Fair enough. Neither am I, but that's because we're on a philosophy forum. If i was, in earnest, charged with carrying a motivation of consolidating my 'power' (I don't have any, ftr) I would definitely bristle. It's an incorrect and incredibly damaging thing to charge someone with, if taken seriously. Ironically, it is patently sexist and misandrist nonsense, which has become widespread.

Actually, this does remind me: I was falsely accused of rape at the age of 16. I was raped at the age of 18. Can you guess how each of these scenarios went? I'm sure you can. And both occasions, sexism and assumptions about me qua male only informed everyone's reactions and how I was treated. Absolutely abhorrent levels of hate, based on my sex. In both scenarios. I cannot overlook this for rhetoric around how women are so hard done-by. It wasn't even illegal to rape a minor male in my country until 2006.

It'll be quite interesting to see how these threads go when, in say six years time, shit's the same. No disaster, no world war, no collapse of society... Wonder how we will deal with that.

Can anyone explain to me how the fear of (else the roundabout concern that) “women are taking over and are destroying the core of masculinity” is in fact not a communal projection of personally held aspirations by a certain male faction in society, one composed of individuals that themselves desire to be domineering over all others - women very much here included as those whom they deem themselves entitled to subjugate? — javra

I don't know a single person who could take this as anything other than an insult to their morality (restrict this to males I know). No, that's not a fact - but in response to your question, I dont recognise this as even a tacitly motivating factor. It may be something totally unnoticed by most men (i.e, that their power exists, and whatever they're doing unfortunately promotes it) but that its a 'projection' of some intent to keep power is patently ridiculous when applied to the majority of men outside of boards and governments (even then, most are literally working day-in-day-out to promote women and women's rights - current administration notwithstanding, given they're not the totality of politicians by a long shot, in that one country).

A much bigger and better question is why we don't care that most of hte world is out-right misogynistic and violently so, with the backing of the law? What does the West have that these other cultures don't? No idea. Probably an attempt to dispose of arbitrary rules (read: an attempt to jettison religion) but that's not a very serious note I'm ending on.

Is the occurrence of "masculinity" of itself contingent on there existing "a weaker sex"? — javra

I doubt it, unless you mean physically. Femininity isn't inherently 'weak' other than physically.
That in mind, It's simply stupid to argue that a. men and women don't significantly differ in average strength, and b. that this isn't extremely important to intersexual relations/relationships. Even removing all arbitrary uses of force, this will remain one the most fundamental differences and motivation factors for the inevitably different approaches the sexes take to each other, overall. Though, I do think a belief that this extends to psychology and emotional maturity/intelligence has been a significant and embarrassingly shit motivation for, at the least, bad expressions of masculinity.

I also uphold that "if there will be a war between the sexes, there'll be no people left". This pretty much summing up my own view. — javra

My position is that htis is utterly preposterous and the only foreseeable outcome of that kind of war would be a return to the physical subjugation of women, globally.

I'm a bisexual man, but a fairly 'masculine' one, it seems. I don't recognise the vast majority of accusations laid at the feet of 'masculinity'. Why not just acknowledge that some people are total assholes? Women are just as capable of being pernicious and socially destructive. The difference is men hurt people physically whcih must be accounted for - but the principle does not change. Both sexes are capable of 'sexed' behaviour which is utterly toxic and destructive to society.

There is 100% inarguably an over-assumption of the intent of men to rape women, and the actual number of people who do this (or, sexually assault them in any way that speaks to intent - this is, in my experience and knowledge, equal between the sexes, but for some reason if both are drunk he's the bad guy.. go figure).
This isn't to ignore the facts. Which is ironic, considering the thread.

To answer OP, I think it is folly to assume they were not. But I would defer to takes like Mill's, which points out that most women were, at least to some degree, willing participants due to centuries of indoctrination and then in each individual female, their lot was given to them via education and the wisdom of their parents - furthering that participation by coercion.
This all to say, we wouldn't have much evidence, despite javra's references, that consistent and constant sexual assault occurred, as it has everywhere we have ever documented it (though, it shouldn't really be needed, but around here it tends to be: This does not speak against my opening point. It speaks to the well-known fact that extremes of violence and rights-interference is almost solely the domain of a specific, small group men.).

