 I'll ask you could make it. Sorry about that. No worries. This is the OGM weekly call on Thursday, September 21, 2023. I just changed some settings as you will have noticed coming into the room. I'm going to get a smart transcript after the call, which is kind of fun. I looked at one, I did a couple of them yesterday because I just turned the setting on recently and it's really good. It's basically it's turning on the transcript feature somehow, although I don't know that it does so permanently. So I just did so manually, but then it summarizes the call and batches up different parts. It notices when the topic changes. It gives a nice text summary of what's going on. If you want to turn this on, go into your zoom.us on the browser, go into settings, go into recording or meetings. I've forgotten which one and turn on AI summaries or it has a name sort of like that. Pretty cool. We should have known. We used that yesterday. We had a great call yesterday would be lovely to see a summary of it. Awesome. I wonder whether you can submit the recording to it retroactively retroactively. That'd be kind of cool. You go find out. That'd be kind of cool. Awesome. Do you have a recording of yesterday's meeting? I do. It'll be posted within a week. Hopefully in the next but within a week always. They're always archived on my YouTube channel. I couldn't see myself joining at four o'clock in the morning. I understand. Although I did a keynote in Mumbai last year at four o'clock in the morning was very. Yeah. The odd hours talks are funny. Yeah. It's hard to get yourself psyched up when you're talking to nobody and it's a really odd hour. Yeah. It just barely works. Acting. Acting. That's it. It's acting. So I was tempted to go back into the collapse and renewal topic again and to pick some part of it to slow down into. But I'm open to other suggestions if other people would like to go a different way or are tired of the topic. I don't know that tired of the topic is maybe the right language for it since. It's all about whether or not we're all going to suffer these calamities. Earlier today I was listening briefly to Al Gore on stage at the United Nations talking about was up. And what's going on. I loved Al Gore's recent talk basically eviscerating the cop process and how it's been captured by fossil fuels. I made a tremendous amount of sense and I love seeing Al Gore angry. I think he's very effective angry. But I have no idea. That's just my clue. I think the left doesn't get angry enough oftentimes. Ken, were you going to say something? I watched him. I don't know if the same video but I saw him recently where he was pretty angry like especially about the freaking cop has run by a petroleum company. You know, and that's the one I found him ineffective. I thought ineffective tone it back out just you know you're a little bit too outraged like we've been outraged for a very long time. We need to be very reasonable here and just name things and like, you know, I found him. I thought it took away from the power of his message. So, I thought he was liberated. That's what it seemed like to me. And it was good to see after so many years of Al kind of crunched. How do others feel about who watched that Al Gore talk which I will now post into the chat because I found it. This is the talk we're talking about who has watched it. Cool. Doug be any opinion that it was it positive or negative for you. I'm sort of with Ken. I, the more soporific Al Gore was sort of a little low on energy I found that a little bit hot. And, and, and, and sort of energetically it just sort of projected in a way that could trigger a little bit off. And if he pulled it back like 15% that the added energy heightens the power of his message, but it's sort of like he went a little past the 10 on the amplifier. You went to like 11 or 12. Yeah, I think something going on. Isn't there a time, isn't there a time for hot? Yeah, but I saw it too. I wish Al could modulate his tone and his volume. It was uniform and good speakers by the by now he should have been able to go down and up. He was all up all out same energy and same energy gets monotonous. He should really be a better speaker by now. Mike, you said that's the one you watch marketing any feelings positive or negative on Al's tone. And you may have stepped away. So I'm curious about this question because let me let me just sort of dawdle here to explore because I think it matters in the larger question about collapse and revival. I have a thought in my brain titled this this may amuse people. I have a thought in my brain titled Democrats are finally getting pissed at Republican bullshit, though not enough. And under it, I collect up, and I will share screen even though I think it blows some people's chat away but just for a moment. Under it I collect instances of Democratic representatives and others here Michigan lawmakers says we will not let hate when Jim Jordan gets roasted. I usually have these things connected to the people Jamie Raskin who's been doing a whole bunch of this. Here is Joanna McClinton. And one of the things I'm believing is that, and this goes back to Lindsey Graham. During the Kavanaugh trial, at one point Lindsey Graham is practically crying and screaming and angry. And he has an impassioned impassioned talk about how this is a terrible thing being done to Kavanaugh. And I realized that, and in fact Kavanaugh himself when he that morning when he testifies and starts practically crying and says I like beer, I like beer a lot. And that reminds me of Matt Damon's excellent impersonation of him on Saturday Night Live that night that Saturday, which was really one of the best bits of Saturday Night Live ever. But a lot of people in, there's just so many angles to this. A lot of people interpreted Kavanaugh's anger as outrage at being maligned, justified outrage and anger. And I was like, the moment he started in that way, I was like, oh wow, Kavanaugh has decided he's never going to be on the Supreme Court. And he's just going to be really angry here or somebody told him to turn up the juice. My conclusion was, wow, any anybody who shows up like this and says these kinds of things that are so transparently bullshit. It has given up on being on the Supreme Court, and I was I was way, way completely wrong. I watched this program and others have done performative theatrical outrage, and then there's this whole, you know, outrage industry. AM radio has largely become sort of what's it called info anger, it's called anger tainment. That's it. Anger tainment is the term I heard recently that makes complete sense. I repeat for posting the cold open for Kavanaugh it was priceless it was really like one of the best bits out there. And, and I'm completely torn because on the one hand I want to be Zen Buddhist, like Ken and Doug be here. And really, on the one hand, there's a part of me that's passive. I think that's on yours that I just muted you. Sorry. So there's a half of me that wants to be Buddhist and calm the hell down and take things down a notch and make sure that we can just be present and all those kinds of things. And there's a part of me that says that one of the big problems here is that progressives liberals the left Democrats whatever thing you want to say, aren't angry enough. And aren't angry enough, which means they sound boring they're not being heard gosh, what they care about must not be important enough. I don't know. And I realized that the kinds of people who might react in the ways I just said are probably not high on the on the spiral dynamic spiral thing they're probably operating in beige and red, not in teal and like, well okay, and working with Klaus on the short book we're trying to write on Mondays the Neo book. He's applying spiral dynamics to how do you talk to different audiences about healthy soil and all those kinds of things about regenerative ag, and it's kind of interesting because you, you know, and he's using chat GBT as his as his sort of writing and it's turning out pretty good. It ain't bad it's pretty interesting. So anyway, I'm just putting a stake in the ground that every now and then anger is good I agree with Kevin entirely that that owl has not figured out how to modulate his presence or his voice and that's probably a problem. It would be nice if he took some acting lessons maybe Oh gosh that sounds terrible. Doug, Doug be off to you. I really miss profanity in the hands of Democrats. Profanity what makes profanity profanity is linguistically profanity actually is processed differently by the brain, and it goes right to the lizard brain it cuts right to the limbic system. And bypasses all the higher level great matter stuff. And the, the