Progressing Islam

My father is reading an interesting book by a progressive Muslim author on Islam in the modern world. While the book has a tendency to glorify Islam and, from the excerpts I've read, seems incredibly dismissive of some of the inherent issues within the Muslim world and a little to ready to blame the problems that Islam has on the media, which does not create problems (though it does often make them worse, or appear worse).

Religions are often hijacked by political movements looking for a way to get unquestioning masses which are already engaged in a church to accept their political ideology and develop a certain degree of xenophobia to demonize their opposition. We've seen this with the Christian Right in America, which has used the fear of an ever more secular world to demonize a "Secular Left."

This backfired, of course, but it hasn't backfired in the Muslim world. In point of fact, it seems that Muslim leaders have had an easier time hijacking political movements than political leaders have hijacking Islam. The example of the Taliban is perpetual.

The Taliban is a movement unmistakably political in nature, and its use of strict interpretations of fundamentalist Islam, to the point where no freedom to dissent is possible (one of the most powerful and dangerous statements which can be made by a political movement) seems to indicate that it is a political movement which has used Islam as a means of developing a certain degree of popular support and creating dissent for the "Secularized" or "Judeo-Christian" West (sometimes it's the Jews and Christians attempting to oppress the Muslim world, sometimes it's the secularists, it waffles). It is hard, when looking at their roots as the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, to dispute this point.

Of course, there are other examples of fundamentalism in the Muslim world where it has been the religious clerics, not the political activists, who have brought Islam into the political arena, and into the world at large, as a means of enforcing strict interpretations of the law. We saw this with the Ayatollah, who went from being a powerful religious figure to enforcing his will over the political arena internationally, and we've seen similar acts of enforcement by religious clerics choosing to force European legislators to engage not simply in Muslim apologetics, but in the oppression of free speech.

What is interesting about the book that my father is reading is that it points out a few very interesting things the western world has come to accept about Islam that are certainly, objectively untrue.

The author makes valid points about women in education and leadership roles (and it is worth noting that women have taken leadership roles throughout the Muslim world, while it has been far more difficult for them to establish power in the US). Those, though, I think are worth overlooking for a moment.

The American media is under the impression that Muslim fundamentalism is somehow radically different from Christian fundamentalism (and Jewish fundamentalism, though the Jewish political position stays out of the spotlight, because they are more of a lobby than a voting block). This is disputable. While it's true that Muslim fundamentalists engage in acts that we find terrible, that we term terrorism, so do many Christian fundamentalists.

The KKK is an explicitly Christian organization, which engages in acts of terrorism and is seen by the United States as a terrorist organization engaged in the same form of hate speech that Muslim fundamentalists engage in. While they don't kill the same number of people (though they did about forty or fifty years ago), they still engage in the same acts of intimidation, high levels of illegality and political activism (i.e. David Duke).

That analogy from the opening, post-9/11 episode of the West Wing still rings true today:

[Muslim] Extremest is to [Islam] as the Klu Klux Klan is to Christianity.

Of course, the Klan is only a singular example of Christian fundamentalism. It is important that we recognize that Christian fundamentalism extends far further. If the Phelps family had political power and social relevance, they would be in a similar position to the Saudi Arabian Royal Family, without a doubt. The different, of course, is that in the west, these groups are not empowered. Those who are transparently and unashamedly racist have been pushed to the fringes of western society.

Muslim countries are working to push these political movements to the fringe of their world, but it is not easy. It was not easy for us, in the west, and anyone who thinks that the Muslim world is having a harder time than we did is lying to themselves. Let us not forget that we had openly racist leadership in this country for generations, that even a man considered one of the most progressive and praiseworthy leaders in this nations history, Abraham Lincoln, was not without staunch political opposition, and that his successor was a man who allowed for the moral failure of this country to lead to hundreds more years of racial inequity.

Of course, the Muslim world is not about racial oppression, it is about religious and social oppression, which is a far more dangerous dynamic. In the United States, we had a first amendment which ensured the freedom to politically dissent from opposition. The fact that America was a nation that came into being out of political dissent and discourse allowed it to ensure that the minority opinion, however conservative or progressive, would be heard.

