S5.A6 African Philosophy with Michael Onyebuchi Eze

For example, my last question was a question I had and I was waiting for the answer. What happens then? If the, for example, the front for the Shula has all these rules about what a good public dialogue or a public debate should be, what the preset rules are. And I was really wondering what happens if the other is not willing to participate in the rules. And then you were saying it's not about this dialogue, it's about the human interaction and in this interaction, you will find the other in yourself and the other will find you in themselves. This took a lot of patience and I'm saying that not to give you feedback, that's absolutely not the point. My point is this is practical wisdom that needs to be practiced and it also demands a lot from the self. So if people are listening to this story, this is not a theoretical exercise, it's a practical exercise which is very difficult and especially if you are not grown up in the culture of Ubuntu for example, especially if you are not grown up in the culture of debate, pre-written scripts and let's try to win some and lose some and the game is a zero sum game. If I win the other will lose, it's a paradigm shift that it's not only a theoretical paradigm shift, it's a practical paradigm shift which you have to practice every day I guess. Yeah, it is, it is, you know, it is because of the normally, because if you don't, you will see other. So as Oscar Wilde Oizai, the value is self-disciple and never-ending. Still we come into the business life and in the society life, much cheaper houses than untasteable neighborhoods. Why not? To avoid the darkness of those expensive houses. Direction advisor and organization philosopher Sia Atharadion speaks a lot in every entertainment zone, and puts it in another light. Can it be different? Hi there, here we are again, this time with Michael Onier-Bucci-Ezai. And for me, it's still strange because it's the second podcast in English, so Michael bear with my English welcome. Thank you, very much, it's good to be here. Yeah, thank you for being on the podcast, we just had a pre-conversation very shortly that I said, I would like to talk about dialogue and how it sometimes could be a faulty instrument, and you already told me, start the recording already, so I think you would like to respond, so the floor is yours. Yes, I want to tell you too, because dialogue has always been a word that has turned around a lot. So it's almost becoming cliché, you know, everybody speaks about dialogue, dialogue. And it's always becoming similar and ideologically cliché, that's even the problem, that's whatever there's an issue, people throwing the word dialogue, or that's actually trying to interrogate or try to understand what do they mean by dialogue. And so you see that it's going to a place, going to go for a meeting, in the name of dialogue, but that's actually comprehending what is going to, what how do you understand and view dialogue. So before we go further, I truly recognize what you're saying. So maybe we could grab a couple of concepts where this word dialogue is used before even stepping into what the dialogue is. For example, in my work, when there is something has gone clearly wrong, when something immoral has happened, and people say, no, we should start the dialogue. But for me, there is also a moral issue here that we should condemn a certain behavior. That's right. Yeah. I think this is kind of a Westernized, you know, centralical approach to dialogue, as always very instrumental. Yeah. The instrumentalization of dialogue is a little bit different from where I'm coming from. Yes, instrumentalization, but that is just probably the beginning of the process, because it's taking for granted that when there is a moral question, when there's a breakdown in an agreement or on conventions, or someone was somebody I said, well, let's throw in dialogue like a magic wand, a magic wand, a magic wand to deal with it. And that is a little bit of instrumental. So here, I speak of dialogue in a different way. Yes, it could be instrumental to bring the people to the abstention that it brings people to get there. But my other son of dialogue here is what I call creative mobility, creative mobility, so that dialogue as a space of creative mobility, so that instead of the instrumental, I speak of dialogue as having what I call until much good mobility in itself. Well, it's moving beyond instrumentalization. This is what I want to suggest. This is what I want to suggest in my own writing. It's not just instrumentalization, but as creative mobility. But we're going to talk about along the line, because the thing is, so what happens then, if you have, let's talk about forgiveness, okay, that someone has caught somebody, all right? And you really, really angry, after someone has done something very, very cruel to you. What if you have another interest of forgiveness? Let's assume that something has a trust, it must have a trust has happened there, finally. What if you have, if you have, if you have no interest of forgiveness, you know, and so, and then, so you see that, and there's no space for that is instrumentalization of dialogue. What do you do then, you know, does it mean that what then do we do? No. To make it concrete, to make it very, and that's what I tried to do with some examples. Let's say, a family member of mine has been murdered, and I don't have the intention to forgive the murderer. Is that, could that be a case? Yeah, it could be one of them. It can also not have the intention, but that represents the presence of the murderer becomes almost a form of intimidation, for example, let me give you an example of a King Leopolding in Bergen. This kind of commented mass intoxication, the vaginal side, non-recognitive side in the world. Of course, unfortunately, because of the place where it happened, papers call us down. People only recently, they didn't receive much attention, but that guy was, was evil, you know, millions of millions. For 10 million people, you know, to 50 million people, we are murdered in Congo, and in the Congo back. Yes, if you go to, if it does a debate, if you go to Belgium, if you go to Bergen, the status of King Leopold is all over the place, standing majesty, the philanthropist, the enlightenment, the great guy. And so, there's two authority debates. Some would say, leave it there, and, as I said, no, remove it, put it into the museums. They're all going to say, well, if you leave it there, if you put it on museum, that will begin to deny that it ever happened. But I said, if you leave it there, it's just to keep to show you the continuous presence of the past evil cruel guy. If I walk into the status of Bergen in Leopolding, you see this man, and look at him, he reminds you of the evil, this man done, you know, his majesty, you know, so you put this cruelty timelessly in the public sphere, you keep it there, you keep it there, you keep it there. To constantly, constantly remind the people who've been a priors, who have been clearly to humanize, yes, I am still there. So you leave, because there's a double, there's that, that's not happening here. You relieve it, you maintain it, you sustain it, and it's there, it's kept, it's kept in the public, in the public imagination, and there's no one or so far. So this would be what I'm trying to suggest here. Yeah. I think that's a great example, because it makes it less abstract, it makes it something concrete. So we have Leopold, who has been an incredible murderer, but because these murders have taken place in on the continent of Africa, it gets not enough attention. And then the word, where does the word dialogue coming? So could you give an example where dialogue is a faulty instrument to have this discussion? It's not, okay, I mean, it's not a faulty instrument, that's a conversation. It is the understanding of dialogue that is problematic, and the problem with dialogue, you see. I'm talking about dialogue as a term, or yeah, that's about it, the way it is being used, the way it's being instrumentalized, not dialogue. Yeah. It's a substantial dialogue, dialogue is necessity, but the question is what kind of dialogue do we use? And how do we understand dialogue, and how do we, how do we use it in conflict situation? You know, that's a term I like, the one I said, when I made it up when I was been interviewed, a couple of years ago, when I was at the University of Amsterdam, and then I used it again in my work. And my work I'm working on is a good drink coffee with someone who do not like. So don't drink coffee with someone who do not like. To suggest my own specific understanding of how I view and