 So welcome Carol Gold, you are a professor of philosophy and distinguished senior researcher at the Center for Future Mind at Florida Atlantic University. And that sounds like a very fascinating project. Would you like to tell us more, not bureaucratically, but more philosophically, what, what is a future mind and why should we care for the future of the mind? Well, I think because it's in, it may be in great transformation, significant transformation. This center was started quite recently by a philosopher of mind in AI, who came to FAU, she's half in the brain institute, half in philosophy, and I've had many discussions with her about, you know, AI, and she's a transhumanist. So, you know, we've discussed that quite a bit, but I'm interested in it too because one of the things I work on is aesthetic properties of persons, which is a concept that I've been developing, I've developed it in a number of articles and it's developing it more in my, in a book I'm writing right now on glamour, which I see as an internal, not an external, more theatrical concept, which it's usually associated with. I connected, I'm developing a concept that actually goes back to the original meaning of it, which had to do with witchcraft or concealment, secret knowledge, and so forth. And so I developed, I have a distinction between true glamour and false glamour. I actually wrote about it a long time ago, and then it kind of came back to me, there's something I, you know, and I had new ideas about. And then I started, as I was thinking about it, I wondered, well, could an AI entity have glamour or have charisma, or have any of these other aesthetic properties that we might attribute to person. Could, and in a way this connects to something that you're interested in at least, because you're interested in improvisation. As am I, and I'm also interested in, well, the mind and I'm very interested in the notion of philosophical health, which is the concept that you introduced and the idea of. And especially the idea of health and also mental health because I work in philosophy of psychiatry, as well as these other areas so all of these things tie into mind. I'm, I'm very interested in connecting some concepts and aesthetics with AI and, and so forth. But to get back to philosophical health. It's a fascinating concept and one reason is, is that in philosophy of medicine, and I know that you're a medical humanist, but in philosophy and medicine, one of the chief questions is what is health. You know, because it's been defined in different ways, which does it mean for a person to be healthy is based on some statistical norm. Or is it based on some kind of concept of flourishing. And by the way, you asked about the Center for Future Mind, and one of the one of the driving forces is an attempt to understand human flourishing. Is, is health more than just meeting the statistical average or being an adequate functioning specimen of a species. You see, I mean so there's some very interesting questions here and so when we talk about philosophical health. Well, of course we have two different ideas here, what is philosophy of course. And then what is health. And I think that when I was getting acquainted with your concept. These are questions that were going through my mind and, and one of the things that you pointed out, of course, in an interview I can't remember who is with forgive me, but you pointed out that philosophers have the different philosophers have different concepts of what philosophy is and what, what are we doing. I believe you are the one who pointed it out and so we have that but I think I think you and I can probably adopt a sort of intuitive notion and I think we probably agree on what philosophy is. I do think this question of health is important. And I think especially as philosophical practitioners it's something that could be explored. It's interesting because in what you said, and it's, it's very rich but I can see the, the curious and playful attempt to unify all that through the idea of health. For example, and the idea of measurement to which you refer to via statistics, I would argue that biomedicine today have nothing to say about health. That's not their business. They are in the business of illness and absence of illness. Those things can be measured. Well, the idea of health that I'm trying to develop is not one that can be measured. Indeed, as you were saying it's about flourishing it's about our participation to the creative flow and I think we'll say more about that because you are a musician and I'm very curious to hear how you connect music with with philosophy. So I am quite surprised that the idea of a future mind is attributed to the responsibility of a transhumanist that is actually a little bit scary for me I don't know her so maybe she's she's a lovely person. She's much more than a transhumanist actually I find her quite, quite extraordinary because she deals with and she consults with some national very important national organizations like Congress on the ethics of AI. You know which I think so she's broad but you know we've talked a little bit about transhumanism. But if I may just sense this is improvisational as you, or at least you said in the beginning, if I may just go back to one thing you said about the domain of the biomedical seems to be more disease in the absence of disease or illness in the absence of illness I think you put it. I think all too many people in medicine to find health as the absence of disease. Yes that's what I meant and I think that's, of course, a problematic definition right because that equates health with measurements and therefore with norm. And one thing that I am attempted to convey with this idea of philosophical health, why it's needed in complement to physical and psychological health is that these two previous forms of health are