Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 219:6-220:1

Hook

We live in a world besieged by bad dreams. Not the fleeting anxieties of a restless night, but the waking nightmares of systemic injustice, communal division, and the looming shadows of despair that threaten to paralyze our will to act. We witness the erosion of trust, the deepening of societal chasms, and the constant barrage of challenges that too often elicit fear, anger, and a desperate search for blame. It is the dream of brokenness, of "house beams falling," that makes us feel powerless, prompting a reactive, punitive response – a fast of self-affliction or communal punishment – rather than a path toward healing and renewal. The urgent need before us is to break free from this cycle of reactive despair and to reclaim our agency, not through denial of hardship, but through a radical commitment to interpreting our collective "bad dreams" as opportunities for creation and compassion.

Historical Context

The struggle to interpret adversity, to find meaning and a path forward in the face of perceived calamity, is deeply woven into the fabric of Jewish history and thought. From the earliest narratives, our ancestors grappled with "bad dreams" that threatened their very existence.

Exile and Rebuilding

The destruction of the Temples and the subsequent exiles were perhaps the most profound "bad dreams" for the Jewish people. The initial response often involved lamentation, fasting, and a profound sense of loss – a communal mourning akin to the personal fast for a burnt Torah scroll. Yet, alongside this grief, prophets and sages consistently offered a counter-narrative. Jeremiah’s famous letter to the exiles in Babylon (Jeremiah 29:7) instructed them to "seek the peace of the city where I have sent you into exile and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its peace you will find your peace." This was an audacious reinterpretation of exile, transforming it from a purely punitive "bad dream" into an opportunity for engagement, building, and ultimately, a different kind of flourishing. The rebuilding of the Second Temple, despite numerous obstacles, was a testament to this enduring spirit of positive reinterpretation, seeing the fallen beams as a foundation for a new structure.

Prophetic Warnings and Paths to Renewal

Throughout the prophetic tradition, warnings of destruction were rarely absolute. Often, they served as wake-up calls, "bad dreams" intended to shock the people into teshuvah (repentance and return). The prophets, while often delivering harsh pronouncements, simultaneously offered paths to renewal, emphasizing that the interpretation of the divine decree, and thus its outcome, was always contingent on human action and moral choices. Jonah's mission to Nineveh, initially a prophecy of utter destruction, was ultimately reinterpreted through the city's repentance, demonstrating that even the most dire "bad dream" can be averted or transformed through a shift in collective consciousness and behavior. The divine response to Nineveh's repentance, a turning away from their evil ways, showcased a compassionate interpretation of their potential fate.

Internal Strife and Communal Cohesion

Beyond external threats, Jewish communities have often faced internal "bad dreams" – schisms, injustices perpetrated by community members, and the breakdown of social harmony. The halakhic tradition, even when dealing with strictures and punishments, often seeks avenues for shalom bayit (peace in the home/community) and tikkun olam (repair of the world). The development of concepts like mechilah (forgiveness), chesed (loving-kindness), and gemilut chasadim (acts of loving-kindness) provided frameworks for positively reinterpreting interpersonal and communal conflicts. Instead of simply punishing offenders, the emphasis often shifted to restoration, reconciliation, and the reintegration of individuals into the community. The "falling beams" of communal trust were seen not as an end, but as an urgent call to rebuild stronger, more inclusive structures.

The Power of Midrash

The very methodology of Midrash – the imaginative and expansive interpretation of sacred texts – is a historical testament to the Jewish capacity for positive reinterpretation. When faced with textual ambiguities or seemingly harsh decrees, the Sages often employed Midrash to find deeper, more compassionate, or more optimistic meanings. The Midrash Kohelet cited in our text, which reinterprets falling house beams as the birth of a son, is a prime example of this historical and ongoing practice. It's a deliberate act of seeking life and promise where initial fear might only see destruction. This interpretive resilience has not merely been a coping mechanism but a foundational principle for survival and flourishing through millennia of challenge.

Text Snapshot

The Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 219:6-220:1, offers a profound shift in perspective: "And so we are accustomed to interpret the dream positively and so is our duty and so is appropriate for us, and all dreams follow their interpretation as it is written. For when a woman saw in a dream that the beams of her house fell, and they said to her 'you will birth a son,' and so happened to her… this is an image of the child who falls from her body."

