Maybe, maybe not. I've often wondered if there was some power to collective will, collective prayer, collective thought. I've often wondered if there was some psychic energy we all share. Is our collective will the reason for our centuries long progress in the betterment of all of us? Does our collective attitude form the world's attitude in some psychic way?
I've noticed in my life that I seem to feel my, wife, my children, my parents, in my mind rather than see them. Sometimes that touch seems so much more intimate than mere physical touch. If you have the sense to concentrate that kinda thing can make sex pretty cool with a long term partner. It can also make composing a shopping list better than sex with a stranger. Sorry for the image but you get the idea. Do we actually influence others, the rest of the world, by being in that stream of collective consciousness? If so, it may be the source of the problem. We might be in trouble.
LSD works by breaching the barrier between the order of our consciousness and the roaring cacophony of thought in our subconscious. The Id monsters and bold insights just barely beneath the surface of our day to day thought. I've often thought the difference between genius and the mundane was the availability of an individual's subconscious to their conscious. I've often thought the ability to breach the facade of ego dictated genius and madness. As with everything else I've thought that's not original but I do think it might be true.
By the time we got to Woodstock we were half a million strong. For everyone who got to Woodstock there were 50 or a hundred, like myself who joined in spirit. They told two friends and they told two friends. We all did acid like so many Chicklets. Our kid's suspicions are true and it's even worse than they suspect. Think about those numbers and then think about the distribution system that implies. It was just another marketing opportunity like the Hula Hoop. I digress.
It seems to me that was just about the time our society began to move further and farther into irrationality. Obviously, I'm saying what we are looking at right now can only be summed up by the phrase, " We be trippin."
I do think it's possible we managed to psychically project the uncontrolled chaos of the effects of LSD on the society as a whole. Who knew? Sorry.
I could make a list of why I think this but all you really need to do is look around. Does this shit seem reasonable to you?
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
You Can't Hear the Forest for the Trees.
Words mean things, sometimes more than we realize. It's more important what we think is said than what actually was said. Here's an example. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a noise? Yes, it does.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound? No, it does not.
Here's why. The word "noise" refers to a physical phenomenon. That noise can become a sound if someone hears it because "sound" implies someone hearing.
If you say something like that in an entry-level philosophy class you get an A. Pretty clever huh? I kinda cheated though because back then I was interested in Marshall McLuhan and S I Hayakawa. Ya know, I just recently found out Galileo said that four hundred years ago, albeit in Italian. I'm not going to tell my professor. Even 40 years ago I got bored so others wouldn't have to.
I mention it now because it's so easy to turn language into some sort of sleight of hand. Take the word "reform". To most people that word implies improvement. In point of fact, it merely means, ' to change.' We are left to assume the change will be beneficial. Further, we are left to believe the change will be beneficial to the majority. Is it? Two simple words when posed as a question that can deflate almost any argument. I'm reminded of an old joke. A professor is expounding on the difference between mathematics and language. The professor says, in math two negatives can make a positive but in English two positives can never make a negative. From the back of the lecture hall a small voice is heard to mutter, " Yeah, right." Two more small words.
Currently, we are being bombarded with words of a neutral meaning substituted for words meant to instill fear. It's really kinda shameful. The word "immigrant" is being used to mean " evil other". Why? We live in a nation built by immigrants. Muslim is being used to mean evil. Why? It refers to a religion that makes no more or less sense than any other. Remember, Catholicism was used to justify the Inquisition and the Baptist faith was often used to justify lynching. Recently our collective Judeo- Christian faith has been invoked to justify torture. The words "birth certificate" have become a perfectly acceptable way to yell the "N" word in the best of circles. How? As in; how did we let that happen?
Last week no less than the head of the CIA said democracy had been threatened and harmed by people leaking sensitive government information. He denounced seeing the culture of leakers as heroes. He was outraged by Wiki-Leaks, Snowden, Manning et al. Thinking back about those things I was left with the one-word question: How? How were we harmed? I don't think he could answer that simple question. I can't. Can you?
We are left with the responsibility to listen carefully and ask simple questions. A kind word turns away wrath. A simple question turns away stupidity.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound? No, it does not.
