Solipsism

[Angry Young Man]

I know this is weird for a leftist, but I believe in the doctrine of Solipsism. I cannot disprove it as much as I can prove it, but the only theory of sense perception that makes sense to me is Idealism, where there is only sense data, no true object. Berkely, being a bishop, said there has to be an all-seeing being, but as I don't believe in that, I maintain the idea that all perception, even people, are within my mind. I need a plausible argument to refute solipsism.

[Connolly]

Im only an amateur at philosophy, but I dont think there is a way to refute it.

Its an entirely consistent philosophical position to take.

The only problem is that its useless. I doubt there are many solipsists in the world - I would imagine they are all a bunch of whako's.

To believe in solipsism is to believe I am not real, your mother is not real and your whole life was nothing but your imagination.

I cant prove this is not true to you.

It is up to you to believe in the material world or not. Not to believe in material reality is lonesome and pointless.

Materialism and solipsism are pretty much opposites.

Maybe Rosa and others will give their qualifid position on it.

[emma_goldman]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
1) Life is imperfect
2) Solipism undercuts morality
3) Philosophical Poverty
4) Practical solipist needs language

:unsure:

The third point is the one that most keeps me from believing solipsism. It's useless thinking in my eyes. :( The question, "So what?" rings true. It doesn't make a difference.

Other points:
1) If two solipsists meet, one of them is wrong. :P
2) If experiences are self generated, how did the self come into existence?
3) Simply because you cannot validate other life does not mean this life does not exist.

Ultimately, I think it's impossible to prove WRONG but I think we can see why it is illogical to believe it. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedBanner:


Maybe Rosa and others will give their qualified position on it.

Well, Red, the problem with solipsism (as with other philosophical 'theories') is that as soon as anyone tries to say what they mean, they end up making no sense at all. So it is not a matter of disproving, say, solipsism, it is more a matter of getting a single solipsist to say what he or she means by what they think they mean in clear English (or in the language of their choice -- but as solipsists, I suspect they should choose Martian).

For example, lovechild says there is:


no true object

Once he/she tells us what a 'true object is' then his/her theory is lost. For him/her to mean anything by these words, he/she will have to be able to say what a 'true object' is. But, as only indicative sentences can be true, then this declaration must self-destruct, since it will then be clear that language prevents our solipsist from saying what he/she thought she/he intended all along.

And any attempt to patch this 'theory' up will suffer the same fate (since, as I try to show at my site) the material language of everyday life puts insurmountable obstacles in the way of idealist myth-making of this sort.

Any erstwhile solipsists here (but can there be more than one???) are welcome to try to say what they mean (but why they would want to do that when we, their 'audience', do not exist (according to them) is not too clear); and then sit back and watch as their sloppy use of language implodes.

One of the strongest things us materialists have going for us is the fact that the vernacular was created by the collective labour of those who interfaced with material reality (and with one another) daily, and so it cannot be put to use to defend any sort of idealism.

Of course, solipsists do not need to try to prove me wrong, they just have to think I am wrong, and that is the end of it, since they cannot distinguish between thinking and reality -- but then, they should keep this secret to themselves, or risk being accused of being disingenuous (if not of downright inconsistency) for arguing with something (i.e., me) that does not exist, as if they thought it did.

Their quandary is thus suitably hopeless: if they attempt to prove me wrong they thereby undermine their own 'theory' (for the above reasons); if they remain silent in response to this, they end up doing the same -- since, I, this supposedly non-existent phantom, will have had a causal impact on these inconsistent souls....

So, solipsism is the last resting place of the terminally confused.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Solipsism can't really be shown to be wrong, becase this misses the point, it can't assert anything, because this misses the point. So what then are you left with?

Idealism and solipsism are not the same. Which form of idealism do you accept? It seems you might be talking more of phenomenalism...essentially it doesn't matter, but if you accept the necessity of communication you are left pretty screwed.

