Is the Holy Ghost legitimate?

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep them old German idealists just couldn't splain nothjin.

Kant, Hegel and the boys even that walt whitman guy was shore dummies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_idealism#United_States

and them deist guys- fergetaboutit.

I had forgotten about it, but in 2010 Dialogue published an interview with Rorty’s widow. Interesting stuff. Take care, Mark  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N02_117.pdf

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is more of the same. How do you think I would respond to this thought experiment, remembering that all experience and observation (whether actual or imagined) is subjective and without such there are no events (i.e. products of disturbed equilibrium), and the further back or forward in the chain of disturbances you go, the further removed the experience and observation and the actual or imagined event get from each other.

I can only guess how you'd explain my thought experiment.  I guess you'd say that the asteroid didn't exist in space until the moment it entered the earth's atmosphere and was observed by humans as it rained down fire and brimstone on the earth.  

For those humans deep underground in the mine, it seems like your explanation would assert that the asteroid never existed and if these humans came up out of the mine on April 2nd they would still be alive and the world would continue to exist as normal, nothing changing, because without actual observation there "there are no events."   No event would have happened, no asteroid would have hit the earth at all because no humans were on the surface of the earth to observe it.  

Did I guess right? 

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought this was creative, but its not Mormonese, its Bukowskiese.  I don't think Rorty's quote has anything to do with God or religion.  Seems like you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  

One last thing, in case you read it, even if you don't respond.  Another reason I think you may be misusing Rorty's quote.  When he says "Only descriptions of the world can be true or false" he's talking about language descriptions of the world.  When we put our observations into words and describe them.  These descriptions of the world/universe are founded in human perceptions and human language, but that doesn't mean that the world/universe wouldn't exist without the presence of humans.  He never said that.  

Humans put their observations of the world into the context of language and assign the terms true and false to the parameters of these observations.  All of that is human created, the way we observe and describe and experience the world/universe.  But that doesn't mean that the world/universe wouldn't exist and function independently.  It also doesn't mean that some of our descriptions about the world/universe, some of our true and false claims, aren't accurate and might not have some universal applicability to them.  

 

I never said the world would not exist without humans. 

Human ideas about the world would never exist if they weren't if there weren't humans.

And that includes the idea of existence itself.

Rocks don't know they exist.

Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I had forgotten about it, but in 2010 Dialogue published an interview with Rorty’s widow. Interesting stuff. Take care, Mark  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N02_117.pdf

I didn't.

[jkwilliams]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I didn't.

I figured as much. Oh, well. Maybe someone else will enjoy reading it. I did, anyway. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I can only guess how you'd explain my thought experiment.  I guess you'd say that the asteroid didn't exist in space until the moment it entered the earth's atmosphere and was observed by humans as it rained down fire and brimstone on the earth.  

For those humans deep underground in the mine, it seems like your explanation would assert that the asteroid never existed and if these humans came up out of the mine on April 2nd they would still be alive and the world would continue to exist as normal, nothing changing, because without actual observation there "there are no events."   No event would have happened, no asteroid would have hit the earth at all because no humans were on the surface of the earth to observe it.  

Did I guess right? 

I don’t think this reflects things I’ve said earlier.

Your experiment is to demonstrate that events prove the existence of objects associated with those events without necessitating any subjective component. But existence is a subjective experience or event, necessitating subjective observers (e.g. ears, hearing and sound; brain, surprise and asteroidal impact; mind, imagination and experiment). The existence of the asteroid is not proven (experienced) by its movement but by the experience of the people of earth or more safely, of the thought experimenters. Either way, the event can only prove the existence of the object if it is subjectively observed.

You want to use definitions of event, existence and observation that somehow exclude subjectivity. That may be useful for some narrow scope or disciplines or purposes but only goes so far; it doesn’t address the humanity that inherently establishes these very concepts.

If the asteroid is subjective, then it exists; otherwise we experimenters are needed to subjectively observe (or conceptualize) and determine that. Those who didn’t see it coming are irrelevant to that conclusion; we can see what happened to those who perished and tell the story to survivors if they can’t figure it out for themselves.

Edited March 28, 2018 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think this reflects things I’ve said earlier.

Your experiment is to demonstrate that events prove the existence of objects associated with those events without necessitating any subjective component. But existence is a subjective experience or event, necessitating subjective observers (e.g. ears, hearing and sound; brain, surprise and asteroidal impact; mind, imagination and experiment). The existence of the asteroid is not proven (experienced) by its movement but by the experience of the people of earth or more safely, of the thought experimenters. Either way, the event can only prove the existence of the object if it is subjectively observed.

