Atvelonis's recent activity

  1. How do you know where to start with prolific authors?

    ~books Ask
    Hello Tildes! I often find myself intimidated by authors of great sagas, trilogies upon trilogies, and dozens of standalone novels. How do I know which book (or series) to read first? I've been...

    Hello Tildes! I often find myself intimidated by authors of great sagas, trilogies upon trilogies, and dozens of standalone novels. How do I know which book (or series) to read first?

    I've been recommended Terry Pratchett and Brandon Sanderson recently. I've read zero novels by either author. I've also been warned that there is a definitive best place in the canon to start, "and it's this one!" But then someone else interjects and says, "no, it's this one!" followed by passionate reasoning. Okay. If it is really worth starting somewhere in particular, where should I begin?

    I'm unlikely to read an author's entire corpus. I just have too many books to read and not enough time. But I'm not opposed to reading longer series if they're really fun. I'd appreciate any input about these authors in particular and this problem in general. Thanks!

    13 votes

  3. Comment on Underrated ways to change the world in ~life

    Atvelonis
    Link
    You've shared a valuable and insightful article—thank you! I often think of this parable, taught to me at summer camp when I was 13 (I'll paraphrase): It's easy to become jaded with all the...

    You've shared a valuable and insightful article—thank you!

    I often think of this parable, taught to me at summer camp when I was 13 (I'll paraphrase):

    An old man walks along the beach just after a storm. Scattered across the wet sand are thousands, millions of starfish washed ashore by the powerful waves. They are slowly baking, soon to die, as the tide goes out and the sun rises.

    The man sees a figure in the distance reach down and motion toward the sea. Then again, and again, and again. As he approaches, he sees that it's a young boy picking up starfish and hurling them as far as he can past the breakers.

    The man asks, "Why do you labor so, on such an endless task? Do you not see how many starfish lie suffocating on the sand? You're wasting your time. You can't save them all—what you're doing doesn't matter."

    Taken aback, the boy stops and puzzles over the statement for a moment. Then he bends down to grab another starfish, and with all his might flings it back into the sea.

    He turns to the old man and says, "It mattered to that one."

    It's easy to become jaded with all the troubles of the world. We are often overwhelmed and fall into apathy. But there's a better path, and it starts with seeing possibility in the little things. There's a democratic whiff to this: working also from the ground-up rather than just from the top-down.

    9 votes

  4. Comment on Maybe Bluesky has "won" in ~tech

    Atvelonis
    Link Parent
    It's hard work! How many people live in your neighborhood? Where do neighbors find themselves instead of civic meetings and events?

    It's hard work!

    How many people live in your neighborhood?

    Where do neighbors find themselves instead of civic meetings and events?

    5 votes

  5. Comment on Maybe Bluesky has "won" in ~tech

    Atvelonis
    Link Parent
    Third places aren't exclusive with social media, but I agree that the online world ought to be secondary to the real one. There is something innate about physical social interaction that elevates...

    Third places aren't exclusive with social media, but I agree that the online world ought to be secondary to the real one. There is something innate about physical social interaction that elevates the human spirit. I like to keep up with my network on social media, and at the same time I feel that real-world contact is a preferable default.

    People often speak about third places in the context of architecture and transportation; that if only our country weren't so car-dependent (or whatever), they would be everywhere and society would be that much better. This is at least partially true: it's easier to build community in places built to a human scale, especially if there are many people about. But no third place exists passively. I think our society has gotten used to an entertainment mindset where the image of connection/community is displayed for us, as imitation in television and social media, rather than by us in real life. Mainstream entertainment always has a degree of the parasocial. The parasocial is a kind of hyperreal inversion of culture that detracts from togetherness. In my view, many people have forgotten what it means to cultivate community because they have not considered that it must be actively and endlessly fostered, like plants in a garden. The literal action of working to create community is part of what makes a third place; it isn't just bestowed. I think that also means identifying third places that already exist, because they are there, sometimes they are just dormant or not appreciated.

    I continue to have many joys experiencing community through my Friends meeting. In addition to centering me emotionally, it's the best way I've found to establish meaningful relationships (friends, acquaintances) in the neighborhood/city. I truly did not realize it was possible to this extent. My meeting has been proactively reimagining its culture, offering space for comfort and connection while retaining its traditions. It has been interesting to watch over the last few years. Worships, retreats, potlucks, family events, and generous mutual aid all bring people together. I love to listen in meeting, hearing the silence and the togetherness. Even in meeting for business, you wouldn't think listening to a financial audit would be joyful... but it is so much more engaging to hear that communal funds are being prudently managed and spent to heal meeting members in the hospital, to help others navigate Medicare, to house Friends in need, to offer meals to low-income neighbors, and to support education.

    I have been amazed to find previously invisible "third places" appear as a result of this community where I didn't expect. For instance, the used bookstore up the street was just some store until it was the workplace of a Friend (and home of a cat!), so now it is a regular stop on walks through town. These third places seem to reinforce themselves and each other. At potluck on Sunday, I met an alumna not only of my college but also its newspaper. I begin to see Friends at the gym, on the street, at a dance... who would have thought? Just this afternoon I visited a fellow Quaker for coffee across town, where we serendipitously stumbled into a mutual friend (who had been traveling far away for months!). What a delightful encounter! It makes me feel so connected to my town. But in some sense that connection transcends the built environment and now third places seem physically possible in unexpected backdrops. I still have to make an effort to be sociable, but having a medium to get started, like a place of worship, has been helpful.

    People heavily engaged with technology are sometimes derisive toward faith for philosophical reasons. I hear that perspective. Some religious institutions are alienating. However, I have learned a lot in my community, perhaps because it goes out of its way to be thoughtful rather than automatically prescriptive or judgmental. One of the things I have begun to understand is how much judgment I have been taught to lay upon the world around me. Letting go of that compulsion is a work in progress. It is good to start to see it for what it is though.

    I spend a lot of time working in my broader community to establish and rebuild third places. I have never found it to materialize by itself, but I have found it to appear fairly easily if I pull and prod with enough diligence. I act on ideas and opportunities I see to build groups; identifying latent collective desire for human connection instead of social media and mindless screen entertainment. I spent months creating and guiding a traditional Scottish dance class in my city until it became mostly self-perpetuating. It took me about two years to create a foundation to support traditional music and culture in my city, but that is an ongoing fundraising project that has so much potential to do more good. And I try to participate in civic life to support safer and more human streets at a local level. None of it just "happens." It is pretty tiring sometimes and requires sacrifices. And yet seeing the fruits of one's labor is so rewarding.

