![The CTMU by Christopher Michael Langan [877x670 - 295KB]](https://poal.co/static/images/iNdZuj.png){kind=link}
I would highly recommend reading this entry:
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe
It is actually fairly unbelievable, but if I am understanding this theory correctly, it meshes in staggering ways with the things we have been discussing for months.
He is trying to attach a truth property to reality which is essentially tautological, and which overall seems to adhere to a Thomistic metaphysics (indeed, it even equates reality with mind and by extension proves God, that is, according to the framework).
Peace, you might especially like the 'unbound telesis' component, which seems to correspond with Thomistic potentia.
What you may be inclined to disagree with would be his underlying axiom of closure which says that God cannot itself be separate from reality. The question, of course, becomes how to situate God within reality.
This is where I find this theory of 'conspansion' really, really interesting...I don't know that anyone has made the connection yet between this and Neo-platonic cosmology, but the overall idea of recursive layers superimposing on each other inwardly might mesh with emanationist cosmology so that what we end up with is something closer to panenpsychism.
The basic idea of conspansion is that the universe could not logically be expanding spatially or temporally outward - after all, what would it be expanding into? You'd leave open the explanation for the space-time manifold itself, which would necessarily create a causal contradiction. From non-reality, you'd have to derive the causal information for the manifold.
Now, if you happen to read it, hold in mind what I have been saying about dual-aspect monism and my ideas about mental properties. Langan uses duality between freedom and constraint to define concepts, where I have been using the phrases 'privacy and publicity'. I think they could be related, and that the whole theory would jibe with hylemorphism generally.
It kind of feels like someone took Neo-Platonism and Thomism and updated the description for the 21st century. I mean, he doesn't call it by name, but The Principle of Resemblance is one of his three main axioms. Seriously, I think this might just be Aquinas and the Meister written in modern terminology for a computer age.
Thanks for the post Zerothic.
The question, of course, becomes how to situate God within reality
Langan uses duality between freedom and constraint to define concepts, where I have been using the phrases 'privacy and publicity'
I love the CTMU, but I'm a bit miffed at Langan's "folksy" treatment of the God question, as if he's trying to preserve the sanctity of traditional religion. Langan makes no mention that Conspansion is concpetually identical to Reincarnation, which lets me know about his cultural bias on the issue.
How is God to be situated? By Langan's account, God = G.O.D. ("Global Operator-Designer"). But according to the CTMU's logic, God can't be other than "UBT" (Unbound Telesis), a connection which Langan never seems to make. Rather, Langan promotes the "Global Operator" aspect of God as a reflexive causal component of reality, which to my mind may as well be describing "Satan", not God.
The actual means of God's situation in reality is quite simple really. UBT = eternally pure stasis, namely owing to the lack of any external compliment by which UBT could be measured or observed in any way. No information = zero entropy = pure stasis = pure freedom (from constraint).
Shamans, Mystics, Buddhists and the like have known this for centuries: that the empty mind, free of of sensory content, memories, and emotions, quite readily and automatically defaults to the Absolute nature of reality (ie, the absolute nature of Mind), which as I've already discussed is an eternally pure stasis.
The word "Zen", or actually "Chan" in Chinese, when etymologically reduced to its component characters, means "alone, simply and exhaustively with the cosmos", offering a description of monastic plurality, and the privative means by which it can be realized, just not in public.
So by my analysis, the nature of God, which is UBT, which is eternally pure stasis, can't be publically displayed or demonstrated, because being the Absolute state without compliment, nothing could "be there" to witness it.
I'm a bit miffed at Langan's "folksy" treatment of the God question, as if he's trying to preserve the sanctity of traditional religion.
I disagree, but here's why. Given CTMU and all of its implications, what obvious reason is there to deny the sanctity of religion? It seems to me that a great deal of the underlying pure logic of CTMU was elaborated first by Aristotle and later the Scholastics.
To dismiss the representations of God in these theories as 'folksy' is to miss two points. One, that the CTMU itself gives us reason to take symbolic realism seriously, i.e. that mankind's deepest symbols for ultimate reality, being the products of complex intellective acts, have a unique reality far closer to the original Greek meaning of the term symbol. That we call this folksy is, to me, just a bit of modern pomp, favoring modern computational terms (as in Langan's global operator) because they lack personality.
