3 December 2021
[AB hosted this discussion recorded it and then transcribed it (7 January 2022), inserting links, notes and comments. When making comments and notes, AB adopted the role of editor separately from contributor, sometimes even criticising AB as contributor, and hence should be treated as a separate personage.]
Present: JC, AH, TB, OA (joined at 45:50), AB (host)
[Some admin stuff at start of recording]
# AB: I've got down five things that we could talk about today [which came from last time] and there are others.
# AB: CA has sent her apologies because she's got supervision for this hour and will be with us about 4:30 or so. I'm not expecting you to stay for that, but I'll meet with her and explain to her what went on.
# What to discuss today?
# 1. Moral foundations # AH: I do have a few more details to share about that so it might be good to take ten minutes to taak about that and we can discuss. [ze20]
# 2. Responses to student questions, which you were very helpful with last time. But since CA not here we don't need to discuss that any more, unless you have something to say. [ze21]
# 3. The complex problem of these vehicles that JC sent through. I was suggesting that we might take a bit of time, maybe half an hour even, to thrash that out [using Dooyeweerd's aspects to help us] and see what we could do with it, and whether it's likely to be fruitful. [ze22]
# 4. An update on Rethink and so on. NB was going to send through some examples, but he's not here so we probably don't need to discuss that. [ze23]
# 5. Raworth: AH sent through this link to Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics, some animations. Most are less than two minutes, and I find them excellent descriptions. They are not just full of - they are not just two minutes of froth; they are two minutes of packed information. [ze24]
# AH: Sometime it might even be good to look through those a few times, to pick up on the nuances. # AB: So, shall we discuss some of those? I thought that might be something that we might like to do. (I'm a visual thinker.) So what I thought we might do: screenshare and show you one. But I don't want to cut into other things, so that's maybe for another time.
# AH: I think it would be technologically simplest for each of us to look at those videos on our own separately, and at the next meeting we could come with our own impressions and feedback. And talk about what we can learn and apply from those videos. *** [ze25]
# ACTION ALL: Listen to the Kate Raworth snippets and prepare feedback on our impressions. [Link: "http://www.kateraworth.com/animations/".]
[AB: These are Five Moral Foundations from Jonathan Haidt, which we discussed last time. ] [ze26]
AH: The first thing I wanted say: There may be some misunderstand about the freedom foundation, or as it is sometimes called, autonomy or agency. That was not in the original five proposed by Jonathan Haidt. Freedom is rather something that people have found should be added on. [ze27]
# AH: And also that foundation is stressed more by Conservatives than Liberals [in the USA]. So it's important to make that distinction.
[approx around here:]
# Chat: 00:10:01 TB: Indeed, that was my thinking. [AB: not sure to what "that" refers here; the chat times do not accord with recording times]
# AH: Also the spelling of Jonathan's is "Haidt" not "Heidt"! [ze28]
# AH: More important is that different foundations are stressed by the left than the right. [ze29]
# So, to liberals the most important foundations are Harm and Care, and also Fairness and Equality. [ze30]
# To conservatives endorse or emphasise the In-Group Loyalty and Authority - Respect, Purity and Sanctity. [ze31]
# Although, if you read the literature, you will see that conservatives draw on all of those, all five and probably Number 6 [freedom] as well, whereas liberals do not really pay much attention to four of those six. [ze32]
# I would also say that, yes, conservatives often defend the environment in the name of purity, but they also do so if a respected authority says the environment is important, or that environmental degradation threatens their in-group. [ze33] ***
# So, many people in more sophisticated environmental groups, such as Citizens' Climate Lobby or maybe the Sierra Club, who know about these Foundations, they try to recruit trusted experts in the conservative in-group, to speak to other conservatives. That is often found to be more effective than for a liberal to come in there and try to make inroads. [ze34]
# So that's an important tool that many of these environmental groups have found to be helpful.
[AB: Very useful tactic: How to bring climate and environmental responsibility to conservatives and 'right wing' people.] [ze35]
# So, I want to stop there. I do have more to share, but that might generate some discussion and feedback.
# AB: Why was freedom (automomy) not in Haidt's original 5? [ze36]
# AH: I don't know about that. I can say that other thinkers had the impression that freedom and autonomy was not really covered by those original five.