I don't think many people outside of the types of chambers in which these one-sided conversations happen would recognise a lot of the OP as accurately describing much about htem, their views, or what they want for hte world/society. Makes it tough going to even get off that post something that can be adequately responded to without sounding off topic. So here we are. Sounding off topic.

Edit: Having read a couple pages now, I see nothing reasonable was going to come out of this. Sigh.

Yes. Without doubt. That does not mean I don't, overall, enjoy my life. I have an interest in continuing to exist. But, having never existed seems to me the best version of reality.

Thank you Tom :) Hope you're well over the ditch!

Genuinely worried you're mentally ill. I am not being disingenuous. Your behaviour mirrors my bipolar brother. I will refrain from further comment , leaving this as reasoning for same.

I tried that too! @T Clark

Let's see if that works..

Probably hte main read-across is that his conception of how media works (if correct) should mean Republicans never read it, and instead have these types of conversations.
Weirdly, I think republicans are better at starting this conversation - but being widely religious and/or impervious to reason in the specific context of arguing their views with dissidents who see them in a bad light they fail to follow through with finding the common ground I want to find.

Democrats (card carrying, lets say) shouldn't read the media either, because they tend to not accept that the conversation is legitimate, and that all those opposed are moral monsters. The media confirms this. Neither position is helpful, and largely is just the narrative media spins about each group, to each group - I.e almost wholly inaccurate.

I think his point on Oligarchy per se (buying power) in light of democracy is far more apt that probably anyone wants to accept for their own side too - if people could speak about avoiding things like this, we'd have a better conversation about what policies to implement.

"drain the swamp" wouldn't have been a joke to Democrats if they accepted tehir party is incredibly corrupt too but republicans wouldn't have made it a joke if they'd accept it about theirs. Without the cross-party (socially speaking, not politically speaking) conversations about shared goals are essential to avoid constantly talking to bumper stickers instead of arguments.

No, not futile, but dangerous when assumed to be objective. But, this supposes I have a moral belief "people should not think morality is objective" which would defeat the view I actually hold (similar, very similar, to T Clark (who I cannot tag?).

Yes, all moral systems are flawed (comments to the opposite seem... silly. Where's the flawless moral system you think exists?). That doesn't render them futile. It just, again, makes it dangerous to pretend they are flawless.

That one ought not kick puppies is a reason for you to stop others kicking puppies. "One ought not kick puppies" is different to "Boo puppy kicking". — Banno

No, it really is not. "one ought not kick puppies" means "I think one ought not kick puppies". Nothing more. It means the speaker believes it to be true, referring to nothing further.

Also surely, yes. I would want a system of court order to create the avenue to do the deed, as it were.
I'm also not entirely sure it's going to help. Quite a number of beneficiaries (potentially a majority) are dishonest about their income, out going and circumstance. These things would create other crimes which could be adequately seen to without the above suggestion.

Happy to agree to disagree.

Noting that if that wasn't your reason for posting, I may have inadvertently mislead you, I find your conclusion there bizarre. We should be positive about any instances of finding common ground and understanding, I think.

We may not need to see eye-to-eye, but that's true of literally any two individuals. Policies cannot be adequately discussed without assessing goals first. Point blank period. Ignoring this will ensure you cannot have a reasonable conversation about policy.

Don't ask me why someone who can afford a Tesla is driving for LYFT, but nonetheless — BC

Second-hand Teslas are quite affordable and often come with off-sets, making a business purchase quite viable. The rest of that sounds a whinge.

With a better reason than 'reasonable suspicion', yes. No one who benefits from the state should have a carte blanche on funds they receive from the state.

I have a disabled wife, and we've had similar things happen (though, they have not gone into bank accounts) which has left us in terrible circumstances. But it was correct to do so. We were overpaid.

Haha, possibly. I think they do, they just aren't ones you'd agree with. Mostly, not ones i'd agree with either. THough, this actually raises my point to much more clarity: If I am right, it is much easier to point out to Republicans how their government is not moving toward their goals.

One of the main goals will allways be — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think this is a fair, or reasonable thing to say, no matter what comes next.
I don't think you'll get this answer from anyone having this discussion. That, again, would make it very clear when their actions align with this goal rather than others that they might profess.

