Chapter 7: The Triumph of the Left Hemisphere

Welcome to Last Minute Lecture.

This free chapter overview is designed to help students review and understand key concepts.

These summaries supplement, not replace, the original textbook and may not be redistributed or resold.

For complete coverage, always consult the official text.

Welcome back to the Deep Dive.

Today, we are taking a journey, well, not across the world, but deep inside our own minds.

An internal expedition.

Exactly.

We're diving into what is, I think, one of the most ambitious intellectual works the last few decades, a chapter that explores this structural conflict inside our own brains.

That's right.

And our sources today are focused on a pretty staggering argument that the modern Western world isn't just, you know, experiencing some sort of cultural shift.

It's a profound neurological crisis.

A crisis.

That's a strong word.

It is.

The core claim we're going to be unpacking is that the whole relationship,

the complementary balanced partnership between our two brain hemispheres, has basically failed.

Catastrophically.

And the result of that failure is what the sources call the triumph of the left hemisphere.

Okay, so before we jump into the evidence, let's just quickly define our terms for everyone listening.

Good idea.

We have the master, which is the right hemisphere.

This is the side that kicks it.

It gets the big picture, right?

It's our connection to lived experience, to context, metaphor, emotion.

Yeah.

Our sense of reality, really.

And then you have its emissary, the left hemisphere.

And it's absolutely essential.

Its job is to take all that rich, messy, ambiguous stuff from the master and just break it down.

Make it neat.

Exactly.

It makes things explicit, abstract, utilitarian.

It puts things in a straight line so we can use them and manipulate the world.

And when it's healthy, the emissary serves the master.

It brings back its findings.

But the argument here is that the emissary has staged a coup.

It's gone rogue.

Yeah, that all the characteristics of the emissary, that mechanical analysis, the abstraction, the focus on utility, and maybe most importantly,

this extreme confidence it has in its own theories,

that this has become the signature of our entire culture.

So that's the claim we're testing.

Right.

So our mission today is really twofold.

First, we need to look at the neurological and clinical evidence.

How do the hemispheres actually work together or, as it turns out, work against each other?

And second, we have to follow that argument into the cultural side of things.

How did the left hemisphere manage to take over, even though the right is our fundamental connection to reality?

And what does this left hemisphere world actually look like?

Okay, let's get into it.

This is a big one.

It really is.

So the journey starts with, maybe counter -intuitively, the idea of separation.

The core concept is this dual imperative.

The hemispheres, they have jobs that are complementary.

They work toward the same goal, but their approaches are totally in conflict.

They have to cooperate, but to do that, they have to kind of not know what the other one is doing.

High degree of mutual ignorance.

Yeah.

Why is that separation so important?

Well, think about it.

If they both just did the exact same thing, if they mirrored each other perfectly,

you wouldn't get specialization.

You'd just have redundancy.

Real cooperation in a complex system like the brain requires difference, not duplication.

The sources use this great analogy of singers in a choir or a pianist.

Oh, I like that.

Right.

To play a complex piece with cross rhythms, you have to be able to do one thing with one hand while actively, and this is the key word, inhibiting your other hand from doing the same thing.

So you can't just have both hands playing the same melody.

The complexity is lost.

Exactly.

So the brain's highest achievement isn't just connection.

It's regulated separation.

And that takes us straight to the corpus callosum.

The thing we all learn about in high school biology is this giant bundle of nerves connecting the two halves, the main bridge.

And that's, well, it's not wrong, but it's a deeply incomplete picture.

The idea that it's just a bridge for information transfer is it's not enough.

So what is it then?

The neurological evidence strongly suggests its main job, maybe its most important job, is inhibitory.

It's there to suppress processes in one hemisphere that would interfere with what the other hemisphere is trying to do.

It's the brain's conflict regulator.

It's the chief regulator, yeah.

It stops the specialized departments from stepping on each other's toes.

And this is where the stories of split brain patients are so important.

They're not just, you know, weird anecdotes.

They're the crucial evidence for this.

When the callosum is cut,

that regulation is just gone.

Right.

And the really strange thing, the paradox, is that these patients,

they can seem remarkably normal.

That's what always confused me.

It confused researchers for years.

You could have a conversation with one and have no idea their brain is fundamentally split.

Why is that?

Because so much information is still shared, just not across the callosum.

