Participants: CA, JC, NB, NO, AB (host).
# JC: [Introduced QuestScope, and his exciting news about a project to help refugee young people benefit from work they do. The text of this has been extracted into a separate file because it does not touch on the Reith Lectures or Christian understanding of the economy.]
[snip - see separate file]
# AB: That sounds really exciting. We can pray about this. Why don't I open our discussion with praher. That was news. Three quarters of an hour on news, because we start our discussion. That's great.
# Let's pray. [AB opened in prayer.]
# Other bits of news?
# AB: Was asked to review a book, 'We cannot continue like this: Sustainability beyond modernity'. World bank Africa's Pulse: Presents the modern economy as the solution to todays problems. Book contributors are questioning the assumptions behind the world's economy, as we are, but from an African context.
# I'll see if I can get some of this to you.
# NO: Books are awesome; reviews even better.
# AB: Last time we had love, hope, grace.
# Anyone have a look at the notes I put up?
# xx: Found them quite helpful. CA: agreed.
# AB: Hope one day to compile them together. # xx: Write a book. [z721]
# Which ones [Christian value] shall we look at?
# CA: Faith and Joy:
# CA: Both faith and joy are both an outcome of something. For example, for me to joy or to have faith in something I need to see something happening that is positive, then the joy and faith will come. [z722]
# NB: I want to push back on that. When I think of faith and joy, I think almost the opposite, the choice I have to make and then the emotion of joy comes after the choice of joy. [z723]
# Joy is different from happiness, which is a reaction to outside circumstance. [z724]
# That's why I would tie faith and joy together because joy is a result of faith, a decision to view the world in a hope-filled way. [z725]
# So then, the ability to see those circumstances: precisely what you're talking about: I see something positive isn't external but it involves my internal state as well. [z726]
# But maybe it's different from what you're saying.
# CA: But we can have faith in something that is not working, hoping that it will change, e.g. now, there are talks about war happening, so we can can think, we can have faith that war will not happen, based on what's happening in the world today. [z727]
# AB: What happens if the war does happen.
# CA: We will continue to have faith, thinking that something will come out of - something positive will come out of something negative as well. [z728] [AB: c.f. Romans 8:28]
# AB: That sounds like hope.
# NO: The way we look at it over here, particularly a lot of the envangelicals, there's several books in apologetics: We define faith as trusted belief [z729]. Because it has to: it's trusted, that's the hope element, the belief part of it is the fact that there's a rationality. So you know, you can have faith there are unicorns, but that doesn't seem to connect to serious realities. So, faith, in the way we look at it, is a trusted belief. Belief is where you confront a logic, a concept. [z730]
# CA: So that is similar to what I said at the beginning: If I see there is a structure at work, r if I see something which is there, but we're not nearly there, then I can say that I have a faith that things are going to get better, because I see some things in place, like a structure in place. # NO: I agree.
# NO: Back to joy. I like what NB said, about being a product of a decision. But I wonder also whether it's a product of an act. Does it have to go that far?
# e.g. I could think about not throwing trash out the window of my car, let's say. But if I did throw trash out the window of my car, is that going to be manifested in a real joy? Don't know whether I'm going a step too far. But a thought.
# AB: Not quite sure what you mean.
# NO: What I'm trying to say is, back to what NB said about joy being the result of a decision. To me, it has to be a decision and act to manifest real joy. [z731]
# That's not your joy; you get joy from somebody else: if I get joy from somebody - if I see somebody pick up trash on the road and put it in a trashcan, just to continue with the example, I can get joy out of that. [z732]
[AB: Sounds like joy results from observing or doing acts that are positive in the ethical aspect of self-giving.] [z733] ***
# NB: I would respond that a decision that does not result in an acton is not really a decision. Only, it was just a thought. [Laughter] [z734] # CA: Yeas, that's true. # NB: We can make decisions like that but they're - we shouldn't call them decisions. # NO: That's the qualifier I'm looking for.