missing moment for me in for our times is somebody just calling bullshit. Just going, what the fuck are you talking about in the Congress. For our time would be the equivalent of the guy who, in response to Joe McCarthy said have you no shame. Right, Joseph. Yeah, like, that was the end. That was the calling the question. And I just don't feel like anybody's calling the question and Al Gore's going to 1112 on the volume thing. I didn't achieve that. It was just increased volume. But it's the somebody actually calling the moment for what it is. And, and the response of all of, you know, it was sort of, you know garland getting roasted and then a Democrat would go I'm and garland gets roasted because I'm sorry, and garland gets, but there wasn't a. What are you doing, and even at the expense of order, like, interrupting without having the floor, and just really disrupting the flow of that from a place of no, just no. And, and that just for some reason is like pathologically missing in our culture somehow. I'm not quite sure why. So to follow off of Doug, I think we're not paying enough attention to the tone, because the tone of what's being said to one person, it might feel really empowering. And to another person, it feels attacking. And that doesn't matter what the topic is or what's being said. And I would like to see a unity around getting away from anger attainment, because I know I mean I get pulled right into it. If it's something that I'm in agreement with. It's definitely funnier when I'm angry. I can't my my flow is better when I'm angry, but I also recognize that I'm not in as much control when I'm angry. And I think that goes for all of us humans, most of us humans. And again, I think rather than focusing on the words that are being said. That's really important and I'm curious. I'm interested in hearing more about what class is doing because I'm Jim White Scarver I don't know if any of you know him and I'll see if I can get the article he he wrote an article. I forgot exactly what it's called but it for me it was like a blueprint for how society could be set up, and he use chat GPT to help him. And I read it and it would be great if it were broken up into smaller pieces where regular people would actually read it. But it was so easy to understand there was really no room to disagree no matter what you believe. And I think that that that I'm going to put it in the chat because I think that's a great starting point. So I just wanted to say focusing on tone maybe could unite some of us. And you could use profanity. It's just the tone in which you use profanity. Next Stacy. Kevin then Stuart. I think one of the best iconic and historic ways to express anger is to act through the Babylonian myth of redemptive violence. And that's where Marduk in an annual ceremony was the God was humiliated beat down his family taken away from it. It's a whole lot like so many cowboy movies, William Money and the Unforgiven. And then he realized that violence was the only way back to restore order. And it's a it's in almost every action movie where, you know, if I had talked about the harm of climate change and his realization and then coming up, you know, it would have resonated just like a good action movie does where, you know, the family's taken away and he has to respond. So I think, you know, it's it's a really it's culturally in our cultural DNA, much more than any Christian myth is actually is the Babylonian myth of redemptive violence. It has a Wikipedia page even. I just put it in the chat. No, gosh. And so it must be real. It must be real. I mean, it's got to be truth. On the internet. Exactly. Stuart, you're muted. I can't remember the what it's called and I try to look it up. I couldn't find it. What's the the process they use in Parliament where tongue in cheek, they attack each other. I'm not just questions. Yeah, yeah, the question question question question time. It's tongue in cheek, but it's still, you know, they like to call each other assholes or whatever, whatever, you know, other words come up that they actually use when they do that. And, you know, there's a there's an outlet of some kind. The other thought is, you know, pushing back a little bit upon, you know, what Kevin talked about in terms of violence. Years ago, I was interviewed by by a writer for screenwriters magazine. And the question was, you know, can you have resolution without violence, because the typical model for any screenwriting is you've got conflict, you've got high drama, you've got violence, then you have resolution. And the question was, can you have resolution of some kind without the violence. And, you know, I like to think that you can. You can have lots of drama, but you don't have to have the violence. You can have heated conversation almost as a substitute for, you know, for violence. Just the thought. Thank you. So what's our, Stacy, go ahead. I just, I just want to respond to Stuart, because I just want to say that I'd like to think that, but I think that for drama, there has to be more of a conflict and I think that so many of us are actually addicted to drama, because it takes us away from what may really be bothering us. And so I think some of us actually create that conflict and that drama. But there's just, yeah, conflict and drama, absolutely. But you don't have to have violence to get resolution. If we want to think of ourselves as having some degree of civility, you can have dialogue and conversation. And then you don't have to have the violence. We have dialogue and conversation with assholes. Yes. Yeah. You can. Yeah. So a book I'm reading now, Monica Guzman, I never thought of it like that she's one of the founders of braver angels. And it's a really excellent book she talks about, you know, being a liberal from Seattle and going taking this bus trip. They're going to do this thing called melting mountains and went to Sherman. Sherman County, Oregon, where you know it was the exact opposite 74% of the people went for Trump versus 74% of people went in Seattle who went for Hillary. And they had very productive conversations by staying curious about each other and just getting to know each other. I have a friend who says conflict is inevitable but combat is not, you know, you can use conflict as a productive generative force, or you can use as a very destructive force and many, many years ago he's belonged to a gym that that had a bank of TVs over the the Treadmills. And they were all on silent you had to bring a Walkman, the Walkman, you know, with an FM tuner and you could listen to it, but I didn't have that so I just, I would watch the news and stuff, which was silent and I got you just watching people's gestures. And man, you could tell a lot. In fact, I think it's very instructive to to watch things without sound sometimes just to see what's going on on the very visceral level the way people are gesturing and their, their facial expressions and having just completed last night finally the full 12 episodes of Oliver stones. Until the United States, when he's showing pictures of Hitler, Hitler was so outraged and he just channeled this thing and the people were already, you know, the general people were feeling very low at that point he channeled their outrage and started World War Two. And you know, there's a lot of outrage in there. In this whole culture right now there's so many things and we don't know collectively when I say we go I mean, as a society, we don't have very good forms and skills for having the conversation for righteous indignation and outrage, because there's a lot to be righteously indignant about, but it just shows up as people screaming at each other and that's not productive. So how do you listen to somebody who is righteously indignant in a way that allows them the space to be that so that they can get that energy out and then come back down to a more reasonable way of dealing with that level of emotions going to block people from having productive conversations so it's got to find an outlet, and it needs a receptive audience and and I think this is something that that really could be hugely impactful for the culture if we could start to have these conversations where people can express outrage, be witness be heard for it and that's okay good I got that out. Now, let's do something. Let's let's talk about it in a different way where I'm a little bit, you know, I've vented now I can be more reasonable. Kim, thank you are Gil NBC is nonviolent communication. I'm after the 2016 election I did some videos about Trump and I realized I sort of went through an enumerated to the Trump playbook. And one of the things that the left and the media didn't understand was that Trump