There is no first amendment right assuring free speech in the Muslim world. It is not a right supported by Islam, and those who claim the right of Islam claim to right to protection from any sort of dissent, because dissenting from them is dissenting from Islam, and to dissent from Islam is death.

The west is under the impression that our right to dissent offers us some degree of moral superiority and, perhaps, there is a cultural superiority when political opposition can be open and stand in the street with signs and shout at the top of their lungs without fear. However, that feeling is not productive, that statement that "we are living right and you need to shape up and be like us" gets us nowhere in conversations with the Muslim world.

Understanding Islam is difficult, and America doesn't have a grasp on the religion that acts as a language for political discourse in the Middle East, just as it doesn't understand the history of tribal warfare that defines the African continent. It would be unfair to advocate that we should remain silent in issues which deeply affect our country, but it is not so outlandish to suggest that in a time of political strife within these nations we should ensure that we, at the very least, attempt to understand that these countries are moving forward in a way that we did, and that while America did not get to where it is without the help of powerful leaders, that vast majority of that leadership came from within a nation that wanted to change.

It seems that countries in the Muslim world want to change. They see the way that we live, and the way that the world is changing around them and understand this much, and often their governments ask for our help, as Pakistan has asked for help in their ongoing war with the Taliban. However, it is not our place to believe that we are capable of mediating conflict in the Muslim world, or that we are capable of enforcing peace, or that we even have a duty to.

In listening to President Obama speak to the Muslim world, one thing has become clear, there is a single gift that the western world can offer the Muslim world, a gift which, unlike the AK-47, unlike the anti-tank weapons, cannot be turned on other governments by the rogue leadership of political movements (like the Mujahadeen) which we once supported. That is the gem of free political discourse.

The Muslim world has voices of moderation and progression, though, like the voices in the early years of the United States, those voices are silenced by gunfire, it seems the Muslim world is progressing towards a more fulfilled understanding of the value of dissent from a political position, and hopefully this will allow for a dissent from religious values, and lead to the progression of a society which understands the virtue of personal freedom.

Freedom, though, cannot be enforced by military might. There cannot be a free people when they need a tank and a dozen American military personal to police their streets. A free society must stand on its own. These are lessons from our own history that we have forgotten to apply to the Muslim world, because we think it is radically different from our own.

Make no mistake: The Muslim world is radically different from the one that we live in, but it is not different from the world that, not so long ago, our great-grandparents tried to change, and then our grandparents, and then our parents, and now us. Theirs is a world moving forward, just as ours is, and to refer to them as a backwards civilization run by religious fanaticism is dismissive and overlooks that, not so long ago, we, too, were just the same.

NOTE: I have been told before that I am anti-Islam. This is true. I believe that there are primitive aspects to Islam, and to Christianity and Judaism (and Buddhism, and Hinduism, and so on), that are not conducive to life in modern, civilized society. That aside, the answer is not to enforce secularism in the Muslim world, or anywhere, the answer is to allow for political dissent, and to let debate over the merits and beneficial nature of religion ensue, so that the people, on an individual basis, can decide whether it is something that their society wants to embrace. This is a principle of Freedom, and expressed clearly in the first amendment.

The Gay Marriage Debate and Biblical Support

The more I listen to the gay marriage debate and the Biblical citations it entails, the more I realize that it takes a secular individual to act as a substantial intermediary, because they are capable of looking at what the Bible says without attempting to justify it.

There are a few groups that take the Old Testament and New Testament statements about the evils of homosexuality very seriously. The one that jumps immediately to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church. Of course, the WBC is all about the old time punishment of homosexuality: Death.

Most Evangelicals used to accept this position as valid, but now only a few extremists in the Evangelical movement accept the proposition. I say this because if we look at the number of people who think its ok to legislate against gay marriage, and then look at the number of people who think its ok to legislate against homosexuality, there's a discrepancy. My point is that there shouldn't be.

The first point of Evangelical hypocrisy and (it must be said) stupidity is that it maintains that the Bible proposes a concept of One Man and One Woman (some, like Rick Warren, would tag "for life" on the end of that, but since the divorce rate in this country is so high, I'll leave that alone for now).

The Bible does not state that the institution of marriage is between one man and one woman. Of course, the Christian Right makes the points about Adam and Eve (Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, and so on), but the truth of the matter is, the Bible happily endorses polygamy.

