Hey guys, this is Hydra from Xtrades and in this video we'll go over How the market did last week and what are the next or what are the best? Setups for the upcoming week. So as usual, we'll start off with the indices start up with the SPY and QQQ So SPY did have a down week this week, but As I said last week, it's there's a very high chance that we could just consolidate here for a little bit wait for Price to catch up to the trend line and just consolidate tighten up tighten up and then we can see a big move up or down here so so far that is playing out pretty well and You know overall this week was a pretty good consolidation week We tested that 444 support level, but we did bounce off that pretty well. Let's take a look at the daily chart So on Thursday, we did gap down, but we were able to Close the day strong so that was good action and on Friday. We tried to get a little bounce but We we yeah, it wasn't a very successful bounce. We tried to bounce, but we mostly rejected Yeah, it's pretty much how the week went Monday Tuesday or Monday Tuesday Wednesday was pretty bearish as well But yeah, overall that 444 support level is still holding. So that's a good thing So yeah key support right now is 444 key resistance 453. Those are the key levels that you need to know for SPY Next up we'll take a look at QQQ So QQQ same thing Key level of support is 369 and key resistance is 382 and so far It's just again stuck in that range, right? So just there's a good chance that we're just gonna tighten up tighten up and then potentially make a big break out or Even make a break break down either way. We'll see a big move coming up in the upcoming weeks Well, let's take a look at the weekly chart In the weekly chart QQQ looks really good. It's holding this long-term trend line And it just looks like a consolidation bar here. So overall very good action as long as that 369 level holds I'm gonna continue to be bullish on the market, but yeah I'll be very quick to switch if that 369 level does not hold and yeah If we break that 382 level then I'll be even more bullish But overall very good action on the indices just a consolidation week and yeah, nothing to be worried about Let's take a look at big cap tech stocks first up being Apple Apple had a pretty bearish week Stick with the daily chart They have really bad gap down on Thursday But it did it did for my hammer and they actually close really strong Tried to reclaim the 177 level and tried to get a stronger bounce on On Friday, but unsuccessful. So there is a pretty big gap here now So we'll see if that 181 level can get filled But as long as that 172 level or 177 level holds Apple's still in good shape But yeah, that 172 level is very key if Apple loses that then it could see a really big pullback Overall Apple looks okay As long as the 177 hold level holds it looks okay, but to be bear or bullish on it again It has to reclaim the 181 level ASAP next up AMD So AMD's continuing to form this bull flag here I think we can remove this trend line heard this price level now doesn't really matter But yeah, this is the key thing on AMD It's been forming a really long bull flag here for almost four months five months almost but Yeah, it still looks okay here and For a breakout you want to see that one oh one ten level get taken out It tried to break out this week but rejected But if it can take out the 109 one ten level then there's a chance that and AMD can start making its next let go next up Amazon Amazon's acting really well here just forming a bull flag here and it looks ready to break out any day now You have overall really good action really strong move up this year consolidated broke out Now it's consolidating again for the bull flag, but to potentially getting ready to break out But next the resistance level is 143.5 has the key level for Amazon Next up we'll take a look at Google It's a cool cool same thing really strong move this year Very nice bull flag broke out and then a consolidated between this range for a while broke out and made a bull flag here and then broke out and Yeah, cool has been acting really well here Key resistance level is 136, but it did close it did manage to close above that this week. So Next the next support level is 144 take a look at the daily chart Yeah, 144 is the next level of support I mean next level of resistance. So yeah, Google does have room all the way up there overall Google is acting really really well and Yeah, very bullish on Google next up will take a look at Meadow So Meadow did lose that key long term trend line But if it can reclaim 306 then it would look pretty good You know overall It's acting pretty well this week and basically just closed flat Didn't do too much just chopped around but that 306 is definitely a key resistance level So if it can take that out, then I would be bullish on Meadow until then I would be I wouldn't touch this If anything it looks a little bit bearish looks like a potential bear flag, but Yeah, if that 306 level gets taken out, then I'll be back to bullish on Meadow Next up Microsoft So Microsoft had an incredible run this year then pulled back made our made all-time highs and then pulled back in pretty hard And now it's rebounding pretty well the last three weeks Take a look at the daily chart Yeah, it's just a slow grind up So cannot much to really say for Microsoft Key resistance level is that that 344 level and then key support is that that 324 level Those are the key levels for Microsoft But yeah, that's pretty much it next up Netflix So Netflix is trying to break that 450 level 448 level again Try to break up like close below that so another failed breakout but overall on the daily chart It actually looks really really nice Very nice bull flag forming here And if it can take out the highs on Friday's 446, there's a very good chance that this could break out But Netflix is looking very good And I think there's one play for the big cap tech stocks Netflix would be top choice for me Very nice bull flag forming on the daily chart Next up we'll take a look at Nvidia So the weekly So from the earnings gap up it did hit 502 and then last week Last last week it did almost hit that 500 level and then reject it and then this week it's forming an inside bar so it's actually forming a flag here and Potentially one or two more weeks of consolidation and then it could see a big move Overall and video is the king of the market still and it's acting really really well This week it did pull back really hard, but overall this is still the top stock of the market for now On the daily chart on Thursday got down, but close strong and Friday was a pretty weak day, but Yeah, overall, I think that media just needs a couple more weeks to consolidate because really had such a Really big game this year, right? So It would be healthy for it to consolidate its gains and just let it rest for a little bit But and media is acting fine next up Tesla So Tesla is Has a key resistance level at that 259 level so until it takes that out then Not much to do right? So Tesla is actually forming a bull flag here pretty nice bull flag try to break out on Friday, but rejected and We'll see if it can try to take it out again sometime next week But overall Tesla does look pretty good, but you want to see that 259 level get taken out for More upside potential overall Tesla does look fine But yeah, that's pretty much it for all the big caps now. Let's take a look at how growth stocks are doing Let's take a look at our KK Yeah, very clear resistance at the 44.5 level here stick look at the daily chart Just looked pretty good here though, right? so really strong move on last week on a 29 and then this week was pretty much just consolidating the Entire week, but we can take out that 44.5 level I think there's a very good chance that we could see a bigger rally all the way back up to 51 overall Yeah, KKK does look pretty good here on Thursday took that down But pretty strong close then Friday was just a consolidation day overall looks really good And I'm definitely gonna be bullish on growth stocks if 44.5 level can get taken out Next up we'll take a look at the best-looking stocks for Upcoming week so firm looks really good here had a very Mentioned this last week, but had a very nice gap up on volume Really a big bar here and then a consolidation bar and then it broke out very strong breakout And now it's consolidating here for like the last four days. Yeah four days But it can take out that 22 or 22.6 level. There's a very good chance that the firm can make a move back up higher Let's take a look at the weekly chart So very clear resistance here, right and I broke that Yeah firm has room all the way up to see It's not a clear resistance level for firm. I'll tell you first target would be around that 26 0.75 ish area But overall the firm does look really good on the daily chart It's all getting very nicely here. It looks ready to make another leg up and Yeah, very good action Next up we'll take a look at that That has been trending really really nice all year long. So first step up was here right on earnings From the bull flag and then gap up again and ended up breaking down, but They're covered from the nice flag here broke out and then had another earnings gap up just recently last month and From the flag here broke out from the flag here broke out and now it's forming another flag here And this is potentially another good entry here if it can take out that 42.5 level But yeah app does look really good here Next up though still had a very strong earnings cap up and Ever since then it's just been consolidating very tightly. So this is really really good action It looks ready to take off here forming a very nice flag This is an A plus setup and on the weekly you can see that it's at all time high So no overhead resistance. So overall, this is definitely a top watch very good action Next up elf so elf is Another big winner 2023. This one has been trending nicely all year long very nice action $36 to 140 and right now it's forming a bull flag here. It actually broke out on Thursday and on Friday it formed the consolidation bar But if it can take out one thirty eight point one five, it would be a good setup to go along But yeah, elf does look very very good I'll enqueue. This is one of my favorite stocks. This one's been acting incredibly well all year long So it's also one of the biggest winners 2023 very nice bull flag here set up here broke out very nice bull flag set up here broke out on Monday and Thursday gap down pretty hard, but very nice recovery on Friday and closing at its Hi, so very good action on Friday But yeah, this looks very good very clear resistance at that 20 level So definitely sell some into strength if you still have some but Overall this one's setting up really well, and I want to see some bull flag from here So next couple days if bull flag can form here, that'd be very good action but right now there's no setup on it and Wouldn't be touching it right now But yeah way for a bull flag to form and some consolidation and this would be an A plus setup Next up IOT This one had a very strong earnings reaction This was their earnings day reaction very strong gap up made a new highs here And now it's forming a pretty nice bull flag here This is a definitely a top watch here very strong stock and it's been From $8 to $32 so very big game this year as well. This is definitely a top stock But yeah, very nice volume as well Next up last but not least VRT This one also had a very strong earnings gap up and has been Trending very nicely and actually from the bull flag here broke out on Thursday and on Friday Put it in a consolidation bar. So if you can take out 39.7 This would definitely be a top setup to watch for next week and this one's also at all-time highs, so No overhead resistance though, you know overall very good action But yeah, that's pretty much all I got for you guys for this week. Thank you guys for tuning in


