[Music] This is everything of summer. I make a stocking. Returning, podcast guest, Yodan Rofé is here today to speak with us about his friend and colleague, Christopher Alexander, the architect that I review and that I've written about quite a few times in my column, everything is somewhere in American surveyor magazine. Really looking forward to it. The books we'll be talking about, nature order are very important to me and I think to the world. Yodan, welcome to everything is somewhere. Thank you, Angus. I started writing about it in my beginning in touch with you and building beauty.org and Maggie and the different guests that have come my way. It's been a real pleasure and a privilege and I appreciate it. Today, I'm hoping we'll do a deep dive into Christopher Alexander's Magnum Opus, the four volume nature of order and how you're teaching it at campus that you facilitate or the scholastic program. Excuse me. I guess to get started, where does we always call it a magnum opus, which seems fitting, but what was the writing practice that kind of led to Christopher's perceived need to write the nature of order and what was he trying to accomplish and what was the writing process like and then maybe also why is it important? Okay, first of all, I want to make a small corrections. Chris Alexander was my teacher, my master, so to speak. I mean, I assisted him for a while also in writing part of the nature of order, particularly book two. While I was also teaching assistant with him for teaching the nature of order. In a way, he was one of maybe four great teachers that I had throughout my life and that and I got to know his books quite early even before starting my education as an architect. So I think the the 1960s, I think the from mid 1960s to mid 1970s were dedicated to developing pattern language and writing the timeless way of building as as a kind of a theoretical basis pattern language and doing a lot of of work, professional work, supporting the developing of of pattern language. Chris always used professional work and teaching as a way of experimenting with things and trying to figure things out and and whether whether his ideas were actually working in practice or not. So even though pattern language was published in 1977 as was the case with the nature of order also later, there were a lot of put-to-leg manuscripts running around all over the Bay Area with former students and people who heard about it and and and photo got its photocopy etc. So and people started building using pattern language and there were all kinds of and then coming to Christian to show him what they've done. And he also had a rather large project of a mental health clinic in Modesto, California where they did the work together with with staff of the clinic to using the pattern language to layout and then once they had the layout the plans were giving to an architect to for build and Chris was quite dismayed I think by the results. Both of the individual buildings that got built by by architects and ordinary people and also by the Modesto clinic he felt that something happened along the way in the transfer of the plans to a built project that it didn't have the life that he expected pattern language to bring to to architecture and to urban design. Was this his first large project? No I think they they had a somewhat large project at the beginning the free process in Lima, Peru but yeah I think it is a building project I think that was the first large building project that he designed. He wasn't involved in construction. That was one part of it. The second part of it was when they got in pattern language to write the construction patterns there was a small revolt in the in the group at CES and several of the architects felt that it was becoming too prescriptive and too limiting in terms of determining the construction system and they weren't satisfied and in fact they left CES afterwards opening their own office. So I think that was also another another issue because really when you get down to the construction level to the building practice this is where when you're actually shaping the building because everything else before it is just ideas basically and things floating in the air. But once you're beginning to dig in the foundations and you're beginning to build the building this is really where the character of the building begins to come to shine through. So and he felt that pattern language was just didn't give the enough instruction for people how to do it. That it it was good as far as it is when it he felt that the plan it provided better plans it provided more functional plans more humane buildings but the buildings did not have the same force same character the same life that vernacular building and traditional buildings had throughout the history of the of the built environment. So that started in thinking on what was what was missing and and what was missing really was a discussion of maybe the main task of an architect which is to shape material to create the geometry of the building. And his approach to begin tackling this problem was to start looking at objects and things and his own carpets he became a collector of early early Turkish carpets Anatolian carpets and began and try to figure out what was in the geometry of the buildings that geometry of art are art in the geometry of objects that are considered beautiful throughout many different human cultures in many centuries. And particularly looking at the geometry of these carpets he began to notice that there was some similarity in the geometry of of all these things. Yeah and just a break in briefly he he arrives at one of the great questions of philosophy and it's a huge topic is how do we identify and maybe define beauty it's right up there is God real is how do we define beauty and do we have free will it's it's such a core question and he you're saying he got really serious about this how do I do this yeah yeah lovely idea and well as I said Chris was a scientist and he was an incredibly pragmatic guy. He did not attack it from the point of the philosophy. He tackles it from the point of the off observation and pericle observation of a lot of different things. And he's based on two things one is his own feeling of things that have life also corroborated by the fact that many of these objects had great value as art and or crafts historic historic art and craft so so they were all most of them were things that could be founded in various museums of of culture throughout the world. And then he used the same criteria that was used for understanding good patterns what what are good patterns and that is the feeling that that is associated with the fact that they we sense that they have more life than ordinary or other things. So so these were the basically the basis of his empirical observations. Once he had this collected all these all these various things and again I think the carpets were very helpful because the carpets are really pure geometry.
