So the day you went to imagine is what is my current research and that's my dissertation.
And it's only my second year, Right? So it's a work in progress.
So please bear with me. So this is taught and my dissertation in general,
it focuses on a very specific and rather famous Buddhist example that has been used now for millennia.
It at various moves. The example itself problematise the issues surrounding into subjectivity and by extension, perceptual relativism.
But I know that scares you. And there's the title, The Next Awards of Blood.
This gives us the kind of, like, hints that we might be talking about.
And then essentially what I'm trying to do is tell a story, a Buddhist history of discussions surrounding perceptual relativism,
and specifically on the example that we're about to describe.
Okay. The example from henceforward. Shall we call the example though rather straightforward.
You understand we have a common object or common reference, sometimes described as water, sometimes described as a flowing substance.
And you have a ghost or a hungry ghost. They humans.
And they have a location. You even have a union. And they all have these divergent cognitions of this same restaurant.
The hungry guys see the blood, the water and the pot nectar, and the union even sees it as attacking humanity, the representation of the.
Of rewards and. In this example is taken to be factual by the authors that I'm working on an actual possible scenario.
But we can, without having to accept what is cosmology, we can use the novel, one that fits the bill that actually illustrates the same problem.
And by looking at the best, we can do different combinations of our shared environments by humans and animals,
such as a tick through only has three senses that are blind or something,
but you see ultraviolet light and even dogs with a greater sense of smell and hearing passages.
But if we compare their environments with our own,
we can we can put into question exactly what this shared environment is with the
objects that we perceive are so utterly different or in fact are different.
What is the criterion for distinguishing the shared reality that we are supposed to face in public?
This work has been in the Western sphere, but it is very in the beginning of the 20th century, which is on the books,
the kind of environment and the subject of environment, the different organisms where we have an experience, whether or not they actually coalesce.
They're such examples, particularly the one I'm going to look at. They ask us to consider questions such as Why do beings of various realms,
the spiritual levels, all seem to perceive the same object in such different ways.
Is that in fact a common and shared object of perception?
Is what we perceive as water. Actually, water, if it is perceived in such a different way by Holy Ghost sports or yoga.
If there is, there is this. What exactly is it?
By extension, which of the preceding is accurate and what is the criteria?
Having an actual cognition of the subject. It is the kinds of questions this example following the choices and issues
that all of the different Indian and Tibetan exegesis that I'm working on are
struggling and doing their best to answer the dissertation as a whole is an
attempt at mapping the history of Buddhist discussion surrounding this example.
And also it's telling the story of how Buddhists, from the very earliest days up until modern Tibetans,
have grappled with perceptual relativism and relativism generally, and they have produced incredibly rich and sophisticated philosophical solution.
So I hope this study will thereby illustrate some interesting nuances around the development of the
report on relativism and perhaps also even offer something towards the modern debate on the subject.
So, I mean, just to make a little bit background, why I'm so interested in this subject is when I was in Italy studying,
studying the match up with the guitar and this commentary on that record,
perhaps I should mention that they can take two years off from everyday events and it's just really sparked my interest in something.
And then after that I had to take this doco in the London monastery and that was the summer, two years going through this thing.
It's very, very rich effort, he continues with students.
And so it's a.
It's a very difficult and simple problem, and it illustrates one of the major issues I'd say that it is in faces in terms of dealing relative.
So now this is the outline.
So there's two sections that I sort of survey the sources to understand some of the exegesis.
So the examples of be examples in India, in Indian sources,
it's been seems to have been used in three main ways to illustrate the doctrine of common, that is doctrine, common idealism and magic emptiness.
And we're going to carry on this conceptual general to Tibet.
And they seem to be pretty distinct phases of the discourse in Tibet and that use the example.
And this is also still very in its early phases of Tibetans.
I do I'm open to suggestions of disagreements, and then we'll focus in on some companies interpretation of the example,
which is somewhat revolutionary, I think at that time in Tibet and also was a very controversial.
So the first text we will look at is the pizza boxes.
This is what the earliest one that I found in the local source tells of The Departed.
The compilation of 51 accounts of the Warriors of Holy Ghost that are experiencing negative results on the comet.
And these texts they all found in the last division of the party by the miscellaneous collection.
And Donna, Paula admits that she currently holds Tara with the Python second guitar.
His mother, Tara, actually left during the just after.
But it's part of learning and normal process that this story, this account was actually during the first council and then later became the second.
It was to have an equivalent in the other dungeons and the same story with slight difference it.