[AB: Not only why was freedom not in the original five but also why was it added on? Why was freedom seen as an important moral foundation rather than for example a juridical one? Is it because freedom is very much an American thing? Is it because of the influence of the Humanist Nature-Freedom ground-motive? ]
# AB: Are you able to tell us a little bit about what was Jonathan Haidt was trying to get at?
# AH: He saw they fracturing of politics in the USA and a growing inability of liberalss and conservatives to discuss things. [ze37]
# And of course since he developed these foundations it even got worse. Maybe it would have got even more worse without these ruminations and papers published. But still, it was an effort to faciluate political discussions - and moral discussions too. [ze38]
# Chat: 00:16:53 TB: I think my audio is now going work having now got my laptop to re-install Zoom and clear out the bugs that were stopping connections.
# AH: I want to add that these moral apply more widely than just to environmental concerns.
# I sent everyone this paper by Feinberg et al. because I care very much about Christian Creation Care. So that's been driving what papers I try to retain. [ze39]
# But, to be fair, the foundation apply to really any field where morality has a primary role.
# You might refer to another website; I can put it in the chat here, where we can really fill out our understanding of these foundations and their applications.
# AB: "righteousmind.com". Interesting.
# Chat: 00:20:42 AH: "https://righteousmind.com/capitalism-and-morality/"
# AH: And I'll put in another site in as well, that's worth scanning at least. Especially because it talks about a fundamental economic concept of capitalism. "humansandnature.org"
# Chat: 00:20:59 AH: "https://www.humansandnature.org/culture-how-capitalism-changes-conscience"
# AH: If we do engage in these foundations much more, I would say that the next step probably should be to examine the reverse, where the moral foundations are not guiding action and philosophizing and decisions, but rather our preferences are guiding what moral foundations we draw on.
# This is called "the tail wagging the dog" so to speak, and in fact there's a very famous paper by Haidt about that. The general concept is that we often use the foundations to justify what we want to do anyway. [ze40]
# AB: On this point I can see that actually both, maybe from a Dooyeweerdian or at least Christian, point of view, they both come together, insofar as aspects have norms, they both guide and when we justify in terms of defending ourselves from attack anyway, we tend to do it in terms of norms. So I can see that both actually derive from the same root. [ze41]
[AB: Does not that occur in any situation and field? It seems that the problem is not analytical etc. but rather pistic. ]
# AH: Well, to me, one seems to right and the other seems so wrong.
# AB: OK. I guess you think the justification one is wrong. # AH: Right, yeah: where we try to use the foundations to make our preferences seem right, seem moral.
# AB: maybe that's not the problem of Haidt's system, but of the attitude we bring to using it. # AH: Oh definitely. Sure. # AB: So the idea of / So it's not bad per se to justify our preferences in terms of morality. But if we're doing that purely and honestly and transparently and not self-interestedly, then it's probably OK. If we're doing it self-interestedly, then that is probably the problem. # AH: Yeah, I agree with that; right.
# AH: It's very easy though to fool yourself, and to think my actions are moral just because I can find some foundation that would justify it. [ze42]
# I can think of so many examples throughout history were immoral policies have been justified by this or that principle. And were actually very harmful to people. [ze43]
# Slavery, for instance. And I think this goes for both slavery in the UK and slavery in the US. People said that "The economy will fall apart if we didn't keep slavery. And so many would go hungry." So that was used as a justification for continuing slavery. [ze44]
# AB: Yeah, it's the same today with the climate issue, I think. # AH: Sure. [People say] "We need fossil fuels." # AB: "We need fossil fuels, we need cars."
# AB: Eric Metaxas - I think he's over your way. He wrote a book Amazing Grace, on William Wilberforce, and I was struck by a sentence in his book, that William Wilberforce, his proposal to abandon the slave trade, was as radical as us today saying we have to abandon cars.