pure geometry in color. It's a little bit like very much like pixel picture because each knot is really a pixel and all these pixels create geometry with different colors. So it was kind of more easier to it's very and it's very abstract. There aren't really, I mean, there are things that seem to be like animals, but they're very abstract, abstracted. And so it's really just geometry and so he did again to try to figure out what was the basis of that geometry and this is was the beginning of what we now call, what he later called the 15 properties of of living structure. And I think that's and just that that's among the clue in listeners. These would be things like contrast, levels of scale, good shape, centers, boundaries. So apprehensible, measurable, observable qualities, inherent in geometry. That can be talked about and listed and you know, discussed and what percentages levels of scale or what, you know, what is color plan of this. It's a theory of aesthetics, I guess we could say. And yeah, and I think enormously useful. I you know, I first read them a good 15 years ago now and it became part of my mental shorthand for appraising a work of art or a building, you know, I like this, but why do I like that? And it was useful above all else. In just the world of art or reg this, reg judging, has there been any currency outside of architecture of the use of the 15th and a month, no properties for judging art? I'm not a great expert in art criticism and I find a lot of the writing about art pretentious. Actually my brother-in-law is art historian and curator. I find a lot of the reading, I find it difficult to read a lot of art history and art criticism. A lot of it is I'm sorry, I interrupt it. So I don't know, I really don't know, I just not very very knowledgeable about the literature, about writing about art. So I have no idea whether there are, I know that in some of the conferences that I participated in, which were on pattern languages and the nature of art, there were some artists also showing their work. I think I can see in the art that I do appreciate, I usually see properties existing. And in art that I appreciate less, I usually it's very hard to find. But so much of art has become really conceptual and sort of symbolical and rhetorical in so many ways and I find it very hard to get into. My ex-wife is a quilter and teaches quilting and when we came to the to the Bay Area when I think she started learning about quilting and when we were there there was just incredible show of Amy Squillts at the young abuse of the only in South Dakota. And they were just amazing in their quality and amazing examples of the 15 properties and they were made by ordinary women, they were not made by artists or people who aspire to be artists. So I think in a lot of folk art or art that is considered amateur or not done by so-called artists, you can find 15 properties because people tend to create them when they don't have an agenda. Yeah, I've noticed that myself and thank you for entertaining that question. Also, where were we? Yeah, so I think that's the origin and so throughout the 1980s, it was writing the manuscript of the nature of Orp and it started as one book I think was called the one and then it developed into a couple of books and then into three books and in the end it became four books. I first saw it in manuscript form in the office of Nili Portugali who studied for a year with Chris when she was there with her husband Yvot Portugali in a sabbatical and she came back with these very three very voluminous books in in fellow copies and I remember reading it in her office I was doing some work for her I stayed late reading those like the scripted it being specially struck by the 15 properties obviously which seemed to explain so much for me and then the other thing which was immediately went to hard was the idea of the mirror of the self that in order to distinguish between more living structures or less living structures, good situations or bad situations, good buildings or less good or just even mostly between two options of doing the same thing the best way to do it is to ask yourself which one of the configurations is a better mirror of my own self and my own self in the most deepest way that you can think of it all all of it the good the bad strong the weak etc the friendly and the horrible everything and each of us gradually we learn about ourselves it's not easy when you're 20 20s but I was I think with time you learn about your stuff and so that was a very distant way from from pattern language because pattern language in a sense is still very much within the scientific functional sociological psychological paradigm and and make sense to many people I mean I think in that sense that's I think part of its success and it's there it's other use is in that it breaks down complex problems into more manageable problems and I think that's another reason for its great success particularly with computer scientists but nature of order actually goes a lot more to the core of things it goes to what is causing us to feel in better in some places than in others it helps us make even decisions about the course of our lives so what what we would like to do what what what is a better for us to do to do one thing or another and it it basically becomes a in the end a different way of seeing the world and and also a guide to carrying yourself in the world you put that very well and I've often kind of sought the words for the way that nature of order was affecting my life and what I've said in the past is it's there's an aspect of insisting on spirit in matter which is you know the great religious quest how do we incorporate is spirit in matter a thing and I think he clearly voted for bringing heaven and earth together and whatever terms you would say that and that great building accomplished that at shart for example anyway I go on and on but I appreciate the way that you're articulating how it affected you as you read it and it's one of the the great fruits of the the book it's reading this you do think about how to live your life which is pretty amazing for a book on architecture ostensibly yeah yeah I don't think I'm not sure that that I realized that when I was reading it for the first time or even when I was teaching it at Berkeley but with with the more you read it then the more you you you teach it to others you begin to see that it's it's a book about a lot more than just architects it's about who we are in the world and what is the world really How can we make more livable?