The space for alignment of goals and policies is already restricted by ideologies and the political process, is what i'm getting at. — ChatteringMonkey

But again, this absolutely ignores what I'm saying: Sure, to stop it. Start by having this discussion. It is not possible for ideology to get in the way of this. All it can do is leave someone bereft of answers, and egg on their face. Not that this works in all cases, but it has almost universally allowed me to find common ground and understanding with people who's chosen polices are in the negative column, for me.

This seems all an argument trying to say I don't understand language. — prothero

No, no. While I'm not sure how you got that, really, it was not my intention at all. I do think you're using words in an incoherent fashion, but that's not to say you don't know this. Most people like to do so, and it doesn't seem to get in the way of much. I am just telling you where it's causing me problems.

try "prehension" for the idea instead but you will likely have to look it up. — prothero

It seems I'm one of the only posters who has read Process and Reality. LOL.

Where in the chain of nature do you speculate mind begins or ends? — prothero

I don't think this is a particularly good question. I don't know how to answer it. I doubt anyone does. A brain seems to imply a mind. That's all I can give you. I don't 'believe' anything on this front.

Neither consciousness. Whenever a being has a subjective experience, they are conscious. That's the best I can give you *shrug*. I can't think of a more helpful use of that word. You may be able to. Yours, to me, seems very unhelpful (eg by folding jellyfish and insects into the 'conscious' category it overlaps with others and just further muddies the waters we're trying to clear).

I don't think they are related, per se. We can have an ultimately meaningless universe and still note things which push toward, or away from, flourishing. What that means is the problem.

Unfortunately not. While reading Ivan i had a rather intense, and close call with cancer. I think I'll give it a while.

Most of us who see Mikie is a completely unhinged child do agree with this. For my part, i've never suggested otherwise. He's not often wrong, he's just a patently aggressive, disrespectful and emotionally immature person.
Perhaps "existential" is a bit far in my book, but that's due to something other than "the case right now"

You may reject such a notion but only because of your definition of experience as requiring consciousness or at least self awareness. — prothero

I'll be honest: your conception is entirely incoherent to me. I cannot find a way to have it make sense in any practical way. It seems a side-step or macguffin type re-definition of the word 'experience' into (literally) non-experience, by something which is unaware. I cannot bring myself to accept this, i'm afraid. I take all your points about language, but unless you're telling me there is no way to criticise language use, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to put across. It just seems contradictory (or, at least, a total and utter, patent cop-out). Nothing personal in that at all.

Subjective experience by its very nature is beyond the realm of measurement, quantification or direct observation. — prothero

But it is, by definition and logical necessity, an experience by a subject. If one is not aware, this is not possible. So again, I take your point, but unless you wholesale reject the concept if 'error' here, I can't see it holding any water.

that such speculations do not deny or ignore whatever scientific information or data are available. — prothero

This is fair, but I think exactly the same problem as you have with language. At these fringey, ambiguous, speculative edges of thinking(or working?) we do not have solid, inarguable scientific knowledge. So, again, while that's fair, I think its an overextension to say that this applies to science, and not language (as we currently use it). It would be extremely hard for the average person to even understanding "experience" without a conscious subject to have the experience.

These are all opinions stated as facts which I am sure i do as well. — prothero

I take it then, that you feel there is no matter of fact for these issues. IF that's the case, why are we having the discussion? Again, not personal. That just seems a dim waaste of time.

Consciousness in the broader sense comprises the entire framework within which knowledge is obtained in the first place. — Wayfarer

I am sorry - this comes across as new age fluff. Can you be a bit more precise? We're getting into an area where claims are floating off into the ether, not even attached to coherent language.

It is hard to see how in a barren universe devoid of any form of subjective experience it could arise — prothero

Its also extremely hard to see from whence it could arise, in a "consciously dead" universe. "levels of consciousness" does not explain the sudden arising of subjective experience (which, by any cut, is an off/on type of change. You can't be "semi-aware" in any sense relevant to what we're discussing).

Again, you have leapfrogged the entire point I have made.

THe methodology I'm using would expressly ignore policy at the first stage of discussion, and only focus on getting on the same ground about goals. You cannot speak about policy unless you're clear on what your goals are. And you cannot speak about all policies. This is the fatal flaw in modern politic discourse, as far as i'm concerned, and why discussions like the (overwhelmingly, anyway) political threads here - they're trying to make meta-political points by way of specific policies or outcomes. Doesn't work like that, plainly.

