### 1st Transcript:

https://otter.ai/u/wfh44BbYO_4SX9mnboqrfoARXrk?tab=summary&view=transcript

To begin by contrasting ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau, and how they might apply to modern society. These perspectives do often form the basis for understanding the structure of our societies and their evolution over time. The Hobbesian view is often associated with a state of nature characterised by chaos and violence - the "war of all against all" - which necessitates the formation of a state to impose order. Rousseau, on the other hand, posited a more optimistic view of human nature in a state of nature - one of innocence and equality, which he believed was corrupted by society and civilization.

The transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones led to significant societal changes including the ability to accumulate wealth and surplus, establish permanent settlements, and the potential for social stratification. This resulted in power structures and disparities in wealth and influence that we see in various forms today.

The subsequent emergence of capitalism as a dominant economic and social system has been critiqued from various political perspectives. On one hand, conservatives often argue that attempts to make society more equal can lead to inefficiency and, in extreme cases, tyranny. They see capitalism as the most efficient and liberty-preserving system we have, even if it does lead to some inequality. On the other hand, more radical leftists may argue that capitalism itself can lead to extreme forms of inequality and forms of tyranny, particularly in terms of the vast power differences it can create.

Some believe that the current capitalist framework is the only realistic option, and that we can only hope to make incremental improvements within this system (the "iPhone upgrade version of capitalism", as we put it). Others believe that more radical societal changes are necessary and possible, and that our current acceptance of inequality and the concentration of power is neither inevitable nor desirable.

Whether or not radical changes are possible, and what those changes might look like, is an ongoing and complex debate in political theory.

Various alternative social and economic models have been proposed and explored, from different forms of socialism and communism, to more decentralized and participatory forms of democracy, to ideas about how technology might transform our economies and societies in fundamental ways. It is a rich and important area of discussion and debate, and these ideas continue to evolve in response to changing social, economic, and technological conditions.

When we look at objects or beings in the world, such as a person or an entity like the North Sea, we see that their physical substance changes over time. However, we still identify them as the same "thing" - Bethany, the North Sea, etc. This raises questions about what actually constitutes the identity of something - is it its physical components, its form, or something else entirely?

The Greek philosopher Plato proposed the theory of Forms, which suggested that there is an eternal, perfect essence or representation of everything. These Forms are the original, the ideal versions of things, and everything we see in the material world is a mere imitation or shadow of these perfect Forms. This theory has had a profound influence on many areas of Western thought, including Christianity, which incorporates the idea of an eternal soul.

However, there are serious challenges with this notion. Objects and beings in the world are not static but are in a constant state of change. For example, the Ship of Theseus paradox questions the identity of an object (in this case, a ship) that has had all its components replaced over time. Is it still the same ship, or has it become something else?

One way that Buddhist philosophy answers these questions is by suggesting that there is no permanent, independent self. According to the doctrine of Anatta (or "no-self"), what we perceive as a unified "self" or "identity" is actually a constantly changing collection of physical and mental phenomena. There is no eternal essence or soul that remains unchanged.

### 2nd Transcript : https://otter.ai/u/dIcLZpnj4d0lfQCHhih2dM6B3TY?tab=summary&view=transcript

Ontology, in this context, refers to the philosophical study of the nature of being, reality, or the categorisation of being. It involves theories and beliefs about the fundamental nature of humans and the world.

One key point made here is that our views on human nature significantly influence how we think society should be organized. For example, if we see humans as inherently corrupt, aggressive, and dominating, it could lead us to believe that a strong authority figure or a central state is necessary to maintain order and prevent chaos. On the other hand, if we see humans as fundamentally good, cooperative, and loving, we may advocate for different, more egalitarian or decentralized societal structures.

The transcripts refers to two contrasting views of the state of nature represented by the philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes. Rousseau believed in the innate goodness and innocence of humans, which he thought was corrupted by society. Hobbes, on the other hand, argued that humans are inherently self-interested and competitive, and that a strong state is necessary to prevent 'the war of all against all.'