habitable world. Yeah, Dan, I wonder if we could move into now your teaching that's as a regular course at Building Beauty. Can you, how did that come about? What are you hoping to accomplish with Building Beauty and how have you set up coursework for Nature Order and what kind of students are you reaching? Okay. So when we started Building Beauty, you know, it always started good to start when you're starting something new, it's always good to start from something and then again, that's another thing we learned from Chris. It's much better to start with something existing and continue it rather than to try to invent X-Novo or something. And so we started with the way Chris and organized, Chris and, and, and Hi-Onize organized the building process area in, at Berkeley when, when we arrived there in the 1980s, 90s, it was actually the first time it was really setting, set up. And it was set up with theoretical course, which was based on the Nature Order, which was a lecture course, open also to undergrads and, and then with a section for discussion for the graduate students, then the studio, obviously, which was in a sense, the practice of what you learn theoretically. And then there were, there was a course in construction experience, which was basically working in projects by, by CES. And it was also a course that was open to undergrads. And then there was the various other courses, color, which were not giving, given every, every and it also had the support of Gary Black who was teaching structures at the same time, even though he was not formally within the area, but he was teaching structures as an, and, and structure courses. So it was consonant with a lot of what Chris was teaching. So when we set up building beauty, we set up a similar set up where we had the Nature Order as a theoretical seminar for the students, then the studio, which was actually doing the work. And then we had a course in construction, which culminated in the students actually building something in the courtyard, in the garden of the Santa Ana Institute in Saranto, where we started the courses. And I, I was, took upon myself to teach the Nature Order, but I didn't feel comfortable to teach it the way Alexander and then later on, I am nice, so it has a serious lectures. Because I felt, I just didn't feel that I knew enough to, and I didn't want to. I wanted to actually to students to encounter Alexander on their own terms, not to learn it from me like second hand. And so I decided to teach it as a reading seminar. And I actually started doing that in my own university for several years, but teaching only the first book, not going beyond that, because it wasn't in the context of an architecture problem. And that seemed to work pretty well. The students read the book, particularly in those couple of years, when they were very, very small class, there were seven students only, so it was, they had to read because it was quite obvious if they didn't read. And they spent a lot of time reading, and the discussions were also very good. And at some point, I think it was in the second year already, we said, well, it's a bit of a pity that we're having all these discussions, but it's only just very small group. Why don't we open it up as a webinar? Partly because I couldn't be there all the time, so I had, I took, I didn't the class partly through Skype. And we looked for, looked for a good platform to do that, and we recommended Zoom, and in fact, we started teaching it on Zoom before COVID kind of forced everyone to move online. And then when we moved online, it was just, we just took it off from there. So the first years were really, very much a reading seminar where each student students have to take turns in presenting the chapters. And then we just would have a discussion. I would do some, sometimes I would do a little, a small lecture about something and really that was the way we taught the first and second books. And then at some point, I don't remember exactly when, when it came to discussing the third book, which is mostly discussion of particular problems of architecture and urban planning and design, using Alexander's own work as examples. I felt that while the students could read the book for Alexander's examples, we might as well bring other people that have tried doing, doing similar stuff and have them talk about their projects. And, and this way the students would see two things. First of all, some would different approaches, different contexts to solving problems using Alexander's knowledge base. And also that it's possible to do these things in the world, even if you're not Christopher Alexander, because I think because so much of it has been only him or it's so identified with him that people kind of think that, well, you have to be Chris Alexander to just think it's not something for ordinary human beings, which is totally not true. So that was with regard to the third book and then with the fourth book, I always felt uncomfortable with the fourth book because I don't believe in God and reference to the luminous ground and all that. It took me a long time to come to terms with it and I'm still not sure that comes to terms with it. You know, and so I'm very much in sympathy with you about that book for the luminous ground asks a lot. And for me, it hit me, I think differently than it hit you, maybe because I was really, I was born religious and it's always been part of my life. I'm going to, can I read your closing paragraph from your paper on a nature of order? Because I thought it was a profound and personal and useful. Let's see. The paper's name and I will get a link to it in the show notes is teaching the nature of order. And the very last paragraph you write