Why Ancient Wisdom Matters In the Modern World

[GodOfEvil]

I like Wade Davis
XuJsbjKKh3E

what do you guys think of this video

[Loony Le Fist]

This is great. Unfortunately I have suffered from first-world bias too often. Only after learning how awesome these non-Western cultures were (like those of South America and Africa) did I get that it's almost all cultural bias. Technology doesn't necessarily make you smarter.

[Rafiq]

Absolutely sickening, what utter garbage. Wisdom is counter revolutionary, and 'ancient wisdom' is reactionary. Wisdom is the result of no history, wisdom is the experienced and specialized means of reproducing the existing conditions. Notice how after st. Paul's Christianity did history begin to change rapidly, which each social epoch lasting less and less time. The Christianity that gave us the renessiance and Muntzer, the Christianity of whichs logical conclusion was atheism. The political implications of eastern spiritualism are cryptofascism. There is no debate or argument here.

"Yeah! My white guilt compels me to throw away the legacy of European thought! Fuck the enlightenment, fuck western ideas, fuck revolutionary politics!". Actually, maybe when we crucify the new age scum en masse they can gleefully interpret it as just necessarily part of the cosmic balance and natural harmony. Less of a hassle, then.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why should we endorse such a strong a dichotomy between enlightenment/western/post-Christian values and "pre-enlightenment"/non-western/pre-Christian values? It's not necessarily a reactionary form of new-ageism to look for gems in the muddy waters of ancient or non-western thought, moreover it is not a necessarily reactionary form of ethnocentrism to look for the liberating consequences of modernity. If anything, revolutionary movements in some places have utilized both, for instance, in indigenous communities at once challenging forms of centralized, capitalist industrialization which impoverish them, and in challenging the reactionary elements of their traditional culture. An interesting example is in Chiapas, where indigenous communities have worked to oppose homophobia and sexism, and bring women into governance in a way which was not seen in any supposedly "Western" government (not even revolutionary Communist ones). Of course, such movements have huge practical and ideological limitations too, but I don't think that their successes should be disregarded simply because they rely on indigenous concepts as often as they do modern, Western concepts. Their limitations, moreover, do not stem from any ideological rejection of the West, so much as their own material limitations.

Contrary to these views I think we need to break down the supposedly sharp distinctions between "ancient" and modern forms of thought as they are reactionary, and ways for European people to justify the colonization of the "other" as well as ways of non-European ruling classes to preserve their privilege by appealing to tradition. I think it is an idealist kind of orientalism to condemn all "non-Western" or "pre-Christian" societies as backwards, or to uphold them as purified ideals. In fact, non-western areas have been drawing upon Western models of thought without losing useful components of their own thought. In fact, I think we can learn fascinating things about the history of humanity and the nature of progress by identifying the common historical themes between, say, Western, Chinese, Indian, African and Native American thought, why they resulted in different phenomena, and how Europe managed to arrive at certain notions perhaps a little earlier than other places did. I think it's an old mistake that (admittedly brilliant) people like Hegel and Marx made to think that the West is somehow uniquely prone to historical movement and progress, and the inverse of this mistake is to reject everything Western and modern in favor of some kind of mythical pre-modern, non-Western world.

Also Rafiq - how are you defining "wisdom"? There is nothing necessarily counter-revolutionary to the concept of "wisdom" traditionally conceived of as Sophos. Your example of Christianity and the movement towards Atheism stemming from it seems to uphold this, as Christians themselves appropriated and popularized Platonic concepts of wisdom, and the renaissance and enlightenment stemmed from taking what was relevant from these views and stripping them of superstition. The Enlightenment was not the rejection of wisdom, but the attempt to make it universal.

I wasn't able to watch the original video though, but I thought I would interject with that.

[DigitalBluster]

Confucius said: "Is he not a man of complete virtue, who feels no discomposure though men may take no note of him?"

[Rafiq]

I think it's an old mistake that (admittedly brilliant) people like Hegel and Marx made to think that the West is somehow uniquely prone to historical movement and progress, and the inverse of this mistake is to reject everything Western and modern in favor of some kind of mythical pre-modern, non-Western world.

