Well good evening everybody, and thank you very much indeed for coming. I hope you can hear me. Can you hear me at the back? Good. And if you can't hear me, put your hand up so that I will know. Now my subject today is the Ardhaar Celis, which you see here ringed. And it was discovered as part of a horde, which you see on the screen, Felly, yn y bach o'r ringfordd yw'r rhirastau ar y bydd y bydd yma yn Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, yn Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, yn Llywodraeth Llywodraeth. Mae Llywodraeth Llywodraeth yma yn y 8 yma. Mae Llywodraeth wedi gweld yn y 9 yma, yn y 10 yma. Felly, mae'n bwysig o'r wneud o'r wneud o'r wneud o'r wneud, felly dynnu am ddodd ystryf y gallai llawer o'r arddur, palau o'r llai ac o'r bwysig i'ch readion.on yma, y bod hynny'n gwybodol gyda'r llallus yn y Prifysgol See Llywodraeth, ac mae'n rhaiolau sy'n ddegwyrdillwydd o'r materioli ac ymwuntsio'r ardal a'r i gyflynydd meddyliadau yn yda'r bwysig, yn ymenig, yn meddylit, tan yng ngryst ar gyfer myllafolau cyfrylliannol a amr. Mae'r pertydd yn y llallus hynny yn y maenol arall o'r llai llallus, fel y cyfrifio sydd yma o'r wych ar gael syniad yn y clywed o'r llwyffydd, mae hyn yn ydych chi'n edrych ar y cantherus yng Nghymru. Oherwydd mae'n bod yn ei ddweud o'r holl bwyl yn oed o'r chaelol, ac mae'n cyfrifio o'r holl ei chaelol a'r holl yma yn y cyfrifio ond mae'n gweithio i'r 100 o'n gweithio.  Ac mae'r cymdeithas llyfr yn y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth. Felly mae'n ddweud y gwaith yn y cross, roedd y cross yn yr yrwyr, yn Llywodraeth Llywodraeth yn y cross, bobl yn y cymdeithasol. Dyna, rwy'n gweithio i'r holl yn nhw a ddiweddol yn y llyfr ar ble人 o'r llyfr. A os ydw i'n ymlaen i'r llyfr, oedd yn y bwysig o'r llyfr, Ieithio i ddechrau'r Chalas a'r amser o'r gael. Rwy'n meddwl ydych chi'n gweld y bwl, y cyfryd, y bwysig, y bwysig, y bwysig, ac mae'n gwneud i'r cyfrannu, y gyfrannu, ac mae'n gwysig, ac mae'r cyfrannu, ac mae'n gwneud i'r cyfrannu. Ond ydych chi'n gael, mae'n cyfrannu, a dych chi'n gweld y bwysig. Rwy'n meddwl gyrdd y bwysig, ac mae'n cyfrannu, ac mae'r panell o gwyllwch gael ffordd yn ystod yn gyfyrddio'r bwysig ar y bwysig ar gael. Mae'r bwysig ar y gyfyrdd yn gwyllwch yn gyfyrddol. Mae'r bwysig ar gael yn cael hynny. Ond mae'n mynd i chi'n ffordd yn dŷl i'n ffordd. Ond ydy'r gwyllwch yn eich panell, ac mae'n eu cyntaf yn gwyllwch yn gwyllwch yn gwyllwch. A ddydd mor ffordd yn gwyllwch ar gyfer mwych yn gwyllwch. Working underneath the chalesnthd, we again see the bowl guardle, the handle, the handle scotion, which you can see more clearly here and of course the roundabout with the cross of arcs. In addition we have another foot ring underneath the foot. Here on the lower foot ring. Then we have an extremely elaborate has put disco in the center and right in the centre of some spectacular crystal. Mae'r chaeles wedi bod yw, yn y blyneddau y 1960, y blynedd yn ei wabwll yn y blynedd. Felly, mae'n gweithio i London o Gwylfaen i'r Museum Brysh, ond at y stag, y Museum Gwylfaen i'r Museum Nath wedi'u ffarnu ei ffarnu'r stag ar gyfer y Llywodraeth Rysgrifedd. Ond mae'n clyw o'r bwysig yn byw ychwanegwyd, mae'n mynd i'n rhoi cyflymaint i cyflymeth y byddwch i'n gweithio'n llunio'r bobl o bobl o'r llunio cyflymaint i'ch cyflymaint i'n cyffredeg y LLAAF yw'r cyffredeg. Mae'r dweud yn 1973 oedd yn yr aelwyddiwch pan oedd Robert Orkin yn yr olaiffau — sydd wedi bod yn gyllid o'r gweithoedd wrth gwrthidag... D steel yn 1973. Fe wnaeth bod y gweithio'r rhaglennig ar y snod yn y cyfnod ar lwnnod yn Llywodraeth, nid yw'r cyfan yn ei gweithio'r cyfan, ac mae'n ddiweddio'r gweithio'r cyfan i'w meddwl. Ac gennym nhw'n ei wneud ar y cyfan, oherwydd rwy'n ei ddweud'r byw i'r Gwyl Siamol Ffarned, ac mae'n cyfrifesio'r gweithio'r wych, myl o'r cyfrifesio'r cyfrifesio'r gweithio, Maevers Bimson, efallai ar y Brish Museum y Llyfrgellab, felly mae'r newid yn ymgyrch. Felly, mae'r newid yn ymgyrch o'r Llyfrgellab i'r Newid, hopr oedden nhw'n hoffi i'n hoffi y 2018. Ond oes wedi'i gwirionedd o'r cyflodiad yn yma, mae'n gweithio'n gwneud i gael cofnwyr a hynny, byddwch yn cwrwyddon Robert Organ yn ein cyfrifau cyflodiadau. Ond yma, fe fyddwn i'n cymryd i'r cyfrifau, The iconography. There have been some sporadic papers but not that many. So one chapter of this book by me will consider the iconography. I have given a preliminary version this paper at the latest!.. That was held by Ihnen there two years ago... ...thereby hangs a tale later on in the talk. Right, yes. Now down to the iconography. The chalice is a communion vessel to be used of the mass and the mass recalls crucifixion, the resurrection and the promise of eternal salvation because it is a liturgical re-enactment of the last supper when Jesus breasted the bread and the wine and gave it to the apostles and the text is here, the relevant text is here on the screen, the one about the chalice in green at the bottom of the screen from Matthew's Gospel. And I don't really need to read it to you because I'm sure it's pretty familiar to you. Now, looking at the iconography of this object, the question is, did it affect the form as well as the decoration? And I'm going to start by considering the form because at Golgotha there was a relic which was believed to be the actual chalice used at the last supper and it was viewed by pilgrims, including the one whose visit is reported by the abbot of Iona Adyfnon in Delocus Sanctus. And his description of the chalice is very interesting in this context because he says, and it's in green at the bottom of the screen, the chalice is silver, it has the measure of a gaelish pint, therefore it was fairly big, whatever a gaelish pint was, and it has two candles flashing on either side. Now it was suggested as long ago as 1932 by Liam Gogan that this description of the relic at Golgotha was the exemplar for the last chalice. And I think that's quite likely to be correct, it can't be proved. But what can be proved is that the last supper was very definitely in the minds of the designers, often of the ardar chalice, because the names of the 12 apostles who were present are inscribed in display script against a speckled background right under the bullguardle as I mentioned a moment ago. And in fact there are the 12 apostles with of course, I'm afraid Judas doesn't figure, Paul comes in as a substitute and he's named at the beginning of the list. And the point about this is actually reinforced by the fact that there are 12 gold panels above this inscription and 12 very elaborate ornate glance studs. Now I'm not going to go into this because I don't have time, but it was suggested in 1984 by the late Hela Richardson that a number of the ornaments on the chalice actually do reflect sacred numbers. And she pointed out that it's clear that this system was understood in Ireland because it's referred to in the Stomysil and by Erujana as well. And there is a reference to her paper if you're interested in following this up. But meanwhile back to the inscription. Here we have the beginning of the list, Petrie, Paulie, Andre, with an honorific pie at the beginning of Peter and Paul's name rather than a Greek P. And there is Andrew's name and there's even a little, you may not see it, but there are tiny little crosses, equal crosses following Peter and Paul's name to I think honor them. Now, the sharp-eyed among you will have observed that this inscription is not in the nomative, it's actually in the genital case. And Tom O'Lachlan, who has looked at this inscription, has said that if this was supposed to be a list which was simply in memory of the apostles, the list would be in the nomative and if it was a list dedicated to them it should be in the data, but it's not, it's in the genital and why. Here you are, here are the names. The last two names are actually in the nomative, but all the orange names there, they're all in the genitive. Now Tom thinks that the nomative at the end is simply a careless mistake and the genitive is the intended case and his publicist results here in the Journal of Celtic Studies in 2005. And what he suggested is that this use of the genitive suggests that it's derived from the liturgy, from the Communion County section of the Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Rite, and this is supported by in fact the edition of Paul, starting with Peter and Paul. Now this prayer is recorded in the late 8th century Irish stone missile, so it was certainly known in Ireland, and the implication of this in Tom's opinion is that this inscription is not only in memory of the apostles, but it's also a prayer to them to be present in communion with the faithful during the liturgical ceremony. Of course the last supper was followed by the crucifixion and we've already seen the cross of arcs in a very prominent position in the centre of the bowl on both the front and the back of the chalice, and there's an extremely subtle detail on what I think must be the front of the chalice because it's the side where the list starts with Peter and Paul. And I'm drawing attention to here with these little arrows. The top picture on the screen is looking down on the chalice from above and I hope you can see there are two stud collars right across the cross of arcs and each is ringed by a gold stud collar and the little red arrows are pointing at that. Now these are the only two stud collars on the bowl guard with gold rings, all the rest are encircled by silver stud collars, as indeed is even the stud collar on the cross of arcs itself. So this seems to me to be a way of focusing on the front of the chapel and another little bit of honouring in this case the cross. The cross of arcs itself is jewelled and it's probably therefore refers to the jewelled cross which stood at the spot where Christ was believed to be crucified at Golgotha. But there's another very subtle link here and that is the last supper is linked to the cross because the margin and it's much clearer in fact on the bottom of the screen here in the drawing. If you see the top orange arrow points to where the angle changes, the margin surrounding the inscription deviates goes round the bottom half of the cross and ends in two lion heads here. So this is a very subtle way of linking the last supper with what followed the crucifixion and the choice of lion heads is probably also symbolic. I think they are liles because as you see they have mains and they're not at all unlike the lion here on the book of Kells because the lion is another simple, a Christological symbol. It's the lion of Judah, that's Christ, but it's also symbolises the crucifixion and the resurrection because in the physiologus which is reiterated, this detail is reiterated by, is it also of Sibyl, in the etymolopiae. The lion is sent to symbolise the crucifixion because it was believed that even while it slept its eyes were watchful just as when Christ slept on the cross his divine nature kept watch, that's a quotation. And of course the lion symbolises the resurrection because of the extremely picturesque belief that little lion cubs were born dead but on the third day they were brought to life by their father breathing and roaring on them just as Christ arose from the dead on the third day. There is probably yet another Christological symbol and there is perhaps yet another one here and that is in the form of these serpents, I hope you can see them. There are paired serpents on the cross arms here, the slave cross arms, each of these slave cross arms has got a pair of serpents. You can see their little heads seen from above and this may be a reference to a passage in John's Gospel and I quote it. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, that's the brazen serpent, even so the son of God must be lifted up, i.e. comparing the brazen serpent with the crucifixion. And it's very interesting that when Benedict Bishop went to Rome and came back with some pallor paintings, they were paired and one of the pairs indeed did represent, were told by Pete, the brazen serpent paired with the crucifixion. So this concept of linking these two things is in the air. And Heather Pulliam has pointed out that on the marginal ornament in the book of Kells, serpents are particularly concentrated beside the passage describing the passion, but not only that at the moment when the Eucharist is instituted at the last supper. So again, this ornament may not be accidental, it may not just be mere embellishment. And continuing with this line of thought, yet another possible cruciological symbol is this very prominent crystal under the foot. Now the argument for this as being a cruciological symbol comes from a statement by Gregory of Great in his homily in Jerusalem. He follows plenty in believing that crystal is actually formed of frozen water, and I quote, frozen, moisture from the sky falling as pure snow, so it's very pure. And there's an extremely long simile in Gregory's homily, which I can't possibly read the whole thing, but I'll just read a little bit. Crystal hardens from water and becomes fine. So this is following plenty. The body of our edema was somewhat similar to water through the glory of that body's resurrection. It changes from corruption to the perfection of incorruption. It grew hard just as crystal hardens from water. And Jennifer Cornruth, who has actually drawn attention to this passage, has suggested that this is the reason that the crucifixion is so frequently engraved on a crystal in Carolingian art, and there is an example. Now here is the actual crystal from the art actualis, and as you can see, it's quite markedly domed. That's it taken out of its setting when it was being examined in the British Museum. Right. Now another suggestion unpublished as yet by my friend Conor Newman, about which he kindly allows me to refer to, is he has pointed out the domed nature of this dot and compared it to the well-known dome over the edicule, over the tomb of Christ. And here is a depiction of it, an early depiction. I think it's 6th century. And he's also drawn attention to the number of rings around this start, and compared it to the depiction of the Holy Sepulchre in the Vienna Codex of Adyfnon's De Locus Sanctus. Now this is incapable of proof, of course, but it is a very interesting idea. But to return to the cross, as we saw, the most prominent motif on the chalice is of course the cross of ox on the front, on the back. But this is by no means the only cross on the chalice. There are really quite a large number of crosses of diverse forms executed in different techniques all over the chalice. And then this, again, it recalls the cales, and I'm quoting here Barnett Mearn in his recent book about the book of cales, the cross occurring on almost every page of the manuscript in myriad sizes and forms that's certainly reminiscent of the chalice. It was a constant reminder of the major preoccupation of the Christian message that's Christ's sacrifice on the cross and its redemptive function. So let's start. Well now, you've seen the cross of ox before, but what I did not point out is that not only do you have a very prominent cross, a dual cross, but the dual in the centre of the cross actually depicts a little cross, another little cross. So you have a cross within a cross, and this is precisely what you get actually on the cross of ox in the book of Dorrell as well. So this seems to be a standard device in the insulin world in this period. But that is by no means all. Now we look at the glass pseudoclozone gems on the Beauregardle and also on the handless caution, and the patterns there are quite diverse, but with one exception they're cruciform. There's one, that's that one, there's another one, another cruciform pattern, there's yet another one, this one's on the handless caution. There that stud, blue and yellow, blue and gold and red stud there at the base of the handless caution and there's another one I think up there. So again we have repetition of cross patterns, little ones, and now we move down to the upper footring and lo and behold we have further crosses. This time they are equal arm crosses, there are two types, the studs are all basically blue studs, but on some you have little red crosses with yellow corners, that's the ones on that side, the far side, and on others you have the opposite, you have little yellow crosses with blue corners. And there is in the bottom of row you see a painted stud from the book of Celts, which to my eye at least looks like a stud of this type, which must have been more common, painted on the book of Celts. And that's not all. Now we look under the chalice at the lower footring and what do we have? This time we have swastkas, they are made with a punch on copper plates, some of them have got a green inlay and the British Museum team couldn't decide if that was simply a corrosion product or if it was a deliberate inlay. But if you look at the panel as a whole there, likewise a British Museum photograph, you can see I hope that the swastka is very clearly depicted and staying with the lower footring there are further crosses here. Now these ones are harder to see because they are actually hidden in interlaces and they are on four panels which the arrows point to, these are four panels, they are prespect panels, they are all stamped from the same die, so the basic pattern is identical and that's one of them below, so right. To see these crosses we have to follow the advice of Gerard at Wales, who was a very perceptive observer of Insurata. This comes from his famous description of a lost gospel book from St Bridges' Monster in Kildare, which sounds rather like the book of Celts. He said we have to penetrate with our eyes to the secrets of the artistry and that's what we have to do here. So right. So here we have above ringed, I hope you can see, we have one cross and equal across with sblade arms and then there's another one there beside it and there's a third one on that panel. There are three hidden crosses concealed in interlaces on each of these four panels. And there it is. Now again, it's by no means unique. Here we have the self-se motif this time, which has two crosses concealed in interlaces on the tall cross at Monster Boys later than the older child. It's late ninth or early tenth century. So this again is something which was well understood among the Christian artists of this period. And again, it's not only there. Here's the book of Celts. There are some hidden crosses there in interlaces. Off we go. I hope you can see them. And we now go to the Linisfarne Gospels. There's a cross here, but there are crosses within the cross. There they go. Lots of them. There they are. So again, the idea of the cross of course is the chief Christian emblem symbolising redemption through crucifixion. And it is the cross in isolation is one of the most important motifs on our dark channels. But what I would now hope to demonstrate to you that you also have the cross in combination with other motifs. And the first version, which we will discuss, is what Egon Van Mares described as a central motif complex in Christian art in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. That is the cross surrounded by representatives of the three genera of creation as described in Genesis. That's creatures of the land, of waters, air and land. In other words, fish, birds and beasts. Now this does seem a rather curious idea and the idea goes back to St Paul and to one of the church fathers, Irenaeus, who argued during on St Paul that Christ should be seen as a second Adam because what he does is he comes along and does the damage done by the first Adam through his sacrifice on the cross. And in the process creation is renewed. The world is created afresh and therefore through the crucifixion not only you have a new world and of course you have a new creation including all these categories of animal. And therefore the cross surrounded by the three genera of creation becomes a standard motif signifying redemption. Now there is no canon for the depiction of this motif. It is shown in all sorts of different ways. Here is one completely explicit way from the Essenverden portable order. That's 8th century. I hope you can see quite clearly Crucified Christ with wrecks above his head and right above that we have two winged creatures, creatures of the air. Beside him there are no less than four fish, creatures of the water and beside his legs his little creepy crawlies clearly creatures of the land quadrupeds. That's one way of depicting it. But there are plenty of others. Here we have the older Lindau gospel cover. There the cross spans the entire cover. But there's a very narrow margin around the perimeter. And on the older parts, which I've wrung there in yellow, in As Gwntaharyslawf's drawing shows we have enamel panels and what do they show? They show creatures of the land, creatures of the water and creatures of the air. So this is yet another way of depicting this motif. But it can really go quite wild the way this motif is depicted. Here is the Jalasian sacramentary, 8th century Merovingian, and we have no less than three different types of bird here. There's a pair crouching on the cross arms, another pair hanging from the alpha and the omega, and yet another little pair, different types. You see they're all different and they are eating, I presume they are consuming, getting spiritual nourishment from the tree of life. So there are our creatures of the air, we have creatures of the land in the various roundels on the cross, and indeed over here we have a deer. So right, creatures of the air, creatures of the land, and how about creatures of the water? Well they're the most charming of all, in my opinion, there's one fish, but below what do we have? The word Novarish, written in fish with a few little birds on the capital of the initial, but that's it. Now coming closer to home to the Celtic, whatever that means, world, the later much lamented Carole Hicks pointed out that the self-same motif is depicted on the Lullingstone hanging bull. And there are crosses, as she noted, there they are, there are birds, fish, by the way, which I borrowed, and of course, so sorry I've gone backwards, but creatures, there was deer as well, therefore creatures of the land. So this is known in the incident