personally, I am uneasy about a transcendent reality underlying our world as was Alexander himself about this notion, although I must say that I haven't found any good alternative explanation to what ultimately are centers. Not being a religious person, I find the reference to God more disturbing than illuminating. The grandness of the universe, our own fleeting moment within it, the intricacy of life and its fragility, the beauty of the world, the humans can touch and emulate if they just pay attention to it and to the way it resonates with our own self. These are enough for me as an ideal to strive toward my own teaching of the nature of order. I think that's beautiful. Thank you. Captures of very authentic feeling and actually not so different than Christopher himself. He was writing in a luminous ground. He more or less said that he kind of wished that he wasn't being led to these inevitable conclusions of a transcendent reality, but he was honest enough to admit that they were and was trying to deal with it. Is that the way you see it? Yeah, yeah. Absolutely. I think Chris was incredibly rigorous as a person and I think he had a difficult, difficult time living with without answer the question. He was driven to answer the questions that came up for him and in fact, I think because he was of this nature, that was his nature. He created this wonderful body of work that is so magnificent. For me, I can stay at the not understanding at the level of, okay, I know, I'm not going to say, okay, I know there is something there. I don't have a good explanation for it. I can live with lack of explanation and with everything else that comes under way. That's one of the beauties of the nature of order. You don't have to even believe in centers to be able to create. So, if you just pay attention and even say, okay, I don't know what these centers are, but let's say there are centers and this is how they behave and this is what they create and this is the way you can put them together and it still works.
So for me, the philosophical debate or whether there is a God or there isn't a God, there is a luminous ground, there isn't luminous ground, maybe physicists in the end will find the theory that explains it all. I can live without it. And I said, Chris, have to go all the way. I don't have to go all the way. How does this go over with your students in the course as you teach book four? Is there, are they kind of led to this point of having to decide on transcendence? Yeah, but let me first describe how we're teaching book four, which is again, something that we came gradually to. First of all, for several years, I was teaching it with two great architects from India. Hunshwar Ashish Dhanju, who sadly died during COVID and Narendra Dengueh. And they, you know, they come from a culture in which transcendence stuff is there. For them, it was completely natural. So they didn't have any problem with it. And so they took on some of the chapters and presented them also putting in this land of their own worldview, which is obviously resonance with that at Chris's words. But in the last few years, what I've been doing with the fourth book is I invite people to talk either about parallel conceptions in other fields, not in architecture, which are similar or consonant with have examples thinking. And I think when you talk with or you probably just probably talk about those two in the Guildverse, one of those people. The decisions of book four and alternative explanations, we had Jennie Kulian present the psychologist explanation, which Chris debunks at the beginning of the book. I have to say I was quite mean to her. When she described it because I really debunked the psychologist explanation because I really don't think it really works very well. We had Nikos describe relationship to physics, quantum physics. So these are the kind of, so we're kind of looking at it in a more critical way, not just reading it for its own words, but you get more critically, at least in the webinar. In the seminar, we still discuss the chapters and try to understand the chapters. Again, I tend to concentrate on the way that the chapter, the book helps us students and me do the work, do the the see centers for what they are, understand how they work together, understand what is reaching to our own self, understanding what deep feeling is, learning to feel, which I don't think comes naturally to a lot of us, especially after we've been through an ordinary education. All these things are, again, as I said, you don't have to go all the way to get what you need to get from the book. So this is what the way I teach it. I think if you go through the whole process of reading the nature of order or learning it sometimes, I don't know whether everybody reads everything. I think it's pretty hard to read the whole four books in a short time. It changes the way you see the world. And so when we finish the course, that's actually one of the things that I try to find out from students, whether it has changed the way they saw, they see the world. And I think if I feel that it has, then I think I've succeeded. That's not, I probably didn't succeed in transforming. Start the view. It's really you see a different world. It's like, as if somebody took off some screen from in front of your eyes and you actually see things in a completely different way. Kind of like what's the 15 properties. If you're given language to describe and talk about what you're seeing, that helps quite a bit and changes what you see. We talked, you alluded to centers and you could make them without knowing what they are. Throughout nature of order, there's the idea of life, living structure, life and parent and geometry. And if you've done