Steve Sachoff: Welcome, Tomáš Sedláček, to Weight to the World. We're happy to have you here today. I wanted to start off with a bit about yourself - you were formally educated as an economist. You studied economics at Charles University here in Prague. You served as chief macro economist at Československá obchodní banka, one of the biggest Czech banks. But given all that, I think it's a mistake, not correct, to describe you purely as an economist. Certainly you have always had a strong interest in other disciplines - in philosophy, history, even theology, which is unusual for a Czech. This is also obviously reflected in your work, especially your book, which I'm familiar with, “The Economics of Good and Evil - The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street,” which is quite a sweeping period of time! And in that book and in your work, you often weave all of these disciplines into your story about humanity and where we are. And so I was wondering, how did you come to this approach to telling the story of economics and where we are in the world today?

Tomáš Sedláček: Well, it always seemed to me that society, or at least this is my case, that there is a need for some non-specialized answers. That the movement that started once in enlightenment had, as if, two steps. The first step was the realization that the knowledge of mankind is far greater that can fit in any one single brain, even if it's the brain of Einstein or a genius like that. So we spread out and everybody went to study their own discipline. But that was the first step of how I understand enlightenment. And the second step of enlightenment was let's put it together and see what comes out of that. And that sort of glue of the second part was always missing for me. So I tried to kind of put together at least the humanities - philosophy, history, economics, sociology, psychology, a little bit of literature, high culture, low culture, theology, mythology, and see whether I can weave a story out of that that makes sense to me. And I was happy that it actually seemed to have made sense to other people as well. So that really is my role. 

That's also why I was very happy to work with Václav Havel because I thought, and I still believe that actually more and more, that he was also thriving for a sort of a meaning. And you can't really find meaning if you look for meaning in economics alone or in philosophy [alone] actually, or in any of these particular fields [individually]. And Havel did construct a philosophy that tried to involve everything that a modern human being carries in their brains and in their hearts. And he put a lot of effort in trying to make sense of it. So in this, I think it's a nice match that I, that I professionally now get to follow the philosophy of Václav Havel, who was also himself very eclectic. He was a playwright, a dissident. To me, he was fundamentally a philosopher who used all these other means to be able to offer that model of living to a wider population. 

One way to describe it, it's basically Christianity made for Czechs, who have such a bad experience with organized religions. And the system of Václav Havel really allows for a high-level philosophical foundation that, for example, René Descartes built his system on this very famous “cogito ergo sum,” -  “I'm conscious therefore I am.”  And Havel kind of has a similar foundational stone in his pre-position of a fundamental identity, that “I equals I.” That is this living in truth, that this fundamental one has to equal one. You can't build mathematics unless that holds. If one does not equal one, the whole system of mathematics falls down. The whole cathedral of very complicated mathematical operators is hinged on the fact that one equals one. Now, Havel builds this system on this “I equals I,” which is a fundamentally much more natural experience. Not everybody thinks in numbers or equations, but everybody is able to say, “I am.” This is this Descartesian “I am, therefore I exist, therefore something exists.” But Havel goes further and says, “I ought to be I.” 

And from this small little change, [there] is basically again an identity, there is a moral system that kind of guides him really well. It's a practical philosophy, unlike the philosophy of René Descartes, for example. Havelian philosophy is a practical philosophy that served him as sort of a guiding light or a compass in times of the dissent, when he was organizing so many liberal free souls. And he did it really well because he was guided by this. 

Then, it is the same principle, the same philosophy, that guided him through the [Czech Velvet] revolution, which was perhaps the best managed revolution in the history of revolutions. And in the same light, guided him through the 13 years of [his] presidency. And his 13 years of presidency were outstandingly good, not only by Czech historical standards, but also by international standards. 

So why I'm saying all of this is that Havel achieved something that I was trying to construct in my younger years, and that is to have a philosophy that is actually enlightened in the sense that it covers, is able to incorporate art, political movements, belief in some higher meaning of things. And he based that on love and truth. It's a complete philosophical system that kind of reaches all the way to his personal life, is something that you don't find. Hegel does not have such a life that reflected his Hegelian philosophy. Maybe Kierkegaard either. You could talk about, I don't know, many other philosophers who created a system to guide mankind and yet that very system of their own failed to guide the author of such thought itself. So a long answer to your very difficult question. I think this is the role of every human being -  to make sense of his life. And my sort of research led really nicely into now researching the hypothesis that Havel really achieved creating a unified philosophy that is quite unique and useful.

