Відео

U explain it beautifully. I appreciate ur effort.

Excellent video, thank you for the upload. خیلی خوب

27:25 Yes! ❤ 🏙️ 🛣️

17:10 EXACTLY 💯

I've made a conscious effort to remove exclusive "THE" thinking, from my faith. I remain open minded, and always searching for better understanding. I'm studying the Quran and The Bible for 2024 and I'm so thankful to you for making a way for me to do so that is approachable.

an interesting take that also reminds me of the teachings in the gnostic gospels. I wonder if we can connect the Nietzschian invitation to become who we are outside of the bounds of cultural and religious chains with the image of Christ in the Thomas gospel. There's a great line about how he is here not to create Christians, but to create Christs that resonates with your video.

i try purchase android version from saudi arabia , coming transaction was declined

Promo-SM 😞

Thank you for this excellent concise course !

Knowledgeable but dry….

That is a very useful video

This was something incredible to watch!

What is Net Domestic Product? What has happened to the depreciation of all of the automobiles in the United States since Sputnik? Grossly Distorted Propaganda

I applaud you. It was wonderful.

Where I study (UK), when we say IS-LM-FE model we mean the Mundell Fleming model, with FE standing for Foreign Exchange

thanks alot

Thank u very much for this nice explanation 😍😍😍

thanks!

Very good and funny videos bring a great sense of entertainment!

i'm still confused by LM shift left when the Md goes up? i thought only increase in Ms that can shift LM right or left

your videos really help me !!!thank you :)

thank you love from NEPAL

Thank you for sharing your point of view about the strike. My thoughts reflect my 19+ years as a teacher and pedagogical counsellor in the public sector, union member (Montreal Teacher's Association and Association of Dawson Professionals), parent of school-aged children, and active parent rep on their elementary school governing board. These thoughts represent my opinions only and may not be in keeping with those of the institutions/communities that I serve. It's my intention to contextualize my thoughts by offering you my experiences, rather than to say, "been there, done that, I know better..." We all have an opinion and are made richer by considering others (me too). I liked your emphasis on compassion throughout your talk. We can't practice compassion in isolation, and/or without identifying our values, boundaries and constraints. To that end the (meta-level) local strategic plan, collective agreement, and many internal policies start with a values statement or jurisdiction statement, that then infuse and shape the actions and output of each. For example, at Dawson, when we are clear about valuing 'well-being for all' we can use it to channel our compassion into deliberate actions. I practice compassion in my professional capacity, when I listen attentively to faculty, try to understand each unique context and offer multiple proposals in keeping with it. I practice compassion by trying to understand the perspectives of all my clients and those they serve. I practice compassion by being clear in my personal and professional boundaries and constraints about behaviours that are and are not acceptable to me and why (values conflict/misalignment, broken rules/conventions/agreements/laws, etc.). Similarly, the union practices compassion for its members when it listens to their needs (and the communities they serve) and advocates for their rights within a unique context (with unique constraints). When the union calls for solidarity, they are asking public sector workers to stand together to serve the majority of its members. Even if an individual did not vote for the strike, they are part of a greater majority that did, and are asked to lend their support. This does not sound like violent actions or a greedy monopoly to me, but rather a concerted and caring effort to serve the many. I confess to not being 100% up to speed about the demands of nurses and college teachers, but I am au courant with those of the professionals and primary and secondary school teachers. These demands are about compassion: helping professionals and teachers to be better able to help students, more resources directly for students, attracting better resources for students (through better pay and competitive benefits), keeping the resources that are in place, smaller class sizes and so on. You speak of these professions as "models of selfless civil service", but this does not feel compassionate to me. On the contrary, it feels like systematic sexism, where caring professions (traditionally peopled by women) are somehow less deserving and should be taken for granted. Care should be met with care. It is not 'less worthy' to demand your worth. There is an inherent problem with valuing selflessness... In all my experiences in the education milieu, I have never met a teacher who did not want their students to succeed. I have never met one who was out to hurt or short-change their students. On the contrary, I have seen them pay out of pocket for resources, take on student teachers to make money for extra resources, work to the point of illness, create alternative assignments and give second, etc. chances, advocate for their students, bring their students to resource people, learn new skills, rethink teaching strategies, and so on... These teachers are practicing compassion for their students, but also have a right to practice compassion for themselves and point out their boundaries and needs. The union helps them to do this. I liked that you called the listener to be hopeful. I am hopeful too; hopeful that education will be a vehicle for social change for a more just and sustainable world. Teachers facilitate the critical thinking of the students in their classrooms, professionals facilitate the springboarding of research and innovation with staff and students, nurses care for our bodies, students are the hope for the future, and the unions are here to make the ship sail smoothly for all of us. As you say, nothing is perfect, but standing together with a common vision certainly sounds like good system to me.