Unless your goal is to ignore your opposition, not make any effort to understnad them, and not make any effort to actually achieve some kind of unity or peace, then sure, that's the way to go. IF you are wanting that, understanding people's aims and how their values inform them has to be prior to policy. You're literally grasping around in the dark (usually in anger) otherwise.

I don't have one, because I am adult. It seems Mikie not only needs an ignore list, he chooses, instead, to lean into everything that could show his childish side. Not my circus :P

I'm waiting for something a bit more on the nose...

Oh, this one was deep. Say more!

I feel pretty strongly that human consciousness has evolved from more primitive forms of mind in nature. I also largely reject the notion that “mind” emerged de novo from nature without more primitive precursors being present. — prothero

No issues with this. I find the preamble a bit out of hte place though. I am being quite specific about what hte terms mean, for me, in those sentences. So if that's just context for your questions, fair enough, but I want to be clear - they are simply terms for me. They are not ambiguous and I don't use htem interchangeably. The only one that can be multi-faceted in my mind, is 'experience'. Something without any awareness can 'go through' something (as in the body example) but I cannot find anything subjective in that, so I reject the term 'experience' in the context we're speaking. Experience means subjective awareness of one's own life/circumstances.

I am a panpsychist of sorts. — prothero

Same, but it's vague and ill-defined, so it's an intuition and nothing I could support properly, I think.

Have you worked with cows? — prothero

Yessir.

responsive to environmental changes and threats than you wish to give them credit for.s I think you will find they are not stimulus fixed response creatures in the way you propose. — prothero

I do not see reason for this in the research I've seen/known about. Bees are certainly very complex systemically. AN individual bee? Not really, no. Happy to be shown something though!

For me this means they perceive, are aware and respond. — prothero

These are reactions you're describing, not responses. I think that's a key difference here, in how we're seeing the word experience. Jellyfish do not have brains. They sense and react (though, this is erroneously described as 'response' in places but that is patently not the case). I see your view of it, but don't think it makes much sense, personally. The claim that one can experience without a mind seems absurd on it's face, and on further analysis.

Certainly perception in the sense of being “aware” of the wider or external world and responding to it is pretty widespread (if not universal) in the natural world. — prothero

False. The ability to receive and react to stimuli is, as I take it, literally universal in the animal kingdom (as it is a property of animals). Awareness and deliberative response is common, but far, far, far from Universal. Can you elaborate on why you would make that claim?

Have you watched Corvids solve puzzles or octopi opening jars? — prothero

Yes, and to the following question too.

It seems the height of anthropocentric thought to deny the abilities of our follow creatures in terms on their performance. — prothero

I don't know what you mean, but it's highly likely I haven't done whatever you're complaining about.

It also seems quite illogical and against evolution to postulate that human thought and consciousness arrived in the world without a long evolutionary path and many precursor forms of mind in nature. — prothero

Probably. But I have no reason to reject that at a certain point, consciousness arises at a level far, far beyond the previous. We have no evidence of this run-up, and we're pretty damn good at finding gradual processes in the records.

I note that this has stimulated some excellent exchanges from a variety of perspectives. — Amity

You think so... Feel free. It's as bad as Twitter, most of the time. Sure, some great points get made. Generally, not by the posters you are thinking of.

This all said, it is patently clear you take a certain view here, which is decidedly political, and are not quite open to discussions of disagreement. That's also fine, but I prefer not to operate that way. Most people in those threads behave the way i described. Evidenced by their own panicked responses to trivial comments, throughout. Again, that's fine. Not how I would operate, as it doesn't seem to cohere with reality (on my view).

Listen to what people are saying about their concerns and problems. Then, act to show you care and will support them, in real terms. — Amity

I do the former. The latter is then not possible.

There is a lot to be learned from people who invest their time and energy analysing 'what is going on'. Who care to question, respond and explain. — Amity

Generally, not. The majority of these people are diving into a pool of their own creation, and are rarely providing anything by way of novel or interesting insights. Generally, this only happens when one changes 'camps' as it were (which si not always good, granted. Perhaps, in the main, not good. Context matters for that one).

