#3 The Only Way Out Is Through—Living with grace, calm and power in a VUCA World | Call #3

All right, welcome, everybody. See you all coming in. This is Shel Horowitz. Hello, Shel. Everybody, please turn your mics off. I'd love to hear your voices directly, but we've got too many people for that to work. So I'm going to ask you to communicate mostly through the chat. I just put some ground rules for the call on the chat. Please keep your audio muted until you're called on. Raise your hand to speak. Use the participants icon at the bottom of the screen to do that. Use the chat for shared conversation and I invite you to be active there with ideas and questions. Personal communications to either me or anybody else. Use the private chat mode. The call is being recorded and it's being live streamed on Facebook right now. The chat is not being made public. You can save the chat using the three dots at the lower right hand corner of the screen if you want to capture anything that's being put in there. Okay, so welcome to the third call in this series about how we live with grace and calm and power in a vuca world. Something that we are all in the midst of. And, you know, it's a strange world that we're in. I don't know if you saw the poll out of YouGov in the UK a couple of days ago. They asked people who wanted to return to normal to pre Covid normal. Hold up, hold up two hands. Give me your estimates of the percentages. What percent of Britain do you think wanted to go back to normal? Wendy's saying none. None, none, none, none. She's close. It's 9%. And why is that? Because people felt a sense of calm. They liked the clean air, they liked the sense of collaboration and solidarity with other people. It's a bit more complicated than that. There's always nuances and polls, but it's startling to me and it tells me that we're on the threshold of a new world here. Could go bad, could go well. But there's clearly a hunger or a recognition that what we've been taking for granted as the normal isn't the new normal. And there's all kinds of discussion about returning to the new normal, what the next normal is. I want to suggest that we are active participants in that drama, not passive participants. And that's what we're going to be talking about here today. Thank you for joining me on these calls. I know some of you have been on them before. Some are here for the first time. This is an experiment and you're joining the experiment with me. I don't know what shape these are taking going forward in the future. But what I want to do is look for ways that I can make a contribution into this dialogue with you and experiment together about what kinds of conversations will be powerful and supportive for all of us. And this is also kind of market research to figure out what sorts of calls with what structure, with what length are going to make sense for us. So we're practicing as we go along. We've taken into account for today comments that many of you have given us in chat and email and survey to the prior calls. So some want to hear more from me, some want to have more dialogue, some want to have more theory, some want to have more action focus. So we're walking through that space trying to find the right balance that works for you all. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas with us. This is not scripted. There are a few things, some notes that I have and some things that I want to read to you. But mostly this is a conversation that will emerge with us all together here, for better or for worse. My co host, Gene Dunaway in Arkansas is on the call also handling some of the logistics. He will be monitoring the chat probably more actively than I will be able to do because I want to pay attention to you. But that's a place where you can ask questions, you can use the participants icon to raise your hand and he will be the person recognizing you and unmuting you. When you speak, please speak to the point, speak briefly in consideration of giving people a chance to participate and please unmute when you're done. Okay, so just a brief recap, both for those of you who were on the call before and those of you who weren't. The two prior calls we talked about a bunch about mood. I asked you at the beginning and end of each call, what's your mood? And let me ask you today, not your mood in this instant moment right now, but what's your mood these days? What's your characteristic mood? What mood are you in when you wake up in the morning, before your heat, before your feet hit the floor? And we'll say, we'll have more to say about mood later. It's going to be an important part of our conversation because how we speak, how we assess ourselves, how we engage with others is I think, a key part of the work. You'll hear a lot from me. That reflects some guidance from Dr. Fernando Flores. We'll talk more about later. But he has been a giant in the world of language action, how we create worlds with our words and Here, as we are sheltered at home, our words are one of the most powerful