of wild, and in my opinion you find it on the Ardra Chalice, but really quite hard to see until you really start to look. Now where are these creatures? Well we return to our panels here, the four panels with the hidden crosses, because there are fish on this panel as well. Now I have to tell you, I didn't see these at all until I gave a lecture in Dublin, and I proudly pointed out the hidden crosses and the members of the order shouted out, near their fish, look their fish, I went away and I looked and sure enough what did I find? But this little pair of fish, very light the fish on the moon high cross below, this is a panel depicting the miracle of the loaves and fishes, but you see there's these fat fish that face to face little kissing fishes and one is picked out above emerging from the interlace in pink and the other in green. But as you see on the moon panel there are two types of fish here, you've got the flat fish and you've got some skinnier ones, and as pointed out to me by the members of this audience, they think and I agree now that I've seen them, little fish in the corners rather like this fish in the book of Kells there immediately above. I hope you see the eye of that little fish, which I've pointed and ringed him there in a tear shaped yellow ring, and there are actually four of these. Now here we are, there's the panel as a whole, then we have in the middle here the kissing fish, and then below in the corners there are four little fish emerging from the corner, so three crosses and four fish on this panel. Those are the only fish I've been able to find on the chalice, so they're the creatures of the water, but creatures of the air, there are a number of examples, but I'm going to just pick out one. And that's fish birds on two panels on the goldfinery panels on the Bologardle, and here again we retarded Géraldus and we really have to struggle because his description of the ornament on the book of Kildair certainly applies here. When he said such intricacies, so delicate and subtle, so close together and well knitted, so involved and bound together, but there are birds here and I hope to persuade you. Now to pick them out, what I've done with the aid of the finished product being done by the archaeological illustrator Wilfoster, colour coded the various elements and that colour coded drawing below shows what's there and there's not an extra line. It's only what's there and there I hope you see the eye of a bird and it's got a very long beak which extends into the corner and on the other side there's another eye of a bird with a shorter beak. But I know that's still quite hard to see so we need to isolate the individual motifs and here in Wilf's drawings we have them. Now we're starting at the top left of the panel and here is, there's a little bird ahead and I hope you can see with that very long beak going into the corner again, there is its wing, there is its leg and it's got an exceptionally elaborate tail. Now, although I may have been pretty courageous about identifying various species hitherto, I don't like to say categorically that this might be a highly stylised peacock but it might be because that would be a very appropriate motif on the chalice because of the belief that the peacock's flesh did not putrify like Christ of Rhys, it survives death in other words. Now there are four of these very elaborate creatures and then in between them are actually a different creature, a slightly odd creature, this is a bird head but with a fishtail and so they form the trefoil knots on the overall patterns. So there we have creatures of the air and there are other examples but I don't have time to go into that. And finally, creatures of the land. Now, the simplest way to find these are to look at the engravings, we've already seen the engraved lions with their mains and their other snump cat-like noses. So we have lions, if we look at the engraving under the bow, under the handless guttions, there are different beasts, these ones have long muzzles and ferocious teeth and I personally think that they look like hounds. And actually in, there are references in the old Irish tale, Thawin Boughfrych, the catarrate of Frych, to a stringed instrument, probably a larr, being decorated with birds, snakes and hunting dogs, meal coup, that's the word in old Irish and I think that that's what these are. And then at the top of the handle, a Scotian, there are some other little creatures and they are hesitant to identify them, are they calves, are they lambs, I don't know, I think we can't be sure, but they're a different species. And there's yet another species in the filigree panels on the bowl guardle and they are different and so I will now hope to show them to you. They have, there's the eye of the head, I'm going to try to show them with the pointer, there's the eye, there's the mouth, long neck, shoulder spiral, long leg, is this coming out, yes. And then the body goes round, there's the hip spiral and the hind leg with the hind foot and this very curious feature, a straight horn. Just pointing them out again, there's the shoulder, there's one of the forelegs, the shoulder and the hind leg and oh that's the tail which goes right off to the far corner and then this curious feature. Now there are four panels decorated with this same motif, two of these creatures in each panel and each of these creatures has this one so it's not an accident what is it. Well, there are goats in the Book of Kells but I do not see this as a goat because the horn is not sloping backwards as it is on the fairly naturalistic representation of the goat in the Book of Kells. It's not a stag either because they knew how to show stags. Here is a stag from the filigree panel on the Darren and Fran pattern. What I personally think it is, is a unicorn. That's the only thing that makes sense to me with this single horn on each of the creatures. Now if this is a correct identification that's yet another Christological symbol. Ambrose of Milan, I quote, who then is this unicorn but the only begotten son of God, a battle of Caesarea, Christ will be called the son of unicorns. And back to Isidore of Seville and the Physiologus, there's an extremely elaborate allegory in which a unicorn is trapped by a maiden. She represents the Virgin Mary and the unicorn stands for Christ descending into the Virgin womb and thus the incarnation. So, I hope I have persuaded you that we definitely have the cross surrounded by the three genera of creation on the Ardal Chalice. But that is not the only motif complex on the Chalice Inn I am now persuaded. Now I mentioned at the beginning the Insurant Conference two years ago in Galway. And at that conference was Michael Clark, who is Professor of Classics at the University there. And Michael heard my lecture and went away, sent me a most excited email saying, unicorns near music to my ears because he now thinks that there is another reference on the Ardal Chalice and that is to Psalm 21 in the Vulgate. This is the Psalm which is alluded to repeatedly in the Gospels as a prophecy of the crucifixion. And indeed it is quoted, the opening lines are quoted in the account of the passion when he says, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Now the prophet is having an extremely hard time in this Psalm, he's been tormented by among other things the power of the dog, the lion's mouth and the horns of the unicorn. And what do we have, quite independently suggested by me on the Ardal Chalice, but in my opinion, lines, hands and unicorns. Now Michael Clark has pointed out that if this is what we have on the Ardal Chalice it would not be unique in the period, or roughly the period, because in the wonderful Stuttgart Psalter here, which illustrates each of the Psalms, we have the illustrations of the self-same Psalm actually does show the crucified Christ who you can see there on this side, there he is on the cross. And what is around him, but a unicorn, with the horn of the unicorn right touching his, under his armpit, we have a lion, and on the other folio, the facing folio, we have dogs actually biting him. So, and indeed the Eucharistic imagery is explicitly referred to here because there is an actual chalice presumably catch the holy blood of the Eucharist between the unicorn and the lion. So I am persuaded that this is a correct identification on the Ardal Chalice, and it's not just found in the Carolingian period on the Stuttgart Psalter. Egon Varmers has argued that it's also found on this dish, which he says suggests is a picks, the Holdenmore cup, and as you see there are a number of roundels, I think there are four roundels on this object, and looking at the drawing at the bottom, there's a lion in two, inviting for the foliage between each roundel in my opinion, our hands, heads, and then in the roundel which we see illustrated above there is one. Egon Varmers has suggested is a unicorn. Now it has been suggested, and if you look at the BM website, you will find that this creature is identified as a bull, and that would also be consistent with Psalm 21 because another creature harring the psalmist is actually a bull. But try as I might, there's no way I can see any bulls on the Ardal Chalice, but it's interesting that we just have three of the creatures here on the Holdenmore picks or a dish as well. The argument is that there is quite clear genitalia shown on the bulls here in the Stuttgart Psalter, but none on the vessel, and indeed the horns also are quite different, so I am persuaded that we actually have the same assemblage on this dish as we have on the Ardal Chalice. And interestingly, Martin Henig has suggested that Psalm 21 is referred to in a much earlier period on the Hinton St Mary pavement, which is clearly Christological, there is Christ with the Cairo behind him, and below you see a detail where you see a hand harring a deer. So this, like the motif of the cross surrounded by the three genera, this seems to be maybe a long standing Christological image. So to conclude, first of all it seems to me that the decoration of the Ardal Chalice is rich in Christal symbolism which can be read on a number of different levels. Now clearly the overall theme is redemption through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but the Christian message is proclaimed by many decorative elements individually as well as by elements in combination referring to both the three genera of creation and to the foretelling of the crucifixion in Psalm 21. So the iconography of the Chalice to me at least now appears to be ever bit as sophisticated and complex as the techniques and the variety of its decoration, which have hitherto been the main study. Now clearly the style and the technique as we see in this panel here for the wallgall are typically Irish, but the message of the ornament is a basic Christian one that can only be understood in the broader context of the scriptures, biblical ectagesis and art in very different styles from other parts of the late antique and medieval world. And before concluding, I must acknowledge that I've had, after help, I have had from very many sources and here they are. So thank you very much indeed.


