This episode breaks the usual mould and is a bit more of a free flowing conversation. We intend to return to this topic will a full article and discussion.

The first is to cultivate gratitude. I vividly remember one geography lesson where we played a game. Each team was given some raw materials and some tools. The rules were simple the same for everyone: make geometric shapes out of paper, sell them at the market rates and make the most money.

Everyone set off with the typical gusto generated by a lesson that breaks the usual mould. At least until we began to notice things weren’t as fair as they seemed. One team, who had a precise pair of compasses was rapidly selling perfect circles, whilst another team with no scissors could only output wonky triangles.

At the end of the game, each team was asked to assess their performance. The winning team reflected on their efficient production line system. The losing team felt they had been doomed to fail given they had only started with a pencil.

It was true that the winning team had made their manufacturing process efficient, but in reality, that was not really the reason for their success. Their inability to recognise and be grateful for the tools and resources they had started with led to an over inflated sense of ‘deserving the win’.

On the other hand, the losing team took no responsibility for their output. Instead blaming circumstances outside of their control and making frustrated comparisons with others.

Most of your life you will find yourself somewhere in the middle, with many less fortunate beneath you and others more fortunate above. It is therefore important to remember to simultaneously be grateful for the many things you do have, take responsibility for those who may have less than you, and when things don’t pan out as you would have liked, spend less time blaming things around you.

To that end I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Hymers, as my siblings and I were beneficiaries of your bursary scheme. I am therefore personally grateful for the contribution you made to my education and perhaps more importantly to the development of my teenage self!

The second lesson I began to learn during my time at schools is captured best in the words of Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, only trade offs. I must admit this one has served me well as a policy maker.

At school, my favourite subjects were maths, science and electronics and as such I was trained that solutions do exist and that they can be found.

So you can forgive me for being a little surprised, that reality tends not to be so easy to pin down. This truth hit me first in my late teens when I developed a hormone deficiency that prevented me from attending school full time. Due to a combination of the flexible input from my teachers and my own resolve, my grades remained good. My aspiration to go to Cambridge was still within my grasp, but my body was letting me down.

So what do you choose? An easier maths course at a different uni, or take a risk on Cambridge where I’d felt most at home with others. What would be a more enjoyable day to day life? What would make me happiest in the long run?

I decided to take a chance on Cambridge and truthfully my first year was awful. The pace of life both socially and academically made making friends hard and I only just scaped through my end of year exams. Perhaps it wasn’t possible for me to complete this course without becoming a recluse doing so.

All my fears had been realised and I wondered if I should quit and if I had misjudged the whole situation. But truthfully, I shouldn’t have been surprised as what I was experiencing was the bad end of the trade-off that I knew I had made. I begrudgingly decided that if both deep friendships and maths were important to me, I needed to make some changes to my lifestyle and I went back for a second year. Slowly but surely things began to evolve. By the end of my time at Cambridge, I had developed not only lifelong friends but the pride that comes from testing your academic ability to the limit.

I know this appears like a story of resilience. But the other lesson I learned is about opportunity cost. When you say ‘yes’ to something you implicitly say no to something else. Therefore, everything has a cost. I don’t say this to scare you, but to remind you to ask yourself what price am I willing to pay to achieve this goal. Being conscious of this enables you to be a more deliberate agent in your own life. Someone who is able to acknowledge the multiplicity of factors that fulfil you and who might avoid waking up in 15 years time having achieved one dream but at the expense of all else.

From the stories I have told so far it’s probably not that hard to tell what type of kid I was. I was the one that the rest of the class rolled their eyes at when the homework was to design a poster and I came into school with a 3d pop out masterpiece, or who asked a question at the end of class that triggered a long rant from the teacher and lost them half of break time.

It is this version of me, who after receiving the score for my geography coursework walked over to my teacher to innocently request an explanation for the one lost mark. So that I might ‘learn for the future!’

Mrs Copeland just looked me direct in the eye and laughed. Sometimes Emily That’s life.

Her reply was the first step for me in learning to take life a little less seriously. Or rather learning to discern the things that ought to be taken seriously and otherwise learning to laugh at oneself. Laughter is an amazing thing, its infectious, it brings perspective and it can help us gently accept the weirdest and ugliest parts of ourselves. Many things in life don’t have the stakes that we believe they do and a recognising your idiosyncratic perspectives are not in fact the singular divine truth is an important developmental milestone for us all!

On the theme of taking life a little less seriously I would like to wrap up by reading an excerpt of a book by the whimsical children’s writer Dr Seuss. The book is titled ‘Oh the places you’ll go” and is as a reminder to me that truth can be found in the most unlikely places.

Im sorry to say

But sadly its true

That bang ups and hang ups can happen to you

So be sure when you step

Step with care and great tact

And remember that life’s a great balancing act.

Just never forget to be dextrous and deft

and never mix up your right foot with your left

And you will succeed

Yes! You will indeed

98 and ¾% guaranteed.

Three things I take from the Knights of the Round Table. What may appear mere fables have great bearing. Do you see the dragon scales in the willow leaves? Woe betides who cannot see God in the mountain, and only sees man as he is not as he could be. I wanted to start with some of the first stories which captured me as a child. Before history, there was myths and some of my favourites were the tales of King Arthur and his knights. I want to briefly explore three elements that I remember from them:  

The first element I value is how the stories point to some higher value to which all other actions are subordinate. What this is, is not clearly defined, some might describe it as chivalry or honour but in some ways, it is left for the audience to determine what the good is to be fought for. What is not left in doubt is that it is worth fighting for and indeed by natural implication dying for. I often fear this concept has lessened in the minds of modern people, in part perhaps because of a physicalist understanding of our world where our lives are all we have but as some have contended also that it appears easier to fight for one’s beliefs than to live by them. If there is no reason to die, there is little cause to live. People today will not even fight unless fight is a proxy for arrange a march and grandstand on social media. Perhaps it is no surprise then that ones who cannot give their life for their friends, have little love, for if your nearest do not spur you, I struggle to imagine what will.

There is much else to fight for beyond our closest kin. Ideas like dignity, liberty and equality are not only not self-evident they require constant defence from the forces which erode them. It seems to have been forgotten that much of what has been achieved in the west came at heavy cost both physically and spiritually. From various wars to ensure a balance of power, to the peace treaties which came thereafter. Courage to fight and courage to forgive. Perhaps even more telling was the individual struggles which people made in the hopes of a better life for those who came after, the state of a nation is oft posited as luck, but more accurately one is often reaping the harvest carefully sown by generations that came before you. In Britain we stand on the corpses of those who plumbed deep into the abyss or became one with the machine to give us our humanity. 