understood how visuals affect people. I do that if your enemies are yelling at you and if if if like, if if the moderators are critiquing you and eviscerating you but on screen they're showing you looking commanding and really interesting. That's a win for the person walking by the TV in the airport or in the mall or wherever else that the visuals really really mattered. And I don't know how much that's going to play out now but but but the media didn't understand and maybe does now I don't really know but sometimes they show signs that they are. Oh, thanks Gil I didn't realize you needed you weren't asking about the acronym. I'm looking at the chat here. I kept feeding this because they were being looped into and I'm sitting here wondering if Lauren Boebert in the theater is just a play for her to stay in the news. And she's she's a definite Trumpian she is one of Trump's biggest sort of bootlickers and is on the bandwagon big time. But maybe that whole thing is manufactured because she knows that if she's outrageous in public on an off week, she can own the media cycle and owning the media cycle is a win for your followers if you're maga. Like like a piece of the maga game is hey look, I can poke I can poke the crowd and work them into a froth. I'm going to float above the fray because I was just a youthful and discretion or gosh sometimes I'm an outrageous personality and that's what why some of my followers like me. And then man you just got a whole bunch of free free airtime. And, and so there's this angle of media dynamics that plays into the same, the same thing. Stuart then Gil. Distinction between differences and conflict. Right. Differences are all over the place. Conflict happens when people become ego identified and think that they're right. And then there's no, there's no listening and and and there's no curiosity about so what is it. How did you get that way. Geez, I'm really curious about how that belief system developed and and and why you think that way. That's interesting. So conflict and differences important. And in terms of the where where Ken was pointing to in terms of place to express some outrage. There's a whole level of resolution model in the in the chat. And I will often when I'm doing some mediation or counseling, I'll say, you know, in this first round of conversation, you may hear things that you don't like. It's not necessarily the truth. We're just doing it to get it up and out so that we can move on to more productive conversations. And that place to empty to set the table so that there can be engagement at some very, very different level. And with most people, the humanity, the compassionate, the empathetic part eventually kicks in and they realize that the quote other is perhaps not so different than they are. And we're trying to do the best that they possibly could. The other piece is, you know, what we're talking about, I think it ties in with identity, the court, the whole realm of identity politics. And we've become a nation where people, whatever their differences, you know, that's the identity that they've assumed. It's really true with quote, any kind of disability. People are on the bandwagon for their, you know, their disability and I think we've devolved into that to some, some degree. Pop on the top on the can of identity politics worms, which is interesting as well. Yeah, do check out the cycle of resolution because it's a, it's a model for conversation. And it allows for all of that nasty expression to actually come out. It takes obviously a certain degree of emotional intelligence to be able to stand in that and to not just get into a piece of, you know, argument or would you would you anger about your attainment? You know, one of those, one of those things. Your attainment. Go ahead, Gil. Yeah, it takes physical practice to store it takes it takes, you know, conditioning the body to be able to stand in that we were talking about this on yesterday's living between worlds called that the the idea is very, very you know this well, being able to maintain common center and breath in the face of attack and even real physical threat. Not just emotional threat. Like body has to learn different reflexes and that somebody said earlier Jerry I think you you said something about the Buddhists and anger and I don't know where we get this idea that Buddhists are opposed to anger. Maybe about maybe concerned about being trapped in anger but I posted a Dalai Lama quote earlier up there which said we're on a link. The Dalai Lama explains that all emotions have an evolutionary purpose and a biological dimension. In other words their natural responses to circumstances that appear in our lives. For example, he says quote, anger helps us repel forces that are detrimental to our survival and well being. So there's that. I can I liked your riff. I like that the word indignity showed up in there. I think there's a difference between outrage and anger and rage. And it's worth thinking into that it was reading some reviews last night of this new translation of the Iliad. And the Iliad starts with it was like a whole riff about how translators translate and dramatically change the meaning of things. But the argument here was that the first word of the Iliad is rage. It's a book about rage and rage is not the same as anger. This translator said rage is has a divine aspect to it it's like it's a it's a bigger and more contextual and background thing. And related to dignity. Related to indignity to the to the opposition to indignity and being indignant is actually maybe a more powerful stance than being angry. And it connects people back to the dignity that they're feeling violated. So, some thoughts there, I'm not going to get started on the identity thing because I think it's a huge mess or worthy of a conversation at another time. Speak speaking of Buddhism. We have we have people learn, you know, exploring the, the, the, you know, the noun is for it, exploring the thing of there is no self. Fighting fiercely over interpretations of self. It's very strange. That's it. Thanks, Gil. Doug, then Doug see then Stuart and take your time stepping in we're going pretty quickly as is often difficult of us. Well, I'm thinking about what are we really talking about here. And what strikes me is we're looking at rage and reason as choices for an individual in a conversation. What we're not talking about is the quality of the whole civilization, and its ability to have conversation versus rage in a thought. Can you expand on that a little bit. Well, it seems to me that if you want a civilized world. You can't. It's impossible to rely on individuals to get there. The quality of the whole culture is what's important. I think one of the things about Athens in the time of Plato was how conversational based it was, and how that worked. We don't have that kind of cultural fabric, where a group can really participate in a reason to conversation. It's not individual versus the group. It's the quality of the group that needs development. I would say that little tiny fractal side conversations like this one are sort of disproving your thesis now if you're talking about the public sphere. A part of my belief system is that the far right has figured out intentionally I call this denial of discourse attacks. It's an organized way to go about making sure that we don't have civil discourse, that everybody's like all up in anger and doubting and skeptical of the other and all that. That is a tactic in verbal battle that is happening every day. We're seeing that all the time. Many of people talking in civil ways, I think all of us are in several zooms a week where people are trying really hard to settle in and talk well about this and figure out how we move forward. Stuart and Gil. Just quickly to me where this conversation is pointing to, and Jerry, you set it up just very well, is the education of folks to be able to engage in these kinds of conversations. And if everybody wasn't running around trying to either survive or make more money, there'd be a little bit of brain space to actually be able to do that. And Gil pointed out earlier, you know, conditioning of the body also for how to engage in those conversations. And on a more humorous note, talking about rage. It's a great scene in one of Woody Allen's movies where his rage had escaped and it was, it was rummaging through the countryside. And you see a backshot of I don't know what character he was playing in the movie. I think it may have been Zehler got I don't know, but it's just running through the countryside. The rage has escaped and it's ramping through the countryside. And everybody better be careful because the rage is on the loose. It's