Halakhic Counterweight

The legal anchor here is not a specific prohibition or command regarding an object, but a profound halakhic imperative for interpretation itself. The Arukh HaShulchan’s declaration, "And so we are accustomed to interpret the dream positively and so is our duty and so is appropriate for us," elevates positive interpretation from a mere suggestion to a binding principle, a chovah (duty) and ratzui (appropriate/desirable) way of engaging with perceived threats or challenges.

The Duty of Positive Interpretation

This isn't merely about wishful thinking or naive optimism; it's a rigorous spiritual and ethical discipline. When faced with a "bad dream" – whether it's a personal setback, a communal crisis, or a societal injustice – our halakhic inclination, our ingrained communal practice, should be to actively seek a constructive, life-affirming meaning. The text explicitly links the interpretation to the outcome: "all dreams follow their interpretation." This implies an active co-creation of reality through our interpretive lens. If we interpret a challenge as an insurmountable catastrophe, we risk creating that reality. If we interpret it as a birth pang, a sign of new life emerging from the breakdown of old structures, we open the door to renewal.

From Reactive Fasting to Proactive Engagement

The Arukh HaShulchan begins by discussing the practice of fasting for bad dreams, even on Shabbat for severe cases. But then it immediately pulls back, warning against habitual fasting, stating that such a practice is only for "a pure person without filling of the stomach, and like this person there is not among them at all." This is a crucial pivot. It acknowledges the reactive human tendency towards self-affliction or despair in the face of perceived threat, but then immediately discourages it as an unsustainable or inappropriate response for most people in most circumstances. The alternative offered is not inaction, but reinterpretation. The "fast" of despair or punitive reaction is replaced by the "feast" of positive, constructive engagement. This is a call to move beyond a response rooted in fear and scarcity to one rooted in hope and possibility.

The Metaphor of "Falling Beams" and "Birth of a Son"

The specific example of "falling house beams" being reinterpreted as the "birth of a son" is incredibly potent. "Falling beams" evokes breakdown, destruction, the collapse of security and structure. It's the ultimate "bad dream" for a community. Yet, the Midrash (and the Arukh HaShulchan's endorsement of it) insists on seeing this not as an end, but as a beginning – the "child who falls from her body" is a new life, a new future emerging from a difficult, even painful, process. This isn't ignoring the pain of the "fall" but reframing its ultimate purpose. In the context of social justice, this becomes a halakhic anchor for restorative justice, for community rebuilding, for finding opportunities for systemic change within moments of crisis or perceived failure. It demands that we look at the breakdown of old systems not as a sign of ultimate defeat, but as the necessary (and sometimes painful) precursor to birthing more just and compassionate structures. Our duty, therefore, is to seek the nascent life within the rubble.

Strategy

Our task is to translate this halakhic imperative for positive interpretation into tangible strategies for justice and compassion. This means shifting from a reactive posture of fear and punishment to a proactive stance of hope and rebuilding, seeing communal challenges not as endpoints but as opportunities for birth.

Move 1: Local - Cultivating Interpretive Resilience within Our Communities

Tactical Plan:

This strategy focuses on transforming the default communal response to perceived "bad dreams" – be they internal conflicts, local injustices, or community-wide anxieties – from one of despair, blame, or punitive action to one of constructive, compassionate engagement. It's about empowering individuals and groups to actively seek positive, generative interpretations and solutions, much like the Midrash reinterpreting falling beams as new life.