Camelot like Earth needed people willing to do what is necessary, to fight but also to live by the ways of a noble kingdom. Fellowship, loyalty, and sacrifice would be typical elements in Arthurian legend, but we must also remember concepts of fairness, gentleness, and humility. By way of example the famous round table at which the knights meet has frequently been noted as a symbol of equality for its members, who ranged from sovereign royals to minor nobles but found common footing (or seating) at the table. 

This duality and seeming combination of paradoxical virtues is the second thing I appreciate from the tales of King Arthur and his knights. Never is this clearer than in the ideal of the knight and chivalry itself. As famously elucidated by CS Lewis the knight is both a man of iron and gentle temperament. The greatest knight Lancelot noted as the fiercest enemy but noblest friend, terrifying in battle but the meekest at court. It is not natural for a man to combine these elements, those who are gentle being frequently slow to action, whilst those who are combative oft struggle to tell friend from foe. Those who are good in war not typically those who fully enjoy peace. Not only must we embrace this paradox we must reject any compromise. To do otherwise is to invite disaster, to site Thucydides, drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man will inevitably lead to fighting done by fools and thinking done by cowards. Chivalry demands not only that we embrace both but do so completely, the knight is fierce to the Nth degree and meek to the Nth degree, the key determination is the context and time in which to deploy each. I will expand on my rejection of compromise further in future, but in short it is in part because a compromise is a weak imitation of what is required, when something is right it is right and is not pursued in a half-hearted manner but rather with the fullness of our being.  My call is not to the compromise but to the ideal, knights, who are the greatest warriors and lovers when need arises. I would also note that this is a principle that can be expanded further, can we be people who can wield the poles to the Nth when required.  Fully embody being both thinkers and doers, the single and the whole, anarchists and architects.  

Arthurian legend offers a small insight into how to become such people and this is the third and final element I wish to draw on, albeit briefly. Since chivalry is not drawn innately from our nature, rather it must be honed, forged in the fires as a sword is crafted. For a knight this means going on a quest. Arthurian legends are often less developed than Campbells 17 stages, but they nevertheless offer interesting insights into the heroes journey. From the importance of finding a good mentor like Merlin, a trusty tool such as the indestructible sword Excalibur, or avoiding evil witches like Morgan Le Fay. As much as many of these lessons and virtues espoused are universal another notable element is how whilst equal in stature ultimately, the trials and skills of the knights were different, from the courage of Sir Gawain, the humility of Sir Launfall, the virtue of Lancelot. A basic reminder that each of our quests are different but all worthy of respect for having conquered it. Note that this equality and respect was not self-evident, the places and names of the chair would appear when one was worthy and to be worthy one must go on a quest, face one’s demons and show the character to persevere until they were banished. I would encourage us all to pick up the mantle in this way, go on own own quest and earn our seat at the table. 

So, what became of King Arthur? Some say he died of his wounds, others say he was healed and is waiting to return, still others say his stories live on in the hearts of young children, that warriors with steely resolve and noble hearts will be seen once more, galloping through the land. Ride now, to the tales passing true in youth as in dotage, stories of harmless glamour in the field but in their stead names and glory cling.  

Tune into the podcast where Jonathan and Ben discuss the lessons to be taken from Arthurian legend.

Anarchism, as defined by Emma Goldman, embodies the perpetual process of remaking the world, challenging and tearing down oppressive systems and paving the way for new paradigms.

Architecture, on the other hand, represents the conscious creation of physical and social structures that harmonize beauty, functionality, and ethical intent.

By examining their complementary nature, I’m hoping we can identify the logical coherence that calls for their harmonious coexistence and collaboration.

To an architect, their calling speaks to the very essence of our human drive—the profound urge to create and construct, blending reason and imagination to arrive at a design. Architecture surpasses all other disciplines in this respect by unifying everything we hold dear. It intertwines our aspirations, values, and desires, transcending disciplinary boundaries. In this convergence of thought and form, architecture becomes the manifestation of our deepest longings—a testament to our collective yearning for a functional, captivating, and meaningful world. It is the purest expression of our creative spirit, shaping environments that resonate with the very essence of being. Or so we would think.

So anarchism. Anarchism has its purest expression in some of the arts, especially the arts least governed at the human level by commercial interests, like painting – yes there’s a market in fine art, but it doesn’t cost much to buy paints compared to making a movie, for instance, so it’s free to be ‘anarchistically’ expressed, without systems to govern its activity.

Poetry is such an art. The pure expression of human existence. Great poetry is written by Great Livers. No, by people who live well. Great Livers. People who went for full immersion. Definitely a prerequisite for producing great poetry. You know who I mean, the Orwell approach Homage to Catalonia, the wildness of Keats. Full immersion in reality. Out there on a hero's journey of your own making, totally at sea, totally immersed. And a great poet, if they’re not just freely wandering and capturing those essences in life, they have to be free in their spirit, or failing that, must be wild and furious against the reigns that hold their spirit back from being free, rearing against the walls of captivity. But great poets are great because they can capture those moments of freedom in life, or capture the spirit of freedom, convey the freedom of spirit.

As an aside, it can be hard to understand the moral metric here, often, in this anarchistic space of pure abandonment to the force of nature and society and the nature of society, because its leading edge isn’t so clearly defined. It’s not so much about changing the world as it is about being a part of it.

Now, of course, many of the famous thinkers who would fit into this box also wanted to build the world anew. They would have had many ideas about how society should function, how the world should be, and I would say, that as soon as that becomes political action, when a thinker speaks out, for instance by giving a talk on anarchism – they are doing something else. They’re doing philosophy, they’re engaging in politics, they’re becoming architects once again. They’re building things up.