apparently take the money and run which is a little an awful slapstick movie but there you are. It's yeah. Thanks Stuart. Gil then Pete then Stacy. There's a strange TEDx talk by David Graber who we've talked about a lot and it's called the possibility of political pleasure. And he talks about his love for political meetings and cultures where. He did a lot of his work in Madagascar and he talked about a culture of social interaction around, you know, political questions long, many, many hour meetings. And I don't know if it was Madagascar or somewhere else we talked about 14 hour community meetings that people loved because they got to get heard, and they got to work things out together. And it was, it was, it was kind of startling to me because it's so different than my experience of political meetings, which is a whole other rant, but I'll put it in the chat and be interested in what people have to say about it. Pete has beat you to that. There's a lot of questions now and then over here. And he beat me by only about four seconds so there we go. It's tough to beat Pete in general but especially when you're speaking. Yeah, it's the same time you guys guys got reflexes. Well, speaking of conditioning the body. That's right. The only way to beat that is to preload the links you think you might mention so you've got a kind of like like q q ahead of time and then you're good. There's no beating that when you just hit return. As you're speaking but short of that, there's no hope. And Stacy, I don't want to distract us from our productivity discussion of rage and conflict and resolution. But I also wanted to note that we seem to live in a time where people with a lot of power, either billionaires or media moguls or big corporations or something like that will have a sociopathic belief system. And through think tanks or lobbying or whatever they inculcate our lawmakers and our politicians into a double speak version of, you know, they'll take a bad thing a really bad thing. And they'll make it sound virtuous, and then they'll give it to the people they're donating to and say, you know, this is this this ought to be part of your platform because it's good and wonderful and holy. I don't know why you wouldn't say this to the world, right. And by the way, here's a lot of money. So then another part of our, our culture is to not be able to converse very deeply not be able to think very deeply. And so it's, it bubbles up that that concept gets shorter and shorter and shorter and then it gets hardened into, you know, that a core part of our, our well being, or our perceived well being. And so it becomes kind of a, you know, an almost unconscious thought unconscious belief that everybody has that this thing that is actually bad and sociopathic and if you talked about it for a while. You'd say, yeah, that's bad. Everyone thinks it's good. So I'm, I'm watching a, I'm watching an important issue is kind of small but intense. And oddly enough, the right, which is wrong on so many things has the has the actually good version of, of this thing in their platform. And so I'm watching people on the left. Say, you know, the left has bought, bought this issue hook line and sinker and they're feeding it back to us and they've, they give no quarter on this because they think they're right. And it helps that, you know, billionaires have helped them to think that it's right, but it's wrong, and it's wrong for me. And if I look to my political realms, I don't have a place, but these people, the right are speaking truth for that issue that matters to me a lot. I'm going to vote, I'm going to vote Republican, I'm going to vote conservative, because until the Democrats or the liberals, you know, get their, you know, get their head screwed on straight. This issue is important enough to me that I have to like draw the line and, you know, make, make a change that I, you know, otherwise, you know, these people are my enemy, but on this one they're, you know, they're friendly to truth and my, my, you know, belief in something sacred and important in my life. And so I swing over to the wrong side, at least for a time, and hope for balance in the world that way. And so it's a strange and, you know, scary and terrifying kind of thing. And I think, you know, history teaches us, I think this is kind of the way fascism works, you know, it double, double thinks and double speaks you into believing that that, you know, something that's really bad is actually virtuous. And so, along with being able to amp up things or rage farm, we also end up with a stealth undermining of, you know, real community value. Thanks. And can then me. It struck me as I was passing a meme that talked about most people and, excuse me, in the United States not being able to read above a sixth grade level, that the difference between a sixth grade level, and an eighth grade level really has to do with critical thinking. I mean, that's what changes the scores in your reading. And I don't have any evidence to support this, but I imagine that critical thinking is somewhat correlated to emotional intelligence. I don't think that I have no proof. And maybe it's out there somewhere. But to go back to what Doug C was saying, I agree with that because and I understand Jerry what you were saying but I don't think groups like ours are really representative of the general population. I'll stop there. Thanks Stacy. We all like to think of ourselves as normal. There's a big difference between normal and representative. You were just putting in town halls in the chat and I just have to say that. How halls were an amazing thing and they worked really well but they worked well because the towns were small and people live together closely and they had to help each other because you know you couldn't bring on your harvest by yourself you needed your neighbors to help and you know, it was a very different time when town halls were effective at this point now. You know, I go to city council meetings and there'll be 300 people there and you have two minutes to make your statement and that's not a conversation. It's a horrible way. Yeah, sure. I got to save my piece but so did 299 other people who were disagreeing with me or amplifying what I was saying and it's just, it doesn't it's become ineffective. So, I love the model of the town hall but what's missing from the town hall is that that sense of community that sense of we depend on each other. And I think that's one of the big challenges we face right now as people have this idea that, you know, we know we're not dependent upon each other and as, as things heat up, literally and metaphorically, I think we're going to discover just how much we will come to depend on each other. Doug's been writing about this for a long time with Garden World, you know, we're in a state where the entire system is very precariously balanced and likely to start to fall apart. And it's not going to be the survivalists and the really wealthy people who, you know, are behind fenced in gates and, you know, have private security, it's going to be the folks who come together and say, you know, hey, let me help you out here or I've got to, you know, I need this and you have that and let's work together, which has always been the way humans have gotten along is through cooperation and collaboration. You know, it's it's not much rather talks about for for millennia, we lived in small groups where you had to cooperate in order to get in order to survive and then somewhere along the line. So so that part we conserved love we made the world safer, helpless naked little babies who are tasty to predators and very rural to grow up into become adults and somewhere along I began to conserve a different kind of behavior, a hatred, a despise despising a better than and that's a pathological conservation in our of behavior in our in our culture. So, you know, getting back to, I see you have the right to exist you see me have the right to exist we need to figure out how to get along together. It keeps coming back to that for me again and again and again and there's all these reasons why we can't people always have, you know, well what about this and that and we've got to work this out. I mean, Bowman, David Bowman worked with Christian Murray developed dialogue because he was going to conferences where people with entire alphabets after their names so many, you know, advanced degrees so much education, they were almost coming to blows over whose idea was right. And this is no way to run a freaking science fair. So, you know, we, we got to, we got to up here and recognize that as the Africans say you go into you know I am because we are, and that's a fundamental shift in in attitude