and those people were indeed alive, because they had DNA, RNA, and body cells, — Arcane Sandwich

Dead bodies also have DNA. So having DNA is not the right criteria for being alive.

even though they did not know that specific fact about themselves and about the world in general. They were, I guess you could say, ignorant of that fact. — Arcane Sandwich

Ok, fair point. But it is still possible to talk about non-alive objects such as the fire breathing dragons and demons. Because many people know about them, and like them obviously from the video.
It means the dragons and demons exist in their mind and imagination. Therefore they exist in the mind as mental objects. With the mental objects, they made up the physical objects which look like fully living dragon. It gives fun and realistic experience to the viewers.

Therefore it is possible to discuss about the mental objects which exist in the mind from metaphysical point of view. Rejecting that sounds rejecting Metaphysics itself, because after all Metaphysics means going beyond physical existence.

Dead bodies also have DNA. So having DNA is not the right criteria for being alive. — Corvus

Hmmm... You know, that's actually a really good philosophical point that you just made there. By Gods, mate, I've never even thought of it that way. I'm not even sure what I should even say to that. I would have to think it. Hmmm...

Ok, fair point. — Corvus

You think? I'm not so sure myself. Calling someone "ignorant" is just rude. Maybe I should retire that word from my personal vocabulary, but I'm not sure. What do you think about that? Is the word "ignorant" somehow insulting? I think it is, but I could be wrong.

But it is still possible to talk about non-alive objects such as the fire breathing dragons and demons. — Corvus

Sure. But then I can talk about how those people talked about those objects. And how do I do that? First, I study what they said, then I study what those objects are. It's a case-by-case approach, there is no general rule or principle here. I'll share one of my favorite quotes by Dan Z. Korman on that point:

I can imagine some metaphysicians complaining that my approach is disgracefully messy and unprincipled. Even if the charge of arbitrariness can be defused, case by case, by appeal to a hodge-podge of different phenomena, the conservative treatment of ordinary and extraordinary objects evidently isn’t going to conform to any neat and tidy principles. So whatever conservatives are doing, they surely aren’t carving at the joints.
I would remind these metaphysicians of the story of Cook Ting, who offers the following account of his success as a butcher:

I go along with the natural makeup . . . and follow things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint . . . However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety.

Some cooks are going to view Cook Ting’s approach with suspicion, as they watch him slowly working his knife through some unlikely part of the ox, carving oxen one way and turkeys a completely different way, even carving some oxen differently from other oxen. They’ll see his technique as messy and unprincipled, hardly an example of carving the beasts at their joints. But from Cook Ting’s perspective, it is these other cooks, the ones who would treat all animals alike, who are in the wrong. They aren’t carving at the joints. They’re hacking through the bones. — Daniel Z. Korman

@Wayfarer have you read that book by Daniel Z. Korman that I just quoted? It's called "Objects: Nothing Out of the Ordinary", and it was published by Oxford University Press in 2015.

is philosophy unscientific, in the sense that the OP is unphilosophical?

Philosophy is outside the purview of science; and so it is “unscientific” only in that sense.

Your OP is unphilosophical, as I said before, in the sense that, although it addresses a philosophy subject, it does not provide sufficient clarity and argumentation for it to be considered formally philosophical (by my lights).

If it is not philosophy, and if it is not science, what is it? Honest question.

Like I said before, it is philosophy in the sense that the subject matter which you wish to discuss is a part of philosophy.

Hmmm... do I agree with this? No, I think not. That is not what reality is

Then your argument doesn’t make any sense: the PSR would only be universally applicable if reality were an infinite set of things.

Reality is the Absolute, in the Hegelian sense of the term.

Which means what, exactly?

for answering van Inwagen's Special Composition Question, aka SCQ:

You are getting lost in mereology, and I already addressed this with no response (on your end).

What I'm saying is that in the case of modality, you have the same structure, at least in principle:

Option 1) Never. If you choose this option, you're a modal nihilist.
Option 2) Sometimes. If you choose this option, you're a modal particularist.
Option 3) Always. If you choose this option, you're a modal universalist.

Modality is about possibility, necessity, and contingency: none of that made any sense.

do I have a "philosophical lead" here, so to speak? Or am I "way off"?