with that idea, the concept of life and infrastructure, I guess we could say, or you know, how do you, what are your feelings about that? How do you convey that? What do you think nature of order says about that? And how important a concept is at it. To me, it seems bedrock, but I noticed that Christopher's most ardent student and fans don't talk about it that much. What are your feelings? Like life? Yeah, about life and structure. Well, I recently have been trying to give some introductory lectures where I kind of tell people what the whole, what nature of order is all about. And so, usually when I try to do that, I don't even talk about centers because if you talk about centers, people's understanding of what center is is very different from what Alexander means when he says center. People understand center as the center of something. And Alexander uses the word center as center of attention, focus of attention. It's interesting that in Hebrew, you can translate center into two different words. One is a center of something, because it's the Hebrew word. And the other one is center of attention, which is something that you focus. So, I don't really talk about that. I just talk about life because I think life when Chris talks about life, it's very intuitive understanding. And everybody understands, you give a few examples, they say, the life of a party or life of streets or you can see that at least metaphorically people understand life. So I think that's usually would be my approach. And that's usually what we start with also. And then really gradually, as it does in the book, it gradually moves from life to our notion of order and then begins with the notion of centers and the 15 property. The first book is really neatly divided into really two parts. The first part is all about structure, almost in a scientific manner. Alexander calls living structure and again, living structure. The life goes into it as a distinguishing mark. And then the second part is all about feeling, the personal nature of order, the fact that if something is alive, has life, then we have more life. So we have in a sense direct connection to that something. And then we can send this through our own sense of life. And then obviously, the nerve itself comes in is kind of the technique. Yeah, so that's really the first book. Again, the book that I think is really a center of the nature of order is not the first book, the second book, the process of creating life. And again, we live against the central concept. And because the nature of order is such that you cannot create the 15 properties in a mechanical way. They have to be created in a particular kind of process, which Alexander understands to be very, very similar to the process that creates the world in organic and in organic world. So in a sense, he tries to emulate the living process of the natural world within the built environment. If we go back to the fact that pattern language was supposed to tell us how to create human environments, then the second book, the process, of creating life is supposed to tell us how to build those human environments. And in fact, there's also a place for patterns in it as a subphobic. One of the chapters talks about patterns. You understand? So you set yourself. A big task to convey the profanities of nature of order in a way that increases the appreciation for Christopher's way of seeing the world and in a way it's an initiation. You're hoping to inculcate a way of seeing the world that perhaps students didn't have before. How do you think you're doing? Is this a successful venture or graduates? Are they disciples at Bear Fruit in the world of building things? Yeah. You can't succeed with everyone. I think we have a pretty good batting average. I think most of our students, and I'm not talking just about nature of order. I'm talking about the whole program. Most of our students, I think they come out feeling they had learned something positive, not all of them remain in contact. So it's hard to how and in what way they make use of it. Some of them do. Some of them have become part of the program already teaching in the program. We are not going to be there forever and hopefully there will be other people continuing what we're doing. But we still have a way to go. I think in terms of institutionalization of the program and ensuring that it will continue beyond us. We're only there eight years. We started in 2017. So I'm hoping that in the next five to ten years, which is probably the time that I will be able to devote this program. Still that we will have created that. We have different ideas of where to go and how to go. We want to create other possible programs in other continents. We started on it, but COVID kind of stole less, but hopefully we're we can be back on that crack. And we want to actually have some cooperation. We have a cooperation with one university in the US, Hartford University. In the US, hopefully this year we will finally sign an agreement with them for Sorrento to become a study abroad place for the students in the Department of Artifix. There will be a enable us to go back at least half a year to for three months to so to continue building in Sorrento. But I'm also hoping to create some cooperation with none. Not necessarily with the architectural programs, with programs that are related to other aspects that can profit the nature of order and then students can do our program and then continue in another program with whatever they learn from us. So that's another line of, hey, well, I'm retiring from my own university this year, the second I'm here. And did I will be able to devote more time to building beauty and and I hope we can do more and better. Well, I it's