and opinion I think that's growing, but it's meeting water resistance. Did they get that from the Linux distribution name. Yeah, I think they did actually. Sorry, I'm going to go quiet for just a second so we can process everything everybody's been saying it's all there's a lot on the table right now let me take us into silence I'll bring us back out in a second. I'll just put Rosa Subisarta Subisarta in the chat who is awesome so I recommend following whatever she was talking about or doing. I have mentioned I think a couple times here that I made a new friend who is much more conservative than me, but thinks that maga is completely dysfunctional and maybe going to kill us all. He's really frustrated with progressives and he has a lot of very direct critiques of the progressive movement and progressives in general. He has a lot of over generalizations seems to me that that he calls them performative progressives or something like that, where he says so many, so many people who are on the progressive side are just saying good stuff and feeling good about it and doing nothing. And part of the problem in different ways and that's just one of his many critiques. I think that I think that's a really interesting point of view and I'm trying to, I haven't really described this call to him but I'd like to invite him in so that we can have a broader mix in the conversation so that he can see what we're doing and we can maybe peel this apart a little bit together. It feels to me like maybe in two weeks. We could talk a bit about the revival part of this conversation we've been talking more about collapse by a lot. There's sort of where we're seeing, we're getting some nice links can posted the Guzman's book about I never thought about it that way. There's a whole bunch of different approaches toward bridging these divides. And so I would be really interested in us sharing or even inviting in people who have a lot of direct experience in those aspects of healing conversation, healing discourse or dialogue healing the divide, but also approaches toward healing the planet and fixing stuff. I think there's a lot that we haven't haven't done that much about Stuart then Doug see then Michael. Yeah, I just wanted to comment on on what Pete was saying about right and wrong. And just reflecting on that, you know, beneath right and wrong. I'm curious about the value system that particular behavior or action is reflective of. And being curious about how people develop the mindset, the value the right or wrong that they had as a piece of the curiosity dialogue. Because inherently there is no right or wrong. In some sense, except for, you know, 10 commandment kinds of kinds of things, you know, don't kill and, you know, don't mess around with somebody else's wife, or husband. And the other thought that I had was, we need a big time out, you know, as I as I understand it from sailors, if you're in trouble, let go of everything. And the way which as a as a civilization as a species right now, we need to just take a moment of time out and silence and just let go of everything. Because we're all on this crazy treadmill that is just creating more and more and more and more churn. And we just need to have a big, you know, time out and let go and let go for a while. It's kind of like, you know, the stories about and I, and I think that they've come up here. And the generals in World War One decided to have an armistice for Christmas. And the combatants on either side started playing soccer with each other. And they just realized that, you know, what they were engaged in was just a big, you know, silly kind of folly. But we need a big time out, big time out. So I'm inclined to start at the opposite end away from the individual. The reality is we have a civilization that's not capable of dealing with its major problems. That's not a good position to be in. But we've got to think of in terms of the civilization, not individual attitudes. I'll just say quickly, but the civilization is made up of individuals. And it often starts at a micro level. The individuals are made up of civilizations. Chicken or egg, chicken or egg, chicken or egg. Maybe we could start the chicken or egg political party. So that I say cowabunga. An example of something that has really bothered me in the last 24 hours is a statement that I think was the New York Times from John Kerry saying that it's important that we free up lots more investment capital in order to move the third world into energy independence as rapidly as possible. And that is just totally nonsense. And the fact that investment in more technology is going to cope with climate change is just fallacious. And that they hear somebody like Kerry who's pretty savvy guy saying that which is really just putting forth the agenda of the business community, really disturbing. And I do think Pete is trying to gift us a moment of silence. Maybe. It's also fun to hear a conversation. Stuart, I appreciate your time out. And Doug, I appreciate you saying that we have a civilization level problem. In some ways, a human civilization is kind of, it seems to me to be a little bit unsustainable. It's easy to kind of rationalize that while I'm a reasonable person, and I can have patients long enough to listen to somebody who I think is unreasonable patients and curiosity enough to someone listen to somebody who I think is unreasonable. And if we talk long enough, it's going to, you know, make sense we can make civilization between me and her or me and him. And it's easy to think that. And I think it's super super super super hard to scale. I think we just end up with the, you know, it's the hyperscale superstructures that I talked about where when you have a million people are a billion people in interacting you get really weird to us really weird to human scale, emergent behaviors of, you know, so big social structures that we don't really understand very well. So I think it's, it's high. It's tempting to go well why don't we just fix this and I'm not sure that we have the right levers or that we have the even the capability, even if we all gang up on, you know, a large scales social structure I'm not sure we get there. What I wanted to say though, Stuart thank you for time out. And thank you for saying many issues are not right or wrong. And the issue I'm thinking about is actually a 10 commandment kinds kind of issue. It's actually stronger than I think a lot of those commandments or deeper. It's about agency and abuse and freedom from other people being able to abuse you and harm you and assault you. And it's, it's, you know, it is a thing where you can say, I think there is a right and a wrong. And further, interestingly enough, the people I hear talking about this get really upset and I'm going to say this word righteously righteously so I actually mean that literally righteously so I think they're in the right. I don't want to be assaulted. There's, there's parts of my life where I need to have agency and I need to be free from assault, and you're legislating it so that I have to agree to assault. And if I even say something about it, you've legislated a need for me to be reeducated. So that I have to say that assault is fine in the situation, because we all agree that, you know, this situation is wonderful, not not bad. So, so the people involved in this, it's, it's personal enough that they take it personally and they get upset, and they fight, and at a distance, I think what's happening is somebody like it's like you wouldn't, you know, you wouldn't fight on either side of this, unless you were really provoked and really well funded, well resourced, maybe not necessarily money. But, but I think there are people who are saying hey this is a, you know, our market research or our AIs say that if we distract enough people with enough issues and having them feel like they're righteously fighting about an issue, they're not going to look at this other situation that we actually care about. And I think there are people with a lot of resources, picking fights between, between groups of people, and inserting, it reminds me of what we used to call it stochastic violence, I think, where you just, you just feed the bad parts of, you know, you pick, you pick assaultive individuals, and you just encourage 100,000 of them. And most of them are going to be held back in their assaultive behavior by, you know, by their family members or by the police or by, you know, counselors or parole officers or something. But out of 100,000, you're going to get 100 that break through all those strictures and do something really assaultive to society, right. So I think that's still happening. I think we've gotten a lot more sophisticated