You want to use definitions of event, existence and observation that somehow exclude subjectivity. That may be useful for some narrow scope or disciplines or purposes but only goes so far; it doesn’t address the humanity that inherently establishes these very concepts.

If the asteroid is subjective, then it exists; otherwise we experimenters are needed to subjectively observe (or conceptualize) and determine that. Those who didn’t see it coming are irrelevant to that conclusion; we can see what happened to those who perished and tell the story to survivors if they can’t figure it out for themselves.

Like I said rocks don't know they exist. They don't even know they're about to bump into a big rock and thereby cease to exist.

Poor asteroid committing suicide like that.  Sniff. 😥

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Like I said rocks don't know they exist. They don't even know they're about to bump into a big rock and thereby cease to exist.

Poor asteroid committing suicide like that.  Sniff. 😥

I "object" to the objectification of people, humanity and God in the pursuit of a more perfect religion!

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I "object" to the objectification of people, humanity and God in the pursuit of a more perfect religion!

Actually that is extremely profound IMO.  It is the scientific view of the universe which has taken the "magic" of miracles out of the church and the world in general- it is the objectification of everything and seeing only everything in the third person even the self.  Science says that the self is a collection of chemicals in the brain and totally ignores the phenomenology of consciousness as has been pointed out by philosophers across the world.

Objectification of consciousness is actually a huge ethical and moral problem- the reduction of the human to a bunch of cells.  It's a problem in the West only really and imo started with Aristotle and Plato and that is why it is so entrenched.  In fact that is how the apostasy has crept back into Mormonism - where a more phenomenological and pragmatic view might be the way out for us.

Remember that Christ implied that what we might call the "objectification" of women "denies the faith".  What harm could be a little porn?? But in fact objectification of consciousness is a symptom of a worldwide view that will eventually destroy humanity on earth.   Which might be a good thing. 

You should check this out- Givens refers to it in his new book.  https://www.amazon.com/Secular-Age-Charles-Taylor/dp/1522665056

Quote

 

What does it mean to say that we live in a secular age? Almost everyone would agree that we—in the West, at least—largely do. And clearly the place of religion in our societies has changed profoundly in the last few centuries. In what will be a defining book for our time, Charles Taylor takes up the question of what these changes mean—of what, precisely, happens when a society in which it is virtually impossible not to believe in God becomes one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is only one human possibility among others.

Taylor, long one of our most insightful thinkers on such questions, offers a historical perspective. He examines the development in "Western Christendom" of those aspects of modernity which we call secular. What he describes is in fact not a single, continuous transformation, but a series of new departures, in which earlier forms of religious life have been dissolved or destabilized and new ones have been created.

As we see here, today's secular world is characterized not by an absence of religion—although in some societies religious belief and practice have markedly declined—but rather by the continuing multiplication of new options, religious, spiritual, and anti-religious, which individuals and groups seize on in order to make sense of their lives and give shape to their spiritual aspirations.

What this means for the world—including the new forms of collective religious life it encourages, with their tendency to a mass mobilization that breeds violence—is what Charles Taylor grapples with, in a book as timely as it is timeless.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said the world would not exist without humans. 

Human ideas about the world would never exist if they weren't if there weren't humans.

And that includes the idea of existence itself.

Rocks don't know they exist.

Let me give this one last shot- and then I really do give up here.

Let me show that this idea was in front of us from post 1 and thread 1 years ago and what I regard as so obvious and in fact what the German Idealists and all their descendants see as well.  And I will use Rorty in his ultra-lucid explanation to make the same point.

Quote

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." 

I don't know how anyone could take that to mean that "the world is NOT out there" when in fact is says as clear as day that it is.

Like I said, rocks do not know they exist. 

We know the world is out there but even the idea of "rocks" is NOT "out there" because it is a human idea.  It is a word in language describing a human experience of something in the world.

The world is out there but descriptions of "rocks" are NOT "out there"

We shall see if that sticks or not.

And to Michael Sudworth- you are great at starting fights but then you retreat back to your cave.  Fergitaboutit.

HOPE FOR THINGS THE WORLD IS OUT THERE in case you thought I said it wasn't

Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well they have been frustrating to me as well.  Perhaps that's why you get condescending is because you're frustrated.  I keep feeling that we could come to an understanding if we were talking face to face rather than communicating through a message board.  Such are the limitations of this medium.  I'm trying...

Pm me your phone number and I will do likewise.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said the world would not exist without humans. 

Human ideas about the world would never exist if they weren't if there weren't humans.

And that includes the idea of existence itself.

Rocks don't know they exist.