I will give a fuller answer when it is clearer exactly what is being proposed.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by lovechild of Kahlo and [email protected] 13 2006, 01:38 PM
no true object
If you were standing in the road and you noticed that a truck was coming, would you bother to step out of the way? If so, why?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by mikelepore+Jun 13 2006, 11:29 PM--> (mikelepore @ Jun 13 2006, 11:29 PM)
lovechild of Kahlo and [email protected] 13 2006, 01:38 PM
no true object
If you were standing in the road and you noticed that a truck was coming, would you bother to step out of the way? If so, why? [/b]
This is the problem of solipsism. Other denials of (at least objective) truth invoke created meaning or other means of justification for not acted too irrationally, solipsism is what happens without this.

[Angry Young Man]

Does everybody agree that hallucinations are purely imagination, not having any true object, but you have the sense data nonetheless?
If so, how are we to know that the mind isn't just frazzled on shrooms?
This unintentionally turned into what could be interpreted as a defence of Plato's form world. Sorry.
(rightwing scumbag!)

[Hegemonicretribution]

I understand your doubt about direct realist, and even our senses. But what you imply is that we can never know what is real or not, and as a solipsist, if you are intellectually honest, you must act with no guidance whatsoever. This would contradict any Marxist stance.

At least existentialists have created meaning, and other positions could claim tha whilst we can't know for sure, we can only act as if they were real...a solipsist is ineffectual in any supposed real world situation.

What form of idealism are you referring to? You have described a problem within realism, and then asserted a vague position, but arguments against your position will have to be tailored to the specifics.

If you are a solipsist what youhave at best is a belief, and what we are interested in are arguments supporting any views that people hold, other wise they are as worthless as religious dogma.

[Connolly]

Hes a "developing" solipsist, experimenting with various 'takes' on our existance.

If he was any bit serious, as Rosa pointed out, he wouldnt bother responding - or even asking the question first.

Kind of like the lost souls restricted to the religion subforum :lol:

[Connolly]

Here is a similar guy asking the same question..........

Solipsism question......... (http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054865308&highlight)

Maybe that will help

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 14 2006, 08:40 PM
Hes a "developing" solipsist, experimenting with various 'takes' on our existance.


You're probably right there if I'm honest.

[Connolly]

No harm in that :)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The issue of solipsism is potentially refutable through nihilistic postmodernism, but that isn't the answer you are seeking. Regardless, it may help to think of the world as meaningness. All interactions are based on human constructions of what reality is, and the reactions between individual people occur to increase self-pleasure. Relationships of power cause the oppression of others, and the maximization of self-pleasure can be achieved through capitalist dominance but, ideally, through a maximumization of resource achieved with mutual aid.

There is nothing contradictory between solipsism, nihilism, and leftism. If you get the idea that the communist revolution is some great moral attack on evil capitalists, you have the wrong idea. Every human enjoys power, but the maximization of power for all people can only be achieved when every person works in an area they are best suited for and shares profits amongst a community via basic economic principles. The flaws of reformism are demonstrated through the fact that capitalists seek to improve themselves rather than temporarily sacrifice themselves to improve society. Every capitalist subconciously wants to become a dictator and achieve the highest level of power possible within current social constructs.

Communism is the pinnacle of human efficiency as it utilizes the human resource to achieve the highest quality of life for all people - thus satisfying the greed of mankind and encouraging mutual aid as opposed to self-improvement through hegemony.

We aren't a bunch of religious nuts. We want power and have desires like everyone else. It is the excessively rampant capitalism that encourages people to work in self-interest. A society that maximizes the cooperative efforts of all people results in an absence of this desire.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lovechild:


Does everybody agree that hallucinations are purely imagination, not having any true object, but you have the sense data nonetheless?

Who are you addressing? If you are solipsist, you are talking to yourself.

On the other hand, if you are talking to us, you are not a solipsist.

And, as I asked above, how can an object be 'true' if it is not an indicative sentence?

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14 2006, 10:29 PM
Lovechild:


Does everybody agree that hallucinations are purely imagination, not having any true object, but you have the sense data nonetheless?

Who are you addressing? If you are solipsist, you are talking to yourself.

On the other hand, if you are talking to us, you are not a solipsist.

