[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Taxis and Embedding in Conversation



Thank you for the massage, Larry - you gave me food for thought!  I'm still
reading Heidergger and pondering his ideas.

Heidergger took phenomenology to a direction different to what Husserl
would have liked (the latter had a focus on pure consciousness). His notion
of understanding as involving interpretation alongside the idea of
"thrown-ness" is very revealing to me. In fact his existentialist
phenomenology is hermeneutic phenomenology.

By the way, another genius who combined Husserl and
Heidergger was Jean-Paul Sartre.

So many interesting things to read and digest!

James

*_____________________________________*

*James Ma*  *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
<https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>*



On 5 July 2017 at 21:53, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> James,
> This something more may also be concerned with what you refer to as
> intellectual "virtures": In the first section of the article I am attaching
> you outline what you are indicating by the term -virtues. On page 3 you
> focus on the topic of "intellectual well-being" perceived as a "cultivation
> of virtues and ideals"  through advanced learning.
>
> You then mention we are living through the "diversity" of socially,
> institutionally, mediated human development. What does this diversity call
> on us to "do". Your answer is that human development INTENSIFIES our need
> for such cultivation at both individual and collective "levels".
>
> You reference this need as "omnipotent" when you say:
> "The omnipotence of one's morality, freewill, and self-interest PERVADES
> contingencies and uncertainties in human actions with *THE* world. I will
> mention that Paul Ricouer refers not to *THE* world but rather to *A* world
> -of-being].
>
> You then go on to say that the above "factors" problematize the mastery of
> cultural "systems" that *signify" human actions.
> You then qualify this statement by adding,
>
> "the enactment of one's understanding of THE world subsequently affects
> what comes about."
>
> Here I would replace *THE world* with *A world*
> James, you mention your intent for publishing this essay is to move away
> from an "instrumental' view" of higher education and cultivate a focus on
> "intellectual well-being" through fostering  "virtues". You proceed to
> follow your intent by "semiotising" students perceptions of learning
> outcomes that implicate students engagement with learning and development.
>
> James, you also question the relation to "dasein" and I will mention that
> the word "mitsein" [being-WITH] is a better term for promoting intellectual
> well-being. Less a protesting intent than da-sein [being-THAT] . Gadamer
> points out that Heiddeger's focus on da-sein pervades his project and that
> Gadamer intende to shift towards the centrality of mit-sein
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:07 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you David for such thoughtful elucidation - I enjoyed reading it.
> >
> > I've been mulling over your take on semogenesis as "the only kind of
> > immortality that any of us really get", as well as your distinction
> between
> > semantics and semiotics. It's clear that semantics is what we get from
> > context to wording. To what extent are "context" and "wording" to be
> > defined if there is something existing beyond "context" and "wording"?
> > Would that something be Dasein as entire human existence in the context
> of
> > cosmos? Would that wording be eventually something like "semiotising"? To
> > me, Dasein expresses itself semiotically in such a way that it mediates
> and
> > is mediated through and through ad infinitum.
> >
> > James
> >
> > *_____________________________________*
> >
> > *James Ma*  *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
> > <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa>*
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4 July 2017 at 23:02, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't really know, James. I always thought "semiogenesis" and
> > > "semogenesis" were the same. Halliday seems to use them
> interchangeably.
> > > But now that you point it out, it occurs to me that "semantics" and
> > > "semiotics" are really quite different.
> > >
> > > Halliday uses "semiotic" or less the way Saussure uses it: everything
> > that
> > > has to do with signs, of which language is simply the most developed.
> So
> > as
> > > you say semiotics is part of everything: it's the way matter is
> organized
> > > to "mean" stars and galaxies, the way in which DNA is organized to
> "mean"
> > > proteins; the way in which people are organized to mean colonies and
> > > cultures, and the way in which sounds and graphics are organized to
> mean
> > > lexicogrammatical strings.
> > >
> > > Halliday uses "semantic" much more narrowly, to describe the last of
> > these.
> > > Semantics is a stratum of language: "meaning" as opposed to "wording"
> or
> > > "context". Semantics is everything we need to get from context to
> > wording,
> > > and for that reason it includes what Vygotsky calls the volitional
> > impulse
> > > to speak (the feeling that one has something to say), the thought (the
> > > choice of a meaning), the formulation of a design in inner speech (the
> > > choice of a theme), none of which are fully grammatized.
