tv Jessica Wilson Solzhenitsyn and American Culture CSPAN June 29, 2021 11:51pm-12:53am EDT
♪♪ ♪♪ good afternoon. welcome to the aspen institute's lecture series. my name is michael and i'm the senior research fellow at the institute and i'm delighted to have his as our guest speaker the louise callan scholar and resident at the university of dallas and classical education and humanities graduate program. the author of three books giving the devil his due and the brothers which received the 2018 christianity today book of the year award. also the author of walker percy,
theodore and the search for influence and reading walker percy novels. she received a prize for humanities from the dallas institute of humanities and culture and she's the coeditor of the volume and american culture. the russian soul and the west. she hass a collection of essays on the legacy of alexander as i cread this book or at least may of the essays it's excellent and i recommend it. she's very prolific and has a couple of other books coming out in the next year or two. the scandal of holiness and learningc the good life so currently she's also preparing the unfinished novel why do the heathens rage for publication. we are delighted to have professor jessica wilson joining us to talk today. thank you for being with us at the aspen institute. >> thank you for bringing me today. i do wish that it was a live audience.
after all, i love people and enjoy doing these things because i care so much about people and how we are all acting together as a culture. i think right now there's probably a lot of tension and fear and i hear a lot of concerns that may be they've brought you here today. if i can ask you to take a moment and jot down in the q-and-a or the chat on the live stream if you would answer a question for me about why you are here to get a sense. maybe for yourself about why you decided to spend your lunch break talking and hearing about ways in which he shows us how to fight against propaganda to fight for truth. if you could take a moment and jot some of those ideas down and give us a sense of what brought you here today and as you are doing that i'm going to summarize a few reasons to anticipate what would bring you here today at least some things
on my heart and questions i have and fears i have that have led mend to turn to consider the was he might be helpful in the cultural moment. you may worry about being lied to about who has the truth who'e controlling the narrative and we want to be wise about what is happening in the world. the fear that there is unseen tn manipulators of power out there who might silence us for saying the wrong thing. other outlets have convinced us that some ideas are welcome in those spaces and others are not and we do not want to be canceled or silenced. some of the propagator's tell us to watch out for the cultural marxist and warn about ideologies that are taking over the education system and we want to know how to stop it.
of these concerns are so valid. i feelel that myself. and how they asked us to consider if we know someone, just anyone who is intelligent and morally good. without assuming he or she is stupid or evil, perhaps we are not thinking as clearly as we shed. perhaps our thinking has been modeled by groupthink propaganda and rhetoric. perhaps we are looking at the other side and only seeing
enemies. ethey are the line separating good and evil not between classes or political parties but right through every human heart. maybe update this to the particular moment in america that the line separating good and evil passes not through liberal and conservative. this supposedly woke traditionalists but right down the middle. how the understanding of the world and how to see more accurately the good and evil both exist within us. he had to learn this the hard way. he spent eight years in prison camps instead of going through such an experience we learned.
let me give you a brief bio. he was born in 1918 and died in 2008. he actually served the red army and didn't believe in the communist ideals when he was a young man and it was during this time in 1942 he became disillusioned. he mocks them in letters to friends and worst of all according to the communists, he mocked's call-in and for this he was arrested simply for protesting the way that the communist army was treating c te
germans. when they gather together a bunch of prisoners to do scientific experiments on behalf soviet union. he was there until 1950 and went to the labor camps in the 1950s and 1963 and during this experience he laid the bricks and some of the things he talks about one day in the life of the freezing temperatures and standing outside starving and people were dying more often around him et cetera. 1953 when he was released, he thought his time of suffering was over than he was diagnosed
with cancer. then in 1962, published the one day in the life because he argued there is a stall and in each of us that we have to en route and he thought that this novel that was exposing the horror of the system would actually purge the russian people of their love of stalin and so he allowed one day in the life he became this expose for the communist regime and the way that they were treating their own people. he was exiled even though he was publishing work outsidee of
russia. he snuck out in 1968 but because of the way he was against communism, he was exiled. he didn't return until 1994. so for about 18 years and during this time he was prolific still writing the same things he was saying while he was in russia and said this was the most productive time in his life would be 18 years that he spent recounting the horrors of the regime that he suffered under. i want to tell you about my story and way of interacting. i love the literature and read almost every word but i didn't until erickson junior introduced me. ed arison junior is actually who we dedicate our book and
american culture. he helped return home to him to widespread attention when he abridged the gulags. it was alongside his home in vermont he was able to get to know the family very well. if you've not had a chance to pick up the reader it is a more well-known work and excerpt.er but during this time that i got to know him because of my interest i jokingly said if you ever go to russia please invite me and when they incited they were gracious enough to allow me to tag along t and i got to know the family.
