continue on a 10 for 35 kilometers. So, continuing our story, ontological politics we see that one of those assumptions is ontological fixity. In fact, we want to and that assumption has a close relationship with even other major kind of thought streams, assumption, views in the western philosophical, spiritual tradition. So, one website this platonic forms, that they're just kind of the title essences. And then there's, of course, the soul and Christianity, which are kind of essentially, these fixed essences. doesn't really make sense unless they're fixed essences. However, as with many things of water in which we swim, when we examine, they don't make, they immediately start to seem quite problematic. It seems clear that you are very different from the six month old baby that you were so different is to be different different to say that you are the same person. We also know that sometimes people even when they keep their body, their mind somehow tragically disintegrates the mental illness or they forget dementia, we often say they're no longer the same person. So this, this question also went to the root of the philosophical debate in western tradition. Specifically, the pre Socratics, especially Eric Cletus and others always questioned this essentialism point, you call it step in the same river twice, the river is not the same. Of course, in this sense, there must be some relationship, but it wasn't a relationship of essence. And this is the position that interestingly, was developed and explored and you know, based on the way empirical information fraction centers, more true in the eastern direct tradition, particularly Buddhism.
We also need to distinguish here, which is that many traditions believe that there is something that maybe transcends the individual person and in which is potentially, in some sense, you can say, time, or maybe it would be timeless, many, much. For example, non dualistic Advaita, in dualistic tradition talks about union with the big self, versus the little self, and Christianity, mistakes have this, you know, many of them, and we wanted to emphasize that first, which is one of these, they're not talking about a personal self when they talk about the biggest self or even when the Christians might talk about union with God, that is not a you in the sense of the you your person. So I just want to emphasize that with us all but they talk about the self Well, there's no it's a different kind of self and particularly the Buddhists are very, very clear whether it was teachings that have come down attributed to Buddha really develop this view in a lot of detail. A lot of richness, a lot of specificity, and I would say when you start thinking about it, a lot of scientific accuracy in the sense that one can be scientific and phenomenology is the study of, of experience, which is not so amenable always not really amenable to traditional objective tools of science for obvious reasons, because it's not objective. It's my most the experience that we have that yeah, there seems to be while different units are common to to being to human beings and potentially all beings or some aspects of it common to beings. And and one of those teachings that started a key core teaching of Buddhism is there isn't is a teacher of non self. There is no fixed essence of you of personhood of. It doesn't mean also that there is no view there isn't a fixed essence is the teacher because, as with many things also in the Buddist tradition, he transcends the great strength of the Western into which is either or something is eggs, or it's why they have an essence that is as follows non duality, and not only non duality in the experiential settings or the separation between subjects and often or no, no clean distinction between subject and object, that the subject and object tied into woven can come from any other things come on to that term in terms of you can say, experience or spirituality and also a philosophical terms non duality. Something can mean both and you can have it there can be a person and not a person in at least this is something that generally trained in a logical sense, we find very, very difficult. Is there as does the subject come first or the object come first. But as we get says, Neither both arise together, which is sort of, I would argue was known to sort of approach to that question, famously Nagarjuna, in the second turning said, It is neither, it is neither true nor Not true, not false, or, you know, this is kind of for negations, which is attempting to get us out of that rational, analytical mindset where something is either true or was false, in a way, but it is neither true nor is it false.
Just kind of, like the great puzzle and I think it's always been resolved in, in western reductionist, which is, the mind body problem? And how how can experience arise from a sort of inner physical matter? And another level of just like, Okay, well, they're just interwoven mind and body sort of CO arising. There's, then maybe, certainly, who might even be other substances, such as a co arising of mind and body. It doesn't mean the mind is body, nor does it mean that there is no body or that it's just mind and somehow they arise together, they are interwoven in this interconnected.
So, why is this important for MediCal?
Reporting several levels, but I want to start with the most in water, which is, as we said, earlier, we can transcend this domain or this that what is the essential human nature with an answer, which is, there are characteristics of past patterns that are strong, but is in fact no, defined as the essence of human nature, human nature, most practically, we can see the nature and the nature of others quite fluid, quite flexible, potentially, at least at the level. Very, very eager to the very deepest levels, but certainly, at the level of values and views. And this is where again, I think there's also this connection that is missed between say police ontologies and business, spiritual issues, and for example, anthropology in the study of culture, because the study of culture has had towards it from difference once we went and met other cultures, we were like, wow, they're really different. They eat they like eating really different things, they value different things, they they have different standards of beauty, they have different practices around marriage, around lug around family. Of course, again, there are there are commonalities and parents there are there are there are you aspects or maybe genetic identity is used to create I would like to say even constraints forces are strong.
So, this is interesting connection or even convergence just there's between more than cognitive science and in Buddhist tradition just generally spiritual, empirical, empirical spiritual traditions and cultural achievement, which is made up aspects, you know many times in the study of culture, the study of development, what is culture, the evolution of culture? Stage.