However, both of these views have limitations when applied to modern complex societies. Regardless of whether one leans more towards Rousseau's or Hobbes's perspective, there seems to be a resignation or acceptance of the current political order when in large scale complex societies. For instance, liberal or social democratic capitalism is seen as the best option available, despite the variations in how it is applied in different countries.

Our ontological views form an invisible bounding box, constraining how we perceive human behaviour and societal possibilities. The analogy of the 'nine dots problem' (a classic puzzle where you have to connect nine dots with four straight lines without lifting the pencil from the paper) illustrates this point. Like the 'box' we unconsciously form around the nine dots, our ontological assumptions restrict our view of possible solutions.

Ultimately, the text argues for the importance of examining our ontological assumptions as a way to break out of these constraints and envision significant social change or transformation. By doing so, we might be able to come up with radically better ways to organise society.

Now, to introduce the concept of "ontological fixity", a term used to describe the assumption that human nature, or at least adult human nature, is somehow fixed and unchangeable. There may be variances in preferences, attitudes, and behaviours, but on a fundamental level, it's often assumed that individuals or groups do not change significantly over time.

This idea of ontological fixity is often present in our daily operations and perceptions, though its validity can be questioned when examined more critically.

Economics may be the quintessential discipline of Late Modernity. In economics, certain assumptions are implicitly or explicitly made that can greatly affect societal organization and dynamics. These assumptions are often presented as neutral or scientific, adding to their perceived legitimacy and influence.

One such assumption in economics relates to "preferences". In economic theory, individuals are assumed to have preferences - likes or dislikes, wants or needs - that determine their choices. For instance, some people might prefer apples over strawberries, and these preferences then guide their consumption behaviours.

Other factors like available choices, technology, institutions, and market structures also play a role in economics. However, these are often either taken as given (exogenous to the model) or explained within the model (endogenous).

A classic problem in economics involves trying to satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources. However, what's often overlooked is that preferences - a crucial part of this equation - are usually taken as a given in most economic models. They're assumed to be exogenous, or outside the scope of the model, not something that can be influenced or changed.

This is a significant oversight, reinforcing the assumption of ontological fixity and limiting our understanding of how societies can be organized differently. Questioning these assumptions is crucial if we are to envision significant social change.

Continuing the discussion about the assumed fixity of preferences in economics. We may introduce the concept of "endogenous preferences" – preferences that can change as a result of consumption, like how smoking cigarettes can increase one's future preference for cigarettes due to addiction. However, the mainstream economic education still mostly treats preferences as a given, largely unchangeable aspect of human nature.

An ideological aspect is highlighted here as well. If preferences can be changed, they can also be manipulated or shaped. This can pose a challenge to a market-oriented view of economics. For example, companies might be incentivised to manipulate preferences towards their products (through advertising and marketing) rather than invest in improving the products themselves. Economics often struggles to deal with the role of advertising in shaping preferences.

Preferences for certain activities (like swimming over running) were influenced by his experiences. This suggests that preferences are not just randomly assigned or naturally occurring but are constructed and influenced by our interactions and experiences.

Preference are more malleable and constructed than we often assume. They can be influenced by genetics and environment, yes, but also by the intentional actions of others, which challenges the notion of ontological fixity and opens up possibilities for more complex, dynamic models of human behaviour

Here, we can draw a connection to the concept of 'non-self' in Buddhism, and opposing the notion of ontological essentialism - the belief that there is an unchanging essence or identity to a being or thing. Turning to examples of people whose personalities have dramatically changed due to dementia or injury, it is emphasised that these changes challenge the notion of a fixed identity.