And, as I asked above, how can an object be 'true' if it is not an indicative sentence?
Perhaps with the constant perception, my sanity depends on the perception of conversation.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by lovechild of Kahlo and [email protected] 15 2006, 11:12 AM
Perhaps with the constant perception, my sanity depends on the perception of conversation.
Surely though, if you follow your doubt about perception through, you may well be hallucinating this conversation?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lovechild:


Perhaps with the constant perception, my sanity depends on the perception of conversation.

And who was that addressed to?

If yourself, why not just mumble it to yourself, and save time by not posting it? Since we do not exist, you are hardly helping us 'see the light' (which if you are right, does not exist either).

If, not to yourself, then why bother posting it, since by doing so you undermine your own 'theory'.

And, are you capable of saying what a 'true object' is? I suspect not.

I doubt you can even say what 'sanity' is, either (if only you exist, then whatever you do is sane, so sanity is no different from insanity to you).

Nor yet, what the 'perception of conversation' is (unless you know what a conversation is, you are in no position to say what a perception of one is either).

So, if a conversation is an exchange between at least two people, then your 'theory' takes another dive.

If it isn't, then it's not a conversation, and your reply is devoid of meaning.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Jun 15 2006, 01:22 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Jun 15 2006, 01:22 PM)
lovechild of Kahlo and [email protected] 15 2006, 11:12 AM
Perhaps with the constant perception, my sanity depends on the perception of conversation.
Surely though, if you follow your doubt about perception through, you may well be hallucinating this conversation? [/b]
Which is what very well could be happening. I only doubt existence of external world because I can't first hand experience other peoples' experiences. I think that could be something to do with being aspergers, so I cannot empathise, only sympathise. Come to think of it, what is the diff?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Love-C:


I only doubt existence of external world

I suspect that as soon as you tell us what the phrase 'external world' means, your game will be up.


I think that could be something to do with being aspergers,

You mean you think you are, so you are.

In that case, you diagnosed yourself (just as you invented this disorder and its symptoms, since only you exist); I suggest you now cure yourself....

That you haven't done so yet implies you are either not a solipsist, or you do not know what the word means.

[mikelepore]

I guess a comedian would be able to make this into a good joke... What do you do when you believe that you're the only person who exists, and all other people are merely part of a dream? Answer: As is the standard practice in philosophy, write a book to persuade other people of your viewpoint.

[mikelepore]

On a related subject ... Am I the only person here who finds it difficult to distinguish a dream from reality? I used to be able to tell the difference by staring for about half a minute at some writing. If I'm dreaming, the letters of the alphabet would begin to change like a digital counter into other shapes. But lately this test hasn't been working. Most recently, in a dream I can read a whole page and there's no loss of detail. Also, I used to be able to test whether objects in free fall will accelerate normally, but lately the force of gravity has been behaving normally in my dreams. Everything seems very realistic and then I wake up. This is actually a problem for me. When a computer program doesn't work as expected, even though I've checked the syntax several times, I really don't know whether I should bother fixing it right away, or whether I should wait a while and see if I'll wake up. Sometimes I ignore a problem, a social conflict, being lost in the woods, etc., and go away to have some great fun, and that turns out to have been a wise choice because then I wake up. However, sometimes it's real, and it's a good thing that I took out the time to fix it. Anyone else?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by lovechild of Kahlo and [email protected] 15 2006, 08:07 PM
Which is what very well could be happening. I only doubt existence of external world because I can't first hand experience other peoples' experiences. I think that could be something to do with being aspergers, so I cannot empathise, only sympathise. Come to think of it, what is the diff?
Very well could be hapening? Do you not merely mean "could conceivably be happening?" Perhaps all your doubts could be founded, but if so would you not actually act freely, and without regard for reality? By acting as if there is a reality you imply there is room for distinguishing between the two states of mind, or at least chosing the the more "probable" circumstances to refer to.

The problem is, that if you were a real solipsist, then you see no basis from which to assert probability even.

OK so you can't empathise? What sounds like the stronger argument to you....that the world and all that surrounds you is merely in your mind, or that you simply find the concept of multiple existences difficult (as many are reported to)?

I know which I find more likely.

