Kim's comment that the proposed idea "is and isn't (too) big" is of course my sentiment. Micheal Jordan said the reason he scored so many points was because the hoop was so big and the ball so small. Well, I haven't scored any points as yet, at lease in the way that I think will really matter, but I am beginning to believe this visualized goal is quite realistic. Wouldn't that be something? Because it makes sense commercially and economically and from a network's point-of-view as explained to me by that famous producer, it has potential. The dogging question is always whether it could work, presuming the non-profit foundation was founded, funded, and the "TV process" was aired. It would be like a massive elaboration on the question that Obama asked the other day, "Look at your leaders and ask what they can build, not what they can destroy." It would incorporate the most skillful and well crafted emotional intelligence training vignettes and what amounts to modern day scriptures of how to live and how to reinterpret the political and personal situations that many people do not know how to handle. This guided rewriting of people's self-stories would be modeled on the shared revelations and witness of many real, ordinary people around the world. This is how change happens along with the use of great symbols. The great symbol would be the process itself or the idea that our several living generations are the focal ones that can assume this great role of transformation within our life.

Very best,

Ken Hantman