# [Radical] because he was proposing to abandon something right at the root of the economy and everyone was assuming was necessary to life and the economy [and it proved otherwise]. [ze45] ***
# AH: Wow. That's definitely something to take to heart. I should look him up.
# AB: It's in his book Amazing Grace, a book written in response to the film called that name about 20 or 15 years ago, on Wilberforce. # TB: They made the film from it, about 2007. I remembered watching it. # AB: From the book? I thought the book came from the film. # TB: Maybe. # AB: I know the book and the film were linked.
# AB: Anyway, welcome back TB.
# TB: Yes, I was able to reinstall Zoom. It seems to be working now. You might see two images of me now. # AH: Yeah; the audio's good.
# AB: I've got one more thing before we move onto JC's Complex Problem, a question, and maybe TB's got one or two questions, now he's got his voice back.
# AB: TB do you have any questions? # TB: nothing to add at this point.
# AB: One of my questions is: Why those five or six moral foundations? Do [Haidt's Moral Foundatons] link with [Dooyeweerd's] aspects? [ze46]
# And so on, but I won't go into that today, because that's further study.
# AB: My question is more: how do we make use of it? It is useful to us [RLDG]?
# I can see that to the climate lobby, it's very useful to be able to say, "OK, if we focus on these things rather than these, then we'll get conservatives on our side." [But what about us in the RLDG rethinking economics?]
# Is it right to say "Well, let's focus on these three for conservatives and these three for liberals"? That sounds a little bit disingenuous to me.
# Reality is coherent. And all the norms really go together - as we tend to believe because we believe in a Creator God who Loves. [ze47]
# Somehow that [dividing them] goes against the grain. It might be ??? [zoom lost the recording] the grain.
# AH: Well, I would love to see both sides, the right and the left, understand each other better.
# And there does seem to be something of a parallel between Haidt's Foundations and Dooyeweerd's aspects, from the standpoint of taking in more and widening, as you put it in the Rethink web page.
# So there does seem to be some parallels; it's almost like the same spirit of widening.
# JC: If you look at the conservative-liberal perspective, it almost boils down to who has control of capital. It can be very focused into who has the right to direct capital, on a state structure, individual, household, community, corporate - all those things [levels] [ze48]
# so it is narrowed very specifically down to an economic aspect. [ze49]
# And what is the efficient relation between capital use and societal lens, that are hoped to be achieved?
# AH: Now you've mentioned efficiency, of course.
# So in that paper that we distributed about economics and ethics, so there maybe a tension between the efficiency and the love which is the core of ethics.
# At least if we can conceive of efficiency in a certain way, maybe in a selfish way.
[AB: The apparent tension between efficiency and ethics troubles me too. However I see it as false, arising from a misunderstanding of the kernel meanings of the economic and ethical aspects. In Dooyeweerd's hypothesis about the kernels of the aspects, he believes there is no fundamental tension, but a fundamental coherence. ]
# AB: Something I had at the back my mind, that I had been thinking about before Haidt came through. And that is that the right wing and left wing have different sins. [ze50] ***
# Now, I don't want to get onto this, because I want to get onto JC's Complex Problem.
# But basically, it seems to be the right wing with freedom, with the idea of excellence, heroes, and so on, is very similar to the pagan idea, and also CSLewis' Screwtape idea of the "philosophy of Hell", in competition. And all that is kind of "each person vaunting themselves against everyone else and even against God." [ze51]
# And that [this destructive me-first mentality] is why God wanted his people to completely displace and annihilate the Canaanite culture. [ze52]
# They had kings and eventually the Israelites wanted a king like all the other nations "to lead us into battle" and things like that.
# (Now, there's one side.)
# And I find right-wing thought is very formed by that. Especially when you bring in Nietzshe and so on. [ze53]
# The other side, the left-wing thought - with care and equity and so on - seems a bit more like Jewish-Christian ideas of love, justice, looking after the poor, so on and so forth. [ze54]
# I'm informed by Tom Holland's book Dominion: he was asking, these morals [care for poor, etc.] come from? They did not come from Greece or Rome. He argued [that] they came from Christianity - even though he's not a Christian himself.
# And, so all that thinking / These things come from Christianity, the left-wing stuff.
# But that doesn't mean that left wing is good and right wing is bad.
# There is a different sin in left-wing, and it's a sin similar to the sin in the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law: Of condemning others, etc.
