Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Conflict in Relationship


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 89 in total
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #31
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

hans heiler wrote:
Do you equate perception and contact?

Yes

hans heiler wrote:
Why does separation imply friction?

For the reason that images (separation) tend to constrain and define reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #32
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
is that relationship/conflict actually between A and B, or it is simply between A and A (A meaning myself)?

Could we try to go into what we mean by Myself and I?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #33
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
hans heiler wrote:

Do you equate perception and contact?
Yes

could you explain this a little?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #34
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 86 posts in this forum Offline

hans heiler wrote:
could you explain this a little?

In mathematical terms, when one equates something with the other, we are asked to find one thing in the other without a fragment left out on both sides in the process. Here we have perception on one side and contact on the other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
This is same as the first one you mentioned, Just a one-time happening is still in time as I see.

Maybe, let's look.

Let us say I am walking along and come across a flower growing. I pause to smell it. In the smelling, am I not related to the flower? But momentarily. I pass on, and the relationship has ended.

But second scenario - I am growing flowers in a pot. Everyday I check them, tend to their needs, water them if necessary, admire them. This is what I call a relationship in time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

I want to return to the original question posted by Hans. Yes, conflict in human relationship is so widespread, almost ubiquitous. Why? That question is so rarely asked. And again one can ask, why is it rarely asked?

In a personal relationship, disagreements, even arguments, or at least differences in perception, come from time to time. They seem inevitable. We may patch things up superficially, or we may go deeply into the issues, but we know, unless something fundamentally changes, they will come again – no matter how 'prepared' for them we are.

I do not think that the understanding of conflict in relationship lies in the personal. The same thing happens in all relationships – except perhaps where time has smoothed down the rough edges of personalities, and left some purely mechanical relationship. Perhaps there are a few exceptions, but I will not go into that here.

I think the answer lies in thought itself. When two people argue, it is really thought arguing with thought itself. Thought arguing with thought. And is it not exactly the same as me arguing with myself? That is, thought arguing with thought within a particular brain. Surely it is exactly the same process as arguing between two brains?

So instead of looking at personal issues between people, the real issue is: Why does thought argue with itself?

Very odd that this question is so rarely asked, it seems so basic to human existence, both personally and globally. And I strongly suspect that all the conflict in the word stems from this one fundamental movement.

I could give theoretical answers to the question – by which I mean answers which come from past observations. But answers of any sort seem to diffuse the urgency of the question. Just repeating the question – why does thought argue with itself? ie, why is thought in conflict?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #37
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why does thought argue with itself?
Very odd that this question is so rarely asked

I asked the same question in #8 (1 day ago) and none said a thing
So i said to my self the same you said to yourself after having put your question

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #38
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, conflict in human relationship is so widespread, almost ubiquitous. Why? That question is so rarely asked.

That's not exactly true, it is questioned many times a day only that it is not addressed with the necessary depth ... I mean, it never goes beyond the preconceived causes everyone knows depending on each one's conditioning ... For instance, there's corruption and all the conflicts that this corruption brings about in each one of us in a more or less degree ... This means that this conflict is questioned, talked about in talk shows, in the bar, in the street, at home, and so on ... Now, does anyone question his/her own corruption at the same time one is questioning the corruption of others?

Another example ... This morning i watched a dialog on the TV about bulling ... A young woman there (19-20yo) explained her experience after having had bulling since very early age ... She explained that at one time she was in the schoolyard surrounded by a group of girls while she being in the middle of them crying ... And it happened that some teacher passed by and in seeing her crying asked "Is something happening?" to which the girls said "No, just our things" and he left ... Then the moderator asked to some teacher there "Is that really happening?" the answer being "Unfortunately, yes!" ... To which someone else there (another teacher or someone related to children education) simply said "What happens is that teachers lack training on that" and then they started to talk about that training (how to train teachers and so on) ... In listening to that i thought to myself "Perhaps someone will ask, 'since when sensibility is something one has to be trained on?'" ... But after 20 minutes or so, the dialog has finished without nobody questioning that, all of them going home thinking surely that they have been talking about the real conflict while offering valid solutions to solve it.

So yes, there are plenty of discussions/dialogs/talk shows everyday about conflict in human relationship and its spreading everyday ... Only that none (or almost none) of those who participate in all those discussions/dialogs/talk shows, talk about their own conflicts but of the conflicts of others (which they think that are not related at all with their own) and to which they not doubt at all to offer 100 solutions (when they are not able to solve their own conflicts) based solely in their own conditioning (which none considers as such).

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 22 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Juan, what you say is true, but I think Clive was asking a different question. "Yes, conflict in human relationship is so widespread, almost ubiquitous. Why? " Why is conflict so widespread? Are you saying, it's widespread because one never looks at the cause in onself? One projects it on to others? Mostly man refuses to look seriously into himself, I think. He's only serious when his bank account is threatened or his entertainment is taken away.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #40
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

hans heiler wrote:
Could we try to go into what we mean by Myself and I?