OK, good morning, bright and early. Well, early, anyway. So today, we're going on to look at Evans on the Causal Theory of Names. But I want to wrap up first thinking about color. Color isn't really discussed in the texts that we're looking at, but I think it's an interesting case as a kind of exercise for a causal theory of representation. Because we do represent the world as colored. That seems like a datum. And in a causal theory, there's a question, how can that be happening? What is it that we're causally responding to that is allowing us to represent the world as having all these qualitative colors? And on a natural story, the world out there isn't itself colored. The world out there doesn't contain these qualitative characteristics. The world out there only contains light of various wavelengths, not the qualitative color characteristics themselves, the blueness of the blue thing, and so on. So how come we are managing to represent these qualitative characteristics if there is nothing qualitative out there for us to be causally responding to? And the natural answer that I guess many of you guys were defending last time was that it's something to do with our color sensations. We have inner qualitative sensations, and our color representations are causally responsive to those inner color sensations. And the bombshell on which we ended last time was that this talk about color sensations doesn't make an ounce of sense. This is a dramatic claim, I realize, because it's a very popular view, not just in this class, but in philosophy generally, that there are sensations of color. But it seems to me that it really is a difficult notion, because in the one hand, the color sensations are supposed to be what we have most immediate knowledge of. They're what inject your consciousness of color into vision. So they're what you have your first and most immediate knowledge of in having knowledge of colors. But on the other hand, when you just reflect for a moment on your own current visual experience, your own current visual experience doesn't give you any knowledge of color sensations at all. Your own current visual experience only gives you knowledge of the colors of the objects around you. It only gives you knowledge of color as a characteristic of concrete objects. So you could say, well, I'm going to hypothesize that there's something you don't have any direct knowledge of, namely, these color sensations. And these color sensations would be like postulates, like the electron is a postulated object. You could say, color sensations are like electrons. They're postulated to explain what goes on. And then you might form hypotheses about how they behave, just as you can form hypotheses about how electrons behave. But the position you reach at this point is actually incoherent, because nothing can be both, nothing can be both a purely theoretical postulate, hypothesized in order to explain what's going on. And on the other hand, the thing that we have most immediate knowledge of in ordinary color experience was providing us with knowledge of the blueness of the blue thing. I mean, you might go try going down either of these tracks, but the current position is that you try going down both of them at once. And that is incoherent, it seems to me. So if we reach that point and we say, well, where is this qualitative character? We can't take it as a given that the representations have it. So it must be a characteristic either of inner sensation or of the world out there. Actually, the most popular view is that we don't say color is a characteristic of the world out there. And I think a lot of people would say this talk about color sensation, not most, but many philosophers would say this talk about color sensation is kind of problematic. It is not obvious that it really makes sense. So why don't we think instead of the qualitative characters of the objects around us, as that's something we represent the world to have. We represent the world to have the blueness, the redness, and so on. It doesn't really have those qualitative characteristics. We just represent the world that way. And if you put it like that, you don't need to bother talking about sensations at all. Does that seem like a sensible view? Can you put your hand up if that sounds reasonable enough? I mean, it might be wrong, I'd be right. But at any rate, it's reasonable enough. Yeah, the thing is, that was a trap. I think that makes no sense. Whatever, if you have a causal theory of representation, there is nowhere really to go here. Because if you have a causal theory of representation, then could be representing the qualitative colors that you representations have to be causally responsive to the qualitative colors. But where are the qualitative colors that your system of representation is causally responding to? There are no qualitative colors out there. We're assuming there's only the light wavelengths. There are no qualitative colors in here, in your sensations. That's the other thing we're assuming. So there's no way in which those representations could now be representing the qualities of color. I mean, a causal theory of representation needs two things. It needs the representation. And it needs the phenomenon that the representation is causally responsive to. So the point we've now reached is, we say there aren't the color sensations in there. There aren't the colors out there. So how could the representations be representing qualitative colors? There's no qualitative characteristic of sensation, no qualitative characteristic of the objects out there, to be causing the representations. I think my own view is the only way to go here is to say, well, if you talk about color sensations, really doesn't make sense. It really is kind of obscurantist to talk about these color sensations when we don't understand exactly what they are and we don't have any everyday common sensical knowledge of them. Then why not take the appearances at face value? Why not suppose that really the objects out there have the quality of colors they seem to have? And the physics is just incomplete. There is more to the world out there independent of us. There is more to the mind independent reality than just physics of the situation. What more there is are the primitive color characteristics of the objects. So if the objects really are in themselves, blue, red, yellow, and so on, then our color representations can have the contents that they do as responses to those qualitative characteristics out there. And we don't have to bother with this difficult talk about color sensations. We can explain the whole thing in terms of a causal theory of representation. But note that the pressure that a causal theory of representation puts you on here. If you've got the representation with a particular kind of, and it's representing things a particular way, there must be something there that is that way in order for the representation to be representing it as that way. Was that a bit too fast? Do you see what I mean? Yeah. There go to, sorry? Did you say that was OK or that was not OK? I'll do it again. OK. If you go to the causal theory of representation, then that's to say you've got the representations over here. That's the representations, yes? And a causal theory says the only way the representations gets to be a representation of that queue, let's say, is if there's some queue out here causing the representation. You could only have a representation of goodl. If there's goodl out there causing your use of the name. You could only have a representation of water if there's water out there causing your use of the sign. You could only have a representation of color if there's color out there causing your use of the sign. And when people say there's no smoke without fire, in a way that's actually literally applicable here because, I mean, of course there can be smoke without fire. I mean, I'm not denying that. But there's something right about it which is we treat smoke as a sign of fire. Smoke is a sign of fire in the sense that it's reliably caused by fire. That's all right, that wasn't too fast. Yeah, you see smoke, you can say that's fire. That smoke means fire, you can say, right? The smoke indicates the presence of fire. That couldn't be unless there was usually fire out there causing the smoke. So similarly, you can't have a representation of water. The water indicates the presence of water. The water representation indicates the presence of water. The color representation indicates the presence of color. But it couldn't do that unless there were colors out there. Oh, oh boy, OK, one, two, three. The representation is itself the cause. So it causes itself. That's right. We get color representations from somewhere. That's the whole point. Yeah, that's a central thing, right? Whether you agree with anything else I say here, that's the important thing. A color representation is not self-standing. Its meaning is not kind of generated from within. It's always generated from something that's causing it. That's true of representation in general. That's the claim of a causal theory, yeah. The cause and the effect must be two different things. Things can't cause that.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that's a very unusual case. Things can't in general cause themselves. If you catch a disease, and you say, how come that happened, then the SF just can't be what caused itself. You should get another doctor to tell you that, right? Things can't cause themselves. It makes no sense. Well, OK, you'd have to be saying this is a very special case, right? The whole idea of a causal theory is there's the water out there and the representation of water. There's a name goodle and the person goodle. And one's causing the other. There are two different things, and one causes the other. This idea of a representation causing itself, in the face of it, it makes no sense. I mean, I don't mean to be pejorative here, but really, I mean, if you said, well, where did the chalk come from? How was it made? The ideal, well, it made itself. I mean, how could that be? You see what I mean? But that's what you'd have to be saying about the color representation, oh, it made itself. How does that work? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's right. Physics isn't complete, yeah. That's right. You could say that. I mean, it's a lot of brain science is actually very puzzled by this picture that you do get people who go through assemblies of cell firing saying, now, where do we get the color qualia? Where do the color qualia come? And you keep turning over these assemblies of cell firing looking for the color sensations. And they're so hard to find. And the truth is you could trace a bunch of hits in the retina all the way through to the back of the brain, all the way through to the front of the brain, all the way through to action. And I never noticed color sensations at any point. Yeah? So it is very puzzling for the scientists who are thinking about where consciousness is. How shall we find it? And you get reactions like, well, maybe if the mathematics is sufficiently complex, we will find the color sensations. But it really seems that it is not a matter of mathematical complexity. The thing isn't there at all. And it seems to me at that point, a natural reaction to say, well, where do the colors seem to be? They seem to be out there on the objects. Yeah? Maybe you're just looking in the wrong place. Yeah? That's right. Oh, I just said there's this basic incoherence in the other one. Oops, I'm going the wrong way here. I said that the color sensations are kind of incoherent because in the one hand, they're theoretical postulates that we don't know anything about directly. Yeah, they're just postulates. And that's the kind of line you're taking. They're in there in the brain somewhere. And future research will tell us something about them. But in the other hand, they're also supposed to have this characteristic that they're the most immediate thing you have knowledge of in everyday visual experience. Now, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, I'm going to forget about this part, the special insight into them. Let's suppose they're backstage. Yeah? I think that's a perfectly defensible view. It really is obscure, though. I mean, you lose the sense that you have to, as you say, knowingly give up the sense that you know what you're talking about when you talk about color sensations and say it's just this postulated black box backstage in consciousness somewhere. And if that's the deal, then I have no problem with that in principle. But it's not one many people have gone down. It's not what usually they have in mind when they have a color sensation. On the other hand, they talk about the colors of medium-sized objects. That we understand. You know, we use a million times every day. It's a robust, well-worked terminology. There's nothing obscure about it. So that's why I like it better. But that's how to say that's decisive. So I think the track you're suggesting is perfectly reasonable. Yeah? Yeah. This was meant to be a kind of, by the way. Put your hand if you've got a question. Okay, you've got a question. Okay, this is going to be really quick. Okay, one line. I'll try to talk for less than 20 minutes each time. One, two. Yeah. No, you see a color. Yeah. No, it's not translation. It's causation is the key thing here. Yeah. So I'm not saying your brain interprets. That's what the last commenter was saying.   