perceive dialogue in that sense. Not to give this cut. No, no, that is a problem. You go to dialogue. So let's assume you and I are at the different zones of conflict or we have exactly something happening and we're trying to dialogue. We do come to dialogue with that's a problem with pre-given scripts. So we have a pre-given moral as scripts or whatever demands in the normal dialogue. And so when we come to the table, so quite a lot of dialogue, we then look up to the scripts and check. Did I get this check? Did we get this check? And then if we fulfill this point, do we all have this pre-given scripts or where does that come from? I mean, yeah, when you have dialogue, you go there with something in mind, but achieve something in mind. See, I have a pre-given script. So let's, okay, give me your ocean Ukraine. So you have like a minute put in and I am the guy from Ukraine and it was okay. This is the mind. And then we have the whole world. You can watch the problem and say, okay, I demand X, Y, Z and I say, X, Y, Z and I'll go and talk and talk. Okay, give me a little bit of a small land. I don't take our land. I'm beginning to kick him back and stuff like that. So this is a pre-given script to dialogue. And then it was we use it and I understood it. But the question then is, might be sometimes we might be successful, we reach some consensus in that kind of material sense, but the question then is, what if we don't agree? Yes. The purpose here that we are reduced to synonym, our demand, our vision, our world, the totality, the essence of dialogue is somehow then restricted within those pre-given scripts. I would call that a debate. I don't know if these are the terms you use, but if you have a pre-written scripts and you cannot deviate from your pre-written script, I would maybe call that a debate. Okay. Well, you can say that, but you say dictating that you see international studies. So you understand what the United States wants. You understand what the United States wants or you want to want to Russia wants or you couldn't want to do it. What do I run? What about it gets made? All right. But it's okay. This is what it goes up. This is the policy. There's always a policy, right? You have a policy and a white paper on a government. This is how the government works. It kind of does go in the name of dialogue and deviate from those white papers, the white policy, the policy. So that's not truly a dialogue. That's the point you're making. If you have these pre-written scripts, it's not truly a dialogue. Yeah. I try to script. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's scripted. It's scripted. Yeah. It's scripted. Yeah. It's scripted. So we function, we need to turn them off those pre-given nomative scripts. That is then it's colored by political interest, that's colored by cultural ideologies, in all those things. That is now, this is what the nomative strip we have. The nomative strip then is what it means. So what degree you should give me and take. And so this is what then colors your interests, whatever the case may be. And so I am coming. I was interested in it perfectly, he said, we do not have permanent science. We have permanent interests. So we have permanent interests, what's the church here said? So this I can explain what I'm trying to say, the permanent interests. So as the interest changes, the interest changes, so the friendship also evolves over time. So that even if you fought African nations, fought with the British Empire during the Second World War, and many Africans we are killed for the empire. Of course, we are okay then, but now, I mean, if you're going to UK, we want to visa, you know, the way they treat African nations, I mean, it's completely different. So it's the no longer, the interests have changed. It's no longer nobody remembers that black people fought and died for the fight, for the British. And they're not paying attention to their families. They are not if you remember in all the sacrifices they made to secure the so-called Western victory during the Second World War. So the interests have changed. We are permanent, not permanent friends. So this is what I mean by, so I said, the nomadic script, the nomadic script is said by political interest, a cultural level. So we had a connection problem, Michael, because you're in Nigeria, but let me try to summarize it. You are saying that in the political sphere, so that's where we are. In the political sphere, we have a pretended dialogue, but this dialogue is shaped by our political interest and maybe even economic or military interest at that moment. And then this dialogue in this pre-written script changed, for example, how we view Africans or how we view soldiers. Is that the summary you can live by? Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. The internet, yes. I'm sorry for the cutoff. I don't think because I'm in Nigeria, I think because I'm in a poor location with the internet connection. That was why I should have moved another place, yes. So you're absolutely right. I agree with you. What I'm trying to say is that the pre-identimate script in order that politicians use, you see, politics is not about morality. Morality is an agenda of politics. That's my hypothesis. Political about morality. So when they do those things, so that's it, that the moral, when they throw in those things, the morality script that ships, that ships whatever dialogue they have, whatever it is, maybe to make it look as if dialogue comes in that way. It's then what circumscribes our understanding. This was circumscribes the way we viewed the other person. And sometimes we say we have break down in dialogue means that we cannot agree on those normative scripts, the mature script that is, is being given. So have break down in dialogue and we go, but why do the people who normally agree, who already agree, when they go back to war, that is the question. We have dialogue. There we have dialogue. And then they go back and begin to fight. This is the problem of instrumentalization of dialogue. This is why you see that, but then in dialogue, people will say, you fought a com, you fought a com, you signed a piece of non-sensical paper, you know, you know, those kind of, you know, the paper dialogues, we signed it. So yeah. It comes also with, you see, this comes from, it's gathered in Western intellectual history. You know, like a legalized, legalized, legalistic way of doing things that, once you say, when they came to Africa, the way the Africa was conquered was through proper Congress. You come, you do somebody something that they've never seen, you know, you know, something, maybe give them a brandy, maybe that's good, I've never tested it. Okay, yeah. And then I don't understand French or English or German and say, hey, it's, it's the you like it? Yes. You like a brandy? Yes. Okay. Why don't you put your tomb on this piece of paper and I'll give you a casket of brandy? Oh, sure. Of course. And then later on, when you bring it up, so just to erase and to make the kingdom in Africa, you tell them, you sign this piece of paper. We should do much if you don't understand. You see, this paper, a conquest and drink colonialism, the central dialogue, so I'll put a sign in it and it becomes like the paper, so the paper needs a lot, paper, paperization, paperization of the dialogue, you sign this, but it's toxicity and metalization and let me tell you why it's problematic because that is a, that is a, it's a, it's a, the why it is a problem because I, there's a, a key and a one-down proverb, you know, a key you have one that provokes, you don't be provoked in Rwanda, for example. It says, "Ukura, Uttabaza, Ugazasa, Uttamania." He said, "If you grow up, if you grow up without asking, you will die like an idiot. If you grow up without asking questions, you will die like an idiot." He talked about the way the realm of community in learning, in the process of learning. It means that wisdom comes from other people, wisdom, knowledge comes from other people. So, Christmas, the learner has to be active in asking questions. So, this is very important for me, because then it changes my own understanding of dialogue, that the purpose of dialogue is understanding. Understanding, not just mentalization, understanding, agree to this agree or agree to agree. And by then also, you see, I want to experience this person in their own space. I want to understand this person in their own condition, so that I understand their own condition, so that I may not agree with you, but understand why you are doing XYZ, because it is only true understanding. That's what I call. No, please finish. "It's true understanding that this is what I call in