Actually no, they didn't think that Sinister. Marx and Hegel specifically believed that not because the West was 'unique', but because of the wests very specific social evolution (or in Hegel's case, the evolution of ideas), and their specific historical circumstances made them capable of real conscious historical progress. Progress was derived, for them, by the accidnetal development of capitalism. It is true that in some parralel universe other societies could have done so as well, but they didn't, and that doesn't mean white people are more unique or that western culture has this predisposition. Really the Greeks, Romans were unique in a way, but not distinguished noticeably from other pagan cultures (I.e. Alexander had great respect for the wisdom of the ancient Indians, because it was relevant). Western paganism is something we consider unique only because our existing conditions TODAY are unique, and for that reason we conceive plato, aristotle, etc. in the way we do.


Also Rafiq - how are you defining "wisdom"? There is nothing necessarily counter-revolutionary to the concept of "wisdom" traditionally conceived of as Sophos. Your example of Christianity and the movement towards Atheism stemming from it seems to uphold this, as Christians themselves appropriated and popularized Platonic concepts of wisdom, and the renaissance and enlightenment stemmed from taking what was relevant from these views and stripping them of superstition. The Enlightenment was not the rejection of wisdom, but the attempt to make it universal.


I should be more clear, I speak of wisdom not in the sense of knowledge but wisdom as far as the old wise men. The enlightenment strove to make reason and 'knowledge' universal, but not wisdom. Wisdom is the experienced reproduction of existing conditions, the absence of history. I think we can both generally agree here, the problem comes with how we are defining wisdom. Essentially wisdom is the antithesis of history and social change, it is the legitimization and mystification of events in that these events are replicated.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Actually no, they didn't think that Sinister. Marx and Hegel specifically believed that not because the West was 'unique', but because of the wests very specific social evolution (or in Hegel's case, the evolution of ideas), and their specific historical circumstances made them capable of real conscious historical progress. Progress was derived, for them, by the accidnetal development of capitalism. It is true that in some parralel universe other societies could have done so as well, but they didn't, and that doesn't mean white people are more unique or that western culture has this predisposition. Really the Greeks, Romans were unique in a way, but not distinguished noticeably from other pagan cultures (I.e. Alexander had great respect for the wisdom of the ancient Indians, because it was relevant). Western paganism is something we consider unique only because our existing conditions TODAY are unique, and for that reason we conceive plato, aristotle, etc. in the way we do.


My critique of Hegel is that I don't think he understood the development of ideas and events outside of the West, in part simply because only a few works were translated, and he was operating in a tradition that did not yet understand the histories of other regions. Ideas evolved just as much outside the West than inside, albeit differently (and it developed in various different ways outside of the West too), but Hegel's writings in the Phenomenology and Philosophy of History present non-Western thought as fairly static, as opposed to his presentation of the dynamic, constantly evolving West (perhaps best exemplified by his statement that world history moves West). It isn't so much that he was an essentialist regarding the unique aspects of European culture, it's that he overlooked pretty important developments which really did occur outside of the West.

You and I agree on one important point, which is that the fetishization of pre-modern, non-western ideas over and against modern, western ideas is silly and counterproductive, and cuts people off from fundamentally useful ideas. I think you are right regarding that. As far as we utilize non-Western or "ancient" thought, certainly we should not do so in a manner that we abandon modernism, or take a critical stance.

Interestingly the interest in non-Western ideas remained well into the Enlightenment, although I don't think it ever reached the outward-looking nature of the ancient Greeks which you remarked on (incidentally, Western India, Persia, the Semitic world and Greece remained in a state of intellectual exchange for some time, past the rise of Islam, perhaps up to the time of the Mongol invasions). Liebniz for instance was a sinophile.