# JC: To add a little bit of nuance to what CA was saying. For most of my life my Dad has praying that I'll have faith - but what do you mean by 'faith'? He would always quote, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the xxx of things unseen". Yeah I get it - but what is faith? His rebuttal was "Faith is a gift from God. Not based on your will, not based on your intelligence, not based on your emotions. It is something that is planted inside of you that allows you to observe things in a different way." That's what Dad impounded in my head for 30-something years. This morning, I texted them: "Dad always said to pray for faith, as a gift; not a state of mind or willpower; a gift. I'm seeing small instances of it in my heart now, which actually impact my mind and some of my actions." It is a gift. Faith in a storm, in an uncertainty. For example what happens if there is a war? Well, we're still called to still be people of faith. Because we can still have faith and hope just in the presences of the realities of the extenses of faith and joy happening around our histories. We can point to those, build off of them and project faith, calm and joy in the midst of those storms and in war. It really is / does, CA - you have to have seen something. That's like, "There's proof of that faith, whether it's in your life, or someone else's life. - Like, you have to have something to on. Just blind allegiance is stupidity. I don't think that's unscriptural ... But faith in what Christ has done in your own life is enough of a rock to move almost in any direction of joy. Almost. [z735]
# AB: I'll nuance that. I like that. I find that somehow my faith is a gift but it's [also] something I exercise - there's a kind of dynamic between me and God, and I don't quite understand it. Three things:
# AB: Faith as a dynamic triangle. # NO: I love that. I like to put things in that archimedean sense and so on the left side of the triangle I would put the gift, on the bottom of the triangle, is the decision, the act, and on the right side is the outcome. [z736]
# NB: That dynamic between God's gift to us and the fact that we also - we're also told to work out our faith in Scripture [A: Philippians 2:12 says "work out your salvation", James x:y says "faith without works is dead"]. I usually view that in the language of justification and sanctification. [z737] [sadly AB interrupted there to quibble about Phil 2:12 saying "salvation" and put NB off his stride, but he soon picked it up again.] Justification is only ever ???, sanctification is a collabroation between me and the Spirit. The Spirit drives it but He gives me some role to play and there's a mystery there. [z738]
# NO: Have to be careful: depending on whether you're a Catholic, a Lutheran or a Calvinist, you end up in this flakian discussion, that heresy. Which is a great mystery I would say. [z739]
[AB: Justification and sanctification could be seen as two of the three dimensions of salvation. The third dimension is the result of them both, almost the reason for them both: to image (represent) God properly in this world, so that the Creation is blessed. See Three Dimensional Salvation and Representing God. ]
# NO: We were on faith a lot more than joy.
# Joy different from happiness. [z740] Book, Josef Piper 'Faith Joy and Love'. He was a Thomas, but he made a real point about joy being different from happiness. # AB: I remember hearing that, rather glibly, that happiness depends on our situaton, but joy doesn't.
# NB: (From the point of us Dooyeweerdians here) Joy has the flavour of the aesthetic functioning, that it's a playfulness, surprise, but its the volitional side of that. [z741]
# I use the word, decision, and I appreciated JC pushing back on that more with regard to faith than with joy, but I think the same caveat works with joy. That decision were gift from God to view the world in light of God's blessing, in the light of: God built the world and said "It is very good". And that framework of viewing is a joyfilled framework.
# NB: There's economic implicatons of choosing to view the world that way (or being gifted to view the world that way), that we can discuss what that looks like economically. # AB: Let's do that.
# CA: Joy is more like us rejoicing in other peoples happiness or something that is a good an outcome for all of us, the whole society. [z742] # JC,NO. Yes
# NB: Would you say that joy has an inevitably social character then? [z743] [AB: Maybe Dooyeweerd: aesthetic aspect depends on social?]
# AB: Being Dooyeweerdian again, there's the lawside and subjectside. The lawside is the laws and norms that enable and guide things, and the subjectside is what actually happens. [z744]
# I feel rather than understand something of lawside in there, an outcome for the whole society, that rejoicing in other people's happiness - it's not just the situation of happiness that people have that causes me joy, it's something, there's something deeper, something lawside about it. Something of "This is what ought to happen". Does that make sense? # NB: Use the word "shalom"? # AB: "Shalom" is too broad. The idea that this is what was intended. You said, God said, after Creation, "It is very good". And when I see other people's happiness, or and somebody talked about somebody picking up trash I get a sense of joy, because: This is what ought to happen, this is our home. This 'fits'. [z745] # Does that make sense?
