Видео

Such brilliant work! I am having to watch in digestible chunks, being so concept-rich! Many, many thanks :)

❤️❤️❤️❤️

💖💕💖💘💘💘💘💘

💕💖👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

Thank you 💕💖💕

wow... so fluidly beautiful... they make it looks so easeful!

Love it...!!

Excellent Presentation. Thank you.

Wonderfull!!! ... each one of us has a misssion ... thank you for the inspirations.

hey mongolelf...is larraz... not too dificult to remember....

Beautiful movie. Well done..

Very nice video...I like the instructions too. Thanks.

Fantastic Frey! Thank you, Lori

I sincerely recommend MEDIALENS as a source of compassionate reporting, as well as THE REAL NEWS NETWORK and DEMOCRACY NOW online.. RE: books, if you could spare some time: David Edwards (who won the Gandhi Award) is good, esp. his 'burning all illusions' and 'the compassionate revolution'. John Pilger's documentaries, Robert Fisk on the Middle East, Howard Zinn on the US, and Noam Chomsky on the US media.. happy hunting!

contd: is the mass media just getting better at censoring the real rate of casualties in favour of continuing the wars. When you get the media in bed with the military industrial complex, that is to say embedded journalism, you no longer have an anti-war message but a message delivered only from our warring side's POV. When real journalism dies this way, you're not going to get the truth about casualties even when the British Medical Journal 'The Lancet' defies the media black-out.

cont: ..in 1991, we have the Gulf War.. I would say the violence is now outsourced, is carried on overseas so of course, it comes down at home. Why kill someone at home if you can kill hundreds overseas. Finally, the stats for the decade starting in 2000 are just ridiculous. More than 1.6 million and counting in Iraq since 2003 and who know how many in Afghanistan, that's got a mean far more than the alleged 60,000 per year in the 50's. Are we getting less violent or ...

cont: 2) graph @ 9.05 'The Year Scale' is complete BS. 3) what is the 90% reduction in genocides mean? can we let that pass unblinkingly? I have no idea what it means. Call me un-empathetic if you will! What reduction? 4) the 9.07 graph shows homicide rates go up in the US (notice the specificity here) around about the Vietnam War era, just when the ideology of 'globalization' is being hatched by the Mont Pelerin Society, which Reagan brings in in the 80's, accounting for greater poverty-crime

cont: I just went again to Pinker's lecture and so, I can be more specific about the questionable stats. 1) graph at 8.40 is wild. Since 1945, we've been outsourcing death, no wonder there was less of it in the 50's and early 60's in the US. 2) in the 60's we saw the rise of the civil rights movement, feminist movement, black power movement, the anti-Vietnam movement. Conservatives were not going to sit back and take it? Do you think the increase in homicides came from peace-lovers?

Cont: Also, one might conceivably enquire into the possibility that those indigenous people at risk of losing their lives today may not be from intra-or-inter-tribal warfare but from the mercenaries we put there, care of Shell and Du Pont, courtesy of US and UK Foreign Policy, at least if we read John Perkins's books on the 'Economic Hit-men' and onwards, and if we truly care about indigenous people's well-being...

cont: and so we kill slowly but calculatedly on the other with radiation that will continue to kill and re-kill for the duration of the particle's life span. If you factor in the corporations who refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, all of them in the US, then you've also got the prime culprits of the ozone hole and global warming as your neighbours. Who knows how many species will die this year (15,000: one estimate says for last yr) from human exploitation of the amazon. Less violent, my $@$!!

Cont: Are we, then, less violent than before or rather only cleverer, more cunning about it? We kill faster on the one hand, with so called 'precision bombs' (a technical term incidentally that means within a radius of a mile), and bunker buster DU bombs that leave radioactive particles in densely populated cities with a half-life of 500,000 years, destroying genes for as long..

cont: Nutra-sweet and variants of the same artificial sweetener that caused monkeys to die of various cancers, and which turned them all blind.. passed by the FDA through intense lobbying (graft?) on Donald Rumsfeld's insistence. The majority of the FDA panel that voted 'yes', passing this poison onto the market,are now working for Rumsfeld's company on salaries 6 times higher (see film: 'Sweet Misery'). Why are people stupid these days? Think sweeteners in crisps, in coke, in protein drinks..

cont:..included things like drunken driving, manslaughter (as opposed to murder), corporate heists involving death from toxins, unsafe products, exploding cars, cars without functional brakes, and the like. But, what about the economic violence that would allow people to starve, or to die of alcoholism, drugs, or to develop heart problems through a lack of exercise and the widespread promotion of junk food as health food (see film: 'Super-size Me'), and what about the long-term effects of..

cont: ..soldiers we save on our side, it doesn't do to pretend to be unaware of how many lives we kill overseas.. that would be like a football game in which we only report on the doings of one side. If we thought this was a glaring omission in the name of historical objectivity, one might also question his sources, one of who lists the tribes of the Amazon and was it Africa compared to Europe on the chances of being killed by other men in violent conduct. One wonders if this comparison included