It's shared subcortically, you know, down in the brainstem and other older structures.

Plus, they still share one body, one set of senses, feeding information in.

So if they seem so normal on the surface, where does the proof come from?

The proof of this conflict that the callosum is supposed to be regulating?

It comes from what happens right after the surgery, from the immediate and often really distressing failure of that inhibition.

The key evidence wasn't what they failed to communicate between hemispheres.

It was what they couldn't prevent from happening.

And this is where we get the stories of the fighting hands, the intermanual conflict.

Exactly.

Where the two hands seem to have totally separate, even antagonistic wills.

The anecdotes are just, they're so vivid.

There's the story of the man who goes to hug his wife with his right arm, the arm controlled by the verbal, conscious left hemisphere.

And his left arm, controlled by the right hemisphere, just shoves her away.

At the same time, imagine how distressing that would be.

Unbelievably.

Or the woman who had to stop driving because her left hand would just grab the steering wheel and try to jerk the car in another direction.

And there's so many other examples.

A left hand snatching money back that the right hand just offered to cashier.

Or closing a door the right hand hit just open.

Or trying to put on a different shirt.

It's like a constant battle.

And what's so critical for you listening to this, the pattern the source points out, is that it is always the left hand.

Always.

The hand controlled by the right hemisphere, that's the naughty one, the spontaneous one.

The right hand, run by the left hemisphere, is the one doing the planned conscious, this is what I'm doing, action.

And this is a massive clue because it tells you where our sense of conscious identity lives.

It strongly, strongly suggests that the left hemisphere, what Michael Guzaniga famously called the interpreter, is the one running the show.

It's building the coherent story of me.

So when the left hemisphere plans an action, like I am opening this door, any interference from the right hemisphere is seen by the left as an attack, as something against my interests.

Yes.

The left hemisphere has its theory, its narrative of what's happening, and the right hemisphere's input, which might be more emotional or contextual, is just.

It's seen as disruptive noise.

The failure of inhibition proves who is normally in conscious control.

It's the left.

It's the left.

The whole post -surgery chaos wasn't about a lack of data, it was about the inability to stop unwanted actions.

The failure of inhibition.

And this idea of failed inhibition, it goes beyond surgery, right?

It shows up in pathology too.

It does.

Things like a compromised colosum, or a condition where it doesn't even develop properly,

they're strongly linked to really complex psychiatric disorders,

like schizophrenia.

But there's another paradox here, isn't there?

The finding that a faulty colosum can lead to what looks like more connection between the hemispheres.

Right.

It's totally counterintuitive.

A broken bridge leads to increased interconnectivity.

How does that work?

Well, how does it?

It works if the main purpose of the bridge is to keep things separate.

If that inhibition fails, if the walls break down, then processes that were supposed to be operating independently just,

they collapse into each other.

They bleed into each other's territory.

And that causes chaos,

functional disruption.

That's a key feature in schizotypy, this intrusion of one hemisphere's way of doing things into the other's workspace.

It makes you realize that being able to function in these specialized separate ways isn't something we're just born with.

It's an achievement.

It requires active suppression.

And that brings up the developmental angle.

I mean, kids are in a way more split -brained than adults.

Not so.

The myelination of the corpus callosum, the process that makes the connections fast and efficient.

It happens really late.

It goes on well into adolescence.

So young kids actually find it hard to use their hemispheres separately.

So as the callosum matures, its inhibitory role gets stronger, allowing for more specialization.

Precisely.

And that increasing specialization parallels the left hemisphere's growing importance as we age and learn language and logic.

So the divide itself isn't a bad thing.

It's not fragmentation.

It's actually the basis for our cognitive sophistication.

It's what allows the left to have its narrow laser -like focus and the right to have its broad contextual awareness without them constantly getting in each other's way.

It's amazing.

And the source wraps this up with a quote from, of all places, the ancient Hindu Upanishads.

It's a beautiful summary.

It says, the controller in the heart is the bridge that serves as the boundary to keep the different worlds apart.

A boundary that is also a bridge.

It maintains two separate worlds by carefully regulating what goes between them.

That's the paradox in a nutshell.

OK, so we've got this foundation of a very tense relationship.

Cooperation, but also competition.

And the source says, to really get it, we have to look at it on three different levels.

Yeah, the analogy is like two business partners.

