the human condition 0027 31May – fundamental and universal

realityhc

the human condition and reality
– fundamental and universal

Universal and fundamental is projection – by our whole being, through the CNS

The human condition and reality, hc.r
Gendo, Orientation

Fundamental and universal, of us and our reality, is projection – our projected “actuality” (in projected space), and our “whole being” of reality who projects us (through his or her CNS or Central Nervous System).
Projection means there’s who projects.
“Behind all this”, our reality, is our whole being, whose CNS is an integral part of him or her.
How can we be in relation with our whole? Why should we care?

hc.r
In our whole, in his or her projected part,
we have our freedom and place
our existential self and social identity
exhaustion and sleep, vitality and life
our human being-ness and animal nature
the child within us and the regressive forms
our sense of the worlds out-side and within,
of others, places and time,
and of self.

The sub-conscious other-side and
deeper conscious being below,
our conscious and
our sense of boundary and beyond,
they extend
different ways
in different directions.

Our all
and all that we may be,
is a part of our whole.

How may we be,
as part of this whole being?

the human condition 0022 23May17 – conscious experience and self witnessed in projected space

 

realityhc

the human condition and reality
– conscious experience and self witnessed, in projected space

Is it about being?
Or is it state of being?

Is it about doing or what we do?
Saying and what is said.

We read,
gawk and talk.

Cognitive conscious experience and self,
our knowing of the world we see
and our seeing when we understand.

With sense of body and the world,
our reality of conscious experience and self is witnessed,
a float within incomplete boundaries and spaces
that open and extend different ways,
in different directions.


Within projection is disassociation that differentiate, displace and locate, into the
the various aspects that make-up or construct our reality.

It is something like the multiplying of cells, as one cell doubles and divides into two cells. Within an organism, cells specialise or differentiate, as particular parts to its whole, and in relation to other parts locate (orientation in space) and in relation with its whole (orientation with whole being).

Our whole includes us, as self or identity, as a part of his or her projected part – we are a part of a projected part of who also has solid body and organ parts, and who is more than the sum of those projected and solid parts.

We are a projected part in a projected reality. It includes as its parts, our inside and outside worlds, our sense of being in them, and the empty spaces that extend between and beyond the disassociated and displaced projected parts.

A whole being of reality
“projects” our reality,
of conscious experience and self
witnessed.

Through the CNS we are displaced,
from whole body and being who is also whole self,

into projection
our placement in space.

Turned inside out, as if it were
from whole body through solid organ,
functioning brain and spine,
to projection
into space projected
disassociated and bundled, twists and loops.

Figure &8
float our bundle through,
corner our realms through levels to depths,
underside, other-side, beyond.

The core is the reference for our upright float
vertical axis to horizons’ float.

The core is the reference for the whole being
and the brain and spine,
CNS’ level and vertical float
an orientation to our projected float.

With sense of axis,
up-righted square with spread
held in Rubix-ed lattice matrix,
captured in space
of lost and bubbled bloat
occupying space.

We present to our whole in referring to his or her core.

Let the hum of nervous activity reach us,
of structure, form, and substance,
the brain’s dome split Left Right,
underside level with horizon,
and vertical spine to nerve roots and tip,
of their float in whole body
as integral organ and part.
(CNS Central Nervous System formerly includes the brain, spine and nerve roots.)

Let us, projected part, be touched
and in our being as projection,
by some thing of our whole maker,
our making and
for being a part.

We are a geometric piece, in our actuality as projection, to an architectural structure, levelled with spread and layered, that is engineered for our piece as part to integrate with its whole, a process of becoming a part.

hc.r Aut3 new moon

tt 23May17
updated 31May17

A text-ed tour

From the exhibition Orientation – the cognitive part.

The depictions indicate the “projected actuality” of our reality, our existence in fact as projection in space.

Aspects of our reality occupy certain places in relation with the whole self, and in certain distributions or “shapes”, as projected by our whole. They are depicted as captures from behind, together with an indication of the whole self, in some.

imgp33171 Cornered across (with vision)” So, with the depictions, “it” is there in you. There is nothing solid about our reality, and we occupy space as projected by our whole through the CNS.

This is our line-up with and where we face in vision the world out there.
This is the self or identity coming across to identify with vision.
The witness is back behind this cornering.