    Social media can be a part of creating those third places. It would have been pretty hard to do some of what I have done without it. There is still a clear hierarchy though. The takeaway I've had is that the center of a successful project remains firmly in the real world. This probably applies to all advocacy: if a community-building campaign is more centered upon its online presence than its real one, it is likely to decline. Something like Tildes is a valuable third-ish "place," however I find that it serves a different purpose and falls into a different category.

    14 votes

  6. Comment on AirPods or not? in ~music

    Atvelonis
    Link
    I recently purchased the AirPods Pro 2 for my iPhone. Without exaggeration, noise-canceling earbuds are literally life-changing. The ~$240 I paid was the single greatest bang-for-my-buck purchase...

    I recently purchased the AirPods Pro 2 for my iPhone. Without exaggeration, noise-canceling earbuds are literally life-changing. The ~$240 I paid was the single greatest bang-for-my-buck purchase I have ever made, up there with my bed. I had the original AirPods before and the difference is night-and-day. It has enabled so much more contentedness in my day-to-day life, and that joy has not gone away even after several months.

    The Pros are light, portable, and flawlessly cancel all sorts of ambient noise immediately. I live in a city and the active "noise cancellation" feature on the Pros all but perfectly suppresses the relentless traffic rumbles and honks, subway train screeching, truck unloading, blasting music, and even construction activity. (If you're right next to a jackhammer, you can still hear it, but it's greatly muffled.) They effectively reduce the sounds of crying babies and unruly groups of teenagers. It's serene. Airplanes are suddenly an order of magnitude more pleasant. I've never found Amtrak trains to be loud, but they make it even quieter. They work while I walk, run, cycle; when I yawn, chew, move my head. The charging time is rapid and the battery life is remarkably long. It's also better for my hearing, because I don't have to drown out the rest of the world just to hear my music.

    The "adaptive" and "transparent" modes are also amazing and I use them frequently when walking around. In general, I like to hear a little bit of my surroundings, even if it's heavy traffic, for general safety/awareness. These modes do a wonderful job of muting the worst of the ambient noises while letting me hear conversations and approaching vehicles. Even if the Pros are in the "off" mode, the tips create a nice enough seal that it's as effective as wearing earplugs.

    I found that the AirPods fit my ears nicely. You're given four sizes of tips. I rarely wear them for more than an hour at a time, but they don't hurt. You can try them for free at an Apple Store. Personally, while I have an iPhone, I don't consider myself much of an Apple person. But I have nothing negative to say about the new AirPods.

    If you're switching to AirPods Pro from another set of noise-canceling earbuds, it will be at least as good. The noise cancellation works even if they're not connected to an iPhone (I often wear them with my phone's Bluetooth off to preserve the phone's battery): you can control it with the button on the Airpods. There are probably some quality of life reductions beyond that. While I usually control them with the button, I do often use my phone, and I'm not sure what support for that is like on Android. I imagine that a couple features, like conversation awareness, might not work on Android.

    25 votes

  7. Comment on Can we ever detect the graviton? (No, but why not?) in ~science

    Atvelonis
    Link
    Thank you for sharing your write-up! The mathematics behind quantum physics continue to amaze me. I can't quite follow all the derivations, but the complexity and scale of the problem is clear to...

    Thank you for sharing your write-up! The mathematics behind quantum physics continue to amaze me. I can't quite follow all the derivations, but the complexity and scale of the problem is clear to me now.

    Have scholars speculated upon any additional processes the graviton participates in with higher cross-sections that might be more readily measured? Processes theorized but not yet proven to exist which, if so proven, could be utilized to detect single gravitons? If the limiting factor is the practicality of measurement, then would a different kind of measurement not be ideal? How many ways could there be to detect a particle like this?

    I am decidedly not a physicist, but it's interesting to hear about advances in the deep sciences.

    8 votes

  8. Comment on USA: "The undecided voters are not who you think they are" in ~society

    Atvelonis
    Link Parent
    Conscientious objectors of war aren't abstaining from the political process, they are actively participating in it—subversively and dangerously. Many conscientious objectors still vote. It may be...

    Conscientious objectors of war aren't abstaining from the political process, they are actively participating in it—subversively and dangerously. Many conscientious objectors still vote.

    It may be prudent to familiarize yourself with the history and experience of conscientious objection. Many Quakers and other pacifists have faced execution, imprisonment, severe fines, destitution, and job loss for refusing to fight in wars. If young men today refuse to register for the Selective Service for moral reasons, they face felony charges, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and lose access to many government-sponsored benefits. (Alternative Service exists, but requests may be rejected.) When modern Quakers refuse to pay war taxes, they are committing themselves to a lifetime of harassment from the IRS, litigation and risk of incarceration, and poverty.

    In contrast, non-voters are ignoring the political process. They don't personally suffer meaningful targeted injustice because of not voting. Being chastised for not voting is simply not comparable.

    Non-voters still benefit from political decisions like public infrastructure (roadways, electricity, plumbing, internet, etc.), public education, healthcare, regulations protecting public health, social security retirement benefits, disability benefits, economic policies like anti-monopoly laws, non-discrimination and worker protection rights, and other matters that activists have fought and died for. It is privileged to accept all of those societal benefits and not participate in the voting process, especially when many of those benefits are at risk of being dismantled. Procedurally speaking, voting is simple, speedy, unobtrusive, anonymous, non-violent, can optionally be done by mail or absentee, and has no inherent negative consequences.

    In Quaker consensus-based decision-making, a neutral vote is called "standing aside consensus." It is functionally different than not participating in quorum.

    19 votes

  9. Comment on Post-Positivism is not yet normalized in international relations in ~society

    Atvelonis
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    I have the sense that the author is interested in broad applications of post-positivistic discourse rather than exclusively commenting on a narrow or specific aspect of inter-governmental...

    I have the sense that the author is interested in broad applications of post-positivistic discourse rather than exclusively commenting on a narrow or specific aspect of inter-governmental communication. She's clearly talking about the application of academic philosophical research to IR, but that's something anyone can do in some sense: politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, media, scholars, voters, advocates, educators, etc. Informally, we can think about IR as the sum of the relationships between all entities that interact directly or indirectly across borders, including our leaders and conglomerates and ourselves.

