 So, hello, Eliot. It's very good to see you again. Today we'll speak about philosophical health and philosophical counseling, something that we both know because we practice it. And perhaps for the people who are looking at us, we should present ourselves briefly and please start, Eliot, tell us a little bit about your journey and what you do as a philosophical counselor. Well, journey-wise, I began as an analytic philosopher. I studied at Brown under Rod Schism, which is for those out in philosophy land, are aware that he's an extremely analytical sort of philosopher who very much comes up with definitional schemata to define terms in a very tight logical fashion. And so that's how I was raised. And I don't regret that because as I got into the muck and mire of practicality, teaching students and the like, it became evident that I needed to make what I was doing relevant to ordinary life. And so I became an analytic applied philosopher. And that took me further and further into the area of praxis, where I got interested also in continental philosophy as well, brought in my horizon there and became very much interested in where philosophy could help people grapple with problems of ordinary life. And that was where I started to look at some aspects of psychology as well and got involved with rational motor behavior therapy. In fact, I was working on a book on values. And my wife was a who was then in graduate school going for for therapy suggested to me that my work seemed very much akin to Albert Ellis, the psychologist who started cognitive behavior therapy. So I looked into his work, I got certified in rational motor behavior therapy, which was what he was famous for and and got to know him. And so I worked with him for many years until his death in 2007, we became good friends and associates and he supported my work and I was sort of his on call philosopher. And we, you know, understood, you know, that the importance of philosophy, he was coming at it from a psychologist perspective, I from a from a philosopher's perspective. And that's how logic based therapy came into being, which is the form of philosophical counseling that that I do. And it's, I teach it to students as well as train philosophers around the world, you know, in the techniques of philosophical counseling, specifically logic based therapy. So that that can give you an idea of, you know, my, my, you know, my journey at least. Right. Yeah, so that's interesting because you were mentioning a sort of a conjunction between psychology and philosophy. And and I also encountered the two in the sense that I mean, I was always more of a philosopher by training, but I had the luck also. Or I mean, it was it was an intentional luck to be trained into Lacanian psychoanalysis. But for some reasons, I felt that the psychological and psychoanalytical practices today, although very interesting and useful, also have a tendency to fall in forms of dogmatism of or or rigid thinking, which might be useful in some contexts, but didn't correspond, let's say to my sensitivity. So I am a person for whom the the process philosophical concept of creativity is very important. And so I wanted a practice that would be open to that form of deep listening to the singularity of each person. And that's how I started after my my PhD in philosophy. That's how I started practicing as a philosophical counselor. In a way that was probably less organized than yours. I was actually discovering my method as I was going, which perhaps I shouldn't say because it sounds a little bit like I was using people as guinea pigs, right? But actually, it I did my best first to listen and to give them this opening to this sort of creative agency. But then I do agree that there is a step where it's very much also about the coherence between not only our acts and our thoughts, which would say I'd say it's an ethical issue, but also between our thoughts and other of our thoughts, which then can be a logical issue in the sense that we might sometimes contradict ourselves, isn't it? Yeah. And the concept of contradiction, I think, is very important in logic based therapy, essentially. Through clinical work and studies, I've found that the behind most behavioral mental emotional issues are inconsistencies, conflicts going on. And they're both logical and behavioral and effective as well. What happens is that many people demand perfection. And I must be perfect. I must achieve. I must not make mistakes. I must get the approval of others. I must be in control of my life and prevent bad things from happening. But the reality is that you really can't always do that. So you have logic based therapy looks at the reasoning process and the premises that people have. On the one hand, I must be in control. But then there's the empirical observation, well, I'm not. You see? And so you run up against this conflict, really an inconsistency, you know, that I must, but it's not possible. You see? I must be certain, but I only have probability. And as a result of that, it feels threatening. So the affect here is a product, you know, of that threateningness. And it goes into the phenomenology of this aspect as well. Because when you're demanding that you have certainty, for instance, it's not just linguistic. In fact, there's a pre-linguistic step there where you feel uncomfortable about the fact that you only have probability. It's a felt sense of necessity. And that's what generates this demand. So when you feel this necessity, but then you also feel this uneasiness, because you don't have that necessity, that generates further, you know, what interoceptive feelings, these are bodily feelings, visceral gut feelings of threateningness. And that threateningness is what, you know, affects not just the psyche, but the soma, you see, and people can suffer from all sorts of physiological problems as a result of that. And this is what we call stress. And that stress is unhealthy. So when we talk about philosophical health, philosophical health really cannot be divorced from this, from