Comments on Scientology Axioms 1, 2 and 3

Here are some comments on first three axioms of Scientology:

SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

Static expresses itself as individuality, as explained by Hubbard. [See Scientology Axiom #1.] However, individuality is an aspect of existence same as matter, energy, space and time. It is not a source of existence as implied in Scientology Axiom 3 below.

.

SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM 2: THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

The capabilities of considering, postulating and having opinions may be assigned to individuality, which is part of existence. Thus, these capabilities are manifested along with matter, energy, space and time, as aspects of existence.

.

SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM 3: SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

Here Static is being expressed as an individuality. It is being considered to be the cause of existence. But cause and effect are also aspects of existence. [See Scientology Factor #1.]

Space, energy, objects, form, time, individuality and its capabilities are simply the aspects of existence.

.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

    I don’t think Hubbard really understood Buddhism. He rejected “Nirvana” which is the core of Buddhism, and promoted ‘individuallty’ (egotism), which is just the opposite. Please see:

    Identity versus Individuality

    So, in my opinion, Hubbard did not refine Buddhism. But he unwittingly refined an approach to philosophy.

    [I posted this on Marty’s Blog in response to someone. I seem to be engaging some posters on his blog.]

    .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

    It seems that Marty is paying attention to my recent posts on his blog that are referencing certain essays on my blog on the subject of Scientology.

    His recent post Dimensions seems to be a preparation to counter my writings.

    This is just a feeling at the moment. I may be wrong.

    Many people from his blog are looking at my blog.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM

    Buddha says (Ref: INTRODUCTION TO KHTK):

    “Observe things as they really are, not just as they seem to be.”

    Basically, Buddha is saying that,

    SEEK TRUTH, NOT AGREEMENT.

    Agreement seems to hide the truth.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM

      Here is my post on Marty’s blog on the subject of AGREEMENT that we are discussing here:

      Marty-239162

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM

      I could write that agreement is mutual alter-is, and yet we are agreeing…
      Like tuning a frequency, when you hit the channel you were looking for I feel harmony. How does this fit in?

      • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

        Marty feels dissonance from me. 🙂

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

          hehe – what? That’s shocking!

        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

          Agreement is sweet, and truth is bitter to the cool aide drinker.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

          Ah, now the poet emerges!

        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM

          I think that I am getting on Marty’s nerves. He hasn’t figured out what to do with me.

          .

        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM

          My comments are no longer appearing on Marty’s blog… not even in the moderating queue. They are just vaporizing.

          That is quite a compliment to be considered a nuisance if not a threat.

          Does Vinaire has power to as-is the Independent Scientology?

          Nah! But somebody is not happy with Vinaire. Too bad! 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 11:16 PM

          I tol’ you! But you must have known that would happen. Two years ago I attempted to post 5 times and never got one through. I got the message.

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM

    DUPLICATION is making an exact copy. In Scientology, “to duplicate” would be to make another copy of a consideration of ‘what is’. It is not the same thing as recognizing ‘what is’, which is to know the truth of what is there.

    AGREEMENT is sharing a consideration. It is the same consideration existing at two different locations.

    SELF is a set of considerations located in space. A self would be in agreement with another on a consideration that is common to both. However, that consideration may sit differently in two different set of considerations. Therefore, an agreement of consideration does not necessarily mean agreement of self.

    AGREEMENT OF SELF would mean the whole set of considerations is being shared at two different locations.

    AFFINITY would indicate the degree to which considerations are being shared between two sets of considerations (selves).

    COMMUNICATION would be the method between two sets of considerations to assess the considerations in either set and make them alike as much as possible. This is not the same as LOOKING.

    The purpose of LOOKING is to recognize ‘what is’. It is different from communication. One may look while communicating to determine the nature of considerations in either set. It is different from the purpose of sharing considerations.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 8:38 PM

      ARC has nothing to do with TRUTH. TRUTH has to do with the recognition of exact nature of considerations. Whereas, ARC has to do with sharing of considerations. These are two different dimensions.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 8:41 PM

      The purpose of ARC is then is to feel good together. It has nothing to do with the seeking of truth.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 6:04 PM

      I need to wrap up this looking at ARC.