I should be more clear, I speak of wisdom not in the sense of knowledge but wisdom as far as the old wise men. The enlightenment strove to make reason and 'knowledge' universal, but not wisdom. Wisdom is the experienced reproduction of existing conditions, the absence of history. I think we can both generally agree here, the problem comes with how we are defining wisdom. Essentially wisdom is the antithesis of history and social change, it is the legitimization and mystification of events in that these events are replicated.I think the definition of wisdom I am operating with is the definition in Aristotle's ethics of picking out the right knowledge to come to the appropriate understanding of a situation, as opposed to the knowledge of one who has "cleverness". Certainly, that form of wisdom would be both practically and theoretically important, and not just reactionary garbage.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Absolutely sickening, what utter garbage. Wisdom is counter revolutionary, and 'ancient wisdom' is reactionary. Wisdom is the result of no history, wisdom is the experienced and specialized means of reproducing the existing conditions. Notice how after st. Paul's Christianity did history begin to change rapidly, which each social epoch lasting less and less time. The Christianity that gave us the renessiance and Muntzer, the Christianity of whichs logical conclusion was atheism. The political implications of eastern spiritualism are cryptofascism. There is no debate or argument here.

"Yeah! My white guilt compels me to throw away the legacy of European thought! Fuck the enlightenment, fuck western ideas, fuck revolutionary politics!". Actually, maybe when we crucify the new age scum en masse they can gleefully interpret it as just necessarily part of the cosmic balance and natural harmony. Less of a hassle, then.

You're probably the least fun person on the planet to, what're you even talking about babe? Like honestly what are you talkin bout? You're like just arguing against words at this point. I'm not trying to be mean or rude but it's like you have surpassed me in ability to troll and I'm curious lol.

[Five Year Plan]

I like Wade Davis
XuJsbjKKh3E

what do you guys think of this video

This is what I think of it.

umU8vKRNnRw

[Rafiq]

You're probably the least fun person on the planet to, what're you even talking about babe? Like honestly what are you talkin bout? You're like just arguing against words at this point. I'm not trying to be mean or rude but it's like you have surpassed me in ability to troll and I'm curious lol.

If you don't understand something, if you can't comprehend what I'm talking about (Others seem to be able to...) then that's your problem, Vox. You want to dismiss the entire field of philosophy, go ahead, but kindly leave. For a self-proclaimed troll, it's not surprising you don't understand, it's not surprising your bathe proudly in your rotten philistinism and ignorance, your anti-intellectualism is not by any means fashionable. Why are you even here? If you want to be intellectually lazy, why are you on a discussion board for revolutionary leftist politics? Why don't you just abandon your nonsensical ideas and casually allow hegemonic ideology think for you?

[Rafiq]

My critique of Hegel is that I don't think he understood the development of ideas and events outside of the West, in part simply because only a few works were translated, and he was operating in a tradition that did not yet understand the histories of other regions. Ideas evolved just as much outside the West than inside, albeit differently (and it developed in various different ways outside of the West too), but Hegel's writings in the Phenomenology and Philosophy of History present non-Western thought as fairly static, as opposed to his presentation of the dynamic, constantly evolving West (perhaps best exemplified by his statement that world history moves West). It isn't so much that he was an essentialist regarding the unique aspects of European culture, it's that he overlooked pretty important developments which really did occur outside of the West.

Interestingly the interest in non-Western ideas remained well into the Enlightenment, although I don't think it ever reached the outward-looking nature of the ancient Greeks which you remarked on (incidentally, Western India, Persia, the Semitic world and Greece remained in a state of intellectual exchange for some time, past the rise of Islam, perhaps up to the time of the Mongol invasions). Liebniz for instance was a sinophile.

Hegel did not mean to say the west was inristically unique, but he was correct in his assertion that non-western thought did remain fairly static. It is inarguable that changes in ideology were much more rapid in Europe, not because the white man is more inclined to progress, but as Marx would later recognize because European social relations were much more chaotic and more inclined toward rapid change as a result of intensified class struggle. This could have a lot of ideological implications (christianity) or a combination with the fact that the accident of capitalism sparked something entirely new. I think Hegel also recognized that the relevancy of classical ideas was only something that came about from the renaissance, the birth of exclusively bourgeois ideas. Thus we can assume that the historical legacy of the west, is only emphasized because of our present, existing conditions. Hegel focused primarily on the west, because world history truly was hearted in Europe at his time, of which countries outside were being sucked in. Marx had referred to asiatic mode(s) of production as without history because in them were only changes in dynasty. Again, this has little to do with inferior or superior peoples, rather, a convenient set of accidents. The barbarians of Europe, from the Gauls to the Celts had absolutely no inclination towards any sort of progress, they would have remained as their asiatic neighbors did if not for the changes to have occurred in the way they did. One cannot even begin to talk of the similarities between European paganism and eastern spiritualism.