This out-line in grey of the head, neck and shoulders represents the subtle sense of our whole being. He/she is a subtle sense because he/she does not exist in our reality of projection, but gives us more a sense of where we are, centred on his or her right.

The conscious, like coconut palm fronds, reigns from above as if to shed light on our reality. Because we are mainly in the spread across including the self and vision, the conscious itself is more a scooped-out absence.

These lines, around the lower part of the cornering, indicate our front and back, before the witness behind.


knobly-join2
Knobbly join” There again is the head, neck and shoulders, indicating the subtle sense of the whole self who is in and of reality and does not exist in projection, but gives us our sense of where we are,

Vision is here.

The wot and the wit stands for the world out there (up, front and to the right, there on you and me) and the world in there (down, behind and snug towards our cosy core, there on you and me), that we may experience.

The circle between the wot and the wit, is the self having an experience. The self is understood to be inseparable from experience itself – “what is experience without self, what is self without experience?”.

Experience itself is separate from what is experienced. What we experience, out there and within, is the object to our self having an experience.

The face (left half of the self circle)) is the identity, determined more by our world and society. Conscious is there again reigning from above, but not as coconut palm fronds but more as its body.

The world out there has an angle, forwards, up and across to the right vs. our inner reality that extends back, under and nuzzles towards the core (mid-line) of the body. You can distinguish your wot and wit, quite readily in your own situation I think. You are the identity in the knobbly join between them.

bass-clefr3 Bass clef (of sound)” There are more recognisable shapes here. The bass clef and the top of the treble clef.

Now again, it is our actuality, a depiction of what is actually there on us. So, the world of sound, this is there on you, and I’ll just take you through it.

The world of sound “comes under and around you on your right, goes over the top and comes in on the left above, but not below”.

So there’s this shape to the projected actuality of our world of sound. It happens to be the symbol used in music notation to indicate the bass rage of notes, the rumbling deep notes that makes us look up and around and determine what it is. It might be a dinosaur, a tank or a jet plane (threatening deep noise), and contrast with the treble notes that can settle us into our cosy core. Our sensitivities there are rumbled by deep bass notes, and we rise to hold our self up in our hard heads to determine friend or foe, within our “base clef”.

We can recognise and depict or describe the shape, but there’s the “where” of it, the “actuality of it being there.

It does not explain the symbols, but I suspect that the symbols of music originate from our actuality. The wide acceptance of them may be because of our actuality being of that shape.

arch-of-language4 “Arch of language” The only one I have used colour in. Japanese vermilion red is used in calligraphy. It contrasts with the dark sumi-e ink, to correct, mark or stand out. It is also the red seen in Shinto shrines; their torii gate ways are painted with it.

I think I have used red because language is such a human quality that marks our cognitive “gawk and talk” reality. I consider the rest, the conscious, mind and the sense of self in the world common to animals. Like humans, they, whole living “animal” beings, function in the real world through their self functioning in “its” projected experience of the world.

Compared to the actuality of our realm of sound (bass clef), this is a narrower, tighter realm of language, which is also sound but special or particular sound. It dips under the conscious, domes over mind and lands on the right shoulder.

Our depths extend under it. So, cognitive, emotive and somatic (of body) sense are marked in their three letter abbreviations. LInghter lines under them indicate our deeper instinctive and intuitive sense of others and the world. Our cosy core is towards the mid-line of the whole self.

Our consciousness extends down towards subconscious depths, but on the “other side”, the subconscious begins right next to us.

Carried” on the Arch of language are aspects of our linguistic cognitive reality, namely our Infinitism, Circularity and Foundationalism.

Infinitism means it goes on and on for ever, and together with Circularity and Foundationalism, they are the nature of our conscious mind, recognised in philosophy in those terms .

In order to be certain about something we think about or sense, we can try to find a proof for what it is. The proof must come from outside what you are trying to prove, so as to help support it. But then, that proof needs a another proof from outside it, to support it … and so, it goes on for ever – Infinitism, just as the conscious goes on and on (till off?).

And it is easy to go around in circles in our mind, Circularity, which is formerly described as when the thing you want to prove is in a subsequent proof. The train of logic forms a circle. Though there are separate steps we do not get outside of the initial statement.

And Foundationalism is the assumption that is not questioned or challenged, a fundamental belief.

