The podcast episode analyzes themes from popular culture like The Gifted, Money Heist, and Harry Potter, connecting them with philosophical concepts around freedom, desire, logic, and identity. It explores how different types of engagement—symbolic versus real—affect human decisions, touching on love, authority, and societal expectations. Additionally, it delves into the role of God and nature as powerful symbols that shape belief systems and human behavior, even when they are not physically real.

Generated by Google’s NotepadLM website given Görce Writings and the customization:

Görce Writings

Customization: You are given a large collection of texts “Görce Writings” by Işık Barış Fidaner. Start from a random topic and follow a coherent line of thought! Never mention Görce or Fidaner! You have to give contextual info before giving every example.

This is part of Numerical Discourses

---

Okay, so get this. Today we’re diving into some seriously thought-provoking stuff—like how we experience the world, how we make decisions, what we chase after, you know, all that good stuff. And it gets even better. We’re going to connect these ideas to things like superhero shows, those love stories that just completely wreck you, and get this—even Harry Potter.

Wait, hold up. Harry Potter? Now you have to tell me more.

Oh, trust me, the connections are wild. Basically, we’re looking at this collection of essays, and they go super deep, analyzing pop culture through this philosophical lens, right?

You’ve got my attention. Where do we even begin with something like that?

So, there’s this one piece that breaks down the show The Gifted. Maybe you’ve seen it?

Rings a bell.

Okay, well, it’s about people with, well, gifts—you know, superpowers, that kind of thing. But the author? They’re not really hung up on the whole action part of it all. They go deeper, looking at what freedom actually means for these characters.

So, it’s less about having these crazy powers, more about how they use them?

Exactly. Some characters are all about the practical stuff, you know, fighting the baddies, checking things off the to-do list. But then, there’s this one character who uses her powers to create an aurora borealis. Seriously, just for the beauty of it, pure enjoyment.

That’s incredible. She’s not trying to prove anything to anyone, just completely lost in the experience. I love that.

And that’s the author’s whole point—how often do we actually prioritize that kind of pure enjoyment? Are we constantly stuck on the useful, or do we make space for those things that just make us feel alive?

Whoa, okay. You’re making me seriously rethink how I spend my time.

And that very question, it pops up again in another piece. This one digs into the show Money Heist. I don’t know if you’ve seen it?

Right, yeah, I loved it. High stakes, tons of drama.

So good, right? So, in the middle of all that action, there’s this love story—Raquel, a police inspector, falls for Sergio, the mastermind behind the whole heist. And get this—she ends up betraying her duty, her entire career, because of her love for this guy.

Oh wow, that’s a tough one. Duty versus the heart.

Exactly what the author digs into. It’s this conflict between what they call exigency—all that duty, obligation, what we’re told we should do—and enjoyment, those things we truly crave, those things that light us up, even if it means going against the grain.

So she chose enjoyment over exigency, even if it was a huge risk. Makes you wonder how often we face those same choices, right?

Totally. Maybe it explains why we do things that seem totally irrational on the surface but make sense on a deeper level. Like, there’s this whole other logic driven by emotion.

Sometimes you gotta follow your heart, logic be damned, right?

And speaking of logic, there’s this other piece about, well, logic. And it gets into some pretty fascinating ideas about gender. This is where things get really interesting. The author argues there’s this difference between what they call masculine and feminine logic—but not in the way you might think. It’s about how we approach truth.

Okay, I’m already a little lost. Give me an example.

Alright, so imagine you’re trying to get through a maze, right? You could look for that one right path, the straight shot to the finish line. That’s kind of like what the author calls masculine logic—finding that singular, perfect answer.

Gotcha. Makes sense. So, what about the feminine side?

It’s more about exploring every path, every nook and cranny, even the dead ends. It’s less about the answer and more about understanding the bigger picture, how complex it all is. They even use these logical formulas to represent each side, though they both basically mean the same thing in the end.

So it’s not about one being better than the other, but recognizing that we all see the world in different ways.

Exactly. And those different perspectives? They can lead to some serious misunderstandings, especially when it comes to the big stuff.

It’s like those optical illusions—two people, same image, completely different interpretations.

You got it. And this idea of multiple perspectives? It even applies to the biggest concepts out there, like God and nature, which just happen to be the focus of this other super fascinating piece.

Okay, now those are some big topics. God and nature? Where do we even start?