If it seems to you like, unless you have something of a startle reaction, you don't really understand what I'm saying. Because most educated people today would take it for granted that that's false. Yeah, that the colors are somehow generated by the mind. But I'm suggesting that that's wrong. Yeah. It's not wrong. That's right. Could you speak up, please? Did you say it's not wrong? I'm saying it's caused by the color. No, I'm saying it's caused by the color. That's right. That's how come you've got a representation of the qualitative color. If it's caused by the wavelengths out there, you have no idea how it came about that you've got a representation of a qualitative color here. That's the problem. Yeah, that's where we come in with that basic difficulty. One, two, yeah. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, well, I was saying when you try and reflect on the nature of your current color experience, you wind up just looking at the world around you. No, you can have knowledge of what you're seeing.  But that is knowledge of a mental state. Abstract back and take that mental state as an object itself, I can say plenty of stuff while it's happening out there, but how can I say anything about that mental state itself? What's going wrong there is a picture of knowledge of your own mental state as knowledge of something in here, a bunch of sensations confined to your head. You have to think of the color experience, your ordinary seeing of things as something that connects you to the world out there. That's what a causal theory is saying. Remember that thing about the thinker? The whole point there was, you can't know whether you're thinking about H2O or XYZ just by looking inside your head. The whole point about this, this is what I mean about how deep this causal theory goes, is that that picture of your mind is something separated out from the world that you can have knowledge of, independent of your knowledge of your environment. That is getting blown up here. I think that's what's behind your question.  It's common sense, but it's wrong. That's what I'm saying. I do recognize the intuition there. That's right. That's right. We just have to sort that out the way we do ordinarily. It's like if I'm in a store and I ask for a blue shirt and they bring me something and I say, that's not a blue shirt, that's a green shirt, then these disputes do come up. I've actually been in that context exactly, but I've been in at least one quite impassioned argument about whether something was blue or green. You just have to settle that the way people usually do. You look at color charts, you talk to other people. You kind of get recalibrated. We do get into these disputes and we do settle them, but all at the level of common sense. Okay, last one. What about what's that? An abstractionist painter, yes, right? That's right and that's interesting. Well, it's a complex case, but in the case of water, you can do a painting of water that can be meant to be water. There it is, the bottle. Let's say it's peri, it's meant to be water. There's the glass, there's the bubbles. Water is all right, but there's no such scene in reality for you to be responding to. But still, it could be that the only way you can have a system of representation in which you can do that kind of stuff is that there are colors out there. Sorry, is that there is water out there in that example. The abstract painting is a little bit fancier because there's something about it, it's not naturalistic. But I think with an abstract painting, the painting itself is colored. Yes? Ah, it's a painting in your mind. That's a very fancy example. Okay, there's a painting in your mind, but it's not... Okay, right. Let me just make this general point that is one thing to say, in order for the system of representation to exist, the phenomenon must be out there to be causing you to use that system, right? That's what happens with water or good or whatever. Yeah, you can only have those representations if the stuff's out there. But that's not to say that every representation you form using that system has to be an accurate representation of what's going on. Yeah. That doesn't comprehensively address your example, but that's where I think you'd start. Okay? I just want to make one final remark that takes a bit further about last question, about one question about different people representing things differently. I just say this to try and make clear what the position is I'm suggesting. If you say that the colors are out there just the way we see them, you have to face the fact that lots of other animals seem to have different kinds of color vision to us. So goldfish, for example, seem able to see into the ultraviolet. Lots of birds seem to have ultraviolet vision. There are lots of birds that to us look drab and ravens and crows and so on. And then when you flood them with light in the wavelengths in which they see each other, if you see what I mean, they turn out to be differently, brilliantly colored. So if you take the goldfish or if you take bird vision like that, then what are we going to say about it? Is it that we see the colors right and they see them wrong? Or do they get it right and we get it wrong? Surely we can face off a goldfish, but we do seem to have this question which is really kind of amping up that thing. One thing I fobbed you off by saying well we do actually resolve these differences, but with a goldfish no amount of talk is going to... Well, you see what I mean. And really, so I just raise that, I don't want to try and address that here, but I just raise that to try and make clear what the view I'm recommending is. It's a view in which the goldfish really is a threat. And the question for you is if you don't buy that picture, then what causal theory would you like or color representations? That's homework. So I really want to move on to the Evans now. So I want to just whistle through and revive your memories of what was going on with Kripke. Kripke, Kripke, do you know Kripke? It seems like a long time ago now, but you remember Kripke? Kripke, yes. What do I really think of it with the Kripke is you can think of ourselves as having files on the things and people and objects around us. I kept saying well the causal theory says someone radiates information about themselves into the community. We build up a cluster of descriptions relating to that individual. So you can think of that as each of us having a dossier on that individual. Each of us has our mit rom ne dossier. Each of us has our dossier and our friends. You build up all this information is true of them. And then the question is what is the relation that it has to hold between the information that's in a file and the person it's of for that person to be the person the file is about? How do you explain what that relation is between the dossier and the person? And the description theory said it has to be the person who best matches what's in the dossier. And Kripke gave a quite different answer. He said consider your good old dossier. Your good old dossier contains a whole bunch of information principally relating to the person who proved these mathematical theorems. But suppose that the person who actually proved the incompleteness of arithmetic was someone else, someone outside the girdle gang. Then that other person would be the person who best matches the contents of your girdle dossier. But still girdle would refer to the person who stole the credit. That was the point. The source of the dossier, not the person the dossier best matches. I'm racing over this, but I assume that this is familiar at this point. So the Kripke picture was there's an initial baptism in which the thing may be named by extension or the reference of the name may be fixed by description. And a chain of communication in which the name is passed from speaker to speaker. And what is riling up Evans in this article is the focus on the initial baptism. The thing about the initial baptism is that it might be lost in the mists of history. And who cares what the initial baptism was? It seems to bear no relation necessarily to the way we use the name now. And it's not at all clear how to explain what a chain of communication is either. So I said, if you say, well, Rumsfeldt I think is the name of a pre-Socratic philosopher. I just picked up a little bit of conversation about Rumsfeldt about known unknowns and all that. And I thought, yeah, that's a pre-Socratic. Sounds like a pre-Socratic to me. Then do you really understand the name? I mean, the chain, the causal chain goes back to Donald Rumsfeldt's initial baptism. No argument about that. That's really what's going on from your use of the name back to the politician's baptism. But if your use of the name is so out of joint if you raise questions like did Rumsfeldt influence Plato then your use of the name seems to be so out of sync with any talk about the politician that you wonder what point is there in saying you're referring to the politician? Evans writes, one could regard the aim of this paper as being to restore the connection which must exist between strict truth conditions including the account of reference and the beliefs and interests of the users of the sentences if the technical notion of strict truth conditions is to be of interest to us. So that's to say, talking about what someone's referring to isn't a purely technical exercise. It has to fit in with how... It has to relate to the kind of interest that our thought and talk have for us. The work thought and talk do in our everyday lives it's not just a technical question what you're referring to when you use a sign. And so here's an example to suggest that the initial dubbing ceremony that Kripke talks about can't really have that kind of force that Kripke supposes. Suppose one of a group of villagers dubbed a little girl on holiday in the vicinity Goldilocks on the name caught on. However, suppose there were two identical twins that the villagers totally failed to distinguish. It just happened that at the initial dubbing one of them ran in range of the dumber and the dumber said, I dub thee Goldilocks and it was just an accident. They got that one rather than the other one. The two of them kept running around and then Evan says, I should deny that Goldilocks is the name of either. I mean, since how should I say in the life of the villagers there is no significant distinction drawn between the two twins the mere accident that a dubbing ceremony caught one of them rather than the other can be of no relevance. Here's another example. An urn is discovered in the Dead Sea containing documents on which are found fascinating mathematical proofs inscribed at the bottom is the name of Ibn