    As a discipline, IR is the sub-field of political science mainly concerned with the intersection of world politics, macroeconomics, and sociology, especially in the context of multi-national organizations who have complex dependencies. (Perhaps some IR experts would dislike being classified within a field of political science rather than sociology.) There's also some game theory (mathematics) in there, but my feeling is that IR tends to be a little less concerned with strict models and more with personalities or personas (individual or group). There's history in there too, but my feeling is that IR tends to be relatively applied rather than theoretical. Very inter-disciplinary. It's a little hard to define and I suspect everyone in the field has their own definition. As a field of academic research, IR is concerned with the observations of cross-national entities rather than acting directly upon them, although as the author has commented, this can be fraught or paradoxical. Some people who engage with IR outside of academia are definitely more interested in doing than knowing.

    Even as an applied field, I think IR's diversity gives it relatively wide relevance, including out of context. Obviously the individuals with the most direct influence over international relations are the people literally signing treaties and enacting tariffs. However, the culture and expectations of a society inform those decisions.

    As individuals, we make positivistic statements and assumptions all the time. Anyone who's received any formal education will have been taught a little bit of statistics, a field which is concerned with numerical representations of the world and almost entirely unconcerned with qualitative analysis (by definition). This is useful because it can help us reach conclusions that would be difficult to ascertain anecdotally and presents an air of neutrality in contexts that may otherwise be emotionally charged. Segments of our society are extremely interested in data to the point that they neglect other modalities of living; some authors have pointed out the hypocrisy of the supposed "[popular] religion of science" in that treating data as the Word of God violates epistemological tenets of uncertainty and unknowability in scientific systems of reasoning.

    But positivism isn't necessarily exclusive to formal scientific observations: one could argue that our current quantitative system of voting for candidates to hold elected offices, for example, is positivistic because it's designed in theory to give authority based on a straightforward numeric calculation that reflects "the will of the people," regardless of what segment of the population is voting in practice or how they prefer to express their sentiments. Or, more simply, it's inherently and purposely a system that defines qualitative expressions of self as invalid data and subsequently ignores them. You can't vote by writing an essay, you vote by checking a box. Arguably this is positivistic in the sense that it idolizes a quantitative, empirical, falsifiable method of knowing and assumes that input is provided rationally. Decision-making in general can be done positivistically, whether or not it's in a formalized voting system, including in everyday interactions like deciding where to go for lunch.

    As individuals, we also make post-positivistic and interpretative statements often. I would find that post-positivism tries to work with postivistic methodologies to some extent, recognizing at least occasional value in objective analyses but assuming them to be incomplete and so painting them with subjective colors to "fill in the gaps" with critical theory and ideas about positionality, intersectionality, and some other epistemological concepts. My understanding is that post-positivistic scholars tend to be skeptical of exclusively data-driven analyses because they systemically omit minority viewpoints, but said scholars are not opposed to quantitative research generally. Consider our applied example of voting: a post-positivistic system might be restructured to specifically accommodate minority or disenfranchised viewpoints, perhaps with a dedicated process for evaluating qualitative ideas alongside quantitative voting, or simply by mandating that some administrative (unelected) roles represent minority viewpoints. But interpretivism is a wholly different kind of knowing. It relies on purely subjective or qualitative reasoning. Interpretivism might use data indirectly, but doesn't consider it a legitimate source of knowledge; in this line of thinking, objective methodologies necessarily produce falsehoods for some subjects. Religious inspiration and interior knowledge are maligned as a decision-making process in the secular, rationalistic, empirical world. However (and I'm not a neutral party here), I find that faith-based, spirit-led group reflection can be valuable precisely because such thoughts can be felt rather than observed, and because they can be holistic and may encompass more than just the subject. Positivism rejects the spiritual, the ethereal, the incorporeal, the mental altogether. I find that to be unwise. Whether or not one agrees, one must admit that billions of people in the world have fundamentally interpretivistic perspectives of life and indeed that even "rationalistic" people often have such thoughts too. If nothing else, this recognition is still useful in positivistic and post-positivistic analyses (more so the latter).

    Voting or its absence is a micro-level action but it can have macro-level consequences. It's easy to see how something as individual or local as this can be applied to IR. The kinds of decisions being made internationally are going to differ based on the way constituents make decisions: some vote, some don't; some decision-makers are inspired by positivistic, rational arguments, and others are inspired by qualitative, experiential arguments. Narratives that politicians use to provide a mandate for their law or tax or war will fall into some of these categories but not others. The way other parties respond to international decisions has to acknowledge the underlying mindset or else the response may be miscalculated. Thus ways of living and understanding the world on an individual and local level can be applied to IR to make greater decisions, and likewise the applications of positivism, post-positivism, and interpretivism in IR are things we can imitate in other settings for some utility.

    3 votes

  10. Comment on Post-Positivism is not yet normalized in international relations in ~society

    Atvelonis
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    The audience of this article is scholars who keep up with technical literature in the space; I agree that it's dense for the rest of us. I would interpret post-positivism as a modernist or...

    The audience of this article is scholars who keep up with technical literature in the space; I agree that it's dense for the rest of us. I would interpret post-positivism as a modernist or postmodernist iteration of positivism.

    An earlier article from this site provides definitions:

    Positivism is an approach that views the world as ‘out there’ waiting be observed and analysed by the researcher. Theories that are built on positivism see the world ‘as it is’ and base their assumptions upon analysing physical elements such as states and international organisations, which they can account for and ascribe values to. Positivism is therefore based on the study of facts and the gathering of physical evidence. It is related to the scientific view of the natural world as being one that operates via laws (such as gravity) that can be revealed by careful study and observation. Positivists assert that equivalent laws can be revealed about the social world.

    Postpositivism rejects the positivist approach that a researcher can be an independent observer of the social world. Postpositivists argue that the ideas, and even the particular identity, of a researcher influences what they observe and therefore impacts upon what they conclude. Postpositivism pursues objective answers by attempting to recognise, and work with, such biases with the theories and knowledge that theorists develop.