So today, as we've mentioned, you are the director of the Václav Havel Library, where we're sitting right now. It's an institution that is dedicated to researching, preserving, and documenting, promoting Havel's work. What was your motivation for taking on this role. You already had quite a successful, interesting career. Why take the helm at the Havel Library?

Because Václav Havel is the one personality who, in the Czech landscape, for me personally, that's the legacy that I'm happy to put my 100% [effort] into. And it really fits well. I was very much influenced by his thought, and what I always felt was that both we Czechs and the world, we didn't really see the key contribution of Václav Havel, which is basically a philosophy that's practical and that could lead countries, not only Czech Republic, but also Europe, and perhaps one day, the world. He's really offering a sort of a gospel according to Havel, which has a personal redemption story of being born again, sort of an equivalent in Christianity. He calls it existential revolution. But if you read into it, it's pretty much very similar. You get a new meaning, your life suddenly gets a new meaning. and you're open to a communication with something higher than yourself, something akin to the Christian God. And the spirit that Havel talks about all the time is on one hand not unsimilar to the Holy Spirit in Christianity and also on the other hand, not unsimilar to the Hegelian “weltgeist,” -  the world spirit that is sort of guiding us. 

It's a system. It's a system that makes sense. Compare that with, let's say, the classical development of the last 200 years of political thought and philosophy. There, it's basically deconstruction and postmodern, sort of a widely spread disbelief in some united meaning, a vast criticism of some common narrative that could bind us together in the pursuit of a similar end game. But Havel has this, and Havel kind of uniquely stands against this cynicism, if I may, in politics, which is a cynicism, is only a reflection of a philosophical cynicism. So Havel knew this and started fighting the whole issue at the core. And that's why I think it's worthwhile to redeploy and maybe retell in different words, the story of a vision and philosophy that Václav Havel had for liberal democracy. 

Liberal democracy, let's say, there is really no story, there is no narrative. And that's why more simple narratives fare better in the political world. So this “Let's make America Great Again,” that's a narrative. It's not a very appealing narrative, perhaps maybe for you and I, but it is a narrative and it's a better narrative than the one that we don't have. But Havel has it. So I think there's huge work in offering this gospel into the world that's hungry for meaning. And then it goes for cheap idols such as, I don't know, I don't want to name anybody, but people who didn't achieve anything great. They just became trendy and they will dry out in a couple of months or years because I mean, either you're offering meaning or you're beating around the bush. And that's why I think Havel wrote his theater plays, because he wanted to be a sort of a podcaster. He wanted to reach a wider audience that he couldn't reach with his deeper philosophy. But back in the day, they didn't have YouTube. didn't have podcasts. So the easiest way to get your message spread to the wide public would be theater. So that's my hypothesis. And that's something that really is worth our European while, because not only American liberal democracy, let's say, doesn't have a narrative, but also the European Union seems to lack a narrative. And alas and behold, Havel has one, and it's also 50 years old, so nobody can really be suspicious that he's tailoring it for the political and current needs of the age and time.

Can you talk a little bit about your concrete plans at the library or vision to establish this narrative or get it out to the wider world? What can we look forward to?

So, the Václav Havel Library shouldn't just be a memorial place where we preserve the thoughts of Václav Havel. Of course, it should be that, but it should mainly be an institution that promotes building on that legacy. So now we're gathering philosophers and political scientists and experts from other areas to come up with a retelling, rediscovering perhaps even this engine that Václav Havel had. So for me, I think the documentation part is doing really well. We're really becoming one of the best memorial legacies of a president. My real ambition is to turn it into a forward-looking think tank that's actually attractive for young people, of the age that Václav Havel was when he was writing his first pieces or when he was constructing this completely revolutionary and original political theory that is rare and precious, that makes sense in today's world at such a large scheme. It's sort of, you can say that maybe, you know, Havel was talking about hope for the world. You know him from these quotes very commonly, but he even constructed a whole philosophy of hope, which I think is wonderful. And I really can't wait to have it in the form and shape that I can present it to the [outside] world.