# CA: Yes. It's like when JC talked about trying to help out the kids, then you felt, "Wow, this is something so phenomenal." That is joy itself, because someone is benefiting from that, and it makes the world a bit better. [z746]
# NO: A bit of a Thomas view: it comes back to God's perfection. [z747] We feel joy when we see that right thing, because it is a perfection of God's joy and love he has showered on us.
# So, you know, how you sometimes have circles and when the circles come together, there's more perfection there.
# I do think it's a deeper thing, like AB says. You could get into a Natural Theology discussion, but there's something deep there within us. I like to think it's our soul.
# NB: We believe in normativity, that says, there's a certain way God constructed reality and when we operate in line with that way, blessing follows. And when we operate economically in that way, then the poor gain resources that is satisfying at least to witness if not to experience. [z748] [See also re. fabric of Creation below.]
# JC: One of the things on a practical sense of what I witnessed over the last few weeks, with some of the people who have been part of this [project], from the woodwork of the project, was the strongest joy, at least that Kurt and I received: is that we have two Jewish people, an atheist, and a muslim, at least, as key leaders in this project. They are all joyful about it: they're all just giving up more of themselves, giving of their expertise, giving of their time, giving of their well-earned hard intelligence and dollars or whatever, and it's just a unifying thing. It is such a joyful thing, it's beautiful. [z749]
# AB: That's lovely. So it's not just joy for Christians. Joy is part of of the fabric of Creation; joy is possible because of the fabric of Creation. [z750] # NO: Interesting statement, "possible because of the fabric of Creation" - which we would say is created by God. AB: Exactly, and even atheists are operating within that fabric. # NO: What was it? AB: Because of the fabric of Creation; Dooyeweerd would call it the lawside. [z751] [See also The Way God Constructed Reality above.]
# AB: The particular shape of the laws that God put into Creation.
# NO: Catholicly, we would say Natural Law. AB: Yeah, if you like. [z752]
# NO: Do like what JC said, because I feel I'm somewhat Iraenic on this. I'm hopeful that all peoole of God and faith will be ultimately be resolved in our Creator through Christ. But I have to be careful because my pastor is big on that doctrine. At heart I want to see everybody healed. [z753]
# NB: And that hope, NO, is compatible with both uniververalist and particularist views on salvation.
# AB: How do faith and joy make for a better economy?
# JC: Have you seen the boost in a local economy when a football team wins thee championship or a league? Like that joy, that sense of celebrarion carries over into every aspect of the economy, because "You did something I find joy in." Boom, and the whole economy around that blossoms. [z754] Is that a good example?
# AB: more like happniess, than joy? But it might be relevant. Maybe we need to think of the relationship between happiness and joy. [z755]
# NB: The economy benefiting: joy resulting from a good economy as much as a good economy resulting from joy. [z756]
# But I guess to me, joy and shalom are so intimately related that joy is the result of good economic functioning than a cause of it.
# AB: OK. It raises the question: Are these Christian Virtues the result of a good economy or do they contribute to it? [z757] ***
# AB: I still feel it contributes to it.
# What I said down here [earlier], was: Each person seen as a valuable part of the economy and society, rather than some ignored; that's what I saw as joy. Only an example of joy - though I'll have to rethink that in terms of the three things we talked about.
# Example: The UK War Graves Commission's recent finding that African and Asian WW1 soldiers had not been properly commemorated, because they were seen as of lesser value. Maybe that's the negative of it.
# I said: Might the feeling of joy enhance productivity and innovation? Might it enhance generosity?
# (Can forget the WW1 thing)
# JC: Would we be able to look at this as a negative coefficient, where if you look over the last 14 months in overall market, where you have stock market gains but you have a lot of fear across the world.
# And so we kind of have this fear coefficient, laying down a lower actual economic activity, where individual economy and individual activity is low. But then the joyful aspect of being able to make money on fear or digital methods is going through the roof. Is there a way to tease out the joy aspectsof those things against the fear aspects, and maybe isolate fear's effect, as an opposite of joy. [z758]
Am I making sense? Forming how to frame you.
# NB: Fear as amenable to math, where you can add up the positives and subtract the negatives and get anything meaningful the other end, but I think those dynamics are in play. [z759]
# CA: What I was thinking about on faith, what I've written here, is that:
# If the the right people are in the job with the right motivation, people who are holding like the Director General position in the WTO, or the IMF, the World Bank, where they can make big decisions that can change the dynamics of how the world is today, THEN I believe that there is faith.