    Interpretivism (sometimes called ‘anti-positivism’) takes things yet further by arguing that objectivity is impossible. As an approach, this leads researchers to focus on gaining subjective knowledge through approaches where individuals, or smaller groups, are analysed in depth through detailed observations and discussions. This harnesses a broader framework of ‘qualitative analysis’ in which deeper sets of data are sought from smaller numbers of participants – such as through detailed interviews. This is a different approach to gathering data than the more positivist inclined ‘quantitative analysis’ where larger datasets are sought to gain broader insights – such as polls of hundreds or thousands of people asking them a small number of questions with only yes/no/maybe-type options for answers.

    These are sociological definitions. Applied to international relations, positivistic discourse may be related to numeric observations/analyses, like political inferences about cross-border cultural and linguistic exchange based on data collected annually by a particular government. Diplomats may propose that such data indicates cultural similarity (or dissimilarity), and politicians may advocate for a new approach to borders, governance, trade, or something else. The takeaway could be good or it could be nefarious.

    The post-positivistic version of that discourse may contain caveats about the nature of the data itself, probably with some critical theory, to highlight systemic problems with research conducted by any particular entity. For example, maybe the only country interested in that sort of data is one that's looking for a reason to colonize a neighbor. A researcher in a post-positivistic paradigm might be skeptical of structurally one-sided analyses of this data, even if the methodology was legitimate and the data is sound. Diplomats and politicians may have an incentive to ignore or highlight power dynamics that are hard to see in data.

    The interpretivist version may present narratives about culture and language without specific or direct reference to data, finding the quantitative approach too computational, distant, and disconnected from the experience of living in either culture. Researchers, or perhaps documentary filmmakers, may learn about cultures through extremely thorough investigations of lived experience. Interviewing a grandmother about her language, following her son as he goes throughout his workday in a modernizing world, and asking questions about the old arts and music that are impractical in a population-wide survey. The kind of information you get from this is totally distinct from positivistic, quantitative analyses, and at least equally useful. In our IR example, peace advocates may use excerpts from such interviews to comment on political tensions; or politicians may quote them in proposals for or against some sort of border policy.

    8 votes

  11. Comment on You don't descend from all your ancestors in ~science

    Atvelonis
    Link
    I stumbled across this interesting video discussing the mathematics and biological mechanics of generational gene inheritance. The focus is on the probability of DNA connection to particular...

    I stumbled across this interesting video discussing the mathematics and biological mechanics of generational gene inheritance. The focus is on the probability of DNA connection to particular individuals over time. It has nice visuals and a clear presentation.

    I put this in ~science because it talks about biological genetics, but it belongs just as much in ~humanities or ~life because it influences the way we understand our history, both personal and cultural.

    Here’s a guiding question: “How does time interplay with socio-cultural, genealogical, and genetic inheritance in your family? In what ways do you experience connection (biological or otherwise) to your ancestors? How does that connection influence your life and personal values today?”

    This got me thinking about what parts of my family history I’m most attuned to.

    I can trace branches of my genealogy to at least the early 17th century, when my ancestors boarded the Mayflower to the New World. Other American lines go back similar distances and include early 18th-century Quakers, to many of whom my grandmother remains adamantly proud to be attached. I know my parents have visited old churchyards in Scotland and Greece and Germany and Norway where assorted distant relatives rested.

    The traditions I practice, the dances and songs and stories I know, the artifacts we’ve retained; the kind of subconscious interest I have in some kinds of art or music; it’s varied, but I certainly have preferences. There are definitely large parts of my genealogy I never touch, culturally, though I know they’re there. And others continue to have an outsized effect of my interests even though the genetic connection is minimal.

    I suppose the act of tracing out a genealogy creates a feeling of closeness which, from my understanding of the video, is much stronger than the literal biological connection one has with one’s ancestors at a certain point. That process of tracing the past centers it in the present in the context of modern sensibilities, which is an opportunity to interpret and reinterpret as appropriate.

    It’s an interesting coincidence in my case that the cultural “distance” I seem to feel from some of my ancestors corresponds approximately to my actual biological (individual) distance according to this video. From the chart around 5:00, meaningful distinctions between genealogical and genetic ancestry begin to appear after around 6–7 generations (~125–150 years). I think that’s the limit of what most people think of as their “family history.” I’m reminded of my grandmother (for example) telling stories her grandmother would tell about her (great-great grandmother’s) own childhood. I can feel a connection when I hear a story about growing up in that time, or of courtship during a snowstorm in 1875, and so on. But the living/oral history seems to drop off quickly past that point. Likewise, those ancestors from the 1600s I mentioned are at the very edge of having had any genetic influence on me at all. To be honest, the early 1600s is as far back as I care to relate—I can’t feel the stories in the same way.

    Of course not everyone can trace back their ancestors more than two or three generations—for any number of reasons. This is usually characterized as unfortunate, which it might be. However, the perspective such people have probably also enables totally revolutionary ways of thinking. Being rooted in the current moment or moments informed by the recent past—rather than in a family tree from 1620—focuses us on the experiences and problems that still matter today. Seeing history as living and continuous can give us great insight.

    5 votes

  13. Comment on Just wanna talk about drinking less in ~talk

    Atvelonis
    Link Parent
    In what ways do you find that non-alcoholic beer is "cheating"? Does it feel like you are cheating another person? Yourself? Something else? What values would you like to adhere to when you make...

    In what ways do you find that non-alcoholic beer is "cheating"? Does it feel like you are cheating another person? Yourself? Something else?

    What values would you like to adhere to when you make decisions about your consumption?

    How would you evaluate alternatives to drinking in accordance with these observations about your natural inclinations and your stated values?

    11 votes

  14. Comment on Postmodernism, conservatism, reactionarism: A brief attempt at deconstructing the purist fans in ~humanities

    Atvelonis
    Link Parent
    Postmodernism as a philosophical movement is pretty broad and I imagine that everyone in this thread has a slightly different take on it. High art and literature have traditionally been prescribed...
    • Exemplary

    Postmodernism as a philosophical movement is pretty broad and I imagine that everyone in this thread has a slightly different take on it.