Interestingly enough, though,


Science and knowledge, especially that of philosophy, came from the Arabs into the West


Hegel was by no means ignorant to the development of history outside Europe. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hi/lectures4.htm


I think the definition of wisdom I am operating with is the definition in Aristotle's ethics of picking out the right knowledge to come to the appropriate understanding of a situation, as opposed to the knowledge of one who has "cleverness". Certainly, that form of wisdom would be both practically and theoretically important, and not just reactionary garbage.

What I am trying to get at is that wisdom is generally the fullest legitimization of the existing order, generally revolutionary thought has to be 'outside' the field of wisdom, for wisdom will recognize the situation as acceptable, realistic, and so forth. Revolutionaries demand the impossible, while wisdom can only recognize what is possible.

[Thirsty Crow]

This is great. Unfortunately I have suffered from first-world bias too often. Only after learning how awesome these non-Western cultures were (like those of South America and Africa) did I get that it's almost all cultural bias. Technology doesn't necessarily make you smarter.
Can anyone do a bit of a summary of the video?

It suspiciously seems like that trendy affirmation of "other ways of knowing". Which aren't in any way or form connected to knowledge of the world.

Apart from that, cultural practices will be cultural practices. No need to diss any of em on some basis other than enforcing reactionary beliefs and behavior patterns.

But all in all,you're in for some trouble if one concludes that the very idea justifiable and true belief about the world is inherently a part of the "Western bias".

Also, there's no need to bring that old mystic Hegel into all of this, unless he would be (rightly) seen as part of that "other ways of knowing" complex.

[ckaihatsu]

What I am trying to get at is that wisdom is generally the fullest legitimization of the existing order, generally revolutionary thought has to be 'outside' the field of wisdom, for wisdom will recognize the situation as acceptable, realistic, and so forth. Revolutionaries demand the impossible, while wisdom can only recognize what is possible.


What about a 'revolutionary wisdom' -- ?


(Note 'wisdom' in this framework....)


philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimage.org/i7hg698j1/120404_philosophical_abstractions_RENDER_sc_12_1.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/)


(And 'wise elders', 'socialist planning' in this one....)


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://s6.postimage.org/xxj3liay5/2374201420046342459e_NEwo_V_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/xxj3liay5/)

[Sea]

What about a 'revolutionary wisdom' -- ?


(Note 'wisdom' in this framework....)


philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimage.org/i7hg698j1/120404_philosophical_abstractions_RENDER_sc_12_1.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/)


(And 'wise elders', 'socialist planning' in this one....)


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://s6.postimage.org/xxj3liay5/2374201420046342459e_NEwo_V_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/xxj3liay5/)just FYI, none of this makes any fucking sense. Explain to me, I'm begging you, what the fuck "wise elders" have to do with socialism? The things you are proposing are obsolete, they are obsolete to capitalism, let alone socialism. You even have market socialism on that second chart. You belong in OI! Your first chart means nothing, it is an incoherent mishmash of words and leads to no conclusions whatsoever. As much as I appreciate your incorporation of the word "bullshit" into the chart, I have to ask: What is the meaning of all this? (https://i.imgur.com/HDKM9wh.jpg)

[ckaihatsu]

just FYI, none of this makes any fucking sense. Explain to me, I'm begging you, what the fuck "wise elders" have to do with socialism? The things you are proposing are obsolete, they are obsolete to capitalism, let alone socialism. You even have market socialism on that second chart. You belong in OI! Your first chart means nothing, it is an incoherent mishmash of words and leads to no conclusions whatsoever. As much as I appreciate your incorporation of the word "bullshit" into the chart, I have to ask: What is the meaning of all this? (https://i.imgur.com/HDKM9wh.jpg)


Hey, sorry you're not finding anything edifying from the illustrations, Sea, but you really have to do something about your tone with me, which is recurring. You're removing any motivation I might otherwise have to respond to your inquiries about the same.