Here's why. The word "noise" refers to a physical phenomenon. That noise can become a sound if someone hears it because "sound" implies someone hearing.
If you say something like that in an entry-level philosophy class you get an A. Pretty clever huh? I kinda cheated though because back then I was interested in Marshall McLuhan and S I Hayakawa. Ya know, I just recently found out Galileo said that four hundred years ago, albeit in Italian. I'm not going to tell my professor. Even 40 years ago I got bored so others wouldn't have to.
I mention it now because it's so easy to turn language into some sort of sleight of hand. Take the word "reform". To most people that word implies improvement. In point of fact, it merely means, ' to change.' We are left to assume the change will be beneficial. Further, we are left to believe the change will be beneficial to the majority. Is it? Two simple words when posed as a question that can deflate almost any argument. I'm reminded of an old joke. A professor is expounding on the difference between mathematics and language. The professor says, in math two negatives can make a positive but in English two positives can never make a negative. From the back of the lecture hall a small voice is heard to mutter, " Yeah, right." Two more small words.
Currently, we are being bombarded with words of a neutral meaning substituted for words meant to instill fear. It's really kinda shameful. The word "immigrant" is being used to mean " evil other". Why? We live in a nation built by immigrants. Muslim is being used to mean evil. Why? It refers to a religion that makes no more or less sense than any other. Remember, Catholicism was used to justify the Inquisition and the Baptist faith was often used to justify lynching. Recently our collective Judeo- Christian faith has been invoked to justify torture. The words "birth certificate" have become a perfectly acceptable way to yell the "N" word in the best of circles. How? As in; how did we let that happen?
Last week no less than the head of the CIA said democracy had been threatened and harmed by people leaking sensitive government information. He denounced seeing the culture of leakers as heroes. He was outraged by Wiki-Leaks, Snowden, Manning et al. Thinking back about those things I was left with the one-word question: How? How were we harmed? I don't think he could answer that simple question. I can't. Can you?
We are left with the responsibility to listen carefully and ask simple questions. A kind word turns away wrath. A simple question turns away stupidity.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Just A Few Questions About Healthcare Reform
In the last seven years something like 30 million people have joined the mainstream of healthcare provision. It's reasonable to assume millions of them have established relationships with doctors.
Will those people be able to keep their doctors? It only seems fair to ask.
Millions of people have new health insurance plans who never had them before. Will they be able to keep those plans? It only seems fair to ask.
Thousands have found employment in the personal care field because of expanded funding from the ACA and thousands more have seen pay increases. Will they be able to keep their jobs? Will they be able to keep the increase in pay? It only seems fair to ask.
Thousands have benefited from the extension of personal care. Will they continue to benefit? It only seems fair to ask.
It seems fair to ask of any reform proposal every question that was asked of the ACA. It sure isn't my fault the answers aren't as good. It does kinda make you wonder who's fault it is the answers aren't very good.
There are other questions and they are fair to ask as well. Some doctors actually care about their patients; the good ones anyway. I'm sure they wonder if they will be able to keep their patients. I'm sure the good ones and the not so good ones wonder if they'll be able to maintain their increased earnings. There's nothing wrong in asking that. People deserve to earn a living no matter what they do.
Companies also deserve to earn a profit. Reliable, official estimates are the insurance companies will lose 23 million clients over the coming years from these attempts at reform. It is reasonable for those companies to ask how they will maintain their profits just as they have been blamed for asking now.
They also might want to ask if, when the republicans are done, will they be able to devote more than 15% of their profits to executive compensation and bonuses. That limitation seems to be the only "socialist" feature of the ACA and it only seems fair to ask.
So, whose fault is it these questions are fair and the answers aren't very good? I don't think it really matters as long as we just don't do it.
Will those people be able to keep their doctors? It only seems fair to ask.
Millions of people have new health insurance plans who never had them before. Will they be able to keep those plans? It only seems fair to ask.
Thousands have found employment in the personal care field because of expanded funding from the ACA and thousands more have seen pay increases. Will they be able to keep their jobs? Will they be able to keep the increase in pay? It only seems fair to ask.
Thousands have benefited from the extension of personal care. Will they continue to benefit? It only seems fair to ask.