increasingly being equated with with measured forms of life right and and that is not only evident in the biomedical realm, but also it is slowly invading our lives our existences and the way we see each other. Right we see each other through metrics, through what I call sometimes Eric small mania right. And so, when we are talking about health as a relationship to to a creative flow that is not only anthropocentric. There. It connects more to practices. Like music, which with which you're familiar with. And the way we it's worth saying here that the way we connected we were at the conference together on philosophical counseling. And I alluded to the importance of improvisation as a as a existential attitude. And I, of course, the first example, the first metaphor that comes to mind is within jazz, and then someone. I think it was our dear friend. Elliot right Elliot Cohen mentioned classical music and and and I said well I think that even in classical music there's the example of Baroque music but there is an element of of improvisation that is perhaps less evidence. And you seem to agree with that and I would like to know more. Since you are, I believe, I, by the way, what is your main instrument is it. Well, it has been cello. I mean I studied other but and actually with all of my work at the university, you know I didn't have as much time. I was just getting so crazy. You know so I, but I, I studied it for decades. I'm decades, really many and you know it when time permitted I would practice five hours a day, you know and so but I also played flute for a while and loved that too but I couldn't do both you know you Well, if I couldn't I'm not that kind of musician and I but I but I love I love the cello and actually I have an article it's an old article that I wrote about improvisation and classical music because I think it's an incredibly important element of it. I think it is in all the arts and one another art that I'm quite interested in is, is painting, you know, not just the visual is a painting in particular, and, and of course you and I both right. So we know how improvisational the arts are. But with regard to music, I think that whenever we act we're always interacting with our environment, we're reacting. And part of that environment since you asked about music is the sound that we produce. Are you a jazz musician, if I understand it or I'm an amateur musician, not at all regularly practicing. You know, as you, as you mentioned in that is something very important that we can dive into a little bit more. It's very difficult to do various different things very well in the matter that really expresses some form of singularity. So when I was 17. I, on the one hand, I was playing music composing songs, etc. On the other hand, I was writing already. And, and I thought, okay, will I will I go more into the music way of expression or more into the writing. And I decided to go into writing. And I sort of the for not killed it's a little bit dramatic. I killed the musician in me because I still play for myself or for my daughter, once in a while I take the guitar. But, but indeed, I think what you said about the cello, and I would like to hear more about that. Because I think there is an echo to philosophical health in the world where, especially the Western world we are presented with so many choices so many possible cells. And a lot of people in consultation. I see them even at 40 or 50 they are still lost in this idea that they can be many cells at the same time and they want to be this and that. And, and it seems that many of us have forgotten this, the, the, the celebrity of less is more of pruning of focusing on on one skill and finding diversity within one art. And so that there is this superficiality right of wanting to do a little bit of everything and in the end, perhaps not doing anything and I think that is, that is very related to one aspect of philosophical health which is the courage to to be a minimalist in certain way but, but in another way that minimalism is extremely rich as a relationship with all the possibilities that a practice offers. Yes, I would agree with that I think that one has to one is best on one focuses and that's I mean I'm not a professional jealous by any stretch of the imagination, even by most active. I've been a philosopher, and I made that decision, you know, at one point, myself, you know, because I was also. I mean, I never had any plans to do to do music professionally it was never in the cards for me, and I didn't have the kind of training I didn't have taken. I think it's something that enriched my philosophical life, and also at times as a form of meditation, but is, you know how that can be. But it was still, I still very important part of my life and even when I don't have a lot of time to practice and that's why I say I mean, for a while my university obligations, especially when you have lots of committees and things like that became. Just consume chip so much time and. But I also believe that if you want to do something that isn't your say let's take it out of the professional realm or something that is your chief focus. If you do it a little bit, even a little bit, I should say, preferably more every day, you know it does. It does remain part of you integrated into your identity. And I think that with. One of the things that I loved about the cello, which made me choose that is that, well, first of all, is a member of the violin family you know it doesn't have frets. And so you really have to learning has a lot to do with learning sound, and it has a lot to do with trying to achieve a certain tone, and also to all being well to play in tune. And that's critical, which is harder, you know you you learn it you do it but you also realize that when you're playing in certain keys, the notes are just a little bit different. And that's something