(Q - Exalastro: Ok, I have one last question about this recipe which ultimately has not yet been understood. For example, I go to the vegetable garden and I take ingredients. Do these
ingredients go, for example, well, I don't know, I take basil and tomatoes Do I understand that in the end, I'm going to make a spag bolo or, you see... Do I.
It's the ingredients that will give us the beginnings of something? Will we at some point understand that it's a spag bolo? We'll say to ourselves, to make a spag bolo, the ingredients are known.
It's really in our head, and get over it, it's in your head, guys. You get to a place and you have to figure it out. Is there a beginning of something that we have to do?
put the flea in the ear?)
MB: Yes, that’s a pretty accurate parallel. That is to say, quite simply, there is a logic.
(Q - Exalastro: From the ingredients, can I understand the recipe? Or when you say yes, that's pretty good, what could you tell me…)
MB: You just gave me the example, you tell me if I have basil, tomatoes, a little bit of sausage meat, all that, well I make spag bolo, very good, well yes it seems not bad, and very logical, and ok, especially if I happen to have a packet of spaghetti next to it, it becomes quite obvious. Well, that’s actually the great solution. You still forgot the packet of spaghetti. You notice that when you mention the recipe… it’s not a joke. You tell me about basil and tomatoes, you tell me that I'm going to make spaghetti bolo, but you forgot to tell me “I also have a packet of spaghetti”.
It's even more obvious. If you have the spaghetti, if you have the tomatoes, if you have the basil, and then let's add the sausage meat, you don't have so many questions to ask yourself.
(Q - Exalastro: You know the solutions and you know my situation a little, but you talk to me like that, I say to myself, I have the impression that we understand each other, and yet, I will continue.)
MB: There are a lot of us who understand each other, but there is still a majority today who are wrong. It simply means that this element of understanding is very important: this element of understanding about theory, because in fact we are both doing theory there, okay? It must be applied on the ground. At some point you have to say to yourself, well, ok, I understand that I have, let's use the term again, ingredients to find, but hey, then, I have the spaghetti, I have the tomatoes, I I have the basil, I have the sausage meat... well yes, but I don't have a stove, I don't have a stove, I don't have a stove, I don't have a hotplate, I I won't be able to prepare them. I have nothing. At some point, the ingredients, you also have to have all the equipment that goes with them, that is to say the context.
You really have to ask yourself good questions while avoiding any, I would say, emotional attachment to a place. Because that’s also something I’ve noticed time and time again. Many players are in love with their solution. So in love with his solution, it's an image but it still means that there is affect in relation to the work we have done, the hours we have spent, the passion, the energy, we are attached. Many players are attached to their solution and therefore have a hard time questioning it, especially regarding location. I have the impression that it has a lot to do with the place. This is my feeling, through what I read daily. I see that there are people who are attached to places, and if they try to be a little bit... Even knowing the solutions, I say to myself, how can they imagine that it can be there ? You still have to go to that area. It takes time. Is it consistent with what we know about history? Is it possible ? This is all that we need to be able to say to ourselves. Not only that, eh.
But there you go, the recipe is one thing, but there is the whole environment, everything that surrounds this recipe, the logistical, material part, the place, physically, what is there on site. And many of the solutions submitted to me still ignore a certain logic at a given moment. Although they are coherent, there are things that are not very logical.
(Q - Exalastro: I understand that the place, you even said it yourself, you can see too much, you can go too far, but there are places that give you something on the other hand, it doesn't matter what the recipe is, but which give you ingredients which potentially respond to a cooking recipe which would be entirely possible... I have elements which respond to me, which echo a cooking recipe, and I 'go, I'm moving forward.)
MB: Yes, but for example, here again, I must say that… we are not in a game like numbers and letters. That is to say, we do not compose as we want with the elements we have before our eyes.
(Q - Exalastro: Yes, okay, but that's why there is a role to play in, I imagine, sifting through this kind of information.)
MB: There you go, if we were in a game like “Numbers and letters”, that means that there would be a word to find and a number to find, it's not on the map. We must also adhere to a certain rigor in the logic of the prospecting we carry out, the journey we make with the puzzles, and then the prospecting we carry out once we are in a sector and trying to locate things. We must always cling, but vigorously, to logic. Because all the same, even if in this whole story, there were inaccuracies, there were beginner's mistakes, beginner's errors and everything else, there was some embroidery that went wrong. done around, but despite everything, the basic framework, it is still logical. We are not in everything is possible and we can imagine everything. No, no, there is still a logic, really.