Why does that matter? Wouldn’t you rather come up with a good argument for why your position is true?

An argument can be formally valid (what you call "logical") and still be unsound (in the sense that at least one of the premises is false).

I get what you are going for here; but that’s not what the terms traditionally mean. Unsoundness is when the logic is invalid. What you are talking about is internal and external coherence.

Your OP is unphilosophical, as I said before, in the sense that, although it addresses a philosophy subject, it does not provide sufficient clarity and argumentation for it to be considered formally philosophical (by my lights). — Bob Ross

And that is fair. That you make such a judgement. It is fair.

Like I said before, it is philosophy in the sense that the subject matter which you wish to discuss is a part of philosophy. — Bob Ross

No Bob, please don't do that. You just said that my OP is unphilosophical, and I said that I'm fine with that. Now, out of pure intellectual curiosity, I want to know: what is it? The OP. What genre of writing does it belong to, in your honest opinion? Because that would help me in a a purely methodological sense. It doesn't matter if you give me the "wrong answer", for example "I think it's the literary genre of garbage pseudo-philosophy" or something like that. I promise I won't take any offense at your honest answer to the question that I'm asking.

No Bob, please don't do that.

I already said this twice now: the subject belongs in philosophy. That doesn't mean that your OP is a valid philosophy OP formally. I am not saying it is some toto genere different topic.

I think if you wrote the OP in a manner that was sufficiently clear, well-organized, and had legitimate argumentation for the conclusion; then it would be a good philosophy OP.

Wouldn’t you rather come up with a good argument for why your position is true? — Bob Ross

Sure, but I don't even have a position to begin with, that's the problem that I've been alluding to. There isn't much work that's already been done in this specific, uncharted area of the philosophical map.

I get what you are going for here; but that’s not what the terms traditionally mean. Unsoundness is when the logic is invalid. What you are talking about is internal and external coherence. — Bob Ross

Call it whatever you like, I simply share the viewpoint of my colleagues in the Analytic Metaphysics of Ordinary Objects on that topic.

I think if you wrote the OP in a manner that was sufficiently clear, well-organized, and had legitimate argumentation for the conclusion; then it would be a good philosophy OP. — Bob Ross

Bob. Honest question. How could I even do that, if the topic of the OP is literally unexplored, at least in a purely bibliographical sense?

This is what a good OP looks like: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15131/the-breadth-of-the-moral-sphere/p1 .

Sure, but I don't even have a position to begin with, that's the problem that I've been alluding to.

A good OP doesn't require that you pick a side on a topic: agnosticism is fine too. A good OP in the case of suspending judgment is to be openly convey your agnosticism, elaborate in detail on the topic you want to discuss, elaborate on the various solutions you are aware of, and ask for the forum's input.

Re-reading the OP, I just find it confusing and lacking clarity on what is going on: what's the agenda? Perhaps I am just missing the point.

What are you exploring? It isn't very clear what exactly is going on in the OP (to me). If I am being honest, it reads to me like you don't really know what you are exploring but you know you are exploring something.

Briefly re-reading it, you didn't even mention the PSR; which, as far as I can tell, is what you really want to talk about.

Re-reading the OP, I just find it confusing and lacking clarity on what is going on: what's the agenda? — Bob Ross

I mean, that's a bit of a brutal assumption to make in the first place, Bob. I don't have an agenda to begin with. Why would you assume that I have "an agenda"? What do you even mean by that? What is your intent when you ask such a question? Think of it as a Phenomenologist would, please. That would be very helpful for my investigation and thus, for the topic that the OP proposes to explore in this Thread.

Perhaps I am just missing the point. — Bob Ross

I don't think that you are. If you were, I would have told you. Or, if I was a very rude person, I would have "kicked you out of the Thread", or some nonsense like that. I mean, you are somewhat of a rude person, but that tells me nothing about your actual thoughts and opinions.

In other words, Bob, the bet that I "got for ya" here is a proposal, to look at how Korman himself proposes to resit the Argument From Vagueness against Restricted Composition. That is the only "philosophical lead" that I have found that could solve the problem of the OP.

Deal or no deal?

it reads to me like you don't really know what you are exploring but you know you are exploring something. — Bob Ross

Yes, that is exactly what is going on. This discussion that we're all having here, ever since the Thread started, is an attempt to clarify what is unphilosophical about the OP, for the purpose of turning it into a legitimate philosophical question.