It seems fair to ask of any reform proposal every question that was asked of the ACA. It sure isn't my fault the answers aren't as good. It does kinda make you wonder who's fault it is the answers aren't very good.
There are other questions and they are fair to ask as well. Some doctors actually care about their patients; the good ones anyway. I'm sure they wonder if they will be able to keep their patients. I'm sure the good ones and the not so good ones wonder if they'll be able to maintain their increased earnings. There's nothing wrong in asking that. People deserve to earn a living no matter what they do.
Companies also deserve to earn a profit. Reliable, official estimates are the insurance companies will lose 23 million clients over the coming years from these attempts at reform. It is reasonable for those companies to ask how they will maintain their profits just as they have been blamed for asking now.
They also might want to ask if, when the republicans are done, will they be able to devote more than 15% of their profits to executive compensation and bonuses. That limitation seems to be the only "socialist" feature of the ACA and it only seems fair to ask.
So, whose fault is it these questions are fair and the answers aren't very good? I don't think it really matters as long as we just don't do it.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
The Dumbest Thing I Ever Said.
I'm 65 years old. I've been married twice. I have four adult children. You would think that after "I Do" and " Oh Just Knock It Off" or maybe, "I really don't care what you think" I would have covered all the dumb stuff I could possibly say but no, I said this before I said any of those things. I was an early bloomer. This was about the time I was saying, "Maybe we should do two." "Here, let me drive." "Three hours will be plenty of sleep." And the always reliable, " Why not?" Although, at that age three hours was plenty. To be honest, I don't remember actually having been asleep between the ages of 18 and 30. I do remember "coming to" a few times but that's just not the same thing or at least it doesn't look like it now.
In my own defense, there was that whole wife, baby, education and work thing goin on. Mix that in with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll how much time do you really have for sleep? Maybe that's why I said so much dumb stuff; sleep deprivation. Yeah, yeah, dat's it !
But before the whole wife, baby, education thing I did have a job. I was actually a Soda Jerk at Howard Johnson's on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Looking back, it was kind of an iconic thing although there was no way to know that at the time. How would ya know? On top of the cool, paper hat they did give me $1.15 an hour. There was no clue you were doing something iconic in that. It was a long time ago.
I was about to say, "I had two friends." Obviously, I had a lot of friends but it got me to thinking I had two kinds of friends from the old days. One type of friend: If I wrote his name, social security number and home address and told some story from the old days would give me a high-five. The other type: If I said something that would remotely identify the guy, he would have his lawyer give me the high-hard one. It's funny how that worked out.
These two friends got to be those separate kinda guys though they were best friends at the time. I don't know what we were doing. Just hangin out some way. Honest, only about a 10th of the stuff we did in those days was illegal. Less than that was immoral although we have been made to look bad. We were hanging out. We weren't playin jacks. They told me they were going to Upstate New York for a concert and would I like to go along.
" No, I have to work." That's the dumbest thing I ever said and I said it in ,1969.
In my own defense, there was that whole wife, baby, education and work thing goin on. Mix that in with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll how much time do you really have for sleep? Maybe that's why I said so much dumb stuff; sleep deprivation. Yeah, yeah, dat's it !
But before the whole wife, baby, education thing I did have a job. I was actually a Soda Jerk at Howard Johnson's on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Looking back, it was kind of an iconic thing although there was no way to know that at the time. How would ya know? On top of the cool, paper hat they did give me $1.15 an hour. There was no clue you were doing something iconic in that. It was a long time ago.
I was about to say, "I had two friends." Obviously, I had a lot of friends but it got me to thinking I had two kinds of friends from the old days. One type of friend: If I wrote his name, social security number and home address and told some story from the old days would give me a high-five. The other type: If I said something that would remotely identify the guy, he would have his lawyer give me the high-hard one. It's funny how that worked out.
These two friends got to be those separate kinda guys though they were best friends at the time. I don't know what we were doing. Just hangin out some way. Honest, only about a 10th of the stuff we did in those days was illegal. Less than that was immoral although we have been made to look bad. We were hanging out. We weren't playin jacks. They told me they were going to Upstate New York for a concert and would I like to go along.