important work. It seems to be in good hands and you're seeing success and dare I say it, you know, then I think that you're doing God's work. And I hope it prospers. You know, my feelings is that my big concentration professionally is writing about infrastructure. Pretty nitty-gritty stuff. And there's nothing I come across in my writing practice, whether it's GIS or sewers or dams or buildings or highways that the work couldn't be done better without more appreciation for life and geometry and centers and patterns. Oh, absolutely. I think, I think, you know, infrastructure, it has a huge impact on the world. It is the world. Usually, you, yeah, it's usually huge investments also. I mean, there's a lot of money involved. And I think if you look at the infrastructure built in the 19th century, which was also already a modern time and it's beauty, the beauty of that infrastructure relative to what we built today, you can see that something was lost in the way that engineers are talked and in understanding that, you know, I always think of, you know, city walls, medieval city walls, or even baroque time city walls, which were huge investments by that time. You know, I don't know if you've ever been to Ferrara where they have still having tax on some of the walls built in the 16th century or Bergamo that the walls of the Venetian Probe or walls of Bergamo, which are actually UNESCO, there are UNESCO heritage sites together with other Venetian type Venetian walls that were built in other places like in Rhodes. And you say, well, this is a utilitarian thing that they built, right? It was military and yet they spent time and effort making it beautiful as well. And if we designed and built ditches, culverts, roads, windmills, photovoltaic, windmills to create wind power electricity in a way that is beautiful and helpful to the landscape rather than damaging to the landscape. And consider these things also as then, I think, a lot of the uniliness of our world would have would have been would have disappeared. There is a place like in Sweden, there is the area of South Sweden. It's kind of a sloping hills which in summer are planted with grain, very, very beautiful countryside. And one of the things that they've done is they don't allow electrical lines, perhaps in the air, all electrical lines have to be buried. And the result of their two results. One is that the electrical lines are not damaged in storms, which they have there. And two, that the countryside is remained. And you don't, and you don't, first of all, you perceive the beauty and you don't understand there's always the feel of there's something missing here. I don't, I'm not seeing something here because we're so used to seeing electrical electrical lines and these ugly flowers. And then you realize that it's just not there because obviously because they have decided that it's more important to maintain the beauty of the countryside. You know, we did some work together with my professor, my other professor Alan Jacobs. We did work on boulevard's as again, these are types of streets that were born sometimes at the 18th century, but became really useful in the expansion of cities in the 19th century. And they created these streets to be functional, to create movement space, to connect growing cities in a way that people could transfer them more quickly. These streets also allowed later for sewers to go under and for some ways to go on, but they made them mostly to be beautiful. And then, and they're still loved and cherished more than 150 years after they were built. They were considered often to be the most beautiful streets in, in the city where they are. Fredrick Law, Amstit, designed Ocean Parkway and Eastern Parkway before the urbanization of Brooklyn as a kind of a sign that this is going to be a beautiful city in order to promote the place as a place for people to move into. We have totally forgotten that kind of point of view with our very functionalistic view of the world. [Music] Long time readers of my column in American Survey or Magazine know that I have made myself something of an evangelist for the ideas of Christopher Alexander, especially the teachings found in his four-volume magnum opus, Nature of Order. And so I really enjoyed this conversation. I hope that listeners found it interesting and thanks to your den for making it happen. A transcript of this episode and show notes can be found at amarraserv.com/podcast. That's AMERISURB.com.
slash hot dash. I received some nice feedback from a listener named Renana this week who emailed Hi Angus just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed your interview with Anna Rios. I may have met her at the Surveyor Sistorical Society Rendavue in Ohio a few months ago but did not catch a name of a person there telling me about the Women Surveyor Summit. Renana goes on to say that she lives in Indiana has been licensed since 1999 and has been at the same company for 20 years. Good on her. I'd love to hear from licensed surveyors and congratulations on a great career. She's referring to episode 18 with Anna Rios and I like that one too so thank you very much. If you're enjoying everything is somewhere I hope you'll subscribe and like and or review and episode on iTunes or Spotify and of course I very much appreciate hearing from listeners if you'd like to provide feedback yourself or suggest an episode topic or just say hello. You can reach out to me directly by emailing
[email protected] that's Angus Lake the Cowl stalking like a nylon stalking at gmail.com you can provide feedback anonymously at amerasurve.com/podcast or find me on LinkedIn and connect if you like I'm easy to find there's only one angastocking. you
PodcastTranscript AI