Welcome to Toffy TV, it is my three things, Leicester City, one, Everton, two, Everton of one and a way game, wow, what a long time, August 28th, the last time Everton won away from home when they won 2-0 a Brighton and today they've gone and won at Leicester and it feels fantastic, a huge, huge game, a crucial game, an opportunity for Everton to climb out the bottom three if they did get the win and it's exactly what they did and that is brilliant, so fantastic win for Everton today. First thing I want to speak about today is Jordan Pickford, England's number one. He's been in fantastic form now for Everton for, what are we on, for a good 15 months. There were times last season where he was really poor, his decision making was poor, he was letting things in he shouldn't, he was indecisive and he got an injury and came back at Amfield, actually, and was outstanding, we won the game 2-0 and he was outstanding. And since then, he's had a couple of bad games in an Everton sheet and that is an incredible achievement, especially when Everton has been so bad this season, he has been the one who has probably, him and Anthony Gordon have maybe been the shine and light if you like, while it hasn't been a very good season whatsoever and it does make you laugh when you see him have a good performance and you see things, like last week after Chelsea there was lots of out Englands, Jordan Pickford actually turned up for Everton today and you're like, you don't watch Everton, you don't watch him play for us because in general he's excellent. And okay, there'll be people who say he's like a bigger goalkeeper or he's erratic at times or whatever, but he has been brilliant and these last two games has shown his importance to us, he's produced unbelievable saves in the last week, in two games that have won us the points, world class saves, last week unbelievable today and brilliant saves, just top draw saves that have won us the game and that's what top goalies do, they win you points. And I've seen the best in Neville Southall, make saves like that regularly and that was in some top evidence side by the way and Jordan Pickford's making, I'm not putting him up David Neville Southall of course, I'm not but I'm just saying I've seen the very best and he is, Pickford is making unbelievable saves now and massive ones when we've needed them too and I just thought he deserved to mention because he was brilliant today, he's my man of the match, he was fantastic today. The second thing I want to talk about is Michel Enco, I'll do my third point, I've smoothed my point around, if I really Michel Enco who is really coming into his own now I think in the side, he's got a great goal today but was really solid, had a really good game, obviously went off injured hopefully that's nothing serious and I'm hoping he'll be back for Wednesday but I hope he's fifth for Brentford next Sunday but he's really growing into the side, now he's always going to take time coming in from a different league especially the Ukraine, coming into the Premier League which is unforgiving, all the stuff that's going on at home for him, the Russia invasion and all that and at first he looked a little bit all over the place he did, we can't deny it and people were worried but you know what, since Frank Lampard got old of him and obviously working with Ashley Cole as well, he's really improving and he started every game since the Palace Cup defeat, he's been in the side every game and he's just getting better and better and that volley today was fantastic, you know something that we've saw quality like that from maybe Luca Dino or whatever and we haven't really seen it so far from Michalenko but today, what a technique, hitting that ball from above his cross, bang, back where it came from, beyond Schmeichelins at that far corner, absolutely excellent and his overall defendants being excellent of late, no-one went to knock it down the line and went to look for the passing side and I think the crowd really appreciates him and I think he's loving being here and I'm enjoying watching him get better and better, he's still got a bit to go to get up to the levels of Luca Dino of course, he has Luca Dino so creative but I think us moving forward he can develop that right now he's doing exactly what we need him to do which is make sure you defend properly, put your foot through it when you need to and today he's come up with a massive goal for us, brilliant volley and that'll give him confidence, it'll give his teammate confidence of the quality that he has if they haven't, I'm sure they know it anyway from training with him but to score a goal like that in the Premier League is excellent but I just think his overall improvement of late has been something that is worth highlighting, another great performance today and hopefully he's not going to be off for too long, fingers crossed and finally I couldn't do this three points without mentioning the supporters who have been unbelievable, mentioned it in my maths reaction but I'm going to mention it again because it feels like something's changed, it feels like something's clicked I remember it, I can only really liking the situation to when we nearly went down in 1994 and what that did to the fanbase and I'm not saying it wasn't blue smoke and bedlam everywhere like it has been for the last week, it was different but what it did do was all of a sudden we started selling out every week, we haven't been up to then, don't worry a lot of clubs didn't but people almost were like oh I nearly lost something and it ignited them for a few years, we won the FA Cup and we had good solid season under Royal and all that and it carried us through I think for a number of years and there has been a little bit of a separation over the last few years that nobody could deny that has, we've all done it, we've all felt it but it feels like something's different, something's changed and what we've seen in the last week especially, I've commented before on this I've talked about the Leicester City home game when in the 90th minute we were won down and the fans are still pushing and encouraging, that isn't something that has been going on and by recent times I mean recent seasons, I think the fans since Lampard have come in and really tried to back the team, I can only think of the Wolves game as one where it was flat and it maybe slipped back to like it had been for too long but since then everybody has been right on it and obviously all the fan groups and the Evans fans forum and other people who have just got involved to make things happen, you know hands, toes, coaches and people like that and these are just people I've seen doing stuff, there'll be other people as well who haven't mentioned but all of those people who've really started to try to pull people together and for once we're seeing less of nobbyd biaf i dda, it's cop eye biaf i dda, it's this, it's that, we're seeing more people going you know what, we're in this together and let's do our part because we know we're in desperate times but I hope that the desperate times that we're in right now carries us forward as we move forward as a football club, as a fan base and we see more of this and these players know what it's like, how big a club we are and what they have to do and what we expect and by doing it today the supporters was unbelievable, I said it on my mat reaction, the loudest I've ever heard, I was watching on the telly, the loudest I've ever heard away fans, ever, any guy, they were unbelievable, unbelievable and some lovely voices there as well singing spirit of the blues not sure about the rude, that needs a bit of work but just incredible display from the supporters outstanding yesterday the scenes when the team left Finch Farm, all of that, that doesn't touch you, that doesn't shake some of these players up to go I play for a huge football club, for a football club with the fans that are fanatical, I've got to put my shift in for them and imagine if we could do that and we did that for, I'm not saying every away game the fans are turning up and sending the players off and all that but if we could foster that atmosphere for every home game and every away game how much better we would be I really feel like something's clicked, I really feel like the club if we can survive can move forward in terms of actually having a pathway to follow and the fans will drive that on, I know people criticise fans for walking out of the stadium earlier in the season it's because people want to change, people didn't want to just sit and let things go by and people now are not determined, not determined to go, I'm just going to sit on my hands and what will be will be and we've seen the difference it's made when people have gone no this is what we're doing, let's all do it, if we get some derision from some ever told me they were too cool for school or other fans who want to, so what, so what this is our club and it means something to eating every one of us and it might mean something slightly different to eating every one of us everyone on the same path, you've seen the players, you've seen the scenes, you've seen Frank Lampard, you've seen the response in the press, you've seen football focus doing a piece on the atmosphere yesterday, that can power this football club forward, it can mean that we can question when the board isn't pulling its way to the owner, let's foster that thing we've got now and not let it go and let's drive this football club forward a big thank you to all of those people who've organised it, sung it, got the blue smoke, done it all, for getting it going and for kicking the team on to big wins in this last week, let's keep it going, I'm sure it'll be the same at Wafford, I'm sure it'll be the same at Goulderson against Brentford and Palace, let's do it, let's do our bit to keep this football club where it belongs there you go, there my three talking points, give the video a thumbs up, subscribe if you haven't, let me know what you think in the comments section below, enjoy the rest of your weekend, thanks for watching, see you later


When dealing with time delay relays, we have two kinds. There are the on delay and the off delay. This video will focus mostly on the on delay principles and how they can be used in sequence control for motor control. Now an on delay relay is like any other relay. It will have a coil and it will have a set of contacts. Now the difference is not only does it have a set of instantaneous contacts. So here I have a normally open set of contacts, a normally closed set of contacts and what I mean by instantaneous is when this relay or coil energizes, these contacts will close instantly and these contacts will open instantly. The difference is these contacts here I have a normally open time to close and I have a normally closed time to open. So let's take a look at exactly how that plays out. So I've pushed a button, I've energized this coil, this TDR, time delay relay and it's got a timing of five seconds. The moment I press that button and this energizes, these contacts here, the ones that were normally open become normally closed and the ones that were normally closed become normally open. They don't pay attention to the time at all. The time means nothing to them, they're just instantaneous, they do what they're supposed to do right away. What happens though is you notice here that this coils energized but this normally open time to close stays open and this normally closed times to open stays closed. So it holds in those positions until the relay times out. So it counts to five, one, two, three, four, five and then this will close and this will open. So there we go, after five seconds this will become closed, this will become open. So again, the sequence of events are this coil becomes energized, these will do what they're supposed to instantly ignoring the time but after the coil has been energized for five seconds these contacts will close and these contacts will open. The moment I de-energize the contacts everything falls back to its original state. So TDR is de-energized, those become back to normally open, those become normally closed. This drops out to normally open time to close and this drops back to normally closed time to open. So with on delay relays the