Briefly re-reading it, you didn't even mention the PSR; which, as far as I can tell, is what you really want to talk about. — Bob Ross

Not quite. It's something else. What I want to talk about is factiality as such, which is related to, but not identical with, the PSR.

I mean, that's a bit of a brutal assumption to make in the first place, Bob.

Every OP has an agenda, just like a meeting does, or else it is just a tangent.

I mean, you are somewhat of a rude person, but that tells me nothing about your actual thoughts and opinions.

Lol, you are the one that told me to chill out being so kind.

Yes, that is exactly what is going on. This discussion that we're all having here, ever since the Thread started, is an attempt to clarify what is unphilosophical about the OP, for the purpose of turning it into a legitimate philosophical question.

So this is what I would suggest focusing on, instead of exploring. Your point of departure is the real issue here.

Deal or no deal?

What I am suggesting to you (although you can do as you please) is to accept the challenge of refining the OP to remove the ambiguity in your own thinking. That will help you tremendously. The OP is littered with vague concepts. So here's what I challenge you to do: think about what actually the problem is that you are wanting to address, what solutions you are aware of, and what position you hold (if any). Convey that to me in clear terminology, and I can help sort through it. Right now, there's too much confusion for me to even know what to do.

Every OP has an agenda, just like a meeting does, or else it is just a tangent. — Bob Ross

Would the following part qualify as the agenda?

Explanation for this whole thing: This is my "Love Letter" to Speculative Materialism, especially as developed by Quentin Meillassoux (particularly in his first book, After Finitude). Which is not to say that I agree with him on every topic, but sometimes his statements just leave you wondering... — Arcane Sandwich

Then you say:

Lol, you are the one that told me to chill out being so kind. — Bob Ross

Of course I did. I'm glad that you complied with that request.

What I am suggesting to you (although you can do as you please) is to accept the challenge of refining the OP to remove the ambiguity in your own thinking — Bob Ross

And all that I am humbly saying, is that I lack the knowledge, as a professional philosopher, to accomplish the task that you are suggesting that I perform. I need to tackle the problem of the OP step-by-step. It begins with a sketch (the OP itself), it continues as a progressive discussion throughout the Thread (the blacks, whites, and grays of the eventual painting), and finally it becomes a full-colored painting in the form of the comment that I personally choose as the comment that has solved the problem that the OP presented. Here's the trick: due to how good forum etiquette actually works, the "winning comment" in that sense cannot be mine. I cannot answer my own question, simply out of courtesy. Someone else, some other forum member, has to be the winner, and this is by definition.

So, again, can we please focus our attention on Korman's argument about composition? You're under no obligation to agree or to even contribute anything in that sense, you are obviously free to do as you please.

Would the following part qualify as the agenda?

Not in any meaningful sense. An OP is supposed to ask something of the audience: what about your “Love Letter” has to do with us? Are you asking us to critique it as a work of literature? Are you asking about a specific aspect of “Speculative Materialism”? Do you see how this is an incredibly vague agenda.

And all that I am humbly saying, is that I lack the knowledge, as a professional philosopher, to accomplish the task that you are suggesting that I perform

You don’t need to be a professional philosopher to be able to clearly identify what problem you are trying to address. Using a discussion to learn is perfectly fine; but what I am saying is that your OP betrays itself with its opacity.

So, again, can we please focus our attention on Korman's argument about composition?

I already did, and you never addressed them. You keep skipping around and selectively responding. I will refer you back to my response on Korman: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/957671 .

Not in any meaningful sense. An OP is supposed to ask something of the audience: what about your “Love Letter” has to do with us? Are you asking us to critique it as a work of literature? Are you asking about a specific aspect of “Speculative Materialism”? Do you see how this is an incredibly vague agenda. — Bob Ross

Ok, let's start with that. Let's make a better agenda. Agree? Don't mind if I just assume that you do, for the sake of expediency. Let's invent an agenda. I'll tell you my premises, and I'll tell you what my agenda is, taking those premises as mere "starting-point hypotheses" in the epistemological sense.

My premises, the premises of my personal philosophy, the ungrounded statements that I simply accept, for no other particular reason than the mere fact that I actually believe them to be true, are the following five terms.