### 1.1 Education and Awareness Workshops: "Reinterpreting the Dream"

• Goal: Equip community members with tools and frameworks to consciously reframe challenges.
• Methodology:
  • Text Study: Host study sessions on the Arukh HaShulchan text and other Jewish sources emphasizing positive interpretation, resilience, and teshuvah (return/repentance). Explore narratives where apparent destruction led to new beginnings (e.g., the Exodus from Egypt, the rebuilding after exile).
  • Reframing Exercises: Introduce practical reframing techniques from psychology and conflict resolution. For instance, instead of asking "Whose fault is this problem?" ask "What opportunity for growth or innovation does this challenge present?" or "What new community structure can emerge from this breakdown?"
  • Communal Storytelling: Create platforms for community members to share personal and collective stories of overcoming adversity through reframing and positive action. This builds a shared narrative of resilience.
• Potential Partners: Local synagogues, JCCs, adult education programs, interfaith councils, community mental health professionals, local universities (for academic and psychological input).
• First Steps:
  • Identify and train a core group of facilitators from within the community (rabbis, educators, social workers).
  • Develop a curriculum for a 4-6 session workshop series, incorporating both textual study and practical exercises.
  • Pilot the workshop with a small, engaged group to gather feedback and refine the approach.
• Common Obstacles & How to Overcome:
  • Cynicism/Resistance to "Positive Thinking": Acknowledge the validity of pain and difficulty. Emphasize that this is not about denying reality but about choosing an active and empowering response to it. Frame it as a discipline, not just an emotion. Start with small, relatable challenges.
  • Lack of Time/Engagement: Offer flexible formats (e.g., online modules, short lunch-and-learns). Highlight tangible benefits, such as reduced stress, improved conflict resolution, and increased sense of community efficacy.
  • Fear of Confronting Difficult Truths: Create a safe, non-judgmental space. Emphasize that positive interpretation is not about avoiding problems, but about approaching them from a place of strength and possibility, rather than fear.

### 1.2 Creating "Community Compassion Circles": Spaces for Proactive Dialogue

• Goal: Establish formal and informal forums where community "bad dreams" (e.g., rising youth disengagement, local acts of prejudice, challenges facing vulnerable populations) can be discussed with an explicit mandate for compassionate, constructive interpretation and action planning.
• Methodology:
  • Structured Dialogue: Implement protocols for active listening, empathetic inquiry, and "generative dialogue" where the focus is on exploring possibilities rather than assigning blame. This can draw from restorative justice principles of "talking circles."
  • "Asset-Mapping" Focus: When discussing a problem, dedicate time to identifying existing community strengths, resources, and individuals who could contribute to a positive solution, rather than solely cataloging deficits.
  • Proactive Problem-Solving: Move beyond identifying problems to collaboratively brainstorming concrete, small-scale actions that embody a positive interpretation. For example, if the "dream" is youth disengagement, instead of lamenting, "birth" a new mentorship program or a youth-led community project.
• Potential Partners: Neighborhood associations, parent-teacher organizations, local government community relations departments, youth organizations, social service agencies.
• First Steps:
  • Identify a pressing local "bad dream" that could benefit from this approach (e.g., improving intergenerational relations).
  • Recruit a diverse group of stakeholders who are impacted by or concerned about this issue.
  • Train facilitators in restorative circle processes or appreciative inquiry.
  • Host an initial series of 3-4 compassion circles focused on one specific issue, with the explicit goal of identifying collaborative solutions.
• Common Obstacles & How to Overcome:
  • Domination by Loud Voices/Agenda Setting: Strict adherence to facilitation protocols that ensure equitable participation and maintain focus on positive interpretation and solution-building.
  • Lack of Follow-Through: Ensure each circle concludes with clearly defined, achievable action steps and assigned responsibilities. Establish a follow-up mechanism to track progress.
  • Perception as "Just Talk": Emphasize that the "talk" is a crucial step in reinterpreting the dream and laying the groundwork for effective action. Celebrate small, tangible outcomes that emerge from the dialogue.

Tradeoffs for Move 1:

• Emotional Labor: Cultivating interpretive resilience requires significant emotional and intellectual effort. It can be challenging to consistently choose a positive, constructive lens when confronted with pain, fear, or anger.
• Pace of Change: This is a slow, iterative process of cultural shift. The "results" may not be immediately visible or easily quantifiable, which can be frustrating for those seeking quick fixes.
• Individual Receptivity: Not everyone will be equally open or ready to engage in this kind of reframing, and forcing it can be counterproductive. It requires patience and meeting people where they are.
• Risk of Denial: There's a subtle but real risk that focusing on "positive interpretation" can, if misused, lead to a glossing over of real suffering or systemic issues. The key is to interpret towards action and justice, not away from responsibility.

Move 2: Sustainable - Building Infrastructures of Hope and Renewal

Tactical Plan:

This strategy translates the principle of positive interpretation into concrete, systemic changes that foster long-term well-being and proactively address root causes of injustice. It's about building "houses" that are inherently more resilient, just, and compassionate, transforming the "falling beams" into the scaffolding for a better future.