tools that we have available to us. We also talked about the three curves or the three trends that rule our world, and the blindness of modern society to the exponential curve and its limits, and to the sigmoid curve, the S curve that is present in living systems, fundamental in living systems, just as the exponential curve is fundamental in economic systems. And we talked about the blindness and the disconnect between those two patterns in our lives. And we talked about the notion of stress testing, which is something that doctors do. If you take a treadmill test to check out your heart or engineers do to see where a system breaks, push a system to its limit and see where it breaks and see what you can learn from that about how to design better systems or manage better health. We are all in the middle of a stress test that we have not chosen. And think about it as an experiment on a vast planetary scale. And we'll talk more about that in just a moment. Let me start with. Some framing thoughts. While Covid grips our minds, the climate crisis not far behind. They seem different on their face to some people, I think, not to the folks gathered here. But they share common roots and common dynamics and perhaps common strategies. In both cases, we see what Alex Steffen calls predatory delay, and the impact of that very dramatically. In the case of COVID you see in the charts the impact of early action on the promulgation of the disease. Both of these reflect a blindness to living systems, a blindness to the dynamics and the distinctions of systems, the failure of management systems to reflect and to dance with physical and biological reality in our economic and social lives, a blindness to the financialization of everything that has gripped the world for the past 50 years. A blindness very much on our part, folks assembled here to power and our relationship to power, and a blindness to the shredding of what Doris Lessing called the substance of we feeling, of the sense of commitment and solidarity of Terrans, inhabitants of the planet Terra. And there's a hint there I mentioned in the Last Call. Bernard's book down to Earth. Solidarity figures very strongly there. Flores and his and his colleague Bea Rouse sent out a piece of writing yesterday, which I share with you. With their permission. The coronavirus pandemic is a legion of events teeming with the unexpected. With it, we are given the opportunity to observe the reconfiguration of the world. No one can know or predict what will happen and how our norms and habits and ways of doing business will have to change. It is an astonishing time to be alive. And, you know, it's a striking way to talk about it because most people talk about it's a terrifying time to be alive. It's a horrific time to be alive. It's, you know, it's a confusing time to be alive. What Flores and Raus are suggesting, that it's magnificent time to be alive, because the opportunity is open. In a world where 9% of Britons say, I don't want to go back to normal, and whatever the corresponding numbers are in the US which of course is not one place, we see that now we're on the threshold of new worlds. Everything will be different. Whether it's how nations coordinate or states within nations coordinate, how we treat health and disease, how we address questions of public health. Perhaps we're recognizing in the United States that my personal health doesn't exist. Without public health, I can't just take care of myself for my family. It's just that game is over for most of humanity. The world will reconfigure. The international order, even pre Covid, has been breaking down. The structures that were set in motion after World War II are. If not gone, they are going. The dominance of the United States is going. The rise of China clearly is happening. But even the possible dismemberment of nations and national configurations. So it's a very uncertain time. There are lots of people who have interests and preferences of where it goes. I invite us to be thinking about that, too. Not just how we survive the pandemic, but how we position ourselves to contribute to the world that comes, how we help shape that world that comes. So what does this provoke for you so far? Raise your hand if you want to speak. It's a lot to take in. I realize, Just looking, what some of you have posted so far. Panicked, grateful, impatient, anxious, but determined, which I find to be a really interesting one. And this is what Flores and Rouse are hinting at. In a time of great uncertainty, we can still move with resolution. We can still be energized and creative. And the challenge is to be open to profound uncertainty. We don't know what's happening next. Anybody who tells you they've got a prediction of what's happening next is whistling in the wind. And yet we can live in uncertainty, with terror, or with some sense of adventure. If any of you are surfers or sailors or white water rafters or maybe even dancers, you know that the next move is not set. The moves emerge from the moving. So.