my work. Subjective conversion." The purpose of the alert then is subjective conversion. Conversion or conversation. No, conversion, conversion is a convert, to convert, not conversation. It's subjective conversion. And this then is possible that, if in if I don't sign, I don't need a piece of paper to understand and not to go back. This move beyond this sign, a piece of paper, subjective conversion. So you started with why people have a dialogue or maybe in that sense a faulty dialogue and then after the agreement to sign, go back to war again. And after that, you made the point that it's because they have had this faulty dialogue and prewritten scripts where they really didn't try to understand a different person that they didn't move in their shoes from empathy or see the world from their perspective. No, they just had a, let's say, a debate and they tried to negotiate some points. And of course, after that agreement to sign, they are still not in agreement because they don't see it the world from the other perspective. So let's step into their shoes and see the world from their perspective. You have this subjective conversion where you can see the world from their perspective and that's what you call a real dialogue. Is that correct? Yes, yes. I'm happy to mention the empathy because I don't know about empathy. You see, the purpose of subjective conversation is because, you see, no matter how religious or intelligence or whatever you are, I come with chips and I show that we start to observe the arrogance. It has everybody, every culture of society, if you are the chief in man, in London, if you are the poor, in Rome, if you are the bishop, if you are this world, have this kind of a little bit of arrogance from our own culture that we know better. Okay, we know better. We always know everybody knows. And this is why knowledge is very, very important. And so you talk about it. So it determines that you see, when I come to dialogue with you, how do I see you? What is my vision of the past I'm talking to? You see that if I come with the message, I come, I'm negotiating with the superpower. I imagine a small counter with this like Lissoto. Negotiating maybe they have this agreement between our test states. Of course, it's okay. We're going to bring all the Harvard educated professors in the legal field to go to the international courts to intimidate Lissoto, for example, Lissoto. You see, that's right here. The question is, would whom am I dialogueing with when it comes to knowledge? So the first thing to do is to have a systemic humility. I mean, some of the communities, they're not important to reach a misunderstanding. But look, I do not know it all. That's just one. I do not know it all. I do not have all the answers that are, yes, I might have been educated at Cambridge University, but I can learn something from somebody from Lissoto. I can learn something from someone from Lissoto. The lesson this is their leader, but the Western one meanwhile the European Union the United States is telling them but can I also democratize democratize, but for the people what they need is who they have right now you see so what I mean is that in they get a dialogue when you then see the people talk to them like CNN and Fox News. Oh, this guy is terrible this guy is terrible about democracy. The local people the context of his own experience says or attend. Let's bring it to dialogue. You guys that's when you encounter if you go to Mali then darling. They will say wow this is different from what I had in the news. This is the hierarchy kind of knowledge because what I'm pushing dialogues that we go to dialogue. With Harakika, Harakika, infused knowledge, what you see that the Harakka knowledge is ruptured with the context of the experience. So you see now he still within his dress culture within cultures, traditional within traditions, consults, Harakka, which is always a musculating because Harakka knowledge imposes missing cognition and that makes dialogue impossible. I don't want to be saying that I am a cure knowledge which means that knowledge that is superior to different knowledge and in that sense doesn't have this epistoma local humility so that you don't know everything. So here we say some knowledge is higher than other knowledge. So let's say. The news you get from, I don't know, CNN about Kaza is better than the news you get from Al Jazeera or being on the ground you are saying that there is this hierarchy of knowledge and in that sense this hierarchy of knowledge goes above personal experience but it's also difficult to always get this personal experience with boots on the ground. So you don't always have the chance to be there and experience and and lift the how the people in Regina Kaza or different places view their dictatorship or view their way of life. Yeah, I want to bring, I want to bring Kaza. I want to be the example of Gaza. Okay, so the way Fox News or CNN or whatever BBC is a little bit fair, but Fox News and CNN and whatever and opposed to bring Al Jazeera to see is completely different. The same story being told, see other than that, people on the ground, they see the story, they know, they feel the pain, the suffering, the anger, they ask, they see everything going on here. There are guys sitting in their costumes in the offices or whatever they guess maybe, you know, and it's all right, this is this is the, this is the, you see the differences. And so the question, what I say, God, drink coffee, someone who do not like. So I want to ask, for example, the Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, why don't you go to drink coffee with those guys in Gaza, for example, or bring before my cues. I hope nobody's accusing me of anti-Semitism here. I want I'm trying to suggest here is that I want to people to go and meet other people. So just like I'm saying, putting good talk to your friend in a, in Ukraine, you know, drink a fool, someone who do not like. If if you are Fox News and news producer, go to Gaza Strip, go to Gaza Strip, drink a fool, look at people, know what I mean. Okay, the same to the same, the dinner will run to Hamas, go drink a fool, this is for two, you know, bring everyone I'm trying to say, bring everybody together, let's go drink a fool, someone who do not like, you know, so you can understand this kind of the transitions within his stress, the same cultures and within traditions, and I can get a kind of a holistic understanding. I'm not just scripted narratives that informs the normative cut of our dialogue. Let's focus on this example. For me, it would be a personal hell to go drink coffee with Netanyahu, because he's committing genocide and they are torturing, they are group raping prisoners. This is what I saw yesterday on the news and they were debating in the parliament is if the rape of prisoners is legitimate. This is openly in their parliamentary discussion, which has been possible to follow live on TV. So let's say me and Netanyahu would drink coffee, what is, if we would now apply the concept that you talked about, so I need to have this epistemological humility. It means that I don't know everything, right? I have to go into that conversation with this concept and I have to know that I could have ontological turbulence. So my world view could change. I have to be prepared. I cannot go into that conversation with the prewritten script in my head because of my own views and my own political convictions and hope for ontological mobility. The reason why I find this difficult and I'll tell you why the reason why I thought dialogue could be a faulty instrument. What if the opposing party, my conversation partner, let's say in this case, Netanyahu, doesn't use the same epistemological humility, doesn't have this ontological preparedness for this ontological turbulence. Dialogue is a dance between two or maybe even more partners. What if the other party isn't willing to come to this conversation with this humility or with this preparedness to change? Yeah, I see the problem and I want to go back to the radar, Jacques the radar, you know, criticize this month to two. I wanted this month to two to see this month to two, he was a mentor to me, you know, somebody very close to my head. And so, of course, I took it personal when I read the radar system of this month to two and for forgiveness, because for the radar, Jacques, the radar forgiveness is madness and forgiveness is a logical impossible. I subscribe to the doctrine of Mark of forgiveness. I come from Ubuntu tradition, African tradition of Ubuntu. So you say, I am because you are, since you are, therefore I am. This is a cliched word of looking at it. This is actually from John and