[Angry Young Man]

Is there a way around Idealism without it being solipsistic or the all-perceiving being, which would be too much to bear and unrealistic as it is insensible. I don't trust common sense realism because of the lack of ability to generalise similar items; I don't trust Representative realism because of the inability to sense the "true" object; and I don't trust Phenominalism because one can't prove that objects have the potential to be perceived, as you can't prove something that isn't being perceived.
Any answers would be gladly received.
the lovechild x x

[Hegemonicretribution]

Well you could accept that there is cause to doubt just about everything, but this is not enough reason to assume that what is likely to be the case can not be judged. What I mean is that you could accept the fallibility of your senses, but just choose to deal with it.

According to your idealism "this" is directly what is reality anyway, so why not suggest that we can perceive reality, but might be wrong. This is how we must face most problems in life; without certainty.

If knowledge requires the absence of the possibility of doubt then it is unattainable.

Just a technical point, phenomenalism denies the true object as well, and idealism presupposes that it is one and the same thing as that which is perceived.

Personally I don't cut myself up too much on this, I always found it kind of irrelevant to real life, and one of the less interesting areas of philosophy...There are a few defences of realism that may be worth looking at, I think it is Austin that has some good stuff to say...

I will try and get a link.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Love:


Is there a way around Idealism without it being solipsistic

I am not sure what you mean.

Idealism is easy to neutralise, since it depends on a distorted use of language.

And why do you keep talking about 'true objetcs'?

Indicactive sentences can be true, so can friends and aims. But objects?

What on earth do you mean?

[Epoche]

Here's a quick exercise to defeat Berkeley's idealism.

You know the bit about the "tree falls in the forest with nobody around, etc., etc., does it make a sound, etc., etc."

Replace that tree with another person and you arrive at this paradox:

Solipsism claims that nothing can be known for certain except the thoughts of one's own mind, such that nothing that is not experienced cannot possibly exist. Well, if a solipsist is standing in a forest and nobody is around to experience him, does he exist only when in the presence of another solipsist? If yes, which solipsist experiences the "real" reality if reality is subject to a solipsist's experience?

Which one is right? If one walks away from the other, then the other, according to the doctrine of solipsism, ceases to exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche, despite its cleverness, it is not really directed at Berkeley.

It recapitulates my question (posted above), whether there can be more than one solipsist.

As you know, solipsist are more slippery than a New Labour clone, they would get round your dilemma pretty quickly by either saying that it is an illusion or saying that since solipsist S1 experiences his or herself experiencing other things, then he/she exists,and solipsist S2 can say the same. Now we might snigger at their disingenuous reply, but then we do not exist.....

The best way to nail a solipsist (or any idealist) is to get them to say what they mean by their quirky use of words, and sit back and watch them either ignore you (as the original poster of this thread did to me), get cross (as we see with Hoopla on that other thread) as their words disintegrate around them, or watch them slowly become realists [as Wittgenstein said they would in the Tractatus].

[Not that I am a realist, but I have more time for them....]

[Angry Young Man]

By object, I mean sometrhing that is sensed, such as a bottle. The best explanation to me of how a bottle is sensed is that it is within the mind. I accepted the problem of the continuity of objects that "to be is to be perceived", so I tried to answer it with solipsism. I now see the troubles with that and am in a complete crisis with how I know anything!
And Rosa, please don't compare me to new labour!
I realise that if solipsism was possible then I could live my ideal life. I was also worried that if the whole world was related to my experience, nobody but me would have free will. Bugger!
And my answer to the age old tree problem is that it makes a noise if, say, a rabbit hears it. Nobody can deny that the tree has fallen once it has been seen, but, say, your mum could've died twenty minutes ago, but you only know once you have been told. Before hand, you could have had the best time of your life.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Love-C:


By object, I mean sometrhing that is sensed, such as a bottle.

But, I note you have not explained what a 'true object' is.

Anyway, the object you chose, a bottle, is not a sensation.

It is a bottle. You must have misperceived it.

And the ditty; 'to be is to be perceived' translates out as follows; 'to be perceived is to be perceived' if we replace the first underlined 'to be' with what it is said to be by this ditty, i.e, 'to be perceived'.