timing for these sets of contacts down here begin when this is energized, it starts to count and then these contacts will do what they're supposed to do. Now let's take a look at how this would play out in an actual circuit. Here we have a very simple circuit and it's for sequencing. Let's say for some reason we don't want M coil and M2 coil to energize at the same time meaning that we don't want M motor M to start at the same time M2 does. Perhaps there's too much of an inrush current for whatever reason. So we want some sort of time delay, we don't want M2 to start right away, we want it to start five seconds after M starts. So what we're gonna do here is we're gonna follow through the sequence of events. I go ahead and I press the start button which will energize M coil, which will close M contacts which will also energize the time relay here because it is in parallel with the coil. So these two are energized. Now you'll see when I let my finger off the start button these two will stay energized. I release the start and this coil and this coil stay energized due to the fact that I have a hold in seal in or auxiliary contact there that provides a parallel path around this open switch to keep M energized and TR energized. Now we noticed that down here we have a normally open time to close contacts here. They stay open for five seconds. So I press this button, this energizes, this energizes and then five seconds later this normally open time to close contact will close and M two will start. So again, the sequence press start, M energizes, contacts close, TR energizes at the same time, five seconds later this counts for five seconds then this set of contacts closes and M two starts. So M one starts instantly, M two starts five seconds later. When you hit the stop button basically everything drops back to its original state. I have no through path to here which will de-energize M which will open those contacts, de-energize TR which will open those contacts, M two will de-energize and everything goes back to its original state. The stop button snaps back to its original position and we're good to go for another sequence later on should we want to go ahead and start the motor. So again, the timing begins on these contacts the moment that this relay becomes energized.


And the Nigerian Navy ship and NS Pathfinder has uncovered 16 illegal refining sites with refining capacity of 9.6 million litres of automotive gas oil, popularly known as diesel in a creek and river state. The operatives of the NNS Pathfinder, led by its commander Komodo Desmond Igbo during an operation at a creek around L.M. Krakama in the Gema local government area, also arrested 14 suspects recovered over 1.5 million of diesel already defined at one of the illegal sites in the area. We have made arrests of 14 of them. We call them in the act. You can see all these places, they have polluted it. They would tap from this oil well and excess, they leave it to pollute in the environment. We have told them several times to look for other means of livelihood. We have talked with their leaders, their paramount chiefs and their community leaders, but it seems they are not relenting and we will not relent too. What we have here is OU Wehrhead 15 belonging to OML 18 of Nigerian NNPC Air. These OU Wehrhead belong to them. You can see a very big 14 inch hose connected illegally to these OU Wehrhead 15. They are transferring it to these wooden boats, popularly known as Kotoni Boats. They contain almost 70 metric tons.


Welcome to this final session of the 8th Summit on the Global Agenda. What our task now in the last hour here is really to, nothing less, but bringing it all together. And what we really want to bring together are these two pillars of the Summit. The global challenges that we have made, a central point of the cross-council interactions that we had. And on the other hand, the fourth industrial revolution that we explored in particular in this fascinating plenary last night in this room. And reflecting on how this changing context of the fourth industrial revolution is really creating a new context for addressing these global challenges. The panel last night elaborated on how the confluence of these different technological changes is really creating a fundamental change in the systems, in the technological business systems that we are embedded in. But what's the corresponding systems change in the way we address these global challenges? That's really what we want to explore here with this panel. And we have a distinguished panel. Let me briefly introduce Diana Farrell, CEO of the J.P. Morgan Chase Institute. Sarah Manker, founder and CEO of Grow Intelligence from Kenya. And Elda Safir, professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University. And last but not least, Nairi Woods, dean of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University. But before I turn to you, I'd like to turn to the audience and hear from some of the discussions you will have had in the discussions on global challenges. And particularly what I'd like to hear is what's the one thing that challenged your thinking on these issues, on these known issues? Maybe if I may turn to you first, you have been part of some of these discussions particularly on the refugee crisis. What really challenged your thinking on these issues? The colleagues will bring your mic any second. An innovation which is throwing mics. The one thing I would like to pick you up with the two challenges. What evolved my thinking here is actually a triangular thinking because there is this huge opportunity and Klaus has mentioned in the survey yesterday in the room here that there is a huge opportunity and expectations on the fourth industrial revolution. We have those wonderful challenges and all the work which has been done, but there is sort of the dark side of it. And this is the fragility, violent and conflict which becomes the new normal. And refugee crises and population movements and violence destroying some of the advancements in development and the millennium development goals that we have seen in the past. So I think we have to be careful to look not only at the challenges and the potential of the fourth industrial revolution, but also look at the fragility as the new normal in many countries at injustice basically undercutting the justice system, corruption undercutting the justice system, population movement, undercutting development gains and looking at those triangle dynamics and to look for opportunities that the three parts of the equation would give has probably advanced most during the time here. Thank you. So putting those opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution in context. Rosemary Finan, your focus on cities, what stood out to you as sort of the main takeaway that challenged your thinking on these issues and what role do cities play in that? Thank you. Here's an interesting statistic from my colleague Nick Brooke. Did you know that in Hong Kong 50% of people live above the 16th floor? That's three and a half million people living up there in the air. It made us think that one of the challenges of densification, which is what we think is absolutely necessary in our cities if we are to fit 70% almost of 9.6 billion people in cities by 2050. The big issue is how to densify well. Then you turn to somewhere like Kensington and Chelsea in London for those of you that know it. One of the densest parts believe it or not of London proves that densification doesn't have to be high rise and densification can be pretty nice. But I think our challenge to ourselves was how do we create guidelines that give good density for cities that are a different part of their evolution in different cultures with different expectations. And that's a big challenge. It's one that we all feel is an absolute essential if we're to get away from the fact that forecasts suggest that the 3% of the Earth's surface that's currently covered by cities may well double or even treble if we don't do something about containing good growth in good cities that serve citizens well. Thank you. So cities as an agent for change. When you had discussions on climate and the global challenge on environment and resource security, what stood out to you as the main challenge to your thinking about those issues? System change becomes probably the weakest link to address global challenges, challenges around environment and natural resources security, particularly working on the climate change issues there. A few five words or phrases actually of my observation coming out of the discussion in the last couple of days. One is the inspiration. I feel very, very inspired by the emerging consensus from this community actually in the last few days that recognize the importance of system change. And yes, we are innovating technologies. We're doing a lot of things, but we still cannot address the challenge, which is just overly overwhelmingly daunting to us. So system change becomes fundamentally the way to go forward. Second word is really the failure, the system failure. Why we wouldn't be able to meet the challenges is because the systems we have today have pretty much filled us actually on the environment and natural resources and climate change issues there. That's why the leading up to the third word is redesign of the system. So we need to reform, transform the systems we're operating today. If we do not have the determination and commitment to do that, we would not be able to succeed actually in tackling climate change issues. The fourth phrase is actually really the empathy or empathic civilization, because whatever system we're going to redesign is done by people, done by people of this generation but also future generations there. So it's going to be very important actually we develop the common actually empathy from this generation but also among people but also to nature. I think that's going to be really, really fundamentally important. The last point is the word is really together. And so whatever we're going to do, we need to come together, really address that. It's not like your business or government or business, whatever, it's us all together. So fundamentally we have to come together on this journey to really start the system, transform or reform so that we'll be able to address the situation in a successful manner. Thank you. Empathy is at the heart of that system, strange if I understood you rightly. Gerard Fairbuck, you made the point yesterday at the plenary on the fourth industrial revolution that we really need to think about whether or not that fourth industrial revolution helps us advance the sustainable development goals. Do you subscribe to that point that Chang-Hau Wu mentioned about empathy at the heart of the systems change that we need? As I would answer, it is also the need for cross-sectoral thinking and I would say no improvement for instance on climate change if you don't incorporate agriculture and food production being part of the problem of climate change into part of the solution of climate change. That's one thing. Another thing is I think that it's the recognition that we will not be able to implement the agenda 2030 and zero hunger and we will not address other topics if we don't allow the multi-stakeholders bottom up come to the table, defend their interest or bring their interest to the table and create win-win partnerships. I think without multi-stakeholder approach we will not succeed as well. And finally, I think I will commend you with your panel today because I'm struck by the suggestion that we should really make work of equal opportunities and equal positioning of women and I would recommend to follow up on the no manual movement. And aside from the fact that we have a very gender diverse panel, what was the one thing that really challenged your thinking here in these conversations? Well I think it's bringing women to equal opportunity, equal access to financing, to land in our case asset services etc. and also allow women better in decision making. I think it's time to real move this. Excellent. Mitchell Baker, if I may turn to you. As part of the discussion on the future of the internet, what stood out to you as sort of the main challenge to your thinking about those questions? Our