Thanks, that is good to know.  This specific thought experiment was my response to CV75, but I think it somewhat applies to what we were discussing as well.  This helps to know that you believe the world would exist without the existence from humans.  The next step I would take this is to ask if there are specific attributes or qualities about that world, things like the elements that make up the substance of the earth or its shape and size and magnetosphere, or its distance from the Sun, or speed of rotation, or place in the galaxy.  Would these qualities also exist without the existence of humans to observe and explain them. 

Now, I know all the words I just used are the words that humans created to explain observations, but I still want an answer about the point I'm trying to make.  Would there be unique qualities about the earth that exist independent of the existence of human beings?  Whatever those qualities/attributes are isn't important to me, just whether or not you agree that there are some qualities about this object we call earth that are unique and possibly even measurable by some standards independent of human measurement, and that these qualities exist whether or not any human's exist to describe them and put descriptions into language.  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don’t think this reflects things I’ve said earlier.

Your experiment is to demonstrate that events prove the existence of objects associated with those events without necessitating any subjective component. But existence is a subjective experience or event, necessitating subjective observers (e.g. ears, hearing and sound; brain, surprise and asteroidal impact; mind, imagination and experiment). The existence of the asteroid is not proven (experienced) by its movement but by the experience of the people of earth or more safely, of the thought experimenters. Either way, the event can only prove the existence of the object if it is subjectively observed.

You want to use definitions of event, existence and observation that somehow exclude subjectivity. That may be useful for some narrow scope or disciplines or purposes but only goes so far; it doesn’t address the humanity that inherently establishes these very concepts.

If the asteroid is subjective, then it exists; otherwise we experimenters are needed to subjectively observe (or conceptualize) and determine that. Those who didn’t see it coming are irrelevant to that conclusion; we can see what happened to those who perished and tell the story to survivors if they can’t figure it out for themselves.

The event itself doesn't have to be subjectively observed to prove the existence of the asteroid.   If the only humans that existed on earth were subterranean, and none of them saw or heard or subjectively observed anything about the asteroid, but were instantaneously vaporized when it struct the earth.  Then who are the subjective observers to bring this asteroidal event into existence.  Maybe I misunderstand your assertion.  

Also, can you explain why you think this is a narrow scope and why the establishment of facts about the universe independent of human observations don't address humanity.  I completely don't agree.  Look at all the amazing progress we've made as a society built on the backbone of the scientific method and empirical analysis of observations of data.  I don't see how that's narrow or how it doesn't address humanity.  It has been the greatest influence on the quality of life in the history of the human species from my perspective.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Like I said rocks don't know they exist. They don't even know they're about to bump into a big rock and thereby cease to exist.

Poor asteroid committing suicide like that.  Sniff. 😥

As far as we know rocks aren't conscious, but I'm not 100% confident about that.  Isn't this very observation on your part a subjective and limited observation about what a human thinks a rock experiences?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Quote

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot." 

I don't know how anyone could take that to mean that "the world is NOT out there" when in fact is says as clear as day that it is.

I have no qualms with this.  I even said that I agreed with this idea that the world/universe exists independent of human beings.  Actually, each human perceives things a little differently, so its somewhat problematic to lump all human perceptions into one bucket because you and I and everyone else each have a somewhat different experience and perception about things.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

We know the world is out there but even the idea of "rocks" is NOT "out there" because it is a human idea.  It is a word in language describing a human experience of something in the world.

This is where we start to part ways.  Whatever humans call "rocks" ARE "out there".  They exist independent of the observations of humans.  Now what their specific parameters/qualities/attributes are, we don't know.  Whatever it is that humans observe about these rocks is only an approximation of what a rock really is.  This is why in my last post I commented back to you that you can't be 100% confident that rocks don't "know that they exist" because as humans we can't know for 100% certainty everything about a rock or about the experience of a rock.  But I disagree with you saying that rocks are not "out there" just because the human concept for a rock is created by human language and contingent upon human observation.  That doesn't mean the rocks just disappear, they still are "out there" they might just be very different than how humans describe them.    

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The world is out there but descriptions of "rocks" are NOT "out there"

Agreed completely on this point.  Human descriptions are rooted in human language and perception.  The descriptions don't exist without humans, this is true.  The raw elements that make up the world, still exist without humans, but the descriptions of what those raw elements are, do not exist without humans.  Now I think we're getting somewhere.  Descriptions are human contingent, but the raw elements are not.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

HOPE FOR THINGS THE WORLD IS OUT THERE in case you thought I said it wasn't

Thank you, I agree, and I appreciate that clarity, I think we are making some progress despite all the head butting.  