than the days of 9-11. But I think there are people with a lot of resources, and they said, I want to do this crappy stuff over here, and I'm just going to start a bunch of tears in the fabric of society, and keep pouring, you know, gasoline on those little fires that I've started. I don't actually care one way or the other how the fire burns. Mostly I care that the fabric of society burns. So I think that's what's going on. I can see that from a distance where I'm not being assaulted. I'm not in the position of being one of the people who's going to end up in this. But, you know, it's really strange because it's like normal humanity, even the assaultive individuals would get tamped down and somebody's pouring gasoline on it and keeping it going. As a tactic and a strategy, and I hate to say it, it's a very viable and time-honored tactic and strategy. It's just underhanded, devious and destructive. And an irony in this one is that the good guys have gotten, you know, the left or whatever, the people who we think are the good guys for whatever reason, the people who are usually more or less in the right are on the complete wrong side of this. And using every power that they've got to, to, you know, enjoying forces of right in something that's assaultive. And so it's, you know, like, it's a, even a twist on a twist. It's really weird. You're just sort this all out and tell us what the solutions are. There's Ken. No pressure. Piece of cake. Remember the main interesting, you know, the more recent research is determined that it blew up due to a boiler problem that was not sunk by the, the enemy. But like so many other things, it's been used to like the Gulf of Tonkin around exactly same, same thing, same thing. I dropped an excerpt from an interview with Vosov Smil into the chat and I just want to point out one thing which I think is really struck me where he says, you know, it's really important not to talk about, talk about the world in global terms. We've talked about this on this call before. We have a poly crisis and a crisis. There's going to be multiple solutions that are geographically based, and they'll be different in different places. You know, and he gives this example of Thomas Friedman that everything is the world is flat. Everything works, you know, everywhere. But, you know, Denmark has nothing to do with Nigeria. Nigeria needs more food. They need more growth. Philippines a little bit more. Canada and Sweden, a lot less of it. I think we get ourselves into a difficult situation. We start to feel apply the one size fits all model of, you know, this is how it has to be. Because it is going to be very different in different places. And, you know, there are places where in order to provide basic services to people, food, shelter and clothing and education. They'll need more development and there's places where in the US, if we simply eliminate our food waste, we could feed everybody in this country, no problem at all. It's amazing how much food goes to waste in this country and that there's hungry people when there's this much food waste to me is a conversation for righteous indignation. You know, that's that's a, it just kills me that we've got so much food being wasted, especially prepared foods restaurants throughout 50% of their food. Oh my God, you know, just I see people on the street in center fell who are hungry. Why can't we get this together enough to just have a little compassion and my answer to that is the period in the street that says those people don't work they don't deserve anything. And you know, I think it was Nietzsche said be aware of those in whom the urge to punish is strong and there's a lot of folks who have that strong urge to punish who are in positions of power and privilege and all they want to do is, you know, make other people suffer. You know, I'm looking for more compassionate ways of being Michael whenever you wish. Since I joined late this may have been brought up but I, you know, came in on the discussion of a bunch of things but but town halls and the, you know, the voice of the people manifesting itself in a series of people coming up to podiums and emphatically, you know, stating their points of view. And last week, I was part of a group at the Canadian Consulate here for there was a there was a little responsible tech summit. And our, our Canadian friends were talking about their citizen assembly approach to some of the issues around online harms. And it was, it was really inspiring it was very much not the town hall model, it was a model of more like a jury pool, or a number of jury pools, bringing people together and there was, there was a woman there who was like, you know, one of the youth representatives to the citizen assembly who was 17 at the time that she was in the assembly but she was there because a lot of the issues in dealing with online harms had to do with people who were younger than voting age. And so the their voices needed to be in the room and the charge for the citizen assembly was to as a group, come up with solutions, not to a spouse their point of view for somebody else to make the decision. And the power of that difference. What is really apparent to me. I mean, it forces people with opposing points of view to find common ground because they're charged with just like a jury, you know, reaching a verdict, not that I suppose in certain criminalized situations you couldn't have the equivalent of a mistrial. But, you know, having groups come together to make proposals that then legislators can upload or down vote seems like a really strong approach, and I'm reading up on looks like Jerry might have. Yeah, he's not. Well, I'll post some things some links about citizen assembly. I did post an article about citizen assemblies as the no way. Okay. The third link I posted is about citizen assemblies. There's also deliberative polling, which James fish can kind of created and runs out of Stanford that's a highly functional method. And there's a, actually, since nobody's got their hand up in the queue, let me go there for a second, deliberative polling. I've not experienced firsthand but I met fish can and sort of listen to it some. And basically, you commission position papers to be written about certain issues you bring people in. I think it's for two weekends or something like that. The key is that some time goes by another key is that you pull people as they come in. What are your opinions on all these things. And then there's a particular process about how to talk through the issues at hand that leads more than most any other group process to a shift of opinions so because they take a poll before and after. Ken, you want to jump in. Newbie mistake. Totally. I was a facilitator for a, I delivered a poll a few years ago. And this one was in San Mateo. And it's like, okay, San Mateo is going to have a big housing shortage. So there were four options do nothing. Open up open space to development, do higher infill use. And the fourth one was put toll roads in because there's so many people that travel through San Mateo on their way to work. And the way it works is you had to fill out your very detailed questionnaire that was coded so it was anonymous. And the only way you got the everybody got paid in cash for their participation. And the way you got your cash was by filling out the second poll with the end and that's how they ensure that you actually get a shift. What was amazing was there's a there's a booklet you had read about 60 pages detailing each of the four scenarios and there were groups of 10 people with facilitators in each panel who would make sure everybody had a chance to speak. And they would develop questions and they would go to a plenary session there'd be a panel of experts, talking about that one center four panels or each scenario had a panel. And people say, All right, well, so tell us what it looks like, you know, do you have samples of high density infill housing can we see that what's that look like. There's a shift at the end where people who had said no we should open open space recognized if you open up open space for development. The only thing that's going to go in there are a million dollar homes that no one can afford except for millionaires. And so by a huge margin, the shift went from open space to high density infill housing because they saw it was very doable, it didn't have to be huge, huge towers you could have four or five stories, you know, and retail space below and make neighborhoods walkable. And if you just got in and said look at all these great things but the process of over the course of the weekend, talk with each other and hearing everybody's perspectives was really remarkable and