all the data about how people how much 00:30:19 people ask for the values become creates a ranking of values according to the culture to the people so if you're from korea from taiwan from uk 00:30:32 from from italy uh it's different and so this is a periodic table of values where the values are organized in a hierarchy based on how people collect them 00:30:44 and and and then the values become of course words and this is a calligraphy of values that result from the process of using eeg

this chart was of no use to millions of blind people

Beware the person, party, or project that claims to be the incarnation of the common good. The common good is imminent within the polis in all its possibility, but it is never the embodiment of any one version of the polis. That way of thinking, always tempting, often deployed, never ends well. The common good is not something extra added on to what other practices of right recognition provide for a society. Instead, the common good shifts the frame and changes the subject of political life from the declarative as is to the subjunctive as if—the corrected fullness of equality, justice, and interdependent mutuality that are already but not yet.

In summary, X, Y and Z clearly occupy entirely different positions in the social fabric andeach experiences life entirely differently. They live with entirely different sets of constraints andopportunities and consequently face different challenges both psychologically and in their interactionswith the rest of the world. And yet, all three of them suffer from a cognitive dissonance between theirindividual drives and dispositions and the demands of the social roles they feel obliged to play.

examining the options available to individual persons weighing a decision vis-a-vis theirperceived socio-symbolically cohered contour. For that, let us look at a few concrete examples.

there's a crucial distinction between what barney called three and four that's what uh captured me so 01:08:55 if you take the mind as fundamental as existing the only existing thing where where the the movie of the world is reflected into i am not happy 01:09:08 my my culture uh rejects then as a useless point of view to do science that's what but there is an alternative much more interesting and i find much more 01:09:21 deep in which which i read in a garage you know which is what uh barry seems to be is calling the fourth alternative in which the mind is not the fundamental thing in which everything is it's 01:09:32 reflected it's just one part of this uh uh uh interdependence now namely it's not the things that not intrinsic existence but mind has intrinsic existence that's not the 01:09:45 the the there's a more interesting answer namely that mind itself has no intrinsic uh uh existence uh and so it's just uh uh 01:09:57 it has an existence but is is it of course it's an existence my mind exists and i exist but uh and and and and if i think in terms of groups to say i mean all sentience being or all 01:10:10 human beings whatever um together uh which is an ideal also some some some some western philosophy that you know um it's collectively that through language and 01:10:22 that would create a vision of the world but i want to think of this as one aspect of the ensemble of things which is existence where uh uh nothing of that has um 01:10:36 uh has intrinsic existence so i want to think about my mind it's my brain my sensation my all my my my love people loving me the the image that people have of me my instead of the set 01:10:48 of processes uh uh which part of the world and it seems to me that the belgian allows me to think at me as part of the world at the same sense of the same ground as the world being 01:11:01 reflected in my consciousness without having to choose one of the two perspective to be the true one the intrinsic existence um 01:11:12 all all perspectives are uh uh empty they're all good but they are um they are not the the one on which the rest is ground they 01:11:24 each of one i can understand dependently on something else so marios you read a a verse or two from the third chapter of nagarjuna and uh let me comment on that

so that's me trying to do a synoptic integration of all of the four e-cognitive science and trying to get it 00:00:12 into a form that i think would help make make sense to people of the of cognition and also in a form that's helpful to get them to see what's what we're talking about when i'm talking about the meaning 00:00:25 that's at stake in the meaning crisis because it's not sort of just semantic meaning

First we have to understand that the opposites need each other, revolve around each other, actually make one complete dynamic. Form is on the left and emptiness is on the right of the chart.  Form needs emptiness and emptiness needs form. They are actually not separated but intellectually we conceive them as separate and opposite.

okay so imagine a person learns a lot about  hammers and becomes very skillful with using one   00:02:38 this is useful but is every problem a nail  we might need another kind of knowing that   sees the situation we find ourselves in  and knows what skills are appropriate   John Vervaeke calls this perspectival knowing  it's not about knowing the truth or knowing how to   enact something it's knowing how to perceive the  world how to take it all in from our perspective   and with this we will know how things feel  and we can appreciate then what really matters   00:03:04 or sense what is needed in the situation it's not  just thinking about our perspective but really   inhabiting it getting a taste for how things  appear to us the result of perspectival knowing is   presence and with presence we also appreciate  the limits of our perspective and the value of   other perspectives we become more aware we see how  things fit together we put things in perspective   we become perceptive

Understanding our situatedness, blowing up assumptionsWhat are the things your brain has been conditioned to believe as “true”? What should you re-examine, pull apart and re-assemble with intention?

If you and I are in conflict, it's as if we're at the opposite ends of the same line. And my aim is to prove that you're wrong and to shift you towards me. The problem is, you are doing exactly the same. You're trying to prove that I'm wrong and shift me towards you. Notice that conflict is the setup to win but not learn. Your brain only learns if we move. Life is movement. So, what if we could use awe, not to get rid of conflict -- 00:11:59 conflict is essential, conflict is how your brain expands, it's how your brain learns -- but rather, to enter conflict in a different way? And what if awe could enable us to enter it in at least two different ways? One, to give us the humility and courage to not know. Right? To enter conflict with a question instead of an answer. What would happen then? To enter the conflict with uncertainty instead of certainty. 00:12:27 And the second is, in entering conflict that way, to seek to understand, rather than convince. Because everyone makes sense to themselves, right? And to understand another person, is to understand the biases and assumptions that give rise to their behavior. And we've actually initiated a pilot study to look to see whether we could use art-induced awe to facilitate toleration. 00:12:55 And the results are actually incredibly positive. We can mitigate against anger and hate through the experience of awe generated by art.

if the process of seeing differently is the process of first and foremost having awareness of the fact that everything you do has an assumption 00:00:14 figure out what those are and by the way the best person to reveal your own assumptions to you is not yourself it's usually someone else hence the power of diversity the importance of diversity 00:00:26 because not only does that diversity reveal your own assumptions to you but it can also complexify your assumptions right because we know from complex systems theory that the best solution is most likely to 00:00:40 exist within a complex search space not a simple search space simply because of statistics right so whereas a simple search space is more adaptable it's more easily to adapt it's 00:00:52 less likely to contain the best solution so what we really want is a diversity of possibilities a diversity of assumptions which diverse groups for instance enable

With the aid of the concept of opposing pairs of magnetic poles, we can clearly contribute in a significant way to our expression and understanding of basic relationships in the overall magnetic field. We are proposing to look at soma and significance in a similar way. That is to say, we regard them as two aspects introduced at an arbitrary conceptual cut in the flow of the field of reality as a whole. These aspects are distinguished only in thought, but this distinction helps us to express and understand the whole flow of reality.