As a fellow Dawson' teacher, overall, I have to say that I am about 15% in agreement with you and 85% in disagreement. For what I agree with you, I'd say that you make valid points regarding the fact that public sector is not concerned with efficiency and that it's not a bad thing that the private sector ( those dirty pigs) are. I also agree with you about your critiques in terms of the emotional rhetoric and confrontationalism that the union uses. I also share your critique in regards to joining up the unions and making them too big to fail. However, I think that your free market leanings have distorted your vision in some key ways. In some ways, I really think the government has left no choice but to do this. They are playing the game just as much as the union is for sure. And so each side has their role to play, and the union is just acting out its part. The thing is, acting out this part has pretty big consequences when it comes to working conditions. I'll give you one example. In the last round of negotiations with the last Collective Agreement, one of the big issues was sick days for Cont Ed teachers. This was one of the major gains made in the contract 6 years ago. I don't know if you knew my friend Nikos in physics, but many years before the last Collective Agreement, he had a bike accident on the way to school, and he still came in bloodied and taught the class, because if he didn't, he would have gotten paid. So I would say that definitely has a big impact on quality of life for the teacher and the quality of education for the student. There are other things that were gained in the negotiations, including the money that was part of the pot that Chantale used for the e learning fellowship, which clearly had pedagogical benefits for many teachers. There are still a lot more aspects of working conditions that need to be addressed. One of those areas is indeed money, which if we accept the government proposal as is, would actually lessen our purchasing power because of inflation. In some ways, I do think there needs to be some incentive for people to join the public sector and not just become a dirty private sector pig. And one of those incentives can be money. In terms of your alternative propositions, I think that letting parents decide what's best for their kids is a horrible idea! I hate to say it, since you spent a good part of that video critiquing paternalism, but people simply do not know what is good for them! Especially in terms of education. Let's say you have philosophy teacher that's really pushing the student to think, and it's challenging a lot of deeply held beliefs. The student might complain to the parents about what's being taught. They might complain to the administration about the poor teaching quality. In some ways, educators do need certain protections, like tenure, to ensure that they can continue pushing the envelope on contentious subjects without fear of reprisal. Does that set up a system where people abuse it? For sure. But I think of the consequences of a free-market system for education, where teachers would pander to what is popular and what parents want their students to be taught, would be far worse. There is already a fair bit of this going on in American universities, where students are treated more as consumers to please. This is eroding the fundamental value in the challenge of liberal arts education, to name one thing.

This was helpful

Terrible.

this Conference was very nice and useful for me. thank you

Interesting! Trying to use AI to find links and commonalities between the Bible and the Quran in order to get people closer together (and eliminate cancel culture!). I suspect finding deeper concepts and links may not be easy, but wish you all the best!

I really was curious about the question of value-judgments given that, say, computers might not (at least not-yet) be able to give a phenomenological account of what it means to be able to 'believe' a particular religion, or gain edifying or spiritual value from the texts in question. I wonder then, if we're just as one of the latter commentators said, feeding increasing amounts of data into the machines in the hope that the probability of 'accurate' correspondences is heightened, as to again whether they are necessarily helpful in the project of spiritual edification (for example, I imagine they'd be great on that macro-level bridge-building project); as such, then, do you see potential for this kind of technology to be able to increase us in edification particularly if we might be inclined to either non-literal or perhaps esoteric readings of our respective Scriptures (and I tend to veer towards a kind of underlying, unifying metaphysics anyway, as everyone from Guenon to Nasr, Lings et al have tried to point out, though arguably theirs is a very specific reading of Buddhism, Vedanta, Sufism inflected by a particular reading of ibn al-'Arabi etc)... so my question is, then, do you see a kind of edification for the purposes of spiritual growth, seeking Divinity, theosis (etc) possible through the implementation of AI and machine-learning, or do you think that the project is likely more refined in one sphere of access to the texts over another?

Thanks Ahmad! It's appreciated.

I would disagree with the idea that God allows individuals to outsource responsibility. This is an idea of great import to me personally at the moment as I continue to wrestle with these issues. Given the insistence of God to maintain one’s integrity and the consequence of failing to do so, I don’t believe this permits for the abdication of responsibility. It does permit the abdication of the responsibility to form moral values, but not to obey them. I also don’t think freedom’s foundational principle is that individuals are the best at making decisions for themselves, as I don’t believe this to be true. The parent-child relationship might be a good example of this. I believe, however, that in the context of politics and economics, it beats every other alternative. I understand your point of dissociating this analysis from morality but I don’t think I can. I’m no fan of paternalism, but my reasons are, in fact, moral. I believe it is wrong for a government to decide what an individual should do. The case can be made, however, that it is rational. That said, I think we might disagree on this, but I don’t think you can reach all moral positions rationally. As you have correctly stated, the thinking process is logical but the product may not be. This might also be an outworking of my own faith, but I’m inclined to see religion as a lens. It doesn’t provide an escape for me as much as it does a mapping mechanism. Here’s a practical example. I feel guilt over some of my past decisions and have a demand for some sort of mechanism to address this. Religion offers the doctrine of sin, that allows me to see my guilt as a consequence of an immoral act. The doctrine of sin also permits for redemption, by virtue of repentance. I now have an approach to defining and addressing what otherwise was a low-resolution feeling (guilt). As opposed to allowing for escape, the doctrine of sin forces me to engage directly with my failures and address them. It takes these different ideas and emotions and illustrates that they do not exist in a vacuum, all while providing mechanisms to address what are sometimes very tough issues. It’s effectiveness is a separate issue, however. I do not deny that other mapping mechanisms are effective or that they may even be better, but this component is only one of the many reasons I’ve adopted a religious view of the world.

🔥🎶