In the context of economic activity, if we were to recognize that preferences can change, it would shift the entire focus of production and consumption. Instead of striving to create goods to satisfy existing preferences, we could aim to educate individuals to be content or even deeply joyful with what they already have, adjusting their preferences in the process. This could even extend to our perception of life and death - our most fundamental preference, the preference for survival, is ultimately futile as no one can live forever in their physical body.

Our current economic model is based on satisfying these perceived fixed wants. This assumption is so deeply embedded in our society that a drop in consumption is often seen as a concern rather than a sign of people being content with less. This reveals the extent to which our society and economy are tied to the idea of fixed preferences.

Altough some needs are essential (e.g., the need for water), many of our preferences aren't. Why do we continue to place so much emphasis on satisfying these changeable preferences and suggests that we could instead focus on changing our preferences to be more content with what we already have?

Linking the idea of ontological fixity, the belief in an unchanging nature or essence of beings or things, to essentialism, a philosophy suggesting that for any given entity there is a set of attributes necessary for its identity and function. This discussion takes us back to ancient philosophy with references to Plato and Heraclitus.

Plato is identified as an essentialist, as his philosophy includes the idea of a fixed essence for things, or abstract forms which represent the true nature of things. This is represented by the Allegory of the Cave, where the shadows on the cave wall are seen as the physical world we perceive, but the true essence of things lies beyond our immediate perception.

In contrast, Heraclitus proposed that everything is in a state of flux, nothing is fixed, embodied in his quote, "No man ever steps in the same river twice." This is because the river, constantly changing with the flow of new water, is always different from moment to moment. HHeraclitus' philosophy is in stark contrast to Plato's, as it posits that there is no fixed essence.

Then to move back to the discussion of our identities and preferences, noting that if we believe there's a fixed essence to us, then the idea of our preferences being changeable can be threatening. The realisation that we are continually changing can be disturbing, or alternatively, it could be seen as liberating.

Tying this back to broader societal implications, if we believe in ontological fixity, this can limit our capacity for cooperation and altruism because we view these traits as inherent and unchangeable. In the same way, we view physical realities, like the finite amount of fossil fuels, as fixed and unchangeable.

Fortunately, it seems more plausible that there exists an ontological plasticity, or the ability to change our very being. This concept broadens the scope of possibilities since it implies that traits such as cooperativeness, compassion, love, true freedom, and happiness are malleable and can be developed over time.

Our quest for happiness often leads us to consume more, as we equate material possession with increased happiness. However, they argue that transformative practices like psychotherapy, yoga, or mindfulness reveal that we are not as fixed in our preferences and behaviours as we may think.

Interestingly, they note that our preferences consist of two parts: our actual likes or dislikes, and our views about those likes or dislikes. Both components can potentially be changed, making us realise that our perception of ourselves and others as "fixed" may not be accurate.

This ontological transformability is linked with political possibilities. The idea that human nature is malleable, evolvable, and transformable allows us to imagine significant changes in societal norms and structures. A person or a society being selfish now doesn't mean they will be selfish forever; change is possible.

Using the climate crisis as an example of how this concept applies to real-world situations. If we were to focus more on transforming our preferences (i.e., our desire for material possessions), we could potentially alleviate the environmental impact we are currently causing by reducing the emissions caused by overproduction. Human well-being and happiness are not entirely tied to material possessions, and we can learn to derive more joy from less.

The idea is that resources could be more wisely spent on transformative practices that don't require expensive tools or technology. Things like mindfulness, community, and friendship can contribute greatly to our well-being without negatively impacting the environment.

A practical example about holidays. They suggest that people could reduce their costs (and their environmental impact) by going on holidays at less popular times. This approach would require some flexibility in terms of work but might be a more sustainable practice in the long run.

### 3rd Transcript: https://otter.ai/u/v6jjWv2WCJTYhpRga8IKCxGoPyg?tab=summary&view=transcript

Essentialism is problematic under scrutiny. For instance, they suggest our identities evolve over time. The differences between a person as a six-month-old baby and the same individual as an adult are so significant that we could argue they are not the same person. Further, changes caused by mental illnesses or dementia can lead to a person being considered no longer the same.