Khan and for decades mathematicians study these proofs talk about what Ibn Khan didn't understand talk about Ibn Khan's level of mathematical sophistication and so on and they've never noticed right at the bottom in very small print it says, it scripts it, I'm the scribe I'm the humble writer down with the proofs not the mathematician myself and Evan says, are you really going to say when for decades mathematicians have been arguing about whether Ibn Khan was really in a position to prove, let us say, the incompleteness of arithmetic they were talking about the scribe because that's the person who was first dubbed Ibn Khan no, they were talking about the mathematician so Kripke's talk about the importance of the initial dubbing seems to be giving an importance to an almost accidental ceremony that it doesn't really have and the idea that chain of communication is also pretty problematic Kripke says, what's the chain of communication? Well, when the name's passed from link to link the receiver of the name must, I think, contends when he learns it to use it with the same reference as a man from whom he herbed it and Evan's point is that can't be a correct account of the chain of communication consider Marco Polo's naming of Madagascar Marco Polo is standing in the mainland presumably around Mozambique somewhere looking out at this great island and he says to the locals what do you call that? and they think he's pointing to a bit of the mainland they think he's pointing to the hills over the coast and they say that's Madagascar and he takes them to be referring to the island so he's making a mistake about what they're referring to he thinks they're referring to this they are actually telling him the local name of a bit of the headlands out in Mozambique and he is intending in Kripke's phrase he is intending to use it with the same reference as the people from whom he herbed it but he's not I mean if you really took Kripke's story seriously here then there's a chain going from you and me today and the makers of this map today back through to Marco Polo back through to the locals back then all of us intending to use the name with the same references of people from whom we herbed it right back to the locals initial dubbing of that bit of the headland Madagascar so if we really took Kripke's theory seriously you'd have to say Madagascar's not an island Madagascar's just a bit of the mainland of Africa but there's a crazy view that's the thing about this would be a purely technical notion of reference that it doesn't bear any relation to the way we actually use the name Madagascar every day or how we actually assess what each other are saying is true or false so the basic point there about the Madagascar example is that reference can shift despite a causal chain on an intention to preserve reference and we've actually had this point already in that effecting story of spot that's exactly what happens I mean I won't work through that painful story again but yeah you can remember it right it's the same model okay so that's the Evans' line of attack on Kripke now there are what he does to respond to Kripke is he introduces the notion of a dominant source of information and when you try and explain this abstractly I think it's quite a difficult notion to give a fully explicit account of so I'll work through his attempt to give a fully explicit account of it and then I'll look at his example I think the example of Napoleon makes it very vivid what he means and makes it very clear that there is some idea there however unsatisfactory the notion of a dominant source of information is your task as homework is to improve that definition of a dominant source of information here's a kind of definition that Evans gives a speaker intends to refer to the item that is the dominant source of the associated body of information so in the case of Madagascar you get a bunch of information about Madagascar you have a whole bunch of impressions about Madagascar you have your file on Madagascar what matters is not who is at the end or what is at the end of some long historical chain going back through the centuries what matters is look at your body of information as you have it now what is the dominant source of all that information is it the island or is it the headland usually our knowledge or belief about particular items is derived from information gathering transactions involving a causal interaction with some item or other conducted ourselves or as in the case of Madagascar you can get it through a long chain or if it's someone who's moved in next to you you can get it just by directly interacting with them not through a long chain you can find out about a person from a perception from a photograph from rifling through their suitcase from burgling their house or finding out what other people say you can find all about this person one way or another and that gives you a file that gives you a cluster or a dossier of information on that person now when you're getting that cluster putting together your file on that person you might mix up information from different people a cluster or dossier of information can be dominantly of an item though it contains elements whose source is different so if you've got a photograph like this I was trying to find a photograph I could show it this hour of the morning of two people kind of all tangled up so here you have information coming from two rugby players right? yes? yes that's alright so you're getting information here so it's all mixed up but in my view your information is dominantly of the guy in the front you're getting more and more and clearer information of the guy in the front so even though you've got here something that is giving you information about two different people you can say well it's really dominantly of one rather than the other even so its dominance is not simply a function of the amount of information even if you could quantify information it's not just going to be a matter of how much information and in the case of persons for example each man's life presents a skeleton and the dominant source may be the man who contributed to covering most of it rather than the man who contributed most of the covering so what he has in mind I think if for example we know a bit about let's say Maxwell the great physicist then it may be that we actually have some scans that were done of Maxwell's knee that give you a massive amount of information about Maxwell's knee so we know far more about his knee than we know about anything else that Maxwell did and even if that scan it turned out we were all wrong about it that wasn't really Maxwell's knee at all you see what I mean that could happen too what matters is not who contributed most of that information if most of the information relates to the knee what we want is where the overall shape of Maxwell's life and achievements comes from the overall picture so the important thing is who contributed to covering most of the skeleton not the fact that you're getting a massive amount of detail of some relatively unimportant part of the skeleton I'm whistling through this a little bit because I hope it's plain enough but help me at any point you might want to speed up a bit which is hard to do okay copy with that okay so dominance is oh hold on so detail in a particular area can be outweighed by spread detail in the coverage of the knee can be outweighed by spread in the coverage of the life and your reasons for being interested in the item at all will also weigh so image in Dickey has a couple of examples that really test out this notion of dominance one is these are in the paper just out this year one is suppose you have a village with an astrologer who fastens on to a two year old child and says this little girl will do great things this little girl is a child of destiny and she generates a whole bunch of predictions about the great things this little girl will do for the village and maybe ten years down the line those legends are alive and well and people remember relatively little about the actual life of the little girl still that little girl is the person you're talking about that little girl is a person that all the legends are of even though the little girl contributed relatively little to all these fabulous legends that have grown up around her or again it could happen that with Chaucer it could be have been that in the Middle Ages a whole bunch of myths grew up about Chaucer the early English writer and that people in the Middle Ages believed mostly a bunch of nonsense about Chaucer so that actually they believed it was a saint they believed he had magical powers whatever stuff you like but actually Chaucer himself was not the dominant source of all these legends it could still be that eventually all these legends are scrapped away and we've got stories about the real Chaucer I usually just love to I would like to stop for questions but I'm going to just blast through if that's all right and then we'll see if there's any time left I just wanted to get to everyone's example of Napoleon okay what's the question? it's like what? Chuck Norris is it? is that like Chuck Norris? I'm sorry to say I don't know who Chuck Norris is is that like Chuck Norris? it is like Chuck Norris well there you go I will look that up for next time okay well thank you that was clearly very helpful now you understand now it all falls into place okay Evans' own example is Napoleon so that's a picture of Napoleon encountering the Sphinx Napoleon is the one on the left in the hat okay so here are two scenarios Evans discusses suppose an impersonator took over Napoleon's role from 1814 on so this is Napoleon in his mature phase as you can see this is Napoleon after his great military victories after he's been released from prison or got out of prison and an imposter takes over at that late stage and it's actually an imposter of the mature Napoleon who fights at Waterloo and loses okay suppose that happened and then the historians say how would the historians describe that situation would you say Napoleon fought at Waterloo Napoleon, oh sorry Waterloo happened later Waterloo was just about the last big thing that happened yes, Napoleon fought at Waterloo oh no no no no let us suppose that the historians now know the situation you're perfectly right they would say that but let me put it another way if they said that he fought at Waterloo Napoleon fought at Waterloo would they be right? okay anybody think they'd be right? very good okay now then the thing is because just summing up what we all think here is mid-career Napoleon unifying Europe under the French Empire and this is the person who's the dominant source of all our beliefs about Napoleon what happened when he was beat at Waterloo I mean in the English mind that ranks pretty high but it's actually not you know what you think of as his main achievement if you see what I mean yep so Napoleon refers to the dominant source of our cluster of beliefs about him which is this guy out there unifying Europe yep but now consider another scenario suppose that an impersonator takes over when Napoleon is just starting out as you can see here he is hardly a beard, no hat but so he's just beginning and then an impersonator does him in and takes over so that this guy here is actually the person who took over the person who did him in and took over at that point so then the cluster of the typical historian would be dominantly of the impersonator yes so if Napoleon was done in and taken over let me put it more neutrally if this guy was done in and taken over at a relatively early age our cluster of beliefs that we associate with the name Napoleon would be dominantly of this guy yep the guy who'd taken over the mid-career Napoleon yes so in that case if we said Napoleon fought at Waterloo would that be true or false? aha it would be true who is the official answer? I mean everything is negotiable here put your hand up if you think it's true if you think it's false aha if you have no idea what I'm talking about let me just check put your hand up if you do know exactly what I'm talking about but maybe you're just not sure about the answer okay I have to say that is less than overwhelming but okay so here's Evans diagramming the situation he says this is the first case in which we have we have the early Napoleon making it through to mid-career before he is sandbagged and someone else takes over and then when you say Napoleon is F what you're talking about is this character yep the character who made it through to his mature years before being bumped off yes whereas in this case when our character gets bumped off pretty early in this case when you're talking about when you're talking about the dominant source of this collection of beliefs then really you're talking about this person Peter if I'm explaining this correctly this should be fairly straightforward so the thing is that if you take this example to heart then Kripke's kind of is a causal picture alright well what matters is who's the dominant source of the information you have right now tracing back a causal chain through the mists of time to some initial dubbing isn't really to the point it doesn't really matter what the initial dubbing was that's not the critical thing what matters is the dominant source of the set of beliefs that you have right now one and two that's true that's right I hadn't thought of doing that but you could cast it in terms of which dubbing is important I think part of the point of Evan's picture is to take away the idea of the dubbing itself as being an important idea because Koska that's correct that's a very interesting case because in that case you might think that my father part is really dominant it needs more discussion ok let's take up that next time ok thank you