These qualities of the cognitive mind are called in philosophy “Munchausen’s trilemma”, the unsatisfactory nature of certainty in our mind (see Note 3).

Just as music symbols take the shape of our actuality, the three aspects of our cognition have their place in their actuality on our “Arch of language”. It dips under the conscious, on and on Infinitism, circles over the mind’s reach, Circularity, and lands on the emotive level on the right shoulder, for Foundationalism.

“Self referencing conundrum” and “actuality”

It seems impossible to experience our own self.

This is true I think, because we are, in our usual self, a part of a mechanism for having an experience. We cannot refer to our actual self. Trying to do so is like a camera trying to take a picture of its film. As frustrating as a horse running after its tail.

A sense of or a notion about our self is different, where there is a distance to what one may think or talk about, or point the finger at in our minds.

Without this separation, between our self and what we experience, a problem or confusion arises. It occurs in language as the self referential paradox. Quite a number of examples have been collected over the ages. These sentences refer back to themselves, rather than name a thing or a person (noun), describe its state or nature (adjective) or its action (verb) as words are usually used for. It may be more of a phenomena in some languages and thinking determined by them, than other languages that may not be so exact as English and modern languages tend to be, about subject, object and causality.

“This sentence is false” is exemplary of the self referencing problem or paradox we find in language.

There is a greater difficulty in approaching our own actuality, an inherent resistance that is the “self-referencing conundrum”

We come away from our usual knowing engagement with things in “the world” that are “of” our experience . Our sense of being and doing in the world breaks down without perspective that gives a sense of measure over time, space and size, and without context that determines what things are. We are thrown back to an uncertain sense of being, and existence. Solipsism describes this uncertainty of our self and the world, and existentialism recognises a fundamental state of being devoid of purpose and reference.

What point is there to that?

Consider, rather than go back to the world of experience, that there is more, in different directions, but also that there must be a whole being who is and does things in reality, who allows for our reality of conscious experience, which includes “the world” of our experience and our sense of being and doing in it.

Some may recognise a parallel to Plato’s cave, of people thinking shadows on the walls is reality. What we experience is a part of our whole being, as is our self or identity that experiences and identifies with what it experiences.

Our reality of conscious experience is “projected” by a whole being, through the CNS (Central Nervous System or the brain, spinal cord and nerve roots). Projection is our “actuality” – the existence in space of our reality as projection.

Go beyond the normal sense and story of “who’s doing what”, but rather than approaching in a direct way, like the camera trying to take a picture of itself and hit the “self referencing conundrum”, introduce a “spatial orientation”. We can capture our reality as projection in projected space, including our self and our paradox that is our extension, and we may refer to our whole, to be in relation as a part, with our whole . In our actuality we may be reached or touched by who is of reality and who encompasses  all that we may experience, as his or her projection. Trust the whole who must be there.

Other entries on the “self-referencing conundrum” –

https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/self-referencing-conundrum/

 Definition : An inherent difficulty and resistance to approaching the actuality of our self or identity, as if to maintain the necessary displacement for having an experience between the identity having the experience and what is experienced.     https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/the-self-referencing-conundrum-2/

Subtle sense – 3

More excerpts from the hand out prepared for the exhibition,

Subtle sense – Jan 2017

Our reality is a part of our whole being, projected through the Central Nervous System (brain and spine). We are displaced from our whole in being projected. Within projection our reality is made-up of disassociated parts : the conscious, self, what we experience, deeper being, witness, are different aspects or parts within our projected part. Further more, we are isolated from our whole being as we identify in our self and with what we experience,.within our projected reality,

I depict and represent how we exist, as a part of a whole being of reality. Rather than in isolated experiences, by which the self regards the world and others, I hope to draw the viewer towards a sense of their own part, which implies their whole.

There’s a whole being of reality who is missing in our reality;
he or she can never be in our reality.
We are a part of our whole, projected through
the Central Nervous System.
We can approach our being a part, our projected actuality,
and thereby consider being in relation with our whole.