# I'm informed by the fact that, if you look through the gospels, Jesus' criticism for the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law: he never criticised their doctrine, he criticised their attitude. They had the right doctrines, they taught the right things, but it was their attitude. And he criticised those more than he criticised the Greeks or Romans.
# And so, there's maybe something there that we could get into, but I don't want to get into that today.
# AH: It's definitely worth following up on.
# TB: It's very interesting perspective isn't it. Yeah.
# Then can you say the centre has no sin? [ze55]
# Well ??? [laughter] # AB: [Maybe] the centre has both! # TB: Yeah, exactly, they're caught between the two, haven't they.
# AB: If it's allright with you I'd like to hand over to JC and have a go at thrashing out this problem [which JC introduced previously]. [AB checked that all of us had read what JC sent through.]
# AB: I felt that there are aspects there - but how?
# Name: Unlicensed / # JC: Unlicensed Motor Vehicles. # TB: That was the Quad Bike problem, wasn't it. # JC: Yeah.
# JC: What I found fascinating was that the issue was brought by that public servant in DC. It has now manifested itself down here in Durham. Just the other day, I was driving back, and no less than 20 of dirt bikes or quads just came flying up the road in the middle of the bay, and - I'm not exaggerating - surrounded the car. And then paused at the light and when the light turned green, flew inside and under ??? [zoom missed] interact? [zoom missed] the exchange. I mean, that's the real scenario. [ze56]
# So, that's the setting. There is no current solution for it. Noone knows what to do. [ze57]
# And I'm happy to go over specific things, within that. Or we can just discuss your reflections, what your thoughts are.
What are the aspects that touch on here, that kind of go from the questions I've put here, 1 2 3 4 5. And I can re-share those in the chat function.
# Chat: 00:38:09 JC:
[AB: Will identify aspects by italics]
# AH: I did have some reflections on that. If we want to / JC copied those questions.
# AH: To (1) I could add the chemical and moral aspects:
# AH: Chemical aspect, of course, these vehicles use small off-road engines and those engines lack emissions controls so they pollute the air even more than do cars. I read a thing maybe four months ago, talking about those small offroad engines, and some incredible ratio, that if you use one of those engines for an hour it's the same a driving a car 300 miles or something. It's very polluting. [AB: Seems 5-6 times the pollution] [ze58]
# AH: Then the moral / ethical aspect: Those drivers violate the rights of others and fail to express love. # AB: In what way do they fail to express love? # AH: For instance, the safety aspect that JC just mentioned; they're dangerous. Also the the pollution of the air that I covered just a couple of minutes ago. [ze59]
# AB: Would you say that the problem is the word "unconcerned"? Ezekiel 16:49, where God explained why Sodom was destroyed and Judah was going to be exiled. The three words were "affluence, arrogance and unconcern". "And you did not help the poor and needy," the verse goes on, "and you did despicable things." Three things were affluence, arrogance and unconcern, and I used that in the Rethink as a / especially in the Christian part. But unconcern seemed to me to be a dyysfunction in the ethical aspect. # AH: That's good. "Am I my brother's keeper" Jesus might ask. [ze60]
# JC: This is already fruitful. Thank you. I've never even thought about the pollution or the environmental aspect. Just how the thing moves.
# JC: For the three others of you, this is precisely why I see value in all of our collective perspectives, when we apply the aspects. Those little notes that are lost on all of us individually can be brought in. [ze61]
# I mean, that alone can allow a different conversation to take place with certain people. So thank you. [ze62]
# It's very very high pollution. It's a point of conversation I did not even expect.
# AH: Thank you JC. If you want more information you could search internet for small off-road vehicles, SOREs, and this is a specially noted in the literature about leaf blowers, lawnmowers and other landscaping equipment. [ze63]
# AB: I'm glad I've got a manual lawnmower that I push! Partly to get exercise. # JC: I used that but there are too many hills; it's a bit hard to do! # AB: [soom missed] ... climate change emissions. # AH: Well we're all supposed to get exercise. At least 150 minutes per week. So if you push your lawnmower then you get in a few minutes there. [laughter]
# AB: [mumble] one little thing that might be relevant.
# AB: One thing that I thought, from your description JC, at least of the ones in Durham: they actually stopped at the red light. # JC: They did this time; they did not in DC.
