 My name is David Ragland and my doctorate is in philosophy of education and I focus on the philosophy of peace education. Recently I've been looking at the actual concepts of negative and positive peace, and negative peace being the absence of war and positive peace being the presence of justice and elimination of structural violence. And some of the issues with that in my research is that negative peace and positive peace was meant more to be a metaphor of the complexity of the concept of peace. And so we were looking at the concept of stable peace by Kenneth Bolding and sort of finding out or thinking that peace is more of a process and a system as opposed to some condition, which I don't think Bolding necessarily meant but we become stuck in that dualism of negative and positive. And so I spent a lot of time thinking about that and saw that Betty Reardon had conceptualized or worked on that concept of stable peace and suggested that the concept of foundational peace, which is creating a foundation for a more organic peace, which is evolving and taking account the human experience is actually more consistent with an approach to justice that is connected with human dignity. And we also found that or affirmed that negative and positive dualism or those conceptions of negative and positive peace might be connected to a social contract tradition, which is problematic. And so I'm kind of thinking about, you know, putting the question out there, should we be reconceptualizing our view of peace or the concept of peace as foundational and organic as opposed to in a process as opposed to the way we view it as a condition.