truth it can stand up against much in the world. why is this true? think about it. he calls him towards something beautiful. he recalled how in the gulags when he was starving he would take it and he would ball it up and would create a rosary like you saw the catholics doing but instead of saying prayers, each one of those became a line of poetry and it was composing works solely from memory. it gave his life meaning even in the midst. when he gave his nobel prize speech, he said there is however a certain peculiarity in the
status of art the convincing this of a true work of art is completely irrefutable and it forces even an opposingce hard o surrender. this becomes the foundation for how it is that we talk to our enemies through things that are irrefutable like t a beauty. he says it's impossible to compose an elegant outward speech, a headstrong article and so forth but all of those things can be lies when it is hidden oi distorted when it immediately becomes obvious and then you can have another side just as elegant in argument but it's all lies which is why such things are both trusted and where political writers are speech makers that can contort and twist words that feed to their need they can manipulate audiences through the rhetoric about the goal is to make something beautiful and universal and not limited to the use of the immediate moment that
cannot be reduced. even more than the message of the art it is the beauty of the work that speaks to the soul of the person and reminds him or her of the greater destiny that is to respond to the headline. we see his great answers for confronting the lives of culture. hetu composes massive works of beauty to show how good and evil in him he finished human beings and prisoners and guards were responsible for the unjust. in the first circle is my favorite novel the one i always recommend people start with it was published in pieces and then published in britain but didn't use a full publication until 2009 until after and as i said it's from the divine comedy like
those in the scientific institute according to articles among the unhappy million. he himself believed in the msideology but it was a decade serving in the system nearly dying of cancer and feeling silenced only after all of the suffering did he rejected the materialist ideology and return to the orthodox base that he was taught. there is a key passage in the novel i want to talk about in which he shows you how this change came to be for him and as a character he puts himself into the novel. he was a marxist and so when he was there he met another marxist and the two of them had a dialogue within this novel.
he was a propaganda officer arrested for humanism and a compassion for the enemy. the two of them argue violently for and against communism so i want to play this out in two differentng sides and then unpak it for what we can learn about these dialogues without actually silencing those who are on the other side. i've asked michael miller if he will help play this dialogue out for me. i refuse to use your terminology and to talk about what you call capitalism and socialism. i don't understand these wordsan and i won't use them. >> you prefer the language of utter clarity. what do you understand? >> who the in viability of the
person. >> unlimited freedom perhaps? >> no, moral self limitation. now what is being said here let's unpack it before we jump into the next slide what is being said in this scene is a difference between theories and instead what is being offered is the concrete in a particular and not in the sense we are each licensed as individual but what he's uncovering in his character here in this conversation is that the two of them although they were both originally communists what he's beginning to understand is that communism didn't see him as a person, he was a number within the system and hege began to understand the was something more concrete that
shows us a personhood and this is what he gets at in thee conversation so let's look at a longer section of the text and imagine these two persons having this important conversation. >> how far will you get will with a purchase of a complex like that in the 20th century? those are all class conditioned ideas dependent on -- >> justice isti never relative. >> it is a class concept. of course it is. >> justice is a cornerstone. the foundation of the universe. anyone watching from a distance might thought they were about to start fighting. we were born with a sense of justice i in our souls. we can't and don't want to live without justice. >> you've got nowhere to hide. you will have to declare some
somedaywhich side of the barricu are on. that is just another word you've done to death. you've put up barricades all over the world. that is the holder ofro it. a man may want to be a citizen of the world but they grabbed him by the legs and pull him down. whoever isn't with us is against us. >> we would leave youo room. it's the other side who won't. a. >> when did you ever let anybody move freely? it is every inch of the way. >> look, my friend, look at it in historical perspectives. >> what is your historical perspective. i want to live now, not in a long-term. okay so what you l see here i rd that line but anyone who might have thought they were fighting so here you have two people
engaging withe real ideas in a conversation and it's such an example to us for how to actually have a dialogue. they are able to have a genuine friendship in this moment that they radically disagree with one another. they are able to get angry without it leading to canceling each other, missing each other's point. they are actually listening and responding to what one another of said. they are talking to each other and not just having single monologues which you see one side-by-side and never engage. this engagement helps us to practice that same kind of engagement in our lives by reading these kind of dialogues which take ideas seriously but not just as theoretical
discourse but things that matter in the concrete world and we look at this and see this side versus the side but they don't hide that.n that isn't an elephant in the room. it's a reality in which you are choosing sides and both have problems. instead, he is to stop seeing in terms of sides and hear what they are saying which is instead of sides, what about people, what about people talking about things that matter and how does that change how we live and not theoretically in the long term. what he understood is in the goo log he talks about from these conversations he actually began to understand what it means to be a human being in the world and it took this time in prison for that to happen.