Second, very quickly we find that Langan abandons the Thomistic logic about God itself, in favor of focusing on a kind of pantheistic cosmology, where the universe itself becomes a stand-in equivalent.
But we ought to wonder if the logic (absent either the folk or the computational overlay in vocabulary) would actually lead us to a necessary conclusion that God is something like a person (meaning something having beliefs, basic powers, and intentional states).
Aquinas would have said, yes, God is a person. I actually don't think Langan avoids this complication at all, but instead skirts it a bit. I still need to do some further reading before I start to say anything more concrete about it.
The actual means of God's situation in reality is quite simple really. UBT = eternally pure stasis
that the empty mind, free of of sensory content, memories, and emotions, quite readily and automatically defaults to the Absolute nature of reality
This is where I see a few ideas that will become problems.
Pure potential involves no act. It is not nothingness, which I appreciated that Langan emphasized, but by definition anything which exists in potentia must be actualized by something which is already in act.
If not, we run into the problem where God is both the intention to act and the pure potential upon which is acted. But if an innate telos exists in every function (to use Langan's term), then the overall utility was at the very least an intention which existed prior to actualizing any potential.
This description of God which equates it with the UBT and with a mind consisting in zero information content presents us with the same kind of logical trouble as creatio ex nihilo.
Can we actually call a mind with only potential and zero information a mind? To me this begs the question.
Ontologically, and despite the fact I have resisted this for a long time, I don't see how we avoid a trinitarian ontology for God.
At the end of the day, I also don't think that there is logically any difference between zero information and perfect/infinite information. There is no logical difference between the God mind that knows all, or knows nothing, or the God mind that is everywhere and nowhere. These boil down to problems of language.
Even 'potential for existence' is not nothing. If God were equivalent to this sea of pure potential, then it would at least take for there to be His own self-sustenance and self-reference; some essential "form" would still have to exist, however abstract.
As far as I have been able to reduce this, it is not possible to describe God in terms of a monist ontology.
(Just so you know, we often ping each other so that it is easier for us to follow these conversations.)
...what obvious reason is there to deny the sanctity of religion?
I think you answer the question for me. For example, I agree that...
...the CTMU itself gives us reason to take symbolic realism seriously...
... yet "religion" isn't symbolic realism, it's rather symbolic (mythic) authority figures, allegories at best, starting with the "Big Guy" upstairs, and by extension his Earthly representatives, with the guy who's "death and rebirth" is central to his character leading the Earthly contingent of rulers. This sort of "authority-figure" based reasoning isn't a description of God, it's rather the playbook of Satan or Mara (or AI) for controlling their hoodwinked minions (allegorically speaking of course).
For the record, I'm not religious, but I understand the meanings of God & Satan as metaphorical allegories relevant to reality-theory, and hence respect their historical importance and reason for inclusion into the religious myths. I simply disagree with most any interpretations of such texts that I've heard. The failure of Biblical scholars to routinely discuss Jesus's death & rebirth as a direct allegory with the "enlightenment" of Buddha renders popular religious interpretations of the Bible suspect at best.
That we call this folksy is, to me, just a bit of modern pomp...
I can't say you're wrong, but to be fair I did put the term "folksy" in quotes, and I'm not trying to take a jab at Langan personally or else religious people generally, just the (self proclaimed) authority figures of the religions themselves. Langan has been accused in social media of being a "cult like" figure, but I don't see this, and I would be the first to roundly criticize it. If somehow Langan is a cult leader, it's entirely secret to me, or else he's just the least successful cult leader I've heard of. Perhaps Langan can get a fleet of Rolls Royces going and change his name to Langan Shri Rajneesh, or perhaps orchestrate a mass suicide in the jungle to prove me wrong? (heh)
...we find that Langan abandons the Thomistic logic about God itself, in favor of focusing on a kind of pantheistic cosmology, where the universe itself becomes a stand-in equivalent.