I'll say something. Gil, this is Jan and Sebastopol. And I just am experiencing the same. The same thing that they're writing about. Just a kind of magical observing of people behaving differently. In the last three weeks, I just. I'm just completely. As a kind of cultural anthropologist, I'm just fascinated with the level of behavior change. And just here in Sonoma county, what.

Specifically are you seeing?

That there's a kind of intimacy and reconnection. There's. People just seem to be less distracted by all the stuff out there. I. I hear reports all the time of conversations with family members that haven't happened for years or decades. And I feel like I've been waiting for this moment for decades where the planetary reality supersedes and kind of puts everybody back at the first level of Maslow's hierarchy and really examining first things first and just feel. Feels really healthy to me.

Thank you.

All of that.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Let's go to Liza Loupe.

Hi, I'm up here on the Rich and River, and we've had a whole series of disasters. This is just the latest one. So in a sense, for two and a half years, I've been watching a wonderful upsurge of people coming together, trying to help each other, letting down a whole bunch of social barriers. And at the same time, it's felt like I was back in junior high school because when there were always cliques of the in group and the out.

Group.

And what I see in the social service agencies is a kind of siloing, which is very unfortunate in Sonoma county, having been through a series of crises, it's much better than it was two years ago. But worldwide, as I use social media, this sense that we have an opportunity to really pay attention to the things that we've been Worrying about for 50 years is pretty exciting.

Things that we've been worrying about for 50 years that are consistently being dismantled day by day in Washington. 50 years of progress being dismantled every day. So that has to figure into the story. Also, Bruce Preville. Bruce, unmute yourself, Gene, can you unmute him?

What I've been noticing, as previous speaker said, is that while people are more open because of the social distancing, I think they're more open to connecting in other channels, other media. Like this call for, you know, this zoom, zoom call isn't a good example. And first it seemed really awkward to do it, and now it seems very natural to do it. And I see much more of whoever's speaking. I see them as a person rather than some little face on the screen. It Used to be that way, you know, and, and, and the point I want to make is that I think a lot of people, whether there are visionaries or crazy people, there's a whole scale of people that are looking, imagining new futures and some of them have some credibility and some, some are just kind of gone, drifting off into this, into the ether. But, but mass, the huge, you know, mass of people that make up our society and our world who don't quite see things that way and hear all these silly kind of, you know, visionary things as very strange and unconnected to the reality they know, which is very much hunkering down. I'm the good person. Those people are bad people or they're threats to my health or they are threats to my country from China, you know, all this, all these different things that people want to do and distancing themselves and we are going through this distancing dance and how do we have everybody catch on to the broader opportunity of it rather than the threat?

So Bruce, you're speaking to a very interesting conflict. You're talking about people coming together and people distancing. Yeah, we're coming together. We're coming together pretty much with like minded folks and there are other groups have very different perspectives than we do coming together. All of us crazy at whatever level of the spectrum you want. All of us are finding that we care deeply about things. You know, we may think we care deeply about different things, but as Jan said earlier, there's a lot of commonality to that and there's very different expression of it. And so, you know, to me, one of our challenges is going to be how do we both going to play two different games here in relation to the election and getting Donald Trump and crew out of office. That's a very polarized game that's going to focus on coordinating with people already agree and getting them to the polls. That's how elections get won. But the problem in this country is not just Donald Trump. It's that we have a very divided country. We've had, you know, we've had, we've had a social war for decades. We've broken down. We have people who don't speak to each other, who don't share ideas, who have very different views of the world. I would argue have very common concerns, but a really different way that they express them. And part of our task of rebuilding is going to be to reopen a conversation in this country. Very different kind than we've had in the past few years. And this is a big challenge for us and one that I want to pose to all of you. Because a lot of our work is in language. Not just how we speak and bring worlds into being in our speech, but how we listen. And how we listen not just to other people, but also to ourselves. Because I don't know about you, but when I monitor my own communication, when I. When I meditate, when I listen to. When I listen to what I speak or just sort of monitor the internal dialogue in my head, I observe that I bullshit a lot of the time. And I feel safe making that confession because I suspect that most of you, if you watch yourself, watch your inner thoughts, you'll find that too, we speak things. Let me say it a little bit more gently. We spe things that are not accurate. We speak opinions as if they are facts. We have interpretations of events that we encounter in the world or people we encounter. And that's not a bad thing. That's what humans do. Humans cannot not make interpretations, but we confuse our interpretations with something objective. And we do it all the time. And it's bad enough when we do it in our own minds, but when we do it in conversation, it becomes a trap for us all. So one of the things I want to invite you to do today in this call and between now and our next call is listen carefully to your own internal dialogue, to your conversations with other people, to the media that you observe and listen for. What mood is that person in? What do they really care about? Are they making assertions, statements that can be tested and verified by data, or are they making assessments, a subjective interpretation that is not right or wrong, but something to be discussed? Simple. Case in point, if I say, it's hot in here, what is that interpretation? Yeah, because it's. You know, my wife could be in the same room and say, no, man, it's cold. If I say it's 68 degrees, you know, that's a testable assertion. And we got to be really thoughtful about what we fight over and how. Because a rich human world is filled with different interpretations. My interpretations, like yours, come out of my experience today, my history as a human being, the family that I was raised in, the culture that I was raised in, the history of my country, you know, centuries of Western civilization. I guarantee you someone having this conversation today in Shanghai or Beijing or Bangalore is informed by a very different history in their lives. The way they see the world is inescapably different. And having arguments about right or wrong may not get us very far compared to discussions about, how did you come to that perspective? What does it say about what you really care about in the world? Where do we find ways to move together in this? So, Harvey Stone.