So, if
if human nature is fixed, that a lot of social organizational politics is essentially, or economics is about how do we fulfill those fixed needs those fixed worms, he was fixed preferences as best as possible, and often is kind of somewhat pessimistic because it assumes that there's tension, maybe there's limited, for example, is very common in economics, but that there's inevitably conflict. For example, without being Pollyanna rich without being our we can all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya, it might be not easy to have a solution. But it seems possible that humans could develop themselves, you know, kind of consciously in our consciousness in our being. And I mean, in some sense, genetically or otherwise, though, I think that there have been aspects of that, you come back to around for operational things, or the supervisor for many years, there was a culture, Gene coevolution, focusing, being an old culture is inevitable things, these, these things are transformed, change are cultivated. And that gives us a political program. That's very different. Because in a way, what we would most want to cultivate rather than focusing on production on the material side, we want to call it focus on the inner side. Of course, we want both I really want to get nondual. It's not like I know, but it's a question of priority potentially with privacy. I think there's no, there can be no, if you look around, it seems, that seems a strong sense that we live in, in the West, at least in Europe, in the United States, of America, and even in many other countries now in our societies, prioritize material and the material routes and then as a political approach, which is how do we produce more than how do we allocate that? between people? Even things like our education system, largely oriented towards having better consumers and better producers, more skills, so you can eat around it, but if you can't pull it out, just eat around it. That's what would you call it? You know, right. That's it, okay. If we the best way, because it's the best way to be happy is not to get more things, but it's to have more transformation. To discover as the poorest phrasing goes, and I already have enough conditions to be happy right now at this present moment, to cultivate that ability to be to be joyful here and now to be peaceful, here and now. And that would be the science, if you like that we would be interested in. Now, I would like to emphasize I think that science that discipline is going to be richer than some of the science we have today. And a desire to write more resemble the science of gardening or the craft of gardening or even even Designed to craft and medicine, medicine depends on science yet, the decisions we make complex choices, uncertainty with limited information. It isn't a pure science. It's not building a bridge. It's not projecting the path of a spacecraft in space is much of its complex and rich. Because it's a form of skillful cultivation of ourselves and our society, to be seeking, and that are at the same time patterns, principles. practices that we can use, and we can use the scientific method of experiment of data collection of rigorous open minded examination of the data that we have, we collect, to inform and evolve and continue to develop these patents, principles and practices of an ontological Society of a society focused on the development of the cultivation of being glasses. Rather than the focus of cultivation, development of things of matter. Now, I get I just can't keep up the holes in that society, there is still lots of work is still going to be brick is still going to be bread baking, there's still going to be technology research innovation front, there might even be more certainly more efficient versions of that going on and there might be more wise versions where we focus not only what we focus on each way we go about it efficiently, skill feeder.
That's point one. The core change in ontological politics is to society a focus on the growth beat versus the growth of things. If you like gross, national product, gross domestic product, gross. I don't want to say quite national happiness, that's one. It's because it's more subsidizing growth in being that's one of the things we want to reduce it to one dimension imiquimod matter that's been a big problem. So I want to I want to be quite cautious of knife reductions. If we were putting in a slogan it would be gross national priority Gross National Happiness, gross national being big and that's one of the main question is a good moment to talk about is what do we what are the different aspects? What does it mean to cultivate me? That's a question we'd eventually want to start asking yourself because there are different I think there are usefully able to distinguish different aspects or different elements of being
order
to pay money
you want your face can you wipe on your chin under or under your chin here? If you weren't there? That's great. That's amazing. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay, great.
Then you go. Then you go, I'm gonna give you the tissues. Okay. You can put it down here for now. Pick up the tissue down and eat a strawberry then clean your face when you when you're done.
Of course.
So what we want to say here now
is that we need
to explore
what both what being maybe and what kind of what how being can evolve and what we mean by growth and being. And trustable it is worth saying that anything is true of any area where we talked about, but it's especially true here that anything will be slightly reductionist, when we try and analyze it when we try and put it into categories. And that is still useful. It's just important that we never, that we that we don't think that that's always that if we, if we think that that analysis is completely true, 100% true, then we're in trouble. If we think of it as costly as useful approximation, and hold it in that way, then then it's useful. And that's even one part of the different kinds of societies today, we tend to reduce things to their, their measurement. GDP is a good example, we reduce our economy to a certain measure. And a very crude, in fact, measure about kind of material helpers. And maybe it's good to start them with a kind of critique of GDP and kind of what goes on in measurement there in a way, for example, multi dimensional measurements going to be anyway. So that's to start is, I want to leave you I want to start by saying what's good about GDP, which is, I mean, that first of all is good about assays of growth in that I like a lot of the things that we that I think we do value
and abundance of food,
ways to travel around medicines, etc, etc. Powerful matter economy matter system and having a way to measure what's happening in that issues. For instance, GDP
was invented was tomato, trying to like steer, or guide or influence the economy to avoid some of the disastrous booms and busts that had happened who played not only can come in capitalist, but pre capitalist systems in slightly rage, Rome had his we suspect. So maybe not the same kind of credit cycle driven capitalism is only it's at that point throughout the 19th century, and obviously the 1929. And so GDP having measured is useful. Work though, is limited about GDP. And it's useful to think about this because it illustrates some of the limitations of measurement in general.
