What is post-humanism and why does it matter?

Sorry I missed the online session this week. I will try to be on in two weeks. After that, I will be travelling and almost certainly getting hooked up will be problematic…

This sounds good, Marco, and I would like to experiment. Here is an outline of a potential plan.

I confess that I’m a perceptual learner and consider myself an Experientialist. I got my higher education, not in an academic setting but by living in the East Village and doing workshops on the weekends with people like Rupert Sheldrake and Jill Purce. We actually got up on stage and did things, we went out and performed, we took our stuff out into the streets. Online communities could have an impact if we found a way of adding the experiential to the mix.

I can think of several experiential style meetups where we actually do some modeling of our group in action. I believe that people will have more to talk about and with greater specificity if they have exposure to something experiential. Otherwise we end up going into infinite meta-lands with no connections to planet Earth. The relationship between the concrete and the abstract is worth developing.

It is especially hard to focus attention online but when it happens it can have a dynamic effect. I can think of Post Humanism as an opportunity to take a third level cybernetic approach ( which is what Post-human theory comes out of). I can give a demonstration if three of us show up. We can each take a role, as observer, modeler, co-modeler. We can work with the theme of communication.

And when you are communicating at your best that’s like what?

I can conduct the interview using clean language, gathering the data arising out of the percepts, concepts, metaphors ,etc.

The observer person will be asked to report on what they liked about the process, what they didn’t like, what they would like more of.

Then we can as a group go meta to the entire process.

After this we would have a sense of how to gather high quality information, improve sensory acuity and detect patterns and meta-patterns in the moment.

This is what I mean by developing meta-skills.

More about modeling and theorizing and the hazards we face. If you have lots of theories you need to develop models. Theories seek for true or false. Models focus on what is useful. Theory without a model is like pissing in the wind. We need more models as Terrence McKenna used to say. He is an exemplar for this way of working. He and Rupert Sheldrake and Ralph Abraham had some interesting conversations based on the data they had collected and these workshop like discussions are still interesting, thirty years later.

Any way that is my model of the world and what I believe I can bring to the party. To do one round of this process would take maybe twenty minutes. Then we could have an open frame where participants can take the conversation in any direction they want.

I believe this event would give participants a grounded sense of what the theoretical frameworks that Post-Human is juggling with. We could then proceed to develop other insights and exercises that would amplify further what is happening in our complex unstable social systems. .

All feedback is welcome. Let’s keep the ball rolling, gathering momentum, finding directions. If we aren’t finding new directions we are devolving into postmodern drift. ,

3 Likes

This is fascinating: Nate wants to talk (which is necessary) and Johnny wants to experience (which is necessary). Talking without experience is ?, but experience without talking is ?. Maybe both are possible.

I’m up for anything, I can assure you.

The subject, the reason for meeting, and the outcome are all equally important (to everyone involved, even if invoked by very different motivations).

2 Likes

It is fascinating Ed and I would hope we can weave together different kinds of talk. There is academic talk, political talk, jokes, humor, poetry, storytelling. My main interest is in moving from 1st person to third person in a conscious way. Many academics and theorists are in a chronic 3rd person mode. Many artists are in a chronic 1st person. All of them talk but from what perspective are they talking from? And what is the territory?

I would be using a structure to facilitate a special kind of language game for the purpose of illustrating what Post-Humanism comes out of. There is a way to bring the conceptual and perceptual into the same body-mind-field. If we stay in the language of pregiven maps we may forget how to make maps of our own. We are mapmakers after all. We were born to model. Children do it naturally. Adults, unfortunately, expect experts to do it for them.
.

3 Likes

Hey, so, in the spirit of a posthuman constellation of trickster, ‘we’(a.k.a “I”) are not proposing to respond (directly) to all the pre-ponderance of pre-discussion discussion. Nay, say we, for at this time(space), the surface of what you can see, and hear, and smell, is the shaking up a can of spraypaint, clickety-clickety-clackity, against the dangerously-everpresent whitewashed digital wall… and, pffffffff:

participant lens http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf

4 Likes

Nate, I like trickster, too, when the organization is too rigid. Unfortunately , I don’t believe we have an organization that has a strong enough definition of itself to unleash Trickster. With any archetype that powerful at deconstruction, we need to try it on for size but not get stuck in it. Other archetypal energies are needed to provide enough of a safety zone that concerns of caring people can be cared for. It is interesting that women are almost never Trickster figures.