A thought-autonomous entity that feels it is divided from everything, and not depending in anything to exist as such? ... What do you think?

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 22 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #41
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
Are you saying, it (conflict) is widespread because one never looks at the cause in oneself?

Instead of saying that one never looks at the cause in oneself i would say that one never includes oneself when talking/investigating/observing human conflict (either superficially, or deeply), which means that when one observes conflict one is usually observing conflict in others, not in oneself ... A clear example of that is a husband or a wife talking about the conflict in the couple ... How many include themselves in the cause of that conflict and how many just talk about the other partner as the cause for that conflict?

Tom Paine wrote:
One projects it on to others?

Somehow yes, as i just said ... It could be a kind of attempt to blame others for our conflicts trying to hide with that our own frustrations and internal conflicts (not only to others, but to ourselves too).

Tom Paine wrote:
Mostly man refuses to look seriously into himself, I think.

Yes, there's a lot of resistance to look seriously into oneself -- one can observe this very clearly in almost any recorded talk and seminar from K -- because it requires a great deal of honesty and humility to look seriously into oneself either while being alone, or in company of another(s)

What would you say Tom, is it possible to talk seriously about human conflict without looking openly at our own inner conflicts at the same time (either one being alone or with others)?

Many of us would not hesitate at all in saying 'yes, we can', in fact this is what we do when we talk about politicians, bankers, our neighbors, partner or our children ... Are we really interested in solve the whole human conflict, or on the contrary the only thing we are interested in is to solve all external conflicts for us to live at last in peace without touching at all our own conflicts? ... Have you asked sometime how is it that most of the members of human race think that they will be able to live at peace by only solving external problems?

Tom Paine wrote:
He's only serious when his bank account is threatened or his entertainment is taken away.

I doubt that even in such situation one becomes really serious, which to me would mean that one should observe and question deeply oneself to find out the real cause of one feeling threatened and therefore in conflict ...

I saw some months ago a religious program in TV (*), they were interviewing the responsible of an NGO and a person they helped to re-insert in society ... That person had lost his job and because that he was living in the streets ... One day he was in front of the premises of that NGO but he did not dare to enter, until someone saw him from inside, went out and asked him to enter ... There he learned some job, and eventually they found a work for him.

Do you want to know in what he spent his first salary?

In the last smartphone model, and in a sport shoes that cost him 95 euros ... Do you think this is to be serious? ... Did he learned something from the conflicts he had after losing his previous job? ... But the most important is that neither the person doing the interview nor the responsible of that organization commented anything on that, the later being very proud of the results accomplished with that man ...

So, let me ask again, is humanity really interested in ending with all conflict?

We seem we are, but i doubt that we really want it when we try all the time and by any means to evade from expose openly our inner conflicts in our observation of human race conflicts either with ourselves or others (like in this forum).

(*) Each Sunday morning national TV airs 20 or so minutes mini-spaces dedicated to all major religions in Spain: Christian, Protestant, Muslims, and Jewish (which i always try to watch and listen) ... Concretely, the program i'm talking about was the one dedicated to Christian religion.

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 22 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Why does thought argue with itself?

Very odd that this question is so rarely asked

Jun: I asked the same question in #8 (1 day ago) and none said a thing
So i said to my self the same you said to yourself after having put your question

Juan, Do not feel reticent about putting a question a second time if you are keen to get a response. You can draw people's attention to it

Not sure about you, but I meant that it is odd that the question is so rarely asked anywhere in the world, not on the forum. In fact I am not sure that it is EVER asked. I seems that people are so tied up in conflicts, they have no time, no space, to inquire into conflict.

This is a great tragedy. When one looks at all the conflict going on in the world, at the consequences of it, both globally and personally, it is a great tragedy

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 22 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
That's not exactly true, it is questioned many times a day only that it is not addressed with the necessary depth ... I mean, it never goes beyond the preconceived causes everyone knows depending on each one's conditioning ...

I read what you say, Juan, and I am aware that there is a lot of activity going on trying to resolve individual, specific conflicts (and generally creating more conflicts in the process). But my point is, or my question is, is the whole business of conflict ever questioned? The whole phenomena? Is it ever asked “why is the human race in so much conflict?”. “What is the root of human conflict?”

Admittedly I am not a great reader, but I do not ever remember coming across such inquiry. Maybe there is the odd philosophical essay here and there, but as far as I know, K is the only person who has asked such questions.

I am happy to be corrected.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #44
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
I seems that people are so tied up in conflicts, they have no time, no space, to inquire into conflict.

