularity which they seek in the way. What? Likewise, those who seek some excellence are moved against those who seem to, what, excel because they are impeding their, what? Excellence, right? And this is the zeal of, what? Envy. Envy. About whom it is said in Psalm 36. Don't emulate in, what, bad or be jealous of those doing iniquity, right, huh? To make our money bad way, right, huh? But now, the love of friendship seeks the good of the friend, huh? Whence, when it is intense, it makes a man move against everything that is repugnant to the good of the friend. And on account of this, someone is said to zeal for his, what? Friend, huh? So if I'm supporting this guy for office, right, then I have zeal, right? And you have to be attacking my strike back, right, huh? So if some things are said or done against the good of the friend, a man seeks, huh? To repel it, huh? And in this way, someone is said to be at zeal for God, right, huh? When those things which are against the honor or the will of God, he seeks to, what, repel so far as he's able, right? According to that in the third book of the kings with zeal I was zealous for the, what, Lord of the armies, the Lord of hosts. And John 2, our Lord says, the zeal of your house has eaten me up, says the, what, gloss, right? He's eaten up by a good, what, zeal. He made it a house of thievery, right? Who, whatever bad things which he sees, he seeks to, what, correct, right? And if he's, what, not evil, I guess? He tolerates and groans about them, right, huh? Yeah, he's going to suffer. Yeah, Warren Murray says, if Obama is reelected, he's going to give up his American citizenship. I won't blame him. It's a little bit worth anything anyway. Now, to the first, it should be said that the apostle there speaks of the zeal of, what, envy, which, to be sure, is a cause of contention, but not against the thing loved, right, huh? But for the thing loved, against the impediments of it, right? So this is a different object, in a sense, right, than the good itself, right? So you can see the way he's ordered this fourth article, after the first three articles, right? The first one is respect to the good itself, right? Now it's just something opposed to it, right? But you're moving against what is opposed to it for the sake of the thing that is loved. To the second, it should be said that the good is loved insofar as it can be communicated to the one loving. So, whence everything that impedes the perfectionist's communication is rendered odious, right? And thus, from the love of good, zeal is, what, caused, right? But it's from the defect of goodness that some little goods, right, cannot be wholly, what, possessed by the many. And from the love of such things is caused the zeal of envy. But not cover property for those things which are, what, as a whole can be possessed by many, right? For no one envies another the knowledge of truth, right? So I should envy you the knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem, right? It doesn't prevent me from knowing it, right? In fact, in any way, it would be a help for me to know it. Did you know it too, right? Talk about that. Which, by many, integrate, right, wholly, right, is able to be, what, known, right? But perhaps, huh? About the excellence concerning the knowledge of this, right? Okay. I understand the Pythagorean theorem better than you do. It's something that... So you get hired to teach it, and I don't. Yeah. Yeah. Your excellence. So it can be kind of an envy there about the truth, right, in that way, right? But not about the truth simply, right? Because that's something we can share, right? It's like a movie where, you know, I can see the movie, you can see the movie, right? And you see the movie doesn't beat my seeing it. And the fact that you're enjoying it, too, makes it more enjoyable, you know? So the truth is like that, right, huh? You go see a play in Shakespeare, you go see a Mozart, right, you know, you know? I agree to my mind, whether it's music or a play over there. Sure, sure, sure, sure. It's funny, some of the critics, you know, think that Shakespeare's plays can only be appreciated in your armchair, right? Well, it is, yeah, you know, hard for an actor to maybe, you know, and sometimes, you know, the lines, you know, you've got to do a lot of gestures up there, you know, and it's kind of distracting from the lines and so on. And then be careful of that, right?