> > >
> > > As this account suggests, "semogenesis" is not coextensive with
> > > semiogenesis (which is a property of matter generally) or logogenesis
> > > (which is a property of lexicogrammar). But the child does have a
> > semantics
> > > before the child has a lexicogrammar; proto-speech (what Vygotsky calls
> > > "autonomous speech") is really a direct connection between context and
> > > phonology, one which doesn't require wording. Semantics is also a more
> > > conservative layer of language than lexicogrammar (though not as stable
> > as
> > > context); one way to theorize a crisis is that the lexicogrammar is
> > > superproductive and creates far more meaning than the child knows what
> to
> > > do with.
> > >
> > > I guess I am not as scared as Alfredo of "overliving" into language. It
> > > seems to me that when you live under capitalism, the tendency is the
> > other
> > > way: to package up our bodily sensations for mass market in horror
> > movies,
> > > fast food, terrorist propaganda, porn and other forms of get-rich-fast
> > > sensationalism (e.g. the performance art movement that so many of my
> art
> > > school friends went into instead of painting). It seems to me that the
> > > nineteenth century novels that my wife loves so much have a much more
> > > realistic view of hunger and food, sex and love, and even fear and
> death,
> > > precisely because they are shareable through language. In any case,
> from
> > > the historico-cultural point of view, it's not through the atoms of
> their
> > > bodies or even the DNA of their children that people like Professor
> > > McCawley live on after death. Semogenesis is the only kind of
> immortality
> > > that any of us really get.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Macquarie University
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:14 PM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks David for pointing to us that "semiogenesis" is from Halliday.
> > > But I
> > > > seem to remember "semogenesis" in his functional grammar - are they
> the
> > > > same?
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4 July 2017 at 13:31, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alfredo:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see why doing justice to the memory of James McCawley has
> to
> > > > > involve revising history. I was a freshman radical, and there is a
> > good
> > > > > reason why nobody asks a freshman to write a Festschrift. I think
> > most
> > > of
> > > > > us would have just said that it was abso-blooming-lutely
> > > > > fan-fucking-tastic, and I probably would have tried to say that it
> > was
> > > > > a-blooming-solutely fantas-fucking-tic). I have since read quite a
> > bit
> > > of
> > > > > his work (a pleasure anyone who really wants to do him justice
> should
> > > not
> > > > > deny themselves) but that first impression--that he was the kind of
> > Ayn
> > > > > Rand libertarian currently laying waste to the health insurance
> > system
> > > > that
> > > > > the Obama administration left behind--has certainly not been
> > dispelled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vygotsky uses "phylogenesis" and "ontogenesis", because these were
> > > > current
> > > > > in the nineteenth century. He doesn't use "sociogenesis" or
> > > > "microgenesis",
> > > > > because these were not. The term "Aktualgenese" was used by the
> > > > > Gestaltists, but it meant percepts in a tachioscope, or dots on the
> > > > > horizon. Vygotsky prefers to speak of "teaching-learning".
> > > > >
> > > > > Semiogenesis is from Halliday. As James says, it exists at all
> > levels:
> > > > just
> > > > > as the phylogenesis of the brain doesn't come to a halt when we
> start
> > > > > building societies, and sociogenesis doesn't stop in order to allow
> > us
> > > to
> > > > > raise children, ontogenesis doesn't stop when children learn to
> talk.
> > > > > Halliday describes how Nigel at one is able to distinguish between
> > > > "Dada?"
> > > > > ("Where's Daddy?") and "Dada!" ("There you are!") and this
> > immediately
> > > > > turns his repertoire of three words *"Dada", "Ama", and "Anna")
> into
> > > six.
> > > > > Later, Nigel uses UP intonation to mean "somebody do something" and
> > > DOWN
> > > > > intonation to mean "I see!", and these intonational forms
> eventually,
> > > > > combining with wording, become interrogatives and declaratives.
> > That's
> > > > > semiogenesis--the genesis of meaning potential.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I think it's possible to see a lot of Vygotsky's pedology in
> terms
> > > of
> > > > > semiogenesis. Early childhood is the gradual increase of meaning
> > > > potential
> > > > > through class generalizations (e.g. common nouns instead of proper
> > > > nouns).