Hello and welcome to our keynote for day two of OAR by Domains21. I am absolutely delighted to be introducing our keynote speaker today. Jasmine Roberts is a professor of communication at the Ohio State University and is a renowned worldwide as an open education leader. Her advocacy work centers on creating a socially just academia as well as experiences of people of color, women, queer communities. You are very experienced in terms of a global presentation, so I know we're in good hands. I think this is going to be a highlight for me for this conference and I'm sure it'll be for many people too. Jasmine, it's over to you. All right. Well, that was that was a really great welcoming. He might hear my dogs, so sorry about that. So welcome to today's talk. I'm really excited to be here with you all. I've been trying to keep up with all the tweets and what have you. I really hope this event has been very informative. I don't know if we can, yeah, okay, I was going to say the slides. So even though I'm really happy to be here, this is actually my first time attending this conference. I do have to be very vulnerable with you all. I am kind of in a somber mood.  I really struggle with how public black grief has become and, you know, including the final moments of black victims of police brutality in that, you know, news and social media are releasing images and video of black people being brutally killed by the police. Excuse me. And so again, this is really traumatizing given the fact that black Americans suffer immensely from generational trauma and systemic disempowerment due to systemic racism, of course. And that is, you know, it's very rare that justice and accountability ever take place in these events. And so with all of that being said, I'd like to dedicate my keynote to Makaya Bryant, who was a 16-year-old girl who was shot and killed by police where I live in Columbus, Ohio, in the US after they failed to de-escalate a situation that she called them for help. Makaya, you are supposed to be here and I'm really, really sorry that so many adults failed you in this system. Also, before I begin my address, I'd like to go ahead and do a territory acknowledgement. I think it's really important to do this territory acknowledgement in this virtual environment that we find ourselves in, because I think that's a core component of, you know, what we're trying to do here in open ed, at least if we're trying to decolonize our work. And so the state that I live in, the US state that I live in, in Ohio, these were the original stewards of the land that, again, I live in the tribes. I find it ironic that I live in a city that, of course, is indigenous territory, and it has been renamed after a brutal colonizer, that being, of course, Christopher Columbus. And so it's my hope that these type of native land or territory acknowledgments will help us in our much needed path towards reconciliation with our uncomfortable global history. And throughout the talk, I am going to use black and indigenous scholarship, but I want to acknowledge that I am not, you know, extremely knowledgeable about the indigenous education and the specific issues that that population faces within, you know, higher ed. Excuse me, I'm more well versed in black feminist scholarship, but I still think it's important to learn from indigenous ways of knowing, of course, and to elevate examples of this critical contribution. And then also, I really do feel like sometimes territorial acknowledgments can come across as a little performative, right? There's so much that especially US universities have to do to reckon with how we still do to this day, benefit from the theft of indigenous lands. So journalist Tristan Autown and historian, I believe his name is Bobby Lee. So at the last two years, tracking how 11 million land or 11 million acres of land were taken from more than 250 indigenous tribes and communities to help fund land-grant universities in the late 19th century. In particular, there is an act called the Moral Act in 1862 that helped to basically create what we call like this massive transfer of wealth from indigenous lands to university endowments. And so essentially what we have here is, you know, we really have to think about how the financial success of universities in the US was paid by the expropriation of indigenous land and settler colonialism. We can see how, for example, my home institution, the Ohio State University, has actually benefited from this theft of indigenous land and expropriation. So it's really important to connect indigenous lands to the foundation of public universities in the US beyond a mere territory acknowledgement. All right. And then another acknowledgement that I want to do, but before I get into that, how many of you all will be alive in the year 2111? Anyone? Probably not, right? Well, oddly enough, the year 2111 is the year that Black or African-Americans will be free longer than they have been enslaved since they were taken from their homeland in 1619. And so again, our global history is not as decent as we want to make it seem out or seem to be, excuse me, and its modern legacies are alive and well today. So this is why I want to acknowledge that I'm the descendant of people who were enslaved, African people who were enslaved, taken from their homeland to work against their will on foreign land. I really feel like I gained my tenacity and determination from them. And so again, all of these acknowledgments that I spent the last five minutes doing, I feel like as a part of the social justice framework that I seek to center in my work. So in today's talk, what I really want to focus a lot on is again, the global commitments that open education makes and what those commitments look like during this time, right? We have entered a very different realm in education, at least in my opinion, a realm or an era that is somewhat painful for some of us, an era that causes us to address our personal and institutional trauma, right? I think it's also a period where it calls for us to truly heal and to realize the promises of education, whether it be K through 12, higher ed, things of that sort. And to that end, open education is certainly having to grapple with some of the same issues. And I've talked about this a great deal this past year, of course, with the pandemic going on. Open ed doesn't operate in some sort of vacuum, of course. So in this talk, what I'd like to do is again, talk about those commitments that we need to revisit, right? And center in our open educational practices. So what I want to more specifically discuss is how a socially just open education can in some areas address our global commitments and education, but also discuss how open might not be the most culturally or socially appropriate way to go about doing this, right? Sometimes, again, open is not appropriate. And also to put some things out there, I am approaching this from an educator standpoint. So I'll specifically be speaking to my educators in the live stream, but I think many people can benefit from this talk as well. So all in all, I think open education advocates and supporters alike really cannot shy away from the promise open ed. And again, that is that education should be communal, affordable, equitable, inclusive, and we can go on and on, right? To everyone, regardless of their background. So let's begin by talking about how, of course, COVID has fundamentally changed how we imagine education and our role in this system. It has certainly revealed and unfortunately, exasperated inequities that we should have addressed more intentionally and with more urgency pre COVID-19. And we also need to pay attention to the fact that there's so much isolation and anxiety and even depression going on within and outside of the academy. And of course, this is like exasperated a lot, you know, in the past year that it has, of course, before. And you know, as a side note, it really shouldn't take a global pandemic to sympathize, for example, with the modern legacies of systemic racism or to see our students, faculty and staff as human, right? But here we are. When we are talking about open education and what it means to really revisit those global commitments that we've made in the past and what that looks like during the COVID-19 era, it means for me, approaching things from a mental health standpoint. And I talk about this almost in all of my talks so far ever since COVID-19 started, because I think that's really, really important to center. And so what does this actually look like, right? And so for me, as an educator and someone who talks about open ed a lot and an advocate of such practices, this means or looks like teaching and leading with mental health in mind. And I think this moment that we're living in right now provides a great opportunity for us, especially for educators who are listening, for us to create a culture of wellness with students, right? And doing that will help to create pathways towards academic success, instead of us assuming that we know what's best for them. And so all of this includes like teaching and leading with empathy and mental health in mind, like I just said. And I think it's that's one of the things I really appreciate about OERs in particular is that it can potentially address some of these issues by its nature. The fact that many of course, but not all are designed with accessibility and cost savings in mind. You know, I also kind of wonder what we're doing to students when psychologically, right? And we're assigning course materials that are not accessible, whether that be financially or some other means, or are not culturally responsive, do not reflect their, their heritage, for example, or their culture's ways of knowing and producing knowledge. What kind of messages are we sending students in terms of who belongs, right? And who does not, especially those students who come from backgrounds that are not traditionally centered. And so also in revisiting our global commitments to open education, we need to do this, excuse me, we need to do this by centering the human approach and education. Our students and faculty are yearning for a human connection probably now more than ever. And I know I keep saying that, but it just this moment just seems so, so different from what many of us have experienced