### 2.1 Implementing Restorative Justice Frameworks

• Goal: Shift community responses to conflict, harm, and wrongdoing from punitive and retributive models to restorative models that prioritize repair, reconciliation, and reintegration. This directly embodies the "birth of a son" from "falling beams" – finding renewal in breakdown.
• Methodology:
  • Schools: Introduce restorative practices in schools (e.g., circle processes for conflict resolution, peer mediation, restorative conversations) as alternatives to suspensions and expulsions. Focus on repairing harm to relationships and reintegrating students into the learning community.
  • Workplaces: Develop internal restorative processes for addressing workplace conflicts, harassment, and grievances, emphasizing dialogue, understanding, and collective solutions over adversarial or purely disciplinary actions.
  • Community Conflicts: Establish community-based restorative justice programs for low-level offenses or neighborhood disputes, offering victims and offenders opportunities to meet, discuss the harm, and collaboratively determine steps for repair.
• Potential Partners: Local school boards, police departments (for diversion programs), community mediation centers, legal aid societies, human resources departments in local businesses, non-profits specializing in conflict resolution.
• First Steps:
  • Research successful restorative justice programs in similar communities.
  • Identify a pilot program context (e.g., one school, a specific department within a local business).
  • Secure funding and training for facilitators and key stakeholders.
  • Develop clear protocols and metrics for the pilot program.
• Common Obstacles & How to Overcome:
  • Resistance from Traditional Systems: Emphasize evidence-based outcomes (e.g., reduced recidivism, improved school climate, increased job satisfaction). Educate stakeholders on the long-term benefits versus the short-term satisfaction of punitive measures.
  • Perception of Leniency: Clearly articulate that restorative justice is not "soft on crime" but focuses on accountability through repair and responsibility, which can be more challenging for offenders than simple punishment.
  • Lack of Training/Resources: Seek grants, partner with universities offering relevant programs, and build a network of volunteer facilitators. Start small and demonstrate success before scaling up.

### 2.2 Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) Initiatives

• Goal: Systematically identify, mobilize, and connect the existing strengths, skills, and resources within a community, rather than focusing solely on its needs or deficits. This is a proactive, positive interpretation of communal capacity.
• Methodology:
  • Community Asset Mapping: Conduct surveys, interviews, and community gatherings to identify the skills of residents, the power of local associations (clubs, faith groups), the resources of local institutions (libraries, parks), and the economic opportunities within the community.
  • Connecting Assets: Facilitate initiatives that connect these identified assets to address community challenges. For example, linking senior residents with specific skills to youth mentorship programs, or connecting local artists with underutilized public spaces for beautification projects.
  • Resident-Led Initiatives: Support and empower residents to lead their own development projects based on their strengths and passions, fostering a sense of ownership and agency.
• Potential Partners: Neighborhood associations, community development corporations, local government planning departments, faith-based organizations, small business associations, public libraries.
• First Steps:
  • Choose a specific neighborhood or community segment for an initial asset-mapping project.
  • Form a diverse steering committee of residents and local leaders.
  • Conduct initial workshops to teach asset-mapping techniques.
  • Identify 2-3 immediate, actionable projects that can be launched using identified assets.
• Common Obstacles & How to Overcome:
  • "Deficit Thinking" Entrenchment: Actively challenge the narrative that problems are solely due to lack. Highlight successful examples of communities thriving by leveraging existing assets.
  • Bureaucratic Hurdles: Work proactively with local government to streamline processes for community-led initiatives.
  • Sustaining Momentum: Celebrate small successes publicly, provide ongoing support and resources for resident-led projects, and continuously update the asset map to reflect new contributions.