I agree, and perhaps I'm just arguing over personal statements and opinions made by Langan in various media not necessarily directly related to the CTMU essay itself. The "universe" can be interpreted as "the observable universe" (of science), or as UBT. The former we can coherently discuss. The problem with the latter UBT-description is it can't make sense by any demonstration, except perhaps by extended "symbolic realism" offered by the CTMU, which is a tall order for us sub-200 IQ peasants. Langan's own texts arguably preserve the sanctity of the God concept in general, which is quite worthy a task, with everything from faith and fidelity to honor and justice hanging in the metaphorical balance, yet this still leaves the possibility open for mistaking "the Devil" for the real "God".
Pure potential involves no act.
You've cut right to the core and virtual proof of my argument. God can't "act" or be "acted upon". God can't be dependent nor conditional, so "acting" is out of the question by categorical necessity. God in the "Global" sense is the "unmovable object" of the proverbial dichotomy, God's own capacity to realize God, in what we call "real" conscious time, as exhibited by raw sentience and higher forms of consciousness, is the ultimate "unstoppable force" acting on the immovable object.
Only terms like unboundedness, which is nothingness, which is pure freedom, which (in physical terms) is a primordial infinite mass (immovable object), can suffice to describe what "God" must be in the global sense, and the term UBT works even better, because it implicates the "observable universe" as parallel-to or rather subsumed by UBT itself, via syntactic overlay and telic feedback, and hence the observable universe and life are "just" intrinsic aspects of UBT, and the only "intention" is Volition or else Karma.
God isn't separate from the universe of science, which is to say that God or else "nothingness" doesn't come before or after "something" but rather surrounds and subsumes "things" (as per empty space). UBT is furthermore ever present, as per empty space, yet the reflexive operator associated with science and (allegedly) defined as "G.O.D." isn't clearly God in the "global" sense of UBT (as I see it), but rather the God of the world or observable universe, a worldly God better described as Satan or Mara.
Both God qua UBT & G.O.D. qua the Devil must exist, first by the Absolute necessity of global containment and constituency, and second by the necessity of the realization (awareness) of global self containment/God/UBT in "real time", including animal sentience and particularly the conscious awareness of mankind, or any "Dasein" as Heidegger says. Even just raw sentience per non human animals can't be other than infinite potential acting upon itself to thereby realize itself.
If not, we run into the problem where God is both the intention to act and the pure potential upon which is acted. But if an innate telos exists in every function (to use Langan's term), then the overall utility was at the very least an intention which existed prior to actualizing any potential.
Hence why the reflexive telic "G.O.D." operator is "Satan" or "Mara" and not the true global and static "God". The "good" God is UBT. The operator equivalent to the "observable universe" in the pantheistic sense is Satan or Mara, ie the "bad God". Both are required. UBT/God is required by Absolute necessity of self containment and self configuration, and "G.O.D." by the necessity of the Absolute (itself) being realized ("...simply and exhaustively...", meaning UBT (itself) or else God (the good one) being realized with out any subject/object/media trilogy spoiling the awareness, which is pure stasis and the Absolute, which is God qua UBT, Q.E.D. Where "G.O.D." actually means "UBT", I stand corrected, or else I've corrected what I perceive to be unclear about the CTMU's "G.O.D.", while explaining the purpose of "Satan" in the process.
Again, the only description from media I've heard which serves to describe God being realized is the very etymology of the word "Chan", meaning "alone simply and exhaustively with the cosmos". Realization of "nothingness" is the only "act" of God, yet is reflexive and thereby no act whatsoever.
This description of God which equates it with the UBT and with a mind consisting in zero information content presents us with the same kind of logical trouble as creatio ex nihilo.
The description of God = UBT or description of ex nihilo does present a problem, but its realization doesn't present any problems. The realization of UBT is beyond the "public" domain of presentation and coherent discourse, meaning there's no media which can contain/define/project the demonstration and of UBT itself, nor can any media/object/subject (trialic) scenario serve to demonstrate any sort of awareness of a form of realization of the relative as also an unrealized realization of the Absolute by default. However realization doesn't need to be public; it can't involve media, nor does it need to involve sensations whatsoever.
The (Zen-like) direct realization of UBT via the stilled mind is likewise the direct realization of ex nihilo creation, or else where does the next thought come from? Because the "realization" of pure stasis involves what otherwise is considered "no realization whatsoever", the realization of the Absolute (Zen, Chan) is often allegorized as "death", such as the death and rebirth of Jesus Christ, or in the "Book of the Dead".