B.T. said that talking about it, about General Ali Williams in Ubuntu, talking about it, a person is a person, draw that pebble, you know, so it's also a multi, multi, multi, multi, multi, multi, multi, multi. So it's a person, a person is a human being is a human being to draw that pebble. So coming from that, I didn't hear the last one. The human being is a human being because through other people, through other people. This is this idea of, if the humanities were co-creation in that sense, so this is working from and I as part of the doctrine, with that negotiation to the doctrine of forgiveness, I simply believe in forgiveness as a matter of fact. So now, why do I bring that it down? So that it that was criticizing this one too, that he brought in the idea of forgiveness. Let's move on. I don't want to go into the history of apartheid or whatever this may be, but also I don't want to talk about the way it was difficult for them to do anything. Even if you want to punish everybody that comes to crimes against humanity or walk crimes, do not protect it. There was no way they didn't have the capacity to do that. All right. So now, the idea, what I was trying to say that, what did that meant here was that for me to forgive the other person, there must be a relationship. You see, the problem here. So that if the other person do not recognize my forgiveness, then it's not forgiveness because I need to be a relationship with you to forgive you and acknowledge it. But no, that's not the case. I just agree. So my own argument is that, no, I do not need the other person to forgive for giving us the system is a kind of an interaction. It's a place where in which the one who have been violated or pressed free, he more herself from the totalizing gaze of the other. So forgive me and I said about the one who has a press, but also about myself. No, so I forgive you. Even if you don't recognize it. If you don't recognize it, the power does not lie in you. You see, it's what I call colonization of subjectivity. Maratha might call in the colonization of subjectivity because if let's assume we are what something is happening here, you slap me, I slap you back. Or I slap you, you slap me back. It was happening here that in this reaction way, you have invented me. I become invented at the gaze of the other. My reaction to the way to react into you are a slap means that I am just a byproduct of you. You see that I am invented at the gaze of the other because I'm responding to you. But if I just forgive you, for example, slapping you back, you see, I decided that I am not just I'm not your subjective footnotes. It fills me some being colonized when in reacting to you when you slap me, I am totally colonized to colonization of subjectivity. You colonize me to do what I want you to do. You see, I wanted that reaction, I am reacting that way. But what I forgive you, I framed myself some totalizing gaze of the other. You slap me, say what I forgive you. You cannot control me. You can't slap me, okay? But I decided with this one lesson, I did like that. For example, this one, this one two or three to what I'm trying to suggest. You know, and this is what the Ubuntu philosophy says, that is what I'm trying to suggest. "I do not need the order, even the oppressor to forgive." "I do not." So that even if I have the dialogue with the enemy, they do not like, "You do not need his permission to forgive him, to free yourself from his totalizing gaze." He doesn't have the power. He does not have the power over you. So I subscribe to forgiveness for me. It's something that I cannot give up. Forgiveness is called congestion for me. So, when I speak about subjective compassion for me personally, because I subscribe to killing the consignation. In that sense, so the consignation, I cannot, the consignation is for me to understand. It's also about me, such as foremost, before forgiveness, before the evil person. If they are like, they can deal with them. You see, you see, you see, you see it? In that example, I use when I was in South Africa, when I was in my graduate school, my first studies in South Africa. I was paying for my, it was difficult time. And I was selling ice cream on the street. I was selling ice cream just to make ends meet. So, doing the hot summer in Central South Africa, there was a one-legged system, fortunately, came over and stood. And it was people who were struggling to get ice cream. And then we finally, what was happening? I told him, "Sac, would you go and stand behind the lines or ask him for you?" And then he wasn't a muse, he was running time to put forward. I said, "Sac, several times." And he slapped me, you know? So, I looked at him, I don't know what to do, in front of everybody. I said, "Well, Sac, you didn't have to slap me. I forgive you, but please stand behind." And he was subordinates. He got angry when I said, "I forgive you." He came again, but everybody got angry there. And they wanted to, you know, to, he said, "No, no, no, this isn't, isn't, isn't." But to see, I was, I even shocked myself, because I couldn't just be able to fight a big white man. Maybe it was probably, that's all. So, I, I forgive him, but he got angry because I took away the power. You see, I took away the power of violence from him. You know, this is what I call this. There's a kind of, there's a subjective conversation called here. I took away the power. So, he become hollow. So, the violence is just empty. He didn't have the effect. So, he couldn't violate me. So, but you see, you see, this forgiveness, redemption is, redeems me from the totalizing gaze of the oppressor. So, I, I have some kind of forgiveness. It is very important, even in dialogue, that understand, maybe on the head, me understand, to have a subjective conversation in that sense. So, this is my tradition, reconciliation, forgiveness, in that sense. So, that's, that war crimes can be done. But the question then is, because, yeah, what I'm talking about is express of war, express of atrocities, you know, committed. How do we move in the past? How do we move beyond? And how do we, you see, how do we move away? You know, there's this saying that, what, whatever happens in the past? So, some guy, I, this guy is a Katelyn Mills, Katelyn Mills, I think, and Katelyn crystals, talked about what happened in the past, since routine in stone, I'm not changeable, whereas the future, I have to be on routine story, with limitless possibilities. You know, in that sense. So, this for me, but for me, dialogue in this sense, we'll talk about dialogue here in this sense. You know, and I want to make it a little bit, more, more descriptive here now. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's creative and mobile. So, here, it's, it's, it discusses formation, that takes into consideration, that takes into consideration, okay? That two months, that, that's not just the humans, the people who live today, or that's what I'm going into dialogue with you. I think the conversation, not just the humans, that live within our presence, or those who live today, or those who recognize as one of ours. You see, that's a problem of the matrix script. So, we go to dialogue to, to defend our interests, to protect our interests. So, we just don't go there for those, we recognize as one of our own, or those we like as our own. It's, it's not just that with the study conversation, those who are in the presence that are missed, the person I'm talking to now, I'm talking to you. So, I'm trying to expand it. What I mean by dialogue as mobile, I want to expand it this notion of, that dialogue as mobility here, that is ontological mobile. It says, it's not just those who are present, but it's not just about the past. It's not all those who recognize, those who like, or those who know. Or okay, it is, it's something to, it's a, it's a, it's a form of historical sensibility. It doesn't mean that we can't interrupt here. Mobility is geographical mobility. So, it's not, it's all the others. No, it's, it's included geographical mobility, but also it has some sort of historical sensibility. Historical sensibility is very, very important for me. So, also mobility, why do I mean that? And geographically. Yeah, but also historical sensibility. Let me explain what I mean by historical sensibility here. You know, it's, it's, it's a sensibility is that certain that what I got, prophetic empathy, that is, let's give an example of environment. Okay. What is it that I'm going to talk to you about that in 50 years time, they will not call Michael you when I told you when I saw how can you say this 50 years ago, nobody's going to cancel me in 20 years time. About what we're talking about right