And, if we continue we get this brilliant insight:

'to be perceived is to be perceived perceived' if we replace the second underlined 'to be' in 'to be percieved' by 'to be preceived, which, according to this dotty ditty it is supposed to be.

And if we continue to replace this next layer of 'to be's' with what this dotty ditty tells us, we get this piece of mangled English:

'to be perceived percieived is to be perceived perceived'.

I think you can see where this is going.

This can only be denied by those who reject this dotty ditty.

I suggest you join in with rest of us sane material beings, and reject it too.


And Rosa, please don't compare me to new labour!

[Er, who are you asking this of....?]

Then you will have to stop using language as if it were your own invention, like a New Labour spin doctor.


And my answer to the age old tree problem is that it makes a noise if, say, a rabbit hears it. Nobody can deny that the tree has fallen once it has been seen, but, say, your mum could've died twenty minutes ago, but you only know once you have been told. Before hand, you could have had the best time of your life.

But, there are no rabbits to hear anything in your experiential dungeon.

And what is this 'mum' thing? If you alone exist with your 'perceptions' and your dotty ditties, then you neither had a 'mother', nor came from 'her'.

Unless, of course, you now want to bend some more words out of shape, a la New Labour....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Love-C:


By object, I mean sometrhing that is sensed, such as a bottle.

But, I note you have not explained what a 'true object' is.

Anyway, the object you chose, a bottle, is not a sensation.

It is a bottle. You must have misperceived it.

And the ditty; 'to be is to be perceived' translates out as follows; 'to be perceived is to be perceived' if we replace the first underlined 'to be' with what it is said to be by this ditty, i.e, 'to be perceived'.

And, if we continue we get this brilliant insight:

'to be perceived is to be perceived perceived' if we replace the second underlined 'to be' in 'to be percieved' by 'to be preceived, which, according to this dotty ditty it is supposed to be.

And if we continue to replace this next layer of 'to be's' with what this dotty ditty tells us, we get this piece of mangled English:

'to be perceived percieived is to be perceived perceived'.

I think you can see where this is going.

This can only be denied by those who reject this dotty ditty.

I suggest you join in with rest of us sane material beings, and reject it too.


And Rosa, please don't compare me to new labour!

[Er, who are you asking this of....?]

Then you will have to stop using language as if it were your own invention, like a New Labour spin doctor.


And my answer to the age old tree problem is that it makes a noise if, say, a rabbit hears it. Nobody can deny that the tree has fallen once it has been seen, but, say, your mum could've died twenty minutes ago, but you only know once you have been told. Before hand, you could have had the best time of your life.

But, there are no rabbits to hear anything in your experiential dungeon.

And what is this 'mum' thing? If you alone exist with your 'perceptions' and your dotty ditties, then you neither had a 'mother', nor came from 'her'.

Unless, of course, you now want to bend some more words out of shape, a la New Labour....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Love-C:


By object, I mean sometrhing that is sensed, such as a bottle.

But, I note you have not explained what a 'true object' is.

Anyway, the object you chose, a bottle, is not a sensation.

It is a bottle. You must have misperceived it.

And the ditty; 'to be is to be perceived' translates out as follows; 'to be perceived is to be perceived' if we replace the first underlined 'to be' with what it is said to be by this ditty, i.e, 'to be perceived'.

And, if we continue we get this brilliant insight:

'to be perceived is to be perceived perceived' if we replace the second underlined 'to be' in 'to be percieved' by 'to be preceived, which, according to this dotty ditty it is supposed to be.

And if we continue to replace this next layer of 'to be's' with what this dotty ditty tells us, we get this piece of mangled English:

'to be perceived percieived is to be perceived perceived'.

I think you can see where this is going.

This can only be denied by those who reject this dotty ditty.

I suggest you join in with rest of us sane material beings, and reject it too.


And Rosa, please don't compare me to new labour!

[Er, who are you asking this of....?]

Then you will have to stop using language as if it were your own invention, like a New Labour spin doctor.


And my answer to the age old tree problem is that it makes a noise if, say, a rabbit hears it. Nobody can deny that the tree has fallen once it has been seen, but, say, your mum could've died twenty minutes ago, but you only know once you have been told. Before hand, you could have had the best time of your life.