I gather from your personal comments on the Bubbles talk ( it hasn’t been posted yet so I cant quote you) that we are in need of a reconstructive phase and that many of the deconstructors ( like Latour) want to move in a different direction.

"My argument is that a certain form of critical spirit has sent us down the wrong path, encouraging us to fight the wrong enemies and, worst of all, to be considered as friends by the wrong sort of allies because of a little mistake in the definition of its main target. The question was never to get away from facts but closer to them, not fighting empiricism but, on the contrary, renewing empiricism. "

Other quotes from Latour I like-

" Is it possible to imagine a world where scientific knowledge is able to add to the world instead of dismissing the experience of the world?"

“Local nesting, yes. Global hierarchy, no.”

And a comment by Latour on networks and spheres-

“Unlike networks, spheres are not just points and links, but complex ecosystems in which forms of life define their immunity by devising protective walls and inventing elaborate systems of air conditioning .Inside those artificial walls of existence, through a process Sloterdijk calls ’ anthropotechnics’ humans are born and raised.”

Latour is a multi-faceted and complex thinker and I’m curious if you would like to talk about him tomorrow? I especially am curious about the fact/fetish distinction that he elaborates in the essay you posted.

I am doing something different from critique as I am trying to sort out the metaphors of our particular group, which so far, has not gathered enough to sustain a critique. I don’t feel yet there is a strong group identity and certainly no walls to protect ‘us.’ Most of us do not have an ivory tower.

Latour elaborates the uses of the War metaphor but doesn’t mention the War of Metaphors. That is a war I would like to bring attention to. As most of the conversationalists are using many different metaphors ( we average about six metaphors per minute of conversation) it might be useful to step back and study this myriad use of metaphor in our every day exchanges and discover how we do that?

Hence my big research question which I worked really hard to develop"When you are communicating at your best that’s like what?"

I believe my project, if you decide to support it, would take our fragile group towards something like a ‘reconstructive phase’. This would probably require an open curiosity from those who wish to participate. To capture the metaphors on the run in our discourse events requires something more than conversation. We need to stop the stream of conversation to find the patterns and meta-patterns. It requires an experiment, a structure.

Then, afterwards, we can return to the infinite conversation refreshed and recharged, rather than more confused and burned out.

1 Like

Johnny, I should clarify that I did not really intend to embody a Trickster in any significant way. Rather, I was drawing on the archetype in a casual and passing manner (which speaks to my own lack of care/carefulness in communication, I know…more on that below), in an attempt to offer a frame for my behavior; I was visiting the thread because I had been re-reading the Latour article and wanted to share it as a potential point of discussion. The reason I resorted to the trickster idea in that context was because I felt I needed to do something to account for the “pre-ponderance of pre-discussion discussion”. While my hope was to simply to say “Hi all, here’s an article that I’d like to propose as an important piece of the posthuman discussion”, I found myself overwhelmed and ‘flooded’ by the amount and depth of meta-discussion that was already taking place in this thread.

I do support the project that you wish to enact, Johnny, and I will bring an open curiosity to it, further, an enthusiasm for it, which may not come through in my post here, but I promise, is genuine. I agree about the importance of finding patterns and meta-patterns, and appreciate any attempts to help avoid the dangers of talking past one another, or worse yet, talking unmindfully in general. However, I want to mark a couple of concerns that are raised for me, at a meta-level, more generally.

First, while I do recognize the power of bringing a skillful methodological approach to bear at the outset of such a discussion, I question whether we are putting the cart before the horse vis-a-vis the posthumanism discussion. In other words, I wonder whether your project would be better situated as a separate activity, and one that relates more directly to the broader Cosmos community, less tightly-coupled to the discussion on posthumanism. Wishing to respect the importance and value of your project, which I admittedly don’t fully understand yet (especially how it relates exactly to posthumanism), I want to note my sense that we are shifting/drifting the purpose of this discussion time away from an open, low-structure, low-stakes attempt for a group to collectively discuss and figure out ‘what is post-humanism and why does it matter’ (which is what I envisioned and hoped for, of course you may disagree with and contest these goals on their own merits), and moving toward a higher-stakes, higher-structure, more methodologically-serious discussion format. Of course, I recognize that we may be better off by treating these not as opposed goals, but in a “both-and” manner, where we take time for each approach.