Now, I think this is obvious when you lay it out: what we have today, the way I see it, is a world divided. A world of self-identifying architects who say they’re building the world up, and then there’s a world of Anarchists, who say the world is fucked and the only thing we can really do, morally, is express to one another how bad the world we’ve inherited is. This division doesn’t run along lines we’re used to identifying - the tired distinction of the political Left and Right, nor along the lines of the global East and West or anything so superficial. I believe this division is at the root of some of the deepest issues in our society. I think it divides father and son, divides neighbours from one another and is a huge cause of political friction, but it reaches into every dimension of life. And of course it would! Because the absolute anarchist, which is to say, the complete and utter rascal, really, is opposed to all these political systems, she put herself against institutions, corporations, organisations. Against all society, basically. We should all just be free, it is said. Free people self-organise effectively, they claim. So, to speak out, to even begin engaging in system-building – that’s anathema to their way of seeing the world. But it’s sort of obvious that we shouldn’t be approaching things that way.

We have been divided, maybe along some of the most crucial lines. Crucial if we wanted to build a better society. I mean everything, everything in our world, it was at some point conceived of, created. And the makers were doing a combination of these things, Anarchism and Architecture. Of course this is the unifying quality between both, at both extremes of this scale: the desire for a better world for our children – a safer, more comfortable world in one instance – and a freer, wilder world, in the other case, right? Those are the two implications, baked-in philosophies, and they both gear up to make or re-make the world better, but through completely different means. And at the extremes, in exclusion of the other, both fail, miserably, at their goal.

So perhaps you can see already that a sane society would want these forces to be brought together, thought of as one. That old systems should die to new ones, but that they should be rebuilt with more attention to detail. That we should engage in this project wholeheartedly as a whole society and honour that spirit of freedom, not just through token gestures, but really use that as our leading edge, and have more joined-up thinking at large in the general population.

That the two are major, major societal forces, and that, instead of thinking about individuals choosing one way or the other, choosing instead a united front of Anarchistic Architecture, or Architectural Anarchism – that this is essential if we want to make progress anymore. I would say, you know, that the artist who paints to push the world toward beauty, that’s the essential good function of that Anarchism I described, about living free. So they’re actually trying to build a better world through freedom. So long as that’s in place, it’s kind of healthy. And I believe that we get basically all of the great works of history through this process, more or less.

On the other hand, though, the architects, they have got to realise what the project is. What, from the big, meta-ethical perspective, what we are trying to do as a civilization? So, I guess here would be a place to try and lay it out in the simplest syntax I can:

The Project is to emancipate the human spirit from oppression and control, and significantly, deeply raise the baseline of freedom. Obviously, asterisk, we have to keep the world we have alive, too, otherwise the project is instantly meaningless, wasted. But all of that is morally consistent. Logically coherent.

Why?

Freedom is the highest privilege you can have. Privilege for a small ratio of individuals within society is synonymous with inequality, which leads to discontent, alienation, disenfranchisement with the system, and ultimately low productivity in any meaningful space. But privilege is great. Privilege is good by definition, right? It has become a loaded term due to this system-wide inequality, which poisons the water trough, it really does. It should be obvious that privilege is what’s missing though. Just attacking people who have privilege isn’t really the way. I’m always encouraged when people admit: “I’m not attacking people who have got a few million in the bank, I’m attacking that 0.001% who have more wealth that entire nations of people.” If you’re thinking that way, that shows you can see what’s going on, at least. The world we’ve built is complete madness. If you earn £150,000 in a year, but you have to work 65 hours a week and you hate your job. that’s not any kind of privilege I care about.

Freedom is about more than the freedom to pay for whatever you want. Freedom to express the totality of yourself, freedom to exchange ideas, freedom to learn, freedom of time. Freedom of time has got to be high up on the value hierarchy of types of freedom, right? I mean I suppose there’s a Maslow’s hierarchy thing going on here because if you have oodles of time but you can’t move your body at all, then it could be seen as a net negative, you know, if you just have locked-in-syndrome, you know, that would be many people’s idea of hell. Not that Maslow ever put his needs into a pyramid, but I think the idea that these things build upon each other was sort of his idea. And even there, with the very pragmatic hierarchy of needs, the implication is that we are gaining more and more freedom as we climb up, right? He placed self-actualisation as the ultimate goal here, but I would say a better catch-all term would probably be total spiritual freedom.

To wrap up: Anarchism and Architecture. Each on their own has served some purpose, but we have to cross that bridge now, from competing over the landscape of ideology, and looking for one winner – to reach the place where these things come fully together and can be expressed in all of the richness that is embodied throughout this scale of creativity. We’re looking at the two competing drivers for the creative impulse.

My point here isn’t that the distinction between these two forces is inherently wrong or ridiculous – it’s actually that they are opposite forces along a very impactful scale, and should be thought of as joined by a very strong sympathetic link.

My next claim is that the leading edge of one should be the other. Because you can identify as one – and people do, and they will into the future as well: “I build people up”, “I’m focused on solutions” etc. it sounds great, it’s just that we can see so many problems emerging from a single-track approach to this, from toxic positivity to overblown corporate power to wild expansionism or neoliberalism. It’s that mentality of just like – Just Keep Going. These people who are participating in these systems, they’re self-proclaimed architects of the world, whether they would ever admit it in this language or not, that’s what they’re doing. They’re invested in seeing their plan come to fruition. And some of these people would do just about anything to achieve that plan. This is a big problem, and it speaks to that adage about how “some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions”. When we’re poorly oriented, even good intentions aren’t enough. Let alone when perverse incentives creep in, especially as usually, given the scope of many peoples’ aspirations, all that’s required to gain traction is just to function ordinarily in society as it is already constructed in order to do the kind of building we should most deplore. By which I mean, if you’re willing to go with the tide at every juncture, you end up with rubbish as your product. Stuff that maybe works financially, but that’s a total waste of space and human time and money, ultimately. And you know, if you’re unscrupulous, there’s always a project to work on, always a way to start building up, right?

But the others are LIVERS. That’s the idea. They want to live absolutely free and allow self-organisation to just happen spontaneously.  We all just do what comes naturally, and we’ll find our place and interact organically and everything will figure itself out. But perhaps in some cases, these people actually go about contributing nothing and being completely hedonistic and think this is an act of protest, right?

But any sane anarchist, and really, here, I can mean only the great Emma Goldman, would define anarchism, the true political anarchism, as a system-full society, but that we should have the freedom to destroy systems which don’t work in the public interest, and that more of that power to create and destroy should be in the hands of the people. That authoritarianism and state control, the manipulation of people's minds – ok I’m paraphrasing  - that it’s the enemy to human flourishing. But this anarchism is pro-community, pro localized economy, pro what’s good for human health and wellbeing, and pro setting society up, having systems, so we can have a more meaningful connection to existence while we’re alive.