(Q - Exalastro: Well listen, thank you Michel and then…)
MB: I hope this will allow you…
(Q: Exalastro: I'm going to listen to that again, I'm going to listen to that again because there was a lot of information there and I'm going to dissect it. Thank you in any case, have a good evening, good night .)
MB: So, look, we did an hour, I think it's great, it's a compromise. So as not to seem like we're hanging up on you, let's say, one last question and then...
MB: Yes, that’s a pretty accurate parallel. That is to say, quite simply, there is a logic.
(Q - Exalastro: From the ingredients, can I understand the recipe? Or when you say yes, that's pretty good, what could you tell me…)
MB: You just gave me the example, you tell me if I have basil, tomatoes, a little bit of sausage meat, all that, well I make spag bolo, very good, well yes it seems not bad, and very logical, and ok, especially if I happen to have a packet of spaghetti next to it, it becomes quite obvious. Well, that’s actually the great solution. You still forgot the packet of spaghetti. You notice that when you mention the recipe… it’s not a joke. You tell me about basil and tomatoes, you tell me that I'm going to make spaghetti bolo, but you forgot to tell me “I also have a packet of spaghetti”.
It's even more obvious. If you have the spaghetti, if you have the tomatoes, if you have the basil, and then let's add the sausage meat, you don't have so many questions to ask yourself.
(Q - Exalastro: You know the solutions and you know my situation a little, but you talk to me like that, I say to myself, I have the impression that we understand each other, and yet, I will continue.)
MB: There are a lot of us who understand each other, but there is still a majority today who are wrong. It simply means that this element of understanding is very important: this element of understanding about theory, because in fact we are both doing theory there, okay? It must be applied on the ground. At some point you have to say to yourself, well, ok, I understand that I have, let's use the term again, ingredients to find, but hey, then, I have the spaghetti, I have the tomatoes, I I have the basil, I have the sausage meat... well yes, but I don't have a stove, I don't have a stove, I don't have a stove, I don't have a hotplate, I I won't be able to prepare them. I have nothing. At some point, the ingredients, you also have to have all the equipment that goes with them, that is to say the context.
You really have to ask yourself good questions while avoiding any, I would say, emotional attachment to a place. Because that’s also something I’ve noticed time and time again. Many players are in love with their solution. So in love with his solution, it's an image but it still means that there is affect in relation to the work we have done, the hours we have spent, the passion, the energy, we are attached. Many players are attached to their solution and therefore have a hard time questioning it, especially regarding location. I have the impression that it has a lot to do with the place. This is my feeling, through what I read daily. I see that there are people who are attached to places, and if they try to be a little bit... Even knowing the solutions, I say to myself, how can they imagine that it can be there ? You still have to go to that area. It takes time. Is it consistent with what we know about history? Is it possible ? This is all that we need to be able to say to ourselves. Not only that, eh.
But there you go, the recipe is one thing, but there is the whole environment, everything that surrounds this recipe, the logistical, material part, the place, physically, what is there on site. And many of the solutions submitted to me still ignore a certain logic at a given moment. Although they are coherent, there are things that are not very logical.
(Q - Exalastro: I understand that the place, you even said it yourself, you can see too much, you can go too far, but there are places that give you something on the other hand, it doesn't matter what the recipe is, but which give you ingredients which potentially respond to a cooking recipe which would be entirely possible... I have elements which respond to me, which echo a cooking recipe, and I 'go, I'm moving forward.)
MB: Yes, but for example, here again, I must say that… we are not in a game like numbers and letters. That is to say, we do not compose as we want with the elements we have before our eyes.
(Q - Exalastro: Yes, okay, but that's why there is a role to play in, I imagine, sifting through this kind of information.)
MB: There you go, if we were in a game like “Numbers and letters”, that means that there would be a word to find and a number to find, it's not on the map. We must also adhere to a certain rigor in the logic of the prospecting we carry out, the journey we make with the puzzles, and then the prospecting we carry out once we are in a sector and trying to locate things. We must always cling, but vigorously, to logic. Because all the same, even if in this whole story, there were inaccuracies, there were beginner's mistakes, beginner's errors and everything else, there was some embroidery that went wrong. done around, but despite everything, the basic framework, it is still logical. We are not in everything is possible and we can imagine everything. No, no, there is still a logic, really.
(Q - Exalastro: Well listen, thank you Michel and then…)
MB: I hope this will allow you…
(Q: Exalastro: I'm going to listen to that again, I'm going to listen to that again because there was a lot of information there and I'm going to dissect it. Thank you in any case, have a good evening, good night .)
MB: So, look, we did an hour, I think it's great, it's a compromise. So as not to seem like we're hanging up on you, let's say, one last question and then...