    High art and literature have traditionally been prescribed to follow certain paradigms and rules of form, like the classical orders of column capitals. Artistically, the "modernist" period of the mid-20th century attempts to redefine traditional forms using comparatively abstract, subjective narratives; the underlying theme is newness or difference, often for its own sake. You can see this visually in the work of Picasso. An example of modernist literature is the work of Hemingway (a minimalist). The postmodern movement reacts to modernism, mostly rejecting it, but building on some principles; it deconstructs the basis that modernism experiments under. Where modernism searches for the abstract (rather than tangible) center, postmodernism claims there is neither to begin with. The relevant part to this discussion might be the postmodern belief that contemporary understandings of technology and society convene in a way that causes objective reality—including preexisting notions of self and any sign or meaning—to disintegrate.

    In this context, a "postmodern tribe" refers to the evolution of society away from literal tribes and toward political, ideological, and (most importantly) digitally and otherwise abstractly reinforced ones. Your postmodern tribe does not necessarily contain people you are closely related to, nor does it necessarily contain people you have met or even heard of. It is postmodern because it inverts the purpose of a social group; instead of operating an entity (the tribe) that figuratively represents or is identical to the society, the society imagines an entity (the postmodern tribe) which is distinct from the society and whose primary purpose is its own self-preservation. It remains a tribe only in the sense that it translates some of the attachments of that structure—OP refers to its hostility toward otherness—into a new medium. In other words, the postmodern tribe of fandom is centered around a somewhat artistic but mostly materialistic and entirely capitalistic superstructure which is prescriptive rather than descriptive; the fandom itself is, in many cases, more concerned with that superstructure—the IP, the canon, the company, the truth—than its nominal membership or perhaps their experience with the work(s). Thus to OP's point about reactionary tendencies when that superstructure is challenged.

    6 votes

  15. Comment on Postmodernism, conservatism, reactionarism: A brief attempt at deconstructing the purist fans in ~humanities

    Atvelonis
    (edited )
    Link
    Nice write-up. The terminology you've established here is clear and persuasive as a foundation for further discussion. You've implied but not explicitly stated that the categories you've...

    Nice write-up. The terminology you've established here is clear and persuasive as a foundation for further discussion. You've implied but not explicitly stated that the categories you've established can be placed on a spectrum: perhaps two axes, perhaps Postmodern Conservatism as an x-value and Postmodern Reactionism as a y-value.

    This graphical representation probably reveals an interesting distribution. I would be very curious to see useful data represented in such a format: what do we expect the correlation to be? More importantly, which points in the plane are densest? I wonder if the relationship is lopsided in some way.

    It would also be worthwhile to identify correlations between the aforementioned values in groups: say, medium or genre. How do different fandoms engage with variously purist or orthodox and radical or heterodox (I was going to say avant-garde; though in a world where art blends with copyright, "recusant" seems more fitting) additions, changes, or interpretations of their franchise(s)? Certainly a bit of this work has already been done, but not necessarily with the level of granularity I'm curious about.

    Anecdotally and qualitatively, it's pretty easy to identify that some fan communities have different approaches to what's "real" and what's "good" than others. Part of this seems to relate to the quality of the work itself: whether new additions to a franchise are treated with care, perhaps, or if existing material is rudely upended. It's evident that many people inform their sense of "care" by subconsciously evaluating whether changes have either corporate or woke (or whatever) undertones, then basing their opinion of the production process on that perception. Whether or not the original author was involved in the new work certainly influences this. However, I don't think everyone reacts so politically to media. I might summarize these positions collectively as desiring respect for an original work more than desiring any particular idea, entity, or theme be represented.

    Personally, I think it's possible for a new addition to a franchise to have a somewhat or even radically different take than any preexisting material and do so with "respect." For example, I really like every Mad Max movie even though none of them have anything near the same tone as one another and there are too many inconsistencies to count. But of course, these were all still made by the same director, and it would be hard to say that a director is "disrespecting" their own old material. As perhaps a better example, many Shakespeare adaptions I enjoy have historically inaccurate sets (as a tame example, Trevor Nunn's 1996 Twelfth Night, which is one of my favorites, feels late-19th or maybe very early-20th century), but they are still excellent and beloved. And you don't have to look far to see Shakespeare-lovers "respectfully" reinterpreting that playwright whose work they love in dramatic, alien, truly avant-garde ways. I've seen any number of live performances of things like The Tempest, and among the ones that feel "different," I think the best are fundamentally enthralled by the source material. The authors are taken with it. They are just enthralled... creatively, and so feel empowered to add to a literary tradition rather than desecrate a fandom's cherished work. No one is really in the "Shakespeare fandom"; and perhaps this is why people are, in general, less rageful about interpretations of great works than they are about whatever video game they grew up playing. That is, to your point, the Postmodern Tribe of fandom is hard to apply to something that is already fairly recognized as collective and interpretative (like a literary tradition that has existed for centuries among thousands of people), and much easier to apply to things that corporations have an incentive to construe as "theirs," an attitude subsequently adopted by fans. (Not to say that there aren't Shakespeare purists; there are many. But literature seems to me far more unbounded in this respect than fandoms do.)

    Here's another open question: what does it mean for a fandom about source material whose themes and messages are meant to be radical to act as "purists" or postmodernly conservative about said material? I've engaged for a long time with wikis about The Elder Scrolls, a series which has historically experimented with the notion of "canon" in an interactive medium (see: C0DA, which attempts to deconstruct the concept). The irony of prescriptively drawing lines in the sand about what part of this fairly postmodern series counts as canonical is not lost on me, whether that's copyright licensing (for some wikis) or kinda-copyright-kinda-feelings (for other wikis) or "whoever gets there first" (for fanon wikis). I have consistently been amused by the purist stalwarts, but I recognize that any position in this paradigm is ultimately subjective.

    5 votes

  16. Comment on Personal reflections on Quaker retreat, community, and worship in ~life

    Atvelonis
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    I had meant to convey ontological ambiguity, but I suppose it would be epistemological too. I have long held that I know nothing, and that knowing is itself uncertain or at least subjective. I...

    Epistemologically or ontologically?

    I had meant to convey ontological ambiguity, but I suppose it would be epistemological too. I have long held that I know nothing, and that knowing is itself uncertain or at least subjective.

    I find that "there is that of the [spirit|inner light] within all people." If the spirit or inner light is a sign of divinity, then are the people who encapsulate it themselves, in a sense, light? Not wholly, yet it is always there, and thus to my supposition—do the mortal and divine occupy the same space at the same time, or perhaps an array of spaces at an array of times? After all, the human condition is hardly singular. And if the divine is naturally inert or unconscious as per Spinoza's rendering, then are not these people who can knowingly and consciously enact love on the world—the truest form of spirit—transforming themselves toward the divine in the process? If it is godly to love, and feel love, and be loved; and if it is these human agents experiencing such emotions; then is the human agent not taking on the personified role of the divine? Is it so preposterous to find that one may take up the mantle of spirit, or one's inner light (being part of oneself) thus understood, as to embody love? This being the case, can we ever say for certain what is truly earthly and what is divine?