1) Realism
2) Materialism
3) Atheism
4) Scientism
5) Literalism

From there, I can deduce, as a conclusion (due to a series of logical deductions that I will simply omit for the sake of expediency) that, the OP itself, which is literally my "Love Letter" to the book After Finitude, IS the agenda of the OP, not "the agenda" of me, Arcane Sandwich, as a person, or citizen, or what have you.

In the methodological recognition of the fact that Speculative Realism has already been discussed in this particular Forum in the past, the OP is simply an instance of a research activity that begins in media res. I am effectively charting new conceptual territory with Speculative Materialism itself in the OP, and I do so as a fan of Quentin Meillassoux and also as an informed, critical reader of After Finitude. If you do not agree even to these very basic terms of the discussion itself (i. e., the methodological decision to begin in media res), then I ask you to "look at this thing" from a more Medieval perspective, instead of the Classicist perspective so eloquently displayed as an image in you Forum avatar.

Catch my drift, Bob?

Note: I have edited this message for Clarity's sake. Who is Clarity, anyways?

Catch my drift, Bob?

No, I honestly am not: everything you just said is way too high-level and vague. An OP has to be concise, clear, and well-organized.

Let me try to help. It sounds like you want to discuss Speculative Realism. What specifically about it are you wanting to discuss? Korman’s mereological argument? Be specific (:

No, I honestly am not: everything you just said is way too high-level and vague. An OP has to be concise, clear, and well-organized. — Bob Ross

Unless it is an exploratory investigation in the methodological sense, unlike an OP which represents another type of discussion, such as the pros and cons of certain moral standpoint.

Let me try to help. It sounds like you want to discuss Speculative Realism. What specifically about it are you wanting to discuss? Korman’s mereological argument? Be specific (: — Bob Ross

Thanks for the help, it is much appreciated. Yes, I want to discuss Speculative Realism, but more specifically After Finitude, and more specifically the meaning of the term factiality, because that is what undercuts what I wrote in the OP.

Consider the first comment of the OP, from now own, "Version Zero" of this document (this Public Thread, which is now at page 5).

Henceforth, we will begin with "Version One" of the document from now on. I have the authority to make that call (as in, I am legitimized in my capacity to make that decision), for I am the author of the OP of this Thread.

Question of this Thread: What is factiality?

Why you should care about the Question of this Thread:
(this part needs to be completed. Can you please help me with this part, @Bob Ross? Just share your thoughts, think of it like a brainstorming exercise. Don't worry if your words become too "rambly", we're not at the "Painting stage" yet.

You think? I'm not so sure myself. Calling someone "ignorant" is just rude. Maybe I should retire that word from my personal vocabulary, but I'm not sure. What do you think about that? Is the word "ignorant" somehow insulting? I think it is, but I could be wrong. — Arcane Sandwich

It can be insulting to someone, but the ancients are all dead, and the deads won't mind being called "ignorant". Or maybe they might mind, but they won't know that you called them "ignorant". :D

Sure. But then I can talk about how those people talked about those objects. And how do I do that? First, I study what they said, then I study what those objects are. — Arcane Sandwich

Sure interesting point. You will find different people have different ideas on what being alive means. You have claimed that having the biological body cells, DNA and RNA in the body is the condition of being alive. But the ancient people must have thought that the dead are as alive as the living.
After physical death, soul travels from the mundane world to the heaven or hell or the world of idea, if they were platonians.

Most of them believed in Gods, Demons and Ghosts for sure. So physical bodies were not the only existence.

The moderns rejected souls, Gods, demons and dragons as unfounded superstitions due to lack of evidence on the claims and beliefs. But then there are many claims made by Science with little or no evidence. People tend to believe anything no matter how superstitious it may sound.

If the claims were under the name of science, then they would believe them blindly. So there is no much difference between scientific or religious claims in their superstitious nature.