To be an architect is to have an agenda – to be trying to change the world in a particular way, through a particular method. Anarchism, is an invitation to see the good inherent in human life, to maximise its potential by letting go of control ourselves, often, and seeking to build together in a rich ecology of creative freedom. It’s the political counterpart to love itself, and as architects, we need to understand how high that calling is.

So does this dichotomy invite us to seek equilibrium? Should we be focussing on transcendence here, getting beyond the dichotomy to something else?

Tune into the podcast to listen to Ben and Jonathan discuss the necessity of both anarchists and architects to build a better world.

The union strikes of academic year 2022-23 were largely portrayed as taking place for teacher pay improvements. Whilst this was partially true, the wider issue felt by teachers was really regarding working conditions. If teachers were truly happy in their job, feeling supported and respected, I’m confident that money would have been less of an issue and that the strikes would not have been necessary.

We are told that there is a significant teacher retention crisis. Whilst I hesitate at the use of the word ‘crisis’, upon reflection of my own experience at school, perhaps it is a suitable word. When you have a class of 47 students at GCSE due to a lack of geography teachers to keep up with options choices, one art teacher for the entire school, three classes of GCSE citizenship being taught through the cover system, no RS specialist teachers, and students in Y13 being given a textbook for one of their subjects and told to self-study as they don’t have a teacher for them, it certainly feels like a crisis.

When I started at my second school in September 2022, the then vice principal and my line manager said to me that the hardest thing he’s ever done in his teaching career is to teach a full day of lessons, a total of 5 and a half hours of delivery. I agree that with this, having spent my first two years of teaching with almost daily headaches due to the intensity of the job. I think the maximum loading of 90% contact time is too much and if we want to improve retention then this is a good place to start. This of course means a massive influx of funding from the government so that we can employ more teachers, but I think it is certainly worth it. It will free up teachers to do their planning, marking and admin tasks, which will mean teachers don’t need to take work home with them for the weekends or holidays, reducing the problem of retention.

The other main issue revolves around working conditions, often linked to behaviour. Let’s face it, nobody wants to go to work to be argued with, sworn at, threatened, ignored, walked away from mid-conversation. This problem, in my view, is a harder problem to solve than the former. It doesn’t just involve an influx of cash. It involves a shift in the systems and culture of education itself. For students to treat staff more respectfully, yes, they need to be trained effectively in how to behave. But more than that, they need to want to be at school. If students want to be there, then the first big hurdle in solving this issue will have been overcome.

Finally, and possibly most importantly, the view society has on teachers seems to be a very significant large problem. The lack of funding suggests the government’s position, despite what they might say. When you think of the most important professions in society, it’s hard to argue that teaching isn’t the most important. I hear of parents wanting their children to grow up to be a doctor or a lawyer, but rarely do parents wish them to be teachers. Well, how do these doctors become doctors? Through thirteen years of the state education system, before finishing seven years at university. Without high quality teaching, what will the state of our health service be? Perhaps we will reap what very little we have sown.

I tell my GCSE students (perhaps too often) how important their effort is in the grade they will get in their final exams. I mention how, you can have the best teacher in the world, but if they don’t put in the effort, they are unlikely to get the results they want. Equally, if you are in the unfortunate position of having a poor quality teacher, you can still succeed despite this (although I would hastily add that they may be limited in their success - I don’t want to make myself redundant).

I would argue that the role of the student is incredibly important in a successful school, particularly in a secondary environment. I all too often see the new year 7s trying to impress the teachers as they start the year in September. By Easter of the same academic year, you’ll be lucky if they haven’t already turned their focus towards their peers. Recognition from others is a natural process that teenagers seem to go through, perhaps as a developmental stage in becoming more independent and less reliant on their parents and teachers. Therefore, it is imperative that students act as a role model for others. This is not to say that staff should not act as role models, this is crucial, but we should certainly not forget the role of the student here.

This leads to the question, what makes an exemplar student? I am going to turn to sport here, as an example of how students can (or can’t, as it may be) show themselves as effective leaders. I have started teaching two boys this academic year, who I have seen are captain and vice captain of the year 10 football team. Clearly, they have leadership traits that the PE team have seen in them, and so can be effective role models and leaders (when they want to be). However, in geography class, I have had to speak to them about this role that they are struggling to replicate in the classroom. I have questioned them on why they behave poorly and often very disrespectfully in class, and have challenged them to bring their leadership skills from sport to the class. This has worked to some success, but is still a work in progress.

A further example of this happened when my tutor group had a supply teacher for history. They treated him very poorly, stealing the board remote and putting it on freeze so he couldn’t teach, and then passing it around the room to their amusement and his fury. Having heard the commotion, I entered the room and tried to damage control as much as I could and regain some order amongst the chaos. The next morning in form time, I spoke with the class about the situation, challenging them to be better. I said how not one of them stepped up and showed themselves to be a leader in that lesson. The power was in their hands, but they chose to use it for evil rather than good.

This brings me back around to my previous blog on character within the education system. In this instance, character, in the form of leadership, would have solved the problem. Not one of them had the confidence to step up to the plate, despite knowing what was happening in the room was wrong.

Tune into the podcast for our final episode in a four part series, Sean and Jonathan examine the role of the teacher and the associated responsibilities of the position.

An ecosystem is a geographic area where organisms, as well as weather and landscapes, work together to form a bubble of life. When we talk about the education system, we are often referring to a set of top-down rules from government, stressed out teachers and senior leaders and a Local Authority trying to ensure some children don’t fall between the gaps. It is a system for sure, but not really the mutually reinforcing and life sustaining network we see in an ecosystem.  

An ecosystem is influenced by internal and external factors that both compete against each other and support each other to sustain life. For an education ecosystem, external factors would be things like statutory responsibilities and accountability, funding flows, challenges facing the local community and parental choice.

Things internal to an education ecosystem which both shape and are shaped by the external factors are the headteachers, the teachers, the pupils, the pedagogy, the school buildings and most importantly the philosophy.  We will discuss a few of these in turn:

Community  

In theory, schools can play and integral role in the community. They can be a vehicle for social advancement and also play a role in developing the character and citizenship of the children and young people. They are safe space for children to test their limits and develop.  

The local community can also have a big impact on schools. Where a community is poor or has high levels of deprivation, schools can be expected to step into the role of parents more and more. Teachers are relied on to train behaviour, discipline, hard work and self-confidence.  