discussion of the internet was surprising in the degree to which the human element came up and in particular the question of trust. Starting with the internet and building out from that, how do we build trustworthy institutions and systems going forward? I think the internet itself is not the source of the question but the information flow reveals things that weren't broadcast as clearly before and so we find ourselves living in a crisis of confidence and trust in institutions. And so we talked about how might one make an institution trustworthy, not the human emotional response, which is often wrong, about whether I trust something, you know, doesn't make it trustworthy. So what are the traits and conditions starting from openness or transparency into understanding into the groundswell, bottom up engagement into having enough confidence in the systems to allow systems change and how do we actually do that when the systems we need for the future are so different from those of the past? So the question of how do we make the kind of systemic and structural and systematic changes that we need across the global institutions we found over and over again has the critical element of human trust at the center of it? So trust and systems change, really, that seems to have resonated across those issues. Maybe if I turn to the panel now, Diana, you're part of the GSE on the future of government. If you're thinking about those questions that we posed to the panel, what is the systems change? Help us understand this point that seems to be so prominent in those discussions. What does that systems change consist of? And what does it mean for our established organizational structures through which we're looking at these problems? The future of government GAC spent a lot of time on this question of what is the idealized future, which would be a dramatic system change, and what is the idealized sort of elements of what a truly functioning future of government would be? And most of the discussion was on do we see even glimmers or seeds of that in certain actions that governments have taken and what would be the path forward for that? Certainly trust would be an important element to it. But I think as I reflect on many of our discussions within the future of government and other conversations I've had with folks here, I'm sort of struck by the fact that what people get most excited about, and I would say many in very different fields, is the power that the data, technology, et cetera, allows us in its granularity, in the ability to understand ourselves ever better by processing more and more finite and more and more specialized views of the world. And that's wonderful, and I would say this group is an example of it, but at the same time how the tension with the need for integration across this, and in government it's particularly acute because when you think of all the functions of government, there are so many that are so varied and rely on very different kinds of expertise and very different kinds of data, and the mechanisms to tie them together are almost nonexistent. I would say when you go beyond government and to include business, the problem just mushrooms in effect. And so this question of are we investing enough in the institutions that will enable the platforms that bring the depth and verticality to the need for integration? And I would say I don't think we are, and I'll give one example that is very near and dear to my heart because it's sort of what I'm working on now at the institute, which is if we are going to understand ourselves through big data, behavioral science and huge data sets, which I think is essential for all the problems we're trying to solve with the global challenges, we're going to have to be able to get different perspectives, i.e. the J.B. Morgan Chase perspective and the World Bank perspective and the IMF perspective and the BIS perspective to have a common platform to connect dots. And we are so far away from that. I would say even individual organizations, many of you who run organizations, know you don't even know what you know within your organization. And so that tension of granularity and the power that comes from detail, but the lack of thought and infrastructure around connecting these, either technology infrastructures or governance structures are I think the big takeaway for me. Right. And Sarah, you have actually created a company that is tying together this data in a particular field in food and agriculture. Is technology allowing us these days to step out of these dilemmas? And what is the right place to drive those innovations? I think it is. Hopefully I'm right. But I think it touches on Diana's point, which is I think the need for depth in a particular subject matter means that now you have to think about, as you're, I guess, building technologies that go, vertically deep, you have to think about the whole ecosystem. And so it's, it's, you ultimately, I think our starting point for the creation of technologies has to be, what is the world we want to see, right? And then if you know what the world you want to see is, then you actively design for the world. And I think for us to do that, I think, A, there is a lot of knowledge and a lot of, beyond data, I think there's a lot of just pure scientific research sitting out there today that's waiting to be applied to something. And so I think for a successful, harmonious integration between breadth and depth, you need a lot of work done in kind of bringing to light what is being done in the research community and applying it to real world problems, right? So I think in some ways the way I think about it is if you had to relive the Industrial Revolution of the U.S., right? So we're talking about the fourth Industrial Revolution, right? So there's Vanderbilt with rail, Rockefeller with oil, Carnegie with steel, JPMorgan with power, and then Ford with cars. If you had to reconstruct that world that actually enabled this infrastructure to be built, I think it's effectively a world of bridges built by nanorobots using graphene where driverless cars are being driven off of it and we're eating synthetic meat. All of these components are actually sitting within deep science communities, and I think they're waiting to be discovered and applied. But I think the starting point is ultimately actually what is the world we want to see? And then from there, we have to actually actively go out and seek and almost redesign the world we want. And so I guess, yes, you know, technology has a big role to play, but I think it has to be done simultaneously with thinking systems. And systems is ultimately I think what Gerda was referring to, which is kind of the full stakeholder. Right, right. And when we're referring to some of these principles, do we have a representative from the Council on Software and Society in the room? Anyone in the back? Tell us about the work that you've been proposing to do in applying some of the principles from software to the world of government. Great. Thank you very much. My name is Victoria Espinale. I have the great pleasure of chairing the Agenda Council on the Future of Software and Society. So I think we are very concerned about the fact that things are changing very quickly. Software innovation is dramatically redesigning and disrupting the world. We're in this period of rapid and exponential change as we've all been talking about. And what we've been looking at is to see whether or not there are principles that can be drawn from software development to make governments more agile in how they govern and how they make policy decisions. So we've been immersed in a very intense and really interesting discussion to see what we can do to try to take some of those principles from technology development and software development and offer them to governments as a new paradigm, as a new set of norms for how to make policy and how to govern. Thank you. Diana, in your experience, having worked with governments and in government, to what extent do you need these principles from the software industry and software thinking in government and what difference can that make? Oh, I think it would be profoundly different and better. And so you realize that in government and policymaking and the execution of policy, it takes so long to actually pass legislation or execute large programs that by the time they're actually in place, they've almost become obsolete. And there are very few mechanisms for the feedback loops that are classic in the software industry that say these three aspects of something worked. Let's double down on those. These two did not. Let's change them. I mean, if you think of even very large pieces of legislation in the U.S., we had the healthcare reform bill. We had Dodd-Frank. Everybody loves to hate both of these BMUs, but the better attitude toward it would be to say, okay, these things have passed through a first process and we're constantly thinking about improving on the margin. Everything that we know works. We double down on anything we know doesn't work. We change. That's not how we're either the legislative process or I would say even the government process, because budgets and administrations don't enable that kind of flexibility and change. So I think if we're thinking about the future and ideal, we've talked about this in our future government, it would have that element of experimentation and quick change and fast turnaround. I'm not so optimistic that that can be done real easily, but if we could edge the world in that direction and governments in that direction, very powerful. So what would make you more optimistic that that could be implemented faster? Sure. I think everyone has said this too many times, but we have a sort of disconnect between people who are really trying to do things and address problems and kind of the political show that has become people taking positions and playing a very different game of two and four on that dimension and I think connecting those and actually having closer accountability on those issues and really judging politicians and secretaries and others on their jobs and not on sort of random political narratives would actually help a lot. Let me turn to you and the people dimension of that. Diana mentioned the point about trial and error in government. That's something that resonates with you, I guess, in terms of applying principles of behavior science to public policy. In your view, what's holding us back from applying these principles more widely at the international level in terms of solving global problems? Well, I think the number one insight that comes from behavioral research and I want to make sure it doesn't sound sophisticated. I don't mean to sound postmodern, it's actually very trivial. It's the fact that when you present people say with two options to choose from, they don't choose between those two options, they choose between those two options as they are represented in a three pound machine that we have behind the eyes in between the ears. And that's not trivial fact because the same two outcomes in the world can be seen many different ways. Very small nuances in how you describe the option, what the option is, how it's situated, what's next to it will alter how people think and how they represent it. And that is an enormous impact. It changes everything. You know, how do people feel about an electric car? Well, how are they thinking about it? Here is a simple question. Do people feel better commuting to work in a BMW or a Ford Escort? You call people asking what car are you driving and how do you feel commuting today? And you get a very clear effect. BMWs are more fun than Ford Escorts.  