      Looking at Geir’s blog, I’ll say that there is definitely heightened ARC there as evident from how everyone is feeling good. But that is about it.

      I haven’t seen any major inconsistencies resolved on Geir’s blog, increasing our understanding. So, I would say,

      ARC = increased harmony (in terms of no disagreements)

      Mindfulness = KHTK Looking = increased understanding.

      I am disabused with the idea of ARC equating to understanding.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 7:26 PM

        Maybe so. I am finding no particular difference between relative harmony and relative understanding. And placebo enters in. Placebo seems to be harmony and understanding resulting from deliberately or not deliberately manifested harmony.

        So along with awareness, we have to also look at intention as in “deliberate.” Does attention, intention, and deliberateness, and so forth manifest from a machinery of considerations or Unknowable or neither or both?

        We like to make analogies to how God – as in Unknowable – manifests by channeling through us. So there is truly creative potential at work which is before considerations and bringing true randomness to the universe. What would point to this? It seems that to the degree that we are able, we have falsified there truly being an Unknowable and that anything we know points to a universe which is astronomically big and infinitesimally small and we have a far distance to go to explore that.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:45 AM

          What I mean by harmony here is “harmony in terms of no disagreements”. It is like a tautology which has no disagreements within itself.

          However, the whole tautology may be inconsistent when looked at in a broader context.

          ARC appears to me more and more like something that gets a group of people into a “tautological” state. The people within the COS are in perfect ARC with each other.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

          Possibly existence is a tautological state.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM

          We make a mistake in using “unknowable” as a Noun. The correct usage of “unknowable” will be as an Adjective, but the only problem is that there is nothing to qualify with this adjective.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

          I can diagram that sentence, then put the lowercased italicized i in back of it.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM

          There is no Unknowable (Noun) or God that channels through us. That would classify as speculation only.

          .

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM

          The idea of “potential” is also a speculation because we cannot come up with a better explanation.

          “Neti, neti.” 🙂

          .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

    (1) ‘What is” could very well be the fundamental filter one is looking through to comprehend the unknowable.

    (2) The next layer of filter many be generated in an attempt to comprehend the first layer of filter.

    (3) Thus, successive layers of filters may be generated in attempts to comprehend the previous layer of filter.

    (4) Thus, we have the make-up of self as an “onion” of filters.

    (5) The “Individuality” of self may come from a few outermost layers of this onion.

    (6) The purpose of Scientology seems to be to coddle and boost that “individuality,” which is almost insignificant in this model.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 10:57 PM

    FACTOR 3: The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.

    I am trying to understand this Factor.

    (1) Beingness is there due to the fact of manifestation.

    (2) A Viewpoint seems to be a point used as a reference for viewing other points.

    (3) So does the beingness gets somehow linked to a point, which is then started to be used as a reference?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 11:36 PM

      . . . And manifestation is there due to the fact of becoming. Tautology. Context Vinnie. This Factor becomes more consistent when compared to the earlier and following ones. There is a reasonable progression. Not verifying, just sharing my look.

      The earliest decision described as “to be” but this needn’t be in the anthropomorphic sense. It can also be in the fluid of space or the particle sense or wave sense. Or other earlier manifestation of Physics. There is a lot to choose from. Anthropomorphism has arrived just lately.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 6:38 AM

        Factor # 1 postulates a Cause before the beingness or manifestation.

        How consistent is that? Isn’t Cause itself a beingness or manifestation?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:39 AM

          Just saying manifestation and beingness is circular – same.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 8:41 AM

          They are synonymous.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM

          The Factors have more consistency when considered within the bubble of Scientology than when done from outside that bubble. The Factors become more consistent when we have faith in L Ron Hubbard and don’t challenge his words.

          “Philosophy invites religion” in order to overcome its own inconsistency.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 9:01 AM

          I like that “Philosophy invites religion” in order to overcome its own inconsistency.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM

          I hoped.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 8:53 AM

          It is best to examine the beginning of any philosophical doctrine for inconsistency.

          .

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 6:39 AM

        Hubbard missed this one:

        KHTK AXIOM ONE: THAT WHICH IS UNKNOWN INVITES CONSIDERATION.