But, there are no rabbits to hear anything in your experiential dungeon.

And what is this 'mum' thing? If you alone exist with your 'perceptions' and your dotty ditties, then you neither had a 'mother', nor came from 'her'.

Unless, of course, you now want to bend some more words out of shape, a la New Labour....

[Djehuti]

Solipsism is the ONLY logically sustainable sort of subjective idealism. And it is nuts.

According to this philosophy nothing else that my own consciousness exists. Not yours stupid - you are barely a construction of my mind. Nothing exists outside my skull, well, not even the skull actually. Everything that has existed before my consciousness, everything that exists outside of it, everything that should exist after it, are only my private fantasies. Auch! Did you hit me? Don't think that you proved anything by that. You are an imagination and my nose blood is an imagination. Even the nose is an imagination.

Idealism is a madmans philosophy; and this becomes clear when it is stripped by the word-curtains, the misty clouds and the blown up pomp that normally masks it.

So, can we prove that the different idealisms are true or false? No - it is only logics and loyars that "proves" stuff, not science. We can only make a judgement of who's though constructions that seems most sound. What most of all talks against idealism is actually that it "proves" to much: it can cook together an "explaination" to about everything, as when the creationists "explain" away passed billions of years with that God planted false evidence for the existance of dinosaurs and that pre-sapiens ever existed (God as a simple deceiver - talk about herecy!). But he who have to many easy-bought explainations must find himself in not being believed.

[Djehuti]

Solipsism is the ONLY logically sustainable sort of subjective idealism. And it is nuts.

According to this philosophy nothing else that my own consciousness exists. Not yours stupid - you are barely a construction of my mind. Nothing exists outside my skull, well, not even the skull actually. Everything that has existed before my consciousness, everything that exists outside of it, everything that should exist after it, are only my private fantasies. Auch! Did you hit me? Don't think that you proved anything by that. You are an imagination and my nose blood is an imagination. Even the nose is an imagination.

Idealism is a madmans philosophy; and this becomes clear when it is stripped by the word-curtains, the misty clouds and the blown up pomp that normally masks it.

So, can we prove that the different idealisms are true or false? No - it is only logics and loyars that "proves" stuff, not science. We can only make a judgement of who's though constructions that seems most sound. What most of all talks against idealism is actually that it "proves" to much: it can cook together an "explaination" to about everything, as when the creationists "explain" away passed billions of years with that God planted false evidence for the existance of dinosaurs and that pre-sapiens ever existed (God as a simple deceiver - talk about herecy!). But he who have to many easy-bought explainations must find himself in not being believed.

[Djehuti]

Solipsism is the ONLY logically sustainable sort of subjective idealism. And it is nuts.

According to this philosophy nothing else that my own consciousness exists. Not yours stupid - you are barely a construction of my mind. Nothing exists outside my skull, well, not even the skull actually. Everything that has existed before my consciousness, everything that exists outside of it, everything that should exist after it, are only my private fantasies. Auch! Did you hit me? Don't think that you proved anything by that. You are an imagination and my nose blood is an imagination. Even the nose is an imagination.

Idealism is a madmans philosophy; and this becomes clear when it is stripped by the word-curtains, the misty clouds and the blown up pomp that normally masks it.

So, can we prove that the different idealisms are true or false? No - it is only logics and loyars that "proves" stuff, not science. We can only make a judgement of who's though constructions that seems most sound. What most of all talks against idealism is actually that it "proves" to much: it can cook together an "explaination" to about everything, as when the creationists "explain" away passed billions of years with that God planted false evidence for the existance of dinosaurs and that pre-sapiens ever existed (God as a simple deceiver - talk about herecy!). But he who have to many easy-bought explainations must find himself in not being believed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJ: I think you are largely right, but we can show that idealism is a totally empty doctrine.

I try to make a start at doing that in several posts here, and more fully at my site.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJ: I think you are largely right, but we can show that idealism is a totally empty doctrine.

I try to make a start at doing that in several posts here, and more fully at my site.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJ: I think you are largely right, but we can show that idealism is a totally empty doctrine.

I try to make a start at doing that in several posts here, and more fully at my site.