The purpose of life is the full and direct realization of UBT, in the conscious sense, beyond the realization afforded by "mere" self constituency. In fact, the sense of consciousness where we can't directly realize UBT, the "ordinary" or "normal" sense, is precisely what's required, in its absence and reappearance, for UBT to be realized.
We can presume that even without life, meaning before and after life exists, UBT is always fully "self realized", at least in the sense that it's fully self composed and self contained, and thereby lacking external compliment or measure (a pure stasis). But given that we know life and consciousness exist, then it stands to reason that the means of "self realization" available to UBT (God) is beyond "just" mere topological self containment, but includes self realization in the sense pertaining to and thereby necessitating life and conscious as we know it.
Can we actually call a mind with only potential and zero information a mind? To me this begs the question.
No and we don't need to. We can call this state of zero information a state of mind, much like knowing the temperature outside is another sort of (non zero) state of mind. We couldn't have a "temperature outside" whatsoever without some abstract notion of Absolute Zero anyways, so "zero information" is never fully off the table logically speaking, it's just never something any media can produce or demonstrate effectively (prove). For the record, the first five letters of the word "demonstrate" are demon.
UBT must be realized, but it doesn't need to be directly realized by every being which can possibly realize it or realize things in general (Dasein), nor does realization (itself) need to be understood as much more than basic awareness or raw sentience, like I realize Eminem is a better white rapper than myself. Conscious perception and ultimately Volition (Karma) are required because only in their absence and reappearance has UBT (and the nature of the self) been "fully" realized.
I don't see how we avoid a trinitarian ontology for God.
We can't avoid using some trilogy for descriptions, the media always playing its part, and so this is where the Devil enters the picture by necessity. The Devil never lies, yet never tells the whole truth either. Scientific descriptions aren't "wrong", and they can implicate, through proper modeling and "symbolic realism", the deeper order of reality - yet, we can't then presume that some form of communicable theory or religious text can suffice to demonstrate the Absolute, simply because the Absolute can't have an external compliment (a media) by which its description can be manifest, nor can it have any subject to which, nor object by which it's to be realized. It can only be realized in the absence and reappearance, ie "death and rebirth" of Volition (Karma). This is why Karma is the "causality" of all causes in Buddhism, because nothing arises (in the scientific sense of observation) that isn't also the object of Karma (volition, intention). Only when Karma is (temporarily) extinguished does UBT arise as a state of mind, which was the reason for life in the first place, owing to fulfilment of the full realization of the Absolute.
We "avoid" trinitarianism(sp?) if and when we avoid partaking in Volition (Karma), yet without literal dying in the process. Being freed or void of Karma or else Volition is the key to the realization of the Absolute, UBT, or God. This may sound trivial or insane, yet clearing the mind of thoughts, feelings, and memories, and then realizing your awareness arising reflexively from the very nothingness (UBT, God) from which it ultimately must, is not something anyone can "accomplish", at least not volitionally, nor anything which could be demonstrated via any media.
I also don't think that there is logically any difference between zero information and perfect/infinite information. There is no logical difference between the God mind that knows all, or knows nothing, or the God mind that is everywhere and nowhere. These boil down to problems of language.
I couldn't agree more nor restate this any better. Langan has made similar comments regarding the nature of Zero...
Discussion on the Ultranet List
Russell: My question is not about whether the universe is conspanding or expanding, but how can nothing be "outside" the universe? Because if nothing is defined as zero, then how can "zero" contain or be outside something? Zero is a mathematical point; zero dimensional space.