        Cause is a consideration.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM

          This gets tough. We keep trying to get before “there is” and we can’t. Therefore this is a philosophical problem that points at no beginning, the most counterintuitive of all.

          What is unknown cannot “invite” anymore than it can “cause.” Right?

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 8:51 AM

          KHTK AXIOM ONE is the best conjecture we can come up with.

          What we actually observe is that thought just appears… or manifestations are just there.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:51 AM

    Yes, Hubbard missed that cause is a consideration and before the consideration cannot be a consideration unless there is. In which case there may be no beginning point.

  • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:52 AM

    No Prime Mover unmoved.

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 8:57 AM

      Yes. “Prime Mover unmoved” is a justification for there being no beginning.

      If there is a beginning it is unknowable.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 1:58 PM

        Maybe we could turn the question around and ask, “Beyond a fractal iteration, is there a reason to believe there might be an ultimate beginning?”

        And a corollary question might be, “What in our experience points to an ultimate beginning point?”

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

          The ultimate beginning point seem to be before we were created.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 5:24 PM

          The “obnosis drills” were fun and useful. Meaning to observe the obvious, they were synonymous with your looking. With that in mind and when you state, “The ultimate beginning point seem to be before we were created.” I have to retort that the ultimate beginning point seems to be out of sight to such a degree that it is not obvious if there is one.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 5:26 PM

          If I switch TOE’s and look at the basic mechanic of the universe to be discrete then each moment becomes the “ultimate beginning and ending point.”

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:40 AM

          What you seem to be saying is that the ultimate beginning point may be unknowable. I have no problem with that. 🙂

          And… one may consider whatever one wants. The point for me is NOT ‘what is’, but ‘what is inconsistent’ and what makes it consistent.

          .
          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

          Unknowable is inconsistent and a dodge of knowing what is there to know. It implies the assumption that “what is” has been explored. It is easy to invent the consideration of Unknowable and push it forward to resolve the inconsistency of not knowing things, in fact mystery invites us to do just this. However, in light of its solid existence as a rank consideration, I propose there is nothing beyond “what is” and unknowable exists as a part of the whole lot of considerations. Consistency invites this conclusion.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

          Of course, “unknowable” is a consideration. But it is a consideration that points. You have to understand it in its totality. Please see

          KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 2:04 PM

    I am beginning to become comfortable with our logic. Then I remember “Flatland, the movie” and all my comfort dissolves.

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM

      I am looking more closely at what awareness is. I am still puzzled by it. Scientology Axiom #1 simply assumes it.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 5:20 PM

        Me too. I seem to know when I am aware but what this illusion that I perceive is is anyone’s guess. With individuality dissolved, it leaves me floating like flotsam on a sea of potential. Unhooked from the river banks of the complex plane, “I” float along in space, swished around by gravity, and whether what my senses reveal to me about the “real world” is a truth in context or a truth in fact is not clear to me.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM

          Just now it hit me that as soon as one is being aware of something, one is being that thing in that moment.

          This is natural. It has to be that way.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 11:28 PM

          Does this now replace your earlier statement that you’ve never seen anyone be another?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 11:28 PM

          Because this is what Elizabeth has been asserting along.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM

        And I am really frickin’ interested in what drugs like DMT are doing in our brains. Because of this, I am wondering at the definition of hallucination vs reality and wondering at the similarities and differences. If I take a drug, and it totally clears up my old age farsightedness, then what is my brain normally doing with the incorrectly focused information coming through my eyes?

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

          The only way to uncover that would be to develop KHTK AXIOMS by removing inconsistencies from the fundamentals we believe in.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:34 PM

          while taking a lot of drugs.

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM

      The two fundamental abilities seem to be VISUALIZATION and PERCEPTION. The mechanics of these two abilities need to be understood better.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 9:58 AM

    This is a response to the following comment from Chris: comment-5924

    “Does this now replace your earlier statement that you’ve never seen anyone be another? Because this is what Elizabeth has been asserting along.”

    I am differentiating a consideration from SELF, which I see as a set of considerations.