" No, I have to work." That's the dumbest thing I ever said and I said it in ,1969.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Dream a Little Dream
I read an article a bit ago that pointed out mammals have to move their eyes when they sleep in order to oxygenate their eyeballs or they would go blind. That means REM sleep is no more than an evolutionary defense mechanism. Our rapid eye movement is a product of our dreams. Our dreams are not the product of the Gods communicating with us but a response to a biological need. Isn't that disappointing? After all the thought and significance our dreams have been given to find they are a meaningless device of natural selection? Once again we find the Gods and their significance within ourselves in the mundane. It might be time to redefine "mundane." Or not.
Aren't we capable of the most wonderful aspirations in the powers we attribute to our Gods? Omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, unlimited mercy and forgiveness. Who among us can actually turn the other cheek in response to the smallest of slights and who among us doesn't know we should? Mercy and forgiveness are the only attributes we can reasonably share with our gods and we can't even do that but we know we should.
It has been said we are never so humble as when we approach our God. I've noticed we never soar so high as when we create that God. We are humbled when we confront our own aspirations. What would Jesus do? We should know. We created Him. Perhaps we even dreamed Him. Good for us.
So, no dream book will give us the daily number. No Id monster will stand up to the dawn. With any luck our waking dreams won't make us blind. ( If this weren't oooh sooo serious there'd be a great joke there.) I like what our dreams produce solely from within ourselves. Isn't that reassuring? I approve of God? Damned decent of me, I think.
Obviously, that's not my meaning. I'm constantly surprised by our ability and desire to embody the divine. I don't believe our dreams are the "rub" as Hamlet has it. I believe our dreams are the opportunity.
Aren't we capable of the most wonderful aspirations in the powers we attribute to our Gods? Omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, unlimited mercy and forgiveness. Who among us can actually turn the other cheek in response to the smallest of slights and who among us doesn't know we should? Mercy and forgiveness are the only attributes we can reasonably share with our gods and we can't even do that but we know we should.
It has been said we are never so humble as when we approach our God. I've noticed we never soar so high as when we create that God. We are humbled when we confront our own aspirations. What would Jesus do? We should know. We created Him. Perhaps we even dreamed Him. Good for us.
So, no dream book will give us the daily number. No Id monster will stand up to the dawn. With any luck our waking dreams won't make us blind. ( If this weren't oooh sooo serious there'd be a great joke there.) I like what our dreams produce solely from within ourselves. Isn't that reassuring? I approve of God? Damned decent of me, I think.
Obviously, that's not my meaning. I'm constantly surprised by our ability and desire to embody the divine. I don't believe our dreams are the "rub" as Hamlet has it. I believe our dreams are the opportunity.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Gender Bender
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
Why that wording? They meant gender and they should have said gender. It was that poor choice of words that hobbled passage. By replacing the meaningful word "gender" with the word fraught with meaningless meaning "sex", they opened the door to the positively goofy shenanigans of Schlafly and the rest.
Schlafly was able to conflate unisex bathrooms and gay rights into an opposition of what was obvious common sense. In point of fact most of the things Schlafly and her ilk railed against have become common sense features of society. Women serve in combat. If a draft is reinstated most are in agreement women should be conscripted as well. Gay marriage became the law of the land because it was hard to find someone who cared. You could say we matured into the society certain people feared forty years ago. Those appealed to fears have been found to be baseless in the intervening years. There is this thought about unisex bathrooms: Wash your damned hands.
The primary issue remains. Equal pay for equal work. Schlafly was primarily funded by the corporations who were the largest employers of women. The only goal was to suppress wages. Any well documented wage/gender discrimination case wins but it takes time and money to fight thru the courts. The Equal Rights Amendment would have short cut that court fight. As always, follow the money.
Words mean things. The Equal Rights Amendment was first drafted in 1923. The words "sex" and "gender" must have been much more interchangeable then in the popular mind. It's interesting that as we have become so much more open about sex the word itself has become so much more salacious in perception.
In refreshing my memory of this debate I was struck by it coinciding with the debate about the Panama Canal Treaties. The same tactics of total nonsense were employed in both debates. I can't think of a time before that when total irrationality was employed as a public position. Now it is commonplace. Time put the lie to those efforts.