# AB: That shows something positive [implies they had some respect for the law]. Maybe not to justify what they are doing, but as a hook onto which / often, finding the positive in somebody's attitude is the hook that one can latch onto for a solution. # AH: Yeah, celebrate what's going right, rather than just criticising what is going wrong. [ze64]
# AB: There is some kind of idea of responsibility there. [ze65]
# JC: There is / to that spirit: there does seem to be a kind of cultural aspect where these are large groups of, predominantly, men, at least as I could tell - all men, young men on these things. It's a completely different subset of society than on bikes, whether street bikes or street motorcycles or Harley Davidsons. This is a younger kind of cohesive community. [ze66]
# So I want to speak to the positive side of that.
# JC: I felt like - I honestly felt in the moment when you're surrounded by all those little SOREs. When you're surrounded by SOREs when you're at the stop light, and all these people have helmets on and some of them don't have helmets on, and they're on both sides, and you have cars beyond them, and some are cutting, you do feel threatened. And one of your reactions of threatening is "Well, I'm going to get them out of way" or "I'm going to gun it and get out of the way." Either of those situations creates a higher risk situation. And so I don't wanna remove myself from [being] an active participant in this thing. I'm part of the road as well, but I'm not going to be hurt if I ran into a little dirt bike in my car. [AB: Psychical aspect?] [ze67]
# AH: Physicially, probably, you might not be hurt, but your vehicle may be, and I would expect that the dirt bike riders could easily evade the police and escape any liability for hurting your vehicle. # JC: That's the issue; this is the core juridical issue, on the liability side of damages, not injury. So the liability side of damages is that they cannot track these people down; they're too damn quick. They zip in and out, they fly away. And because the SOREs are cheap, they just drop them and disappear. [ze68]
# AH: To be clear, the "SOREs", that refers to the engine. I think that we will be more clear if we refer to "UMVs". SOREs would include all those landscaping vehichles too, and leafblowers.
# AB: Another thing is, I think is a formative aspect. This is / we can think of this / the formative aspect of achievement, or goals, of shaping, of formative power, as Dooyeweerd calls it. (I don't think he used "formative" to name the aspect but [he did say] it is the aspect of formative power.) And I suspect that is a big motivation among this people. Main young men, but not necessarily always - the idea that "I can do something". There's a skill there. [ze69]
# The feeling / There's also psychical feeling and also kinematic aspect there, of movement. [ze70]
# I mean, when I'm on my bicycle / # AH: I should say: They should try a bicycle! # AB: Yeah. I really enjoy it; it's like poetry in motion [aesthetic-kinematic aspect]. [ze71]
# There's a formative aspect of achieving something. [ze72]
# And especially linked with the pistic aspect, of achieving something above somebody else [competitiveness] - pistic dysfunction; it's contaminated with that. [ze73]
[AB: Now AB wonders whether competitiveness is not primarily pistic aspect but ethical aspect. But there might be a pistic aspect of our sense of identity, of "who I am" in being able to master some skill as well as enjoy the skill. Enjoyment of course is of the aesthetic aspect. ] [ze74]
# But the idea of a dirt bike - ok there's the pollution problem, OK but / Think of skate boards in a skate board park. You have fun on a skateboard and you achieve things with it. And that's part of the fun of sport and so on is this achievement aspect. [ze75]
# TB: Facilitating that achievement, I guess, in the context of this one.
# AH: I would never have though of that; that makes sense.
# JC: Thank you AB for explaining that.
# AH: Yknow, I often think of that aspect (of formative power) as being historical [aspect] [AB: that is one name that Dooyeweerd gave it] but that's maybe the wrong word. Historical is more part of being formative.