GDP
apart from the fact that we may be just measuring we're not measuring being measuring, let's say we offer information about the production of stuff, useful stuff.
In 800, meters continue on to eight.
GDP tends to value things when there's always reward as if it is things that are actually transacted. It's difficult to traditionally. For example, labor in the home when someone like I look after my young son or my wife does it was someone else does that for free. And it's not there's no transaction in the economy.
Continue on eight for 66 kilometers.
There isn't Oh, that's all part of GDP. The other point which the GDP, particularly actually doesn't have to include include at least the market value of things that aren't matter. They have a market value. So you depend on things which are transacted. And obviously, lots of things are not transacted nor produced in the market
to exchange value. I have a having a rich relationship with your partner
having a wonderful meditation practice, I mean, that's even getting into the main area, but you could say being all of the stuff that isn't transacted doesn't show up in GDP, but only when interested another point, which is that it sort of has to try and reduce everything to this one to one dimension, which, and then having a number for that, which is money, which is why you need to measure in terms of money because it allows to reduce things to one dimension. And that's useful because in one dimension, you have a clearer, better or worse, you have a clearer sense of more or less, whereas in two dimensions you don't is is something I don't know if if there's strength and speed. And I'm very fast, but not very strong. And you're very strong and very fast. Which of us is better? There's no simple answer. Depending on the circumstance. When you can't see a system someone who is both strong to home faster is potentially better that you don't have a full ordering in mathematical terms, whereas in a single real life you have
so
even society even if it were just gonna give him a matter, we ended up having to say, okay, is producing a hospital is producing your hospital, the same as make your fighter jet? Well, we just compare them in money terms, and they're both part of GDP. So a society that produces lots of fighter jets
kind of trade transaction
value and cost more than a society of producing salesman tools. They produce collapses, it's most dimensionality reduction. You can just say look at a site and look at all of the different things produces that that's its blueprint. You will most most strongly okay you will hold strawberry when you finished all the strawberry and you go there you go. You want more strawberry
for strawberry fattier, that's why
we are in France Burj, we are in France. So this is kind of more there's a lack of dimensionality. That's a strength in the sense that you can do simple comparisons. The US has a bigger economy than France. It has a bigger economy. Poland Taiwan, for example, Thailand and Taiwan. Thailand hills on these beaches, it produces all this joy shear people who go on holiday, England, then he produces something else. By the way that that comes back to so really, there's always these loops, it's a bit of a sign. But this crucial question about also about choice and the market price and value. The other inherent assumption of maybe economics was that the match intensity there at the macro economy and in this ontological sort of like claim, autonomous vision you know what you want? That's another assumption of the you and if you know what you want Do you buy what you want? So what we buy reflects our words. So the prices of things which occurred somehow reflect, to some degree at least demand as well as supply, but reflects the value of. So there's actually a really kind of quite deep connection between ontological assumptions about how our psychological assumptions how we operate, market economy, GDP, or GDP as a kind of proxy for well for wellbeing, or getting what we want again on that, again, because one of the challenges of the argument or challenge you might have is, hey, if you start saying, I don't know, what I want, is, I mean, you know, what I want for me, you know, is this is, is this a slippery slope towards kind of a best paternalism and a worst? totalitarianism? Isn't it very important that I'm free to do what I want to choose what I want, and therefore, you know, criticize even even criticizing the market economy, criticizing consumer choice, the freedom of consumer choice, in some sense, is, you know, is dangerous, is actually politically dangerous, not just socially, politically dangerous. We need to conform, we need to talk to that point. And so first of all, there's a really good point, I think, I think it's been exaggerated, you know, the kind of hierarchy and view which is, I don't know, if socialism or kind of removing consumer choice, even economically is, is kind of is a small a short step away from from the gulag, from authoritarianism and totalitarianism and political oppression, to remove the freedom of thought, freedom of speech. They're all the same kind of freedoms. And first of all, we have to question what that's true. And why but at the same time, want to say I think there's something there, which is that what we want to acknowledge is we are for a particular thing, underlying theory, we care about the freedom to think for yourself the freedom
to, to
speak within reason, we come back to that is really important, and profound. And I will emphasize, I think the average ethos which release for me making this point that you don't really know what you weigh me one a lot of the time to explore and
what would be even stronger on the design set, you have chips, you have freedom to take photos. So exactly. You know, I don't want you to, I don't want you to take anything I'm teaching you as as truth. I wouldn't. I want you to test it for yourself. Take it unique. Go and practice, go and reflect on your own. Experience your own consciousness and see if what I'm saying resonates is true. And if it's not,
do you know don't don't follow me, like don't
Don't, don't take it. I think that's a really crucial point to not only not about even just choice in terms of reflecting on ideologies or spiritual positions, even this position that I'm arguing for today, I'm sending out the claims in nature you want to examine.
The basic fact is that they're also reasonably cautious of the conductivity and even a liberal critique of that kind of paternalistic thinking