To talk a bit more about Havel then and also your views, I wanted to turn to the topic of technology. Havel wrote a lot about technology. Actually, we don't think of it maybe when you think of him at first, but it comes up in multiple essays of his, in “ The Power of the Powerless” and his “Anatomy of Reticence.” His basic thrust is that man has a sort of weakness for technology. He admires it. And it's, of course, very useful. Havel is not a Luddite. He's not anti-technology, but he's saying the mistake has been, and this is back in the seventies, eighties, was man's tendency to put this at the center of everything to the exclusion of other human values, moral values. So this is quite prescient in a way, if you think he was writing about this and then you look at what is one of the main topics today. And that is AI, just the technology that's coming at us faster and faster. So this AI race that's driven by the U.S., by China, the lack of any kind of framework of controlling this, of legislation, maybe a little bit in Europe, but certainly not in the U.S., not in China. How do you see the relationship between democracy and technology today?

So as if Havel was kind of predicting this Dark Enlightenment movement that I see on the rise in the United States of America, which hopes that democracy will no longer guide us, but it will be technology. In a nutshell, I may summarize the movement, democracy could lead us only so far. And now we're at the end of that stage, let's say, and now we should maybe put more focus on technology in solicitating the direction of countries.

So Havel was very suspicious, [he had] this kind of suspicion of technology. This is something that you can find pretty much everywhere. This is the story of Gollum. This is the story of The Matrix, basically any story you find is a fear that our technology will outgrow our ethics. 

Would you want to have atomic bombs at the end of the Middle Ages? If we would, and there's nothing in human nature that would have prevented the Romans to invent, let's say, nuclear reaction. There's lots of debate among historians. Why didn't [in the] 12th or 11th century, the Roman Empire, which was collapsing, of course, by then, but technically speaking, we had all we needed for industrial revolution, and yet we had to wait for another couple of hundred years before it came. And thank God for that. Imagine if we, as mankind, any anyone, Hussites, Catholics, Chinese, German, Ottomans, if they developed an atomic bomb. That clearly would lead to an annihilation of mankind and send us back to maybe the Ice Age. We don't know. But for sure, we wouldn't feel safe. Why? Because our technological advance would have outperformed our ethical advance. Back in the days, 500 years ago, there was enough hatred to nuke the whole planet three times with everybody enjoying actually pressing the buttons. We still have atomic bombs but we haven't really used them, thank God, till today only twice, if I may say so, at this sort of a killing degree. But since then we said, no, we're not going to do that for ethical reasons. We can't destroy ourselves. So we have enough cognition and we have enough identity with mankind to understand that this is a very powerful tool, just like matches in the hands of a child.

And so Havel's hope is that this technological discovery of matches or nuclear bombs will somehow divinely be paused to the time that mankind is strong enough to handle atomic energy and use it only for electricity and peaceful means. There's always this, you know, it hangs on a thread, the development of technology, rational technology without any heart, such as up to and perhaps during the Second World War, where we invented mass killings and we had no ethical remorse. Or the leaders then didn't, they were pretty proud about it on one hand. And on the other hand, a depletion of moral growth. That's how I would read Havel's warning against technology. He of course used computers. He was actually quite interested [in it]. A lot of his plays, “The Memorandum” [for example], is actually talking about something that pretty much, when I saw it a month ago, again, it exists now in English too, it was a Chat GPT. It was basically a machine that could tell a higher truth than human beings. Perhaps something like we see from “A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy,”  Deep Thought, that something non-human, and will solve human problems. That's something that Havel was very cautious about and so should we too. 

The totalitarian regime that Havel criticized about capitalism back in the day is a similar thing that is threatening us. Perhaps the young generation is more familiar with the emotions of being controlled by systems that are outside of their control. So yeah, really useful to read Havel and whenever he criticizes a system, put the AI-driven, computer savvy technology that is really creating a of a jail for young people, which is invisible. You don't see them playing around in the meadows and in the fields like we used to. Something's keeping them home as if they were jailed. So it could be a life-changing benefit to read Havel and this critical voice. Is something is depriving you of your spirit? If it's alcohol, if it's communism, if it's your addiction to power, if it's your addiction to being in the spotlight, being in the loop, which is what I suppose the social media provides for you. This is something that can end up enslaving you. And then you are no longer yourself. You lose that basic identity. I equals I, you become a scrolling thumb on shorts. And in the meanwhile, a devilish scheme deprives you of yourself. And if you're not yourself, then nothing that you experience is real.