If you ask how do they relate, the answer depends.

Are you talking about the moment -to -moment emails, the quarterly reports, or the five -year strategic plan?

I like that.

So let's start with level one.

The day -to -day, the millisecond -to -millisecond stuff.

This is where you're just trying to get things done, tie your shoes, read a street sign.

And at the super granular level, you need both.

You can't function without both.

This is basically the philosopher Immanuel Kant's famous line.

Right.

Concepts without intuitions are empty.

Intuitions without concepts are blind.

The left gives you the concepts, the plan.

The right gives you the intuition, the embodied grasp of what's actually in front of you.

They have to work together.

You'd think so.

You'd think they'd act like a perfect, seamless team.

But the evidence suggests they act more like, well,

like rival departments in a big company.

And that rivalry can actually make performance worse.

It absolutely can, if the regulation isn't perfect.

And this rivalry, it comes from a need for speed, doesn't it?

The source says a hemisphere will just grab a task based on expectation before all the information is even in?

It's the mind mentality.

If a piece of info looks even a little bit like it belongs in the left hemisphere's inbox,

the left will just snatch it and deal with it.

Even if its answer is worse?

Even if its response is inferior to what the right could have come up with.

And that's because the time it takes to send the information across the colosum a few milliseconds is sometimes seen as too high a cost.

So a quick and dirty answer now is better than a perfect answer a few milliseconds later.

In evolutionary terms, that might be the difference between spotting a predator and not.

So this quick grab sometimes wins out over a slower, more deliberate collaboration.

Which means there has to be some kind of umpire.

Constantly.

That's the theory.

There has to be a low -level meta -control switch maybe down on the brain stem that's just constantly directing traffic deciding who gets to act right now.

Okay, that's the micro level.

Let's move up to level two.

The products of consciousness.

Our actual experience of the world.

What happens when these two rival departments collaborate over time?

This is where it gets really interesting.

Because you see emergent functions, the whole becomes genuinely more than the sum of its parts.

It's not just one plus one equals two.

The researcher Marie Banish found that when both hemispheres work together on a task,

you see completely different parts of the brain light up.

Regions that weren't active when they were working alone.

The process itself is transformed.

So it's not just photocopying information from one side to the other.

It's the source uses the term Hegelian Ophibian.

Yeah, that philosophical idea of sublation.

Where something is cancelled out but also preserved and lifted up to a higher level.

The interaction creates something totally new.

A new state of being.

And over time, this interaction, this dialogue, it actually shapes who we are through something called hemispheric utilization bias.

We all develop a tendency, a characteristic bias toward one cognitive style or the other.

And that long term bias really changes how we see and experience the world.

And that competitive streak we saw at the micro level, it shows up here too.

Especially in how we pay attention.

Yes, this is fascinating.

The experiments on visual attention are very telling.

The left hemisphere is naturally focused on the right side of our vision.

If you take someone who has a left hemisphere bias and give them a task,

that tendency gets even stronger.

They get so focused on their preferred right side, the irrelevant distracting stuff on that side really messes them up.

They can't filter it out.

But when you flip it for people with the right hemisphere bias, it's different.

It's totally different.

The right hemisphere does not get thrown off balance.

It maintains this even handedness.

It shows, as the source puts it, an even distribution of concern for both sides.

So the right, the master, is looking out for the whole system, while the left, the emissary, is just aggressively focused on its own little patch of turf.

That's what the evidence points to.

And this asymmetrical competition is confirmed in the most extreme situation you can imagine,

a brain injury.

This is a really critical point.

It is.

When one hemisphere is injured, sometimes if you temporarily disable the healthy non -injured hemisphere,

the injured one actually gets better.

Wait, say that again?

Disabling the healthy side helps the injured side.

It sounds completely backwards, doesn't it?

It's as if the healthy side was actively suppressing the injured one, competing with it and stopping it from recovering.

Pure rivalry.

And crucially, it's asymmetrical.

The left hemisphere's suppressive effect on the right is consistently stronger and lasts longer than the other way around.

The left is, well, it appears to be the brain's bigger bully.

So this all circles back to the split brain patients, the man pushing his wife away.

It all confirms that our conscious identity, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves, is driven by the left hemisphere.

Absolutely.

The left is the great rationalizer, the storyteller.