now, you see, he's like, I said, what about talk now, you said this two years ago, how could you have said that? So, be sensitive to, be sensitive to this kind of thing like that. Look, no, people coming to work, okay, they won't get away with it. But the future history, history is always going to be very harsh in a nice sense. So what I do now, you know, when I'm talking to about it, what I would did before would it be perceived in the future? That's what I mean by having a sense of that kind of what prophetic empathy, what is supposed of a conversation today? I'm talking to you. What is supposed of a conversation and not just our commitment to the past because they're like always about the past. You see, what happened in the past, that's also the proof I'm talking about is about the past or normally, but I'm suggesting that when we have a conversation on dialogue, when I come to dialogue, it's also a commitment to the past, to the present, but to the future. That what I mean by ontological mobility. So here, yeah, what I said, ontological mobility down, it penetrates on us. History within its place, you know, culture within cultures, cultures within structures, and then tradition within traditions. It's this kind of, it's emblematic of what is that right that experience is, whereby it comes from. Unfortunately, for me, what's perfectly for me, I mean, not just of the, of the victims, but also of the villains, you know, of the villains, it's a progress and dissolution. No, it's integration and rupture, residence and disadvantage in that sense. So, bringing them that configuration, then it won't make possible them to me. So, well, now, let's have dialogue. Sometimes silence, that's a humanism for silence, maybe just just to see each other silence. We don't have to talk. We don't have to talk silence. This is best for that. I understood ontological mobility when you were explaining it first, similar to ontological turbulence, that it's something within me, that I have to be prepared to shift myself, shift my being, shift my understanding. But I understand it now. Maybe this is a second in a different way that you also use it. It's also ontological mobility through time. So, not only through the self, but also through time, is that in dialogue, we should not only judge what has happened in the past, but also discuss our options in the future. Is that correct? Yes, it's rupture, it's just like the actual rupture in the monopoly of Kestraik. It's rupture is the monopoly of linear historicity, that this is what happened X Y Z. So, you see, I bring again the question of forcing Churchill, what they did in the past, they didn't anticipate the future, the future is going to change. So, rupture in this monopoly, privileged side to vision of history, as superior to others, but the organizing different histories, you see, different histories, different cultures, different traditions, you know, moving away from that linear orthodoxy, which I want, so this is what I mean. And then we can have a kind of how the humanism in that sense, and this is what I mean. And I'm just guessing now, but have you taken time and being, and have you described this ontological mobility through time and being? No, I am coming, no, no, no, no, I don't know, I've not, I've not reflected in that sense. I come from specific position in African philosophy, specific regional, from African philosophy, moving away from Western linear historicity, you see, the way, the way history is understood within a Western philosophy, Western intellectual history, it's not the same way that the past is remembered in African philosophy, in African culture tradition. So this is our claim to have this. at this paradigm shift, because you touched on Ubuntu a bit. Maybe for this last 15 minutes, you can also give us a paradigm shift. If it were possible, away from this Western philosophy, and maybe give us a small introduction into African philosophy in the context of this conversation. As you said, I come from a tradition of forgiveness. I come from a tradition of Ubuntu. I come from a tradition of African philosophy, where we see time differently. Is that possible, do you think? Yeah, we can. I mean, I can't, it's a very, this is something that all take me as an, I don't even know I have arrived at a kind of a concrete positionality and that, because even my ideas are always evolving. I'm always, it's always, it's always an aspect of turbulence. So that you're, if you read my work, there's places I wrote, or I used to, I used to, but I'm always, I used to focus on admit, this was position I took before, but, man, I'm wrong. I used to be, I don't defend what is not defensible. I just say, I wrote this was more sensical. I moved on to different in that sense of falsification of popper is still, is still accurate. Not just, just not maybe your ultimate position, but you have been touching upon a paradigm shift. You have, you have said that this is the Western way of thinking, or I come from a tradition of Ubuntu, or Chuck Derrida, versus Desmond Tutu, what I was thinking, why you were talking about these things, that this is the ultimate praxis, but I, but I mean by that, this is philosophy by doing, you know, theoretically, you can think of something, but practically, maybe it's easier and better to forgive and move on. So the, so the nation can heal. I'm referring to Desmond Tutu. So what I was thinking, what you were telling these, maybe even your personal experience, wherever you get slapped by a racist big white man, and practically forgiveness might have been the better tool in that context, in that setting. So it also feels as praxis, but it's easy to say, but it's difficult to praxis, to practice. Yeah, it is easy to work. Okay, I come from my own interest is also my official dialogue is also about knowledge production and knowledge creation. You see, I say dialogue moving away is about knowledge also, it's about knowledge, knowledge about myself. And I can tell you, I get to know more about my own self, I get to know about my own species of ignorance, no specific that I thought I knew better, then you also know the order that is also fundamentally the one foundation that talks about dialogue, that elegant and content and going when I say girl have coffee with someone who do not like that in having come for someone like I say, Oh, you see the pen I feel you get angry. Another example I normally use is when I walked in the leper serum, the leper colony in Africa in Nigeria, in Africa. So I didn't, I tried, I was hesitant because leprosy to have a leprosy is a stigmatization, there are certain things that I have to be in the leper in my part of the world. So that once you a leper, you're not just physicality formed or physically alienated, but those socialistic might eyes, you talk about the sickness of leprosy, right? Just as that I I was just like about the sickness of leprosy, leprosy, no leprosy that disease that said, it would be a leprosy, no leprosy, no, no, it's a disease, the skin disease, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's sometimes you begin to, the person begin to lose their one, begin to lose their names, it's very terrible disease, it's kind of death by instruments, not death by instruments, a virtually person just dies off like that. And so in my part of the world is a social stigma, people don't talk to them. If you have a relative who's a leper, you don't even tell people because you be socialistic, not eyes even. And so I was then asked to go when I was in, when I was a young Jesuit, I was asked to go and they work with leprosy, and that of course I had an anxiety and everything else, I didn't want to go. I had to go, but my superior said I should go. And what happened then was that in encountering them, this is a good example of what happened, no, because at fact, we have to wear masks or cover our bodies, so we don't get the disease, you look at them from a distance as objects to objectification. But then in encountering them, this is when you have subjective conversion. So wow, they have lepers, but they get jealous, they get angry, they fall in love, they're just like me. And then this dialogue then humanizes the other. So you see, in encountering them, we talking to them, when I say XYZ should go, for example, to Gaza, and doctorate people, in that dialogue dialogue, humanizes the part of dialogue is to humanize the other, moving them from a specific abstract experience, abstract realm to the close of human encounter in dialogue, they say encountering dialogue. So they say, wow, they are humans like me, they feel depend, when they lose their child, they feel depend just like me. You know, wow, if you