Well, the ERA is reintroduced with each new session of Congress. Change the wording.
Why that wording? They meant gender and they should have said gender. It was that poor choice of words that hobbled passage. By replacing the meaningful word "gender" with the word fraught with meaningless meaning "sex", they opened the door to the positively goofy shenanigans of Schlafly and the rest.
Schlafly was able to conflate unisex bathrooms and gay rights into an opposition of what was obvious common sense. In point of fact most of the things Schlafly and her ilk railed against have become common sense features of society. Women serve in combat. If a draft is reinstated most are in agreement women should be conscripted as well. Gay marriage became the law of the land because it was hard to find someone who cared. You could say we matured into the society certain people feared forty years ago. Those appealed to fears have been found to be baseless in the intervening years. There is this thought about unisex bathrooms: Wash your damned hands.
The primary issue remains. Equal pay for equal work. Schlafly was primarily funded by the corporations who were the largest employers of women. The only goal was to suppress wages. Any well documented wage/gender discrimination case wins but it takes time and money to fight thru the courts. The Equal Rights Amendment would have short cut that court fight. As always, follow the money.
Words mean things. The Equal Rights Amendment was first drafted in 1923. The words "sex" and "gender" must have been much more interchangeable then in the popular mind. It's interesting that as we have become so much more open about sex the word itself has become so much more salacious in perception.
In refreshing my memory of this debate I was struck by it coinciding with the debate about the Panama Canal Treaties. The same tactics of total nonsense were employed in both debates. I can't think of a time before that when total irrationality was employed as a public position. Now it is commonplace. Time put the lie to those efforts.
Well, the ERA is reintroduced with each new session of Congress. Change the wording.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Coup d'etat
I think we are witnessing a coup d'etat carried out by the intelligence community and the media. I also think it will be successful. I don't know that to be a good thing or a bad thing but I do know things should be recognized for what they are.
The leaks concerning the obvious and admitted collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians come from the intelligence agencies. The media doesn't just have the right to report these things they have that duty. The editorial shadings of that reporting are definitely hostile. There is obvious cooperation (collusion) between the media and their sources in the intelligence community. The question is: Is that tail wagging the dog? Is the media anti-Trump zeal being fed by the intelligence community's animus? No matter the motives, are they bad motives? I think the people in the Intelligence Agencies think they are protecting our republic. Maybe they are. I think most in the media simply don't like Trump. No maybe about that.
I think a case can be made that Trump is "unable to discharge the powers or perform the duties of his office." That's from the 25th Amendment and I think that is the weapon that will be brandished to obtain Trump's resignation. This inability obviously is so or at least it can be demonstrated to be so. The question is: can that translate into an erosion of political support within the republican party? I think as the mid terms draw nearer it most certainly can. I also think Trump shows both petulance and impatience. Those qualities in Nixon proved to be fatal but Nixon never had a hope of a majority in Congress. I think it will be the prosecutions drawing nearer that will seal the deal. It seems pretty obvious Eric Trump and ultimately his brother-in-law will be indicted for collusion with the Russians and lying on disclosure forms. These are crimes they have admitted, even bragged they committed. Those prosecutions will pique Trump's impatience and petulance and his behavior will become more suspect and even more erratic.
I dislike this kind of prediction about current affairs. I've kept a private journal on politics for years. Reading back thru it can be pretty embarrassing so we'll see what happens. This is just what I think.
The leaks concerning the obvious and admitted collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians come from the intelligence agencies. The media doesn't just have the right to report these things they have that duty. The editorial shadings of that reporting are definitely hostile. There is obvious cooperation (collusion) between the media and their sources in the intelligence community. The question is: Is that tail wagging the dog? Is the media anti-Trump zeal being fed by the intelligence community's animus? No matter the motives, are they bad motives? I think the people in the Intelligence Agencies think they are protecting our republic. Maybe they are. I think most in the media simply don't like Trump. No maybe about that.