To continue with Havel's writings, he often drew certain parallels between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes and the capitalist societies of the West. In his essay, “The Power of the Powerless,” which was written back in 1978, I believe, he suggests that there can be an unwillingness of consumption-oriented people, maybe us, to sacrifice some material certainties for the sake of their own spiritual and moral integrity. And then later on in that essay, he's speaking of life in communist Czechoslovakia at the time, and he says, quote, “in the end, is not the grayness and emptiness of life in the post-totalitarian system only an inflated caricature of modern life in general? And do we not in fact stand as a kind of warning to the West, revealing its own latent tendencies?” So this idea that these societies that seem on the surface so completely different, [in reality], perhaps this period in Central Eastern Europe holds a warning for the West. Can you elaborate on that at all? Do you agree with Havel that these crises we're seeing today are related to this kind of convex mirror [between authoritarian and Western societies], as he called it?

So this is precisely the point where you see that Václav Havel was a philosopher. He wasn't a politologist. He did not believe that a political change of regime will save our souls. He believed in an existential revolution, and that is a revolution where you must do two steps. The first step is to start being yourself. Perhaps I could even shorten that - start being. Because till the moment that you are [only] a consumer, be it of goods or of flat entertainment on social media, you're not yourself. Any monkey sort of could consume that. People who are redundant, who feel that they are just observing society go by. They have no participation in the way history is going. They don't pray for anything in Christian terms. In lay terms, they don't hope, don't believe in anything. 

So this essential revolution is first, beginning is to realize that you actually matter, that there is a meaning in your life, that there is meaning in the universe, that there's meaning in the Czech Republic, there's meaning in being an American, that all the things that have been built, have been built for a purpose. So this is this sort of an inward look and realization that I want to be I, that there is such a thing as I, I'm not just a product of stones mixing with water and an accident that happened 14 billion years ago without any meaning. And the meaning in this passage, very explicitly, he says, don't think that if somebody changes something for you, more comfortable clothes, a more comfortable, [more] free system, that that will be the end of it. The end is you becoming real.

That's the first step. And the second step is to have an open communion with what he calls the spirit. He sometimes calls it the being. He sometimes calls it the divine narrative. He sometimes calls it the horizon of all horizons. He calls it the being in its purest self. You must have an open communication with that. And that is Havel's message. And that's maybe also part of the disappointment that happened with the revolution in the Czech Republic is, and I wrote a couple of articles on this subject because it fascinates me, I think what happened here is that we believed, or we were hoping, in a kind of an existential revolution and being born again in terms of getting a new meaning to life. Because under the communist regimes, we couldn't do what we wanted to. 

And then, when the regime came, we believed, now I'm going to change the world, but most fundamentally I'm going to change myself. We were hoping, and Havel was promising an existential revolution, but we only got wealth and freedom in a material sense of the word. So what Havel is saying, that you must live your life in truth and love, isn't that far from you know, believing in what Jesus was basically saying. So that kind of a revolution, that kind of a being born again that we know from Christianity, that's what Havel was fundamentally talking about. That's what makes him more of a philosopher or perhaps even, yeah, I don't want to use the word religious because he wasn't, but you know, religious minus the rituals.

At the core of religion is also a fundamental belief that the universe wasn't created accidentally. That meaning is not a hallucination of a satisfied gut that doesn't have to worry  [about food]. But now we can go into comparing Descartes and Socrates and Plato and Havel. Havel says that the fundamental feature of the universe is that it is of a divine, meaningful origin. And yeah, so here's a fantastic example to that - the solution to human problems is not a political system nor a system of communism versus capitalism. Of course, capitalism is ten times better than communism. Nobody can argue with that. But that's not the end game. The end game is that you live a meaningful life.

