RE: Morality evolved.
February 25, 2012 at 3:55 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2012 at 4:24 pm by Smitty.)
[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']
. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it (although the argument for evolution does have an unavoidable circular quality to it). First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
[quote='Smitty' pid='244758' dateline='1330199727']
[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']
. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it (although the argument for evolution does have an unavoidable circular quality to it). First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
[/quote]
What's going on here, why won't it print the text of my reply?
[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']
. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved?
[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
I hope the thread posts this time . . .
I'm having a devil of a time posting here . . .
(Quote). . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
I'm having a devil of a time getting this to post . . .
(Quote) . . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it (although the argument for evolution does have an unavoidable circular quality to it). First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
[quote='Smitty' pid='244758' dateline='1330199727']
[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']
. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it (although the argument for evolution does have an unavoidable circular quality to it). First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
[/quote]
What's going on here, why won't it print the text of my reply?
[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']
. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved?
[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
I hope the thread posts this time . . .
I'm having a devil of a time posting here . . .
(Quote). . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
I'm having a devil of a time getting this to post . . .
(Quote) . . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)
Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.
(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)
Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.
Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.
I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