> > > > > The Crisis at Three is the increase of meaning potential through
> > > polarity
> > > > > (e.g. negation and "negativism"). Preschool is semiogenesis through
> > > > > imaginary situations, and the Crisis at Seven is semiogenesis
> through
> > > the
> > > > > internalization of perizhivanie. School age seems (to me) to
> involve
> > > > > semiogenesis through turning (instructional and other) narratives
> > into
> > > > > dialogues, or "communication" into "generalizations", Thirteen is
> > > > > semiogenesis through "dissociation", and adolescence is
> semiogenesis
> > > > > through conceptualization. Taxis and embedding seem to be important
> > > > aspects
> > > > > of this: taxis allows us to create hierarchies of superconcepts,
> and
> > > > > embedding allows unlimited recursiveness and delicacy for
> > subconcepts.
> > > > >
> > > > > But just as ontogenesis becomes a leading factor in sociogenesis
> (and
> > > > just
> > > > > as sociogenesis becomes a leading factor in phylogenesis, at least
> if
> > > you
> > > > > are human) I think that semiogenesis takes on a significance of its
> > own
> > > > in
> > > > > adulthood. It seems to me that significance is not so much
> embodying
> > > > > experience as, in childhood, but disembodying it. Perhaps
> "overliving
> > > it"
> > > > > is a better way to think of it: that is, after all, literally what
> > > > > "perezhivanie" means:
> > > > >
> > > > > Children are dumb to say how hot the day is,
> > > > > How hot the scent is of the summer rose,
> > > > > How dreadful the black wastes of evening sky,
> > > > > How dreadful the tall soldiers drumming by.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we have speech, to chill the angry day,
> > > > > And speech, to dull the rose's cruel scent.
> > > > > We spell away the overhanging night,
> > > > > We spell away the soldiers and the fright.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a cool web of language winds us in,
> > > > > Retreat from too much joy or too much fear:
> > > > > We grow sea-green at last and coldly die
> > > > > In brininess and volubility.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if we let our tongues lose self-possession,
> > > > > Throwing off language and its watery clasp
> > > > > Before our death, instead of when death comes,
> > > > > Facing the wide glare of the children's day,
> > > > > Facing the rose, the dark sky and the drums,
> > > > > We shall go mad no doubt and die that way.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 6:05 PM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Alfredo, I came across the term "semiogenesis" in the past
> > but
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > remember who coined it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To me, the four domains of human development I mentioned earlier
> > are
> > > > > > invariably imbued with signs and symbols. If I were to suggest
> more
> > > > > > appropriate terms for describing the semiotic aura in these
> > domains,
> > > > they
> > > > > > would probably be phylosemiosis, ontosemiosis, sociosemiosis and
> > > > > > microsemiosis?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4 July 2017 at 01:13, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pegg, thanks for making sure justice is made in the treatment
> of
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > scholar; I am sure many in the list appreciate it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David, James, you both have used the term 'semiogenesis,' which
> > > seems
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > have gone unremarked but it certainly called my attention. I
> > made a
> > > > > > search
> > > > > > > on the xmca archive and the term 'semiogenesis' had appeared
> > only a
> > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > of times before. And, unless the term is just a synonymous with
> > > such
> > > > > > > expressions as 'genesis of symbolic activity', 'semiogenesis'
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > > > > appear in the English versions of Vygotsky's collected works.
> > > > > > Sociogenesis,
> > > > > > > by contrast, appears often and is elaborated in several places,
> > as
> > > do
> > > > > > > ontogenesis and phylogenesis. What is the history of the term
> > > > > > > 'semiogenesis' in CHAT? Why did not Vygotsky and others use it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reading about the contrast between ants and whales that was
> > > mentioned
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > previous post, I also wondered what a distinction between the
> > > social
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the semiotic would be for researchers in the field of
> > biosemiotics,
> > > > who
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > concerned with the production of signs all across the
> biological
> > > > > > spectrum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alfredo.
> > > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.
> > > > edu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > on behalf of Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@att.net>
> > > > > > > Sent: 03 July 2017 06:30
> > > > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Taxis and Embedding in Conversation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For anyone who is interested, this is about the
> characterization
> > of
> > > > Jim
> > > > > > > McCawley in the message this replies to.