# And when they make those decisions, e.g. like for example now there is tension in South CHina sea, and if that is resolved by the WTO Dir Genl saying, "Look, at end of day we all want trade to happen, and it's not going to happen if we're fighting with each other, so let's think of a way we can never get though this" - and if they can come up with something that can move forward, and forget about that war, and move forward peacefully - then there will be joy because we managed to navigate soemthing which is so huge like a war to, you know, doing business and helping the economy.
# Because now the focus is more on war, than the economy, it's more like - f we navigate out of that, then that is joy. [z760]
# AB: That sound similar to the idea of: joy because of what it [reality] ought to be. Will think about all that.
# NO: So, the issue on the world front, like, we're talking about: the leaders of these countries are motivated more by economics than by the joy of their populace. Which is pretty evident in the authoritarian world where they will screw people down tight if they think it will raise their economic wealth and standard of even just the oligarch. [z761]
# So, it's the issue of - that's maybe a whole another problem.
# AB: Is that [an issue of] justice? # CA: yes it is justice to a certain level. [z762]
# CA: Example, let's look at what is happening in Burma, Myanmar at the moment. What is happening to fix that situation, all that is happening is they are just putting sacntions in that country. Now, putting sanctions in that country is just crippling the ecnomy, it's not helping them. Now, you want to punish the top people, but the economy is suffering, people are suffering. That's not the right way to handle that problem
# So, now if what is happening around the world is, OK this is what you have to do is "If you misbehave you are going to be sanctioned." Now is that the right way to go about it? So, if they come up with a way to get those people in authority out of the country and put right people in, then there will be joy. Because the whole country is rejoicing, then trade can happen again, and they can be prosperous again and then they can help the economies and countries around them.
# NO: To me that is a more logical solution.
# But the dilemma becomes - and we've tried that in the past - I know the USA has at different times sanctioned different Russian oligarchs or some of the bad actors or Iran individually. So we've individually disallowed them from certain economic capabilities. [z763]
# The problem comes when you start to do this with a state, with the top people: what if they retaliate. So, we sanction these guys; they come back and sanction us. ??? The politicians don't like to do sanctions because they're afraid of being sanctioned themselves.
[AB: Sounds to me like the root problem is pistic and ethical: Pride and stubbornness on both sides, as well as selfishness. And that is why sanctions used for punishment will not solve the problem. Pistic functioning: when you are threatened, you stiffen to resist it - which makes a fool of economic logic. ]
# AB: If lets say Myanmar puts sanctions on the USA, it won't hurt the USA very much. But what CA was saying is that USA or world sanctions on Myanmar hurt the people probably more than it hurts the people in charge. # CA: Yes.
# It reminds me of our discussion of grace last week [last time] and the tension between grace and justice. # And maybe the Christian Value of grace needs to be brought into this discussion about sanctions.
# NB: May I ask a question about Faith? I feel we have used that word several times in our discussion, looking for ways to - we're trying to characterize how to respond to bad actors. And bringing about joy.
# I feel we don't have a real good handle on what we mean by the word [Faith].
# Is trust a decent synonym? That trust in these international relations for example or just the everyday economic interaction, trust is at the heart of good economic functioning. I cannot interact interact economically with people if I don't trust them. [z764]
# But there's also, inevitably, a willingess to get taken advantage of. [z765]
# AB: Ah.
[AB: That reminded me of Stephen McG's PhD in which he investigated the nature of trust and came to the conclusion that trust is not of the pistic aspect but the ethical, precisely because trust implies a willingness to be taken advantage of.]
# NB: I don't know how that works in the international relations that we're talking about now, but I do know that if I have an interaction with someone, that when I pay someone $100 for my groceries, it's possible I'm getting ripped off.