Oh, get ready for this one. This piece brings in the ideas of Slavoj Žižek, the philosopher.

Okay, yeah. And he’s known for, well, shaking things up a bit.

I’m ready. Lay it on me.

So, Žižek, he’s all about how neither God nor nature actually exists the way we usually think about them—like these whole independent things.

Okay, but…?

And here’s the kicker—even if they aren’t real in that sense, we still feel their impact as if they were.

Hold on, how does that even work? It’s like saying unicorns aren’t real, but their, like, sparkle magic still affects us somehow.

You know what? That’s a pretty good way to put it. Think about those times when people try to find meaning in totally random events, like, say, a natural disaster. They want a reason, a purpose, maybe even a sign from above.

“Why did this happen? What am I supposed to learn from this?”

Exactly. Or how about this—how easily we label something as “good” just because it feels natural, even if it’s really just our own cultural biases, not something inherently true.

Whoa, okay. So even if there’s no, like, God or nature that we can actually touch or see, those ideas are still powerful. We’ve built our whole belief systems around them.

Exactly. And those systems? They influence everything—how we act, what we value, even how we see ourselves in the world. Which actually connects to this whole other concept about how those beliefs actually play out in our physical selves—our bodies.

Okay, now we’re going deep. How do beliefs affect our bodies?

It’s about these two ideas: authorization and embodiment. Let me ask you this—have you ever worn a uniform for work?

Oh yeah, I used to be a barista. One of those green aprons.

Perfect example. So, the uniform—that’s the authority of the company, your role. But then how you wear it, your own style—that’s your embodiment, right?

Okay, so it’s not just about blindly following the rules. It’s how we take them in and make them our own.

Exactly. And this goes way beyond just clothes. Think about those superheroes we talked about—their powers, that’s their authorization to do the impossible. But they each express those powers in their own way, driven by their own desires. Same with Raquel in Money Heist. Her job, the law—that’s her authorization to arrest Sergio, but love? Her love? It leads her to express that authority differently.

So it’s like this constant push and pull—these external forces, societal expectations, the roles we play, battling it out with our own internal wants and beliefs.

Exactly. And that tension? It leads to this super fascinating idea that those things we want most—our deepest desires—they’re often things that are kind of useless from a practical standpoint.

Wait, useless? How can our desires be useless? Don’t we usually want things that are, you know, useful?

It all comes down to this difference between, and get this, symbolic engagement and real engagement. Symbolic engagement? That’s all about those practical goals—those things we think we should want. The good job, the fancy title, all that.

The things that look good on paper, right? So what’s real engagement, then?

It’s all about the desires that don’t necessarily get you those gold stars or pats on the back. They’re driven by something way deeper. Think, like, pouring your heart into some creative project or getting totally lost in a hobby that has no real point.

So it’s like some things are valuable because they tap into something more fundamental, more primal even, even if it doesn’t make sense to the rest of the world.

You got it. And the author? They argue that these so-called “useless” desires, they actually hold a lot of power over us. Why? Because they’re connected to this deeper part of ourselves—our need for pleasure, meaning, maybe even a little self-destruction.

Okay, I need an example. This is getting pretty abstract.

Alright. Think about those classic stories—people throwing away everything for love. Artists who dedicate their lives to their craft, even if it means being broke. Those aren’t always the most logical choices, but they’re driven by something powerful, right?

Those choices—they’re not about traditional success. It’s a different kind of fulfillment they’re after.

It’s making me rethink those late nights I spend writing poetry. Maybe they are worthwhile, even if I don’t become a famous poet.

See? And speaking of unexpected sources of wisdom, the author actually takes this whole framework and—get this—applies it to Harry Potter.

Wait, seriously? I thought we were getting all philosophical here, not, like, dissecting children’s books.

That’s the beauty of it all. Even something as fun and, you know, light-hearted as Harry Potter can offer insights into these big philosophical questions. They specifically focus on the romantic relationships in the books.

Okay, you’ve got my attention. This should be good.

Remember how Hermione ends up with Ron instead of Harry?

Yeah, a lot of fans were not happy about that.

I’ll say. But the author, they suggest that it actually makes a lot of sense if you look at it through this lens of desire and uselessness.

Okay, now I’m really curious. Explain it to me like I’m a Hufflepuff who barely passed Potions.