    These questions are mostly rhetorical. I'm still exploring ideas like this in my own practice.

    Also, would you consider your view to be an apophatic approach to the divine, as is common in other mystical traditions?

    I have not considered that term before. Sure, you can call it partially apophatic. I find that God is not a person exactly and not understood by everyone the same way.

    But I would positively/cataphatically render spirit as love. So far, that is something I have observed. I am less confident about other positive labels, but I have felt them too.

    What would be a pre-modern simulacrum? An idol maybe?

    A simulacrum is an image that represents something else. That could be a map, as in Borges' Exactitude. It could also be an image of God. Baudrillard asks these age-old questions:

    "But what becomes of the divinity when it reveals itself in icons, when it is multiplied in simulacra? Does it remain the supreme authority, simply incarnated in images as a visible theology? Or is it volatilized into simulacra which alone deploy their pomp and power of fascination - the visible machinery of icons being substituted for the pure and intelligible Idea of God?"

    I don't have the academic background to produce a historical or sociological analysis of iconography in religion. However, I think the numerous and yet-ongoing holy wars fought over such things speak for themselves. Icons—simulacra—have power because of what they both do and do not represent (divinely); what they both are and are not (terrestrially); and reflexively, apparently being both divine and terrestrial (subjectively), icons themselves act upon our understanding of the world and of God, which may change the world, which may in turn change God, and so on. I find that the concept can be extended infinitely and in virtually any context. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

    So you can think of the hyperreal as the confluence of truth and untruth, or of subject and object, or any other two entities in a duality, such that this duality becomes indecipherable.

    For the record, this is a notoriously obtuse piece of writing, or at least this translation is. I quoted it because it found relevant to your question about whether the earthly and the divine are the same or different. I find them to be both at once and more; i.e. that the role inhabited by an individual (earthly) and that of a deity or other such force (divine) may be taken up by any entity and not just the figure it was prescribed for. This is a very postmodern (properly post-structuralist) thing to believe, hence the Baudrillard. But it is also not so very new at all, hence the Hegel. The latter proposed a relationship between two self-conscious people which can be summarized thusly:

    "A self-consciousness is, or exists, for a self-consciousness, so Hegel says. I am conscious of myself only in a kind of second-person form, that of my consciousness of being known by another embodied consciousness and by my awareness of that other’s knowing me while knowing that I am aware of their knowing me. Right at the outset, self-consciousness is already a two-in-one. The truth of my own certainty of my life as such a life is my being known by another self-consciousness and vice versa. The second-person unity is as real as the first-person separateness. Together, such second-person relations build up into a first-person singular and plural relation, the I that is a We, and the We that is an I, which, so Hegel says, is identical to Geist, spirit, itself. Geist just is self-conscious life in its individual and social formations. That seems to settle it, but it does not. If self-consciousness requires recognition by another self-conscious person, then the other person has to have the authority to bestow that recognition. If all authority is recognized authority, then yet another type of infinite regress gets started, and it seems it can be stopped only by one of the members of the recognitional complex simply having authority, full stop. That itself seems to have no answer, and the way the regress is imagined to have been stopped is that one of them simply claims authority and forces the other to submit to it."

    The bold emphasis is my own and not in the original text. Hegel's "lord–bondsman dialectic" (some translations may use starker terms) provides an example of the inverted power dynamic represented by the intermixed roles of the nominally powerful and the nominally powerless.

    That is all supposed to explain the nature of a person in the context of other people, each of whom have consciousness. The leap that I would make to spiritual matters is substituting those figures in the dialectic with, say, my own mortal self and the concept of the divine in general. I take it that the inner light exists within all people, and that I both recognize and am recognized by it. In this sense, I might abstractly consider it a "self-consciousness" (per Hegel). Though I don't find spirit to be a person, more of a force, I would still be interested in interpreting it as a self-consciousness because I find it to at least mediate the subjective self-consciousnesses of other people (for I find the inner light to exist within them as well as myself). You could say that the Hegelian process of recognition is what intermixes the divine across all people.

    I will note that Hegel speaks quite a bit about spirit and religion properly, and I have not read that part of the book. I will also note that Hegel's conceptualization of sublation, identity, and power dynamics—though perhaps inspirational—is a quite gloomy and domineering matter that isn't exactly how I understand inner light, which I find to be much more loving. But it is still an interesting piece as far as role-reversals are concerned and can nevertheless be interpreted optimistically.

    what is the relationship between Quakers and scripture? Do Quakers believe in Sola scriptura? If you have a sort of inner revelation, how does this relate to scripture?

    There isn't a particular scripture in the kind of Quakerism I practice. The closest we have is the entirely descriptive, rather than prescriptive, Faith and Practice. The Bible also exists, but these days is not the exclusive text people take seriously, religious or otherwise. Because there isn't any single written source of truth, many Quakers don't worry about the authority of scripture in general, though they may still hold some reverence for it.

    Early Quakers were Protestants, but the idea that the inner light exists within everyone (and therefore that anyone can engage directly with the light) supersedes the Bible as the source of spiritual truth. It's fair to say that many Quakers use the Bible and other sources (including non-Christian texts) for spiritual guidance, but sola scriptura seems incompatible with the kind of Quakerism I practice. My community sees value in the personal sights and revelations of all Friends, which is why we engage in unprogrammed worship where anyone can speak if they are so moved. Scripture may very well be the source of those insights. However, as far as spiritual matters are concerned, the idea that words on a page necessarily and unquestionably override someone's lived experience is not something that people in my meeting would be keen on.

    Friends in my meeting share their personal experiences during worship. There is almost no focus on scripture for its own sake. Occasionally, someone may be moved to quote the Bible or sing a round from the Agnus Dei. It is conventional (though not spirit-led) for an elder in my meeting to occasionally read from the Advices in Faith and Practice during worship. But in an unprogrammed worship, no one is sitting there reading scripture. Typically, no one is reading at all because the purpose of communal worship is to commune with the inner light, which is interior (in the soul) and not exterior (in a book), though there is no rule about what physical behavior constitutes worship. If you have a spiritual revelation and are led to speak about it, that would be considered just as divine as any spiritual experience anyone else has had, whether or not they had written it down. It is always welcome.