> > > > > > > I found it inappropriate, unacceptable, not true and not needed
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > > > > any point in the message.  Perhaps the writer is unaware of the
> > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > given by the characterization provided.
> > > > > > > As repair, I will point out that many admired Jim as a kind and
> > > open
> > > > > man,
> > > > > > > an activist for causes seen in the US as leftist, a deeply
> > > thoughtful
> > > > > > > linguist who data grubbed (he said "data fetishist") as a
> student
> > > of
> > > > > many
> > > > > > > languages and colleague of many linguists, a fine cook and
> > > musician.
> > > > > He
> > > > > > > died in 1999.  You can find obituaries in the Chicago Tribune
> and
> > > the
> > > > > New
> > > > > > > York Times, and in the Linguistic Society of America's journal,
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > memorial:
> > > > > > > Lawler, John (2003). James D. McCawley. Language. 79:614–625.
> > > > > > > doi:10.1353/lan.2003.0173
> > > > > > > (His candidacy on the Libertarian ticket, by the way, was not
> for
> > > > > > > Governor, but for a seat on the University of Illinois Board of
> > > > > trustees
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 3 times in the 70's in the complex politics of Chicago and
> > Illinois
> > > > as
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > of intentional moves concerning power, corruption, and the
> > relation
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > universities and politics in the US in general.)
> > > > > > > PG
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> > > > > > > mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:37 PM
> > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Taxis and Embedding in Conversation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Greg:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bear with me for a linguistic excursus. It will involve taking
> > the
> > > > > scenic
> > > > > > > route. But after all, that's what whales do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So one of the first linguistics professors I ever had at the
> > > > University
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Chicago was James McCawley. He was a right wing nut job: when
> he
> > > > wasn't
> > > > > > > professsoring, he was running for governor of Illinois on the
> > > > > LIbertarian
> > > > > > > ticket. Because he was a libertarian, and because he was a bit
> > of a
> > > > > nut,
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > would lecture on why we freshmen like to say
> > "Fan-fucking-tastic!"
> > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > of, say, "Fantas-fucking-tic!" In "My Fair Lady", Audrey
> Hepburn
> > > > sings:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, so lover-ly singing abso-blooming-lutely still Ah would
> never
> > > > budge
> > > > > > > till spring crept over me window sill!"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why not "ab-blooming-solutely" (which has the advantage of
> > > > > alliteration)
> > > > > > > or "absolute-bloomingly" (which would make more morphological
> > > sense)?
> > > > > or
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The answer has to do with embedding, which is a phenomenon that
> > > > occurs
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > virtually every level of language: sounding, wording, and of
> > course
> > > > > > > meaning. So for example, at the level of wording, imagine that
> I
> > > > > receive
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > letter from a elementary school crush, and it is discovered by
> my
> > > > wife.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > a) She tore up the letter, which upset me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now imagine that this long-lost elementary school crush turns
> out
> > > to
> > > > > be a
> > > > > > > loathsome right winger soliciting funds for "Blue Lives
> Matter":
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > b) She tore up the letter which upset me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh, what a difference a little comma can make! In b) "which
> upset
> > > me"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > embedded in the nominal group (the "noun phrase", for you
> > > > Chomskyans).