the psyche, you know, from the philosophical welfare. With your premises are in order, you have an appropriate view of reality. You don't demand perfection. You see things from perspectives that are consistent with physical prosperity, as well as psychological prosperity. And philosophical constructs can be very useful. And for LBT, logic based therapy, philosophical constructs that work, you know, are the ones that one adopts. So it's rather constructivistic as, as the rational behavior therapy from which it's derived has been as well. What works, you know, in terms of how you frame reality, what actually helps to promote behavioral and emotional stability. And not every, every philosophical view is acceptable for everybody else. One size doesn't necessarily fit all. Right. And I think we're going to talk about philosophical views and stances and how they help us organize our lives. Because I think what we have in common is that we do believe that philosophical health is something that is distinguishable from physical health, and from psychological health, especially in a time where psychological health is seen more and more as a mechanistic construct, something that would be very dependent on the chemistry of the brain, even perhaps sometimes genetics. And so what we're saying is that, well, underlying our decisions, which sometimes can seem very domestic in the sense that they are meant to organize our everyday life. In fact, they are underlying ideologies, thoughts, recurrent thoughts, worldviews, and, and also probably also political imperatives. Because when I hear you talk about the must, I think that, and I'd like to have your opinion about it, but I think there is a want behind that, right? Say, I want to be in control. And then how do we go from that one to the must is very interesting, because I think one of the factors there is the, the epoch of individualism in which we are, and you are living in the United States, I'm living in Sweden, we could also a bit later compare. But let's say that in general, there is a global tendency now to put on the individual the charge and responsibility for own destiny. And that puts a lot of pressure also, right? And probably is a factor of this that influences this idea that we must sometimes, we must be in control, we must be our own little corporation of which we are the CEO, right? So how do we help people with those things? And so if I hear correctly, and I was really intrigued and interested by your paper on perfectionism and the pandemic, in which you speak of metaphysical security, that's intriguing. So what's the difference between metaphysical security and philosophical health? Well, metaphysical security seems to be a necessary condition of philosophical health. A philosophical health could embrace other specific types of metaphysical security. So metaphysical security is pretty much an umbrella term, because there's many different types of metaphysical security, security about yourself. In other words, you're, it's okay for you to be imperfect, that you can make mistakes and you're still acceptable. It's okay for the world to just have probability and not certainty. And in fact, philosophically, you can reframe that and see that the world is exciting by virtue of having probability. If everything was certain, then there would be no exploration, there would be no excitement and discovery, because it would all be already land. So it's, you know, there's different aspects of metaphysical security. And really, when you put them all together, they all contribute to philosophical health. Philosophical health means that your underlying philosophies are promoting metaphysical security. So what is a philosophically healthy individual? It's an individual who's who looks at the world philosophically in a way that allows them to be metaphysically secure. And so, you know, is metaphysical security necessary for philosophical? Yeah, I mean, it's basically what philosophical counseling and practice is aiming at, to promote, you know, metaphysical security. Yeah, I think there are two things here. The first one is I think probably people need examples and we're going to come to that. But before that, I would like to say I'd rather use personally the term possibility rather than probability, because I do think that we live in a world that is already very organized into frames of analytic probability that are now automated actually into so-called artificial intelligence, which is not that intelligent, by the way. But so, probability is quite mathematical. Possibility, for me, has more this sense of agency where you, and you quote that in your paper by referring to Nietzsche, right, the self-determination capacity for an individual or a group to expand their domain of possibilities. And that being done, and this is I think our common thesis, that can be done through thought, through a sort of cognitive examination, but also cognitive creativity on the system of belief that conducts our acts. Now in terms of example, so because I think metaphysical security is a little bit the way I understand it is a little bit comparable for me to what I call the second principle of philosophical health, which is deep orientation, which is the fact that it is, and that can lead to excesses of perfectionism, right, but is that we are creators of belief, even mathematics, even science relies on axiomatic beliefs. And so it is often fruitful to conduct our life based on some form of idealism. And you know that you don't necessarily like that term, right, but let's say someone who would consider that justice, right, is her highest value. So that will give her some form of security, because that's the kind of security a belief procures. And then of course, in the application of that deep orientation, there can be a healthy way, right, which knows that, well, ideals are asymptotic, right, they are not something that eventually gets fully actualized. There are limits in the horizon that we slowly approach, but we know that we will never get to this pure absolute