An orientation – reality in its entirety; whole self/whole body/whole being of reality, in reality, touched by the rest of reality; our reality, including us as self or identity, projected by our whole through his or her CNS (Central Nervous System) projected part of our individual whole, placed in space in our “actuality” (existence in fact and in reality)

orientation-whole-body-creation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emptiness, nothingness and the spirit – Oneness of whole being and All creation

“Emptiness” is the disassociation within projection, across which we are having an experience. It is our immediate environment, the spaces between and immediately around what we experience, our identity, the conscious and witness.kuu

(Kuu of Zen Buddhism)

 

“Nothingness” is the absence, due to and in projection, of the solid whole body who is actually there, in and of reality. From where we are having an experience, within projection, the whole body disappears with the rest of creation.mu

(Mu of Zen Buddhism)

We can understand the whole of reality to consist of both our whole self or being who is of reality and the rest of reality. Reality cannot exist in our projected part. But reality is represented beyond Emptiness, as Nothingness. At the centre of Nothingness is the one essence of the whole of creation and the whole body, the spirit. It is the closest we get to reality in projection, where the rest of creation that touches the whole body is a long, long way away, beyond Nothingness. Look to be in relation with the whole self who encompasses our all, and who must be there, beyond yet infusing projection, in reality. The spirit may reach you, through Nothingness.

 

Quantum and projection

All be it indirectly (through our whole being‘s sense organs and brain), we are given an experience that is an indication of the “phenomenal aspects of reality”, the aspects of reality that our whole self is sensitive to according to his or her sense organs (link to blog the “phenomenal aspects of reality” https://realityhc.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/the-phenomenal-aspects-of-reality/).

Our whole “sees” the light (and projects our experience of vision for us to think that we see) that bounces off the surface of things in the real world that are not too small. Sub-atomic particles are too small for this. En mass and intensity they can split atoms, damage genes and cells and burn things. Depending on how they are “observed”, their existence is indicated by their radiation (wave like quality) or by the mark left after their passage (as particles), say through a sensitive film that leaves a hole or a mark of where they were.

The precise existence of sub-atomic particles is uncertain in our space-and-time references, and they seem to “jump” and “associate” right through them. I think the things that “move” at the speed of causality (= C, also “happens to be” the speed of light, other electro-magnetic waves, sub-atomic particles/radiation and gravitational waves) exist in space-time, in what may be considered the very fabric of the cosmos. It may also include black holes, dark energy and dark matter beyond our visible realm. This idea of sub-particles, photons and other electro magnetic radiation and gravity waves existing in space-time, to me helps explain how entanglement works as described in quantum mechanics – where associated particles are related across significant distances the moment one of them is observed or determined in our space-and-time references.

Let me consider here how our existence as projection, our “projected actuality”, projected by our whole being through the Central Nervous System, is like the quantum state.

I think something like entanglement also occurs in projection, in very familiar instances. When we communicate, it is with an another who invariably sees not him or her self but an image of the other’s whole being, and vice versa where we meet “entangled” as opposites in association over particular perspectives and contexts that, for our time together, determines one another in our projected realities. Empathy is a real thing in projection, of another’s sense projected by our whole. It is again, an association that determines one another. Intuitive sense seems to transcend the normally dominant cognitive boundaries in a less constrained flow or connection where, in the analogy of the quantum world, our distances, time and identity seem to join or mesh as if in space-time.

Smooth synchronised movements in dance, sports, martial arts, music but also any activity or work, requires an integration across different parts within an individual and with separate whole others that one may play with, hunt with, perform with etc. This association is stifled and blocked by the rigidity of our cognitive knowing. We are familiar with risking the seeming security of know-how‘s certainty and control, to allow and let go to or “go with” a greater flow we become a part of, whether in one’s being or in association with others.

In projection, we may exist within the determining references of our projected sense of space-and-time, but we may also exist in our actuality as projection and be “connected”, with different realms, identities and states of being, as if in space-time. Perhaps we may understand in this way premonitions, telepathy etc. where the normal boundaries of time-and-place and identity, seem transcended.

Parts of our projected reality include our sense of matter and the world, but also the frames of reference that determine what we experience. We may as self or identity in our reality, observe the laws of Newtonian physics (of billiard balls and planets) in those things we experience. It is a part of our projected reality consistent with space-and-time, a functional indication of such a world with our sense of being in it and its time, that is our here and now.