Hi, I just saw Pinker's History of Violence Lecture on TED. I see what you mean now. I disagree with his thesis and would have to look up hi sources, but at first blush, let's think of some doubts we might share. His evidence is a bit selective re: stats. I mean, in one instance he uses US crime stats while not mentioning how many millions, perhaps the entire human gene pool, is now contaminated with radiation from DU. If we are less violent towards ourselves (Euros)..and aware of how many..

contd: and classes.. some people choose not to get involved in politics and find to their great surprise and chagrin that the politicians aren't representing their interests anymore.. drinking beer and keeping up to date with football and basketball scores seems to preoccupy the great majority. If they only spent a fraction of their vast interest shown there in delving into their rights and the origins of those rights, what couldn't we do?

true.. we have responsibilities.. you would not be surprised that I'm a thorn in the side of my friends, most of whom choose to converse with me only for strategic purposes now, due to my indefatigable nature. But, being politically aware I always say is ultimately for the defence of our loved ones against powerful interests that have no such concern.. in a democracy, we have to be vigilant if we are not to repeat the costly mistakes of history. at least you dance and care for you family..

Yes, they would have compassion, but this comes from a deep 'reading' of the human psyche through meditation... This does not mean we condone what people do out of ignorance, indeed we must condemn where condemnation is appropriate.. If we say yes to compassion, then we must say no to oppression, greed, and violence everywhere we encounter it.. 'Shout!' if necessary 'curse', with love of course..

Don't you think it's very interesting that the word 'hate' is used here? Can't the West ever be rid of it? Why not use the word compassion instead..? It's always convenient to find a nice cozy place for hate, in the heart of religion, no less!? My God!

Yes, but the code is secondary to the practise.. or praxes in the plural.. love as a set of intellectual concepts is still not 'love' in its lived experience... Much as the word 'revolution' is nothing until the people actually rise up, or yet again, where medicine is no good if one were merely to recite the labelled contents on bottle, thinking there might be some efficacy in their naming, perhaps out of respect for the authorities that placed them there.. without actually taking the medicine.

cont: ..we need to hedge out terms, give concepts specific meanings and not others. In specifying what we mean, we help clarify the dimensions, the breadth and scope of our enquiry. All abstract terms like Justice, Love, Compassion, Duty, Ethics, etc, seem to require that we specify what is included and excluded when we speak of them or else one is apt to confuse one person's ideas with another, where the only point of contact may be the abstract term itself and not the meaning which may vary.

Just to put a plug in for philosophers too. Socrates, the master if not inventor of the idea of the 'definition' of things and ideas.. Without defining our terms we risk seeing the whole universe in a grain of sand. This would not do, unless one wanted to drop out of society altogether and live off magic mushrooms.. Defining or de-limiting concepts is some say the philosophers task, something we can all get good at doing, if we took the time. In order to say anything practically meaningful..

cont: point is, I think, that the possibilities of knowing to some degree of accuracy how and what people are thinking is not an impossible feat, given our common humanity. There are a limited set of responses, if I can put it that way and we don't need to believe in the myth that in certain ethical circumstances there will be an infinite set of choices because there are infinite persons who will make them. Recurring patterns point to consensus, even only in the form of a democratic dissensus.

cont: sorry to have gone on a bit. But, if there's any value to psychology and socio-psychology, the anthropology of modernity and the like, then perhaps we can say some general things about ourselves, about what we have in common and what sets us apart as members of particular groups. That much we CAN know, and we can predict within a measure of possibility how somehow 'thinks' and retroactively so as well from how they 'act', not to mention know from biographies, memoirs and the like..

Given your definition of 'knowing why a person feels a particular way', we could even say that we can't know ourselves since we'd have to live through every experience we've had all over again to know ourselves once more. Given we can't do that in practice, we can never know ourselves. Given also our memories are imperfect, (name anyone whose got a perfect recall?), we wouldn't even be able to retrieve knowledge of ourselves perfectly. If knowledge means memory, we can't know our selves.

cont: we could know inwardly, apprehend the design of things as science and logic gave them to us, to figure out others and nature this way.. problem was, when push came to shove and peoples observations differed, what ultimately held the peace was not so much our fidelity to God but God's harmonizing influence in the background.. So, ultimately, this theory is inadequate from a purely secular modern perspective. Faith in God is not a requirement of democratic living ('diversity' as you say).

cont: Of course, if everyone lied, no one would show up on time..because they'd be lying.. in short, nothing would get done, and no one would be paid a fair wage, people constantly saying lying would create a culture of distrust, and where there is distrust nothing can be certain, no coordinated activity would be possible, human civilization would be no more... Spinoza also had a nifty theory of the mind as being somehow crucial to knowing others.. in a way even if we could not know outwardly..