world of justice, but we believe in it. That's the paradox of humanity, right. Would you like to propose another example of metaphysically secure belief or conviction? Yeah, and to comment on your example, striving for justice, you could you can turn this into a rigid dogmatic demand to attain justice. And that would fly in the face of metaphysical security. You say metaphysical security would mean that you're secure in the fact that there's no end to striving for justice. You can get better and better. The world is open to improvement. And the fact that there isn't justice doesn't mean there can't be greater injustice and greater justice. But being able to realize, being comfortable with the idea that you're not going to achieve perfection, even in justice, is what we mean by metaphysical security. So that's where metaphysical security comes into play. You know, in terms of other examples, there are many individuals, for instance, who before they do anything, they want to know if others will approve them. They have to have the approval of others. And if indeed they don't get the approval of others, then they feel uncomfortable. And then they damn themselves, they feel themselves unworthy. But a metaphysically secure individual would realize, one doesn't always get the approval of others. Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't. That's part of reality. It's the comfort level with the idea that reality has these imperfections. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's the way things are. So understanding that this is reality, not necessarily how it must be. So we are able to compartmentalize this is and this must in a way that we feel comfortable. And there's different types of, I mentioned earlier, interceptive feelings. There's the ontological feelings, feelings like a duty, like this must in terms of a moral duty. So in terms of justice, one might have this the ontological sense that nothing is good enough, unless it's perfect, unless there's perfect justice in the world. And you feel it. When something is wrong, it feels uncomfortable. And there's that conflict that comes in because you realize that the world isn't always just, but that justice is something that should and ought and must be, but you don't have it because you have a gap between those two things. And a metaphysically secure individual realizes that that gap is part of reality. And it is part of what won the price to be living in the world and living successfully in the world is to accept it, to embrace that insecurity and to strive for excellence. Realizing that excellence and perfection are not the same thing. Right. But like it's sort of some people listening to you might wonder is that how do we go from, because at one, at some point, it seems that you're saying that it is, it is philosophically healthy to be somewhat relativistic, like not an absolute. So not someone that things that that believes that perfection can be attained. But how do we go from this sort of capacity to relativize to the idea that it's a metaphysical security? Are you elevating imperfection to an ontology? It might seem like that. It might seem like you're saying, you know, it's sort of a Buddhism of imperfection, which I find interesting. Right. This is sort of imperfection is perfection or interesting. Yeah. I mean, the title of a recent book of mine is making peace with imperfection. Right. So in a way, yeah, I mean, that that's pretty much the goal of metaphysical security to make peace with imperfection. And so is that, is that the idea? Well, yeah, but I mean, you don't want to say we're glorifying imperfection in the sense that, you know, we're striving for imperfection. Right. Better and better. But we don't get there. It's okay. No, but I think one thing is interesting behind the idea. This idea is that is to remember that perfection and imperfection are perspectives on the world to use an ancient concept. Right. So there is not. I mean, in mathematics, if you say two plus two equal five, clearly there is an imperfection there that is related to a system of truth that is more or less localized, although it can be applicable to many things. But in philosophy and in everyday life, those are perfect perspectives. Right. What can be perfection for you can be in perfection for me, etc. So what I see there as something that I work more and more with my counsel is cognitive diversity. Is this idea that philosophical health is not normative in the sense that it would tell you how to think well, what to believe in in order to have a philosophically healthy life, but rather how to understand your own system of thoughts such that you're kept capable to mentalize the other system of thought as potentially different. And this is something humans are so bad at doing. Right. Couples, for example, fight. Many times out of the fact that one thinks is right. The other one also thinks he is right. And and that's political fights, etc. The list could go on forever. And I think that if we start paying attention to the possibility that different systems of thought and that's more than the possibility. Right. But I want to call it a possibility because because of imperfection. Precisely. It's not like I come with my perfectly rounded system and you come with your perfectly rounded system. No, we are we are puzzle ontological puzzles that work more or less than we want to make them, of course, as clear and as coherent as possible. But I think with this, with this care for let's say for I think perhaps we could call it quasi perfection in the sense that we want to stay right beneath the limits where we start wanting this full perfection. That's also a care for the fact that all the ways of looking at the world are there and they might might actually inspire us. Yeah, I think I think that's an important point that there are alternative ways of fleshing out reality and not just our own, but others. And that's why logic based therapy has certain parameters within which we can attain metaphysical security and and and