The expectations of schools in this regard have always varied and been quite confused. In an ecosystem, schools do have a role in developing softer schools for children. But they can never replace parents and must be connected to other civic institutions playing their role. Such as a local authority or health services.  

Networks of schools  

In our current education system, competition for results has been championed as a method for improving school practice. In nature we also see competition within ecosystems which can both lead to the growth of species but in excess and alongside other changes in external factors can knock an ecosystem out of kilter.  

It is hard to argue that competition between schools, coupled with parental choice has not led to school improvement in some scenarios. However, in education cooperative networks can also be important for sharing best practice, staff training, developing pedagogy and enabling distributive processes across a local area.  

Pupils  

Children are the thing that an education ecosystem should orient around. Unlike in nature where even in an ecosystem ‘survival of the fittest’ is still a governing principal, in the UK all children are entitled to an education. The history of this entitlement can be seen as a moral step forward, or a method of training the poor for factory life. 

Either way this does however put some pressure on the education ecosystem, which is supposed to create good outcomes for all children. Children vary in their behaviour upbringing, capabilities skills and passions. Our system can often feel ‘one size fits none’ and perhaps our limited interpretation of what it means to be entitled to an education has hindered the ability for our education ecosystem to support ‘many forms of life’.   

Accountability 

When working well accountability is a way to encourage and set standards for good practice. In a world where all members of the ecosystem have common goals and values, standards can be an external bar that a network of school leaders can hold each other to account to. However, when individualism or competition runs wild it is easy for rules to be broken or ignored. In the case of education this has the most impact on the children who behaviour poorly, have had a difficult upbringing or who has additional educational needs. In our current system the results still remain the primary governing factor and in some cases, this leads to children being off rolled, excluded unfairly, or parents being persuaded that the school down the road would be much better for their child.  

This type of practice, whilst good for the individual school results or even the teachers and pupils in that setting, has a big impact on the overall ecosystem, which other schools carrying a heavier burden or the Local Authority being unable to find a school place for that child. 

I am now going to use the example of the introduction of academies to the UK school system, as an example of something that helped the education ecosystem in some ways but hindered in others. 

In 2010s the government introduced legislation that would allow some schools to become academies. This granted the school independence from the local authority and autonomy in decisions about curriculum, term dates, teacher wages etc. A charity called a Multi-academy trust (MATs) could be formed to govern multiple academies.  

This structure was designed to enable some more innovation and competition. It enabled schools to come together to share best practice, create economies of scale and improve leadership in Education. The impact of academisation is hard to quantify accurately but it did turn around many failing schools.  

However, the independence from the local authority cut across the role that schools play in their local geography. Schools in MATs can sometimes feel more allegiance and responsibility to their MAT than to the Local Authority. This may seem like simply an issue of governance, but this is quite important for some pupils in the ecosystem, such as those with SEND. The local authority has the main responsibility for ensuring that children with additional needs have the provision and education places they need and that those are distributed across the area.  When schools do not see themselves as part of the local education ecosystem, and only responsible for the children in their setting, this can have a big impact on the ability for distributive processes to happen effectively.  

Ultimately, ecosystems can’t function effectively without shared philosophy at the heart. In nature, the law of the jungle still has a place in a functioning ecosystem. However, in an education ecosystem, collaboration and a desire for learning to be front and centre must take a more prominent role in the philosophy that is created by and guides the ecosystem. Schools and leaders, must see their roles in the context of wider educational aims not just grades, the whole community not just the pupils in their setting and in a network of practitioners not just a single institution. 

Tune into the full podcast episode where Emily shares her analogy and considers how to enrich the lives of students and educators from her experience working to develop modern day systems.

When people often typically speak about changing the education system little is said on changing the philosophy that underpins it. This is not surprising for though it is philosophy that is at the heart of our actions humans rarely seem to drive at this consciously, rather leaving it to be created and framed around actions themselves. In the education sphere as many, there have been a myriad of actions and needs to drive the desire to develop children. From the Lyceum’s desire to be a centre of excellence, to training a powerful army in the Roman or Prussian traditions, to the drive for an obedient workforce to toil at the altar of the industrial machines or HR.

Philosophies accompany these elements impliedly and as Dickens noted are often instructive of the societies which formed them. How he would despair at what we have now, as uninspired, and vapid as the stories we tell and the heroes we venerate. A good education system requires as many good adults as good children, the values start with parents and teachers and on. Children today, adults tomorrow and so the cycle continues.

So, what of the start. What is education? The acquisition of knowledge, and with it impliedly the power so bequeathed from Bacon to Foucault, to Young. Powerful knowledge to empower the next generation to do things they otherwise couldn’t. A noble sentiment perhaps but choosing what is known is a form of power of its own and power without discipline is tyrannical. What must be known is derived from the outcomes desired and modern education is at best confused as to what its aims are.

On one side it wishes to arm children with said powerful knowledge, how this is achieved it is not sure, subjects are not justified beyond the fact they have been in the curriculum for a long time, and they were deemed important then. To be educated is sometimes to be well rounded or otherwise prepared for the world of work. The prioritisation of everything is to deny importance to anything and indeed it would be hard to argue that the current approach bears fruit in any arena. Our children are lacking in character, bereft of skills for the workplace and ultimately will forget the knowledge taught as quickly as it was bestowed.

Education must decide what we want to achieve, such that we can begin to envision how to reach it. At this point I would accept any answer, rather than the non-answer provided. Children themselves cannot provide the answer, they must be trained to love the good and hate the bad and the adults must step up to tell them the difference. That and how to form their own of course. A frame is needed to tear one down and construct another, as creativity is not to be shackled but it must be disciplined, as an individual must find themselves but also their part in a whole.

The prevailing philosophical assumptions formed otherwise are legion and each poor in their turn. Some are about how we see knowledge, such it’s importance or that it is compartmentalised into segments and can only be judged fairly on rigid criteria. This is despite the fact that nature itself makes no such delineation and that the wise amongst us are frequently shown to be those who see beyond what was thought before and can create poetry in mathematics or test hypotheses in history. Indeed, I would make the case that our fixation with such separations only lead to conflict both in our homes and workplaces. My life has frequently been plagued by analysts who refuse to engage with the wider strategic context, whilst they seemingly encounter an endless supply of colleagues who cannot read a graph.