# I just have to have the faith that I'm not, and that is what enables good economic functioning. [z766]
[AB: Dooyeweerd: This maybe is part of the intertwinement of the economic aspect with the pistic-ethical aspects. Inter-aspect dependency. ] [z767]
# CA: Yes. I was just thinking: If we talk about Artificial Intelligence, when
they say trust, for someone to trust that AI, that AI - then they come up with what the AI has to have - it has to be transparent, it has to be explainable, so people can see what's happening with thieir data. And you know they can see the working of it, and it's transparent, then they can have trust in the system. [z768]
# It's going to be the same for us as well.
# For us to trust, for us to have continuous faith, belief, we need to see something which is - you know, we know that the right people in that job, doing the right thing that they can. [z769]
# And if you look at what is happening with the WTO, that General Director, what she's doing, is she's putting all the problems that she has out there.
# Before this, we did not know what was going on. But because of her - because of her experience, because she was working in the World Bank, she was dealing with / from Nigeria, and all these cultural things coming on - she is putting that problem out there. [z770]
# So everybody's talking about it and everybody's finding ways to solve the problem. [z771]
# For example, let's talk about intellectual property about the vaccine: why certain countries cannot have them - by the time you solve this intellectual [property] problem about vaccine, people are dying over there.
# You know, she's putting the problem out there, everybody's talking about it, so there is transparency in there. [z772]
# So, if we have the right people in there, and we can see "this is the problem that is happening," and people are you know trying to contribute to help, to say "let's have this thinktank to think through the problem."
# So it becomes everybody's problem to solve. Not only everything is on top of her head and "If she cannot solve it then she's useless and she need to go." [z773]
# NB: You're saying, she is intenionally building trust with her transparency?
# CA: Yes, because once she - when she is putting that problem out /
# Because now, I'm sitting here, I don't know what is happening, why people in India or other places are dying and then: Is the vaccine reach[ing] them or not? We don't know all these dynamics because we are just normal people.
# Now, she, at the top of this chain, she knows that these vaccines are not getting there, so she is giving out all this information. She's saying, "Let's get the vaccines out, let's move it to the developing countries, let's talk about intellectual property."
# She's putting the problem out there for people to talk about it. [reinforcing the same message above about transparency]
# So these' all levels of people with different expertise are coming together to solve it. And they all say, "OK, Now it becomes my problem; I can contribute to solve this problem." [z774]
# And if it is solved, then we can say "There is joy in this. Because we solved this together. We contributed to solve the problem." [z775]
# AB: I find that joy comes from hearing what you said, CA. To hear this person is putting this information out voluntarily, honestly, transparently, even at risk to herself. And that somehow gives me joy.
# CA: So if people are going to say "Look, this is what we can do," then she can take that and act on it instead of one person breaking her head [over] "What can I do! What can I do!" [z776]
# Well, put it out to people so everyone can think about it.
# NB: So there's the side of it that you're describing is: I kind of divide the road into me and other people.
# There's other people behaving in a trustworthy fashion, or behaving faithfully, in a way that builds trust and allows faith.
# There's also something that has to happen in my own heart to extend that trust to her and to be willing to risk being taken advantage of -
# The people you're talking about, who are going to jump in and participate in solving this problem, now that it's been made transparent, also have to be acting in good faith, in the sense of "Yes I'm going to try and solve this problem, not because it's good for me but because it's good for the world - and yes maybe my participation will result in me being taken advantage of but I going to choose to trust anywey."
# And so there's two sides. There's the side of people behaving in a trustworthy fashion so that I can trust them. Isn't there also a place where I can trust so that they can behave in a trustworthy fashion?
# CA: For example, you can put an idea through: "Why don't we do it this way? Why cannot we do this?" It becomes a discussion. So there's nothing there for me to lose, because it's just an opinion, just something that came out of my head. And then that sort of develops, when people talk about it. Then it turns into something. Then that could be escalated up for her [The Dir Gen of WTO] to do. But there's also transparency on her workings as well, so that we can also see that "hey, it's come up to you now, so what are doing about it?" and then she says "This is what I have done bla bla" - and then it's up there. [z777]
# MB: And me participating in that discussion at the beginning, involves some trust because "I might not get credit for my wonderful idea - and that's OK, because I wasn't doing for that purpose, I was doing it to faithfully participate in the discussion and the conversation, to help her." [z778]
# CA: [laughter] Its just like here, NB, it's the same thing as what we're doing here. We are here - we may come out with a paper out of it, or we may not - but we're here all the time, every meeting, trying to have a discussion: If we're going to think like that, "I'm going to have an outcome at the end of it, then it becomes a problem." *** [z779]
# NB: Sure, because then we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would inhibit our discussion.
[AB: That is very gratifying. That is exactly how I feel, and what I was hoping for. I thank the Lord God for this. May He bring blessing out of it.]