philosophical health and and that would involve, for instance, tolerance, you know, for for others. So what what logic based therapy does is introduce a set of of guiding virtues, as it calls them, and these guiding virtues can be interpreted philosophically differently. So, you know, some people's way of of understanding tolerance is maybe buddhist and other might be, you know, pragmatic. There's there's no limit to how you can frame, you know, these these virtues, but those virtues are the aspirational goals to be more tolerant, to be more empathetic. And I think in the cases that you've given, empathy is extremely important. Logic based therapy talks about certain cardinal fallacies that that people commit. And these are basically types of thinking or reasoning that have a proven track record or frustrating personal and interpersonal happiness. And so one of them is world revolves around me thinking. This is quite relevant, I think, to what you're saying, like Ram thinking, which is at its extreme, we have narcissistic personality disorders. And essentially, these are are individuals who who think that, you know, they are the authors of reality, you know, if they believe something is true, then others need to believe it because they're right and the others are wrong. And when you have that kind of thinking going on, you're not going to have meaningful and prosperous relationships. Imagine two individuals who are Ram thinkers go out on a date together. How is that going to work? So it becomes very, very difficult, you know, for people to fashion reality within viable and reasonable, you know, manners that that actually work, you know, functionally that that actually help them to to live a satisfactory life in common, you know, if they violate these cardinal fallacies, but within the parameters of those cardinal fallacies is all sorts of different philosophical perspectives. So logic based therapy does have some limits. I mean, you can't be contradicted, have a contradictory philosophy, you can't have a philosophy that that violates Ram thinking, for instance, because that's not conducive to metaphysical security. So there's, you know, there's constructivism, but there's also, you know, a kind of of, I don't want to say platonic, but there's certain parameters within which, you know, that operates. Yeah, yeah, I think it's important to to mention that it's not about the idea that there is one good logic, because I imagine, imagine Aristotle's being a logic based therapist and receiving Hegel in his practice, right? And Hegel will say, we start to say, oh, I'm, it's strange, I'm having these ideas of opposites, uniting themselves, and, and, and the negative and the positive and a, a and non a being identical sometimes and Aristotle will say, no, that's not possible. It's a fallacy, right? So that's not about that. It's about allowing people to, to not think different things without being conscious of it, that actually contradict themselves, which leads to actually consequences that are very real, right, acts that are very real, and that can be damageable. But there's something that then one might ask, okay, so what's the goal of all that? What's, what's, what's the telos of philosophical health? And, and in, in psychology, there is often this concept of self actualization, right? And you write in your paper something that I found really interesting, you write self actualization in the metaphysical sense of a fully self actualized being is not possible for human beings. A category, a category of ontology, the Asians have granted to an infinite being, God, right? So can you say more about that? Because that's, I mean, people want to attain self actualization, either they might say, too bad, or they might say, okay, then I need to become a God, which is what some people today seem to wanting to define as the next horizon of humanity, right? This sort of a transhumanist ideal of turning us into more and more powerful beings or the beliefs in some sort of magical thinking where you would, you would actually actualize everything you want, usually very material things. So can you say more about this is because it seems almost contradictory also to ancient Greek thought, I mean, partly only contradictory in the sense that they did believe that we can, they, of course, they didn't believe that humans can be gods, because that would be Ibris, but they did believe that through the exercise of philosophy, we could get closer to the divine, right? That's, I mean, the major figure of that kind of thing is Plotinus, but you have that in Plato and even in Aristotle's with this idea of eudaimonia. And precisely this famous eudaimonic inspiration, which was also seen in Descartes, is etymologically the fact that you're talking with the spirits, you're talking with your personal channel that allows you to communicate with the divine. But so what's the telos then? If it's not self-actualization or is it, do you mean that it's only partial self-actualization? How do you articulate that? Well, you know, in a sense, logic-based therapy is Aristotelian in the idea that it's the virtues, you know, that you're aiming at. There's different ways, different philosophical constructs of those virtues, different ways of interpreting, you know, those virtues. But ultimately, the goal is to be more, well in general, more metaphysically secure and that means self-accepting. It means feeling comfortable with, you know, the fact that there's, you know, risk in the world and that there's, you're not always going to be successful about what you do. And so for these, you know, these are, you know, virtues of courage involved being willing, you know, to take reasonable risks. So, you know, these virtues come together, you know, and there's, you know, there's a web of these virtues and including, you know, the idea that's crowning virtue of metaphysical security under which all these others, you know, are included. So the telos, if you want to speak, you know, Aristotelian sort of way, the telos of logic-based therapy