It needs a coherent narrative, and it will defend its version of reality at all costs.

So if the right hemisphere does something spontaneous or emotional?

The left sees it as an invasion.

It's contrary to my plan.

And the left will either try to shut it down or it will very quickly invent a story to explain it away and make it fit the narrative.

So the big takeaway here is that the right is the source, the source of experience, of life, of vitality.

The left is just a tool for analysis.

The right needs the left for that analysis, sure.

But the left is completely utterly dependent on the right to make its concepts,

to make them live again, to bring them back into the real world.

And yet the left, which is just the tool, can come to believe that its own little conceptual map is the entire territory.

And that's where the master becomes so vulnerable to the emissary's coup.

Which brings us to level three, the long -term strategic problem.

Why does the left win despite the right being so fundamental?

This is the core of the cultural argument, and it's a conflict of asymmetries.

First, let's just acknowledge the two asymmetries that should give the right hemisphere the upper hand.

Okay, what are they?

The first is ontological asymmetry.

That's a fancy way of saying the right hemisphere comes first.

It's a mediator of lived reality, of whatever exists.

The left's whole conceptual world is secondary.

It's derived from that reality.

It's the word versus the deed.

The source brings up Guthus Faust, who reverses that famous line from the Bible, in the beginning was the word.

And Faust says, in the beginning was the deed.

Im anfan war di tat.

The deed, the raw act of experience, belongs to the right hemisphere.

Okay, so that's one.

What's the second asymmetry that should favor the right?

It's the asymmetry of function or vitality.

For the whole system to be healthy, the stuff the left produces, the analysis, the concepts, the plans, it has to be returned to the right's world to be reintegrated, to become part of lived experience again.

They're sending the right's insights over to the left to be unpacked.

It's enriching, but maybe not essential for survival.

Right, but sending the left's analysis back to the right, that's vital.

So if the right is the source of both reality and vitality, why on earth is the left winning this fight?

Because there are three other asymmetries that skew all the power to the left.

And the first one is the most obvious,

the asymmetry of means.

The left is just better at arguing its case.

It's not just better, it has a total monopoly on the tools of argument.

It controls the three L's, language, logic, and linearity.

It's got the microphone the source calls it the Berlusconi of the brain.

It's a perfect description.

It controls the channels of dissemination.

The right hemisphere's knowledge, what the source calls urketness.

It's deep knowing through relationships, context, paradox.

It's never finished.

It's never certain.

And it's incredibly hard to put into words.

Whereas the left builds systems,

clear, transferable knowledge wissenschaft.

It builds its arguments step by step with things that seem certain and are easy to defend.

Try to explain why a joke is funny.

Right, you kill it.

You're forcing right hemisphere knowledge through left hemisphere filter.

And the life just drains out of it.

The right's knowledge is too complex, too whole.

It doesn't have a voice to defend itself in a debate.

And because the left controls the language, the right's insights get dismissed as,

you know, unprovable, subjective, just a feeling.

So the deck is stacked from the start.

Completely.

And that leads to the second and maybe more insidious factor,

the asymmetry of structure.

The left creates this powerful, self -enclosed system that you can't escape.

A hall of mirrors.

Yes.

Inside this system, language only refers to other language.

Reason can only defend its own starting points.

Anything that can't be said or measured in its terms is just.

It's ignored.

It's devalued.

So the system automatically becomes hostile to everything the right hemisphere is good at.

Metaphor, poetry, intuition, nature.

And so the emissary turned tyrant doesn't just take power.

It systematically attacks the master's escape routes.

Art, religion, the body to make sure the prison is escape proof.

How do you get out?

You have to take a leap beyond language and reason through intuition or art, or by recognizing the limits of logic itself, like the mathematician Gödel did.

And this ties into the left's misunderstanding of what creation even is.

It does.

The left, being the tool user, thinks creation is a positive act.

Something it does, like building with Legos, or the source uses this image of a cat batting a dead mouse, trying to make it move again.

But real creation is about what you don't do.

Exactly.

The old meaning of the word invention was to find or to discover.

Creation is uncovering.

It's an act of negation.

It's that old philosophical idea from Spinoza.

Omnis determinatio es negatio.

All determination is negation.

You define something by what it is not.

You find the truth by chipping away at what is false.

I love the analogy the source uses for this.

The river and the landscape.