What strikes me more so in the last week here is in terms of similarities of COVID 19 and climate change, is the almost lack of presentation with political candidates and mainstream media a larger picture of the world that we actually live in. There's so much focus on, you know, the ground level of what's happening with the pandemic, for instance, but there's nothing about that we, that we are moving into and have been for the last 50 years. Changes in energy systems, changes in communication systems.

Pardon me for interrupting, but you know probably better than anybody else on this call what business the media folks are in.

Yes, they're in money business.

Right. Made how?

Made by getting eyeballs.

Yeah, we're the product. That what we are the product. They make money selling our eyeballs.

That's right. For advertising revenue.

Eyeballs. And so it's, you know, if it bleeds, it leads. It's that same old game. That's not the place we're going to find the thoughtfulness. We have to create that elsewhere. I'm sorry to cut you short. I want to take one other person and then go on to an exercise for us to do together. Just mindful of the time, please. Harvey, if you would continue in the chat. Yes. Why am I muted? I shouldn't be muted. Gene, can you unmute me? Okay, good. Jabin, Javin, Kadir, please unmute I. Hill. Yeah.

What I wanted to say is that I know I think we all agree that we don't know what the new normal, if normal is something that actually exists or it's too boring to exist. We do know that there are certain trends. There's. People are seeking connection and finding new ways to get connection. People are in the nuclear family. They're having issues and challenges that need to be solved in their society.

Societies.

There's social problems cropping up as a result of distancing and all the change and chaos that's happening financially, etc. And so the obvious things like remote working is going to. Is on the rise and you know, take out delivery systems, etc. But on an industry level, we know that some industries are not ever going to be the same. What will the trouble travel industry look like, what do the airlines look like? And then obviously the telecommunications or information communications technology companies are going to.

And oh, by the way, the energy industry.

Right.

So I think we need to. We need to have a conversation of what do we amplify in our society going forward. And what do we withdraw our support from? Because we do need governance. We need transparency, we need credibility.

Well, I don't know if we need governance. I know we need coordination, governance.

Governance. But not by government.

I understand. I heard you said governance, and I'm questioning even that. I'm saying I think coordination is a more free, fundamental function. Governance is one of the ways that humans coordinate. But we clearly need to be able to work together. For me, one of the remarkable things about COVID is our ability to work together has been stunning. Not consistent and uniform. Some places very much not that. But overall, as the human community, coordination, sharing information on the planetary level, snapping into action to deal with this.

Yeah. And that's going exponential.