that people don't, you know, non music musicians might not realize, and that actually over the centuries, what's called a certain note today was a little bit different. For example, right now in the a the standard a is for 40 is actually teeny bit higher. And because of those races and pitches, you know these old instruments have had to be modified over time, and which I find fascinating, you know, to me the kind of conceptual things to because it raises the issue of, you know, what what does it mean for someone to have perfect pitch for example, you know and so forth but I just loved the. I mean, I even like playing scales. I'm just playing open strings and listening to the possibilities of sound, but, alas, I haven't, I've been focusing mainly on my work as a philosopher, and on my writing, and like you, I believe that we have to, we have to be focused we have to be minimalist. And, you know, it's, it's hard now I've noticed that you have written on a wide array of things, and which I'm impressed with, I think that's great because but I also got the impression that you were able to. I must, and from having seen of your work what I have which is not a lot but a little. You know, you can, you can focus very closely on something, and then switch focus to something else if need be, just as we do if we're teaching say, you know I can sometimes incorporate my research into my teaching. But, you know, you kind of have to switch gears along the way. Now, just to go back very briefly to music if I may. I'd say that nothing has perhaps enriched or enlightened me in teaching philosophy is studying music has. It's very similar, very, very similar, because in both cases, you really don't get the point until you've been doing it for quite a while. Would you agree with that. Can you tell us, can you tell us more in what ways are they similar. Well, because there's certain things that people can tell you actually it's a little like psychoanalysis to, you know, a teacher. An analyst, whatever can explain something to you but it's not until you practice it that you come to see what they're talking about in fact it might not be until years later that you really understand it. The thing that's true is philosophy. And so you really have to think very closely about how you present principles, as you do if you're working with someone in it as a philosophical practitioner. So, I, and I think that's true. I was seeing you have the concept of philosophical health. What is it for human being to flourish. What is it for human being to gain understanding which of course is a Socratic notion of philosophical health, I think, would you agree with that. I was wondering, or two things here the first is, since you spoke about the similarity between music and philosophy, I thought you were going to this idea of attunement. It's a very interesting and which relates with the second point on personal flourishing. Lately, I've been thinking the following. And that is related to microelectric cosmology. We don't have to get into the details here but just to say that the fact that I'm able to write, hopefully, meaningfully about different topics in appearance is that I apply to them this over and over the same cosmology. Whether it's AI or neon signs as a metaphor for identity or so. So there is a an appearance of diversity, but in the end, it's the same cosmology and via the lens of that cosmology I've been lately, very lately, I'm finishing a chapter for a book I'm editing on philosophical health. And I realized we can, we cannot satisfy ourselves only with this idea of personal flourishing today in the world that is, as we know, more and more globalized and where humans and non humans are in constant interweaving. So there is this notion of attunement, even sometimes I would say interspecies attunement, but by species I mean not only, you know, cats or feline or not a biologist, but, but in fact, anything of the realm of the other that it might not have necessarily been identified as a species. And so this idea of attunement, I find it rather musical, right, as is the metaphor of harmony, which has been used very often in politics. So I suppose that in your relationship with music, there are various levels. There's probably the simple level where just the fact of sitting and with your cello and and playing something is a form of meditation. And then at another level, I suppose that when you're trying to harmonize ideas. For me it is it echoes the idea of a composer trying to to harmonize notes. Is that your experience. Well, I would say so I haven't done composition. But what I have done is chamber music quite a bit. And of course you're always reacting to the other, when you're playing chamber music, or you should be. There's not going to be much attunement or harmony. And which is ideal, I mean, you know, if you want to sort of have a musical conversation, which is partly what chamber music is about, I think analogy with philosophical conversation. The same way, and even if you have a score, say you're playing a sonata with someone like if I'm playing a sonata with the pianist. You know, there's, in a sense, you have to be attuned to what others are saying, but you also want to attain a kind of unification. And so if two people have very different approaches to playing, sometimes it just doesn't work. And I mean, I don't mean approaches intellectually, but I mean you can just hear them. And I think that that's, you know, that's one thing that makes it exciting. And it's always improvisational. Right. So there's this dialectic between improvisation, creation, attunement, and on the other hand, a sense of unity that needs to be created. And that actually echoes the existential biography that one might think may be enhanced by philosophical counseling. So you have, tell me more about your relationship to philosophical