Following on from that then, and this idea of this spiritual dimension of things, I'm curious to hear a bit more about the Spirit Academy of yours that I've been seeing on social media. developing. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

Thank you, because this really helped me to unlock Havel's legacy, because Havel never wrote a concise philosophical system, nor did Socrates, nor did actually Plato. He wrote a series of dialogues, then later generations saw there was a system actually, and they put it together as one does. Havel put parts of his system in letters to, for example, [his essay, “A Letter to Dr.] Gustav Husak,” or [his] “Letters to Olga,” which everybody who read them knows that they're not letters, they're really philosophical treatises disguised as letters, which he actually had to do in the prison because he wasn't allowed to do anything else, except [write] personal letters. So he somehow smuggled a whole system of philosophy into letters, which he often had to write on pieces of toilet paper with a pen that he would borrow. This is an amazing achievement. Once you know what to look for, it's really easy to find. But it just seems like nobody has even suspected him of being a philosopher, an original philosopher, and [one of] three original philosophers that actually constructed a system. So what helped me, the key to unlock [this] was something that I was working on for my own little personal benefit of trying to understand the world around me. I've constructed this sort of body, soul and spirit key of looking into things. I started with economics, primarily inspired by John Maynard Keynes, who talks about this animating spirit that is in every single one of us and without which commerce and business would die if we wouldn't have this spirit of jouissance de vivre, this spontaneous urge to optimism, as Keynes calls it. In other words, hope. What else can do that to a person? The whole economy would be dead no matter what your excel sheets tell you about inflation. It's the spirit, the animating spirit for Keynes that actually makes you irrational, or extra-rationally do things. 

I like to give an example of…I don't know, any inventor you can think of. [Let’s say] Steve Jobs. He saw the same Excel sheets like like 10,000 other people next to him. He didn't invent anything new. He didn't discover a new scientific discovery or some hack (30:46.434)

He just saw numbers, but nobody else saw anything except for numbers in it. But he believed [in the] iPhone from the numbers. In other words, belief, and this is something that goes really nice with Havel and with basically all thinkers that think about this, that belief is not a suspension of reason, as we very often take it, but belief is a superpower of reason.

Steve Jobs really understood these numbers and he knew every single one. And that's why he could believe or hope in putting his whole life and a [the lives of a] couple of other people [into this project] because he's so infected with his belief, so that at the end of the day, we're using something that didn't exist before. 

So the key that helped me very much read Havel was to divide things into body, soul and spirit. Body is something that's tangible material, sort of the most simple and intuitive form of reality. 

Above that is another layer of reality, which I call the soul. And that basically, in my definition, is something that's objectively real, but it isn't tangible. For example, mathematics, or software, or language, or laws, or money, or the internet, or the organizational structure of your company or of your school. Those are all things that are very much real or traffic rules. That's very much real, but it's not materially real. I mean, the red light doesn't stop you, right? There is no physical force that goes from the red light and, you know, jams in front of your car. It's just a rule that you believe in. So that's the soul. Havel calls this the system. I call it the soul. He calls it the system, but it's the same thing. You can also think of like a societal software. Real, but not tangible. 

And then there is this element of spirit that I started working with I think like 12 years ago. In the beginning, I thought let's just try it for fun. Let's see where it leads me. It turned out that it was actually a pretty good, pretty good avenue to follow. So spirit, in my understanding, and also actually in Havel’s, is something that's very much real, but it isn't objectively real. So that's why you love this one woman and not a similar woman, that's why you love Claire and not Alice, even though from, you know, an Excel sheet, Alice would have been maybe more rationally suitable for you. So, the spirit is something that you can't really put into words. 

And now going to Havel, this is what this is what really, really shocked me. I don't know, like a half a year ago when I was reading [his essay], the “Letter to [Dr. Gustav] Husak,” you know, it begins very technically, as one would expect, like a dissident letter with dissident demands. [And then], on the second page, he starts talking about dimming the spirit of the nation. And suddenly this text I was reading at four in the morning - I have this habit, I wake up early in the morning, so I have a little bit of a meditative time to read, because that seems to be the cost of reading these days - and suddenly the spirit jumps out and I say, wait a minute, he's using actually spirit. Well, let me see. That's funny that he also uses the word spirit. Let's see how he deals with it. And in that second, Havel takes me on a journey. He actually basically starts when John Maynard Keynes ends. He says, if this animus spirit is dead, the economy will collapse. And he describes the process on two or three pages. And I would have loved to be in a situation where I could have given this to John Maynard Keynes and say, hey, look, that's the continuation of your thought. He technically says that the spirit is impossible to kill. You can quench it, but there is a dynamic, no matter how hard the darkness is.