It is important to differentiate between the personal self and what some spiritual traditions refer to as the "big self" or the divine essence, emphasizing that these are different notions of selfhood. They note that Buddhist traditions provide a detailed and comprehensive exploration of this subject, emphasizing the teaching of 'non-self', suggesting there's no fixed essence of personhood.

We must caution against a binary, "either-or" mindset, often employed by Western thought, suggesting that this dualistic approach can be a trap when attempting to understand Eastern philosophical concepts. Instead, they propose a non-dualistic approach, where something can be 'both and'. They use the example of a being that can be a person and not a person simultaneously, arguing that this is a difficult concept for those trained in a strictly logical sense to grasp.

The famous four negations of Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna illustrates the non-dualistic approach. Nagarjuna's logic suggests that a statement is neither true nor false, moving us away from binary thinking.

The political implications of this approach to understanding human nature. If there is no fixed essence of human nature, then our nature, as well as that of others, is malleable and flexible, particularly in terms of our values and views. This has implications for anthropology and the study of culture, which have missed connections with Buddhist ontologies and spiritual traditions. When we encounter different cultures, we are often struck by their difference from our own in terms of practices, values, standards of beauty, etc. This suggests that human nature is fluid and diverse, shaped by cultural and environmental factors.

This leads into a discussion of politics and economics. If human nature is seen as fixed, politics and economics focus on fulfilling predetermined needs, wants, and preferences. However, if we consider human nature as flexible and capable of development, it opens up the possibility of conscious evolution and transformation. This shift towards inner transformation, as opposed to a focus on material production, provides a fundamentally different political program.

Current societal priorities, which focus on material acquisition and the production and allocation of resources, are inadequate. Our education systems are designed to create better consumers and producers rather than nurturing personal development and changing wants. The key to happiness is not gaining more material possessions but fostering inner transformation.

Borrowing from Buddhist teachings, that we already have enough conditions to be happy in the present moment. The cultivation of peace and joy is the way forward

What does an ontological society look like?
One focused on cultivating personal and societal growth or "being" rather than material wealth or "things."

This new kind of science is compared to the craft of gardening or medicine, both of which involve complex decisions under uncertainty and with limited information, embodying a kind of skilled cultivation rather than a fixed procedure. We could even use the scientific method — experimenting, collecting data, and critically examining the data — to inform and continually evolve this new societal focus.

This doesn't mean that work and material pursuits would cease, but rather they would be done more efficiently and wisely, with an emphasis on cultivating our "being". Contrasting this new focus with measures like Gross Domestic Product (GDP), suggesting we should shift towards 'Gross National Being' or 'Gross National Happiness.' However, take caution against reducing it to just one dimension as this has been problematic even in material matters.

There’s a need to explore and define what "being" is and how it can evolve, cautioning that any categorisation or analysis will inherently be slightly reductionist. It's crucial to remember that this analysis is an approximation rather than a definitive truth, to avoid falling into the trap of reductionism which is pervasive in modern society.

The critique of GDP serves as an example of this reductionist approach, focusing solely on the material aspects of the economy. While GDP serves some useful purposes, like providing a measure for material progress, it is a crude measure that doesn't take into account the breadth of societal wellbeing or individual growth. There need for multi-dimensional measurements that can better capture the essence of societal and individual wellbeing.

GDP largely focuses on transactions and production within the economy, thereby overlooking non-market activities such as domestic work or personal relationships. These aspects of life that contribute to individual and societal wellbeing are not transacted or produced for exchange value and are therefore not captured by GDP.

Of course, removing the principle of consumer choice could lead to paternalism or even totalitarianism should not blindly accept teachings or ideologies as truth but should test them through personal experience and reflection. This same principle should be applied to the ideas they're putting forth in this argument