he writes on the s and and in talking not only to the reader but actually talking to himself when he was in the camp he says you never forgave anyone. he's saying you but also you and praise people with an equal lack of moderation and now in understanding of your own categorical judgmentt you've coe toer recognize your weakness and can therefore understand the weakness of others astonished at another strength and wish to the best of yourself. it's a change of vision that occurs within the campus. he writes of a very politically and thoroughly. it's now not just the old nielsen we are talking to and directing it at you but now gathering you within him. we are ascending.
your soul that is dry is now suffering and even if you haven't come to love your neighbors in the christian sense you are at least learning to love those close to you. it is particularly and the imprisonment that for the first time we've learned to recognize. what he had to do was to be stripped away of everything that he thought made him who he was and the identity of the political party. his way of the music he likes, all of that is taken away by the gulags and he was stripped down to his essential self and it was in this position and others if he began to understand humanity for what it was and that these persons could have these conversations without the distraction of this is how i identify and this is who i think that i am and you get to see that real personal was come out.
what is amazing is this didn't pardon him, it actually softened him. you learn to love those who differ and at this point you learn to love christians and he actually became one but he also learned to loveho the guards and even learned to synthesize or even understand someone like stalin who as far as most of us are concerned were evil. i had a hard time imagining his face in thisos powerpoint i coud only use a drawing or illustration because i struggled with that now to be able to love your enemy. in the first circle when he writes about stalin you can see him lounging and his own biography is a great example of how his vision was. he mistakes himself as the centerto of the universe. he thinks he's more significant
than any human being on the planet which is mocked within his own realm because he fears assassination. while stalin is staying up at night in this novel he's attempting to perform some great scientific feats with the help of the prisoners that he helped walk away. he wants to contribute because he isn't able to engage with words. he contorts them and uses words as we talked about in the beginning when we talk about the nobel prize speech they still pair that language in here you have stolen trying to contribute. we also see that he is lonely as portrayed. there is no one he can consult and he is lonely because he had no one to try his thoughts out bon. contrast that witho the rest,
stalin himself is not a dialogue with anyone. he speaks only to himself about himself and for himself. to make us feel empathy for this enemy and not make him a real person and yet one who is suffering from his own ego chamber i think this offers a way out of our eco- chambers. we see through multiple lies in this novel and yet we remain ourselves. the novel in the first circle opened with a dialogue in which one person cannot understand the other and i think hearing this vision of the world should warn us returning to our own habits of polarization from those who do not think like us. it opens with a main character.