*Chris: The symbol for “nothingness” is 0, and 0 is a term that requires interpretation. For example, in the context of the integers, 0 represents a center or cancellation point between the positive and the negative, while in the context of the non-negative integers, it simply reflects absence. Moreover, 0 can apply to information, or to that which information determines. Now, 0 information corresponds at once to homogeneity and therefore to unity, and to unbounded potential and thus to infinity. So depending on how we interpret 0, “nothingness” can mean absence, cancellation, unity or infinity. This tells us that what is important is not the symbol 0, but its interpretation, and thus the entire cognitive matrix on which the interpretation is based. And within this matrix, nothingness is a complex interplay of, you guessed it, absence, cancellation, unity and infinity. It has structure. Within the cognitive matrix of our minds, the structure of the ultimate groundstate of existence called “nothingness” is UBT...and this is no mere “empty set”.*
Russell: The universe must be infinite in some way as to be "all there is". Un-reality could be hidden within reality? Chris: No, unreality is ultimately contained in UBT, which for present purposes we might as well call "prereality". But every time a quantum wave function collapses, a new piece of "unreality" is defined (as the complement of that which is actualized by the collapse). In other words, just as reality is stratified, so is unreality. One level of unreality is unbound; other levels are bound by this or some other reality.
Neither Chris nor Russell seem to mention the obvious "hiding place" where "unreality" is constricted by "this ... reality", namely "empty space", which is simply the unused potential or "path not taken" by any conspanding operator, up to and including the G.O.D. operator. Regardless if potential is bound for perception purposes or not, it's still forever eternally "unbound" in the UBT sense from the Absolute perspective.
Even 'potential for existence' is not nothing.
But it's not "something" either. The Absolute is beyond the dichotomy of existence and non existence, subsuming of existence, non existence, reality, and unreality as the required elements if its own self demonstrative proof of itself.
(Just so you know, we often ping each other so that it is easier for us to follow these conversations.)
Ok thanks, I hadn't figured that out, somehow supposing the pings were automatically generated based on the comment hierarchy.
Very fascinating. This does contain many elements we have been discussing.
It strikes me that a distinction has to be made - between distinctions. There is nature/supernature, and reality/unreality. I would say, traditionally, God is "separate" from creation only insofar as He is supernature, while His creation is nature, while He is not separate from reality insofar as He is the One reality, and His creation participates in this. So God is transcendent and immanent.
So in that sense I would say I do not take issue with Langan's assertion that there is no "external" creator, since he is speaking in the context of reality, not "nature"-traditionally conceived, and so God is obviously not "external" in that case.
In June of 2019, he presented and published a reinterpretation of quantum mechanics within the CTMU framework. It was first published in the Proceedings of the Foundations of Mind VIII and the journals, Bionoetics and Cosmos & History.
I would like to get my hands on this. Based on that page reference, I bet it would accord well with Smith's own perspective. This "new kind of causation" referenced whereby "the system brings itself into existence as a means of atemporal communication between its past and future whereby law and state, syntax and informational content, generate and refine each other across time to maximize total systemic self-utility" is inseparable from Smith and Borella's vertical causation, which is how Smith resolves the Quantum Enigma in the first place. This Langan's "new causation" is likewise atemporal, I sense they are talking about the same thing, especially with the way he refers to "telors" - i.e., people:
observer-participants in the ongoing creation of reality. Telors possess independent volition and constructive, creative intelligence or "sentience". In the CTMU, the distributed laws of physics do not fully determine reality; they are supplemented by "meta-laws" created by telors as reality evolves. This ability of telors is constrained by factors including locality, interference, and the probabilistic limits of the laws of physics.
which is what I have been stressing to ARM about the "non-natural" causal significance of the free will - Dennett's "cop-out" just does not suffice.
I also find his thoughts on unbound telesis to be basically untenable without the Trinity:
Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.
Self-causation is one of those laughable philosophical ideas...unless you're talking about God Himself. Atheist philosophers try to argue that the universe is self-caused, but this is totally ridiculous, because they perceive the universe to exist independent of, or rather, without God. But unless the object of self-causation is exactly what classical theism asserts God to be, the very notion of self-causation is an absurdity. As EMJ says, "it would have to exist before it existed!" But there is no "before" with God; He is eternal. But His creation is not; or rather, His creation, with time, emerges out of the unbound telesis through His recognition of Himself. And so only with a Being, a One, a Mind that is God could such a term be meaningfully used - and it would have to be used in a Trinitarian sense, where God is, and knows Himself as an image of Himself, and also is this knowing, this self-reference, this self-causation (insofar as this knowing is both eternal and within time.
I love that he jettisons the relativistic / context-shifting cop-out also. This is what moderns do to get around Aquinas - they deny the first principles themselves. But as Langan rightly notes, insofar as a principle is first and necessary, it is also self-evident - meaning it is the definition of insanity to reject it.