counseling in the past, present, and future. Well, actually, I would say it's more in the past and the future because I haven't, I'm just reviving my practice. And in fact, I'm, I have been certified by the APPA, both the individual and the corporate level. And when I had my practice some years ago, I worked very closely with this CEO, but it was more on an individual level, but I actually did help him. And oddly enough, this isn't a strange outcome of it, but I actually helped him develop a product, which was a surprise. But he was really interested in trying to try to articulate a worldview, and he had a worldview and he was quite confident with it. He wanted me he said to knock down his ideas so he could rebuild them and so forth. But you see, his ideas really weren't sufficient and I think this guy, by the way, is brilliant man. Okay, so I'm not, but his ideas philosophically were not even developed enough to quote, knock down to see so I was helping him develop ideas. And one of the ideas we he was talking about the various components of life. He wanted a philosophy of life. And which I thought was admirable for someone who is, you know, CEO. Very say, well, yeah, driven, let's say driven, certainly conscientious, responsible, excited about what he was doing. And his company has done well. It's based here in, in this area of Florida. And he, but he was interested one of the components of life is love. And he had this formulaic idea of it. And which I found interesting. And so we worked on that a lot. And he found that as he would throw out an idea or what he thought was an essential component. And we would, I would ask him to define it or what he thought he, he was somewhat stymied by it. He didn't quite know where to go with it and we worked for quite a long time on developing a philosophy of love that he was. And I too was comfortable with because, well, maybe we had different views because I don't think it can, I think a reductionist theory of love is impossible. And I don't think that one can exhaustively define it or analyze it. I think that there's always some little specs that's, you know, that indefinable. And so, but we, we worked on that for a very long time. And he, I think that he, he learned a lot and learned a lot about himself and learned a lot about his relationships. And, and actually I, I too did in doing this work. But I think that, and by the way, I think that he attained that that wasn't the only concept we worked on. But I think that he attained some kind of measure of philosophical health in becoming more responsive, more deeply responsive to the world and to the people in his life, his family, say. He was, you know, he was a serious person, but he, you know, he, he also, and he actually had a great kind of passion for philosophy, which surprised me, but he didn't quite know where to go with it. And so I found that now he was, he was one of my most important clients, I would say. I didn't know what to expect working with someone like that. I didn't know if this was he was more interested in kind of solving problems, maybe ethical problems or, or definitional problems with his goals or what, but he turned out he just found the interested in having and let's let's call it flourishing, you know, in the philosophical sense. There were some, a couple of clients I worked with, who, who I felt really needed more medical treatment than, you know, than we as philosophical practitioners are. Okay. May I interrupt you here and ask, because we all know, for example, I don't know, as you were talking, lack of philosophy definition of love came to my mind. Love is giving what you don't have to someone who doesn't want it. But what is, what is your definition of love then. Oh, my definition of love. Well, I think that there's certain elements to it, certain. Well, this is a question I certainly didn't expect. But, and, and, and actually love is something I have written on as a philosopher. Because I think that, first of all, it has a lot to do with appreciating a person as an individual, seeing the person as irreplaceable. Even if you have more than one love. You know, you can, you still see each person as, or, or the, your significant other or whoever it happens to be, or a child or whatever. But to really love someone I think is to see them as utterly different than anyone else. One of a kind. More unique than rare. And if you have a definition, or if you have necessary insufficient conditions for love. That's inconsistent with being able to see that person as unique, and to see your relationship to them as unique. And it will be if you see if you see a human being as unique in himself or herself. You can't. You're not going to relate to them in quite the same way as you do another person. Right, who, or who has another role like as a parent as a, as a child or as a. As a lover, a spouse, a friend, whatever, you know, because you have a friend that you love and part of what you love is, you know, something that's utterly irreplaceable. When you that's why grief I think is, is so devastating because you know that it's a loss that cannot be, that cannot be replaced. You never recover that loss because you can't recover that individual person. Does that make sense to you. The plurality of love and the, the singularity of the person, which actually is a very good. I'm looking at time here that's my biomedical as facet of an interviewer, but that connects very well with what you said in the Transhumanism, because I think we are living in a time where they're too competing definitions of singularity. So the 20th century, very French philosophy idea of singularity, which is what you said about love, it's the, the uniqueness of the person in such way that all the the rules it's a little bit like the singularity of a black hole, the laws of nature, dissolve and break that there is