[Sea]

Hey, sorry you're not finding anything edifying from the illustrations, Sea, but you really have to do something about your tone with me, which is recurring. You're removing any motivation I might otherwise have to respond to your inquiries about the same.Well yeah I apologize I'm just like that I guess let me rephrase it:

What do wise elders have to do with socialism? It seems to me that the concept of wise elders cannot have anything to do with socialism, because the concept is one of a past mode of production. Perhaps you are making a reference to primitive communism? I must be misunderstanding something. Could you please elaborate on that connection?

[ckaihatsu]

Well yeah I apologize I'm just like that I guess let me rephrase it:

What do wise elders have to do with socialism? It seems to me that the concept of wise elders cannot have anything to do with socialism, because the concept is one of a past mode of production. Perhaps you are making a reference to primitive communism? I must be misunderstanding something. Could you please elaborate on that connection?


What I meant with this diagram was to show how several political forms -- approaches to social production -- are relative to each other.

*Showing* is not the same as *advocating* -- as a comparison, we here at RevLeft tend to use the term 'capitalism' a lot but that doesn't mean that we're advocating it for the world's usage. And, I have the term 'confederationism' on the graphic as well, though I'm not an anarchist-federationist type myself.

Perhaps you haven't yet noticed the two axes in the image, on the left and bottom edges -- the vertical one is a 'scale of abstraction', to indicate that political representation *can* be very 'leveraged', where decision-making is increasingly monolithic (as one moves upward on the diagram). This can lend efficiency and effectiveness, but may not necessarily be democratic and truly representative, as your objections to 'market socialism' and 'wise elders' point out. (I don't advocate either one of them.)

(And 'centralization' refers to the *broadness* of applicability, where a 100% participation rate over 100% of all existing issues would be a hypothetical ideal, as for a globally-generalizing revolutionary vanguard.)

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

define "wisdom."

[ckaihatsu]

define "wisdom."


I would use the term 'appropriate cognitivism' or 'correct cognitivism' (my wordings).

Also:





wis·dom (wzdm)

n.

1. The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.
2. Common sense; good judgment: "It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things" (Henry David Thoreau).
3.
a. The sum of learning through the ages; knowledge: "In those homely sayings was couched the collective wisdom of generations" (Maya Angelou).

[...]

4. A wise outlook, plan, or course of action.




wisdom (ˈwɪzdəm)

n

1. the ability or result of an ability to think and act utilizing knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight
2. accumulated knowledge, erudition, or enlightenment

[...]




http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

I would use the term 'appropriate cognitivism' or 'correct cognitivism' (my wordings).

Also:

Begs the question. Define "appropriate"and "correct."

[ckaihatsu]

Begs the question. Define "appropriate"and "correct."


It would be specific to the particular situation. Since we're speaking in generalities here I can only provide abstract terms, at most.


Generalizations-Characterizations

http://s6.postimage.org/dakqpbvu5/2714844340046342459_Quxppf_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/dakqpbvu5/)


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

http://s6.postimage.org/vjwkgr759/2006400620046342459_Kej_CCu_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/vjwkgr759/)

[Sea]

It would be specific to the particular situation. Since we're speaking in generalities here I can only provide abstract terms, at most.


Generalizations-Characterizations

http://s6.postimage.org/dakqpbvu5/2714844340046342459_Quxppf_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/dakqpbvu5/)


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

http://s6.postimage.org/vjwkgr759/2006400620046342459_Kej_CCu_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/vjwkgr759/)Can you please tell us what these pictures mean? Don't just say what they describe, actually describe it.

[ckaihatsu]

Can you please tell us what these pictures mean? Don't just say what they describe, actually describe it.


Yeah -- I'm saying that if people are speaking in generalities / abstract terms, as with the term 'wisdom', then that's in the domain of the 'general' (as seen in the illustration), which is more 'macro'-level, since it's a 'general category'.