# NB: And I think that get's back to that economic question too, because lack of faith, lack of willingness to risk, inhibits economic functioning. A good economy requires people to trust. [z780] ***
# CA: Trust also comes from transaprency.
# And then there should be efforts as well put in place to say, "Hey everyone, let's talk about this."
[AB: What follows is an important piece, in my opinion.] ***
# CA: Because now, when they talk about the AI [for example], what they are trying to say is that "we cannot come up with a model"
# OK, for example, I say [suggest] "AI should have all Christian values in it." [z781]
# So they said "That is not going to work, because it has to be something that the society is ha;py with." That's the story now. They said, "We cannot just put in what we feel." So that is why they have what they call it, like a MOOC, a kind of discussion thing, where they call people in the society, people from different religion, background, culture, upbringing, ethics, education, everyone is talking there, talking and saying "What is the ideal" so that I am not left out [nobody is left out]. [z782]
# Because, you know, we may think, we may think, having Christian Values as the framework for AI is the best thing ever. But people might say "Hey you left me out, you're not looking ..."
# AB: Can I just clarify: When you said thinking about AI having Christian values in it, then they said that will not work, are you reporting something actually happening, or are you ?
# CA: Yes, this is actually happening. I've sent a paper to you (AB) two weeks ago, because in that paper, they are saying that to frame that AI, to make sure the AI is working for everyone in the economy, everyone in the society, we have to come up with values and characterizations that represents the society. Not what we think is the right thing. Because people can turn around and say "You are not reprsenting me; I am disabled" or "You are not reprsenting me; I am a different culture" or "I have of a different ethnic minority" or all of this.
# NO: CA, are you familiar with the book: "The Ethical Logarithm" [Algorithm?]. You might want to check that out. It's written by a couple of technology gurus. The issue they're bringing up is the problem with the fact that the AI, as it has been used, has a lot of these different social issues embedded in it. The tech world really struggling I guess with how to deal with that. Sounds like the sum of what you're talking about. [z783]
; CA: Yes, they want to get a majority representation of what is ideal, so they want to hear peoples' voices, to represent everybody in the society.
# So it's the same way, we can actually take that framework to use it for what we want to say, you know [returning to the WTO example earlier], These WTO people, saying, "Let's solve the problem this way." This is what she's trying to do: she's trying to open it up to have a conversation, so people talk about it. People say "You know what, I know this person and I can talk to them about this, and I can see how to move forward."
# At the end of the day, everybody wants peace, nobody wants World War 3 here. So, people will think of ways to try to solve the problem.
# NB: My reaction: You've said, CA, that the AI developer folks say "We cannot just put our own values into the system, we have to involve everyone." - That [itself] is their values. The notion that the proper thing to do is to invite everyone to participate is a value they are expressing. [z784]
# They cannot step away from owning their own values. It's just that they're saying, a democratic process is their values. (I happen to agree with them, that giving the people who are going to be affected, giving them the dignity of a voice in the process is important, but that's my values.)
# And to pretend that somehow that's not my values, and that somehow crowdsoucing the ethical system of this AI [will provide an inclusive system] - [that] kind of skips the problem. [z785] ***
# AB: It's in a way (and I'm bringing in Dooyeweerd and my theology here), In a way there's something right in the idea that democratic voices, all people contributing / [z786]
# But if we believe in the idea of the fabric of creation, that Creation works well in a certain way, then what we're looking for is to bring into AI the laws that represent the fabric of Creation. The real fabric, the things that really work. Which is not the same as the crowdsource, or the wisdom of the crowds would necessarily say. [z787]
# Although the wisdom of the crowds [z788]: Two things.
# (a) The crowd helps us come up with ideas that have been overlooked. # CA: Yes. # AB: But the crowd - so that's in support of what CA was saying. [z789]
# (b) But in support of what NB was saying, the crowd itself has a particular world view, perspective, ground-motive - a distorted view of the way Creation works. [z790] [AB: did not mean necessarily always distorted but rather partial] So -
# The idea of democracy as the final thing is itself a value, it's a good value, but it's not absolutely the whole truth.