    There are evangelical Quakers who believe strongly in the authority of the Bible. That is not part of my world. I'm not sure how they reconcile concepts like inner light with such adherence to scripture.

    1 vote

  17. Comment on <deleted topic> in ~talk

    Atvelonis
    Link
    What do you define as friendship? What do you define as force? Do you feel that you've had meaningful "organic" friendships before?

    What do you define as friendship?

    What do you define as force?

    Do you feel that you've had meaningful "organic" friendships before?

    11 votes

  18. Comment on Personal reflections on Quaker retreat, community, and worship in ~life

    Atvelonis
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    I wouldn't be able to offer an academic thesis about spirituality. I can talk about themes: I feel a theme of love. I would identify inner light as being closer to love (the concept) than a deity....

    I wouldn't be able to offer an academic thesis about spirituality. I can talk about themes:

    • I feel a theme of love. I would identify inner light as being closer to love (the concept) than a deity.
    • I feel a theme of subjectivity. My inner light is my understanding of love (expressed, received, extant).
    • I feel a theme of universality. I find that inner light is present in all people, and probably all life in some form, or all things (perhaps even subatomic particles).
    • I feel a theme of [metaphysical] unity. That could be a kind of pantheistic equivalence and/or a panentheistic containment. I don't perceive the spirit to be a personified or anthropomorphic agent which is strictly different than me, but I do find it to exist, hence it exists immanently. Spirit could very well have some unobservable and immaterial existence outside of people/objects who can feel and exhibit love physically, but I can't observe it. If true, that wouldn't change my day-to-day behavior.

    If there is a dichotomy of earthly and divine, I'd speculate that its current state is unknowable or at least non-static. Bendable. To explain, I can attempt to give you a secular answer. I never read the entirety of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, but I have interest and belief in concepts of subject/object sublation, dynamic switching or inversion of roles, and translation of immaterial identity, some of which he discussed or alluded to in that text.

    Perhaps in a similar light, Jean Baudrillard wrote in Simulacra and Simulation:

    The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true. Ecclesiastes

    Of the same order as the impossibility of rediscovering an absolute level of the real, is the impossibility of staging an illusion. Illusion is no longer possible, because the real is no longer possible. It is the whole political problem of the parody, of hypersimulation or offensive simulation, which is posed here.

    Of course, Jean Baudrillard never wrote that; he wrote in French. And that is not a sentence you will find in any collection of Ecclesiastes. But the trusting reader makes no such observations.

    This treatise on postmodern signification takes greater interest in the implosion of truth or existential consistency in a socio-technological world than in the musings of ancient religion per se. But it speaks to [a|the] nature of our insight into the universe: an unstable impression of present "hyperreality" which I suspect has always existed in some form.

    In essence, in a semiotic context where object and sign can exchange and subvert meaning to the point where ontological origin/destination are indistinguishable, we do not exist in a reality that can be explicitly contrasted with non-reality. But I believe this role-fluidity to be a natural and long-standing element of linguistics and not a modern phenomenon; and because I find that people become communities through language, among other things, I'm comfortable applying that one retroactively where it suits me.

    what, if anything, do Quakers make of Spinoza?

    The immanence of the inner light is a quite widely held belief among Quakers.

    I haven't actually read Spinoza's Ethics and am only superficially familiar with his work in a formal setting. But it feels to me that his ideas have seeped deeply into many people's understandings of Quaker ideals.

    Spinoza's rejection of a human-like and conscious God is probably in line with my beliefs as well as those of many Quakers who are skeptical of traditional Christian representations of the divine, especially younger people—they often have more agnostic tendencies or are indifferent toward scripture. In my circles, I don't hear too many comments about Christ literally walking among us, though some people do refer to Christ by name and as a "lover" and "teacher" and so forth. Among Friends who attend liberal and unprogrammed meetings, and again among young Friends, there is perhaps more emphasis on the light before us (as a piece of and/or within people) than in an overpowering supernatural force which happens to take a human-esque (with personality) or parental aspect as demonstrated in the Bible. Modern beliefs are a little too pessimistic for a lot of folks to accept that an omnipotent God is directly and personally caring for them and everyone else in a world full of problems. That predisposition lends itself toward a more dispersed and/or unconscious understanding of spirit. However, I think Quakers place additional emphasis on mutual/communal love and support in a way that I imagine Spinoza may not specifically comment on. Friends may or may not understand the spirit itself as something they love and which loves them (depends who you ask), but there is universally an emphasis on holding love for each other; channeling love through spirit.

    So in the sense that liberal Quakers don't really have a creed, and thus lacking an enforced "orthodoxy," a particular belief can't really be "heterodox." Faith and Practice is not a Bible. My yearly meeting's issue in fact begins with this quotation from the Elders of Balby (1656) in the foreword:

    "Dearly beloved Friends, these things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all with the measure of the light which is pure and holy may be guided, and so in the light walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit—not from the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."

    Informally, I would be confident in saying that beliefs like mine or Spinoza's would not be considered aberrant in many Quaker meetings. My impression is that many people are attracted to the kind of Quaker meeting I attend in part because it is unlike traditional monotheistic, scripture-based, prescriptive Christianity.

    Apologies for all my qualified remarks; I'm trying not to misrepresent folks here. But I hope this answers your question!

    1 vote

  19. Comment on Personal reflections on Quaker retreat, community, and worship in ~life

    Atvelonis
    (edited )
    Link Parent
    I speak for myself only and don't wish to imply that my experience of inner light is universal. I welcome additional remarks from @teaearlgraycold and other Quakers. Also, my experience will...

    I speak for myself only and don't wish to imply that my experience of inner light is universal. I welcome additional remarks from @teaearlgraycold and other Quakers. Also, my experience will change over time.

    My sense is that human nature channels Spirit subjectively. Appreciation for what constitutes a "call" or a feeling of inner light is individual, a matter of perception and discretion.

    is this the sort of experience you've had firsthand? Is this some sort of ineffable encounter with the divine, an experience of emotion, or something else?