# JC: I want to think of a solution.
# JC: This is the process that I hoped would happen: we march down the aspects of the things, [contd after comment] [ze76]
[AB: Comment on aspectual analysis: Marching down the aspects seldom brings out the deeper realities of something. It can sometimes help. But it is better, in my experience, to let open conversation flow and use aspect to identify the meaningfulness of what people bring up. And after that, maybe, march down aspects asking if there is anything else. Seee Chapter 11 of Foundations and Practice of Research : Adventures with Dooyeweerd's Philosophy. ]
# - and just listening to you AB share that perspective of honouring the good, as a solution to not harm these humans, and not cause issues in the legal system, civil or criminal: What if a solution is: Just give all these people really nice bicycles? [laughter by JC and others] [ze77]
# JC: That's something to be laughed at I can can understand. But what I'm thinking of is that if you want to be a group of people that ride around and do whatever - like, I know it's not like cool and sexy [AB: aesthetic and pistic aspects?] and probably not going to attract the same level of people that you want to attract to your riding a bike or flying through town - I get that. But it's about minimizing the biotic harm, and juridical process that can occur by these continued activities. So maybe a city invests in bikes. # AB: yeah. [ze78] "You get these. If you do this, trade your thing in and you get this bike."
# AB: There's something there, but it would have to be handled very carefully. You see, the formative aspect is also to do with technology. And what we've got there [in the UMV users] is a delight in technology. These people - and it's the same with motorcyclists, and its the same with a lot of cyclists, same with a lot of cars, it's same with iphones and computers and all sorts of things - there's an aspect there of delighting in the technology. Understanding technology, being a master of that technology, technology helping one, serving one, the technology as beautiful in itself, it's an achievement in itself, an achievement of humanity, and so on. [ze79]
# And I guess, JC, if you had been able, instead of feeling threatened by these 20 people, you had brought them over to the side and said [to them], "Tell me about it all", you would have found that 5 of the 20 would be soon talking about the technology or the things [modifications] they've done to their things [UMVs] because they love their machines, and so on. [ze80]
# What I am seeing - and it's a long-term problem - why so many people buy power tools when the hand tool or a human powered tool is just as good. And I think it's partly because there's this feeling [or accepted belief] that power technology is superior to hand technology. [ze81]
# Now that, ysee, is a pistic thing. It doesn't need to be the case; it's a belief, it's an assumption, it's a presupposition. It's linked with the presupposition of the absolute rightness of progress. And so I think /
# AH: It also links back to what JC said 20 minutes ago, about the authority to direct capital.
[AB: Clarify: Did AH mean the power to decisions to purchase X rather than Y, and especially when X is costlier than Y?]
# AH: In Jesus' time, yknow, the reason Jesus was so humble and riding a donkey was because unlike the Roman centurion, who rode a chariot, very little capital and technology was involved in the donkey. # AB: Yeah, instead of a horse. # AH: Or instead of a chariot.
# AB: And some of that is to do with our view of what's fashionable, what's aspirational, superior - what's the word for it? TB can you help me? # AH: In tune? In tough? Up-to-date? # AB: Well, it's sort of fashionable. # TB: Yeah. AB: The superiority of something [simply because people deem it superior] - there's a word for it. [ze82]
# AH: I have a suggestion along the lines of celebrating what is good. amd trying to engender interest from these UMV riders. I was saying / I want to suggest that maybe we allow the vehicles to be on the shoulders of the roads. But I'll ??? / increase penalties for violations, so that would be kind of a compromise.
# JC/TB: Doesn't that [zoom garbled] humans walking?
# AH: Well, round here at least, we have very few people who walk.
# TB: [some sounds probably to another person]
--- [OA joined] ---
# OA: Hello, good evening everyone. Sorry # AB: Welcome. # OA: Better late than never; apologies. # AB: First time? # OA: Came to first one.
# AB: [introduced OA as using Dooyeweerd to aspectually analyse interview transcripts]
# OA: JC, I found the email really interesting; wow! About how the government had tried over a period of time and how it's going out of hand. It's so interesting, especially how Dooyeweerd can solve this kind of societal issue. Wow, this is interesting, how you've coined the email. [ze83]
# OA: I wonder what method you were doing in terms of / I like what the issues are.
# Is it some kind of stance? Is this a social media stance? Is it a kind of social classification? Just interested in this generally. What exactly does this story say?