But we all inquire into conflict Clive, only that we do not penetrate the whole conflict but just personal everyday conflicts caused mainly by others to us (or at least this is what most of us think) and which we try to solve (without much success) to make our lives easier ...

But this is not the point ... The point is that the main cause for that human conflict not being still solved is our strong resistance to observe the causes of external conflict in ourselves ... We strongly resist to do that and not precisely because we are so tied up in conflicts ...

Would you like to go for a walk with me to deeply observe that resistance in each one of us?

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 22 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Mostly man refuses to look seriously into himself, I think. He's only serious when his bank account is threatened or his entertainment is taken away.

You are right Tom. It does seem that the only thing that galvanizes man into action is a great PERSONAL threat or sorrow. And it has to be very direct. Apparently climate change, the destruction of the environment, the prospect of societal collapse, are not direct enough threats to bring about action.

Being frivolous, although not entirely unserious, I would say it needs something like one's latte not being hot enough, to cause us to act.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 22 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
But we all inquire into conflict Clive, only that we do not penetrate the whole conflict but just personal everyday conflicts caused mainly by others to us (or at least this is what most of us think) and which we try to solve (without much success) to make our lives easier ...

This is what I am saying. Maybe it is a question of lanquage, Juan. We are concerned with CONFLICTS (note the s) but not with CONFLICT. Not with the whole phenomena, as I said.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
But this is not the point ... The point is that the main cause for that human conflict not being still solved is our strong resistance to observe the causes of external conflict in ourselves ... We strongly resist to do that and not precisely because we are so tied up in conflicts ...

I am not sure that you are right, in this, Juan, when you say the point is our resistance to observing conflict in ourselves.We can do that, but still be under the impression that it is OUR individual conflict, rather than a manifestation of human conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #48
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
You are right Tom. It does seem that the only thing that galvanizes man into action is a great PERSONAL threat or sorrow.

And yet, the action that would arise from that great PERSONAL threat or sorrow would be fragmentary, we not wanting to see at all how is it that we have come to feel threatened or what is the root cause for our sorrow, our only interest being to try to get rid as soon as possible of that great PERSONAL threat or sorrow ...

After centuries and centuries of conflict we still have not looked deeply at this fragmentary way to solve our conflicts ... Why?

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

This is the JK online daily quote for today:

To live is to be related

The understanding of oneself does not come through the process of withdrawal from society or through retirement into an ivory tower. If you and I really go into the matter carefully and intelligently, we will see that we can understand ourselves only in relationship and not in isolation. Nobody can live in isolation. To live is to be related. It is only in the mirror of relationship that I understand myself, which means that I must be extraordinarily alert in my thoughts, feelings, and actions in relationship. This is not a difficult process or a superhuman endeavour; and as with all rivers, while the source is hardly perceptible, the waters gather momentum as they move, as they deepen. In this mad and chaotic world, if you go into this process advisedly, with care, with patience, without condemning, you will see how it begins to gather momentum and that it is not a matter of time

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
Would you like to go for a walk with me to deeply observe that resistance in each one of us?

Thanks for the invitation, but sorry, I have left Europe now and am back in New Zealand :-)

But I am certainly not denying that that resistance exists. It does.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #51
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not sure that you are right, in this, Juan, when you say the point is our resistance to observing conflict in ourselves. We can do that, but still be under the impression that it is OUR individual conflict, rather than a manifestation of human conflict.

If this happens it is because in fact we are not observing our own conflict but acting into that conflict believing that we are observing it ... We never observe our own conflict ... An actual observation of our own conflict becomes the observation of the whole mankind conflict ... The understanding of its real cause ... But as we never observe our conflict in such a way, but act into it all the time, we are unable to see its real cause and therefore impossible for us to end it no matter what we can do to try to end with it.

Time to go to bed ... We continue our walk together tomorrow.

Let's see ...

This post was last updated by Juan E. (account deleted) Thu, 22 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2016 #52
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thanks for the invitation, but sorry, I have left Europe now and am back in New Zealand :-)

:-))

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Friends....quick note...have no Internet at home for almost two days now...technical issue. At coffee shop with free wifi for a bit. But home Internet is down, so I couldn't reply to any messages. Will probably order a new dsl modem tonight or tomorrow. Then it will be a few days for the shipping. Going to read some of the messages I missed yesterday and today while I have wifi for a short while.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Tom,

Thanks for keeping us informed. Looking forward to seeing you back.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #55
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
If this happens it is because in fact we are not observing our own conflict but acting into that conflict believing that we are observing it ..

It is as you say, Juan, that a pure awareness of the conflict within ourselves must reveal that it is actually a part of the total human conflict. And yes, as you say, our strong tendency to want to do something about what is seen certainly gets in the way of the observation.

Yes, I think it is clear that we cannot do anything about about conflict. Or perhaps better to say, any action on conflict is only to further conflict. But perhaps we need to explore the nature of conflict more deeply.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2016 #56
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Hans, I have referred back to your original post, and am wondering if you have found the discussion that has developed relevant to your inquiry?