DNA RNA are only meaningful for those who works in the labs with the white gowns. They mean nothing me. No matter how closely I inspect my hand and fingers I cannot find a trace of DNA or RNA.
For me being alive means being able to eat, drink, sleep well, and enjoy the pleasures from the daily routine.

there are many claims made by Science with little or no evidence. — Corvus

100%, that is True. Sting theory for example, has very little (if any) evidence. Some specific aspect of the theory of the Big Bang are mere speculation without good evidence (for example, the idea that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Perhaps there was something. For example, there could have been another Universe before the Big Bang, with its own spacetime)

People tend to believe anything no matter how superstitious it may sound, if the claims were under the name of science, then they would believe them. — Corvus

I'm not so sure about that. Some people today seem to believe very wild things, even when presented with good evidence to the contrary. The most extreme example would be the people that believe that the Earth is flat. Not people of ancient times, but some of the people of today, of the 21st Century. They believe that the Earth is flat even if science says that it is not. So, those people simply don't believe what science says. That is just one example (it's the most extreme one), and there are other, less extreme examples, as well.

So there is no much difference between scientific or religious claims in their superstitious nature. — Corvus

100%, that is a very good point. All that I would say is that in other senses, science is not like religion, because science is atheist (or at least agnostic). Individual scientists can be religious, but that is a private matter. Science, in the public sense, is not religious (it cannot be, by definition).

DNA RNA are only meaningful for those who works in the labs with the white gowns. They mean nothing me. No matter how closely I inspect my hand and fingers I cannot find a trace of DNA or RNA.
For me being alive means being able to eat, drink, sleep well, and enjoy the pleasures from the daily routine. — Corvus

Hmmm... that's a really good point. You seem to be a very good metaphysician.

Hmmm... that's a really good point. You seem to be a very good metaphysician. — Arcane Sandwich

Thank you sir. I am grateful to be able to discuss these topics with the renowned professional Metaphysician. :pray:

Thank you sir. I am grateful to be able to discuss these topics with the renowned professional Metaphysician. :pray: — Corvus

Well, I'm not renowned, but I'm actively working in the area of the Metaphysics of Ordinary Objects, so that must count for something (I hope!).

Yes, I want to discuss Speculative Realism, but more specifically After Finitude, and more specifically the meaning of the term factiality, because that is what undercuts what I wrote in the OP.

So this is good: we are getting somewhere. A good OP, I would say, about this would say exactly this; viz., an investigation into “factiality” as understood in After Finitude. That, in itself, paves a clear beginning path the discussion.

For example, right now, your OP asks a question which doesn’t reference “factiality”: it just asks about “factual properties” as it relates to the identity of yourself. With the clarification above, my response that “factual properties” make no sense may be misguided since I have no clue how “factiality” is being understood and used in After Finitude.

Question of this Thread: What is factiality?

Good. “What is factiality?” would be a superb discussion board title for this OP.

Why you should care about the Question of this Thread:

So, although you could mention why it matters, I would say that, first and foremost, an elaboration on what you mean by “factiality” and what you want to know about it would be essential to the OP. When someone reads “What is factiality?”—as the title—they get an inkling into something about “factiality” but since is a coined term—I am presuming—by the author of After Finitude it is critical to elaborate (at least briefly) on what the term refers to. It could be as brief as “I would like to get everyone’s take on “factiality” as understood in <author’s-name>’s After Finitude’.

Then, I would suggest elaborating on what exactly about it you would like to discuss. I can’t offer help meaningfully on this part because I have no clue what “factiality” means in that book because I have no read it nor am I acquainted with it in any significant sense.

Do you see what I mean?

as a professional metaphysician (I think I've earned the right to call myself that, I have enough metaphysical publications in professional journals to qualify as such), — Arcane Sandwich

Now you've got me curious! Would you be willing to share a link to one of them with us?

Do you see what I mean? — Bob Ross

Yes, of course. I've been seeing it ever since you joined this Thread (without even saying hello, as I've already pointed out. You see, you are rude, objectively speaking. I mean that simply as an objective description of your moral character (which I do not claim to know) from the point of view of mere etiquette. And this, what I just said in this paragraph, is what I call "rambly talk". I prefer to avoid it, but sometimes that is not the wisest course of action. So, let us "carry on", so to speak.

A motion of order.