We are normally dominated by this indication of the world, changing apparently through our sense of time with the observer, us, as the experience-er, before the witness. In our actuality as projection we occupy the “causal” fabric and substance of projection, as if of space-time itself, which in turn may be considered the very fabric of the cosmos and of which space-and-time is understood to be a warping of space-time. The witness is the constant, as if set at the speed of causality = C throughout the shifting frames of reference.

As remarkable as the quantum and relativistic world may be, reality must be more than the sum of both and of any other aspects of reality. The probability of our whole being’s existence is also more remarkable than the non-living matter of atoms, entropically, functionally and structurally speaking. The enormity of the integrity, of cells in themselves, their specialising into organs and their functions but also of an integrated and “stable” living whole being, is reflected in the richness of qualities that determine our self and our necessary “countenances” – necessary for our particular reality, our self and what we experience, to be. The countenances are our “entangled other” and are projected parts of our whole being, normally in our subconscious and unconscious, and include our memories, dreaming, deeper feelings, instinctive and intuitive parts. Compared to these the qualities that determine sub-atomic particles and their entangled association with an other, is elemental, such as their spin.

As a sub-atomic particle may be lost in space-time from its potential of being a part of a whole atom, we our selves as an identity, are lost in projection away from our whole, identified in our self and with what we experience. Our other, our countenances, are many for us, because we have identified and “associated” with many things on many occasions. They build up in our subconscious as we continue to identify away from our whole.

Our whole should determine our existence and our other parts for their being parts of the same whole. Be displaced from your experience, and the life that you are having, be distinct from people you meet, but as a part. It’s not just all in the mind but your feelings and deepest being and sense of self, others and the world, are also there, as projected parts of the same whole.

Just as reality must be more than the sum of the Newtonian, quantum, relativistic and of any other aspects of reality, our whole is both of solid organs and projection, and is more than their sum. He or she is also of reality, and in reality.

Within the projected part of our whole being, we may be the billiard balls (Newtonian), before the reference of perspective, and manifest, in the experience, like matter and gravity within the warping of space-time, but in projection. We can also be the observer in our self having the experience, with shifting points of view and references (relativity) but with a witness, which may witness the observer or experiencer (that is us) as well as what we experience.

In our actuality, we connect through projection beyond being the observer having an experience, and the witness is included/invited. Our parts join with our whole as parts, through projection, in our/their actuality as projection. Being projected actuality is like being a quantum entity in and of space-time; we become a part in the very fabric of our whole being who’s (projection’s) warping throws our here and now and tangible reality that correspond to space-and-time and matter.

01depth

Physics goes beyond “the observer makes a difference” for sub-atomic particles that are displaced or altered with the act of observing them. Instead of attempting direct observations, laboratory apparatus use “passive ways”, as I understand, to monitor the quantum, such as to filter photons of a certain polarity, by which a relation between associated photons are demonstrated.

This relatedness seems to occur instantly across space-and-time, faster than the speed of causality, without being predetermined and at the instant of determination (by passive means).

Understanding this and its mechanism is the frontier of science. Consciousness and causality may have a speed that is measured in our references of space-and-time, but creation, or reality if in our minds we need no creator for creation, is there, in the instant, everywhere, is of space-time; reality is present in the present; our “here and now” unfolding (projected space-and-time) is a “warped” projected part, of our whole being of reality; reality is more than the sum of its aspects we may recognise in our projected reality (quantum, relativistic, Newtonian aspects) and try to understand.

This perspective, over reality itself and our own projected reality of “conscious experience and self witnessed”, is afforded by “Orientation” of our reality, including our self, in space and with our whole being. We do not exist in reality, our whole self does. We are a projected part of who is both body and projection, and more than their sum. We do not exist without our whole, but we may be lost in projection isolated from our whole. We may become an integrating part, rather than isolated; our whole becomes more integrated and complete with integrating parts.

Our whole is like the universe for us – our world extends and opens indefinitely in different ways in different directions, within a projected part of our whole being. Our whole is beyond our projected part (transcendent) and yet he or she infuses it (immanent). Like an electron of an electron cloud within an atom, we are an identity within a projected “cloud” of our whole. Our whole being “must be” for our self and our reality, as projected parts, to be. He or she must be a “godly being” for being of reality, and for being more than the sum of his or her parts.

We can be absolute with “Orientation” about our basis, origin and source. We have our whole as our creator and projector, and the conscious and witness are projected parts. Before them is our mind’s certainty, of infinit-ism, circularity, and foundational-ism (see Munchausen’s trilemma), which is dependent on their sequence, world views and contexts, and causality.