in our lifetime. And so I encourage those who are listening to really lead and teach with empathy. And I want to specifically talk to my educators in the room, in the virtual room, you know, yes, we have to get through our content and classes and managing our our health and trying to be encouraging of the wellness of our students that can be a lot to manage. It's very, very difficult. But I think, you know, obviously something to keep in mind. And this is another thing I say a lot in my presentations. And I will continue to say it a lot is that we are teaching students and not content. And what I mean by that is keeping our students wellness first and foremost, if we want them to succeed academically and just as people, right, take the academics outside of it or out of this conversation for a moment. And I think, you know, students will remember that more about your class and who you are as a professor when you prioritize their wellness as opposed to the content that you covered, right? You know, students are not just, of course, these knowledge buckets that we pour all this content into. And I'm glad to be a part of a community that an open head at least that realizes that these people are people, students are people. So the content, of course, will come, but radical empathy for students and faculty cannot and should not wait. And so the spirit of open ed, one of the reasons why I'm still in open education, to be honest with you, is that this community is really striving to advocate for inclusive education, which of course I think is amazing. But like any other movement, I do call it a movement or a field, whatever term you want to use, there are some things that we have to be aware of that maybe we're not aware of. These blinders, if you will, that are placed upon us because of the privilege that many of us, if not all of us, have in some shape or form. And so I talk a lot about the intersection between social justice, higher ed, open education in particular, and how open ed can be a vehicle to achieve a socially just academia. And so using a social justice framework as many scholars have called for, specifically in open ed, will help us to address these privileges more intentionally, help us to center our global commitments in open education and advocate for a more inclusive education during this COVID-19 pandemic. So my initial conversation, like I said, I've been in open ed, let's see, this is 2021, can't believe that I would say since 2016, so not very long. My first conversation about open education was not framed as a social justice issue, but rather a textbook affordability issue, which of course has social justice elements to it. But now that I've had a little bit more experience, I'm wondering if this is a problem, right? Would I feel differently about open education now? And more importantly, when I created an OER myself, would I have asked the right questions, which in turn would have led to more inclusive content and representation or representative, excuse me, of marginalized communities. So it's really my belief that when we're having these conversations with students, faculty and staff who are new to open ed, that we should discuss this from a social justice angle. And so all of this kind of leads me to a few questions that I would love to discuss with you all maybe in the Q&A, I don't have all the answers to these questions. But this is something that I'm constantly thinking about when I'm talking or writing about these issues, the intersection between social justice and open education and how it can help us to really center our global commitments. So the questions are, how do we make sure that people from marginalized communities are better represented in open education, whether that through open access, OERs, open science, things of that sort. How can we talk more to especially faculty and educators, how they can decolonize their curriculum. And I understand the term decolonization is not really well defined depending upon who's talking. And so we can also kind of unpack that if we have time during the Q&A session, what does that term actually mean to decolonize. And then last question that I'm really interested in. I know a lot of wonderful scholars are wrestling with this as well. How can we make sure that the global north isn't always writing for the global south in opening licensed materials? Again, like I just said, I do not have the answers to all of these questions, but I definitely want to try to find those answers with like-minded scholars and practitioners and what have you. So another place that I'm looking at in terms of when we talk about centering and revisiting our global commitments in open ed is correcting our historical narratives and discourses about the field and acknowledging that open ed or open education or at least the idea behind it is actually nothing new. And I'll explain that in just a second. The spirit of open education, like I said, the idea behind it actually comes from indigenous communities and black feminist thought. And there are other scholars who assert this as well. So I want to introduce Marco Cipherli Valencia and he's an open education librarian at the University of Idaho in the US state of Idaho, of course. And last year at the 2020 open education conference, he delivered this brilliant presentation. It was so good y'all. It was titled OER as intentionally engage social justice. And he argued that of course in open ed, we have to move beyond textbook discourses, excuse me, and obviously center social justice or social justice framework when we were talking about open education. He also talked about how there's very little literature out there that talks about this intersection, etc., etc. But the most exciting part of his presentation in my opinion was that he was able to connect open education ideologies and premises to black feminist thought. He essentially provided language, honestly, y'all, to something that I have been thinking about a lot. And when he presented, I fangirled, I'm not going to lie. Again, he provided so much language to thoughts and discussions I had been having with people, but I didn't know how to quite make those connections. I knew there was something about open education that I've already had seen or experienced prior to coming into this field because of a textbook issue or a textbook problem. And so he specifically argued in his presentation, I do have a quote here that I want to read from his presentation, that conventional histories and scholarly contextualizations of open movements do not connect open pedagogy to liberatory women of color feminist proxy and scholarship on education. So again, in other words, open education ain't a new in terms of its ideologies, you know, surrounding the role of the classroom in society in terms of interrogating institutional frameworks, policies and procedures, and even putting forth questions such as whose knowledge is reliable and centered. The idea of openness is rooted in black feminist liberation as Marco so brilliantly demonstrated in his presentation. Yet, those who are in open ed know that much of the credit in terms of defining open education and ways to think about this is given to white and or cisgender male scholars in open ed. And, you know, also I think it's these mostly white men who are considered thought leaders in open ed, although I am very hopeful that we are at this really interesting moment where I think that is really beginning to change. And so I want us to really pause and think about this question that I'm going to pose and that is what is to be said about open education when we can trace its practices and ideologies beyond current thought leaders. It's certainly not to discount their labor, but rather to call attention to the ease we have in assigning authoritative knowledge to white men without considering the immense contributions of people of color from both the global north and global south. So much of what we know now as education or open education, excuse me, has been talked about in a lot of detail and is beautifully demonstrated in the labor of scholars of color, particularly women of color. So this is one small but powerful way we can center social justice in open ed and correct or and correct our historical narratives about this movement. And as Marco says in this quote, and I'm just going to read a few parts about it or in reference to it, the foundational works of black feminist scholars like Bell Hooks, who I'm going to mention a little bit later on, and Regina Austin are both intellectual foremothers to many concepts and contemporary open practice. So speaking of Bell Hooks, if we look at this quote, for example, from her book, her essay, excuse me, teaching to transgress, she says, I celebrate teaching that enables transgression, a movement against and beyond boundaries. It is that movement which makes education a practice of freedom. And so I embrace these transgressions that she speaks of. This is actually really the anchor of my teaching philosophy as an educator. And so this same ideology that I think she's trying to put forth in this quote and in her her essay appears to be replicated in open education practices, such as open pedagogy, right, the practice of engaging with students as content creators through OER, and other open practices, rather than them just being passive consumers of it. So in other words, the transgression of boundaries that Bell Hooks talks about, both seek to both open pedagogy and what Bell Hooks is talking about, seek to challenge the role of educators and students, power dynamics in the classroom, and center students knowledgeable as valuable, excuse me. So all in all, what I'm arguing is that these ideas are actually not entirely new. And that we need to acknowledge this instead of packaging open education and whiteness and white saviorhood. We have scholars of color to think for already doing and continuing to do this labor. And I want to show you all some more examples of people who are doing this labor. So doctors Gloria Sneevly and Lorna Williams out of Canada created an open textbook bringing indigenous science into the fold with Western science. And I actually really, really like this because, you know, we constantly assume that Western science is the safest or most reliable. When we look at the health care experiences of people of color in the West, and again, the history of these experiences, it paints a different story, but that's another talk. As written from the authors of this textbook, they put, you can kind of see it here, the slide is a little small. When we acknowledge or when we braid indigenous science with Western science, we acknowledge that both ways of knowing are legitimate forms of knowledge. This is just one way that we can again, recenter global commitments and achieve a socially just open end. Some other scholars who are doing some amazing work, and I just want to give a shout out to those in Twitter or on Twitter who gave me some amazing recommendations, particularly scholars of color who are doing some wonderful work in the open education space. So Dr. Sherry Deckman, she's a professor from SUNY in the US state of New York. She created an open pedagogy assignment in which her graduate students created final projects websites for their final projects, I should say. And she did this because in a webinar when she presented about this experience, she argued that Black girl studies in particular is well aligned with open pedagogy ideologies. And she stated in this webinar that, and I have a quote here, yes, Black girlhood studies is situated in a tradition that interrogates whose knowledge is reliable, right? So I've said that statement before, and critiquing the things that have always just been done a certain way. Black girlhood studies questions the ways in which knowledge has been traditionally constructed and dominant epistemologies. So again, she had her students create websites, and you can see an example here on the slide, from one of her students, Kristen Miller, to make sure