So this just reached 70. It has been 55 years since I died in a human world.
I have not eaten anything or drank water since then. Please give me some water and breakfast.
And the monks. But there is this cool water in the Ganges River flowing down Himalayan mountains.
You can take some from it and drink. Why do you ask me for water supplies?
Oh, Bunty, I take some of it turns into blood. That is why I am asking for water.
So this is one of these, as I said.
But it's narrative instead of okay. All of these actions arise and give rise to unfortunate experiences in the future.
And that is a.
It's rather simple. It doesn't it doesn't explicitly describe any aspects of his symbology and or ontology.
But there are, I believe, indications that we can draw from them.
Okay. So then swiftly moving on. So when we look at the next text, we.
The mind of some citizens of science and text or subscribe to a singer.
There's a variety of examples that are set forth by various authors who substantiates their claim of mind only.
This is just one among many rights and lots of text or many different examples given to illustrate the doctrine that there are no external objects.
Everything that we perceive is not a different entity from online.
And the example is used to illustrate the. And of the many arguments to prove that this document cheats a much or mind only.
This is illustrates one of them. Let's just read the Tibetan.
In that good job in regard to watch it did she so much but I knew mean that's the translation to the idea here.
Okay since hungry ghost animals you thoughts of different minds perceptions
concerning single entity according to the class of beings to which they belong.
It is maintained. External objects do not exist. So bear in mind, within the history of a pretty strong sport is this yoga cha cha cha?
Is that very often talking to other Democrats that the Democrats who are asserting external objects exist?
And how is perception generated generated by external objects?
Passing an aspect to our consciousness is to our senses, and then our senses reflect those of being generated in the aspect of those objects.
And just like the mirror, just like if you put a orange in front of the mirror,
that object past its aspect and the mirror is that similar to our senses.
And so how cognition works as an avatar issued a proclamation.
But interactions and your guitar is like saying of his.
This doesn't make any sense. You have an object like a orange reflect in ten different mirrors and you end up having a banana,
strawberry and an apple reflected in name by difficult to maintain.
That is one object passing or actually reflecting itself into these different cognition or in mirrors.
Example. So in that case, because there are such different cognition,
they argue there is no external that is producing locations or that these consciousnesses are represented.
So there are three arguments for different arguments for idealism that use the example, but this is just one of them.
It's more details. So the next major improvements are by 2050.
This is. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay, so let's just read. That's about it. And then I'll try and explain the laughing.
So that we don't want. But unfortunately, from the beginning I did that young boy.
Not a [INAUDIBLE] on this young midget.
He should be. So.
Also hungry guests. Awareness of a flowing river bus is similar to someone with visual senses afflicted with an eye disorder.
Sometimes the idea is that just as objects of knowledge do not exist, one should also understand mind as non-existent.
So the context of this discussion comes in the middle of a large debate with those who are
trying to say that there are no external objects in the given premises and subject in mind.
The mind is what exists. That's what's real external objects. I think it's the film.
And so in a previous example,
when chandrakant you responded to the example of an eye disorder sort of research in and I just wanted a sample where you have these flowcharts,
right, we see like pooling, having separated. So the teacher matches, they use that as an example, illustrate how you can have cognition,
that external object that is like when you have the eyes we see in these places, actually there is no problem head.
Therefore, we can have cognition about physics and logic.
It's educated in that context. Refuted that by saying that if there is really this intrinsic existence of mission consciousness, as you say,
there is such a cognition of these voting as being intrinsic existent does not depend on the identity itself from anywhere.
It's intrinsic to it.
So hence that cognition does not rely on having this or having an eye disorder or anything else in order to have the appearance of full intent.
That's the case anyone who looks at direction should seek.
Why? Because the cognition is intrinsic. This is intrinsic.
It needn't depend on. But that's obviously not the case.
I have voters in my hometown this morning had you not see them.
That's my subjective variance. But if my cognition were intrinsic with the subject, as we should all be, because it doesn't depend on.
The second essential way of explaining subject is previous refutation.
And he says the same thing here is similar to that. So just as someone with an eye disorder exceeds sporting content.
Likewise here. If the cognition of these beings.
Is intrinsic. It does not depend on anything for its own identity.
Then when a hungry guy sees us, since that submission does not pretend to be dependent on anything like common sense power or anything at all,
then the gods, the human and anyone else, they should also see us.
And blood. Because their cognitions intrinsic.
That's the kind of argument that she's bringing then. And there are various interpretations of that by Tibetan.