The obsession with knowledge also carries with it other flaws, such as the presupposition that children could offer little until they have gone through a long process of acquiring necessary information. I would note the danger of certainty on what is or is not of import to contribute. Much of what was deemed essential once is of little importance today (for much of universities history theology was deemed essential) and I would wager it the young have at least as strong a sense of the direction of travel. As well as undervaluing the importance of reason (an issue in itself) the requirement to know in practice is by its nature demeaning. Even at university, I was forced to accept that my essays were being read not out of interest of what I may have to contribute to the field but rather as a exercise in checking I had correctly identified the correct information and from there reached one of the correct answers. As Adam Smith surmised our endeavour is more valuable than the ores on this rock. I would suggest then that the process is less to judge against a perceived standard of what we already know but more to recognise that each person already has something to offer and discovering together what that might be.

Knowledge is not the only area barely grasped. Others flaws in thought surround ideas which are more fundamental to humans themselves, like the idea of adulthood and childhood or the lie that we are all capable of the same feats with enough application. This is particularly pervasive and dangerous because to believe this, justifies the results-based approach that follows and arguably the inequality thereafter. If we all had the same ability, then what separates us is our character and that would indeed be a worthy metric to divide us. We are as different in mind as we are in appearance and too often those who are squandering their gifts are praised for exceeding the common, whilst some who have shown the resilience of champions are chastised for failing to meet a arbitrary standard they were never designed to.

Nor were any of us created to see information as a temporary means to an end that is reached at 18. Rather our whole lives we must improvise, adapt, overcome, or die... ok perhaps languish in the corporate hell of our own making. There is no evidence learning must primarily only be during adolescence, yet the way people are taught this is the way it is perceived. Children are encouraged to target hinge points, instead of desiring a more lasting form of understanding that would engender a larger process of continuing to practice skills and learn new things. The benefits of this to cognitive health are well recognised but I would argue this would also contribute meaningfully to mental health and a salve to the crisis of meaning. You are not finished. There is more to learn and more to achieve. Education is a lifelong process and whilst it’s true the early years are foundational; the aims are to foster cornerstones for an entire adult life not just a stepping stone that supposedly denotes the journey from child to adult.

This journey is as much about the world within as learning of the world without. For my own what lies within us will ever outstrip what is before us. Knowledge is for truth about ourselves and the world around us. Its power and worthiness are found only in how it is wielded, the character of the man more instructive than what he may know. What is to be commended, what is born or what one has fashioned? Let all find in themselves that they can offer to the service of others and let the halls ring with desire to find more. Society can ask no more than this, existence can ask no more than this. For we are all students and not for a handful of years but for life. As one, as whole. Not judged by letters, numbers nor man but by our own self and the universe that bore us.

Join Sean and Jonathan on the podcast to explore the meta-ethical underpinnings of our education system, and how a shift in focus might address the various problems within it.

I remember very fondly the many hours discussing my daily experiences as a teacher with my friend on our walks home each day after work. The frequent frustrations, the less-so frequent break throughs, the aspirations for the future. Now they’ve had some time to reflect after moving on to the civil service and I’ve moved on to my second school and seventh year of teaching, I would be interested to hear if together we can answer the question, is our education system truly broken; requiring a complete overhaul, or should we just continue in our current trajectory, doing the best with what we’ve got?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that we need a paradigm shift, which starts with the way we assess students and measure the success of our schools. Almost everything seems to be built around two things; grades and university entrances. I think it’s fair to say that from a purely practical point-of-view, this makes sense. We want our children to be educated to a high standard and therefore get a “good” job - i.e. one that pays well. However, I argue that we need to shift the focus to something else - character. 

Here’s an example from my time as a teacher to illustrate this. During tutor time, my year 10 students would do anything to get out of our bi-weekly class reading sessions. Even preferring independent study sessions, largely because they got to do their homework in these sessions, maximising their free time. One week, before their end of year mock exams, I made a deal with them. They could do independent study if they focused and worked in silence, making use of this half an hour of time. If they used it to mess around, then they wouldn’t be allowed to do it again tomorrow and we would read instead. So, the next day, after they had spent their thirty minutes chatting instead of working, I got the reading books out. They complained and promised they would be more focused this time. I told them no, they broke their end of the bargain. So, one bright student questioned that doesn’t it make more sense to do independent study, even though they had messed around yesterday, because it will will improve their grade, which is why they’re at school. I responded that my role as a teacher is not solely to help them acquire good grades, it is also to build character. They seemed a bit lost here, so I explained that character helps acquire grades, but grades don’t necessarily help build character. 

If we were to scrap the school grading system and focus largely on character development, what would the result be? If we were successful in this, what would our students be like? They would understand the importance of virtues such as courage, honesty, gratitude, patience, humility, resilience, integrity, determination. And so, one might say, so what? Why is having these values instilled in them a better thing than knowledge and good grades? Well, because gratitude will mean they appreciate the chance to educate themselves. Courage will mean they dare to face the challenges of their education. Determination and resilience will mean they will work hard to become more educated. I could go on. One of the best things I ever said in my nine years working in schools is “grades don’t build character, but character helps acquire grades.”

Join Sean and Jonathan on the podcast as they discuss whether we should we shift the focus of education to character development and if so, how could that be done effectively.

Youth. We idolise it; preserve it; waste it. Or ironically when we are young, wish it away. Modern society loves youth. The carefree lack of responsibility entices us, and many seek to do whatever we like for as long as we like. I often think most of us fall into two categories those who fear growing up, or those who do because everyone else does.

For those who are fearful, life’s milestones loom large, and we push them back avoiding commitment, fearing lost opportunities, seeking experience, fearing the mundane, avoiding making choices by letting circumstance decide for us.

Others of us, myself included, saw growing up as something we ought to do because everyone else did. And so, I went about collecting life milestones like brownie badges: high school, degree, first job, first promotion, boyfriend, fiancé, first flat, husband, first house….

It is only as I approach my 30s that I have started to dread growing up. The first grey hairs jeopardise my beauty, putting down roots by buying a house now seems like a mortgage millstone and 7 years working for the government has eroded the dream of a meaningful career.

I assumed that collecting experiences and the passage of time and would naturally lead to growth. And though time is one essential ingredient; a garden left only to the passage of time will grow wild. Life grows and changes us whether we run from it or we succumb to it, and we alone can choose to relish and refine the discipline of growing up in our own lives.