Just kind of possibility that we have. Jimmy, thank you very much. I want to take us into breakout groups to give all a chance to talk a bit more. And I'd like to focus this around the exercise that I proposed in the invitation that hopefully each of you had a chance to look at. I'm declaring that we're in the midst of a vast planetary experiment. And it's not one that we chose, but let's pretend that we chose it. A moment. If you were the designer of the experiment that we are now in, what was the experiment for? What was the hypothesis you were testing? Or what was the question you were trying to get an answer to? And now that we've been in this for a couple of months, what have you been learning about that question or that hypothesis? Okay, so two questions. We're going to go into breakout groups now for about 15 or 20 minutes. You'll be in groups of three. Take two minutes total to introduce yourselves to each other. I'm gonna need you to be scrupulous on time. In fact, choose a timekeeper. Count off 1, 2 and 3 so we can rotate you through. Because then you'll each have three minutes to answer those two questions.

You want to shove them the slide?

I'm trying to do both things at once, Gene, and I'm not apt. Here we go. Thank you. I got it. That should work. Got the slide up. There we go. So take three minutes each. Time keeper. Keep track of time. What's the hypothesis you were trying to test? What have you learned from the evidence thus far? You'll have three minutes each for that and then some time to discuss together. And then we'll come back and share about that. I invite you to jot things down because time is tight. You may want to think about this further after the call, you may want to put your reflections into the chat. Okay, any clarification questions about that? Real quick, We've got about 12 minutes left of the hour. I was hoping we'd have 20 for this. So we've got some things to learn about managing time. Please, you know, share in the chat what you discussed in your group, what what your hypothesis was that you tested, what you learned. And if a few of you would like to share with the whole group either about the experiment itself or what this discussion revealed, We got a hand. I don't know who it is. Yeah, Brad Warren.

Yeah, so as far as the discussion, we talked a little bit about stupidity and how many times do we as a human species need to be slapped in face? One of my partners was saying that, you know, there was Ebola, sars, mers, the Spanish flu. I mean, how many times do we have to go through something before we wake up?

If that was the question that you were using this experiment to disclose an answer to, what's the answer you found?

No, that was part of the discussion. You said we could do either one. But the question I used for the experiment was are people kind? Are human beings by nature kind or not? And the evidence mostly seems to be kind, but there's still quite a number of people that aren't like all these states that are talking about, you know, removing the shelter in place.

Let me say something that may be radical or may upset people. For most of those folks that you're talking about, the governors of states and so forth, I'm exclude the White House from this for a moment because I think it's a special case. Do you think most of those governors are acting with the intent to do damage to their people or with the intent to take care of their people? What do you think is their motive in the moves they're making?

They're afraid, they're fearful of not getting reelected and they're responding to the people that are speaking the loudest rather than.

Do you think they want to injure their population or protect their population? I'm not asking just you, Brad, but anybody wants to speak to that.

I'm not sure.

Gilbert, can I jump in here?

All right, go ahead. Hi, Sheridan Tutsla, San Francisco.

My company right now, we're doing a.

Portal for small business resilience and we're.

Talking to states, about 12 states, 10.

Of them are red states, you know, West Virginia, Louisiana, Kansas. Keep it really focused. We don't have a lot of time because I don't want to get Started. There is no difference between the red and the blue states in their concerns.

About COVID and economics.

Survival. Okay. It's the same. Thank you. All right. And that's. And that's my suspicion. And it's a hard one for those of us on the left coast and in blue states to listen to. But one of the things that I learned from this experiment, for me, the hypothesis, can people collaborate? That's question number one. And they. And it appears that they can. The other is, you know, what are people's motivations and how they act? And what I'm learning is that people have very common intentions and very different interpretations of how to move on those in the world. And I say that not to make nice. I think, you know, I think there are exceptions who are psychopathic and. But that's a small case. But it comes right back to the political challenge for us of how do we reform and take power and exercise power wisely? Not power over, but power with. Because it will take power to open the world we want. And there are unusual allies available to us if we have different conversations with people that we don't normally speak with. Again, that may not be the primary task for the next six months, but it's part of the work of the rest of our lives if we're going to build a community that will actually serve life going forward. Florentine. I think I should hang on. I've got Florent coming next.