Edited March 28, 2018 by hope_for_things

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As far as we know rocks aren't conscious, but I'm not 100% confident about that.  Isn't this very observation on your part a subjective and limited observation about what a human thinks a rock experiences?  

Yes of course 

I am going by science which is never totally "correct"

In fact your own comment could be a justification for pantheism.

That's the whole point science doesn't tell us about what religion can do.

Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, that is good to know.  This specific thought experiment was my response to CV75, but I think it somewhat applies to what we were discussing as well.  This helps to know that you believe the world would exist without the existence from humans.  The next step I would take this is to ask if there are specific attributes or qualities about that world, things like the elements that make up the substance of the earth or its shape and size and magnetosphere, or its distance from the Sun, or speed of rotation, or place in the galaxy.  Would these qualities also exist without the existence of humans to observe and explain them. 

Now, I know all the words I just used are the words that humans created to explain observations, but I still want an answer about the point I'm trying to make.  Would there be unique qualities about the earth that exist independent of the existence of human beings?  Whatever those qualities/attributes are isn't important to me, just whether or not you agree that there are some qualities about this object we call earth that are unique and possibly even measurable by some standards independent of human measurement, and that these qualities exist whether or not any human's exist to describe them and put descriptions into language.  

 

Sure.

Aliens might do them for example

Or if the Earth is conscious then it could just report on itself

But those ideas are generally considered wacky.

I don't know where you could get standards independent of human measurement otherwise. Who creates the standards? The unconscious Earth creates standards?

Edited March 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes of course 

I am going by science which is never totally "correct"

In fact your own comment could be a justification for pantheism.

That's the whole point science doesn't tell us about what religion can do.

I don't think science rules out the possibility that rocks experience some sort of consciousness. I think science is more limited to specific observations about things that can be replicated and that tell us something useful.  

I do like a lot about pantheism.  Currently I don't consider myself theist or atheist, somewhere in between, but I see compelling attributes about many different ways of thinking.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sure.

Aliens might do them for example

Or if the Earth is conscious then it could just report on itself

But those ideas are generally considered wacky.

I don't consider those ideas wacky.  They are within the realm of possibility as far as I'm concerned, regardless of how likely these possibilities are.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Pm me your phone number and I will do likewise.

I tried sending you a message, but the system says I can't send you messages, I'm not sure if your mailbox if full or if you've just disabled that feature.   

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I have no qualms with this.  I even said that I agreed with this idea that the world/universe exists independent of human beings.  Actually, each human perceives things a little differently, so its somewhat problematic to lump all human perceptions into one bucket because you and I and everyone else each have a somewhat different experience and perception about things.  

This is where we start to part ways.  Whatever humans call "rocks" ARE "out there".  They exist independent of the observations of humans.  Now what their specific parameters/qualities/attributes are, we don't know.  Whatever it is that humans observe about these rocks is only an approximation of what a rock really is.  This is why in my last post I commented back to you that you can't be 100% confident that rocks don't "know that they exist" because as humans we can't know for 100% certainty everything about a rock or about the experience of a rock.  But I disagree with you saying that rocks are not "out there" just because the human concept for a rock is created by human language and contingent upon human observation.  That doesn't mean the rocks just disappear, they still are "out there" they might just be very different than how humans describe them.    

Agreed completely on this point.  Human descriptions are rooted in human language and perception.  The descriptions don't exist without humans, this is true.  The raw elements that make up the world, still exist without humans, but the descriptions of what those raw elements are, do not exist without humans.  Now I think we're getting somewhere.  Descriptions are human contingent, but the raw elements are not.  

Thank you, I agree, and I appreciate that clarity, I think we are making some progress despite all the head butting.  

I think if you read this post carefully you will see that the first paragraph and the succeeding paragraphs don't agree. They seem to be mutually contradictory. I want place you say that descriptions only exist within the human framework and then you're looking for descriptions which do not exist in any kind of framework.

I don't even think it makes sense to say they appear or disappear outside of human framework since appearance and disappearance is a human way of seeing the world.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I tried sending you a message, but the system says I can't send you messages, I'm not sure if your mailbox if full or if you've just disabled that feature.   

Hmmm I will clear it out

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I tried sending you a message, but the system says I can't send you messages, I'm not sure if your mailbox if full or if you've just disabled that feature.   

Cleared it out - hopefully you've got mail.