However, what is happening now can't be ignored or denied. — Amity

Well, it can, in the terms presented hereabouts. There's something going on, that's for sure, and I've not suggested otherwise. But claims like this are Kafka traps. Either I agree with you, or i'm ignorant and 'of course you'd say that'. It's not a good faith approach. The fact is, it can be framed completely differently form the panicked, self-referential crap that is bandied about in this forum (and that is simply my view. Not 'the truth' as it seems to be interpreted as - I'm not even that smart, but I respond rather than react which I think is crucial). Analyzing what's going on does not need to always land on the same crash pad.

I can respect people's views, respect the effort their putting in as people, humans, thinkers - and still think the conclusions are batshit (though, that's probably only relevant to a few here - most are pretty switched on, just.. emotionally invested in a way that skews things).

I always understand what you mean — Vera Mont

This is patently untrue. Unless you are also a wilfull troll. That would explain the disparate responses well too.

I have piles of facts and statistics — Vera Mont

There's a big blank space where you claim this. There always is.

I didn't claim anything — Vera Mont

Can you cite where I've gone wrong on facts or statistics? — Vera Mont

Hehe.

Your response was not relevant. — Vera Mont

Yet, here you are. And there's nothing wrong with that, other than noting you've delved into something irrelevant over several hundred words. For what reason, I cannot tell, unless there's something in what I've said.

I expect that's pretty much what Romulus Augustulus said, the year before he was deposed. — Vera Mont

And he was entirely right. The mistake you're intimating here is the exact one I've charged you with. Ironic, but not surprising.

I got mine, Jack. (for now) Whatever others suffer is no skin off my ass. — Vera Mont

Right o. Take care.

What is unclear about it? — Christoffer

No, it's not that it's unclear (although, I could wrangle it in that direction). It's that I think the 'view' described is erroneous to a rather extreme degree :) It was quippage, not argument.

This is getting fun again Mikie! Repeat yourself MORE! :D

:ok: :up:

Those people must be insufferable, just real douchers. — Fire Ologist

They are. Trying to talk to someone of genuine faith about something for which there is contrary evidence is one of the most trying tasks a human can undertake. The Lane Craig example is exemplary. LOL.

Am I really a doucher and I just never applied my reasoning to the situation? Banno thinks I can’t even reason - now I’ll have nothing left!! — Fire Ologist

If, in a conversation, you display bare denial of evidence which contradicts your stated belief, yep, you would insufferable and liable to being ostracised by those exercising sufficient reason. I don't think that's good, but it does tend to be what happens.

Is believing vital to the mix? — Fire Ologist

That is what faith amounts to. Belief in lieu of, or despite evidence. An educated guess doesn't require faith in anything but the means of education, as far as I can tell. Faith is not an educated guess. Faith is a commitment. Faith is something which you wholesale give your faculties over to, as a guiding principle chief among others. Lane Craig, again, shows this well.

Risk involves a lack of knowledge, an act despite the lack of knowledge, like belief despite any reasoning or evidence. — Fire Ologist

Risk, generally, involves reasoning. These are not related, as I see them.

I think belief, reasoning, knowledge are simultaneously at work in many of our actions, and a ‘faith’ is just another ‘science’ which is just another ‘story’, because it’s just another wording, which relies on beliefs, reasoning and knowledge to happen. You choose your beliefs, but we are all slaves to believing something. — Fire Ologist

Sorry to say, this sounds like pure prevarication. The first line up to "..,and" is apt. That seems obvious. But that doesn't give rise to Faith in many (if any) scenarios. Faith generally isn't required to motivation action. Beliefs about beliefs? An interesting area. Not one which impinges on these views of Faith, though. Though, I think it is clear, and inarguable, that Faith requires commitment to a concept in spite of xx, yy and zz. The others do not.

No facts or statistics necessary. — Amity

She claimed to have them. There were none. Please re-read the exchange, because you're defending something explicitly stated, as not stated.

To backtrack, Vera was responding to my question: — Amity

I am aware. This is not relevant for the subsequent exchange.

It is derogatory to suggest this is a 'rant'. Not to mention condescending in tone. — Amity

I'm sorry, but you literally quoted me disowning this in explicit terms. It has nothing to do with me if you're either unable to read, or not able to understand. I did my diligence here and wont be held to your internal offense meter.

I also note your response is pointless, and entirely out of pocket. I was talking to Vera. Not you.