is, you know, the virtues that are implied by metaphysical security. And, you know, this is definitely something that doesn't, built into it is realizing that you're not going to be 100% self-actualized. And in fact, if you demand that you be 100% self-actualized, or you actually think you are, then you're defying some cardinal fallacies, you know, of logic-based therapy, of which wishful thinking is one of them. Right. And I mean, yeah, probably we could say that death, once you're dead, maybe you're you're fully self-actualized. But that's interesting. Speaking about metaphysics, there's another concept that is less famous is self-transcendence. And self-transcendence is usually defined as the capacity to put the ego aside in order to serve a higher ideal. And so I think that if we look at the ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle, I think that that's what they're saying in a way. They're saying that the good life is the life that serves a grand idea, whether that's justice, whether that's the good, whether that's the city, the political equilibrium. And, of course, they might have some of them, probably more Aristotle than Plato, they might have takes at it that are sort of moderate, right? When Aristotle talks about the golden mean, there is an idea of moderation there. So you don't want completely to lose yourself into a group or an ideology. But you were talking about narcissism. You want to be capable of not only being in a mean mode, the domestic, what Anna Arendt called the domestic mode. So how do you balance that your care for, let's say, your prudence vis-à-vis idealism? And the fact that I believe in my practice, I tend to tell people that it's okay to have a grand ideal in life. With all the caveat that we mentioned, right? Of course, the form of pragmatism and but precisely, if we have a process, philosophy, look on that ideal, we know that there is a it's a creative flow in which means that actually we don't want to actualize it. We don't want to think that we have actualized it too fast because, first of all, it would be wrong and secondly, what then? But we also want perhaps to keep the, I mean, the claim that this is possible, because otherwise we might fall into a form of fatalism, perhaps the idea that, you know, we are imperfect. Therefore, it's okay to eat chips in front of Netflix every night and, you know, because we are just mortal. So isn't that a thin line, a thin equilibrium? Let's talk perhaps, let's answer these questions perhaps with our cases and practices, because we have the chance, right, to discuss with real human beings with we've had real problems in real lives. And so how do you help people like that, who can be idealists and who perhaps shouldn't give up on their ideal, right? Yeah, I don't think that people should give up on their ideals, because that's what's exciting, you know, and I often use a metaphor of shooting for the stars, but not demanding that you land on them. And so you can, you can certainly have your ideals, but just don't demand, you know, that you satisfy them, and then there's no contradiction in your system. And to give you actual real examples, for instance, athletes are great examples of this idea that I must be perfect when I go out on the field, I must perform perfectly. And as a result of that, they think that, you know, that's what, you know, that aspirational idea of demanding perfection somehow is what makes them perform well on the field. And many of them do, you know, they're perfectionists, and I've had students and clients who have, you know, had this issue, they've lived their lives in a state of great stress and tension. But they think that that's what makes them successful. So it's the ideal, they'll argue, that, you know, being perfect is what makes them perform at their best. But there's a mistake in there. And the mistake is the distinction between, you know, actually having the ideal and shooting for excellence, driving for excellence in what you do, and demanding that you achieve perfection. And so when you go out on the field, I'm going to do the best I can conceivably do, I'm going to, and if you want to say, I'm going to do perfectly. Okay, I'm going to perform perfectly. But at the end of the day, when you don't fall, when you fall short, as you inevitably will, you don't say, well, I didn't do what I must do. And therefore, a failure. Because it's at that juncture, where what you do is you create, you know, unnecessary stress. So shoot for the stars, but just don't turn that desire into that demand. Because as soon as you turn that desire into the demand, you create that intro set of feeling, you know, that that works against you. It's a discomfort. And so the such individuals will feel those who demand perfection will, even when they're doing well, they think to themselves, well, what happens if the next time I go out and don't do as well. And so they live in this state of stress. And it's actually distress that can create greater problems than not having that stress. Musicians too, a musician that goes out and says, I'm going to give my, you know, I'm going to perform like the greatest virtuoso in the universe. And goes out there and does it maybe fumbles. But while they're fumbling, they're not saying, I must perform perfectly. Because as soon as you make that demand, you create greater stress. And as a young musician, I can remember myself doing a classical guitar concert, and I went out there and I was demanding perfection. And when I went out there, I was performing a canary jig. No, no, I was called Lagrima. And that's what it was, tear drops. And suddenly I discovered that I was repeating the same, the same part that I twice, yeah. It was so perfect that you entered the loop, right? Yeah. And then I'm looking at my, then I go down at the strings and to the six strings started to appear like they were, like the the gullies between them. Right. That was your psychotic episode. I got through it. But, but it was, it was very, very, very difficult to get through it. And