never lost a child, you never know depend of losing a child. But if you see this, oh, wow, this is what it means to lose a child, to lose a loved one. So in that encounter, this what I mean by moving away from that kind of objective state, to a space of encounter, you know, drinking couples want to do not like. So I thought I did the lepers are just like me, they get jealous, they get happy, they fall in love, they cheat, they don't cheat, the different kind of lives, you know, some are good, some are evil, all different kind of things, they're just like you and I, like every other person we know in the world. And so this encounter in context then humanizes, real humanizes the order and they move them from the realm of objectification to realm of subjectification. From now on, we just been objects, the realm of just being human like us. That is what I mean by dialogue. So that it's not the understanding and this understanding when it leads to oppression, impacts a nobility and tolerance, you know, it's not that you can really know the order. No, you can never, because when I say I really know who you are, it's also from a objectification. No, I can never really know you. No, it's not possible to know you truly, but I have an experience of you to understand why such as that, that to see our shared humanity, what I call them, subjective equality. So, it is it is a, so here is a subjective conversion here is an out of self-knowing, self-knowing, but also otherness-knowing. You see, self-knowing, but otherness-knowing. So knowing myself, but also knowing the order, you see, you know, so we know ourselves more, but the other person in dialogue with us. And so you see, you are masked that person from strangeness to familiarity, because strangeness, when you said, somebody's strange, you see, they got, for example, if you know that Miguel can't, others humans, the enlightenment, that objectified the people, others, that objectified people from all Western cultures, when you say what I call them, simplification, simplification of objectification, or simplification of objects, when you say, simplify, when you say somebody's knocking, you simplify them, when you simplify them, you objectify them. So when objectify becomes a valent, becomes a possibility, because I don't want to know you. I don't want to have dialogue with you. I keep it at this time. It makes it possible for me to objectify you. I want objectify you, you're just nothing. So let's, let's bring this to practice. I can follow what you're saying. If I simplify someone, I'm reducing them an objectifying them when I objectify them, and there is a chance of violence. But let's go back to, because I noticed the paradox, and that would be my last question. And I know these, these questions are maybe impossible to answer. So feel free to also throw it back to me. But if you would take Leo Pold, which has done extreme across this in an extreme violence, extreme murdering in maybe the biggest killer in our history, which almost also no one in the West knows about or in detail. And if you would apply these tools that you have given us, that's that we need to get to know him. We need to introduce a dialogue. And we need to reduce the otherness. Is that also possible in this case, or could you in this case, just say this man is evil? Okay, you say, your mind is evil. I'm not, there's no doubt about that. I'm not, I'm not making a space. I'm not making a defense that is cruel, evil, probably, you know, that Nama was was was standing was was standing, what the any will, whatever I have a rising history. But you don't see status of other people, you don't see the status of it lie in Germany, but you see the status of in your port, even, even going with your port, your post it, your body is still there, starting over there. Okay, that's not what I didn't finish before. It's duplication, it also comes with mystification. That's too aspect. I want to make it into context, mystification. What makes it possible for people to do what you did was this aspect of simplification and mystification. So, of course, your family would say, uh, would say so the entireism, whatever about the Arabs are with this and this and this, and then you, you, you, you, you, you mystify them. When you mystify or simplify, you do the same thing, mystification and simplification, both list of objectification, the other is so strange, I cannot know them. That's such a mystery. You know, we can never know them. Or there's nothing that's not about the humanity that has a neat moral value in their character who should throw away within about them. These are two ways. So it's in the news, the media, the media are all those people that keep saying it makes it become so realistic. They regularize it, they normalize it. The ability to see certain people as objects because of the way is being proposed in the media. They missify the objectify, they simplify another objectify. And so when X, Y, Z goes to throw boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, or kill innocent people or try to kill in certain X, Y, Z. They are not human cause of the way is being regularized. And so, but dialogue then when I say come to dialogue is to rupture this mystery, mystification and simplification. They are not just people you can just justify, they're not just objects. So you move people away from this normative script that was pretty given that the order you are talking to is just a mystery and object to the realm of humanity. You rehumanize them. So the question I would have had with the little poor would have been to rehumanize each other. Humanize each other. You know, because that's always aspect that is only the victim that's always in need of dialogue. And so this is another way. And because they say well, you see people talking about reconciliation, reconciliation and the African studies, African studies on. And it's all the people who are championship always people who have been the existence of the past that was always carrying out distance, carrying out distance, you know, as if you know, you see in that sense or decolonization, or not about decolonization, certain about decolonization. But also the guy, the person who also bring the oppression, the past also need to decolonize their mind from superiorization. This idea that they have a hierarchical knowledge that the system of doing is better, that democracy is better, that they are not whatever they have is better. They also need to come to 10. That's their own knowledge possesses ontological turbulence. It is kind of turbulence. I talk about it's ontological trouble. That is not is always they should also be willing to have a presuming community. So this is probably so my idea of the luck is knowledge is about knowledge in knowledge. They will be to understand understanding would I need to come to Russia. That's how we can make meaning meaningful reconciliation for better world. There's so much. There's so much in this world that we can learn. The first is a gift of the tracks. You see, you are a gift to me. I would never make it for talking to you over time. We've come to talk to each other, understand each other and you are a gift. I'm a gift. You see kind of the more diverse we are the better world we have. Imagine if we just we are the diversity makes it what it what it wishes to want so we should and we should not yeah. I recognize that a bit of what you're saying of course not in these terms and with these great examples but in my line of work we always say let's make it a bit more complex because normally they want to simplify it and we just say normally say let's make it a bit more complex because what I understood for. That these pre-written scripts that are in our culture and our politics and I'm thinking a bit broader than what you said because I think they're also in our culture and in the media and the political agenda. These pre-written scripts simplify or mystify so they make the other like a terrorist or a violent person or a racist or so these pre-written scripts simplify and. And mystify so in in one sense they are just simply that another human being with other aspects or they are just too strange to understand and you suggest that true dialogue where you are prepared to openly change your views or openly understand each other helps in. Humanization the other so so against the dehumanization tendencies that are written in these pre-written scripts but the paradox I noticed that is that in one sense you said I don't need the other to forgive and you were making that argument in a sense that I don't need the other for the open dialogue and at the end you said also the oppressor needs to step into this dialogue