Metaphysical Autology Principle - reality is closed with respect to all internally relevant operations. In other words, everything essential to reality, including everything needed to describe or explain it, is contained in reality itself.
So as the Meister, and Aquinas, and many Catholic saints all affirm - God is the One, He is reality.
Mind Equals Reality Principle - mind and reality are ultimately inseparable to the extent that they share common rules of structure and processing. In particular, (a) reality is comprehensive with respect to mind (our minds are part of reality), and (b) reality conforms to the categories of mind.
I think this axiom is the underlying theme of most of what you've been saying for the past year. I also think it accords with anthropic realism, and what I've been saying about how the universe exists for us. Thus Gibson's ecological perception, and non-bifurcationism, likewise come into play. Basically, qualia are not evolutive accidents; they actually exist, since they are actually perceived - there is no mind-world duality, no bifurcation.
Multiplex Unity Principle - reality is consistent by virtue of the mutually inclusive relationship between itself (unity) and its contents (multiplicity). Each part of reality contains a description of the whole, in the form of a common set of structural and functional rules.
Reality is One and many; One insofar is has only One source, One cause, One principle, and insofar as all creatures relate to the One; and many insofar as there are a multiplicity of creatures, as there are many nothings, many negations, many emanations. The Meister says that we must negate the negations in order to peel away the multiplicity and find the one.
Thank you @Zerothic for posting about the CTMU. Much food for thought.
I’m a couple pages into the .pdf, and it struck me; “Chris, I’ve got this thing I’ve been working on for a few years, and I think you might be interested” ... It’s a Base-100 alphanumeric representational system, which is unique from all others in that the symbolic structure of the system is informed according to the prime factorization of 100, so two squared times five squared. The numeric system thereby has sufficient symbolic complexity to construct a useful syllabography.
As far as I can tell, it’s a writing system which has the “maximum unambiguous semantic capacity” possible. I suspect it’s possible other representational systems may have equal unambiguous semantic capacity - but none greater.
In other words, it’s a system designed to pack as much unambiguous meaning as is theoretically possible into each symbol.
I’ve developed a system to render English words and phrases using these characters, but it’s apparent one would do well to develop an entirely new set of words themselves constructed around the features of this system. I don’t personally have time for that.
Anyway, the switch that turned that on in my brain was when Chris mentioned using language to represent Absolute Reality in that pdf. It occurred to me I may have a tool uniquely up to the task. I’ll have to run it by him.
Oh one more thing:
http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/788/1422
This is a link to his QM paper. So far it’s pretty good; I like how he insists QM is not an ontology. I spent a lot of time between ontology and phenomenology myself, so I appreciate that sort of thing.
Thank you! I'll give this a read later.
I think we have a few interesting things to tie together here, which would be enjoyable anyway. But we have a few examples now both modern and more or less ancient that are echoing basically the same fundamentals.
I think it's all coming together.
I also noticed that his causal framework was atemporal. If you look at the image that @Zerothic included in his initial comment, you can actually see that causation - as we would perceive it - in any event space would be horizontal with respect to the direction graphically that the events are 'projecting' through the superpositions. So you could say there really is vertical causation which that Minkowski diagram shows by taking an axial view down the Y (time axis), generating the venn diagram. The vertical perspective is what generates the venn diagram.
There is more I want to say, but I don't have time at the moment. I think this CTMU framework could be something very useful for further discussion generally, because we now essentially have the Scholastic/Neo-Platonist mode in addition to two modern ways of discussing this, in Smith/Borella and CTMU. The more useful analogy we have the better.
I am particularly interested in how Langan's conspansion theory ties in with Kabbalistic cosmology. Langan would want to describe these layers as stacked self-simulation, but it strikes me this meshes nicely with emanation through the Sephira, and I'd be interested to work with how Langan's cognitive-physical depiction speaks with the spiritual properties of Kabbalah. Of course, they're interested in different ontological domains, but I'm tempted to see the former as a continuation of the latter.
Also King, I have no idea what your new language is all about, but it sounds interesting. I'd like to know more about why it's supposed to maximize the ability to express meaning.
(post is archived)