In the past five years, largely under the care and tutelage of my now husband, I have grown up a lot. So I would like to share with you some signs of healthy growth, for as it is said ‘it is by their fruits you will know them’.

1. Taking responsibility for your actions, decisions and mistakes.

This means not being proud and unable to take critique. It means not passing the buck when things don’t work out as expected. It means not defending the indefensible and acknowledging where your actions have negatively affected others whether you intended it or not. It means not letting time make decisions for you rather than deciding what you want and taking action to achieve that. It means not taking responsibility for things beyond your control.

2. Taking responsibility for your thoughts and beliefs.

This means asking yourself whether your fundamental beliefs about what is most important in life have simply been inherited from your parents or by your surrounding culture, or whether you have chosen to assess what is true and meaningful. It means asking yourself ‘when was the last time you changed your mind about something?’. It means trying to regulate your emotions and thoughts especially when angry or upset.

3. Demonstrating your values and articulating your purpose

This means DOING things that show love to someone if you profess to love them, including your children. It means not saying I didn’t have enough time, but instead I didn’t choose to prioritise that. It means cutting out things that hinder growth in your values. It means knowing why you are on this planet and making choices that focus on that. It means there are no solutions only trade-offs.

4. And Ultimately the biggest sign of your own growth is that people around you flourish.

This means seeing your spouse step into the best version of themselves. It means your friends turn to you in their dark moments. It means not starting a family to find meaning or seek validation; to live vicariously through your child; because your friends all have babies. For me It means stepping into motherhood in a place where my child will flourish because I am well rooted in wisdom, discipline and love.

So then you ask, is there in fact any part of youth that we should hold onto? Well, I think the best of youth lies in its hope for the future. That is an ingredient we must retain, for no growth is even possible without hope. It is youth which sets the hopeful vision, healthy growth which attains the goal and death which tests our value.

Tune into our podcast for full discussion on embracing aging and how to grow older in a healthy way.

Good. The highest form. “The one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves”1, which is the form of the Good. We can all agree that good is good, but what makes so... does God love it, does God’s will define it. What is good? At least we can all agree that we should be pursuing the good.

Yet I often worry, that we are not seeking good at all or even thinking about it. Perhaps it is believed that it is a fool’s errand, post modernism asserting that good is only truly subjective and thus not good at all. That good has relative elements is true, we approach it from our own position, what is good for me, may not be good for you but that does not mean there is not a bigger good whose pursuit we might find assent on. Our definition of good food may vary, but we can all agree it’s good to eat.

Perhaps we fear that good is only a theoretical concept. Of course, we would all want the good, but this is not the world we live in, on planet earth there are no solutions only trade-offs. This may be, but an understanding of the good is instructive in how we orient ourselves; a compass is not a perfect tool, but one finds it has great utility in the absence of a map.

Maybe we do not bother as it appears meaningless to state the good. Sure, we can all agree that we need ‘good teachers’ but what does this mean, and in what sense does that help us with the very real problem of securing them? The thing is we do need to answer this question if we are to find ‘good teachers’ and to answer that we will also have to answer other questions about good, such as what it means to have a ‘good education’ and what does a ‘good society’ look like. It is a challenge to be sure, but the alternative is...well...what we have now.

One can question if it exists, or if humanity can attain it, or how we could know if we reached it but to me that we should seek it is beyond refute. Good is good by definition and its pursuit should be the central concern of our lives. Last week I challenged people to find their own good but seeing the world I felt I had to present my own position for I fear a world where we pretend all goods are created equal.

Good is found in truth, truth is found by reason, and the reason for truth is love. Everything true is laudable and everything false is hateful. Only through reason, the triangulation of all the minds disciplines can we find anything approaching reality. The reason for this journey can only be for its own sake, for a good that is beyond reproach and pure, and the purest cause is love both of truth and more importantly of each other. As Aristotle suggested, good can be expressed in context of its function but I assert for a human that is to be moral. There is no higher calling to our reason than to ascertain what is good and what is evil. It is the central knowledge of the tree of life and ultimately how we are to be judged by a watchful universe.

You may scoff at such a patent concept but if it is known it is not practiced. Unit sales of self-help books have grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11 percent since 2013, reaching 18.6 million in 2019, with some estimates placing it at 2.4% of the books in print. These are no Locke inspired quests into questions of moral legalism or Kierkegaard fused forays into existential questions of love and justice. The focus of these works appears to be on wealth, success, getting rich, getting thin, being happy, finding peace. In relationships all I hear, is how to get someone or what you should want, even developing oneself is a means to secure something else, not an end unto itself.

Where are the books on ethics? Where are the books on how to reason? Where are the books on sacrifice and being called to a life of service to those around us? If we spent as much time on our minds as our bodies, this generation would have colonised the stars by now. If we had the same ambition for our relationships as we do for our careers, we would all be experts on love in all its forms, flowing with compassion, prone to kindness and learned in the ways of the karma sutra. This age has seen access to knowledge our forefathers would have never dreamed of, and yet it seems to find meaning in pornography and cat videos.

Our arts can reach more people than could have ever been imagined but perhaps in a bitter example art imitating modern life, films come stuffed with the desire to entertain but empty of aspiration to inspire. Only in children’s stories, does the desire to grow remain such that I am unashamed to say that my best recent experience at a cinema was to see ‘Puss in Boots - The Last Wish’. It is not only the young who need to be frequently acquainted with the timeless stories of our race and the quest to be kind, virtuous and good.

Find your own good, but if you believe it to be lifting weights or achieving a promotion then think again. Think bigger. These have some good within them, but they are far removed from the outcomes. Learn to be thoughtful, think about how to love others. There is no higher calling, and the virtues of your character will live on far longer than your vocation, muscles or worldly goods. Set your sights on the good. We are the children of the gods, and it is the heavens we aim for, shoot for the moon if you miss you may land in the stars.

Tune into our podcast where Jonathan takes a pretty good look at good to find out what's so good about good.

Are you worthy of importance? I once had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with the philosopher Kit Patrick. At the time I was considering writing for the first time and posited the idea to him. “What new will you bring?” was the reply and having no answer I let it be. Five years later, as I write my first article, I confess to being here not because I have a riposte but in spite of not having one. I cannot say for certain that my thoughts are wise, insightful, original, or indeed needed at all and yet…I am here.