# I'm sure we have just one minute more, so I'll listen to the recording.
# JC: OA, I would love to see your methods. If you can send over the links,d just to assess how I can separate [out] some of the things. [ze84]
# ACTION OA, AB: Send JC some info about OA's methods.
# Because I want to start to look through some of the traffic laws. And this conversation with TB, AH and AB and now you has brought to light some different ways of thinking about it. [ze85]
# Instead of just punitive measures, look for motivational measures to bring the formative aspect of community to the front, but also discuss the pollution aspect (the biotic aspect of that) and just understanding how to position a solution. [ze86]
# And this would be a solution that could be applied to almost any city in the US. It's such a strange problem. [ze87]
# AB: [zoom mumble: ?I think we need to] understand some of it, and what's going on, in all its aspects, before trying to get a solution. [ze88]
# Because, part;y??, you talk about community. We haven't talked about the social aspect there yet. We've alluded to it, in that these people, especially those 20, would see themselves as a community. [ze89]
# In practice - not to do with Dooyeweerd - in practice, what I've found is that when I talk to people on their own terms, they are reasonable people, most of them. There's a real / For 20 years in the UK there has been a concern about young people going off on / spending too much time on social media. And before that it was computer games. So, what I would do, I would talk to them about their computer game and find out, with aspects at the back of my mind, what they love about them. And find it's not like the adults used to think. [ze90]
# And OA, that's why I love talking Minecraft with E and E [OA's children]. # OA: yeah. # AB: And I actually tame time to play Minecraft and understand it from the inside. And I enjoy it.
# So I think there's a lot of work to do there before even considering whether we're moving to a solution.
# BUT, if your friends JC are, they want a solution tomorrow - I know Americans are like that! [laughter] -
# JC: Because of what happened to me personally in my [situation?], I can think on this now and what the proper path forward now would be to have the right whatever-it-is to my group, my Civil Authority, play that out however long that takes, and then take that process and apply it to other juridsdictions.
# JC: Since I'm now actually able to handle some of the more incremental movements of encouraging folks within city councils or whatever to take care of this.
# But I agree: Further thought: and we'll step away from this. Do whatever else you all wanna do. But /
# Further thoughts and reflections, any of you? TB, I'd love to have more of your kind of brilliance on even how to stop said engine from moving safely. # Like, anything.
# What I'd like to suggest, is we have a session together in the New Year, and maybe invite your friends onto that session. # JC: It bridges / We're not there yet. It bridges two worlds too closely at this point. [ze91]
# This is a connection within my WF world, and so, in time, that would be a good solution. But I think if we continue to think through some aspects, and some other things, on how to look at this and how to provide an understanding of the activity, then we can elucidate a possible recommendation / multiple recommendations, moving forward from multiple authority points. As well as inside / in-group authority as well. [ze92]
# AB: Well, just think of getting it on one authority first. I've worked with local authorities and so on and it's good to work with them, and then let them see how it can widen out, and then you've got their excitement about how. So [I suggest] forget at this time, how it can help all the cities in the US and let's really get into this problem. [ze93]
# I think it would be a great problem to really get our teeth into from both a Christian point of view and an aspectual point of view. [ze94]
# And, if OA would like to join us on that, and all of us, let's continue.
# I just saw [the discussion] today not ending our discussion of the problem but just being a taster.
# JC: Thank you so much for everybody's thoughts on this.
# Chat: 01:05:54 TB: I need to rush just now as have another meeting to get to. Sorry have to dash. Thanks, Tim.
# AB: OA, TB is chair of the Christian Academic Network in the UK, and AH wrote on Statistics from a Dooyeweerdian point of view. OK, TB, thanks very much.
# AB: JC, what I suggest is that you might like to reflect on and write up the thoughts that have come up, from your perspective. I will also be writing a transcript, of course. AH and I will continue to think about it.
# Can we meet and continue this in the New Year?
# JC: Yeah, I'll set that up. Thank you.
# ACTION JC: Write up reflections and distribute them.
# AB: The other thing is: Artificial Intelligence.
# JC: You were keen on doing AI, the  Reith Lectures. So I sent a link through to listen to them.
[Reith Lectures: Living with Artificial Intelligence (Prof. Stuart Russell)
All episodes. Individually:
# AB: So, my question is:
# Now, we really need CA in here for [deciding] that as well.
# AH: Well, I'm feeling I need to have a good understanding of that new paper I distributed, connecting economics and ethics. It's a fascinating paper to me. I've read about a third of it so far. But I wonder if once we digest that, we'll have new ideas. Maybe it's best for us to suspend discussions on economics for one month and we can have a good discussion on economics thereafter.