like these assignments were more accessible beyond the academy, which of course could serve as a resource for all kinds of educators and just people in general. Again, her graduate student Kristen Miller stated that initially when she was doing this type of work, this open pedagogy work, it was challenging, but I encourage her to think differently and to bring her lived experience into the work and to the scholarship. Really made her kind of question the notion of public scholarship and the value of public scholarship. A few other scholars. So Tuskeying Adam, she does a lot of work with talking about the decolonization of MOOCs. She has a recent paper out, excuse me, arguing that MOOCs should strive for all kinds of justices, not just material justice that we see here. And she does argue that those two should not be just mutually exclusive, that we can address all kinds of justices within MOOCs as well. And so I also want to transition to another group that's doing some amazing work, really, really good work. And we can see this group in particular that's made up mostly of scholars of color, that is the socially just academia group that I have the privilege of also being a part of. Some of you might have heard of this group and might even attended some of our discussions. So this project, which actually stems from Equity Unbound, I believe, led by Mahabali Zmora, excuse me, and Catherine Conan, came from after Equity Unbound held an inclusive citation webinar, I think it was last summer. And that was coming off of the heels of oh gosh, a lot of racial injustice protests that started in the U.S. but seemed to ripple across the world. So again, it's a group of scholars from across the world, not just the U.S., Canada, or UK, mostly people of color who are facilitating these discussions. And these discussions really seek to engage in an open network, really committed to dismantling, of course, oppression in education systems. And we also seek to discuss practices that get closer at centering decolon, excuse me, anti-racist practices and really trying to center that within our respective institutions. So I've just presented some really amazing work from scholars of color and I really encourage us to be more intentional about centering this kind of work. And so I'm noticing here that I'm running a little low on time, so I'm going to transition towards the end of my talk. So even though I've been advocating for anti-racism and social justice frameworks to be at the core of open education in order to sustain our global commitments, we have to make sure we are doing this number one with care. We have to be intentional about this and awareness of whether or not open is culturally appropriate for certain situations. So referring back to the 2020 OpenEd conference, one of the amazing keynotes there was, it was a really great conference, by the way. One of the amazing keynotes there was Jesse Lawyer as she's a librarian out of Mount Royal University in Canada. And she delivered, again, a very thought-provoking keynote and she argued that essentially the push towards openness or in that push towards openness, we sometimes miss some cultural context in that there are certain things that should not be open or we should have questioned at least, should it be open? For example, Jesse says that open access and Indigenous thought and assertions about information can emerge from a very similar impulse and these are literally kind of her words, the idea that something is being held from us, but there are important differences to consider. So open access argues for, you know, open to be unlimited to everyone for the most part. Indigenous thought, as Jesse pointed out in her keynote, argues that openness for those who are the rightful authors, inheritance of this, this information. And so she also asserts that we need Indigenous consultation when referring to open access and open education in general, if we want to use open ed as a tool to serve Indigenous sovereignty and let Indigenous people decide what happens to their information. And so in what ways can we apply this same cultural competence to other marginalized communities when we're trying to leverage open ed in the name of, you know, engaging in socially just labor and equity? And we also have to consider the differing risk of doing such work at open education depending on who is doing that labor, right? So particularly scholars of color who are often charged to do anti-racist work with their students, with their colleagues, they study social justice issues like myself are at a particular risk. There is an increasing amount of faculty members of color who are aggressively attacked for simply doing their work, right? Calling out the very systems that breed systemic inequities and discrimination. If you all are interested, Dr. Stephen Finley, Bico Gray and Laurie Martin authored an article, I would say about two or three years ago, I can't remember off the top of my head, title affirming our values. And in that article they discuss how faculty of color are particularly vulnerable in doing their work, especially if they write or research about, you know, race related or social justice related issues or talk about these topics in the classroom. I know they were talking about some of them have received death threats or violent threats in reference to their work. One professor reported that someone followed them up to their children's school. This was pre-pandemic but still and may threats to them directly in their face.  I have a liberal agenda trying to brainwash my students. Sometimes they're not most of my students say that, but of course a small minority do, that I'm being too political, right? In my classroom I talk about social justice and the intersection between social justice and what I'm talking about in the classroom. And you know, what of course they don't realize when people make those comments about a liberal indoctrination is that, you know, politics is at the core of every single educational practice and decision that is made within and outside of the classroom. But my point being is that there has to be more institutional support and infrastructure around protecting scholars who are trying to do this hard work. Again, this is already a particularly vulnerable population when we're talking about faculty of color and to not protect them while doing this important scholarship in my opinion is an act of disrespect. It's devaluing their work and it's gross negligence. So we need to keep this in mind when we deliver an ask of certain groups. All right, so now I want to go ahead and transition to the end. So how do I wrap this up? You know, I talked a lot about recentering our global commitments and the fact that our commitment and open education is even more important now than ever in my opinion. We really can't buy into this idea that our work can wait until a more appropriate time. The historically marginalized are even more at the margins during the pandemic because of systemic discrimination and oppression. So those in open ed have to remain steadfast to our social justice work because of this. And you might see here a quote I mentioned at the beginning of my talk that you know how I'm coming to you with a very sober heart and mind and that this week has been particularly difficult for me because of the anti-black violence that we're seeing in the U.S. I felt a sense of hopelessness and helplessness that I haven't felt in a long, long, long, long time. And I started to question my work to be honest with you. But I'm reminded that for many of us in this open ed space, frustration and even anger with unjust systems and procedures brought us to this space, right? And that's fine, right? As I put there, anger usually sparks some type of like social justice labor or wanting to engage in this labor. But love, love of people and their right to equality education that will enable them to live their lives fully and abundantly is honestly what's going to sustain this work and is currently sustaining me in this moment. And just to go back to Bell Hooks one more time in her book All About Love, she talks about how and again quote all the great social movements for freedom and justice in our society have promoted a love ethic. The testimony of love is the practice of freedom. So again, we have so much healing to do. But I believe open education firmly rooted in a love ethic and dedicated to its global commitments can be essential in this path towards healing. So thank you all so much. And I think we have a few more minutes for questions. Thank you so much, Jasmine. Yes, if you stop sharing your screen now, hopefully you'll be able to see all the comments. We've got over 40 comments coming in. Please, everybody, join in with your questions in the comments on the YouTube channel. And indeed, I know Jasmine, you had a couple of questions there earlier. But I suppose just from my immediate reaction to this was, wow, I think you've given us an awful lot to think about around the context in which we're all in different places and the space where you are in at the moment. And I think one of the things I always think I'm always reminded of when people talk about anti-violence against, whether it's based on race, whether it's based on LGBTQ issues, whether it's anti-women's violence, I think that the anger that's coming from there is when those privileges are being chipped away. And it's when that is being surfaced, then something is going right, but it's so hard to stick with it, isn't it? It is. And I don't... Try not to get emotional, my goodness. It's just been a horrific week in the US. It really has. And I'm so sorry. It's very, very tough. But like I said, what sustains me is a quote from, well, obviously the love ethic that I was talking about, but also a quote from Michelle Alexander, who is the author of the new Jim Crow. She's a professor at Stanford University in California. And she also talked about in one of these webinars I attended, I'm like fangirling all these scholars here, but she talks about how social justice is a process, it's not a destination. And I think that was so powerful for me because I get a lot of questions even from my students when we talk about social justice. When is this going to end? When can we just be done with this? And that's always a hard question for me to answer because for me, social justice, and I can't remember who I was talking to, this person might even be in the audience, but I was saying essentially social justice, any type of social justice work, whether it's in education or other spaces, it is like a science to me, right? So the creators of the COVID-19 vaccine, for example, once they created the vaccine or like, okay, this is safe to distribute to the public, the scientists behind that, they weren't like, okay, well, our work is done, we're just going to retire, live on a beach somewhere. They're still doing really good work, right? And so for me, this labor is a lifelong commitment. For me, this labor is always going to be needed in some capacity. So there is not an end destination that I have in mind because this work is going to always be needed. And I think finding the places where you and other people can sustain themselves and finding that those places of love and nurture, whether it's conferences like this or conversations that we have in safe spaces or supporting each other in those open spaces, it's really important. I don't know if you can see into the comments there, Jasmine, the things that are coming through are just fantastic. If anybody has a comment or question that they want to ask. I know, I see here, Sonia, McCristi asking how do we start change? How do we start to change? I'm not sure what they were referring to, what does it look like? And that's such a hard, it's a good question, right? And it's also a difficult question because it really depends upon your institution and your background. So I'm kind of hesitant to speak for all situations. But I think in terms of where that change starts, it starts when you