Then come later. But here's a brief summary of various text.
I found the example in Indian sources. They are earliest, as I said in the paper, back to the second century B.C.
Then we've got the Jurassic period.
This is from the positive out of the Maya that kept on medicines, and that's something of China's future may have had in the vein of suture.
And then that lost on the way a shorter shastra by some good budget commentary.
And that kind of refutation of a bit on the question.
So those all of those texts use the example to illustrate his doctrine of karma in two ways.
Ethical dimension, its cognitive or psychological dimension that functions the perceptual capacity of us to perceive different types of objects.
But also we go to the. And in terms of idealism, it's a matter.
We have all of these different tech.
So the abdominal suture, this is actually I lost my future that appears in many Tibetan texts, the Chinese texts in a sentence minus so roughly.
But essentially like Apatow's future my some ground and it's Bashir by Abbas Bandhu.
We should start exacerbating the example then then in general, which is also a bit on some of China,
etc. our national body is beginning to today then an extension.
Also many Chinese said 726 iPhone anyway that also used example to illustrate idealism and share which are non-existent fixed on a world.
You know, you could say in the end it's a better system.
When finally in terms of emptiness, using the example to illustrate emptiness, we've got to educate you then.
Very interesting text. Next, I'm tempted century by German budget. It's his commentary on the bank charter.
Future uses the example in a very interesting way to my point of view.
And then there's a giant under there which is on the back of a tourist is the only known Indian
commission educated smuggler with the guitar of century that would talk about violence against Jews.
And some went to Tibet and to a century.
But anyway, this is just a survey really illustrate the kinds of doctrines that examples being used in and this development of it in India.
There's a lot to say in terms of both the differences and the discussions surrounding, but this is focussed more like the.
Presentation. So now let's get to Tibet.
So moving north, we continue this conceptual journey with a previous chapter along this very same tributary of Peace in Tibet.
My current research, it seems we can go regroup Tibetan Exegesis Tibetan majority accidents into three phase it.
That between the and from 13th century, so roughly from beginning of the T-shirt, we should know.
That's not to say there's nothing on my jumping rocker.
I think there is a little bit. I very much agree. I'm a great.
The extensive search into that area. And if anybody knows, I'll be happy to hear about it and to soon that.
But anyway, in terms of real time maximum discourse on the writing that much more lucid as far as treatises on measurement,
he begins around this period in 13th century with teachers, not to mention is a good way to link the incoming teachers with Tibetans.
So what is the people I'm looking into? But I haven't found an example as of yet.
Yellow is people that I have found usually don't.
Then maybe I just spoke a little bit about each of these accidents because they're all quite important for getting my Jennifer and Tisha,
we would agree here. So I need that out wrong sometimes. We saw last week that it's great.
Not a huge exodus, fantastic epistemology, some philosopher.
It's used by mid-pandemic and relies heavily on Zoom in managing.
Very influential, putting up a tradition. We have not there was not traditional translates Department of Africa and.
Considered by tradition, a proponent of a Democrat speciality of what I do, what I would refer.
Edition. Then we've got parts of New Majok. He was a very important person within my judgement.
Generally, this is two branches of much of the discourse that existed in Cuba when pulling them apart.
This is really an admission. But he had some injuries when he first was not first action,
but considers the main accident of education system or the founder in a sense propagated it and established its in Tibet.
And then we have the championship the same days and nights.
This is the one who just actually had a debate with Gyanendra and apparently defeated him in debates in some people's view.
And Gyanendra seems to approach educated, secular.
And then the change of scenery is interesting. He is a student.
TAPPER So if you disagreed with him and you can't see much for your.
And then she attempts to refute lots of pitches.
I did subsequently to postpone my Jamaica.
Then when we hit the 14th and 15th century. We have a slightly different theory to just by.
Where luminaries from all of the five principal villages were in the midst of an incredibly rich and dynamic period of scholarly activity.
Also included Mendonca Altos Duckworth.
The simply observes during this period the distinctive interpretations of the various approaches
to the British past and view of the main participants in Tibet were being forged at this time.
We've got writing boards. Experts come up a few times shaped or proposed for the champion,
pass on tempo numbers from a dumb question and sent for the sections is fantastic or for lounging.
And so all of these are works on Democrats. And but so far, I mean, it just it works.
I haven't found anything. Then we then when we hit the mid 14th century, this is the same as a kind of new injection of life into Tibetan discourse.
And tradition generally considers that it's going to provide as much teaching to my studies in Tibet.