Okay.

Am I on? Yeah, I think so.

Okay. Hi, everyone.

Yeah, well, just to make it short so everybody has a chance to speak. But, yeah, the hypothesis we wanted to check in our group with Harvey and Jeb was basically, how do we find people we can trust? You know, and that was the point of that experiment. That was one of the points. The other point was, you know, finding, you know, basically placing ourselves in an extreme, extreme circumstances to see what kind of leap forward we can make as a human race that we would not be able to make otherwise. And last but not least was to say, well, how can we shape the system differently? You know, if we put it in an extreme pressure to shape it and to make it more sustainable and resilient? Eventually.

Yeah, thank you. I have a parallel question that I've been sitting with, which is what happens when what we take for granted disappears and we notice that we've been taking it for granted? In Delhi, people can see the Himalayas for the first time in 30 years. And if the choice goes to them of, like, you can either see the Himalayas or you can have an Economy, that's one kind of game to play. But if the game is what kind of economy would we need to have so that you could see the Himalayas and be well fed and be healthy and have the kind of city life you wanted, that's the threshold that we're on now to step into that world. Daniel Aronson.

Just a quick answer to the question about motivations that relates to our discussion. I think that what you've just said there is reflective of the idea that there are different potential narratives, that one narrative is an either or narrative and one is not. I think one thing that just came up for me is that they're also different players. When you say protect their people, I think some people define their people much more narrowly than others. The South Dakota governor who saw a huge and growing infection, I think it was South Dakota and said, you know what, it's localized among these meatpacking employees who are not native born Americans, not Republicans or constituents or voters, and just said, you know, yeah, we're not going to do any distancing. I think that was a definition of who we encompasses.