are tired of the same old same old. What does that actually look like? That looks like engaging with your community, right? There's so much power in communal work. That's why I mentioned socially just academia and some of these other groups that are doing really great work only because there is a communal aspect to it. And so I would really encourage you to get with your community and start thinking about what work makes sense for that community. And then Helen here, I see that they're asking, do we need alternative imagined futures? Though even if they are not exactly final destinations, the alternative is that we just do education better. Absolutely. I do wonder where this notion of like, I don't know. So on one hand, yes, we want to make sure that we are making progress in this labor, even if you're not into like the intersection between social justice and education, that's fine. I think there's a level of us that's innate as human beings that we want to make sure that whatever we're doing is on the right track. Maybe I'm not sure if I'm using the right language there. But I like what I think was Helen that said in terms of reimagining these destinations, if you will. And I think that's where that slide you had earlier, where you said we're teaching humans not content. And it comes back to that as a fundamental basis of the relational aspect of teaching, not about stuff, but about people. And at its heart, that's what socially just education is. And even getting that across is a really great starting point. Yeah, I mean, because I think that's the part of an unjust society, right? There's dehumanization at its core. And so for me, when I humanize myself as a human, I know that sounds kind of weird, in front of my students, it just changes the entire classroom landscape. It really does. I think as faculty, we have this image of like, who we're supposed to be and how we're supposed to show up in the classroom. And of course, that comes from traditions and policies and all that good stuff that don't really serve us. It's such a relief when you can present yourself as human. And I know that that is easier and more challenging for certain people, depending upon your context, right? So I don't want to make it seem as though, shame on you for not doing that, because there's a lot of context there that needs to be considered. And I've just noticed when I have been able to do that, it changes things.  Yeah. Yeah.  Exactly. Absolutely. Absolutely. I want to get here more to some other comments. I know we'll have one more minute left. I think the question around speculative fiction fiction was a follow up to Helen's question earlier about final destinations and imagined futures. And, you know, what are the imaginative ways that we could sort of visualize things different? That's a great question, too. I'm not sure if I have a good answer for that. My initial impulse is kind of thinking about who's doing the imagining, right? And yeah, still like what epistemologies are still being centered or marginalized with even within those fiction realities, I'm not sure if I'm being clear there, but that was my initial impulse. I'm not sure. Gosh, that's a question that actually kind of stumped me. I'm not sure exactly how to answer it, to be honest. I'm okay with saying I don't know, but I do want to say that, you know, that was my initial reaction. That lovely comment there from Francis. Thank you, Francis. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Catherine. Thank you. Yeah, I think there are, you know, culture wars are very much alive and well in campuses in various countries. Oh, yes, absolutely. It's not just the US or the UK. I think it's happening across the globe. Yeah, there's a certain amount of policing and gatekeeping that's going on around education at the moment. It's a very live debate. And I think, you know, equally, I suppose that's what you were talking there earlier about open education and, you know, the white men are seen as these, the origin myth stories around open education and stuff like that, that it's again, going back to Bell Hooks and pushing against those boundaries every time. Yeah. Well, like I said, I do want to thank Marco Sarfilé, Valencia, for putting forth that paper and that narrative because, like I said, it's something that I had been thinking about, but I just didn't know how to put that language into play. And so when I saw his presentation, I was like, Oh, okay. Thank you. It was amazing. It was really, really good. So I think something really powerful about that, that idea of having a language with which to talk about these things. And I think making that language something that other people we can communicate through, it's so, it's so important and sort of getting everybody to take ownership of that. Yeah. Absolutely. And even, you know, Gabby had put here, and I think you're, you're able to put that ownership out there because of the, like Gabby's pointing out, the notion of education for social justice as a labor of love, you know, I think without that love ethic there, you're not able to really take that ownership. Yeah. And with love comes vulnerability. And with that comes self care as much as care for others. And it's, yeah, it's, it's, it's all the themes within this conference wrapped up in one keynote. Oh, thank you. We've just got a couple of minutes left. I don't know, Jim, if you want to keep flashing up some of those wonderful comments so that people watching the video will be able to see back and some of the things we've got here. Yeah. I just wanted to point out someone virtually connecting saying creating open materials does not cost free. Yes. So sorry, I did not point that out. They are free to use for most users, but not free to create. Absolutely. Let's see here. Yes. Someone put Warwick language. No, I don't have all the answers. It just, I don't know. I don't like presenting myself as all knowing because we can learn so much from each other as pokey pokey as that sounds, but we can. We really, really can. Investing time in social justice work plus investing time in practices of care. How can we make this the bottom line of our pedagogies? Yeah. So I want to, and I know we don't have a lot of time here. I want to draw from Maya Hay. She's a PhD student in Canada, I believe. She talked about how in one of our social justice academic discussions how that's particularly challenging. I think what I can't remember who asked that question, but essentially it's challenging, right? Because we're doing this double work in the sense of the social justice labor. And then those who are working within these institutions, we have to get our degrees, our scholarship kind of conferred or validated through these institutions while challenging these institutions, right? So what Maya is saying, I think also kind of alludes to what I think Lou is saying in this question. How do we invest time in the social justice framework while engaging in practices of care? I want to draw from Dr. Angela Davis, another Black feminist, and she talks about how self-care for her is communal care. And when she unfortunately was in prison or in jail, excuse me, and she was obviously really going through it for lack of better words. I don't know any other way to put it. She talked about her self-care really came from the power from her community, right? And so again, I think in terms of the bottom line, our pedagogies, our pedagogies have to be communal in nature in order to really marry this intersection that I think Lou was talking about, social justice framework with practices of care. We've got a couple of last questions there, one from Daniel, Lorna. Lorna is talking about the labor of care as well, and Daniel is talking about foundations. Thank you for your fascinating reminders of the risk of openness. How do you think that these risks also urge us to rethink the foundation of how the digital public works? You know, it's another question that I want to think more about, partially because when we're talking about the digital public, my initial response is who are we referring to when we say the digital public? So I think that what helped me to perhaps better answer that question but I think in terms of like thinking about these risks and how it's related to the foundations of the digital public, I think it charges us to rethink the histories of the digital public, at least the way that I'm thinking about it as well because these histories continue to echo through modern times. And then Lorna asks, how can we work to ensure the labor of care and social justice labor is acknowledged and more equally distributed? Yeah, so that's a good question because in terms of social justice labor, it tends to be unequally distributed that being marginalized communities are carrying the load, if you will, of social justice labor, whether that be women, people of color, women of color, queer folks. I mean, the list goes on and on, those from the Global South. And so I think it's important to realize and to communicate to those who have said privileges, not just racial privilege, because I think that's the privilege that we like to focus on the most, but there's so many different forms of privilege. I think it's important to emphasize how we all benefit from social justice labor, from social justice work. And I think it's unfortunate that we have to essentially highlight the benefits, the what's in it for me, for individuals, but that is at least the most practical way that I see this labor being equally distributed by showing that we all benefit from a socially just society and showing, excuse me, how an unjust society really does not benefit all of us. Fantastic. I'm afraid we're going to have to wrap it up there because we're just a little bit over time. And I think just to end at that point around, you know, the work that still needs to be done in terms of amplification of the work that is being done already and joining the dots for people, sometimes it just takes a bit of work. But, Jasmine, thank you so much. It's been absolutely fantastic. Thank you so much for your time and for the preparation for answering our questions and getting involved. I want to thank everybody else for your comments and questions. I'll catch up on some of them. There's been so many flying by, but with our next session starts in seven minutes. So you've got a little seven minute break now. Awesome. Thank you all.


What's up guys, my group of Jaspies doing a recap for Panini Immaculate Baseball eight box case break pick your team number two It was done on Fnatic's live. Here's the list Positive if you need to and here's the recap lot to go over a dual relic Pico Armstrong to Fort 49 Time added Sick patch there Cole and Couser Team logo Jimmy Rollins autograph Brandon Fatt Jackson holiday patch auto to 25 Elijah Green sleeve patch to eight Mazurowski Roberto Alomar one-of-one autograph uh, Tory Hunter another Jackson holiday jumbo jacket signatures to 10 Had a Harry Ford redemption Tamar Johnson Nike swoosh one-of-one Tim hence Nick Gonzalez Ken Griffey edgard martinez out of five dual patch Had a Yuri Perez one-of-one patch autograph printing plate Rodriguez mason win uh, rain don donson Don't know frank thomas on card. Yuri Perez patch there Uh, jacob barry very nice patch auto espino babe ruth bat relic out of 10 Cartaya Robin Ventura drew jones jackson holiday dual material signatures absolute monster junior caminero one-of-one patch auto emmanuel rodriguez Cartaya a bell bobby miller redemption appling drew romo to six zack neto Another zack neto Dylan, let's go And here ronriguez pudge, uh, rafael palmero that one is texas edition uh, taj bradley elli dala cruise redemption. That's gold brian rochio and a chile manzardo glove patch auto out of 49 All right, so that does it for the recap. Thank you to everyone who got into the break. Thank you guys for watching And I'll see you guys in the next one. Bye guys


Yes, our God is good. Amen. There's nothing other world can do to separate us from a God who created it. Amen.