And so Brent our legend capsule I'm saying so Carter as a free during that time.
What's it been. And they I think they wanted to capture a pulsing, possibly the earliest special commentary on Katie's my dynamic at the time.
And it also has a commentary and then some copper, as was a very fiery commentary and in many ways generally because the tradition and the modern
scholarship also generally considers stonecutters interpretation as being quite unique,
quite different from anything that came before him.
And to have essentially refuted nearly everybody prior to him, there's even a text by AJ that tries to argue why in doubt.
And so Copper's views come to the same point. But at the moment as we saw it, you know, that's right.
He's working longer in my. We just recently have access to mandalas from someone which is published in ten volumes ten years ago.
So a lot of our understandings on what actually what when they were taught are based on native Tibetans articulation of his views or commentary.
And we have had for a while where translated, but that was a sink hole, ten volumes in some not on the view within those.
But we're hoping to kind of go into this a bit more to actually distinguish how revolution actually is supposed to be.
When you have read these ten volumes inscriptions, we haven't really had access to them.
So anyway, these three I get a lot from American studies in Tibet.
Then we have some couples use interpretations of measurements that we would see in.
I was said to be so controversial on every word. Controversial.
You have these three Thatcher scholars who wrote these scathing critiques of attacks on each collectively as the attacks on.
Each of them are quite different and they will write very, very erudite critiques of some of his work, and particularly his interpretation of.
And. Moving on now into the 16th century, you then have a backlash.
And so a couple of followers who also write their own critiques of these few authors should be such authors.
So get some punch in some of this and check in.
They were different critiques of I'm from Texas.
And then you have Mitchell Dorjee, I want you to come up with you actually essentially develop the ideas that I'm arguing for and further development.
It's actually much more of intense interpretation, much, much more complicated, much more nihilistic.
Then we've got lots still to be so important.
Offer this time to see if you had something in this country that's up now, a jumper somewhere.
It's a response to tax sense for cheap but important signal importance.
It has some important interesting writings on the German culture.
Has a complete text on that. I have some sections on that.
And then finally, as we get to the end of the 19th and 20th century, have you met?
I wrote some plastic numerics that you do in his writings on Metallica.
He's in a very privileged position in science. He's looking back at espousing views and discourse on that and agreeing with some others.
So in many ways he refutes some politics, quote unquote, and runs on power.
But in many ways you say follow some copper and then you also have kept in check.
I read it just after you wanted to look in the whilst on super follows me.
I'm in many ways in his critique of some copper going everywhere.
So this is pretty general overview of Islamic discourse in these periods and the offers that I found interesting
usages of the example that I'm working on tend to kind of have an incident I've talk about different.
But what's interesting to me personally is actually the dynamics of that.
You have things like methodology repeating things. Sometimes you have relying on people like what?
I'm wrong. Then you have people like kids who actually premium on the classroom and.
And. And then you have a couple of direct arguments that.
And I think those are some quite interesting about literary history and how this actually develops over a period of time.
And I'll say something about that later. So now let's focus in that.
Zoom inwards onto one of the actual discussion on the Sun cover.
The Sun cover. These are his dates. He argued for reforms or probably more correct to say innovations to better interpretations
of three main components of his practice the view of the decision and conduct.
Then terms of view. The company was very concerned with how Tibetans were interpreting Metallica for him.
They had fallen under the pernicious influence of teachings that either overextend their scope when refuting or rejecting what did not exist,
and thus were unable to uphold relative things of conventional things like karma and method side of Muhammad Buddhism.
Well, they were overly limited in scope unless they could subtly spell ignorance.
The blocks, the variation with Miyama for reasonable. But you need to know how certain things exist or how certain things we perceive to
exist that actually do not allow you to eliminate what you think is a huge subject.
Imagine.
And what exactly is the culture exactly you what it is that the targets of your analysis and use measurable reasons to refute things do not exist.
It's a very delicate line between what exactly does exist and what is not and some copper is not happy with.
But you can tell anyone that's actually explanations. Person wouldn't say quite in these terms.
So this was writing. So the connection between these friends, the meditation contact,
is actually quite an interesting subject and something I'm trying to write on as well.
Not a separate paper on how the view and meditation,
how they work together and how the actually one applies meditations, things that one establishes as the view in terms.
And so listen, copper, if you have a view which over let's say over extends what you get with my.
No, the reason. In the sense that you in terms of the stature, lemma, you refute the existence of everything and nothing exists.
An emptiness is best described as neither existent, non existent, both, or neither.