their infinite possibility. And on the other hand, there's this transhumanist idea of singularity, which is the machines overcoming humankind, etc. And I find it interesting, perhaps not for discussion today, but how many terms of philosophy are stolen by computer science. Singularity is one of them, but there is also ontology, right, which is for philosophers, the discourse on being, and it becomes a tax, taxonomy algorithmic taxonomy in computer science. But I would like to perhaps slowly start concluding with this idea of unification that you refer to. So, in one way, people could feel that the idea of philosophical health, and the way philosophical counseling can help them is by helping them to become a more unified person, a more coherent and consistent person, perhaps a person who indulges less in things that have nothing to do with her, in fact. And fair enough, and I think that's part of it. But on the other hand, it's the very opposite, I would say, it's also a reconnect, at least in my approach, it's a reconnection with the creative impulse of life, the sense of the possible. I totally agree with that. Yes, I think that philosophical practice, philosophical, however you want to call it therapy counts, you know, whatever. And if we use the philosophical sense of therapy and of course there are many of those, you know, from Plato to Wittgenstein. If you think I do think it can make one, some would say paradoxically, but I do think it can make one highly creative, it can, it can bring out one's creativity perhaps that one didn't even know was there. I think philosophy is one of the best means for becoming more creative, because it helps you. It gives you the kind of boldness, both intellectually artistically emotionally to look at an array of possibilities, and also to become a more compact and that creativity. I think it's also involved in becoming compassionate towards others. Which I think is important too, that's something else that I like to focus on. Often people who have problems with other people say a spouse or something, a lot of it has to do with not understanding their that person's point of view and perhaps that person's fragility. What Buddha would call, you know, their their suffering, but, you know, we're all fragile as human beings. And so I think that, you know, a creative view of life doesn't only enhance and improve one's own life and whatever one's pursuit is or just living. And as an observer of the world or whatever but I think it also enriches one's relationship which in turn makes one, if I may use the term, happier. If you can resolve, it allows one to resolve sometimes issues people have with others, which is, you know, one of the most problematic aspects of, you know, a non pathological like I'm talking that, or I assume we're talking non pathology here. Right. Okay. So, I don't know what you think of that. I think this is extremely interesting we should have another conversation about that. Of course you knew already before saying it, you anticipated that I would react on the word happy. I tend to be more spinosian use the term joy. It was actually the title of my first novel in French joy. But I understand your intention and I do agree. You know that a little bit of auto biography here. I think when I was a teenager and throughout my life. I think the influence of Nietzsche has been really strong. And because of my, let's say the biography of my first 20 years. I've become a very resilient person. And so I identified with Nietzsche's idea of great health is like what doesn't kill me makes me stronger etc right. And, and it is only later in life that I have understood that not that I think I was a cruel person, but I was a little bit suspicious of. For example, empathy, I think empathy, empathy sometimes causes as much damage as it helps in other circumstances, because it's very normative. There is it's a bit like Hollywood movies they tell you when to cry. They tell you when to feel sad when to be there. There is a very uncreative training of our emotions sometimes in in society. However, more recently and I think this is what you were saying. I've also understood that it is extremely brave to be kind. Even in the Nietzschean sense because when you are systematically kind, you also take a lot of adversity. Right. And, and the acceptance of that adversity is itself something that that makes one grow so I do agree with what you said about. If not compassion, at least, I would say kindness kindness. Yes. Yeah, understanding. Yeah, because I think understanding the other can free you. It's a form of liberation. Does that, yeah, I don't know if that resonates. Yes. Okay, does I mean, it seemed obvious to me when I heard it. But perhaps my face was showing something else. I don't know. Do we do we ever there is there is we can be kind without understanding fully the other but in the end, I agree with you that this active understanding, precisely because we are beings in constant creative flow. It's not like the other person is an object fixed there with a specific psychology to be understood as an object. Of course, it is that in the act of dialogue and comprehensive dialogue, both are actually creating new identities that reflect each other but it's a very intercreative process. So in that aspect, this is why I was a bit as it is that there is a there is an understanding which is also a meaning making process. So it's transformative for for both parties or for many if we are a group. Yes. Yes, all being well. Right. That's ideal. Yeah. And if not for the other if it doesn't, it doesn't affect the other it can still help you and still help oneself. And I think that that can be very useful in working with our clients as philosophical practitioners to help them see it as a philosophical health as a form of liberation from negative emotions. Right. Resentments