ersonalities in a particular way right where i find the sacred a more neutral term um so and your your basic claim is you know that sacredness and realness are interdefining in in a profound way and i think i think it's fair to say i tried to argue something very very similar in awakening for the meeting crisis and some of the arguments i have going on um about you know that sacredness is a way of getting coming into relationship with the depth of reality and things like that um and then i tried to map that into um something that i i hadn't i don't want to sound so promotional but i hadn't i think this is at least autobiographically true i hadn't seen being done very much elsewhere i've seen seeds but the idea that our sense of realness doesn't come in a single channel of experience that our sense of realness is the conviction of our beliefs the sense of realness is the power of our skills and all of these have become i have at one time or another been taken as the you know the proper name for the sacred right um uh that it's also the presence uh within our prospective knowing and then ultimately that the sort of fittedness belongingness uh togetherness of of of participatory knowing and that all of those although theoretically i can do what i just did analytically in our cognitive i want to be i i even want to say our cognitive existential phenomenology they are interwoven uh together um i think we we've got a culture that has made us think that everything is reducible or or all that exists is the propositional but what i'm saying is that the sense of realness seems to be well maybe this will be a better metaphor it's multi-dimensional it's multi-dimensional in that when we're pointing to realness we're pointing to that which is found but not found uniquely in conviction right in power in presence and in fittedness um and the reason is because when you you can you can have phenomenological experiences and the existentialists are particularly helpful on this where realness is uh realness is undermined in only one