If you fail to mention the car when you ask me how I drive, there is no difference in BMWs and Ford Escorts. So now, is it worth buying a BMW? If I think about it while I drive, it turns out it's worth it. If I don't think about it, I have the same exact experience. When we think about many issues, trust, empathy, design of government, the same outcome can be seen in very different ways depending on nuances of how it's presented, what people think about what they bring to mind. And that's a very critical element because if you describe it in one way as opposed to another, everything changes in ways that have an enormous impact. And that's a lot of the behavioral research really looks at those nuances and how to describe them to people, what comes to mind, what kind of behaviors you get as a result. Even something as profound as a social norm, which is kind of a really collective outcome, is intention with people's attitudes. So we know, for example, very nice research that people's attitudes move faster than social norms. And what that means is most likely most people in this room today feel more ready for gender equity than they perceive the norm to be. This is beautiful research and segregation in the U.S. in the 50s. Most Americans were ready to get rid of it but thought that the country was not. And so these are very interesting nuances where human attitude and perception, our intention or at least are not always aligned with collective phenomena, collective perceptions in ways that can have a very profound effect. People mentioned empathy, I'll give one last example. Empathy is a profound issue and the psychology of empathy about which we know just a little does not follow standard normative rules. The impulse we have is to tell you how terrible things are and give you statistics. As many of you suspect, if you gauge people's attitude toward giving for philanthropic causes, seeing a picture of a single child generates many more contributions, many higher contributions than seeing a statistic. In fact, seeing the picture of the child with the statistics gets you to give less than the picture alone. It's basically distracting you from having a full relationship with this child. There is beautiful literature that asks, you know, where is the collapse of empathy? What numbers do we stop being, stop caring? And those beautiful authors who have written about this, how many millions do you need before you stop caring? The answer, the behavioral and empirical answer is roughly two.   Now you can see the tension here. I mean, are we going to be paternalistic and treat people like children and give them one picture the way we do to our second grader? Or are we going to respect them and give them statistics and get less out of them? And this is a profound tension where how you design things and the collective outcomes you get depend on sort of understanding the nuances of individual perception and behavior and working with them. And you say attitudes change faster than social norms. Institutions in a way change relatively slow in that regard. Now, to what extent do you see behavioral units, nudge units in these large international organizations that are tasked with carrying out some of the progress on these global issues? Well, you know, so far these behavioral limits have been wise in looking for low-hanging fruit, some things you can do very easily. There is data on changing the defaults, for example, on options. It could be savings for retirement and it could be organ donations among drivers. There is fantastic data. If you look at the rates of organ donors among drivers in different European countries, six countries average 94% of drivers are willing organ donors. Another five countries average 14% and 94 to 14%. If you look at the countries, it's Germany on one side, Austria on the other, and Netherlands on one side, Belgium on the other. What's doing? What's doing is the 94% are opt out unless you opt out you're an organ donor and the 14% are opt in unless you opt in you're not a donor. The transaction cost is signing the back of your license. It's trivial. And think about it. We're not talking about selling orange juice.  Just changing the default on a form changes completely the country in which you drive. So that's low-hanging fruit. We can do a lot with it quickly. People have been saving a lot more for retirement by changing the default. Other things, of course, you know, I'm from Israel. The Israeli-Palestinian problem doesn't seem to be lending itself to that so easily. So there's a lot more to do. So tying together the different data sets in government using technology, understanding the behavior of people. Is that enough in a way to redesign institutions to enact that systems change that people have called for? How do you look at that intersection of the fourth industrial revolution and the global challenges we're trying to address? Yeah. This has been a great summit. I mean, I think we all got here and on day one got into first gear, which felt challenging but comfortable. We were addressing the world's big problems and working out how to do that. And then Professor Schwab gets up and challenges us to move into fourth gear with the fourth industrial revolution. And suddenly we've all got to up the tempo of our conversation and think of fresh. And I think it's made this summit really a great summit. And I guess I would share three reflections. They're not my own. They've gleaned from conversations with the brilliant people in this room about what the fourth industrial revolution might mean for global cooperation and for the collaboration of the kind that the WEF is trying to facilitate. The first observation or the reflection, which came when a young Emirati official came to our Global Agenda Council on Global Governance and very quickly made us realize that we were all the pre-millennials.  So how do we see institutions? We see hierarchy. We like that. It's comfortable. We see reputation and brand as important. We look at careers within institutions and we accept a certain slowness as a result. And yet we're designing institutions and collaboration platforms for the new millennials who have a very different view of those four things. They don't go for hierarchy. They go for flat organizations. They don't go for reputation and brand. They go for projects and delivery. They're not going for careers. They're looking at collaborative models which are constantly shifting and they certainly aren't tolerating slowness. They're going for speed. So for me a first reflection brought by somebody from our host country here in Abu Dhabi was very much that we've actually got to think in a more millennial way about the institutions that we're designing. I guess a second thought was about reflecting on what Professor Schwab laid out for us yesterday on the industrial revolution and the extent to which the new technology embeds norms. Now it might be the self-driving car that Elder referred to and whether it runs over a dog or a child or it might be an automating drone or robotic warfare. But if the new technologies are going to embed norms then we need really fantastic global processes for generating those norms. And I think that's a new, it really ups the challenge on what kind of collaboration we have to develop deep norms which are going to be embedded in these new technologies. And I guess my third reflection and I rather liked a quote that I heard earlier today which is that architecture, now what was it? Architecture gives us the illusion of stillness when the world around us is moving very fast and I think it's a reminder of why we have institutions. That we can all talk about nimble, rapid change but we have institutions to give us that moment of stillness in which we can build trust with one another, get to know one another. One of the reasons why I think this summit has worked even better than others is because a lot of people here know each other. This is an institution and there's a lot of trust that's been built and so that moment of stillness makes me pause and say let's not throw away all the institutions we've got but let's remember that we actually do need that stillness to build trust which makes collaboration possible which will make the kind of speed and agility that we need possible. Those were my reflections. So in a way you're saying we need the stillness of the institutions to develop this process of norm setting. Is that the way we can establish these norms at the global level? Well I think we've got to be careful. So stillness does not mean paralysis and a lot of international organisations one could describe as paralysed and that's not what stillness means. I think the moment of stillness in a busy world is more telling us that we need the reassurance that our best efforts are not just evanescent. The reassurance that if we engage with one another on a collective solution it's not all for nothing and that's what an institution can do. It can give you a platform that you can keep coming back to that makes it worth you putting your energy and efforts into because there's a sustained process which will actually impact something. Were there other thoughts in other councils that resonated with that argument that Nairia has just laid out about that in a way the dilemma between stillness and the speed that we need in these new institutions? Were there any other thoughts from councils that relate to this point? Michelle? Thank you. So I'm in the Justice Council and we were grappling with this issue a lot, not just in our own council but also in our cross-counsel sessions the question of justice and how justice institutions have been probably among the slowest to adapt to the amount of speed that the new generations are asking. So if I go to a court and it takes too long, well I just will sort things out myself, right? One of the ideas that we've been implementing on has been issuing innovating justice challenges at the regional level. So if we're not really finding the solutions within the institutions, we're trying to find it among the kids with blue hair doing hacking stuff in their backyards. But we've actually found some really amazing innovations there. I would comment to your question if I may. So I was reflecting on what you said, Nari, about in this last point. And I think that really is the same lens on this question of are we investing enough in the infrastructure by which we tend to think in bridges or buildings or these days, telecommunications or others. But it is in some ways the institutions you're talking about that require a common ground for all the different things that have to be integrated to come together. And I hadn't thought of it quite in that way but it strikes me that the flip sides of the same issue because without that stillness we're not going to get these different perspectives to come together in any meaningful way. Sarah. I guess, so I said on the Africa GAC and I think this is something that came up thematically for us in terms of, you know, as a group what we really think about are what are the most pressing challenges for the continent and then where do we want to be policy advocates? Where do we want to push things forward? And this struggle between the immediate need taking away from the focus of the long-term 25-year policy advocacy that we also need to be doing. And so sometimes there is this tension of the short-term immediacy of certain things, right? So you feel like you're driven off just emotion, pure emotion and drive to fix something today. I think makes us forget about how we also push for what the world is going to look like in the future. And I do think it is, you know, it is ultimately this stability that allows us to have to toggle between the two. But my fear is actually that the focus on process can somehow stifle innovation and change that we need because if we're constantly trying to get ready for what's coming, we're never going to be ready for anything. And so sometimes it's okay if, you know, mistakes, just like mistakes were made and we're allowed to make mistakes in the private industry or in business, and government should be allowed to make business but learn how to iterate fast enough to kind of, you know, pull backwards if necessary, etc. So it's really this balance of addressing immediate needs but really thinking for the future because if we don't think 25 years at a time, I think we will struggle with really, you know, solving any world problem. Right. So thinking about the long-term, Professor Schwab, did you want to come in? Do we have a microphone? After having complicated maybe our discussions yesterday by bringing in the dimension of the force industrial revolution, I was just thinking during our session, what slogan would I create for everybody of us leaving the room? And it has to be very short, incorporating the different contributions