Jacob (Israel), one of the great Patriarchs in the Old Testament, had two wives, as well as children by two additional concubines.

According to the 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives. While Solomon's wives are depicted as evil women, the act of polygamy is hardly decried.

The Bible never addresses these as sinful and both are considered blessed figures, especially Jacob. This account of traditional marriage is a failure in and of itself, but is not the largest failure of the argument.

The point that needs to be made is simple: the Bible does not condemn marriage between homosexuals, it condemns homosexuality.

It is true that the Bible openly condemns homosexuality. Moderate Christians can attempt to apologize for this point, attempt to minimize its impact on society, but it's a fact. The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. It also condemns a lot of other things (like, for instance, divorce), but let's not get caught up in those.

One who accepts the Bible as the literal revelation of the word of a god who created the universe must acknowledge that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and do similarly. This is standard progessional logic.

The Bible is true. (P1)
The Bible is law. (P2, drawn from P1)
The Bible condemns homosexuality as "an abomination." (P3)
Homosexuality is an abomination. (C)

Of course, I reject premise one and, as a result, premise two. That said, it is important to make note that there are those who accept these points, but reject the conclusion on the grounds that it is not desirable.

You can't have it both ways and claim a logical position. This debate on gay marriage is an issue of the failings of those who read the Bible to differentiate between "opposing gay marriage" and "opposing gays."

As someone who hears from many anti-gay rights activists that they don't hate homosexuals, I have to ask "why?"

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Why don't you agree with that statement? Where's your Biblical support?

And the answer is, there is none, but they don't want to be portrayed as literal, closed minded, hateful, religious fundamentalists, even when the Bible says they should.

Pro-Life, Kinda

In memory of the late Dr. George Tiller.

The murder of Dr. George Tiller is not something that should be taken lightly and I have debated using it as an opportunity to raise what I think is a serious difficulty of the rhetorical "pro-life" position.

Of course, I don't refer to anti-abortion activists as pro-life, because I don't think they are. I refer to them as "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion," as I feel those are fair characterizations of the position.

The reason I use the term is that, it seems to me, that those who advocate for "life" don't actually advocate for life in all instances. What they're advocating for is fetal rights, generally out of the belief in a soul instilled at conception.

I could point out, easily, that alleged "pro-life" activists generally don't object to the killing of doctors who perform abortions. That's not entirely true, though, and it would be silly to make such a gross generalization. Of course, those who do advocate the murder of physicians have absolutely no right to use the term, and their hypocrisy should be noted and thrown in their face at every opportunity. As should the hypocrisy of those who don't openly decry the act.

The reason why I don't think there are really "pro-life" activists, though, is simple.

If you are truly "pro-life," if you advocate the defense of life under all circumstances, you must adhere to that as a primary principle, and very few actually do (I'll get to those rare instances later).

That means opposing the termination of life:

as retributive punishment

as a means of defending oneself or ones property

as a means of spreading political ideology

These are the three primary situations, and while many may oppose capital punishment (an issue on which Mike Huckabee is consistent), very few would object to the termination of life for the starting of a war. For Christians, this is problematic, as Christianity has deep roots in spreading itself through war, and it's a problem for Republicans (where we find the most vehement in the use of the term "pro-life") who support the war in Iraq, or in any other country.

Of course, the termination of life as a means of defending oneself seems like a huge leap. It may seem like a dramatic extension of the position, but if it is true that life is sacred, then it needs to be a part of the principle that life cannot be taken by one who adheres to a truly "pro-life" position.

The position of those who wield the rhetorical title, though, is not based on the preservation of life. It does not adhere to the rhetorical position they claim to espouse, which is:

Life is sacred. Period.

What they mean to say is that the life of a fetus is as much a life as that of a full grown adult, but the fetus cannot defend itself.

This is a logical position (at least in that it is a conclusion based on premises, not in that it is logical) on which I disagree.

I do not think that the life of a fetus is equivalent to the life of a full grown individual, but this is a position that I may go into at another point. It's not so much that it's a long argument, but rather that it's an argument that deserves its own time.

My point is not that the anti-abortion lobbyists are wrong (they are, in my opinion, but that is not my point, at this particular moment).