his name means the selfless one to come to understand a plot about the communists the act aée responds i don't quite understand and of course here he attempts to caution us. i don't quite understand. i don't get what you're saying. listen, listen, he cries. but the attaché still questions who are you anyway, how do i know you are telling me the truth. then how doon i know you're
speaking the truth and in the claims t for evidence do you knw what a risk i am taking that's the same evidence that he gives us in his life. did he risk his very life to tell the story of what was happening in soviet russia and the same way that he gets arrested. i'd like to conclude with reading a prayer because i hope that we listen to him. listen to a man that thought writing stories was a matter of life and death and that rereading the stories might matter just as much and so i end with his prayer for russia. you can also if you want to see it as a prayer for america. our father all merciful, don't abandon your long-suffering russia and her present days and her woundedness impoverish men
and confusion of spirit. don't let her be cut short to no longer be. so many talents you have. do not let them perish or sneak speakinto darkness without havig served in your name. out of the depths of calamity disordered people. thank you. >> thank you very much. that was excellent. we have some comments from the viewers and the chat i will get to in a second but first i love your presentation and i like how you created this tension with the philosophical project we have to speak up to the truth and this is essential to the work and yet we can easily objectify other people who don't agree with us and that can block us to this project and one of the things that stood out to me in that last example when you
have this man coming to tell the truth and you are pulling out of the americans are not listening. the westerners are not listening so it makes me think of a couple of things when the fall of the soviet union happens that it was relatives did not die that the radical spirit of the age remained and made itself into the west. before he died in 1989, the same idea that this idea is in the west and then so you have this tension between we need to get after the truth and be serious about the truth, there are problems out there and we cannot objectify. i think that is it often goes one or the other like if you are totally committed to the truth then you just will shut everybody else down. or you are just a softy and i
think that he is a good model there and that was really good. so then i will get to the comments of why people were there. you mentioned we are blind because we are not in conversations sufficiently. so what would you say as you listed in the beginning of your talk social justice that we have blind spots because we are not in an actual debate and sometimes, one thing i often say sometimes the narratives are just less false than the alternative. maybe they are not as false but they are not taking truth seriously. what would you say would be some of the concerns or warnings influenced by your own ideas of
blind spots where you could call those that have a conservative traditionalist view. where are our blind spots? >> jumping in with what our blind spots are and speaking as though they are selective, yes we are part of a culture and partac of a group but you starto have a problem when you say our because youu want people to gather and so one might be that we identify by broadband rather not understand ourselves as persons within this group and differences even among ourselves so from what i've seen in the last few years have been the
blind spot for the western culture. i grew up with an idea that the west was dominant and it is beautiful but what i've been able to understand and a lot of the things that were pulled out of the west are true and good and they can be found elsewhere. now, cultures are always changing and we want to understand what's absolute and universal and true and especially as the west moves away from some of those truths it is in the west that we have to protect and pass down. it's what are those universal human truths that the west lived and in body to for so long that we want to hold onto no matter where the culture rises up and i think that we have to see those means and ends correctly. they are universal true things and yes they've been and embodied inthe west for some tie
are going to protect them and hand them on, we have to see them in a larger identity than just the western civilization may be one more following on that. you make an important point about we sometimes think of us and them. i think it's important and something to be cautioned about. and at the same time, the views on purpose maybe it is wrong because i didn't want to say there t blind spots. this goes to a question that you addressed solzhenitsyn there is no doubt about it that he was wicked. but he was a person and it's
important to remember in the thinking of others that we don't simply objectify other people and us a stall and is the example of evil but in fact as you point out, evil runs through the human heart. so and you see the french philosopher of language and cultural critic has an essay in his discussion about jesus and the pharisees and it's a discussion where he is engaging in the pharisees you blame your ancestors for killing the prophets. and gerrard's reading is really important because he argued that it's showing because you scapegoated your ancestors, because you blame them and you make yourself innocent, it proves to me you are going to kill me and you would have killed the prophets. and i think it is interesting in
the revised catholic liturgy at the good friday service we just sent through in the revised i would have been the follower who stayed by s the cross then we ended up preparing ourselves for evil so how do you think, you've addressed this a lot but may be more developing, how do we specifically avoid objectification of those people we disagree with while we still try to vehemently disagree and pursue the truth? >> it's not reducing to people the way that solzhenitsyn tries to see them holistically and understanding that people are unfinished so this is a turn
people are i always in the process, so you can look for example at the beginning of the story it is evil and then by the time the novel ends, he's not. he's ann unfinished human being. and he literally becomes unmanned. human beings are unfinished and they don't really get taken alover. there's always a chance to be hanging on. he participates in some way until he gets to the very bottom and discovers in the lower part that he has been participating
in all of those and it is only then he can begin to purgatory, and i think all of us have to start with that complicity and also see other people as unfinished and not reduced just to their bad ideas or worst moments. >> here is a question from one of the audience members. he says my question is whether bernie sanders is a senator from vermont, solzhenitsyn when he lived there. >> i am not a biographer so i'm not sure but at the same time i don't know biography. >> okay. another question from a viewer does solzhenitsyn ever reflected in his writings on how his
novels and body truth and how god's revelation to us is embodied in jesus? >> i am trying to draw the last part. for sure the first part how yes he talks a lot about that in his various speeches on beauty and whates art is and the purpose fr writing literature the way that he did. and i think that he would be drawing from that same idea that the word becomes an aesthetic that he would have shared with someone who the centrality of the book made him write the way that he did and i think we see that legacy in the writing. ...