I think a case can be made that Trump is "unable to discharge the powers or perform the duties of his office." That's from the 25th Amendment and I think that is the weapon that will be brandished to obtain Trump's resignation. This inability obviously is so or at least it can be demonstrated to be so. The question is: can that translate into an erosion of political support within the republican party? I think as the mid terms draw nearer it most certainly can. I also think Trump shows both petulance and impatience. Those qualities in Nixon proved to be fatal but Nixon never had a hope of a majority in Congress. I think it will be the prosecutions drawing nearer that will seal the deal. It seems pretty obvious Eric Trump and ultimately his brother-in-law will be indicted for collusion with the Russians and lying on disclosure forms. These are crimes they have admitted, even bragged they committed. Those prosecutions will pique Trump's impatience and petulance and his behavior will become more suspect and even more erratic.
I dislike this kind of prediction about current affairs. I've kept a private journal on politics for years. Reading back thru it can be pretty embarrassing so we'll see what happens. This is just what I think.
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Time After Time (edited)
If 60 is the new forty, forty must have been the new 60. My shoulder still hurts. Obviously, it doesn't really work that way. The years do tend to tumble by though. If you hold your mind just right it seems like a kaleidoscope instead of the passing parade. Those two images actually portray the truth.
So many of my friends and even people I have yet to meet, say they are taken aback by how brief life seems to be once they reach their 50's or 60's. It seems like yesterday they were young and full of juice. But it was a while ago. There is one feature I like about it. Waiting for something to happen or to be over now seems so brief. Like most people I always hated to wait. I remember as a kid saying, 'I can't wait' for this or that. My Dad would just say, " I bet you can." His meaning was; of course, you're going to wait. It's up to you how you go about it. Impatience and anticipation are two very different things. It was a valuable lesson and has served me very well. I suppose we all wish we had been more attentive to our parents. I digress.
What is the truth? Even with a rudimentary knowledge of physics and implications of higher mathematics; with a rudimentary familiarity with popular science fiction, we know that time doesn't actually exist. Everything happens at once in a single instant, sorta. However, we are linear creatures. We have to perceive things in some sort of order. The passing parade.
Here's how we perceive time. We experience it as a percentage of the total time we have experienced. A month is a lot larger percentage of a five year period than a month is of a fifty year period. As the total amount of time we have experienced becomes larger the individual days and months and years become smaller in relation and in our perception. It can become kaleidoscopic.
I think it would be a real disappointment if we were aware all of the events of our lives and the lives of the world occurred in a single instant. We would be robbed of memory and anticipation. It is well to remember 50 years was just as long at inception as it is in retrospect.. It's perception and anticipation that make the difference. Make a difference.
The years rush in on us even if we know how to perceive them. I think if you have a brain in your head you'll live as though you're gonna last a century. However, if you were going to be known for those hundred years by what you did today what would that be?
So many of my friends and even people I have yet to meet, say they are taken aback by how brief life seems to be once they reach their 50's or 60's. It seems like yesterday they were young and full of juice. But it was a while ago. There is one feature I like about it. Waiting for something to happen or to be over now seems so brief. Like most people I always hated to wait. I remember as a kid saying, 'I can't wait' for this or that. My Dad would just say, " I bet you can." His meaning was; of course, you're going to wait. It's up to you how you go about it. Impatience and anticipation are two very different things. It was a valuable lesson and has served me very well. I suppose we all wish we had been more attentive to our parents. I digress.
What is the truth? Even with a rudimentary knowledge of physics and implications of higher mathematics; with a rudimentary familiarity with popular science fiction, we know that time doesn't actually exist. Everything happens at once in a single instant, sorta. However, we are linear creatures. We have to perceive things in some sort of order. The passing parade.
Here's how we perceive time. We experience it as a percentage of the total time we have experienced. A month is a lot larger percentage of a five year period than a month is of a fifty year period. As the total amount of time we have experienced becomes larger the individual days and months and years become smaller in relation and in our perception. It can become kaleidoscopic.
I think it would be a real disappointment if we were aware all of the events of our lives and the lives of the world occurred in a single instant. We would be robbed of memory and anticipation. It is well to remember 50 years was just as long at inception as it is in retrospect.. It's perception and anticipation that make the difference. Make a difference.
The years rush in on us even if we know how to perceive them. I think if you have a brain in your head you'll live as though you're gonna last a century. However, if you were going to be known for those hundred years by what you did today what would that be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)