My point is that they do not manifest the rhetorical position that they claim as their own. They embrace the title of "pro-life" happily, because it sounds great. I mean, we all agree that life is a good thing. Of course, they're not in favor of life in all circumstances.

Their position has its own logic, but they're not "pro-life."

"Good" Memes

As this blog was initially started to document personal thoughts, I figured I might as well do some of that.

I've been working on adding footnotes and adding an addendum to the journal article I presented a while ago. I've been learning that the academic world is slower than I personally would like it to be, but that's another issue.

Every time I begin to discuss the new advance in memetics that the article discusses on the connectedness of memes in the public consciousness, I am faced by a persistent and annoying question.

Is it good?

Of course, this is a question about the technology.

Is it good that the internet allows us to communicate so much faster?

Is it good for our culture?

Is it good for the quality of information?

I object to the question, of course. This is not uncommon. Much of the time, a question built to commandeer a conversation is objectionable, and this is one of those occasions.

The objection is on two grounds.

The first is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. If technology is going to have an impact, it's going to have an impact, and we can't (and shouldn't) sacrifice technology because of it. The advance in technology is not simply good, but necessary.

The second is that it's not really offering an arbitrary criteria for good.

Is good a matter of the beneficiality for us, for human beings, as a species? Or is good a matter of increasing the success of memes?

Of course, it seems obvious to the person asking the question that they were inquiring about the first one, but I make the differentiation intentionally.

As memes develop, as they evolve, they are not at all concerned with us. Dawkins makes a point of that in the Selfish Gene, when the concept was introduced, but it is clear simply through observation. The memes use us when they need to, they destroy us when it suits them better. They operate on their own prerogative (it's not a conscious decision, but rather one dictated by the circumstances under which they evolve; that's not important, though).

If we want the memes to be good in that first sense then we have to make a point of propagating the memes that are beneficial.

Some regard this as a sort of memetic eugenics, like artificial selection. It's not. It's a natural selection. As a medium of replication (and, make no mistake, the human being is a medium of replication), its within our best interest to select in favor of memes that are beneficial. That's a natural function, and part of the role we play as meme machines.

So, as cliche as it sounds, the memes have always been what we make them. The technology changes those memes, but they are still what we make them.

Dan Dennett talks about waging a war on destructive memes, and this is a good idea. Natural selection tends, historically, in favor of memes that advance the survival of their hosts, but that is not always true, and some of the most successful memes are destructive ones.

It is important that we find ways to minimize those destructive memes, maximize the success of the memes most beneficial for us.

This, of course, is the general purpose of my endnote, but it really isn't fair to write an addendum to address a question that I then claim is a stupid one. It also seems a bit nonsensical to answer a question that I think is stupid (though I find that I do it a lot of the time).

Anyway, as this is what my life is coming to, I figure it might be worth writing about.

Religious Teaching and Executive Orders

In the third season finale of the West Wing there is a heavy plotline discussion of the virtues and vices of political assassination, a concept certainly ripe for ethical discussion. That aside, there's a single line in there that, when I was young, struck me. As they discuss the principle of the Execute Order, Leo McGarry, the White House Chief of Staff, points something out: A President can rescind his own executive order.

This is not surprising to me. After all, any single body capable of dictating policy is generally also credited with the ability to overturn that policy.

Still, I was having a conversation with a friend, who's very religious, and we were discussing some bits of religious ethics that have never sat particularly well with me and, all of which, I've come to notice, hinge on this sentence of Monarchy Ethics, which allow the High Authority to suspend his own commandments.

I posed to him a few premises that gave him some issues, as a pretty secular ethicist, and I'll explain why those problems arose in a little bit.

The Law proposed by an Omniscient God is Absolutely Right.

In being Absolutely Right, the Law cannot be suspended based on circumstance.

How can God suspend what is Absolutely Right?

These two premises gave him some issues, and that's because he, like any person who believes that a morality can be created and enforced by people, believes that Absolute Right in as intrinsic value, which is to say that if a law is Absolutely Right, it cannot be suspended.

A religious fundamentalist should take issue with the notion of Absolute Right, and here's why:

The value of "Absolute Right" is not intrinsic.

The Law is "Absolute Right" because God says so.

Ergo, if God decides to say something is not Absolutely Right, then that is true.

Basically:

The Law is Good because God says it's Good.