@Bob Ross has suggested that the title of this Thread should be changed. The new title will be:

an investigation into “factiality” as understood in After Finitude. — Bob Ross

Moving on, you then say:

For example, right now, your OP asks a question which doesn’t reference “factiality”: it just asks about “factual properties” as it relates to the identity of yourself. With the clarification above, my response that “factual properties” make no sense may be misguided since I have no clue how “factiality” is being understood and used in After Finitude. — Bob Ross

I have already addressed this point, Bob. See above. For reference:

Consider the first comment of the OP, from now own, "Version Zero" of this document (this Public Thread, which is now at page 5).

Henceforth, we will begin with "Version One" of the document from now on. I have the authority to make that call (as in, I am legitimized in my capacity to make that decision), for I am the author of the OP of this Thread.

Question of this Thread: What is factiality? — Arcane Sandwich

Carrying on, you say:

“What is factiality?” would be a superb discussion board title for this OP. — Bob Ross

Hmmm... But you seemed to suggest another title: "an investigation into “factiality” as understood in After Finitude.". That would be the title. Instead, "What is factiality" is the question of the OP. I am using the Forum suggestion for this format, Bob, specifically the Thread titled How to Write an OP.

So, although you could mention why it matters, I would say that, first and foremost, an elaboration on what you mean by “factiality” and what you want to know about it would be essential to the OP. When someone reads “What is factiality?”—as the title—they get an inkling into something about “factiality” but since is a coined term—I am presuming—by the author of After Finitude it is critical to elaborate (at least briefly) on what the term refers to. It could be as brief as “I would like to get everyone’s take on “factiality” as understood in <author’s-name>’s After Finitude’. — Bob Ross

Yes, I think you're exactly right about that. I will write such things afterwards, in this discussion, and if they "look good" to you, then (and only then) I will edit the original OP, so as to incorporate all of the changes (such as the change of title, the change of question, etc.)

Then, I would suggest elaborating on what exactly about it you would like to discuss. I can’t offer help meaningfully on this part because I have no clue what “factiality” means in that book because I have no read it nor am I acquainted with it in any significant sense. — Bob Ross

This part will be incorporated as well into the original OP once we approve the suggested changes throughout this discussion. And by that point, you will have a full understanding of the concept of "factiality". And once you do, we can begin the "real talk", so to speak.

as a professional metaphysician (I think I've earned the right to call myself that, I have enough metaphysical publications in professional journals to qualify as such), — Arcane Sandwich


Now you've got me curious! Would you be willing to share a link to one of them with us? — J

Hmmm... I don't know. However, I will say this: I've left enough "clues" throughout this Forum, since I joined a few days ago. If you look for them, you'll be able to piece everything together, in such a way that you will arrive at my publications. If this is too much of a hassle, then just send me a Private Message, and I'll happily share some links. Sound fair?

Bob, specifically the Thread titled How to Write an OP.

The guidelines you linked is essentially what I am advocating here for.

You see, you are rude, objectively speaking

I am going to kill you with kindness :kiss: ; and, since you have mentioned this at least twice, I am disregarding your request for me to be less kind.

This part will be incorporated as well into the original OP once we approve the suggested changes throughout this discussion

Again, this is the wrong way to do it; but, alas, I remove my hat from the ring (since I have nothing more of use to say).

And by that point, you will have a full understanding of the concept of "factiality". And once you do, we can begin the "real talk", so to speak.

Let me know once you change, and I can take another look at the OP. Right now, I don’t know what “factiality” means, I haven’t read the appropriate works (to this OP), and have said everything noteworthy about the form and methodological approach (in this OP). I fear, there is nothing else I can contribute at this point; unless you want to explain to me what “factiality” means.

unless you want to explain to me what “factiality” means. — Bob Ross

Yes, I choose this option of the dilemma that you are presenting me. I already gave you a link to the dictionary definition for the word "factiality". I will quote the definition of that word:

factiality
Noun (uncountable)
(philosophy) In the philosophy of Quentin Meillassoux, the principle that things could be other than they are — we can imagine reality as being fundamentally different even if we never know such a reality — part of a critique of correlationism.

Related terms: factial

factial
(philosophy) Of or relating to factiality. — Wiktionary

And here is Meillassoux's own definition, in After Finitude:

Let us settle on a terminology. From now on, we will use the term 'factiality' to describe the speculative essence of facticity, viz., that the facticity of every thing cannot be thought as a fact. — Quentin Meillassoux

Those are the literal words, Bob. Tell me what you think of them, please.