because also the oppressor needs to understand they don't have all the knowledge and they don't have all the position and they also need to change the view so here I noticed a bit of a paradox between not needing the other but also needing the other. Yeah let me there's a tension here I look at another tension there's a tension here when I mean the other one is that's in forgiveness that I don't need the order to forgive that's a different. I don't need the order to forgive forgive that's a different. But you used it as an example of dialogue but you used it as a dialogue but what I specifically in the context of forgiveness is that was more in the context of forgiveness you know in the context of forgiveness that's a completely different. Maybe it was a tablet example but I want to make it that in forgiveness is to put it me from the other. Now I can forgive you I don't care what you think about my forgiveness. I don't need you to tell me hey might you forgive me well I give you 80% no forgiveness okay I give you 80% no no no I don't need you is about myself to free myself because I'm sorry from the trauma from all those things that you don't need I don't need a permission to forgive you that's a point I want to make. Now that's been forgiven now and I'm talking about what's human in context kind of a human in kind of different ways of the encounter and that's different. In dialogue when I'm in a dialogue bringing to idea is this dialogue you know sometimes I talk about the monetic space of silence sometimes don't even need to talk just to this about this kind of a re-humanization through knowledge this extent of knowledge to understanding the other person those two understanding through this experiential contextual experiences is kind of a experiential other person in order to understand them that will probably use the subjective conversion but they are I want to be specific. It's not only the victim that is in need of dialogue that I'm trying to say that you want to have the other who is also the villain should also have the depressed position that their own mindset should change. If you are the superior power and you are listening to me and what are going to that look then you should also recognize that you should also know that what you think that you know possesses that are a core of our own knowledge called turbulence is not permanent is not it's not always the case. That is what I'm trying to suggest here that my question my question remains that and it's in the impossible question to answer but what if in dialogue which is the interaction between two. Or more human beings the other doesn't want to participate with on the same pre written rules that we just discussed that that you don't know everything that you are prepared to understand the other et cetera et cetera what do we do if the other is not willing to participate on these rules that make dialogue a dialogue. Well that's not pretty routine rules that's the point I want to make there are no pretty routine rules I'm not I'm not suggesting I'm only suggesting an outlook on that and outlook that we should have in mind that is the pretty rules but that the question is that when we dialogue if that doesn't want to support that let's meet just just mix this has coffee you know let's have coffee. I'm having coffee with someone and I'm just saying I'm using the terms you use I'm having coffee with someone who hasn't who doesn't or doesn't want to have epistemological humility who doesn't have any ontological turbulence or willing to and absolutely doesn't care about ontological mobility I'm going there I'm having a coffee what that. Do you always see it now you see what is happening here it's talking it's dealing with the dialogue sorry it's only it's about communication the only with the dialogue there you went up to silence terminological silence so please continue. I'm trying to understand you yeah it's about communication may not just be the way of dialogue in some cartoons you know when my mom comes to the room and sometimes she doesn't need to say anything one way young she just she just works past the room fast and we're also what we do wrong. We don't need to she doesn't need to say anything we know my mom probably you go check the did it watch the dishes did you sweep the room did you assignment to think what have you done that my what is that another and then she looks up to you and then you know something about I said when so these are also some sort of communication that we should do so you think it's not just talking we're talking because we have about use what about those who cannot have the ability of the language to talk in the same way so moving away from also the it's also that like the way talking about history is only legitimate when it's written is dialogue only legitimate when we talk when we have about communication. And so we are still sitting there and I found a part of the dollar do you agree to come and have coffee with me in the first place. Do you agree that the first thing was about it I said go have coffee so do you agree to have coffee with me okay they want to talk no okay let's have coffee and look at each other. 'I look at each other. Today we have coffee. Tomorrow we have coffee. Someday maybe we'll decide to talk. Maybe we'll don't talk.' The question was to encounter the human beings in their whole totality of essence and totalitarian beings. That's encountering the human beings. No. So, with my talk, you may have the language. You may not have these philosophical skills. I may have it. You may not, you may have it. I will not have it. You may have the rhetorical skills. You know. So, these are different ways. It's not just about what you're saying. The thing is that this human interaction, in a broad sense, if we start this, even if the other party doesn't acknowledge or doesn't have this humility or doesn't even want to acknowledge different truths, I should initiate this human interaction, which could be in silence, which could be just with walking, which could be just staring at each other. Yeah. And to keep this human interaction, going gives the hope of the option or the opportunity to have a meaning dialogue in the future. Bring them to the human disease zone of humanity. Bring them to a shared space. A shared socio-political. No, no, no, no. This is not a shared subjective space. It's subjective space of encounter. These are subjective space of encounter. Bring them. You can look at each other. You can just smile. You can listen. You know, so I can just watching you do a drink of coffee. You watch me do a drink of coffee. Do you know that you look at the way I have my coffee? Do I put to I put to sugar or one sugar? Whatever. You're looking at me. I'm still like you're not being. I had this question. I had been patiently waiting. But you answered my question. And this brings me to an interesting point. And I know you're allergic to hunger. So we also need to wrap it up. But it brings me to the question that. And this happens in the. I think you call it the zone of humanity. So this doesn't happen online. This doesn't happen on discussion forums. This doesn't happen on Twitter. Am I right? No, Twitter. Twitter is still an abstract space of dialogue. Those are not the real spaces of dialogue. So this also means that if I'm talking to a white supremacist. I love the stuff. Yeah, a real coffee. A real coffee. And there is a movie. I forgot the name, but there is a movie about that. I think it's a young African-American police officer or FBI agent. And he starts having telephone dialogues with white supremacist, Google Clacks member, Google Clan member. And he pretends to be a Google Clan member. And he converts the other. So this subjective conversion happens in that movie. And it's a movie. It's a real movie. It's a movie about a real story. And in that sense, I don't remember exactly, but they become friends through this phone conversations. And at Google Clants member, stop being a Google Clan member. I'm not sure if I'm saying the exact details. I will send you the link of the movie later on, but they start having these real dialogues. And it happens as an undercover FBI agent. And I think later on, they become friends. And a Google Clan member stops being a Google Clan member. But I'm not completely sure if I'm romanticizing it now. I know of these stories that has happened. Because they come outside of the realm of the humanization. And I think that's your whole point. Bring the other, bring the unknown other to the zone of humanity. And there's an interaction. And you will start knowing that you are the same. Exactly. That's my part. Thank you. That's a good way to put it. That's a good