Goodness does not exist on its own merit. It exists based on the opinion of the Universal Curator. This is the religious position (not mine).

With this proposed, we can get to the Biblical issues that we were discussing.

God says in the sixth commandments: Thou shalt not kill.

However, refraining from murderous behavior is only bad if God says it is. There are instances throughout the Bible of God choosing to suspend this verdict, and many occasions when God states that the it is Good to kill.

The same is true for Idolatry as presented in Islam, and could be made manifest (though it might not be) in any monotheistic religion that praises its Divine Ruler as the single authority on the law.

For those who are wondering about the example of Idolatry in Islam that I alluded to, God says there shall be no Idolatry (a point Muslims make clear), but that ruling does not apply to worship of the Kaaba, which becomes a central vessel of worship for Muslims (the very definition of an idol).

This can be reconciled, of course.

However, in the reference that religious leaders so often make to the Brothers Karamazov, that thought that "without God all things are permitted" there is a sense of hypocrisy, and something to be said for dirty pots and kettles.

With the permission of God, we see that which we consider Evil made Good. We cannot acknowledge the existence of a Moral Absolute beyond the Divine Opinion, and any morality dictated by opinion can never be called Absolute.

This, of course, is not a refutation of the religious principles, but rather an observation of the failure of religious ethics to live up to the high principles they claim to possess.

Human Nature and Physiological Predisposition

I hear a lot of talk, as a philosophy student who occasionally deals with ethics (especially Hobbes vs. Locke questions), about human nature and this question of what is innate in human beings, behavioral speaking.

Are we naturally rebellious?

Are we naturally predisposed to order?

What is the innate state of human nature?

In dealing with Locke and Hobbes, and ethics in general, I think this is a terribly important question. I think it's important not simply because Locke and Hobbes want to make use of (Locke) or circumvent (Hobbes) what they see as pieces of human nature, behavioral tendencies in individuals.

"What is human nature?" though, seems like the wrong way of phrasing the question, and here's why:

"Human Nature" is not an individual, isolated function within the body. "Human nature" is not like the kidneys, an individual organ performing a singular specific function. Rather, it is the collection of functions in the body that define what human beings do in an uninhibited state, when not restricted by social laws or manipulation.

It is important to acknowledge that these functions can be understand, that certain innate characteristics are present in human beings, not in an abstract, ethereal sense, but in a physiological, concrete way.

There are two definite patterns in human beings:

1. The human being, because of the way that the brain is organized, has a tendency to pursue that which is pleasurable. We see this in the pursuit of sex and sweet things. Of course, there are certain cases where it may seem as though the human being is indulging in pain (sadomasochism), but they are doing it to serve a function that offers them some degree of pleasure, though perhaps not immediately physical.

2. The human being has an aversion to pain. We spend a good deal of our time avoiding things which are painful, and we create ethical concepts like "white lies" and euthanasia as ways of averting pain in a way which we can perceive as ethical (whether those two things are ethical is not in question at this point).

These patterns, its important to recognize, are built on neurological processes.

The pleasure centers of the brain emerge out of some degree of evolutionary beneficiality (as do the emotional centers). The pain centers emerge out of a need to avoid that which could cause physical harm (we are in pain when we put our hand in fire because we have evolved the feeling of displeasure with that action).

I hesitate to assert that there is more to human nature than that. We search for food when we are hungry because we like the pleasure of eating and want to avert the pain of starvation. This is the source of natural drives among animals, similarly.

The real question that Locke and Hobbes pose is whether the devices created by this desire need to be repressed or released for the continued success of the species and civilization as a whole.

Basically, "Is it good that we are driven by pleasure and pain?" and the corollary "Should it be socially permissible?"

Societies are built on social contracts (whether Rousseau was the one who introduced the concept is beside the point; the system of law had existed before, whether people accepted the social contract by passive participation in society or tried to alter it through revolution). The question is whether or not it should be a part of our society to acknowledge and accept human nature.

Like a Justice trying to slip onto the Supreme Court, I generally answer the question without answering the question.

The answer is: Sometimes.

There are some moments where the visceral, natural response is the right one. When we are pursuing our own happiness by finding chocolate cake and indulging our sweet tooth, that should absolutely be acceptable within the modern social contract. No one questions that there should be a taboo laid out on chocolate cage for those who want it.