Second, and this is both a response to my own first concern and to the broader conversation here, I recognize that I simply may not possess the commitment to participation and to maintaining high-resonance mindful communication at what I perceive is a significant level of labor, which may or may not be implied as a requisite for participation in this Cosmos project. As I’ve mentioned above, and elsewhere in the IC forums, I increasingly feel overwhelmed by the amount of effort and time that is implicitly asked (the amount of time I’ve spent responding, and attempting to respond, to this thread alone, while productive, is considerably more than I had hoped to be spending, and for me this implicit expectation of a large time/effort commitment is a potentially existential threat to my participation in Cosmos’ and IC). A major reason for my wanting to do the posthumanism discussion as an emergent and relatively-unstructured conversation was because I frankly feel that the process of trying to sort things out in a text-based forum is very labor-intensive. I hoped, and still hope, to commit only a couple of hours each week to participation in the Cosmos discussions, however this commitment may not match with what others are committing, and I recognize that and accept the outcome, if the group finds my level of participation wanting. I do want to note that on a sense/impressionistic level, this feels like a thicker underbrush, a heavier burden than I anticipated, and aside from my own sense of being buried by the weight of it, I suggest that it also would be perceived as a high barrier-to-entry by anyone else wishing to participate in these discussions, and by extension, in this community. My understanding of the weekly Tuesday conversation spaces in particular (and my intent in shaping them, insofar as I had an influence on it via my discussions with Marco) is that they are meant to help lower the barriers for participation in the Cosmos community, and to provide opportunities for low-stakes, or at least low-overhead, engagement. However, I am seeing a pattern/meta-pattern that is pushing in the opposite direction, and even as I appreciate these efforts as attempts to raise the overall quality of our time, I feel the need to raise my concerns about the toll that insisting on ‘doing things carefully’ can have, namely the perversely-exclusionary effect of raising the barriers-to-participation, despite having the opposite intent.

Johnny, I know that I’m probably misconstruing your project in some ways by raising these more-general concerns in relation to your specific suggestions, and I sincerely apologize for that. It is my sense that we don’t really have a ‘problem’ here, and I think it will work well to structure our time in two parts, to include a demonstration and enactment of your methodology, followed by a general and open discussion of posthumanism. Despite the fact that I recognize my own words to be less-than fully mindful and high-resonance, I nonetheless feel it important to express my sense of being flooded and overwhelmed (and already ‘burned out’ before even engaging in the referent discussion), and to acknowledge that the answer may be, simply (and importantly), that we are not on the same page vis-a-vis the expectations for participation in this community (or in this discussion, more specifically).

4 Likes

Thanks Nate and I think you captured some of the differences that have emerged in this discussion-and I hope that we are making a difference that makes a difference. I am trying to create a momentum and higher stakes. You are not but something else you call less labor intensive. I find reading Latour extremely labor intensive but I get your point.

I find most encounters on FB to be low stakes and low intensity and a scattering of energies that I deplore. I have checked out of FB land… I have found the intensity level here starting to rise and more engagement and motivation is required. Paying attention to the posts here I find a labor of love and a responsibility.

As you have expressed a different way of conducting this Post-humanist event scheduled tomorrow I am confused as there has never been an organized meeting to organize the meeting. So I am improvising here as I intended to offer some alternatives to what we already know how to do really well-discuss stuff.

I would prefer that we discuss different kinds of stuff, in different registers and discuss it even better. This seems to be up in the air. Since I communicate at my best when I’m prepared I wanted to have a format. Of course you may have an entirely different way of communicating at your best. The more ways we have of communicating at our best the merrier the company we keep. I would be shocked if you had a clear notion of what I want to happen. A demonstration is required. This is a rehearsal, not a sales pitch. I have no concern to make something happen if it doesn’t want to happen. I got other things to do as well. It is overwhelming. And I want to find ways to work with the overwhelm, to reduce it or transform it. I believe that is possible and desirable. Or we retreat and withdraw which is sometimes what I would much rather do. And the waters are rising, the insects are destroying vast forests, as temperatures increase, degrading further a distressed ecology-so let’s kick back and have a beer! It’s not my problem.