I'll say one more thing which is, there's a woman there who was only in her fifties, and her parents had this house she'd brought in. She had three siblings and her parents were close to the end of their lives she's like when my parents go, the house will be split between the four of us. And if we sell it, none of us will have enough money to live. We can't all live together because everybody has families. And I'm the one who's going to be a single person here. I'm going to lose my home I'll have been here my entire life I'm going to lose it. And there was a man in my group who owns several apartment buildings and he said, I'm going to give you an apartment rent free. I don't like you I don't want to lose your home and people were we may I mean it was an amazing moment where this guy said, I see your pain and I have more than I need. Let me help you out. And so amazing things can come out of this that aren't even supposed to be part of it. Thank you. That's really helpful. And I want to go back and marry the idea of deliberative polling to a story I've told in in OGM calls I think several times but I'll tell it really quickly once again. Jimmy Wales, a week after Pope Benedict was made Pope, said that he'd got a lot of congratulatory emails from from journalists and others, like how quickly Wikipedia had a page up and he laughs and he says, we had a page on every bishop who was up. All somebody did on that when the white smoke went up was change the first paragraph rename the page and hit save. And there was a great thorough profile because Wikipedia is an ongoing adventure to understand the world and digest it and make it better all the time. The problem I had with deliberative polling was that they had to commission papers to do position papers. This was a once in every every now long period event. This wasn't a town hall or an ongoing conversation or an ongoing meeting of any kind. It was a very special, you know, the deliberative poll was a very special event that wasn't likely to be repeated in this particular jurisdiction again anytime soon. I don't know of any communities that do deliberative polling regularly all the time because they folded into their process. But also this notion of being in conversation debate and experimentation in your communities over time is the thing I wish we did. And we don't do it and Oscar Wilde famously said, you know, I'd go for socialism but I'd like my I like my evenings. I'm paraphrasing him poorly. Because because being in community and being engaged takes someone's time, but it doesn't take everybody's time and if some people are actually earnestly in that effort and if that's transparent and visible to the rest of the population, then we can choose where we are on these different issues in more productive ways but I think we need to rethink how we make decisions and how we how we do things together from a much more thorough basis than we have been doing so far. Stuart whenever you're done swallowing your next and you're muted just in case you're not noticing you did. Thanks. So, just a few random thoughts one anthropologically. To my knowledge, people used to hang out in groups of, you know, somewhere between 14 and 20 people that that was the optimal for human beings to get along and work well with each other of course we're, we are way beyond that but it just points towards something that's important in terms of where we are and mass civilization. To just to follow up with Ken. I was, I was a volunteer facilitator for 5000 people after 911. I invited many of the relatives of survivors to meet at the Javits Center they have 500 tables of 10 to figure out, you know what to do with ground zero. There was polling, but there was also some textual response in terms of input from each of the tables, and somehow they have an algorithm that processed everything and as people left, they were given, you know, a multi page report on what the outcome of the day was. So, you know that ties into the whole motion of Jerry what you raised I think the, the term of deliberative democracy, and then the lenses. And this goes back 2530 years ago, john and john, I can't remember their exact name. I think that the guy died recently, Johnson and Peter, Trudy, lenders, Peter and tree, Joseph lens, right and Peter and Peter just passed away. Yeah. They were talking about, you know, deliberative democracy using technology for local communities 2530 years ago. It's, it's an it's a note. Yeah, it's a no brainer in some ways it's a it's a it's a no brainer. That's it. That's all I'm going to say. Thank you. Where does that put us. And how might we shape this a little bit into our conversations go ahead Ken. David Gertien, who some of you may know, talks about multipolar traps as things where self interest outweighs collective interest so people actually end up doing things that are harmful and long run to themselves because they're, they're saying I myself interest and that's cancer, essentially, from a biological standpoint, you know, if you're taking stuff away from the, the larger body of humanity or the planet or whatever larger body you're part of. Eventually you're going to end up, you know, terminating either yourself or the planet or both, as we may be heading for right now. So, I think it's just really interesting to recognize. There's, you know, essentially this call was supposed to be about collapse. We've come at it from an obtuse angle but I think we're still talking about the same thing of most of the really hard technological problems we're facing have fixes climate change is a little more complex than that but most things have. We, we have the technologies to solve it but we lack the ability to come together and say, we will do this collectively because there's too many individual interests saying no my interest has to be represented here and it can't exist with yours, So, that takes it to a very different, different plane of alright if that's the issue. What's the appropriate way in to start to unpack this and have it work in a different way, so that we might all be behaving in ways that serve our collective interest instead of go against them. Thanks, Ken. Anyone else. Go ahead, Doug. See, I think that if we say that we have the technology that they only blame is on us for being so stupid. But if we don't have the technology we have a very different problem. And I think it's just obvious we do not have the technology. We do not have technologies that can scale. We do not have technologies that will not produce more CO2. So we're deeply stuck. And I think only recognizing that we have a chance of moving the civilization forward. Thank you. Anyone else. I see Julian is spending time in Oppenheimer's living room. I was just going to ask whether. You know the term multipolar traps was was. Mentioned and must feel like the bipolar traps. Trap. Well, traps that we live with. In the US. Maybe worse. And my multipolar traps. But. Not sure. Just want to say that. Thanks, Michael. And I would love to know more about them as well. I remember the first good book of history I read was called tragedy and hope by Carol Quigley. In which he describes in part he describes how finance the world of finance was shaped from 1900 through 1966 when the book is published. And a piece of it is his description of the Great Depression. And I think the Great Depression was a multipolar trap because what he winds up describing is how each country's policies basically wedged it against the other of the other countries and how nobody could extract himself from this thing because everybody had sort of beliefs and dependencies and debts and whatever. That that had them all locked in place with lots of players at the table with lots of money at stake the whole global economy at stake. Judy the floor is yours. I'm just reflecting and listening in terms of thinking about gaining attention and then action and engagement. We're living in an increasingly isolated culture where people don't engage it don't take the time to engage in actual thoughtful conversation, or sharing of ideas. That's part of the reason we come to this meeting. But if, if we're trying to influence large groups of people, it still ends up starting with one or two, who then influence two more and then you have four and then it can build. So I'm wondering if there's room for a conversation about small initiatives that can become models to expand and be more broadly applied. And only influence a limited number of people personally, and books only reach a certain number of people based on reading level and behaviors, and that's the same problem we have with the news media. So in a sense, it feels to me like there's a piece of personal