You asked about two issues, conflict and relationship. Presenting them together in this way you must feel there is a strong connection between the two. In fact you choose a title for your thread “Conflict in Relationship”. And you say that you don't really know what relationship is.

Krishnamurti has often said that life is relationship, but perhaps that remains just another theory for you, as you mentioned? He refers to not just human relationship, but the relationship to things, nature, ideas, property.

“ Life is a question of relationship.
Nothing can exist in isolation, and if
relationship is merely an activity,
then relationship has not much
significance “

and he says:

“Relationship has true significance
only when it is a process of
self-revelation, when it is the
revealing to oneself in the very
action of relationship. But most of us
do not want to be revealed in
relationship. On the contrary, we use
relationship as a means of covering up
our own insufficiency, our own
troubles, our own uncertainty”

And

“ It is not because you think you are
that you come into existence. You
exist because you are related, and it
is the lack of understanding of
relationship that causes conflict ”

This seems highly relevant to your post. The lack of understanding of relationship causes conflict.

What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #57
Thumb_stringio Juan E. Spain 391 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
our strong tendency to want to do something about what is seen certainly gets in the way of the observation.

I was one day (long ago) in the house of which at that time was my girlfriend, in Switzerland, together with an old woman with whom she was sharing the flat ... We were there drinking some coffee and chattering, when all of a sudden that old woman looked at me and asked "You Buddhist, what would you do with the problems of the world?" (at that time i was living in a Buddhist monastery there studying Buddhist logic and anything i could find about Buddhist emptiness) ... So, after telling her that i did not considered myself Buddhist i said that i would go into trying to find out the real causes of those problems, which made her to interrupt me and say angrily "Ah! I know that already! You spend all your time talking while others die of starvation around you, isn't it?!" ... and added "While you spend your time talking and talking i give them food and show them how to solve their problems" ... and she was even more mad at me when i said "Those things are OK, but they are only a temporary solution of the problem, the do not end problems because eventually they will surface again in another guise" ... Fortunately my girl-friend skillfully ended the discussion and we start talking about other things leaving conflict behind ... Later, when i was again in the monastery i observed deeply what you mention above in relation to what had happened that evening ...

What i'm trying to say is that so many people in this world think that problems are something upon we must act (or react) quickly, that a time of reflection is a waste of time that only will cause the problem to become worse ... "Quick, quick" they say, "Will talk later, once we have solved the problem" ... And because that, the solution never works, because after that problem there is another problem and another and therefore it has no end, which means that we never have time to explore deeply (as you suggest we should perhaps do) the nature of the problem.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But perhaps we need to explore the nature of conflict more deeply.

Let's begin that inquire then ...

In which way one would explain to those i described above and to oneself, the absolute necessity to explore the nature of conflict more deeply if we don't want to end killing ourselves ... knowing that others with that very intention before, have failed in that very same quest because the world is still the same and with the same conflicts for centuries now?

Will others see tears falling down from our dry eyes if we do that despite the past failings of others?

Someone who was there told me that one day, the Dalai Lama was giving a talk in Lyon (France) about compassion ... and that in the middle of that talk he stopped for a while and start crying ... Those who noticed that, surely thought to themselves "How compassionate he is for all of us!" ... But if there was someone there walking beside him, surely he or she cried too with him by feeling deeply how ignorants we all are, not only by being unable to end with all our conflicts, but by creating even more conflicts in our try to solve the previous ones.

Let's see ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #58
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
In which way one would explain to those i described above and to oneself, the absolute necessity to explore the nature of conflict more deeply if we don't want to end killing ourselves .

I don't know if I find this a very important issue, Juan. Where will explanations get us, either explaining to others or to myself? And if people don't see for themselves the absolute necessity of going beyond conflict, will anything that I say make any difference?

This is the question that seems fundamental to me: Can one end conflict? I mean of course actually end it, not just have a discussion about the possibility of it. Does that seem a reasonable question to face to you? I am not assuming anything, whether it is possible or whether it is not.

I don't know if it is best to start a new thread for this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #59
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

I will change that question. Not "can one end conflict" but "can conflict end".

It seems clear that "I" certainly cannot end conflict, since I am the cause of conflict. But perhaps I am jumping ahead in our inquiry by saying that.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 24 Sep 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 #60
Thumb_open-uri20160915-28720-dqd7er-0 hans heiler New Zealand 12 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E. wrote:
A thought-autonomous entity that feels it is divided from everything, and not depending in anything to exist as such? ... What do you think?

Its hard to define for me. What you describe i can certainly observe also in myself. This feeling of being separate and not influenced by the environment.
This idea of myself crystalises with every statement one makes about oneself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 89 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)