'Appropriate' and 'correct' are also abstractions -- they're 'generalizations', in the 'general' domain, more-'macro', and are 'general categories'. As generalizations without a context, 'appropriate' and 'correct' have no meaning, and can't be defined further in the abstract, without some kind of situational context -- which would require specifics (the lower-half of the illustration).

The other diagram shows an abstract condition / universality of political dissonance (disagreement) on the left-right spectrum over the facts (who-what-where-when-why-how) of an event. So I mean to say that what is 'appropriate' and 'correct', and 'wisdom' (etc.), will be disputed depending on where one's relative position is on the expanse of the political spectrum.

[ralfy]

It matters because the industrial capitalist system that characterizes the modern world will not last.

[Thirsty Crow]

This is eurocentric rubbish.
I'm not going to pretend I understand what Rafiq actually says. That would indeed be a leap of faith.

So, do you think it is "eurocentric rubbish" to claim these other ways of knowing ("ancient wisdom") aren't at all ways of knowing, and that knowledge is a product of scientific inquiry?

[Hexen]

Absolutely sickening, what utter garbage. Wisdom is counter revolutionary, and 'ancient wisdom' is reactionary. Wisdom is the result of no history, wisdom is the experienced and specialized means of reproducing the existing conditions. Notice how after st. Paul's Christianity did history begin to change rapidly, which each social epoch lasting less and less time. The Christianity that gave us the renessiance and Muntzer, the Christianity of whichs logical conclusion was atheism. The political implications of eastern spiritualism are cryptofascism. There is no debate or argument here.

"Yeah! My white guilt compels me to throw away the legacy of European thought! Fuck the enlightenment, fuck western ideas, fuck revolutionary politics!". Actually, maybe when we crucify the new age scum en masse they can gleefully interpret it as just necessarily part of the cosmic balance and natural harmony. Less of a hassle, then.

This is eurocentric rubbish. Christianity had nothing to do with those events but rather there's different factors that made the Renaissance happen (from wars, conquests in the Middle East and China) also Atheism predates Christianity (for example, I think you would find this (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/PrimitiveAtheismSkepticism.htm) interesting) and it wasn't the 'logical conclusion' from it.

Also how is eastern spiritualism 'cryptofascist'? please elberate because I doubt it.

Also the bolded part is your white privilege showing because it's one of those tactics to ignore PoC/Women's points and they shift focus on all themselves "What about the Whites/Menz/etc!?" with the violin playing the background while completely missing the point which in this case, Europeans have been historically the oppressors and the driving force of imperialism in the modern era which infact still going on today.

[Dean]

Rafiq is pretty accurate but I don't think he is being cautious enough here. Anyone who takes the time to read ancient texts (as an example) can see that there is potential value there. To say as Davis does that "all cultures are equal ways of interpreting/living in the world" is a pretty absurd, moralist interpretation of society/culture/technology.

Put simply, creation and possession of tools and institutions that improve the lives of humans is an obviously valuable thing, and the "cultural clashes" Davis lists are a bunch of cases where those who had power destroyed or subjugated those who didn't, and those who didn't, did what they could to appropriate the tools and institutions of technologically more advanced. He tries to oversimplify things and make it all "cultural" but its bullshit as rafiq says.

Nonetheless, there are insights to be gained from every culture, but not that there is some competing truth or mutually exclusive worldviews to adopt. It's pretty absurd to talk about simple survival instincts and heuristics as if they set westerners in some "foolish" camp just because modern society no longer needing to rely on scratch-built technology. Sustainability is probably the best example to prove that advanced system work better - there are countless species that are no longer at the brink of extinction precisely because humans deliberately conserved them. The desire to maintain resources is by no means "ancient wisdom" nor is it absent from western society.

This talk reminds me of the kind of "aha" holistic discussions that are on TED. Honestly, once you distill everything this guy says, the only useful point is that human knowledge should be preserved because it can tell us shit that could be useful. Trying to build up some "cultural war of ideas" and them come out on the "liberal multiculturalist" side is just this guys scam to pretend that his cultural exploration has been anything but voyeurism.

All he did was repeat all these cases where the westerners' made bad choices. There's no "ancient wisdom" in this video which is actually pathetic because there are interesting things to be learned about language, culture, etc. if you study the field.