I think the challenge of becoming Post-Human is that we are very far from becoming a companion species. I doubt that many of us are going to make that transition as few of us have any idea what is required. It was my intention to put a little flesh on the theory-which is my preference for having a good time. I’m most interested in the emerging group’s tacit knowledge. What are we moving away from and what are we moving towards and what time is it anyway?

The Law of Requisite Variety states that the most influential aspect of the system is the most flexible. So I am trying to cultivate that tendency in myself and in others. So I take your objections and concerns to heart and trust that you will do the same.

1 Like

Oh, my fellow (post-)humans… :heart:

Much to flesh out here. There’s the “post-humanism” discussion, and there’s the meta-discussion about how and why we’re having the discussion. Seems to me both are important, and they’re distinct, yet connected. But I do want to note some agreements that seem to have emerged:

  1. We will start the overall discussion at 12 pm MDT with a meta-dialogical experiential demonstration from @johnnydavis54, which will be recorded for research purposes, per request. Both @achronon and @natesavery are in for this part, as am I, and it will go for 20 minutes. (But let’s budget 30 to leave some transitional buffer…)

  2. This means our “post-humanism” disucssion proper will begin at 12:30 MDT, and we’ll decide then whether or not to record it; but I would defer to Nate ultimately to make the call. (We’ve all agreed to respect his wishes on this.) This talk will serve as something of “Grundsatzdiskussion,” where we attempt to lay out and perhaps harmonize what exactly it is that we’re talking about w/r/t to the “human,” “post-human,” and “trans-human,” and why these concepts matter (if they do) to our respective and collective endeavors.

Myself, I’ve been thinking and reading a lot, the past few days, on the “human” as such, figuring, if we’re going to talk about the “post-human” or even the “radical human,” we need some sense of what the “human” is, first, right?

Specifically, I’ve found myself drawn to revisiting Heiedegger’s “Letter On Humanism;” and I’ve also been leafing through an interesting book called The Philosophy of Humanism, by Corliss Lamont (one of the founders of the ACLU), which in relatively simple but clear language makes the pro-humanism case, which we might wish to adequately presence if the proposition is to go “post-.”

Here again is the Zoom call-in link: Launch Meeting - Zoom

Looking forward to our mind jam! I’m all for improvising with the universe… :star2:

1 Like

I think that is too much of an agenda for me at this time, Ladies and Gentleman. I try not to be too loose or too tight. This feels kind of too tight to me right now and I prefer to let go of this opportunity and perhaps something else might open up in the near future. This feels like too much work. Have a good meetup and I look forward to the next Bubbles experience!

Aw, come on, what happened to the utopian aspirations and raising the stakes? :scream:

You suggested the modeling experiment to get us out of 3rd-person mental mode and into a more experiential space where we can see patterns and meta-patterns to hone our effectiveness during these discussions. Maybe the schedule is too tight for what you have in mind, but it seems we could certainly be flexible with the timing…

My main goal is to get people talking on a higher level so that we can begin coordinating meaningfully around actually achieving our respective and collective goals. Granted, I don’t know how to make that process easy or uncomplicated enough for the general atmosphere of overload and overwhelm, but we have to take a breath and start somewhere, methinks…even if in confusion.

But ah well, however it goes, and whoever’s there (or square), I’m looking forward to it and trusting the convo will go where it needs to go, and so will we!

I really have to go back to the drawing board and review some of the steps and I don’t have time to do that. My experiment may not be ready and I see little point in doing it just to do it. Atmosphere is everything.

It would be a waste of public time and I value other people’s time very much. It’s like baking a cake, you cant turn up the heat and expect it to come out right.You guys are already creating high level conversations, some of the best, so I wish all of you the very best. And other opportunities to explore these models in the making will arise. Thanks for the support and good luck on developing Post -Humanity!

1 Like

Very sorry to hear to that @johnnydavis54 is opting out of the meet-up, but I understand his reasoning. As the oldest of the current discussants/posters, I can wholeheartedly attest: life’s short … damn short.

Given the amount of reading I do generally, and being guilty of producing some of the longest posts on these threads, I can attune to Nate’s feelings of overwhelment. Though you wouldn’t know it by hearing/reading/looking at me, I’m really a huge fan of simplicity: simple explanations, simple principles, elegance. Sometimes I get there. Too often I don’t.

