[Video] How we can face the future without fear, together

Tellahane wrote: Isn't it just safer to assume that we don't know the truth about anything? i mean 1 plus 1 = 2, 100% of the time so far, but what about 10 years from now when we find out its not always true, it just was the majority of the time. This idea essentially means that we only operate 100% of the time on assumptions, and not truth, despite the common quest for it. So should we be so focused on the someday or focused on the now? are the assumptions more important, or rather the educated assumptions, or what I'm sure someone will say is it's all about moderation in an attempt to seek as much truth as possible, knowing that in our lifetime we will never know whether anything is true or not, but rather seek to see as much of the big picture as our frail minds can comprehend.

Do you really think one day we will find out that 1+1 does not equal 2?:blink: Maybe so :laugh: but you have to realize there is a difference between objective truth and absolute truth. Sure we can never know absolute truth, but that does not mean we cant find objective truth. And we don't base this pursuit on assumption alone. We base it on observation and experiment and reproducible facts.

In fact we need to only have two assumptions for this to work. The first is that really it actually as we experience it with our senses and the second is that we can learn something about that reality. From that point we can arrive at logical conclusions such as the fact that 1+1 will always equal 2 or that gravity will always be a function of reality based on proofs we can observe. And if for some reason that changes in the future we will adjust our worldview to accommodate that new evidence. However until that day, we can only operate based upon the available evidence, and that evidence alone, as to what is true.

And this is not a function of future thinking. It is the quintessential function of "now" thinking. Every second we exist in "the now" we prove over and over that the facts we observe in our reality are actually true facts and we rely on that information to actually arrive at rational conclusions about our environment.

Manami wrote: I highly recommend adding these folks' perspective to the discussion: http://www.beyondconflictint.org/home/compromising-with-the-other/. They apply the principles in doing nation to nation conflict management and peace work in some of the toughest real world situations, and they back it up with some of the best neuroscience studies on the brain and conflict around (working with MIT).

(Here's the quick link for the neuroscience studies, for anyone interested: http://www.beyondconflictint.org/neuroscience-and-social-conflict-initiatives/)

Thanks for the links Manami. I think a really brief summary of the material there can be condensed as "we often don't know our own views as well as we could, which can lead to conflict" and they supplement the content of the video well. It reminds me of one (of many) "onion" models often used in negotiations between parties in conflict. The positions of most parties in conflict is usually quite clear - it's what they say about their situation; what they say they want - that makes the outside layer of the onion. The layer beneath that is their interests; and it invites a level of introspection from all parties; to determine what it is they REALLY want - this level is often only entered by parties who are willing to engage in a peace process. The heart of the onion however in made up from the needs of both parties; for which tools like an objective impact assessment by a neutral or cross-party work group can be useful. At each level, there is an opportunity for mutual understanding; that the parties "can disagree strongly and yet still stay friends."

Turning back to the content of the video; I understand the problem described here as individuals identifying as part of a group by label, but not actually engaging with the interests, or "responsibilities" of group membership. In doing so, they broaden the position of the labelled group; but they don't engage in strengthening the interests of that group (i.e. saying "I'm a Jedi" while also being the leader of the Khmer Rouge). The video's solution to the individual disengagement from group interests comes from strengthening relationships, creation of identity, and the assumption of collective responsibilities.