So what, if this has been discussed before. It is new to this thread and new readers.
It bears repeating. — Amity

You do not understand, whatsoever, what that line means. Vera does. Because she and I have been here before.

Which is why I'm here. — Amity

Then none of this makes sense. Speak with her.

This is a point in history but not like any other. — Amity

No point in history is like any other. Ironically, histrionics is what has people making these claims. We are not special. Our time is not special.

Nobody is pretending anything. This is a crisis. If you don't recognise that, then so be it. — Amity

No, it isn't. Most people in those threads you mention are absolutely out of their minds on panic and sniffing their own arses. If you cannot see that, so be it. But given I spend time outside of lil political bubbles, and subscribe to no common ideologies, It is clear as day.

Well, like most, we see what we want to see. — Amity

Correct. That is what I have pointed out.

But that is more than I am prepared to do, right now. — Amity

That's fair, but probably best not to broach that then to avoid being charged with being either a diletante or coward. I am not intending to insult - this seems a correct view.

Misogyny is only part of Trump's regressive destruction of rights and justice systems.
Happening right now.
Full throttle.
Without a breath.
It is not a time to step back. But yes, to take a deep breath and step up. In whatever way we can. — Amity

You think a crisis is in full swing. You're bound to say these things. If you could enumerate what rights you're talking about, we can discuss. (Roe v Wade wont go well for anyone arguing that this is a removal of women's rights - it is patently not, unless you consider access to specific medical procedures a human right. If you do, fine. I don't).

Cows have brains. I take it they have a mind, but cannot be sure. I also take it they have experiences, as they appear to deliberate and show awareness to a relatively high degree for a lower animal, as it were.

Bees have brains. They might have minds. I do not think they have experiences. They do not seem aware of much. They seem to react, not respond, to stimuli.

How about sentience, awareness, perception, etc. — prothero

Awareness is the best corollary of consciousness in my view. The P Zombie notwithstanding. If you are not aware that you are undergoing X, you are not experiencing it. Your body might be, in some super-strict sense, but what we mean here is subjective experience. So, if you're not aware, that's not on the table.

Perception is the weirdest of all these to me, because it seems to have a dual meaning even in this specific context: It can mean that your apparatus can receive information - but it can also mean that you are aware of said information. I leave this one to the side lol.

My comment can be translated into your question. What hte heck is being talked about there? Nonsense, at best.

I see. An overview of history is insufficient basis for an opinion. OK — Vera Mont

No, and you would do well not to quip when you've clearly not understood what has been said. We've been here before too, Vera.

Almost certainly neither. These discussions are ridiculous and don't account for almost any relevant calibrator.
In this case, it's more than likely that higher unemployment among young men is causing it inter alia. Additional issue is the fact that men are not encouraged to achieve very highly and haven't been for some time (though, this is canvassed in the article.. What can be said for it is up in the air).

And there it is again :)

THe entire post is just you going over how you feel. There aren't any facts or statistics that can be quibbled with - which is why I gave a similar response.

doesn't make me feel the slightest bit good. — Vera Mont

You've not understood what I've said. "About themselves" is appended to what you've responded to. And, in this sense, you're continuing the trend it seems by somehow saying you don't feel good about... not feeling good. I think we've been here before, Vera.

Seems to me, it is only perspective that can lead to these sorts of rants (not derogatory - anything adequately complete will be a rant in this context). If this were based on 'facts' then your personal feelings wouldn't be relevant. When i speak of perspective here, it's an impetus that says "No, it is not likely that your view of your own era is accurate, historically. Nor could it be". And so having a bit of perspective may well change your feelings regardless of "the facts and statistics" which are not here, anyway. You claim both to live as a optimistic youth, but carry an abysmal view of the world in whcih you live, which has only "gone downhill" for fifty years. *shrug* i guess.

Sure. Your consistent inability to maintain an adult's emotional capacity is a laugh.

I think this will lead us into a disagreement about language, about the definition of consciousness? — prothero

I don't see that it will - but that could be another interesting discussion!

mind, experience and consciousness — prothero

A mind can be conscious. A conscious mind can experience.

They can also not. So, i hold these to be sufficiently different to say "no" to your question.

What entities or creatures in nature do you consider to be conscious, to have experience? — prothero

Conscious minds, when they also have experience. I believe a conscious mind is necessary, but not sufficient. Whence commeth Chalmers.