But, I’m still planning on being there later today. I’ve read the Hayles piece which @natesavery linked to. I think I get it, but it was a struggle. Oddly enough, I found the Latour link he also provided a rather refreshing read, so thanks for that. We can get into reasons for both reactions tomorrow as they’ll no doubt dovetail into the conversation anyway, especially if the focus be that we agree that we are at least looking at the same score even if we’re all singing different parts.

2 Likes

Yes Ed life is ‘nasty, brutish and short.’ and we should not expect too much from these events. Change happens slowly or quick bursts and you never know how it is going to end up. There is a lot of noise in my neighborhood as they are building something nearby, a new luxury high rise, and all the birds alas have stopped singing. If it is quieter I may join the call as I like to hear how people respond to this material…

If I can show up I will but I wont be offering anything experiential. I think that is not appropriate for this hang out but I want to be a good partner in whatever transpires, creating conditions for a transformation that probably wont happen in my lifetime. I can only think of a few things that might be of interest that I can add which has to do with Hayles work actually.

But I would like to hear mostly what other people say. They also serve who stand and wait.

3 Likes

The show must go on! If nobody showed up but me, I would still conduct the discussion with my multiple post-human sub-selves…for the stakes are high indeed! But for that same reason, I would opt to listen to the birds, if they were calling my (decentered) name. Life is not too short, in my (post-) opinion, but the days are indeed. I look forward to our talk, cyborg-comrades!

2 Likes

I have little interest in self sacrifice these days. I’ve been online too much and it has destroyed by capacity to hold alternative views for very long. I’m easily bored. I want it now total and complete or I reject it. In the old days we sacrificed time and energy for the sake of others but having given up so much for lost causes I should perhaps get with a new program and follow the crowd but …which crowd?

There is a great danger in wallowing in one’s marginalization. On the other hand I also feel the beat of that different drummer incessantly. Being a nueoro-atypical, low level synasthete makes translation/transformation into current epistemological set ups problematic.

The show must go on Marco and I’m sure it will be great.

1 Like

This one’s for @patanswer, and a bit of a hint of things to come. :wink:

Some techno-utopian ra-ra, but also, it seems, a simple schema for envisioning a more cooperative/collaborative relationship between humanity and technology than the critical perspective tends to admit, suggesting a fusion of humanism and post-humanism—where the affective, intuitive and visionary still have a primary role—rather than the latter simply superseding the former.

2 Likes

Awesome, thanks!
Yes, I was just scrolling through my technological-interface TED newsfeed this morning and found this one. :smile:
From the mouth of the proverbial horse, eh?

2 Likes

Our recent off-reading-group discussion of (post-)humanism was, as the Germans say, klein aber fein (small but fine; that is, worthwhile and to-the-point). It made me think, especially in light of the fact that other potentially meaningful texts about the subject were presented too. In fact, it has occurred to me that it might not be a completely worthless idea to consider setting up a little corner of our virtual universe here for a kind of annotated bibliography of texts that might be useful to others in finding their way through the maze of whatever it is we’re trying to figure out here. Let’s face it. @madrush was poignantly correct in noting that trying to discuss post-humanism without a clear understanding of humanism itself is may be a futile undertaking. I would suspect that @natesavery, @care_save, and @patanswer would agree.

In this spirit, I’d like to add an additional 2-cents to the overall discussion. I’ve had a week or so to digest our online conversation — which was certainly time well spent — and it stimulated further thought on the subject, to say the least. What is more, I’ve run across another book (like we all don’t have enough to read) that I believe is a valuable contribution to the overall discussion. This is why I think a kind of annotated bibliography may be helpful for Infinite-Conversationalists who want to dig deeper into a given topic or who are looking for some qualified orientation regarding what may (or may not) be worthwhile when dealing with a given subject-matter, topic, or theme.

The book I’d like to introduce into the discussion, and which I believe is well worth reading, is Kenen Malik’s Man, Beast and Zombie: What science can and cannot tell us about human nature (Phoenix: London, 2001). As @johnnydavis54 noted elsewhere, there is a tendency these days to “label and dismiss”, which both of us agree is a poor approach to coming to terms with life as we experience it. What is central to many of our discussions — for example, as evidenced by our Sloterdijk reading and its fallout — is the notion of what is means to be “human”. If the general notion of “humanism” is being rejected, or if some contend that we’ve moved into a “post-human” or even “trans-human” reality, it would do all of us well to take a step back and get clear for ourselves what we think we mean when we use the term “human” itself. This is precisely where Malik begins.