### 2.3 Policy Advocacy for Systemic Reinterpretation

• Goal: Advocate for public policies that embody a positive, compassionate interpretation of societal challenges, transforming systemic "bad dreams" into opportunities for equitable and just structures.
• Methodology:
  • Reframing Policy Debates: Work with advocacy groups to reframe policy discussions. For instance, instead of debating "crime and punishment," reframe it as "community safety and well-being." Instead of "welfare dependency," reframe as "economic opportunity and support."
  • Proposing Restorative Legislation: Advocate for legislation that supports restorative justice programs, asset-based community development, and other initiatives that prioritize repair and renewal over punitive measures (e.g., funding for youth diversion programs, tax incentives for community-led green initiatives).
  • Coalition Building: Form broad coalitions with diverse stakeholders (e.g., civil rights groups, faith communities, environmental advocates, business leaders) to amplify the message and build political will for compassionate policy changes.
• Potential Partners: Local and state legislative bodies, advocacy organizations (e.g., ACLU, NAACP, interfaith justice coalitions), think tanks, universities (for research and data).
• First Steps:
  • Identify a specific policy area where a "bad dream" (e.g., high incarceration rates, lack of affordable housing) could be reinterpreted into a policy opportunity.
  • Research existing policy models that align with restorative or asset-based principles.
  • Convene a diverse working group to draft policy recommendations and develop an advocacy strategy.
  • Educate policymakers and the public on the benefits of these reinterpreted approaches.
• Common Obstacles & How to Overcome:
  • Political Inertia/Entrenched Interests: Build long-term relationships with policymakers, provide compelling data and personal stories, and demonstrate broad public support.
  • Lack of Funding: Advocate for dedicated funding streams, highlight cost savings from preventative and restorative approaches, and explore innovative funding models.
  • Public Skepticism: Conduct public education campaigns to shift narratives, using clear, accessible language and relatable examples of success.

Tradeoffs for Move 2:

• Resource Intensive: Implementing systemic change requires significant financial resources, trained personnel, and sustained commitment, which can be challenging to secure.
• Resistance to Change: Existing systems (e.g., punitive justice, top-down development) are deeply entrenched and often benefit certain stakeholders. Resistance to change can be fierce and require sustained political will and advocacy.
• Complexity and Interconnectedness: Systemic problems are complex and interconnected. Interventions in one area can have unforeseen consequences in others, requiring careful planning and adaptive management.
• Long-Term Horizon: The impact of systemic changes may not be immediately apparent, requiring patience and a willingness to commit to a long-term vision, even in the face of short-term setbacks.

Measure

To truly embody the prophetic yet practical guide, we must define what success looks like beyond good intentions. How do we know if we are effectively reinterpreting "falling house beams" into the "birth of a son" at a communal level? Our primary metric will be Shift in Communal Narrative & Action Tendency, indicating a measurable move from reactive, punitive, or despair-driven responses to proactive, restorative, and hope-filled engagement.

Metric: Shift in Communal Narrative & Action Tendency

### How to Track This Metric:

Tracking this shift requires a multi-faceted approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection methods over time.

#### Qualitative Tracking:

1. Content Analysis of Public Discourse:
   • Method: Regularly collect and analyze community meeting minutes, local news articles, op-eds, social media discussions (public groups, official pages), and statements from community leaders.
   • Focus: Identify keywords, themes, and framing used when discussing community challenges or conflicts. Look for shifts from language of blame, punishment, deficit, and despair ("This is a terrible problem; we need to punish those responsible") to language of responsibility, repair, assets, and opportunity ("This challenge presents an opportunity to strengthen our connections and build new solutions").
   • Tools: Manual review, qualitative data analysis software (e.g., NVivo, Atlas.ti) for coding themes, or even simple keyword tracking.
2. Community Perceptions Surveys & Interviews:
   • Method: Conduct periodic surveys (e.g., annually) and focus groups with a representative sample of community members, leaders, and those directly impacted by identified "bad dreams."
   • Focus: Assess changes in:
     • Sense of Agency: Do people feel empowered to address community problems, or do they feel helpless?
     • Hope vs. Despair: How optimistic are they about the community's future and its ability to overcome challenges?
     • Problem Framing: How do they describe the root causes of problems? Are they more likely to seek systemic solutions or individual blame?
     • Preferred Solutions: Do they lean towards punitive measures or restorative/rehabilitative approaches?
   • Tools: Standardized survey instruments, semi-structured interview guides.
3. Anecdotal Evidence & Case Studies:
   • Method: Collect stories and detailed case studies of how specific conflicts or challenges were handled before and after the implementation of our strategies. Document specific instances where positive reinterpretation led to a different, more constructive outcome.
   • Focus: Provide rich, human-centered data that illustrates the lived experience of the shift.