You refute all of that. This has a consequence of your meditation.
It leads you to believe that your every concept therefore also is a grasping at something which does not exist.
Every concept therefore should be negated.
Therefore, when we meditate to make every concept, every concept is just one system, so therefore we shouldn't get some help.
So this. You as in forming an inferior form of meditation.
Which also had consequences for conduct, but is under ethics, protection and so on.
Where it's remembered by tradition is that there is this lack of concern with the desire, with ethics and so on.
And generally speaking, the methods cited in my in Buddhism, though, all of the problems that are essentially associated with fashion.
And it was supposed to have been a refuge. It would to be seen as coming out again, proliferating as time.
So he took up his reforms and probably more. But it looks right to say innovations and many aspects of better sports.
However,
his followers would consider his principal contributions to build structure in his writings on Jamaica and on the illusionary body of centuries.
Lucretius. Before discussing some you interpretation of the example that I'm working on
that's recently surveyed some unique features of his interpretation of my Janica.
Hopefully this will allow a more nuanced reading of his interpretation.
So one of the controversial things it does is he indicates that no repentance appears to want to get into my judgement,
cut the signal going down, the pitch even. Very important, very significant, famous and influential authors on this symbology and logic in India.
They essentially they have a very different view of reality than people like 230 mortgages and so on.
But for so half of that, there was no problem to integrate certain aspects of coaching.
From the kitchen's epistemology into my Jericho. As long as you not.
They said. The basic point is that if you want to.
Not fall into scepticism where you can look for anything exists or history relativism,
where you cannot distinguish a of a sense cognition of a mirage and sense cognition of a late within my judgement.
Everything is considered illusion. But then what exactly is the difference between an illusion?
They. For us, the actual functions of it and the cognition of the mirage and cognition of the net.
How do you distinguish? So one of the problems that he felt previous management has not really articulated was this out to distinguish the.
So to help with this imposed on the persons epistemology in terms of its.
Distinguishing features of four defining characteristics some of honour that is accurate knowledge, but I think some are epistemic instruments.
But I'm just correct, it's probably accurate knowledge.
Labour is that catchy and says, fine, we can we can have two types of epistemic instruments.
We can have inferential and we can have perceptual.
These are two types of political order and democratic proposed. That's how we can know everything, everything, maybe sexually or information.
Then he distances himself from Don Quixote, using four different types of educated action speeches.
But he adds two types of inference and implies you can have both the inference through analogy and inferences through testimony.
Well for you, kind of an inference based on what someone said. Oh, they say that therefore that's just like this analogy.
Therefore, it adds these types of influences that we can use or certain measurement.
But to have a coherent epistemology, even if everything is on real.
And he divides these up into these two types of.
Epistemic instruments. Two types of summer.
So conventional epistemic instruments, they weren't they validated conventional, conventional thinking and they stayed true.
They established, they validate. Ultimate epistemic instruments.
They weren't ultimate. They established ultimate speeds do not contradict each other.
They had different areas of expertise. So a telescope can see the moon.
They can't see a microorganism, but it doesn't invalidate. Likewise, the ultimate instrument.
It can perceive reality to perceive ultimate, but it cannot.
But that doesn't invalidate nominal with tables and chairs.
Then he goes on to say something quite fundamental for his sister.
Any job is done. And if it's it took the objects that are positive conventionally, this means conventional thing.
They must be warranted by conventional instruments.
So I had to be able to distinguish the difference between a mirage and an actual light blue.
To be able to out is proven true to oneself and to others via recognition.
Otherwise we fall into scepticism, heavy concrete, anything but social relativism.
But every opinion, every idea is equally. However, he's a matchmaker, so he still accepts that all conventional things.
Are you at all deceiving who objects?
It will appear to possess this intrinsic like intrinsic effort, and they don't.
And that's what they're deceiving. I'm a tenant all my drama because it's about many other things.
All conventional things are deceiving. From the objects on them, from the subject's side, all conventional epistemic instruments are to see.
At truer. Okay.
So you've got a situation similar to. A hallucination, let's say a pink elephant and a consciousness that is hallucinating.
But the pink elephant is said to be. Britain is being haunted by this confused cognition.
And yet it still functions. It still work.
So this is a. Problem that people criticise him for.
Well says. And yet objects are positive.
Conventionally, even if they are deceiving, they must be warranted by conventional epistemic instruments must be proven,
they must be established, and you need to have a valid no object.
So to sum up this point, thus ascribes ontological ontological truth to near conventions.