# Another one is materialism. [AB: but unlike democracy: is that really a good value!] A lot of society is materialistic or let's say shutting God and religious things out. And if we do that, then thing's don't work well. [z791]
# That's what especially development things [organisations] are finding. Especially in this book that I'm reviewing ["We Cannot Continue Like This"].
[AB: For Discussion: Now, are Christian values just yet another set of values alongside all the others? Or do they somehow express the very fabric of Creation, the way Creation works well in all its aspects in harmony? Probably a bit of both. So, let us tease that out. On the one hand the "Christian Values" picked out by xxxx are probably the former, i.e. just another set. However, they to some extent express how Reality works well, which are norms or values that work whatever our faith, culture, etc. My view is that Dooyeweerd's aspects are probably the best expression of those that we have. So, I have long been thinking: If AI had rules about all those aspects then it should work well and not leave anyone out. This is for discussion. ] [z792]
# CA: Yes. So what this MOOC is what AB was trying to say, is to get the framework of the overall picture, seeing what they are missing out.
# But at the same time, I can be telling you a story which not true.
# So they actually have a hierarchy, going up to sort of verify, justify and then think through what people way, consider it. And they may or they may not take everything that has been represented. So, they have a lot of layers there, going up to go through the process. So it's not just like there's just two people, like one is all everybody's talking, and then the other one is, "OK let's take everything and put it into AI." No, there are other layers in between as well, to make sense of things. [z793]
# AB: How do they judge? [z794]
# CA: I don't know. I have to go and look back at the paper. Will send paper again. # Others asked for the paper too.
# AB: Do I have everyone's permission to send everyone's emails? All: Yes.
# AB: Well past our formal finishing time. Leave it there. We haven't petered out, we just kept going.
# NO: I would like to continue discusion of the values and JC's project.
# [AB said he would set something up separately for the latter. But in fact, JC contacted the others individually.]
# CA: Also, we talked about: where is our conversation going to lead us. We said we would discuss that today. [z712]
# AB: I've been given some thought to that: To bring together the various topics, and compile something with questions to discuss.
# AB: I suggest that next time we discuss the other values. [z713]
# Then the following time, I'll try and present something [that brings things together]. How's that? # NO: Great.
# NB: But also need to think about: we're thinking about how these values contribute to good economic systems. The next necessary step is: how do we construct an economic system can encourages these values. Or construct a political system that encourages these values. Or social-cultural whatever. [z714]
# To me this is probably the harder question. I don't know how to encourage people to be joy-filled, faith-filled, and self-giving. And pointing out that these things have economic benefits, is one small part of that perhaps.
# [all agreed]
# NB: That might be having to solve all of society's problems! [laughter] We'll cross that bridge when we get there!
# NO: That's why we have this great group of brains here! [laughter]
# CA: So it's more like building a frameowrk, isn't it. [z715] # NO: Yes, it's an architecture issue. # AB: Think that's a great idea.
# NO closed in prayer.
# Faith - (Note: I am not convinced by the definition given, but can take it as given just now.) So, how do deeper relationships help the economy? Might that lead to nepotism and certain kinds of corruption? If so, why does it matter?
# Justice - Redistributive whether via taxes or via generosity. c.f. the firms that lasted 100 years because they provided for the poor, e.g. Lever, Boots, Cadbury; Quaker Capitalism. What about animals? (Under what conditions) Does it need to redistributive?
# Joy - each person seen as a valuable part of the economy and society, rather than some ignored. c.f. UK War Graves Commission recently finding that African and Asian WW1 soldiers had not been properly commemorated, because seen as of lesser value. Might the feeling of joy enhance productivity and innovation? Might it enhance generosity?
# Service - Because service enhances the economic and the health/ shalom/ flourishing of 'the other' (those served). c.f. Servant Leadership in management. How does service help the economy? What is lack of service?? How does stifle or misdirect the economy?
# Peace - (a) War leads to huge sovereign debts that then dictate, constrain and stifle future economic activity into debt-repayment rather than productive things leading to genuine responsible prosperity. (b) when people or firms expend much of their financial and economic resources on competing and fighting rivals, much opportunity for prosperity is lost. (c) Peace in the heart: the confidence one is in harmony with the rest of Creation; is this the same as joy?