>> but the two things that are the most strongest argument for the christian faith that the holiness of the saints and the beauty of the art coming out ofte the church. and everything else, , everything else can just become a clever excuse to justify the darker periods of our history of the catholic church. there is the beauty of holiness and the holiness of beauty. so on thehe art question, so the
question of beauty will save the world if it's connected to truths and reason and if it's not in the reality but beauty can also lead you astray and be used as propaganda. it cansi be used to desensitize people's evil and art and totalitarianism the innocence but you are working on that area, had you address that tension between beauty will save the world and judy will lead you to hell? >> i don't think beauty can lead you to hell.
i thank you mr. fayed if you talk about it that way so i am talking about it how it sources from god but that doesn't mean i can fully understand with my reason what is beautiful so too often where imagination can be a vehicle because there are things that transcend. so a lot of people agree when notre dame that and the people were spending money to restore it and they were not able to reason through right into that but then one beauty there was speaking to them when people ltalk about beauty they talk about the justification they talked about earlier you take something beautiful is beautiful and gives beauty back to the giver that is
pleasing to the eye and so there is a different motivation in a different source of the beauty in a way to disguise that it doesn't speak to your soul that to the pleasure of your eyes even if we talk about beauty we have to understand from being transcendent and it can be used for propaganda. beautiful stories that are beautiful will be true and not under the reason and we can reason through what is true. if it is propaganda they are not true or beautiful. they are not. they do not cohere with the reality has god made it. they try to manipulate people into a false version of the world there were talking about
something different with those types of art's. >> so talking about beauty to have that pleasing of the eye causes the light to but a holistic understanding of beauty and truth to be connected as opposed to that beauty has to do with the manifestation of the truth. >> look at the new testament for the ointment on jesus his
feet and he says a beautiful thing has been done here. then people translate a good thing has been done because in the new testament beautiful and good are so intricately connected so it used to mean the same thing beauty truth and goodness are so tightly bound coming from the same isrce that anything that beautiful or good or true that response will lead you to revoke a feeling of beauty or notion of beauty. >> event for some of the suffering the real evil that it artistically presents and also it is beautiful because it is true and there is that connection. that is confusing to people. wait a minute. i can be taken away by beauty so it can mean something much
more holistic. am iha getting out? >> i have a whole course talked about christianity and are in the wonderful introduction between beauty and holiness. what they are talking about is transcendent. and what i tell students is you can be something beautiful and be wrong. you have to be trained for something that is beautiful orwell behaviors to know the good. we have to be trained and cultivated that's why we do that kind of training. >> another question just came in. what we can do to train ourselves and others to be able to respond to beauty to
cultivate the beautifulbe and then have enough courage to say i really like that song is not very beautiful but i like and make that distinction between what is pleasing to that we like and what is actually beautiful. what are things that you used to teach people to cultivate that? >> i believe inca the way that some people don't because even the nazi word listen to bach but the great books can have a great effect and they can be manipulated by pious people but those who are thinking what you are talking about to actually understand what is beautiful and good and true and then to have a better taste for them and that means
you will reject things that are unpalatablele more often and not want some of that lower stuff that speaks to the worst parts of your character. doesn't mean you don't enjoy certain entertainmentos and that it doesn't become your soul entertainment but i will watch the marvel comic movies but i will not ever say those are as great as shakespeare and i will not watch more of those than reading shakespeare. that's we have to do. so unfortunately those that that are enjoyable for the experience to havee that transformative effect. but we have to spend more of the time because we are unfinished we want to reach a higher end goal than what we started this life with. >> i tell my children you can
have the cookie but not the entire meal. i also tell the children you cannot watch the lord of the rings unless you've read the book three or five times you cannot watch any of the cs lewis movies unless you read the book about eight times and you cannot read the star wars books 20 watch the movie five times. [laughter] i love you disagree with that but here is a question. i knew you would agree. how do we get people with opposing views to open to be engaging dialogue? many think they have one a political argument because they shut the other person down. >> it's almost impossible. so look at the story and it is almostst impossible. that the same time it's better
place than impose your way of thinking. there are questions you can ask people letting them express themselves to shown openness to the dialogue. and he will show them how to respond to you in the most you are modeling to them you are open and humble and respond in turn. it may not work. but it's better than attacking them because all you will see his they will attack and return. that dialogue needs to be started first by you. >> you me this important point not just rhetorically i know your dog once dialogue with you right now by the way. [laughter] >> i have a little puppy. >> feel free to keep the dog
involved in the discussion but it is the dogma that dogs don't go to heaven. [laughter] so the question iss important because i think rhetorically you are engaging in questions but number two the questions are part of the philosophical project. so that's the question but line thatfamous says there is a dictatorship of relativism people say i thought that was tolerant? but it can only be a dictatorship because it closes the door to the philosophical project of truth seeking so it is ideology. i've learned this for so many 2h century writers that you have to ask questions. with sincere questions not
like a gotcha. that's important. >> not to play the feminist but this is where we can learn from 20th century femalel intellectuals. so those dialogues so many questions because they were living in a time when men did not want to hear their thoughts and the only way to get the men the women had some thing to say so by asking a question it would actually allow them so looking back at these philosophers who see that in action. host: you have one or two recommendations?s? >> or even a youtube clip?