Alright, so think about Ron. In a way, he represents this attainable, safe kind of love. He’s got flaws, he’s funny, he’s relatable. Harry, on the other hand, with his destiny and his tragic past, he represents this idealized, almost untouchable kind of love.

He’s the chosen one, right? Comes with a lot of baggage.

So, Hermione choosing Ron? It’s not just about who she liked best—it’s about different ways of approaching love itself.

Exactly. Ron represents this grounded, realistic kind of love. Harry? That’s longing for something more, something maybe even a little sad. And it connects back to those masculine and feminine perspectives we talked about earlier, but this time it’s even bigger—like how we see the world around us.

Okay, round two of masculine versus feminine, but this time it’s about the whole universe. Hit me with it.

Alright, so picture this. A masculine perspective often kind of puts a wall between us and the world. It’s about seeing everything as separate, trying to categorize everything, control it, understand it through this very specific lens.

Okay, so like we’re scientists in a lab, labeling specimens, pinning down the one definition for everything. Gotcha. What about that feminine perspective, then?

It’s about embracing the fact that it’s all connected. You know, less about those rigid labels and more about seeing how things flow into each other—the gray areas, how it’s all intertwined.

Okay, wow. That’s deep. So, we’re not just talking about logic anymore. It’s our whole approach to the world—how we relate to everything around us.

Exactly. And the author, they argue that understanding these two totally different perspectives? Well, it can completely change how we see ourselves, our relationships, even our place in the universe. It’s huge.

Wow. So, the way we think—it’s not just some abstract thing. It affects everything.

Exactly. And you know what can really mess with our perspective? Those big ideas we were talking about before—God and nature.

Right. Because we were saying those ideas can be so powerful, even if we don’t really experience them as, like, tangible things.

Yeah, exactly. And in this one piece, the author suggests that God and nature, they work like these powerful symbols. It’s like, think about a word—a word can have meaning even if there’s no physical object attached to it, right?

Yeah, like love or justice. We know what they mean, but they’re not things you can hold in your hand.

Exactly. So even if God and nature don’t actually exist in a literal sense, they still carry a ton of weight. We project so much onto them—all our hopes and fears and desires—and those projections? They end up shaping our reality.

Okay, that is seriously mind-blowing. It’s like we’ve created these illusions that control how we see things, even if deep down, we know they might not be real.

Exactly. It makes you wonder how much of what we consider reality is really just us projecting our own stuff.

Whoa. That’s something I’m going to be thinking about for a while.

It all circles back to that idea of authorization and embodiment we were talking about before. Not just those big concepts like God and nature, but even in our everyday lives, you know?

Okay, so how does this all connect back to authorization and embodiment? Give me an example.

Alright, think about, like, working-class pride, okay? It’s about having dignity, feeling good about yourself because you work hard, right? That’s the embodiment part—how people live out those values. But there’s also an authorization aspect, like how society decides which jobs are valuable and which ones aren’t.

So true. Certain jobs get more respect, even if they’re not actually more useful to the world.

Exactly. And those societal values—those authorizations—they sneak into our heads. They affect how we see ourselves, how we see others. We internalize those beliefs, and they come out in our choices, our work, even our sense of identity.

It’s pretty wild when you think about it. You’ve definitely got me thinking about work in a whole new way.

Yeah, it’s not just what you do, but how it’s perceived—how society values it.

Exactly. And that’s why this whole authorization and embodiment framework is so important to understand. It helps us see these invisible forces that shape our lives and maybe even start questioning them.

This whole deep dive has been incredible. Seriously, we’ve covered so much ground—freedom, desire, logic, God, nature, Harry Potter, even work uniforms. My brain is officially fried.

And to think, we’ve only scratched the surface. But if there’s one thing you take away from all this, I hope it’s this—how we see the world? It’s never neutral. It’s always filtered through these hidden systems, these beliefs and values that we’ve internalized. It’s like we’ve all been playing this game our whole lives without ever realizing there’s a rulebook. And once you see those rules, you can start to question them, you know? Challenge them. Maybe even rewrite them completely.

Now that is an empowering thought. You’ve given me a lot to think about. Actually, I think I’m due for a Harry Potter reread with my fresh perspective.

As you should. And for all of you listening, don’t stop exploring. Keep asking those big questions, and whatever you do, keep those brains buzzing. Until next time on the Deep Dive!