and so forth. And I thought what you said about empathy those extremely interesting thought provoking. I'll have to think about that. Yes, and I mean, we could develop that there are actually there there been studies about that although studies from the psychological field which which are always a little bit problematic. Because they are about very often hammering people with questionnaires that are pre established. I would like to conclude by listening to you and ask you, what's your big project for deepest project for the next 10 years. Well, I think that one thing is that I want to continue to develop some of my ideas in, and this, and a very non frivolous way, the aesthetics of persons which I think connects to philosophical health. And I would like to do with this project that I have going right now and glamour and personhood can seal meant and superficiality of self presentation and different way modes of self presentation, and also to develop. I hope as a philosophical practitioner weeks I believe in it so strongly as a powerful tool for flourishing. And I'm interested to I mean I'm not giving you concrete projects although I have them in the works and I just finished something in Japanese philosophy that I'm hoping to integrate into all of this, but I'm I'm really hoping to get a deeper understanding of personhood and also to help others. Yeah, and, and like you I'm I have a profound interest in psychoanalysis. Yeah, so that that may be something I've developed and, you know, one thing that I've become acutely aware of is the just the contingency of life and the uncertainty of it. And if we can help if we as philosophical practitioners, or philosophy professors or just philosophy philosophers who write, if we can help people understand that and live with that more comfortably I think we're on a way to flourishing and helping people flourish. And I do think though that we have to confront this world, which is changing so rapidly thanks to technology and globalization. Although I see in Europe and here to of course this movement towards nationalism which I think well I won't go into anything political right now, but you know globalization technology. You know, biomedical technology we have this. We do have this phenomenon of AI that has to be dealt with because it's becoming quite salient and lost every area of life. You know, every area from another challenge for our illusion of normality I think that that's one of the main themes of our conversation right. This idea that philosophy opens us, I believe, to the realization that life is needs to be faced in extremists, and that the the sort of the illusion or longing for domesticated, normified life or return to normal, which is something we hear a lot in our chaotic world. Okay, right now there's this epidemic, but it will return to normal. Oh, right now there's a war but it will never return to normal. And actually, perhaps it should not if we embrace the limit situation that life is that is not necessarily one of their election suffering. And perhaps conclude there by saying that a lot of people today you discover philosophy, they and philosophy as as care or self care, they enter into it through the Stoics. And there is a lot of cliches about the Stoics, helping us separate from the world distance ourselves from the, the, the noise and fury. And, and this idea that we can attain this atarax it equilibrium where we no longer feel disturbed I said, that's not only dangerous that's not at all what the Stoics said they had very much this vision of right the fragility and this chaos. Yeah. Right. So, so word on this and then we will wrap it up. Well, okay the Stoics aside, I agree with you I think that they're widely misunderstood. But I was thinking that, you know, here's what as as you were speaking about facing the ever changing world and the uncertainties of it and the precariousness of our lives and the total ludicrity of the idea of the normal, normal life that. Yes, I mean if we can help people become more improvisational and more creative or help ourselves see that way. And I was thinking also that I just jumped back to one thing I said about love. And the uniqueness of everything of any individual but if you think about, say you as a musician, I could compose for guitarist when if you heard two different equally talented accomplished musicians play one of your pieces say that you had composed. You'd hear two very different performances to very different things because we are each so singular particularized and that and people can also embrace that in themselves. I think that we as philosophical practitioners can, you know, could achieve marvels because for many people, it's the, you know, it's the attempt to conform, which, of course, some of which is necessary. But, well, I'll tell you about this another time I've been reading an early 20th century social theorist named George Simmel, Georg Simmel, and you know how he, which is to some extent my reactions to that have to some extent made me feel this more firmly that we don't appreciate not only the other as a singular being but ourselves. And would you have anything to say about that. I will just symbol makes me think about you wrote a small text. I know if it's translated into English, it probably is. I read into in French, the philosophy of adventure. And I think that's that connects with what you said about improvisation. And, and also the curiosity towards the fact that there are many interpretations of variations of what may seem at first glance to be over and over and over the same thing. And I think what we philosophers are trying to show it's that it's over and over and over something different. I suggest that we pause the recording here. And thank you very much Carol. Well, thank you. It's been such a pleasure. I've learned a lot from our conversation equally.