Despite recognising that receiving unconventional accuracy in their certifying buying a warranty.
Four minus seven despite not recognising power to see.
He hopes thereby to avoid epistemic and ethical relativism.
But this would lead to a barrage of criticism from outside some tradition and was considered realist or foundation interpretation using.
Based on the terminology and many Western interpreters were said about.
We've got the debate essentially revolve around one of how to interpret this term, somebody, Thatcher or Stamper.
And so there's some some pretty well I'd say concocted.
It leans towards the conventional wisdom its meaning of action or and perhaps
many of us do disagree with some copy they lean towards obscuration which you.
It seems to me like the central cog that lots of these debates revolve around is trying to catch this common
source for most people who in general is the common source that everyone who considers himself a Jewish reliable.
And he gets free meetings of some pretty. One is conventional, roughly speaking, one is observational and one is mutually dependent.
Reach obscuring doctrine upon obscuring unclear unclarity.
Of. Confusing.
Obstructing the obstructing Innocence Policy.
So these objects are considered conventional truths for various reasons,
in an observational sense, in the sense that they appear one way but don't exist that way.
Therefore, they obscure us from understanding how they really are as one of the ways in which happened on September.
There's a there's enormous amount of things to say here. But was.
So then let's just go to Suncorp's interpretation of the example that this content is comparable.
So commentary to Kopitar, and he begins discussion on this question.
Especially the Tibetan. The job, they said, is that they sent in beings.
And the example that I can conjure up that visual perception.
And if it's a gender. They are conventional estimates instrument.
So the accurate accurate knowledge and staying accurate. Then she need to get us to semi truck.
Ma'am. Chuck Chuck my college education and much if you look at this is this question if the visual perceptions of these beings are warranted by.
Epistemic instruments. Not if they are. There weren't.
Perceptions of those are weren't that valid accurate?
If a single basis or a single object is warranted by the concealment instruments of those discordant visual perception?
Then it would not be contradictory for something to be passed in blood and not there would be no reliability to what whatsoever,
to what is proven by epistemic instrument. So accurate knowledge would essentially no longer be accurate anything again.
And it would be very difficult to say I know anything. That's the problem, Right.
And so some caucus solution is quite perplexing and confusing, but it has some.
But some depth to it. He proposes a a logical solution.
What's the. The. This is his solution.
He says, Well, yes, because we can't all perceive the same object as having utterly contradictory quality.
Michael invited me to see this as the table wasn't as benign.
We can't do that. But does that work? But isn't this example something that these great philosophers accept to explain how?
But what he says is that the human perceives water. The guy sees bugs and Davis sees nectar.
They all see their own unique, creepy object that is unique to themselves.
And therefore they don't invalidate each other. Each of their commissions are accurate and they but they do not invalidate each other's.
Therefore, we have not fallen into this anaemic relativism and scepticism.
The maintenance of conventional cognitions. So this you can still have accurate provision.
And there is a solution to this example possibly raises more questions than answers.
But it is a possible interpretation of it. Okay, so.
Because getting to find out more details of this argumentative debate actually has a lot to say on this and has a really quite a steep reputation.
Some that leaves open question answers more so now so we can actually discuss it.
But maybe just to wrap up, because essentially, as I said at the beginning, this is quite early research.
It's still very early days. And I should mention that a lot of this work from Axel and his refutation of.
I would anyway like to not work out with accents on top of the.
And then in terms of I won't say contribution, it's just observations from all of the above, we can see that perceptual relativism is a problem,
but it's what Spence has been struggling with for thousands of years, making sense of it via ethical, idealistic and non foundational viewpoints.
These narrative and possible textual circuits and states and intriguing aspects of British discourse
and literary history and literary heritage text embody and represent the crystallisation.
Perhaps thousands of debates and conversations of a given subject, like a hub of knowledge and opinions that's now stolen,
and that perpetuates itself through further discussions by the conversations that
eventually crystallise into a new line of inquiry and the text that represents.
This is not necessarily perfect. In many situations you have accidents pre-empting arguments against what happens.
Or responding to arguments that have not yet written or only written down and made its own.
You also have lots of developing arguments from previous authors.
But in essence, then my Democrat discourse, that seems somewhat timeless.
A sphere of metaphysical inquiry. Finding a thousand years is major.
Players seem to be in constant dialogue with each other, reaching back before and across time to respond,
to pre-empt and to support various insights, and maybe in sonnets, perhaps simply because it's about prominence.
We are never old or for that matter, we've.
Thank you very much.