#### Quantitative Tracking:

1. Count of Community Initiatives:
   • Method: Maintain a database of local initiatives, programs, and projects aimed at addressing community challenges. Categorize these initiatives based on their underlying philosophy:
     • Reactive/Punitive: e.g., increased policing, stricter disciplinary codes, "zero-tolerance" policies.
     • Proactive/Restorative/Asset-Based: e.g., restorative justice programs, mentorship initiatives, community gardens, skill-sharing networks, intergroup dialogue programs.
   • Focus: Track the ratio and absolute numbers of these initiative types.
2. Engagement in Restorative/Asset-Based Programs:
   • Method: For specific programs launched under "Move 2," track participation rates, completion rates, and feedback from participants (e.g., number of individuals participating in restorative circles, number of residents contributing to asset mapping, attendance at workshops).
   • Focus: Measure the uptake and sustained engagement in the new, positively-interpreted approaches.
3. Reduction in Punitive Outcomes:
   • Method: Where applicable and measurable, track metrics that traditionally indicate punitive responses. For example, in schools: suspension rates, expulsion rates. In legal systems: recidivism rates for minor offenses, rates of plea bargains versus restorative conferences.
   • Focus: Look for a reduction in these punitive measures as a proxy for the shift towards restorative approaches.

### Baseline Collection:

Before implementing our strategies, we must establish a clear baseline for all the above metrics.

• Qualitative Baseline: Conduct an initial content analysis of 6-12 months of historical public discourse. Administer baseline surveys/interviews. Document current anecdotal approaches to conflict.
• Quantitative Baseline: Compile data on the number and type of existing community initiatives over the past 1-2 years. Collect current data on punitive outcomes (e.g., average suspension rates for the past 3 years). This baseline will provide the starting point against which all future progress will be measured.

### What "Done" Looks Like:

#### Quantitatively:

• Shift in Initiatives: Within 3-5 years, achieve a 30% increase in the number of community-led initiatives categorized as proactive, restorative, or asset-based, relative to the baseline. Simultaneously, aim for a 15% decrease in new initiatives categorized as purely reactive/punitive.
• Program Engagement: Achieve an average participation rate of 70% in new restorative justice or asset-based programs among target populations, and a retention rate of 60% for ongoing programs within 3 years.
• Reduced Punitive Outcomes: Demonstrate a 10-20% reduction in specific punitive outcomes (e.g., school suspension rates for minor infractions, re-offense rates for participants in community restorative justice programs) within 5 years, compared to the baseline.

#### Qualitatively:

• Dominant Communal Narrative: The prevailing public discourse in our community, as evidenced by content analysis, consistently frames challenges as opportunities for growth, learning, and collective action, rather than as sources of blame or despair. Language of repair, reconciliation, assets, and shared responsibility becomes commonplace.
• Increased Sense of Agency & Hope: Community surveys and interviews reveal a significant increase in residents' reported sense of empowerment, optimism, and belief in the community's ability to collectively address and overcome challenges. Despair and helplessness are significantly reduced.
• Culture of Restorative Practice: Anecdotal evidence and case studies consistently highlight instances where conflicts are resolved through dialogue, empathy, and collaborative repair, leading to strengthened relationships rather than deepened divisions. The community instinctively seeks to understand root causes and build bridges.
• Visible Manifestations of Renewal: The community sees tangible "births" from "falling beams" – new community spaces, innovative programs, strengthened social networks, and improved well-being for vulnerable populations, all directly traceable to strategies of positive reinterpretation and action.

By carefully tracking these metrics, we move beyond mere aspiration. We create a framework for accountability, ensuring that our commitment to justice with compassion, guided by the imperative to interpret positively, translates into a measurable, tangible reality that truly transforms our collective "bad dreams" into the birth of a more just and compassionate world.

Takeaway

Our ancient texts, even in their most practical halakhic pronouncements, offer us a profound prophetic truth: the future is not predetermined, but rather deeply shaped by how we choose to interpret our present challenges. The "bad dream" of falling house beams, when reinterpreted as the "birth of a son," becomes a powerful metaphor for our duty to confront breakdown not with despair or punitive reaction, but with an active, compassionate search for new life, new structures, and new opportunities for justice. This is not naive optimism, but a rigorous discipline of hope. It is a call to transform fear into fuel for action, to see every crisis as a labor of creation, and to fulfill our sacred obligation to interpret our world towards greater compassion and enduring renewal. The work begins with how we see, for how we see dictates how we build.