Like almost all modern authors (and here Gebser is the exception), Malik starts with the Greeks and gives us an overview of how these first systematic thinkers viewed what it means to be “human”. He quickly moves, however, to a concise and insightful account of the “science”, as a way of knowing, and the scientific method and how this has come to our perceptions of how we see and what we know about the world. Trained as a neurobiologist and having worked as a research psychologist, he is approaching the subject from the “inside” so to speak, from the science side, but he left academia to become a thinker and writer, for he believes that all of us need to be clear on what we mean when we use such terms.

Man, Beast and Zombie is an informed, insightful, but dispassionate look at what human nature must be, and he gives serious and thoughtful attention to the views of those who see the world differently than he does. At the very onset, he makes clear that he believes we humans exhibit a uniqueness that needs to be taken seriously and not simply discarded as being outmoded, ill-informed, or even hazardous for our planet’s health. The book is anything but an apology for humans, however. We are dealing with a considered, detailed, and open account of what anyone who has anything to say about the subject might be able to contribute to a meaningful discussion. There’s no condescension, no patronising, no over-exuberant portrayal of his own position. This is a book about understanding, not about who may be right.

In other words, in addition to showing historically and diachronically how our notions (and there are always more than one) of human nature have changed since the Greeks, he is very capable of making clear what science — as a way of knowing — has contributed (and inhibited) to this understanding over time. What he primarily does is provide a sound and sober context for the past and current discussions about what it means to be human, and what the consequences of this might be moving forward. I think he shows particularly well that we can’t reduce the human being to “mere” material (physical, biological) processes and elements, but that historical (very much so) and social factors (most definitely) are critical and essential factors to be considered in understanding (and explaining) our humanness, and that there is a cultural-historical dimension to the subject that cannot simply be discarded because it is problematic and uncomfortable to deal with. He addresses very carefully and specifically with both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology which have been driving the discussion over the past 40 years or so. That is to say, Malik forces us to take a step backward and seriously consider what is driving our own, individual comprehension (i.e., what I believe and why) of what it means to be human. He then takes the time and makes the effort to show us what everyday, real-life, political consequences these views can lead to. Stated most succinctly, he thinks his thoughts through.

His is not a strictly academic contribution to an “esoteric” discussion, rather he makes clear that there are far-reaching and critical consequences to whatever that our view might be. Given the current crisis state in which we find ourselves, such a thinking-through is needed more than ever. Again, this is not a book about who is right. It is a book about who understands, in the truest and deepest sense of the word. We need to think long, hard, and deeply about a very fundamental topic, because our actual future an perhaps existence hang in the balance. This is a serious book that needs to be taken seriously, but it is one that can certainly help clear the air regarding all the “human-related” schools of thinking that are vying for our attention.

3 Likes

An excellent report, Ed, and your commentary is appreciated. I regret that such an important topic wasn’t aired more publicly. My experience of abuse has always started in secret, that is perhaps why I don’t like closed meetings that are not recorded. I also am someone who studies closely media and how it is shaped. That is why I’m intent upon creating an archive of different kinds of materials, so participants can also learn to observe, to take a third wave cybernetic approach, where we are observing the behavior of complex adaptive systems. This is what Hayles has identified as the third wave of systems theory, which has created the conditions for the Post-Human debate and that is what I wanted to put over in the meet up.

Over time, with many viewings of different kinds of recorded experiments, we can model our own intersubjective matrix, pick up on patterns that are out of awareness . Then we could figure out a lot that is now obscure and underdeveloped in our social behavior. The system can only do what the system knows how to do and learning how to reflect upon the self as system is a high level skill that may determine our survival as a species in an environment. .

Without a recording, however, the sharing of knowledge is inhibited, the group within and without, gets out of touch with one another, and fails to take a reflective stance. Verbal reports and actual recorded events vary a lot in quality. How we oscillate between perspectives, and emerging meta-perspectives, is a crucial skill . Maybe some accommodation will be made for those like myself who feel the need to go public is pressing. This is a vast topic that I’m very passionate about.

I do appreciate how some prefer closed meetings and a more informal kind of set up.We all have different learning strategies, different interest they want to develop. So I’m glad that you enjoyed yourselves and thanks again for your report and recommendations. Most interesting.

2 Likes