connection and personal responsibility. It's one of the underlying things that we could try to focus on. I think that's a piece of what I was pointing toward when I was like, how do we let's focus on the resilience revival revitalization side of it of what's being done what's working really well, what gets picked up. Carl then Doug C. Carl then Julian and Doug C sorry. Okay, yeah, the way for ambulance to go by. Yeah, actually, I just posted a link there was a tragedy and hope there was an interview with David Allen and the guy who interviews them actually does use the brain to read. Yeah, the. Yeah, I'm glad you brought up the resilience thing because I'd like to see if we could actually vote. I mean every almost every group on part of this just like in seems to be in doomsday mode so it would be nice to try to focus on the resilience piece of it. I posted a number of links and stuff on one of the workshops with my school we actually had Donna with George Mason we actually had Donna Hicks talk and stuff and she talks about dignity and conflict resolution and stuff too so there's and then I also posted Mary Alice Arthur she's been part of the storytelling community here in DC and she's referring to that in the video I posted but it's really comes down to this so I mentioned it before but facilitation and stuff I mean that we can that we've developed a way of being in these meetings, at least we get to escape for an hour hour and a half at a time and then it's really experiential I mean people have to experience that there's a different way of being than they are than their dominant thing and then you can like Ray Anderson talks about you can't really hold people accountable unless you can show an alternative. And so, I'll stop with that but look for a resilience conversation here in the future. Cool. Thank you. Julian then Doug C. So one thing I was wondering about it I haven't heard it come up was the idea of the bad actor. And the problem with discussing a lot of solutions is that are people have vested interest in making sure there aren't any solutions. I think for the term click bait for example, I brought up remember the main not as an example of who did it but the fact that the way it was used. And this morning, I think Rupert Murdoch has stepped down but I don't expect that the Fox network is going to change its ways. And so you can come up with all the solutions you want but if you have lots of big interest investors who have their own somebody. And I mentioned earlier about the needs of myself out by the needs of the many, you know, and brought opposition to Star Trek to. But the problem that I haven't heard brought up and really discussed is what do you do when they're a group of people who are absolutely dedicated to making sure you can't fix anything. And I don't have a solution. I'm just an irascible old man, but I think that can't be left out. Exactly. That's what Schmackenberger says. We're always going to have actors outside of any system that you you develop to fix things that are going to just act on their own self interest. Can you spell spell Schmackenberger put in the chat. Yeah, somebody will put the Schmackenberger has a lot of a lot of long interviews online. I used to use a slide. I don't know how often but pretty often, which was a guaranteed last getter where I'd say like how do we deal with bad actors as part of a serious discussion about, you know, social media online or just how do we run civilization but that I would click and I would put up a big picture of David Hasselhoff. And everybody would like get a little bit a little bit of levity in the conversation then I would go on after that. Some people do think Hasselhoff is a good actor but I'm not among them. I knew I could count on you Pete. Looks like Pete moves. I will. Go ahead. Okay, I think we keep talking about the individual and their inability or ability to affect the group. It leaves out that the major actors of our time are big forces like climate change, debt, AI. Those are the things that as they evolve and emerge, affect the attitudes and the willingness of the whole environment, the whole society to move. And some of those things are human constructs. Others are those things are not. Yeah, but they're not individuals trying to persuade the group. I mean, there's, there's, there's sort of, in some sense, collective hallucinations or willing suspension of disbelief by very large communities. I mean, money is that it's an act of faith. Yeah, but it's an act. I think that's Akibono, the really big guy. Just my take on all this focus on what the individual can do as long as there's corporations with all these resources that are dedicated to drilling and burning oil. You can wash all the plastic bags you want and get a ride your bike and walk and stuff, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what these folks have. There's a cynical side comment to that one to point out that when corporations engage in this crap, it's all tax deductible, but when an individual engages in this crap, it's politicizing and not deductible. So that's a one method of making it trying to guarantee an outcome. We are nearing the end of our time together. I'm wondering if you've browsed a poem for us. But of course. I just, I know it's not the Jetsons, but it looks like you're living in the Jetsons house. Just go by, you know, you're expecting your flying car to pull up to a dog. It's a local minimum in generated backgrounds. I actually prefer I had a nice dark wood panel, you know, books and, you know, plants and stuff like that, but it's dark. So this one is bright. No, it's great. I just wanted to say before before Ken reads his poem yesterday on on on the call that that Gill and Ken run. It was about trying to sense making. Okay. Sense making and what popped up for me so clearly was that you can't make sense of what's going on. And perhaps that's a little bit of solace for the way our minds have all been trained and conditioned. You just can't make sense of what's going on. You can't make this stuff going on. It's just about suspending all kinds of your own levels of certainty. That's all I just needed to say that. Thank you. Thanks, Stuart. And I will just report that I am not as hopeless as you just sounded about making stuff. No, I'm I'm fine with it. It's kind of like an Alfred E Newman. What me worry a little bit, you know, I it's not depressing. It's just the way it is. And there we are. Okay. This is called the sleep of prisoners. The human heart can go to the lengths of God. It's cold we may be, but this is no winter now. The frozen misery of centuries breaks cracks begins to move. The thunder is the thunder of the flows, the thaw, the flood, the upstart spring. Thank God our time is now when wrong comes up to face us everywhere. To leave us to we take the longest stride of soul humans ever took our fairs are now soul size. The enterprise is exploration unto God. What are you making for it takes many thousands of years to wake, but will you wake for pity's sake. Christopher Fry. And I'll post that to the list. Thank you very much reread it. Thank you. Thank you. I think it's I was googling as you did that part of a play. I don't know I just have it as a poem and you know my in my library. It seems like Christopher prior wrote a play that's a poem or something like that. I didn't have chance to figure it out. But thank you. I actually had another poem I was going to read just because it's a fun poem and I but I thought that one would fit but I'll read you a fun poem. I love this poem. This is another real copo. It's called Spanish the Spanish dancer. As on all its sides a kitchen match darts white flickering tongues before it burst into flame. With the audience around her quickened hot. Her dance begins to flicker in the dark room. All at once it is completely fire one upward glance and she ignites her hair and whirling faster and faster fans are dressed into passionate flames. So it becomes a furnace from which like startled rattlesnakes the long naked arms on coil aroused and clicking. And then as if the fire were too tight around her body, she takes and flings it out hotly with an imperious gesture and watches. It lies raging on the floor still blazing up and the flames refuse to die till moving with total confidence and a sweet exultant smile. She looks up finally and stamps it out with powerful small feet. I love that poem Spanish dancer by Roco. Thank you. Thank you. That is a lovely way to wrap our call today. I appreciate your all being here consistently over time and thoughtfully with your presence and soul and spirit. All comments conversations welcome on the list and see you all in a week. Have a great week.