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > plays no part in the structure of the clause-complex (the
> > > "sentence"
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > Chomskyans). So it has no effect on the tearing or on the
> "she",
> > > and
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > confined to "the letter", just as "fucking" intensifies the
> SOUND
> > > > > STRESS
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > "TAST-ic" rather than the lexical meaning of "fantasy" or the
> > more
> > > > > > > grammatical meaning of "ic", and "blooming" intensifies the
> > > prosodic
> > > > > > > emphasis of "LUTE-ly" rather than the lexical meaning of
> > "absolute"
> > > > or
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > grammatical meaning of  "~ly". But in a) "which upset me" is a
> > all
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > her tearing up the letter and it impacts "she" and "tore up"
> and
> > > not
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > the letter: it is abso-bloomingly-lutely part of the story of
> the
> > > > > > > clause-complex as a whole.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can see that both McCawley's example and my own are about
> > > > meaning,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > they are about different kinds of meaning. McCawley is talking
> > > about
> > > > > > > prosodic meaning: the kind of meaning we get from rhymes,
> > jingles,
> > > > hip
> > > > > > hop
> > > > > > > and Homeric hexameters. I am giving you an example of
> > > > lexicogrammatical
> > > > > > > meaning, the kind of meaning we get when semantics (thinking)
> is
> > > > > realized
> > > > > > > as lexicogrammar (wordings, which may be in turn realized as
> > > > soundings,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > they may also be inner speech).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, as the poet says, if you would see the Yangzi River, you
> > must
> > > > > ascend
> > > > > > > another storey of the Yellow Crane Tower. In the latest volume
> of
> > > her
> > > > > > > Collected Works, Ruqaiya Hasan is talking about a conversation
> > > > between
> > > > > > her
> > > > > > > graduate student, Carmel Cloran, and Carmel's preschool son,
> > > Stephen.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's the kind of rangey conversation we all have with
> > preschoolers:
> > > > she
> > > > > > > asks him what he wants for lunch, and he decides on peanut
> butter
> > > > > > > sandwiches and passionfruit. The passionfruit is not in the
> fruit
> > > > bowl
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > it has to be retrieved from under the kitchen table, Stephen
> > wants
> > > to
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > why there are no passionfruit in Sydney at this time of year
> > (it's
> > > > > > winter)
> > > > > > > and Carmel wants him to sit at his designated place at the
> table
> > > and
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > the place where his Grandma usually sits, Stephen wants to know
> > why
> > > > > > Grandma
> > > > > > > sits there and not elsewhere, and why he can't sit there when
> > she's
> > > > not
> > > > > > > around, and then as Carmel brings the sandwiches and prepared
> > fruit
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > table she talks about taking him shopping to Chatswood.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One way to see this conversation is as a kind of Monty Python
> > > show--a
> > > > > > > sequence of texts separated by "and now for something
> completely
> > > > > > > different". This is, actually, the way they see things at the
> > > > > University
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Sydney, where each "text" in the conversation is attributed to
> a
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > "genre" and even a different "register". In some of the texts
> the
> > > > > context
> > > > > > > is present, in others it is present but under the table, and in
> > > > others
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is in distant Chatswood and far in the future.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But another way is to see some of the texts as embedded in
> > others:
> > > > > > looking
> > > > > > > for the passionfruit is a kind of qualifier of Stephen's
> request
> > > for
> > > > > > > passionfruit, and the explanation of seating has the function
> of
> > a
> > > > > > > "because..." or "since..." hypotactic. clause attached to
> > Stephen's
> > > > > > sitting
> > > > > > > in the wrong place at the kitchen table.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The trip to Chatswood? On the face of it, this is really "and
> now
> > > for
> > > > > > > something completely different". And yet, from the Macquarie
> > point
> > > of
> > > > > > view,
> > > > > > > it too is linked, but "paratactically". What is being kept up
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > > interpersonal flow of meaning--the intimate, loving, but
> > > asymmetrical
> > > > > > > relationship between care-giver and cared-for. This is not much
> > > > related
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the social reproduction of the material conditions of life (and
> > > from
> > > > > > > Stephen's view not at all): if they do not go to Chatswood they
> > > will
> > > > > not
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > hungry tonight. But it is part of the flow of semiosis that
> forms
> > > the
> > > > > > great
> > > > > > > ocean current that carries humans and other warm-blooded
> animals
> > on
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > migrations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, of course: semiogenesis and sociogenesis are linked, just
> as
> > > > > > > phylogenesis and sociogenesis are not simply stacked the one
> upon
> > > the
> > > > > > > other, and learning is not simply the "domestication" of
> > > development
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > purpose of  Aktualgenese or microgenesis: there is an inner
> link
> > in
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > cases. But as soon as we say that the social reproduction of
> the
> > > > > material
> > > > > > > conditions of life and the flow of semiosis have this inner
> link
> > > and
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > not simply stacked like geological layers, we find ourselves
> > > > admitting
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > they can also be distinct, that eddies of semiosis sometimes
> > carry
> > > us
> > > > > > > backwards in sociogenesis and sometimes fling us far into our
> own
> > > > > > futures.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>