12 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2024
  2. Aug 2024
    1. for - climate crisis - psychology - wrong approach

      summary - Climate scientist professor Mojib Latif explores why our best efforts at rapid intervention to deal with the climate crisis are failing - Near the end of the program, he interviews professor Henning Beck, a neuroscientist who suggests that human brains have evolved to be rewarded for securing more. - Dopamine is released when we get more and we have not designed our intervention strategies aligned with this basic property of our brains

  3. Dec 2023
    1. Will artificial intelligence create useless class of people? - Yuval Noah Harari

      1:00 "bring the latest findings of science of the public", otherwise the public space "gets filled with conspiracy theories and fake news and whatever".<br /> he fails to mention that ALL his beautiful "scientists" are financially dependent on corporations, who dictate the expected results, and who sabotage "unwanted research".<br /> for example, the pharma industry will NEVER pay money for research of natural cancer cures, or "alternative" covid cures like ivermectin / zinc / vitamin C, because these cures have no patent, so there is no profit motive, and also because the "militant pacifists" want to fix overpopulation this way.<br /> a "scientist" should be someone, who has all freedom to propose hypotheses, which then are tested in experiments (peer review), and compared to real placebo control groups. because that is science, or "the scientific method". everything else is lobbying for "shekel shekel".

  4. Jul 2022
    1. Dogen can be very difficult to read or understand. That’s why we often need a commentary or teacher to introduce his way of writing and the underlying teaching. I often say he’s a thirteenth century cubist. Just like Picasso or in the writing world, Gertrude Stein, he tries to show all sides of the story in one paragraph or even one sentence. That is why he repeats himself and contradicts himself all in the same paragraph. If you are looking for the “right” understanding, you become confused and lost in his prism of various interpretations or views. Dogen’s “right” understanding is that there is none.   No one point of view is “right”. According to conditions, any view can be the right view in the right circumstance. Dogen really wants to take away our solid idea of a fixed ground of reality. It is not form or emptiness. It is not both or neither. There is no one right, fixed view. That is our “clinging”.

      Dogen contradicts himself because he tries to show "all sides of the story". His teaching is a "pointing out" instruction that ANY viewpoint is simply that, perspectival knowing.

      An important question then, is this, if Dogen (and Nagarjuna) are claiming that there is no objective reality in our constructed world of concepts and language, is science being denied? Is fake news ok? Is this a position that basically accepts post modernism? No, I would say no to all of these. It's pointing out the LIMITATIONS of concepts and language. They are incomplete and always leave with a sense of wanting more. And since Post Modernism is also one point of view, it is also thrown out by Dogen and Nagarjuna. Remember, ALL points of views are points of view. Fake news is also a point of view so those who practice it can also not justify it.

      What Dogen and Nagarjuna are saying is that as soon as one enters the world of concepts and language, any concept and anything side is inherently one sided. It is inherently perspectival and situated in an inherently incomplete conceptual space.

      As Tibetan doctor/monk Barry Kerzin points out in this conversation with physicist Carlo Rovelli, there is a critical difference between "existence" and "intrinsic existence". The first is not being denied by Nagarjuna, but the second, intrinsic existence, the existence of concepts and the words that represent them, is. If these two are confused, it can lead straight to nihilism.

      https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2FsPSMTNjwHZw%2F&group=world

      This also aligns with John Vervaeke's perspectival and propositional knowing in his 4 P ways of knowing about reality: Propositional, Perspectival, Participatory and Procedural. A good explanation of Vervaeke's 4Ps is here: https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2FGyx5tyFttfA%2F&group=world

  5. Jun 2022
  6. Feb 2021
  7. Jul 2020
  8. Jun 2020
  9. Dec 2016