cont: there are competing theories on this question though. and, evolutionary theory is not one that I think covers all corners. Kant had a theory which is still attractive. His 'categorical imperative' was one attempt to forge a new modern ethic in uncertain times. As you may know, he thought that a maxim, or moral precept, that could be universalized was a good one that we could and should endorse. One way to test this is to ask what would happen if 'lying' for e.g. was universalized..

cont: society wouldn't get going if we had no set of expectations, and expectations are based on 'knowing', at least in a loose sense, within a relatively predictable set of possibilities that I can, for example, 'trust' you to pay me for work done, to tell the truth rather than tell a lie, not to murder me, etc, without such expectations we couldn't survive. Hence, I suppose the attraction of evolutionary psychological theory as one among a host of others on offer explaining why we are 'moral'.

cont: this we can see was a form of argument against 'theism', the idea that God is intervening at every moment in our lives, here and now.. In a way, globalization, to the extent we take this as new American Imperialism of the free-market, is a worrying return to theism, which also accounts for the rise of evangelicals..IMHO. Point is, if we cannot know 'truly' what others are thinking, we have to guess or intuit it somehow in order to know how to interact or behave, to relate to them..

contd: As far as I know, there are several positions on this, none of which are entirely satisfactory, all of which seem to have holes in their arguments. You see, in the absence of God, modernity requires us to formulate a ethics from scratch as it were. Science (Renaissance) originally took off as a branch of 'deism' which thought God's work was done at the Big Bang, and giving humans the capacity to 'reason' meant that we just had to figure out the laws left over so to speak...

Interesting POV. If we cannot truly know another then perhaps we are all living in bad faith..perpetually trying to figure what we can never in fact 'know'. This line of thinking is a very interesting topic. As far as I know it's still a very hot potato at university where the idea is framed as the question of 'modern subjectivity'. How do we communicate at all, for which understanding each other would have to be taken for granted if indeed we were all isolated units, monads with no windows..

OK, call me whatever you want. Rude, obnoxious, tangled, contrary. I hope though that you would take me as a sometimes grumpy ally. My intent is only to help people sort out their arguments so they can be at the very least a bit more logical, if not more forceful. Circular arguments don't cut it for me.. y'know. The blue sky is blue, woohoo.. eureka! Should we be glad to have rediscovered what Malcolm X, Gandhi, the US Constitution, the Quakers, the Greek agon, and Kennedy all advocated..?

here here.. I did think your point was a bit circular, if you don't mind me saying so.. I mean 'respect for diversity is good for diversity'? Isn't that a circular argument that doesn't really say much, if anything at all. I mean aren't you merely positively stating what is already legal, at least in its negative form, as in 'don't discriminate on the basis of colour, race, sex, gender or religion'. 'Respect' is also restrained isn't it, it doesn't rise to 'celebrate' but remains cautious..

cont: Curtis's challenge to all greenies out there, or people with Romantic views of nature to the effect that it is an autopoetic structure, like fractals in an elaborate intelligent feedback system, in fact just like us, will be shocked by the empirical lack of evidence for cybernetic (machine) model of nature. Apparently, the human nervous system does work like fractals, which explains how we can learn new things. Nature on the whole, as far as we can tell, doesn't learn that way..

cont: as in buses, trains, cars, people and animals walking about..progress of a sort this is, as in movement per se. Darwin's theory (incidentally you could say he was also an elite with elite proclivities) helped inspire social darwinism, aka Aryan race theory, which helped produce Nazi Germany, the South African racist regime, not to mention Jim Crow laws in the US of A. I think it is always prudent to realize that a theory of nature is always going to be a theory and not 'reality as it is'.

evolution is not the state of things.. it is the state of nature, perhaps, in biology over time.. it is not related to physics or chemistry for example, in spite of new attempts to secure a connection thru bio-chemistry, unified field theory, etc. the verdict on the links are not yet in. 'Progress' is also an ambiguous term, implying developments for the better for one; for another, 'mere progression' as in the remorseless-goings-on-of-goings-on with no particular improvements implied..

a debate is no debate without a devil´s advocate. we need to be somewhat impartial when facing the facts, as best as we can muster them, and also consider ours and their political biases thrown in..isn´t true impartiality something of that sort, political convictions intact but a willingness to change with more info?

codes, computers, machines..these are the metaphors from the West for nature and the way the brain is supposed to work. fine, only is you believe in a machinic universe, a sort of engineer´s paradise. are love and compassion are also machinic code, truly? codes give rise to evolution? really? biological evolution is a theory, fractals are a type of geometry. now, youve got me..what the connection?

would you have compassion for Hitler, Saddam Hussein, W, and Blair, war criminals in general? if that is your first port of call then what is your second.. do you have compassion first or do you first describe their crimes..and then have compassion for the spiritual ignorance that they perpetuate...