It's perfect.

Tell us about it.

The river, which is like life or truth.

It doesn't emerge because the landscape actively builds a riverbed.

It emerges because the landscape resists the water in some places and doesn't say no in other places.

So life flows into the spaces created by resistance.

It's found, not built.

But the left hemisphere's language -based way of seeing things can't handle that.

It automatically replaces that lived ambiguity with fixed two -dimensional information.

It creates this illusion that everything is a sequence of cause and effect, which is just an artifact of its own way of looking.

It confuses the map for the territory.

Okay, so that's two asymmetries favoring the left.

What's the third?

The third is the asymmetry of interaction.

This is about the dynamic of the whole system getting knocked off balance.

We've gone from a stable system to an unstable one.

For most of history, you could say there was a negative feedback loop.

If the pendulum swung too far one way, things would happen to correct it and swing it back.

But in the modern world, that's been replaced by positive feedback that just keeps pushing things further in the left's direction.

How does that work?

The left's methods, bureaucracies, technology,

rationalized systems, they create a world that inherently values the left's perspective.

The narrow, the explicit, the utilitarian.

And that makes it harder and harder for the right's perspective, the broad, the contextual, the intuitive, to even get a word in edgewise.

So the pendulum doesn't just swing too far.

The whole clock gets knocked off its shelf.

The left is holding all the cards.

And this is exactly what the philosopher Martin Heidegger was warning about.

He saw this triumph of the Apollonian, the rational, ordered, left over the Dinesian, the intuitive, natural.

Right.

And the world that results from that is just a frenzy of frameworks, division, and structuring.

Everything gets turned into a resource to be managed.

And Heidegger's ultimate fear was that we start to see everything that way.

Nature, other people, even ourselves.

Nature becomes, in his terrifying phrase, one gigantic filling station.

Just a resource, waiting to be extracted and used.

That is the left hemisphere's worldview made global.

So if the emissary is now a tyrant,

what does that do to our psyche?

The source suggests the biggest consequence is a profound lack of insight, a tendency toward denial.

Yeah, the left hemisphere, being the theory and narrative guy, is an expert at coming up with plausible but totally bogus explanations for anything that doesn't fit its neat little story of the world.

And the clinical evidence for this from Dr.

Ramachandran's work is, it's just unforgettable.

It really is.

He worked with patients who had damage to their right hemisphere, which results in paralysis on the left side of their body.

And the unbelievable thing is that these patients will often just deny that they're paralyzed?

Veemently.

You can be pointing at their limp, lifeless arm and they'll say, oh, I just don't feel like moving it right now, or I moved it a second ago.

In some cases, they'll deny the arm is even theirs.

The left hemisphere is so committed to its theory of, I'm a capable whole person, that it will accept utter absurdities to protect that theory.

And the contrast is so stark.

Because patients with left hemisphere damage who are paralyzed on their right side, they almost never deny it.

They're acutely aware of it, they're upset about it, they talk about it all the time.

So this is clinical proof that the left is the side prone to denial.

It's intellectual hubris made flesh.

Right, it's Nietzsche's line.

I cannot have done that, says my pride, and remains adamant until finally memory yields.

The left hemisphere's pride just doesn't yield.

And it really doesn't like taking responsibility.

The source gives this incredible example of how you can break through that denial, but only if you give the left an out, a scapegoat.

Ramachandran proved this.

He took a patient who was denying her paralysis,

and he told her he was giving her a salt water injection that would cause her arm to be temporarily paralyzed.

So he gave the left hemisphere something external to blame.

Exactly.

And as soon as the left had the injection to blame, it was suddenly perfectly willing to admit the arm was paralyzed.

It needed that external technical excuse before it would accept the reality the right had been screaming about all along.

So the left is the conformist, indifferent to discrepancies, while the right is highly sensitive to perturbation, trying to sound the alarm.

And the left just keeps pushing forward, whistling a happy tune.

And this flips a common myth on its head.

For a long time, people thought the right hemisphere was the zombie, or the sleepwalking, the passive side.

But the evidence suggests the opposite.

Because that uncanny, mechanical, two -dimensional feeling of being a zombie,

that's actually a perfect description of the world according to the left hemisphere.

A world of pure mechanism, with all the life drained out.

Precisely.

The source connects this to the clinical presentation of schizophrenia, which is often a right hemisphere deficit condition.