As a part of our whole, we may be in association with our fellow parts, including our estranged entanglements or countenances. Free and independent as a part of, rather than in isolation from our whole. Set by our others and our not-s, displaced and distant, alienated or estranged, or not, but associated with them, through our whole as projected parts of our maker; we, in reality as parts, of our individual whole.

Finally, analogies were drawn here between the fields of physics that seem to correspond with the various aspects of our projected reality. Understanding that the whole self provides what we experience of the world, from aspects of reality that he or she is sensitive to through his or her sense organs (“phenomenal aspects of reality”), lends insight into the very activity of physicists and the nature of their theories.

I propose the Newtonian, relativistic and quantum worlds exist in our actuality, as projected virtual versions of those aspects of reality. Physicists experience and try to understand them, those projected versions, and test their theories, of them, out on each other and in reality.

While reality is more than the sum of those aspects of reality grasped by the various fields of physics, the whole self projects those aspects in accurate enough ways that the theories and formulas formed of them, do work in reality when they are tested in experiments and applied in products and inventions.

I know others have made the association between our reality and the quantum out-look, but I mean to point out our actuality, the “shapes” and places they occupy and our being in relation, as a part, with our whole. I refer to Chalmers (1986) who makes a useful distinction between the easy and hard “problem of the conscious” where the objective aspects of our conscious experience is “easily” understood as a product of the brain, but not the subjective – the experience itself (rather than what we experience), the self, conscious, and I like to add the witness. He examines many approaches to the basis of our reality and distinguishes the objective and subjective aspects of our reality and proposes our subjective aspects to be fundamental ie irreducible.

Through out my work you will see the whole self presented as who projects, through the Central Nervous System, our reality both subjective and objective, internal and outside. There is no brain without a whole being, except in our minds.

Our philosophy and science can never be reality. I believe our understanding of reality can grow beyond quantum and relativistic theories, perhaps a formula established that binds both the quantum and relativistic, but only with our inclusion as the observer and the witness, as well as the conscious, as parts and in relation with our whole, who is of reality. We can “orientate” with and distinguish our self and the whole self, our reality and reality, and come to the relation between our reality and reality, in our being a part of our whole who is of reality.

Quantum and projection

01depth

There’s a godly being of reality
who is the maker of our actuality;
we exist as a part of this whole being
in and as his or her projection
projected through the brain and spine (CNS or Central Nervous System).

Together with and within our reality
we are projected, our self and what we experience,
through the CNS by our whole;
our whole is more than the sum
of his or her projected and solid-body parts.

Now of reality :

Einstein theorised and formulated for
a constant that binds shifting frames;
causality has a speed observed constant
within relative frames of reference related
through the geometric fabric of space-and-time.

Matter, gravity and energy
is wrapped up in it, it seems;
till we go beyond dimensions far and small
where matter is shattered in black holes
and with nuclear reactions in our bombs reactors and accelerators.

Matter and energy play out their existence
in sub-atomic particles
we measure the effects of;
with radiation traces we guess probable
their statistical place and certain entanglement (causal association observed in space-and-time).

But also within our reality that is projection :

There’s where we determine this or that
what we experience tangible in
our space-and-time Newtonian grid.

There’s where we sift through threads split and splayed,
shifting frames of reference held
constant by the witness.
And there’s where, in our very existence as projected actuality,
our probable nature is set certain
through an other in entanglement.

Indignation this interdependence
paired entangled, when determined
easily convinced because isolated
in fear of contradiction and in denial of its conflict
flight/fight trigger sets us from our whole;
friend or foe, love and hate,
certain confusion the closer we get
to our associated other,
within or out.

In our actuality is the connection
to our whole being of reality;
beyond determined
definitive in context,
set relative in face of the witness,
and deemed probable as quantum parcel
entangled against another,
approach being projection
your part and the other.

Then, in your actuality,
your existence infact as projection,
contemplate your whole
connect through projection
commune as a part;
to be “in relation with” your whole
is more than the sum of these steps,
our whole is more than the sum of projected and solid-body parts,
and reality, of which our whole is of, is more than the sum of quantum and space-time aspects.

tt Oct 2016