are women human to? and then the reflection is good inn there. i love all of them. host: you asked a question in the beginning so why did you spend your lunch hour if they came to listen to speak about him i thought it would be interesting to hear the speaker's view on young people and the l leanings towards socialism w today. but they thought communism was sharing and caring but i thought on - - had a tell them
what they were really like with implementation. i will go through a couple and maybe you can respond. >> i am a huge fan. greetings from germany i would like to learn about democracy and propaganda. so start with those two. young students they communism is caring and sharing and how it was actually but the questions from germany how it relates to democracy and propaganda. >> sohi with caring and sharing it is quite common but look at dan mahoney. he is a scholar. any helps to edit.
that the ideas have to be lived out. so he has an argument that really is a monologue that is protesting against god but what is happening what he doesn't argue back against him he shows how the ideas are lived out in the grand inquisitor and then how you response to the death of his brother becomes christian and then how are those ideas lived out? you can say the around on - - theoretically and to implement communism and it would not be that way or if done again it
would be that way you do have bad job of communism but then again it would it be that way so then you are arguing theoretically every time you see things that's not the way it is happening so are ideological will silence other sides is not about caring and sharing that limiting the conversation to one side and silencing violently anyone who disagrees the onlyme way they can implement the system. so the ideas themselves how they are lived out to see if something is true or not. talking about students or the context but jesus was not important just foror his ideas even though they are revelation there is so much significance but how he lived that. he was doing something different and the living something different and his idea when lived christianity has not been it is less than
tried and that's a major problem. if you see the ideas played out we can begin to understand the problems at the ideas themselves but. host: maybe this is a paraphrase also to the effect that lenin is the embodiment of marxist thoughts. he makes a direct connection and it wasn't accidental. >> with stalin in the first circle where you can see him they shut himbo up in a room he is by himself and cannot hear anybody else's way of thinking. there is that funny movie the death of stalin. everybody vies for power in a place that is the quality. host: so people want to learn about authoritarianism i'm
often afraid to speak my thoughts. i censor myself so frequently often for a fear of alienating people and that's why she wanted to engage this question. that's a question that many of us feel feel so how do you see the truth withoutut hurting or alienating people? and then you hit on the subjectivity we are dealing with. so what advice from of us listening today on that question? >> at something that's really important not live by lies. if you are afraid your truth will hurt someone's feelings you don't have to say it might want to consider it's true because it hurts their feelings because it's not true and you say something that's
incorrect will that help someone live a better life than of what you are saying is true if it doesn't help that you should always question that. so you should understand where you're coming from before you speak the truth. it doesn't lessen the truth or the charity putting yourself into another person's place so we should not be afraid to speak true things but we have to make sure they are true and coming from a place of security. >> thank you for a great presentation. so quickly where can people find you? twitter? >> yes on twitter and also on facebook and linkedin and i have a website. i also have a youtube channel where if presented these
lectures at least once a year. host: thank you very much for joining us and all of you for watching this lecture series we will be having more of these so check your e-mail sign-up sign-up for e-mails for all of the events that we do and acting university is coming up in june with the philosophical foundation of what is a free society so there's a lot of interesting speakers coming in panels unfortunately because of covid it will be virtual but everyone around the world can join in thank you again for the action lecture series.