The key symptom you see is dissociation.

A loss of a sense of reality?

Depersonalization.

Yes.

Where the world seems flat, two -dimensional, unreal.

This points directly to a disconnection from the right hemisphere's integrated, living grasp of the world.

So dissociation is what happens when the right hemisphere's grip fails, which leads to the left hemisphere becoming functionally dominant.

And the empirical evidence backs this up.

In dissociative states, the brain shows what's effectively a functional commiserotomy.

The connection is disrupted, and the left hemisphere actually inhibits the right faster than usual.

People prone to dissociation show this left -side dominance.

They're hyper -focused, but disconnected from reality.

This even applies to something like hypnosis, which most people would guess is about tapping into the right brain.

Yeah, that's the popular idea.

But the neural imaging shows the exact opposite.

Hypnosis consistently shows a predominance of left -sided activation.

So what is it doing then?

It's creating an intense enhancement of focal concentration, while at the same time suspending your peripheral contextual awareness.

That is a perfect description of the left hemisphere's attention style.

It's like macular vision, an intense but very restricted spotlight.

And when you put all this together, you get to a pretty chilling conclusion about the modern world.

If our culture is increasingly dominated by the left hemisphere, then we shouldn't expect our defining trait to be wisdom or humility or insight.

We should expect insouciant optimism.

The sleepwalker whistling a happy tune as he ambles toward the abyss, completely blind to the context and the consequences of his own actions.

It's the ultimate danger.

It's the warning from the myth of Faust.

The whole legend is a warning against hubris, against seeking abstract power and knowledge, without grounding it in lived reality and morality.

In Goethe's version, Faust, who is the ultimate left hemisphere hero always striving, he does find redemption in the end.

But only when his striving is tempered by remorse, when he realizes what his knowledge can do for humanity.

When the analysis is returned to a moral feeling context,

the master and the emissary finally working together.

But the danger today is that we're the sorcerer's apprentice who has seized power without any understanding.

We're the sleepwalker who has no insight that anything has gone wrong at all.

Just marching forward, convinced our faulty map is the real world.

Wow.

That was a huge and incredibly detailed look at the conflict that's shaping our world from the inside out.

The argument is so meticulously built.

It really is.

We basically established three huge ideas today that kind of shatter what most of us think about the brain.

First, that the corpus callosum's main job is actually active separation, it's inhibition.

Which we see so clearly in the rebellious left hand of split -brain patients, a constant reminder of who's running the conscious story.

Then second, we looked at that conflict of asymmetries.

We saw how the left's superior tools, the three L's, language, logic, linearity, let it overpower the right's fundamental connection to reality.

And how it builds that whole of mirrors that just excludes any truth that's ambiguous or contextual.

And finally, we saw the psychological and cultural result of that takeover.

A world defined by denial, by hyper -focus, and a really dangerous lack of insight.

The neurological evidence from things like paralysis denial just solidifies this terrifying image of the sleepwalker heading for the cliff.

But the source doesn't leave us totally without hope.

As you mourned, it quotes Hulderlin.

Where there is danger, that which will save us also grows.

The analysis of the emissary of the left, it's crucial.

We need it.

But salvation lies in the emissary finally recognizing its proper role.

The analysis has to be handed back to the master, to the right, to be reintegrated into lived reality, into context, into wisdom.

The transformation happens when the tool is put back in the master's hands.

And the question this leaves us with isn't just philosophical, it's intensely practical.

We've seen that self -consciousness, you're being aware of yourself as an object analyzing what you're doing.

That's very often the left hemisphere inspecting the right, turning its narrow little spotlight on it.

So for you listening to this, here's the provocative thought to take away.

If that kind of analysis is the left hemisphere's game, what vital intuitive embodied skills that you rely on every single day?

Things like driving a car, playing an instrument, even just having a smooth conversation.

What skills are you unknowingly messing up, making awkward, or even paralyzing just by turning that hyper -focused analytical spotlight on them?

Are you, in some small way, trying to manage your own life with the same logic that makes a patient deny their own paralyzed arm?

That is the challenge of the divided brain.

Knowing when to analyze and knowing when to just let the master rule.

Think about that the next time you find yourself overthinking something that should just flow.

Thank you for going on this deep dive with us.

We'll see you next time.