The world has become adept at showing us how insignificant we really are. I have sometimes thought that in a small community it is possible that most members may have been the best at something. In a globalised world this is laughable. Even those who show talent being mere seconds away from being compared and rated against the world’s best. Few are not found wanting, and indeed most of us are of such limited calibre that I suspect the world’s finest are not required; merely an infant with a gift and a pushy parent.

This trend continues in the workplace. Competition for almost all vocations is fierce and we are under no illusions just how replaceable we are. In the legal field competent staff with law degrees work as paralegals or legal secretaries for minimal pay. In social terms many also judge their own lives as banal, boring, and ultimately bankrupt of meaning.

The mental toll of this self-assessment has been well documented, social media often being decried for damaging our mental health but less has been said about the cost of being in a world where being ‘good’ is so often not good enough. A planet where we are one in 8 billion, a fleeting shadow, insignificant.

Typically, this would be my cue to tell you that you are significant that everyone is special or other such salving statements. The issue is that our insignificance is true. Perhaps not to the extent that we fear in our darkest moments but certainly overall. Much is made of how social media is unrealistic but fundamentally it is true that there are many people in the world who are more successful than you, have more influence than you or are happier than you. Telling ourselves how special we are is ineffective because it is false. Better is to understand that not only are you not significant but perhaps no one is, certainly not on the grand scale. If few of us appear significant in our own time, how many fewer will be deemed so when held against the scope of history.

Indeed, it is hard to know if the human race in its entirety will stand up to such scrutiny. Just as great thinkers and artists (Dostoevsky and Van Gogh come to mind) are not recognised in their time, so too we may have over-estimated our importance in the history of the cosmos. The point is that neither you nor I can lay claim to knowledge of the significance, it is all relative to the time you choose to judge it by.

Though this may seem disheartening (and indeed these are difficult questions for existence as a whole) it brings a perverse sense of equality, us all being as inconsequential as each other means none of us need fear being particularly unimportant. Note also that critically we cannot be sure as to the worth of our deeds, such that you may choose to be optimistic if you so wish. I like to think that this little blog, though trifling now will be of critical importance to thinkers of the 28th century…

As well as being relative by time it is also relative in terms of the people who you judge it by, as it has been said ‘to one lost sheep a shepherd’s boy is greater than the richest king’. In its own context superlatives may not do justice to the value you have. To some you are important without measure, special beyond reasoning and loved uniquely. There are people whose lives you transform with words and deeds, some seek to help others but neglect those closest to them, I was 25 before I learned that an email to my Grandmother was one of the more impactful things I could do for the world. Be large to those who know you and care the most, rather than concerning yourself with a delusional aspiration to be larger than life itself.

Focusing on the truth, rather than re-defining significance has other critical advantages. It allows us to escape the pride and arrogance when finding fleeting success in a discipline or plunging despair when our talents are not recognized. More importantly we can begin to focus on why we really do things and for what purpose. This is worthy of its own appraisal but in short, doing them for their own sake. It is good for you to develop yourself and work on your interests. Good for you to pursue what you believe to be worthy of remembrance whether it is or not.

Do not worry about how large your impact will be or how significant you are, do what you believe to be good for yourself and be content that the universe decide what matters. This article is written for me, that I may expand my mind limited as it may be. If it benefits you… so the better.

Tune into the full discussion on our podcast where Jonathan and Emily engages in the difficult challenge of finding significance in a world of 8 billion.

Welcome to the Elenchus blog, part of the Locus group. What is Locus you might ask? Well, that is here, it is the place where we use reason to find truth, using hope to venture into the past, the present and the future. Locus is a place that I have created as a response to man’s existential issues and I hope it is a place that will be as refuge to you as it is to me. It is a fortress of philosophy and community, the melding of mind and heart.

The mind is called: Elenchus, for the unexamined life is not worth living. Elenchus is typically the Socratic method of eliciting truth by question and answer but to me it represents man’s quest for truth and the primacy of reason in finding that truth. It places reason on a pedestal as the Greeks did as the thing that sets man apart, our Ergon, by which we might enhance our psyche. For man to thrive we must become discerning, to be able to entertain ideas without accepting them, to be able to understand our natures and to master them, to be able to analyse across the relative and plant trees whose shade we will never sit under. Elenchus is not cold, we embrace reason and love it as we love life itself, it is like a plant we nurture in ourselves, practicing time and time again until we hit the target. For everything true is laudable, and everything false is hateful. The name Elenchus was chosen because only together in dialogue can truth be found, proving truth and disproving falsehood are opposites and none can encompass both fully at a time. Only in dialogue do we have any hope of leaving the cave.

Tikvah is that hope, but it is no fools hope it is the hope that allows us to run and not grow weary. It is the expectation, that we are more than conquerors and that overwhelming victory is ours for the taking. It is the vision of a man becoming God, a love that conquers death. It is needed because every reason needs hope, before proof there is theory and before ideas there are dreams. Hope is not faith; it answers to reason and the evidence that is put before it but whilst methods mature, concepts change and understandings unite, the noblest hopes remain. That reason can take us to truth, that man can change, that we can learn to love in a way which always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. It is extreme and we cannot look up from the plough, for the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. We must form communities for he who wants to save his own life, will lose life but he who gives their life will find life. Through empathy and understanding we will grow closer to truth and each other. Reason points to love and by our fruits shall you know us.

Locus pursues both Elenchus and Tikvah. It is its primary tools, the rebuilding of a new Rome, uniting the best of Athens and Jerusalem. Just as the Western World was created by Jewish spirituality and Greek philosophy so too does Locus pay homage to those proud to traditions, reconnecting us with the best of what we are. Tikvah is judged by Elenchus, but our highest goals are aspirational, our hearts more telling than our minds, community more important than self. Locus seeks good over great, a person who seeks to be noble of character more than powerful of action. Lifting weights and being put together is no virtue of its own and it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay.

So, you see Locus is this, this is my quest for truth and my family. Reason to find truth, hope to find love. Working that so it is above, so it may be below. Locus is something happening here in this room and wherever you are. You are welcome to join us, to observe my journey and learn what you may but more than this I would encourage you to find your own Locus. To discern what you believe to be good and to pursue it with all your heart.

Tune into our podcast episode for a full discussion where Jonathan outlines the basic tenets of Locus and begins to explore the relationship between Elenchus and Tikvah.