Good point, Daniel. And you know, one of the things that I raised in my initial provocation for these calls was Fernando Flores observation that this pandemic reveals these potentially reveals that we are one planet with one biology. And that's the fundamental. And we have all sorts of stories on top of that about our differences, our demographics, our national relationships, our economic relationships and so forth. But the biology isn't denied. We are one biology. The virus doesn't care who you are. And there's starting to be a recognition of that. Bruno Latour, the French political philosopher, author of down to Earth, which I shared with you last time and want to encourage you to read or skim or wander in for our future conversations. Warning. It's a very troubling book, really shook me a lot. Latour said this history is initially marked by what is called deregulation, a term that is given the word globalization, which sounds like unifying across the globe a pejorative caste. The same era witnessed everywhere at once explosion of inequalities. These two phenomena coincided with a third that is less often stressed beginning of, of a systematic effort to deny the existence of climate change. He proposes to take these three phenomena as symptoms of a single historical situation. It is as though a significant segment of the ruling classes, what we now call the elites, had concluded that the earth no longer had room enough for them and for everyone else. And Latour characterizes the game of climate denial as the elites pulling up the ladders and saying there's a safe world for us and there's this other world for everybody else. And that sits behind all of the stories that we're talking about. The good news. I'm going to go to Floris on this one and then we're going to wrap up for today. Again, please put your comments in the chat. I will send you out a follow up email with some survey questions and a chance for more reflective comments from you on that. Hopefully you're interested in doing this again. Florists and Spinoza and Florists, I should say, in that order, have a book called Disclosing New Worlds. It's hard to get. I encourage you to find it if you can. It calls for a recovery of a way of being that has always characterized human life at its best. Humans are at their best when they're making history. And we are in a historic moment now, not when they're engaged in abstract reflection, but when they're intensely involved in changing the taste taken for granted, everyday practices in some domain of their culture. History making refers to not wars and transfers of political power, but to the changes in the way we understand and deal with ourselves and I would add, with each other. There are three major arenas, these folks say, in which we make history, entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the creation of solidarity. I want to suggest that that word solidarity is going to figure more and more in our conversations here and our conversations in the world. How is it formed? How is it nurtured? How do we act on it? In ways that contribute to it and build it and actually build that into what will be the next taken for granted of the worlds that we're building and the worlds that we're living in. So again, I want to repeat my invitation to you. First of all, of course, if you found this conversation valuable, let's do it again. We will. Based on today, I think we need to do a longer call. Some of you said you preferred a half hour, some preferred an hour and a half. But I think we'll experiment with longer so there's more chance for conversation. I want to ask you again, as I said before, to listen. Listen to your own internal dialogue. See how that has shifted in the context of this conversation. Notice what you are saying to yourself and what you prepare to say to other people. What's true? What's an interpretation? Is the interpretation accurate? Is it useful? Is it powerful? Listen to the people you speak with and listen to the people that you listen to, whether it's, you know, pundits on the media or governors or mayors. What have you listen at another dimension, not just to what they're saying, but what's behind what they're saying. What do you interpret? They authentically care about whether or not you agree with their actions. How are they dancing between interpretations, not testable and testable statements, and see what emerges to you from that. And third, and not least by any means, we're in a game of power. We've seen power shift in this country. We've seen disastrous consequences. It's not uniquely here, it's happening around the world. Whatever our grand schemes for a sustainable, regenerative, collaborative life in our communities and our countries. And I'm going to go on the soapbox here, we don't get to have that without a different administration in office after November. I've been struck by many of the people that I'm engaged with who say, I don't know what to do. I want Trump out. I don't know what to do. Well, there's a lot of things to do. I've put together a list. I will share it with all of you after the call, ranging from supporting voter registration, get out the vote efforts, donations to candidates in targeted swing states aimed at not just winning the White House, but winning the Senate and the House of Representatives and state legislatures and governorships where census and voter access is managed in future elections. I say this at the risk of I've got business clients on the call. I may be alienating people, but I think this is the truth. We don't get to where we want to unless we change that, because we've seen the world that we care about dismantled around us and that needs to be reclaimed. I said in the breakout group this will be the close here, the realization I've had in the last few months about power. I grew up as a liberal New Yorker. I'm now a progressive Californian. You can make those definitions what you will. I have lived in a particular worldview, and that worldview has included learning to hate power. Because I've hated the way I've seen power exercised in my life by national governments, by large corporations, and by various kinds of people who I disagree with. And I draw a false conclusion from that. I drew the conclusion that power is bad. And I was in a naive conclusion to draw because power is inevitable. Power is a feature of the world that we live in, both the world of physics and the world of human relations. There are many kinds of power, political and military and economic and social and ideological power. We all have it to some degree, we exercise it to some degree. It's time for us to face that forthrightly and clearly and look at what does it mean for us to build power and embrace power and exercise power. Not power over necessarily, which may be the kind of power that we don't like, but power for the things that we care about. We're at time. I'm going to wrap here. I will encourage you before we close the call, in the lower right hand corner of the chat there are three dots. Click those and save the chat for yourself. Because people have been posting not just thoughts and ideas and questions, but resources for you all. So grab those before we shut down the call. Thank you so much for being here. Please watch for the email with the survey questions. I need your guidance to help shape these going forward in a way that's going to be most useful for you. For those of you who I didn't get to call on didn't have a chance to speak to the larger group, my apologies. Were trying to figure out how to dance this dance with the best balance. And so my apologies, first of all, and I welcome your guidance about how to design these calls so they can do that more effectively. Okay, thank you so much, everybody. Thank you for being here. Be safe, do good work and I'll see you next time. Thank you. Bye. That I've been sitting with. Which is what happens when what we take for granted disappears and we notice that we've been taking it for granted. In Delhi, people can see the Himalayas for the first time in 30 years. And if the choice opposed to them of like you can either see the Himalayas.