which were made. For me, the slogan will be smart with heart. Okay, Elder, you had another point. Yeah, I was going to come in on Nairi's point about the fact that we need institutions and stillness. I want to second, I think we literally need it. I think we have very limited bandwidth which we fail to appreciate. You know, the millennials do multitasking but really what they're doing is being distracted. And it's something that we fail to appreciate fully. If you put people in a simulator speaking on a phone, no hands held, just cell phone in the car, their reaction time and their ability to detect the periphery equal what in the U.S. would be legally drunk. Very quickly, we lose it. Our limited bandwidth we have, all of us, is that what we need to do to be intelligent in a conversation at the WEF and make sure we eat healthy and help our children with our homework, it's a lot to do. And so in some profound way, I think the stillness that comes with institutions that function reasonably well is needed for us to be able to have a moment to think intelligently and originally. So I think this is an interesting point. To what extent, because Nairu, you focused a lot of your point on this generational shift, right? And the changes that this brings about. But to what extent is that not also a more fundamental change in the way systems operate, right? In the way technology operates in fundamentally different way. In some ways, the emergence of the institutions that we know are inherently linked to the previous rounds of industrialization in some ways. So to what extent is it more than a generational thing and the behaviors of the millennials that Elder was? Well, I think some things stay constant. It's really interesting that the head of the GAC on the Internet said that they actually spent quite a lot of their time talking about trust building. And that remains a constant. So human being, yes, the millennials have new ways of communicating, collaborating and delivering, but they're in search of ways to find trusted partners. Collaborative work, if you're not individually seeking your career up through the hierarchy, if you are undertaking this collaborative project delivery option, you need really trusted collaborators. So it doesn't create a world of individual attivists. It creates a world, I think, where you need even better collaboration. So you need more trust. And some of the old elements give you that.  Is there anyone from the Values Council? Because it would be interesting to look at that point from the perspective of the discussions that you had there. Anyone from Values still in the room? Hi. I'm actually not from the Values Council. I've been talking great to the Values Council. We're from the Nanotechnology Council and you would think that perhaps wouldn't really fit so well, wouldn't you? We've been talking, and we have a very boring word for it. Unfortunately, SMART with heart is much better, which is responsible innovation. So how do we achieve the benefits that these technologies promise while it's not causing more problems than we solve? But also, how do we involve society in that? And I worry your point about these institutions needing to design processes to engage society. I think society is going to get on with it without you. And therefore, how do we actually think of more bottom-up engaging processes in innovation rather than this sort of top-down aspect of it? Now, I know that's very much what you're saying, but it's sort of a whole new paradigm of collaboration. And in terms of some of these new technologies, there is some quite innovative thinking going on in that area that I think bringing together governance, innovation and civil society will have some interesting lessons for the future. And I'm slightly more hopeful being on that nanotechnology council than perhaps you would have thought I might be, given the Fourth Industrial Revolution's concerns that we had brought up earlier. Thank you. Stuart, over there. Yes, I'm Stuart Wallace from the Vice-Chair of the Values Council. And I think we see values, and it fits a bit with Nari's point about norms earlier, and obviously Klaus is with heart bit, because we see values of helping us get both the direction we want, to where we're trying to get to, and we also see it as crucial in this much more atomized world we're moving into as providing the motivator and the means to get there. So having that values discussion is going to be important at all levels. It will be bottom-up and top-down, but we need both. And we absolutely need values for both goals and help us get there. Otherwise, we won't make it. Sir, in the front. Thank you. I'm Jeff Whitman. I'm from the New Models of Tourism Council. And we had a slightly different issue when looking at all of these things. We couldn't quite grasp how to even explain to ourselves where we fitted into this change. On the one hand, for 20 years, we've been explaining to people that travel and tourism, I mean, not just tourism, but infrastructure and all of this soft and hard infrastructure, does really good things, jobs, trade, development. And on the other hand, we suddenly find ourselves, we're in the middle of migration and refugee, and our strategies of trying to get across borders are suddenly turned upside down. And we couldn't even explain to ourselves what it is that we are now in this fourth revolution. And then I'm telling this story because at some stage, Klaus came into the room and we presented him with this problem. And he stopped for a moment and he said, impact tourism. That's what you are.  And you have to see how the new challenges and the new technologies can be fitted into that kind of framework. So you're not only the creator of the forum, you're also a brilliant admin. Thank you. I think that's a really interesting point you're making here about reframing. And I think that's interesting in this context of the World Economic Forum in the context of these council discussions that we're having. And I think, Diana, you mentioned that we also need to reframe how we look at the problems, not only the institutions and the approaches, but reframe how we look at the problems. What would you say are some of the ingredients of reframing the way we look at these problems, the way we look at the world? It builds on the previous point, which is that one of the powers of a good discipline is that it has a systematic approach to viewing a problem. And so if you're an engineer, there's a certain worldview to that. If you're a lawyer, there's a certain worldview to that. If you're an economist, there's a certain worldview to that. But as with the data within organizations or anything else, those are limited in their own way. And we talk a lot about multidisciplinary approaches, but that would sort of take the view that, oh, all you need to do is get an engineer and an economist in the room, and they'll have a conversation. I'll fix that. That's part of it. But I do think it's about forcing both to see the problem differently. And so this question of the framing, and you, Eldar, have talked a lot about this. I mean, it really matters how you ask an individual question. It really matters how you frame a problem.  I mean, those things have made a huge difference in how people think about what problem we're trying to tackle there. Is it, you know, so on? And again, my plea would be for all of us who are part of these institutions and others that we don't spend enough on that aspect of it. And what are the mechanisms that, or the institutions or the processes that are going to enable that kind of interaction? Eldar, from a behavior science perspective, what would be your one piece of advice and how should we frame global challenges to make it more likely that we come to positive collective outcomes? I was thinking that what I would, so we talk a lot about institutions as a place to gain efficiency. I think it's an issue of responsibility. And I think the comment on values blur up to me. Social sciences are filled with examples of people with wonderful values doing terrible things. And it's really about the design of how, you know, the institutions and the societies with design. There's a real breakdown between intention and action. Now, sometimes it's obvious. So if you teach the poor about eating healthy and send them home to a food desert where they cannot find a fresh piece of vegetable within three kilometers, obviously it's not going to help them. The U.S. spends an enormous amount of money teaching the poor about financial literacy and then lets them enter the unregulated financial disaster of the American banking system where they fail. Now that's a clear case. Other cases are more complicated, but basically what institutions do is allow people with good values to function well to basically deliver on those values as opposed to not. And I think that's the place where, how you think about institutions, that's your point, is a very different story. It's really about, again, it's a nuance that lets you to act well in a classroom, in a business, in the street as opposed to not. I was just going to pick up the lady at the back who said, you know, all this talk about processes and mechanisms and institutions. Because it does sound a bit like a sort of déformation professionnelle of people working on global governance. But it's really just to recall that human beings do wonderful things collectively. You know, they can create life-saving drugs and they can create factories to produce those and those factories can pollute the river which becomes toxic to another village living down the stream. And for that reason, because in any society in the world, let alone in the world itself, human beings will always be acting collectively in ways which adversely affect others, whether it's intentional or not. So whether you like it or not, you actually have to design processes which make those human beings realize that it's worth investing in that process to come to an agreement without killing one another, without further endangering one another's lives. So not optimal, but with enough buy-in because all parties agree that the process is fair. So although it sometimes seems tedious, it's less exciting than thinking about the individual and the bottoms-up project, this attention that the WEF is playing to how we can design processes of collaboration is really important because there's not a society in the world that doesn't need to use those processes to make it possible for individuals and communities to flourish. Thank you, Naik. Final point from... Just a very quick point that was raised by several points here which is so often when we think about global challenges and we think about the world we're trying to create improving the state of the world as the WEF has always aimed to do, we conceptualize it as achieving an ideal. We're moving toward an ideal in the future of government. We're moving toward an ideal. And I would just say that if I took one other thing away other than the point I made before, it's that that is a flawed way of thinking about it. That at the end of the day, the solution to one problem will create a different problem and that solution to another problem. And so the need for the process and the continuous evolution of answers to things, whether it's software development or policy or anything else, that we've gone through a cycle of thinking about challenges as the challenges we're solving today as we perhaps create other challenges and that we embrace that and make that part of the processes themselves. Thank you. This is a fascinating discussion that is hard to cut off but we're running against the end of the time here. But it's really not to say that we should end this conversation here but actually start that conversation. And if I learned one thing here, it's about attitudes can change faster than social norms. Well, I felt that the attitudes at display at this summit, if there are any indication of the progress that we can make on those issues, then I'm personally relatively optimistic. So let me thank the panel for this fascinating final discussion here today. And as we're bringing this summit to a close, we'll just do a quick preparation here on stage to invite the co-chairs of the meeting. Thank you.