# AB: I intend to continue developing the Rethink but it might be that /
# You see, CA really enjoys such discussions, because she doesn't have such discussions her university. And she teaches finance to 300 or 500 First Years. And she enjoys these discussions even though she's extremely busy. So I'd like to help people like her. NO might come back in. Others might find it useful.
# That's why I initially said "I'm not intending to go over to AI" but then I thought "Well, we've got an opportunity here."
# JC: I don't think you have to separate the two streams, AB. [ze95]
# I do believe that we don't have the luxury yet on AI. So AI might just be getting into the rapid assessment possibilities that this technology will be able to provide. [ze96]
# It's not going to be apart from economics. Within AI's conversation you have to look at corporate investment, government investment, how it works within different platforms for ethical considerations. So obviously, there's a lot of avenues of aspectual analysis within AI's adoption, use and funding. But those were all within an economic lens as well of the investment that companies, startups, and governments have to make into the deployment of said technology. [ze97]
# So I don't think you have to separate it.
# AB: So we could actually discuss the AI Reith Lectures as well [as economics]? [ze98]
[AB: Indeed, Stuart Russell talks a lot from an economics or business perspective.]
# JC: Yeah.
# AB: So we listen to them. I've just listened to a bit but I've got to /
# AB: OA, what is your interest? Is it this particular problem that JC is talking about: these vehicle things? Or is it AI, is it economics? Or what?
# OA: I think, because now one of my main goals or vision is to use ??? [zoom unclear] in whatever ??preseter??? [zoom unclear] in bringing the use of Dooyeweerd as part of the methodology or data analysis. [ze99]
# OA: So for instance the Minecraft project, Minecraft team of Teaching & Learning, so I want to integrate the aspects. So again for the VR project as well, in terms of how Dooyeweerd can help in understanding the Virtual Reality space. [zea0]
# So I think my interest was really about "Oh Wow! This is interesting in terms of Erm traffic, lights, the social issues." So I was wondering, that's really interesting. And I wanted to just know how Dooyeweerd speaks to that kind of situation. So I think my main interest is really how I could - either in terms of the methodology or in terms of data analysis and narrow it down to aspectual analysis - integrate those two areas to whatever project I'm working on. [zea1]
# Especially maybe new or coming issues, or new innovative ideas. So I think the AI would be very interesting. Because currently I'm speaking to colleagues about this AI and we're thinking about adoption of AI in SMEs. Or??, I've not thought about Dooyeweerd yet because I'm still trying to wrap my head round that topic. And if there was something that could emerge from that. [zea2]
# AB: AH, what's your interest? I think you've said "Both", haven't you?
# AH: Everything is fine. I guess I would prefer to talk about AI next month. but I would like to emphasise and return to the economic. [zea3]
# I recognise they are intertwined but still we can concentrate on one versus the other. # AB: OK. # AH: Nothing's excluded.
# So, you got the / I sent through the link to the / there's four of them [the AI Reith Lectures]. One happened yesterday morning. And then there's next Wednesday morning - well, morning in the UK time. But these things tend to be available for - probably forever, the recordings of these things. So, listen to them [links above]. And we can continue from there.
# AH: AB, you're going to email those? You said you sent them. I don't see anything on the chat though. # AB: it's not in the chat; it's in the email that I sent with 7 things in it, right down the bottom [and also above]. So just go in there; it'll give you the access to the Reith Lectures. Let me know if it doesn't.
# JC: Have to run, to head out. # AH: I should also run off.
@ AB: Right, thank you very much.
# JC: OA I look forward to chatting with you again. # OA: JC thank you. # JC: Thank you, AB, thank you. TB we still see you. God bless you all. # AH: Leaving now; bye bye.
[JC left ] [ah left]
# OA: I have to leave. [then a bit of discussion between AB and OA in a joint paper]
# AB: TB is still there. [Actually, it was TB's screen but nobody at it!]