Still, there are moments when it is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to kill someone because they are standing on your toe. It may cause you pain and the anger that you feel may be a natural reaction as a result of the human "fight or flight" response, but we can agree that such an act is not permissible in the social contract.

Human nature is relevant to the discussion, as it acts as a perpetual motive for human behavior.

Pascal was right when he made note that "All men seek happiness." It is the cornerstone of any study of human behavior, and needs to be well understood if any practical sociological or governmental system is going to go anywhere.

That aside, we cannot build a social contract on an absolutist understanding of human nature. Absolute freedom with blind trust of the common man will lead to chaos, and the presence of a dictator enforcing policies which bind that same common man are both unacceptable ways of living. There is a happy medium which can and must be understood.

The conversation then evolves into case studies and the circumstantial debate over ethics, and while that does not seem as glamorous or as glorious as an absolute understanding of ethical principle, it's good that we allow moderation to win out over absolutism in this case, as the acceptance of moral absolutes, we learn from Godel, leads to far more problems (and paradoxes) than it can ever solve.

Modern Physiology and the Soul

I spent a portion of my weekend, a few weekends ago, at a conference on philosophy, and there were more than a few presenters on Plato.

Now, I have a lot of problems with the old Greeks (even Epicurus, who’s by far my favorite), but one of the things that came up in a few of the presentations, two of which were specifically on the topic, was the three part soul, according to Plato, and this is a major sticking point for me.

For those who haven’t read book four of the Republic, the statement of the soul is pretty simple. This soul consists of three parts:

Logos – The rational mind
Thymos – The emotion, spiritedness (generally considered masculine)
Eros – The appetite, desire (generally considered feminine)

Now, of course, all of this makes sense in the context of Plato, who noticed that there are three distinct functions in the individual. That we have the capacity for logic, we have a certain degree of desire and that we sometimes see the need to fight, to stand up for something. These are the three functions that he is trying to showcase.

I have no problem with Plato for presenting these three functions. My problem is with the attribution of these functions to the soul.

I am, by no means, an expert in physiology, but it seems to me that these three functions can be explained physiologically.

We know that the temporal lobe controls our capacity for foresight and reason. We know that the adrenal glands fuel the fight or flight reaction. We know that the limbic system controls most of our visceral emotional reactions, including many of our desires (that which do not come from other physiological components, like the physical hunger felt in a starved stomach).

With this new data present, doesn’t this undermine Plato’s version of the soul?

When I presented this to the young man on stage he responded by saying that it does, which I’m glad he did (because it was very intellectually honest of him, in my opinion). He then went on to explain that in the context of Plato’s time, Plato’s soul is a very powerful device. That’s fair, but it doesn’t explain why were should continue discussing his version of the soul in a time when we know it does not exist.

After posing the question, I had a few issues and a few ideas.

The first is something I’ve known for a while, but thought was worth bringing up, as the debate over the existence of a soul hinges on this:

The existence of something can be verified through its function. Which is to say, if something performs a function, then we can be sure that it exists.

I am fairly comfortable with that criteria for existence. It’s a criteria I have used for some time, and while it generally takes some explanation for people who don’t understand that being the object of a verb (like, say, if something is seen) is performing a function, it’s a solid qualifier once we get around that point.

That said, what is the function of a soul?

We’ve removed Plato’s functions, as they are performed by something else entirely.

The function of creation is not entirely understood, but it largely assumed to be the product of the physical brain and interactions within various structures (Dr. V.S. Ramachandran has some very interesting statements about the root of creativity based on interactions within the brain).

The function of consciousness is no longer explained through the use of the soul (which was the placeholder for some time). The top students of consciousness now recognize it as the product of neurology within the brain.

The capacity for morality can be largely attributed to the consideration of consequences, which is a function performed by the temporal lobe, which gives us that ability to make predictions.

So, what is the function of the soul? What function does it still act as a placeholder for, that we do not already have at least a rudimentary understanding of?

In the age of science, is this conceptualization of a part of ourselves that is inexplicable really necessary? Is it true?

I concede that I lean towards denying the existence of a soul categorically, as I cannot find a function, but it is an open question and, if such a function can be demonstrated, I would be very happy to see it.