way to put it, isn't it? And I say, a person is a person, sure, that people are, or as a joining beauty puts it, I am because you are, I know. But I also say, well, you said I am because we are, but I say I am because you are. So that's your difference. It's not a practice. It's a gift to my humanity. Something like that. So that is the whole space. So this kind of real manization, a real manization of the other. I want you to look me with encounter each other in different planes. And something happens. Something breaks down. It's about breaking down the ego, you know, this kind of the ego. But it's also very difficult. It's, I wanted to stress because when this conversation, for example, started, you were enthusiastically in a very fast space. In a fast space, a pace, telling me all these things with an accent, which was also difficult for me to understand. It takes a lot of patience to just sit there and really listen. And then I started to notice, hey, he's telling me something very interesting, which I didn't know before. But it takes a bit of self-control. It takes a bit of patience. It takes a bit of letting go of your familiarities and trusting the unknown. And once I was starting to understand you once I was getting the pictures. And also once I learned that you were not telling this to me in an instrumental way, for example, my last question was a question I had. And I was waiting for the answer. What happens then? And then you were saying, it's not about this dialogue. It's about the human interaction. And in this interaction, you will find the other in yourself and the other will find you in themselves. This took a lot of patience. And I'm saying that not to give you feedback. That's absolutely not the point. My point is this is practical wisdom that needs to be practiced. It also demands a lot from the self. So if people are listening to this story, this is not a theoretical exercise. It's a practical exercise, which is very difficult. And especially if you are not grown up in the culture of Ubuntu, for example, especially if you are not grown up in the culture of debate, pre-written scripts. And let's try to win some and lose some. And the game is of zero some game. If I win, the other will lose. It's a paradigm shift that it's not only a theoretical paradigm shift. It's a practical paradigm shift, which you have to practice every day, I guess. Yeah, it is. It is. It is, you know, it is because of that. Normally, because if you dance, you know, the way we see all the, he is black, he's Arab, he's Muslim, he is this. And then we objectified us because very soon it become abstract names, not justified. He's mystified. And then he is objectified or simplified. And then valid becomes a possibility. So we need to move away from that. So if that quotes their own subject, their humanity. So we need to reorganize that tendencies, you know, it's like people who are criticizing critical risk theory or critical thinking about tracing in North America. They do not understand what critical thinking about this, they have no idea. So, but you see politicians like in the government's Florida, for example, so many universities trying to ban critical thinking about this. If only they would, I say, why don't you come to my class? I want to say come to my class. Let's have a dialogue about critical, they would, they would say promote it. I must leave. They come to just, you know, class, you know what, what's the, you know what the difficulty about this. And looking at the time we should also, I will give you the closing words to finish your story, but you know what the problem about that is. And I remember this as a young kid putting on my computer and listening to the debate of, I think it was John Kerry. John Kerry versus George Bush. It's so much easier giving the simple answer. We will reduce taxes, we will create jobs. That was what George Bush kept repeating. But the complex and the real story is much more difficult to follow. We will increase taxes, we will invest in education and after that our economy, you already lost me. So I understand what you're saying about race theory, but it's so much easier for the other party to spread the simple message. Yeah, yeah, it is, it's complex, but we are complex beings. And what the capacity to understand it, you know, complex and different layers of beings, we are complex. If you're surprised that even your child or your partner, if you have one or whatever, or your mother, your parents, that you're always full of surprises. They let's love surprises. And that is the beauty of life that you can never really know the other. Even if you know, you can never really know the other, the people are always full of surprises. And we should only have the systemic humility to give the people benefit of that. And not just to underestimate the other. Yeah, not just always sitting now because we have the power, we have the space and opportunity. And then we just throw intense, you know, especially in the media, in the public media, you know. "Otherwise, they just watch sales. Because it's also material. It's about profit. It's about profit. So you see, commodification of value. So it's in material instance, what gives news is this, this, the way you frame it." You know, so you so we need to humanize also the way we do so. So that like is something that we should always do every day, what you have oneself, oneself, understand one, because if you only give what you have, if you don't know yourself, if you cannot give me what I don't know anything. So you only give what you have is also about self that was contemplative and it's kind of contemplative. Understand who you are, who are you yourself. If you don't know who you are, how do you start to the other person, if you don't know who you are. So this kind of dynamic stuff. Anyway, thank you so much. It's been great talking to you. And then that's been great. And my background for listeners, my background is this. Yeah, it's a study philosophy at Universal Zimbabwe, a psychology from Universal South Africa. And I studied a master, I have also a University of Turkey. Yeah. Okay. So you were, you were, yeah, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. So I guess my last question was, could you tell me tell the listener something about yourself where they can find something of you more information or if they want to follow you a little bit of your background. Yeah. Well, I'm on Twitter. I don't use that a lot. I used to be on Facebook, but I left Facebook. So I'm just on LinkedIn. Yeah. Well, I had a study philosophy at the Jesuit School of Philosophy, my mother, I am a Jesuit University. And then, and I have a special degree in the philosophy and classics. I also studied the psychology and topology in versus Africa. I studied at the University of Victoria for graduate studies, masters in philosophy. And then I went to Germany, work with you on Ruzon, the German intellectual historian, and did my PhD first PhD in history. So history and cultural reflection, university, we didn't had a guy in Germany. This summer starts writing, working and then what another PhD in a political science and international studies from the University of Cambridge, trying to haul. So the background, basically, history, I think history is superior, political science. So, but that's me speaking anyway. Anyway, so for the historians who read. So, I currently, recently I was teaching a lighting university in Netherlands, but now I'm teaching a bit of moving to California, California State University in Fresno. Why teach African studies. So you can find me. Well, yeah, I have, yes, I do, I have two doctorates here, history and cultural reflection from university within Africa, and a second PhD in political science and international studies from the University of Cambridge, two different backgrounds, completely different. No, no, it's very interesting. But I said thing that, according to philosophy and religious studies, psychology and topology and political science, I still think that history is the queen of all sciences. I think history is superior to all those disciplines. I think history is them what helps you to understand. If you're good, you should be humble. That's not true. That's new. That hasn't happened. If you're good, you should be. I'm sorry, but philosophy is an arrogant discipline. It's an extremely arrogant discipline. And I'm a philosopher, of course, still. But still, it's a kind of self-incrimination, self-reflecting mood. I'm aware of that. I'm very cautious of that. Thank you for having me on your put card. And good luck. Thank you for watching. All right. Have a good day. Bye. Good night. Good night. [no speech]