    Sure, but it is rare for me, and not consistent. Ineffable, yes and no. Latent. Emotional in that it builds on emotions I would have in daily and social life. There's an interior urge to do something: encompassing and hard to ignore. I wouldn't feel that I'm being spoken to, rather it is immanent. Partly physical. Restlessness, shivers, heat, core tension, some sort of acceleration (thought?), deceleration (time?). There is transformation as it churns. Imminence too. Confusing and easy to misidentify or let it slip away, or intentionally squash. For me, this all starts small (uncertainty) and becomes more obvious if I hear/examine it (certainty). It might take me a few seconds or a minute of attention to become unbearable. I agree with the quotation that acting on this feeling brings me an immediate release, but adrenaline simmers a while. Just my personal experience.

    I don't think feelings of inner light have to be rare, but I'm naturally inattentive to that side of myself. My mind drifts constantly, including during meeting. When I'm tuned in, Spirit appears more visible. Sometimes/often I can't bring myself to get anywhere near settled enough in meeting. Other times there are hints right away.

    if you have recommendations on finding such a gathering, I'd be greatly appreciative. I assume these sorts of experiences are primarily if not entirely communal, rather than any sort of individual practice

    I guess you can use the Friends General Conference meeting finder (the list; not the map, which seems to omit... almost every meeting). FGC will lean toward unprogrammed and more progressive groups. But you can probably find this kind of spiritual connection elsewhere. I don't go to programmed meetings, so I can't tell you about them. If you're doing research, Swarthmore recommends a search tool by Tom Hill.

    I don't want to answer you too prescriptively. However, my edition of Faith and Practice states that "Friends find it necessary to be present with others in worship." To me, individual silence is meditative but not necessarily spiritual. I think that I am more passively attuned to Spirit while in community. Being around other people in worship is what unlocks my inward teacher. You can teach yourself through them, and them through yourself. Outside of meeting, I have felt a similar kind of presence at least once, alone, preceding a surreal experience, but that might have been something else. I don't know.

    what, if anything, do Quakers think about movements like the Cathars and the gnostics?

    Quakers believe that any individual can have a direct relationship with the spirit. George Fox listened for "openings." Early Quakers were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and killed for their rejection of conventional religious authority and their heretical worship. From what I know of Cathar and Gnostic history (extremely little), they all have that in common.

    I think a decent number of Quakers who go to liberal, unprogrammed meetings have mixed elements of Christian/Buddhist/New Age influence (and more), so their spirituality can sometimes be more pantheistic than explicit and personified in the way it is Biblically. Some Quakers probably have a theology that resembles Cathar or Gnostic dualism. But "Quaker" is such a heterogeneous label that I can't call most theological beliefs universal in the slightest. (I'd also like to clarify that some Quakers aren't strictly theistic to begin with.) Even within a particular meeting, I think that the answer you will find is... mushy.

    Except during vocal ministry Friends may not talk about their interior experiences proactively, but I'm sure some would enjoy a theological discussion at the rise of meeting. Depending on who you ask, they might need a few more sessions to think through your questions. They can be a little bit like Ents in that way. Other Friends would immediately have ten billion things to say to you. Like any group of people, they are all different.

    1 vote

  20. Comment on Personal reflections on Quaker retreat, community, and worship in ~life

    Atvelonis
    Link Parent
    I would tend to think that the divine spark and the inward/inner light refer to approximately the same thing. Yes. Meeting for worship as I practice it is conducted in communal silence with the...

    I would tend to think that the divine spark and the inward/inner light refer to approximately the same thing.

    Do Quakers engage in meditative/contemplative/mystical practices to get in touch this inner light?

    Yes. Meeting for worship as I practice it is conducted in communal silence with the aspirational goal of observing the inner light and allowing the Spirit to guide your thought. An unprogrammed meeting in its resting state is literally a silent room (but for the noises of the human condition), which is eerie whether there are five or 75 people there. It is deeply profound, and this profundity is a space for meditation, connection, and revelation. From Robert Barclay (1678):

    "And as many candles lighted, and put in one place, do greatly augment the light and make it more to shine forth; so when many are gathered into the same life, there is more to the glory of God, and his power appears, to the refreshment of each individual, for that he partakes not only of the light and life raised in himself, but in all the rest."

    "As our worship consisted not in words so neither in silences as silence, but in a holy dependence silence necessarily follows in the first place until words can be brought forth which are from God's spirit."

    When Friends feel so moved by the Spirit (feeling that which "arises from the heart rather than the head") during meeting for worship, the suggestion is to break the silence to express their communion with the inner light, that which "manifests itself in the individual as a 'call', described as an uncomfortable quickening or a profound silence before speaking and a sense of relief or release afterward." In practice, this may come in the form of an explanation of a feeling, memory, or experience; a song or quotation; a disconnected and desperate thought; or something else. From John Woolman (1741):

    "Feeling the spring of Divine love opened, and a concern to speak, I said a few words in a meeting, in which I found peace. Being thus humbled and disciplined under the cross, my understanding became more strengthened to distinguish the pure spirit which inwardly moves upon the heart, and which taught me to wait in silence sometimes many weeks together, until I felt that rise which prepares the creature to stand like a trumpet, through which the Lord speaks to his flock...All the faithful are not called to the public ministry; but whoever are, are called to minister of that which they have tasted and handled spiritually."

    I have been to hour-long or two-hour meetings where not a single word was said. Sometimes those are the most profound meetings. I have likewise been to meetings where five or ten people spoke. Sometimes those are deeply moving as well. In general, Friends aspire to leave space between messages so that they can better ponder the meaning of each one. Messages are not meant to be conventional dialogue, because vocal ministry is supposed to be mediated by the Spirit.

    When I began attending meeting regularly, I was given a copy of the book Faith and Practice by the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. It features a very short history, some principles of practice as it is done in this area, and a number of quotations (testimonials) which seek to demonstrate theological and moral principles. Other yearly meetings have their own collections of similar or different practices, but this is the one I know.

    The entire book is available online in the link I provided, though it is nice to have a hard copy. The first section, "Experience and Faith," describes concepts like the inner light in conventional prose, with some quotations from renowned Quakers. The section on "Extracts from the Writings of Friends" contains spiritual and worldly remarks from Quakers across a variety of traditions and time periods. Each subsection is on its own web page, so you have to jump around to read it online, but the content is all there.

    3 votes