there's this stress that I had affected, you know, my performance, actually, I would have done better without that perfectionism. That resonates, because I see there a distinction between perfection mastery. And I often tell my concerts that I want to help them become masters. But a master is not someone indeed that compares himself or yourself. You were talking about sports, and that very indeed dangerous view of perfection as a comparative skill. Mastery is is on the country, the, the, the development of your own singularity of what you can do in such that is actually on the very equilibrium between effort and self expression, right? The endowism, it's called the Wu Wei, this sort of a effortless action. It's not that you're just sitting there, because nothing will come out of the guitar, is that you have enough faith in the fact that, of course, you practice, you have your technique, you need to work. But then at some point, you also focused on what is most important, which is authenticity, this self expression. And you talk about authenticity in your paper. And I think that's one virtue, a very simple virtue, if people are asking you, but what is this about? What are they talking about? Well, honesty, right? Intellectual honesty and the courage to, to be honest with yourself and with the others, without necessarily, of course, going about and offending people. But, you know, just not being scared. I ask often to my console bees, so I talk about Hegel and the, the dialectic of the master and the slave. And I ask my console is okay, so you have these two people and they are equal in the beginning. And after a while, one becomes the master, one becomes the slave. And I ask, what do you think, why do you think that happens? And that leads to a series of interesting conversations. In my view, this happens because, and that, I mean, that's Hegel's view. The master is not afraid to die while the slave is afraid to die. The master is not afraid to die for what? For, for what he believes in, for his authenticity, his or hers authenticity. And, and that seems like a very old way of thinking, but I don't think it is. I think it's something that is very, very contemporary, very fit for our times is that mastery, it's not about being the best, because that doesn't make sense. And indeed, that leads to a lot of suffering. It's about being the best version of yourself, but such that it respects what I sometimes call your eodymonia, which is slightly different from eodymonia, right? Eodynamia, sorry, eodynamia, which is good dynamics, the good possibility, the fact that you keep enough reserves or energy to, to do something different next time. So you don't want to fully actualize. You actually actualize, but by staying this creative potentiality, that is what gives you also the flow and the joy to live. I mean, that's a very, very important point that you're, that you're making, that you, you move towards your goals in an authentic way. And that, that authenticity may be more important than what you achieve. Because what you do is this, this, this candor and honesty with oneself, not living as Sartre would say, in bad faith, that you, you know, you accept your, you know, your limits and, and you attempt to achieve whatever is in your power in an authentic way. And I think that's, that's an excellent, an excellent point about, you know, how to make peace with imperfection, do it authentically. Indeed. And I think that's, I think that's a good conclusion for our conversation, which might not be the last one, because it's, it's a very deep topic. And we certainly are passionate about it. But I hope this gave to the people who are watching us and listening to us a certain idea of what, what do we do? Why do we want to help people have more meaningful lives and satisfactory ones through philosophy, which might seem like a very strange idea for now. But I always say, you know, take physical health. It looks some like something very natural today, right? But it was invented in the 18th century with gymnastics, etc. The Greeks had it a bit, but then it was forgotten. And now it's considered, you know, in the 18th century, it was a luxury for a happy few who could afford gymnastics. And now it's a necessity for all. Take psychological health. It also started a little bit later, and of the 19th century, early 20th century, it was a luxury for a happy few in Vienna, those who could afford meeting Freud. And now it's considered a necessity for all. So I wish that today philosophical health, which is we could say a luxury for the happy few, although you and I, we work with people, you in India, me sometimes in Bangladesh, so we really trying to open this democratically and globally. But still, it's a minority of people who know about it. And let's hope that by the end of this century, it can be a non normative necessity for all. It is growing quite well throughout the world. And in 1991, I founded the National Philosophical Counseling Association. And when we started our training program, you know, there were very few people who were trained in philosophical counseling, let alone logic based therapy. But now we're training people all over the world regularly. So if those listening are interested in, you know, looking further into that, you can Google National Philosophical Counseling Association, and it discusses the views of the Association on Philosophical Counseling on their website, as well as provides information about philosophical counseling, getting trained in philosophical counseling and the like. So that's an opportunity that's constantly growing. I've seen it expand leaps and bounds over the years. Indeed. And for those of you would like to know more about the idea of philosophical health and the various networks and various methodologies that are used, not only LBT or microelectrics, but others. You can simply write also philosophical dot health. And you will indeed get a glimpse that this is now an international phenomenon. So, Elliot, many thanks. I will stop the recording now. Wonderful.