And he even goes on to complain in the “Letter to [Dr. Gustav] Husak, how could you educated people not have seen this, you masters of ideology and sociology and whatnot? Why didn't you understand that the only reason why the system is alive is that the spirit keeps it alive and you're trying to kill it. But you will never be able to succeed. So there's a hope there in the middle of the darkest Orc-like, Vogon-like, I don't know what, system that you can think of, Nazi combined with Roman Legions. Even if things got so bad, you still can never kill the divine spirit in us. But unfortunately, we never took this spiritual message from Václav Havel. There's not been any movement that kind of built on Havel. And if you take the most impressive thinkers today, let's just say Slavoj Žižek and Jordan Peterson, who are impressive thinkers, both of them on a different, let's say, spectrum of a political continuum, very impressive thinkers, but none of them has a system. Žižek does not have an original system or any system. The same goes for Jordan Peterson. I mean, if you press up against the wall, I think it's a Christianity. But Václav Havel would be able to say, I have something that is really, really, really close to Christianity, but it doesn't presuppose a belief in God or in that book. He can tell the same story based on, let's say, reason. Which is a fantastic achievement. 

Now I'm at the beginning of this thought. I'm beginning to see this quite clearly and I'm debating it with Harvard professors. I just had a phone call Sunday about this, that is, is it possible that actually Havel created a philosophical system that we didn't discover and all the philosophers that I speak with go like, actually, that sounds really interesting. That's something worth pursuing. Can we help you with that? So now I'm trying to sort of, you know, retell the story, glue it together from different places and say this is what Havel wanted to tell us.

I want to ask you the question we are asking everyone at the end of our interviews, and that is, either from your point of view or from the Havelian world point of view, we're in this dark period, certainly a dark period in the United States, but in a lot of countries around the world, pressures on democracy, on free societies. We've been speaking about the spiritual dimension, this dimension of hope. What do you, Tomáš Sedláček , or what would Havel say to Americans right now to give them some advice, some hope for protecting their democracies?

What would I say, based on Havel, is prepare yourself. Look at the political…I mean, the biggest explainer of how elections end is that there is a change between left and right. That happens almost every single time, in every single Czech election, well not every, but 90%, [there is a] change [from] the opposition with the government in the United States. Sometimes you get the two, two years of the same political party, but not once or twice, three times Democrats or three times Republicans. It's rare. Now, we have four years. I think these thoughts are best created in opposition. This is the squeezing of the hero. Everything is in opposition to you, not just politics, but your wife, your children, your God, your country, everything. You're really literally spat upon and you're left alone. That's the best time to create that philosophy in opposition. [This] is exactly what's happening to us. So I don't even, I'm not even angry that our way of doing politics is now not winning in the world. I'm actually happy because now we have time to realize what we did wrong. We really didn't offer a meaningful story. I mean, the story that the American Democrats were offering wasn't really interesting. So yeah, so this is a good time. [We] have four years before the next time that elections are taking place to offer to human beings just like you and I, something meaningful. And if politics becomes obsessed only with politics, it ends as poorly as with capitalism being obsessed with only capitalism. It just doesn't function that way. 

So now is a good time to study Havel, to go deep into the very meaning of, I would like to not even call it liberal democracy, I'd like to call it Havelian democracy, which already kind of puts into the mix that this is not the solution to your life. This is like getting a bike. That helps you, you you're cool, you lose weight, you get to places faster, but that's not going to solve your life. What’s going to solve your life is opening your heart to the spirit. This Havelian spirit, it talks to every single grocery shopkeeper, and whether that shopkeeper puts up the communist sign or doesn't and thereby revolts, this is how he changes history. Maybe we end with this, because the way, and this is the system that Havel has, which I think is fantastic. This is like the pearl that I discovered a couple of days ago. The spirit that kind of reshapes and it shapes us, it talks to you in this voice and shapes you. And do you know how you talk back to the spirit and shape it? It talks to us by a voice and we talk back to it by action, by putting up the sign or not putting up the sign, by allowing an older lady to sit down [on the metro, for example] or not, in actually criticizing when you see that something's wrong, or not [speaking up.] That is your response to the spirit. It's beautiful for me as a philosopher. I have goose bumps because this is a beautiful way to connect the intangible spirit with the logic of the sentences - logos -  and then turn it into actual action. It's a fantastic system and I'm looking forward to the world discovering it.

Me too. Well, thank you very much. 

Thank you. That was fantastic. Really, this was the highlight of my day.

# # # 

You can listen to this conversation by following Weight of the World on Spotify and Apple. This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.