 

[Vanguard]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is where we start to part ways.  Whatever humans call "rocks" ARE "out there".  They exist independent of the observations of humans.  Now what their specific parameters/qualities/attributes are, we don't know.  Whatever it is that humans observe about these rocks is only an approximation of what a rock really is.  This is why in my last post I commented back to you that you can't be 100% confident that rocks don't "know that they exist" because as humans we can't know for 100% certainty everything about a rock or about the experience of a rock.  But I disagree with you saying that rocks are not "out there" just because the human concept for a rock is created by human language and contingent upon human observation.  That doesn't mean the rocks just disappear, they still are "out there" they might just be very different than how humans describe them.    

Agreed completely on this point.  Human descriptions are rooted in human language and perception.  The descriptions don't exist without humans, this is true.  The raw elements that make up the world, still exist without humans, but the descriptions of what those raw elements are, do not exist without humans.  Now I think we're getting somewhere.  Descriptions are human contingent, but the raw elements are not.   

I feel silly for chiming in here. I went to this thread and yours was the first post I laid eyes on. I don't even know what else you and mf-ski might be talking about. It was this part of your post that reminded me of an exchange I had about 7-8 yrs ago with another very intelligent Christian on a Christian apologetics website. I'll put it out here now for public consumption though it may well not gain any traction in which case I'll simply retreat to lick my ego wounds... ; ) The following is in my own layman's language and solely on my own steam -

"Rocks" aren't out there. They "literally?" do not exist. They gain "existence" solely from our efforts to make sense of our "world" by putting language to them and because their fundamental physical properties sufficiently approximate our own thus compelling us to grapple with their existence. If my atomic (or is it sub-atomic?, or sub-sub-atomic? or super-atomic!?) make-up were sufficiently different, these things we humans call rocks would not exist to us. Innumerable "things" move in and out of our physical bodies and physical world continuously without us ever being aware of them nor capable of tracking them down through technology. Our technology has made it so that we do track down much of what we were unaware of just decades earlier though there can be no end to this discovery. That is to say that if there is no end to this discovery enterprise, then everything is infinitely reducible. And if this is true, there can be no ultimate human descriptor of reality but only our efforts to make sense of our own punctuated existence in that infinite line of reducibility.

So I guess I'm saying the "ultimate reality" of things in our temporality is not dependent on or independent of our observations or our putting a descriptor on it. Rather, this reality simply does not exist. If I could find the passage form CS Lewis I think I would find him saying something like "close your eyes and hang on to that which gives meaning to your existence as this temporality is but a fiction that will inevitably and entirely dissolve before our eyes once we die" (I took a lot of license with the paraphrasing!). I am not sure whether mf-ski would agree with any of this though that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I am confident rocks do not exist. ; )     

Van

Edited March 29, 2018 by Vanguard

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I feel silly for chiming in here. I went to this thread and yours was the first post I laid eyes on. I don't even know what else you and mf-ski might be talking about. It was this part of your post that reminded me of an exchange I had about 7-8 yrs ago with another very intelligent Christian on a Christian apologetics website. I'll put it out here now for public consumption though it may well not gain any traction in which case I'll simply retreat to lick my ego wounds... ; ) The following is in my own layman's language and solely on my own steam -

"Rocks" aren't out there. They "literally?" do not exist. They gain "existence" solely from our efforts to make sense of our "world" by putting language to them and because their fundamental physical properties sufficiently approximate our own thus compelling us to grapple with their existence. If my atomic (or is it sub-atomic?, or sub-sub-atomic? or super-atomic!?) make-up were sufficiently different, these things we humans call rocks would not exist to us. Innumerable "things" move in and out of our physical bodies and physical world continuously without us ever being aware of them nor capable of tracking them down through technology. Our technology has made it so that we do track down much of what we were unaware of just decades earlier though there can be no end to this discovery. That is to say that if there is no end to this discovery enterprise, then everything is infinitely reducible. And if this is true, there can be no ultimate human descriptor of reality but only our efforts to make sense of our own punctuated existence in that infinite line of reducibility.

So I guess I'm saying the "ultimate reality" of things in our temporality is not dependent on or independent of our observations or our putting a descriptor on it. Rather, this reality simply does not exist. If I could find the passage form CS Lewis I think I would find him saying something like "close your eyes and hang on to that which gives meaning to your existence as this temporality is but a fiction that will inevitably and entirely dissolve before our eyes once we die" (I took a lot of license with the paraphrasing!). I am not sure whether mf-ski would agree with any of this though that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I am confident rocks do not exist. ; )     

Van

I'm not sure I totally agree with the way you put it but I'm definitely behind the sentiment. I think I get what you're saying.

On the other hand saying rocks  don't exist gets a little kinky.

I can predict that you will get a lot of flack about stubbed toes in the next few minutes but I know where you're coming from.

It's all words.

I really like the CS Lewis quote thanks.

Edited March 29, 2018 by mfbukowski