    When one considers something, such as, “This is a table,” one becomes aware of that table. This is a consideration. One does not become that consideration of table. However, that consideration becomes part of the set of considerations, which define self.

    This is consistent with the following KHTK AXIOM:

    KHTK AXIOM FOUR: REALITY CONSISTS OF BEINGNESS AND AWARENESS.

    Definition: Beingness and awareness may be regarded as the spiritual aspects of this universe.

    Manifestation is basically something coming into existence. It means that “something is being.” This fact of being, existing, or manifesting, may be referred to by a new word BEINGNESS. The fact of manifestation also makes it immediately knowable. The fact that something is knowable may be referred to as AWARENESS.

    Thus, beingness and awareness are aspects of reality (what is). They are the essence (spirit) of existence.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM

    Vinaire: “I am differentiating a consideration from SELF, which I see as a set of considerations. When one considers something, such as, “This is a table,” one becomes aware of that table. This is a consideration. One does not become that consideration of table. However, that consideration becomes part of the set of considerations, which define self.”

    Earlier Vinaire wrote: “Vinaire November 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM: Just now it hit me that as soon as one is being aware of something, one is being that thing in that moment. This is natural. It has to be that way.”

    Chris to Vin: Can you smooth this out?

    • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

      Yes, what one is aware of seems to be part of self.

      POSSIBLE KHTK AXIOM ___: BECOMING AWARE IS TO INCLUDE, WITHIN BEINGNESS, THE CONSIDERATION OF WHAT IS.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM

        and another axiom might be something like “BECOMING IS THE RECOUNTING OF CONSECUTIVE AS-IS CREATES”

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 5:52 PM

          Becoming what?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM

          Well you said “becoming aware” like “gradual becoming.” It’s sort of like a running commentary. You can take away the filters but what’s left is still a monologue to oneself.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 7:58 AM

          At the bottom of awareness there seems to be a desire to know. With that desire comes considerations and knowing. And so the awareness grows. But this awareness is there only in terms of considerations of ‘what is’.

          There are two interesting observations here:

          (1) The desire to know persists. It results in creation and dissolution of considerations.

          (2) Nobody has discovered what the seed of this desire is. Not even the Hymn of Creation of the Vedas.

          But is it really necessary to know about that seed? Ha ha. Don’t we have a “tautology” of desire?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 8:32 AM

          Yes, we are on the same wave length this morning. I was dreaming of my father this morning to the background music of Midnight Oil’s “Bed’s Are Burning.” I guess I was working on the “seed iteration” and woke with the clear idea that both the answers and questions are defining each other. Another tautology?

          I was still thinking about your grammar lesson yesterday when you said to think of Unknowable as an adjective rather than a noun. Then it came to me this morning that was one half of a dichotomy that has what other half? No-thing is the other half so it hangs in its poorly stated form.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 8:45 AM

          Tautology is the word is the word.

          When you say “At the bottom of awareness there seems to be a desire to know. With that desire comes considerations and knowing. And so the awareness grows. But this awareness is there only in terms of considerations of ‘what is’.”

          Really, the “desire to know” is like a running process or application. It’s mechanical. It also can be turned on and off. Awareness of it being on or off undercuts it. Awareness can be turned on or off.

          Why do write there are only considerations of what is? As in this is the repetitive “as-is create?”

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM

          The answer lies in recognizing the tautologies for what they are.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

          Exactly! Because when you know it, you’ll know it!

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM

          Ha! Ha! Ho! Ho!

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 9:24 AM

          🙂 Have a smooth day buddy!

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 9:14 AM

          Is it knowing that produces the desire to know?

          Is that the apple, which the serpent offered?

          Ha! It is knowing that ‘there is something not known’, which produces the desire to know.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM

    When I look at awareness, I get something like “AWARENESS IS THE RECOUNTING TO MYSELF OF WHAT I SEE.”

    • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM

      But what is looking at awareness?

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 6:56 PM

        There seems to be nothing “looking at awareness.” There only seems to be “awareness.”

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM

          That seems to be correct. There is no awareness of awareness. My apologies to Mr. Hubbard.

          Self seems to become aware of a consideration by absorbing it in itself. You are your awareness.

          If you are looking at a consideration then the consideration of that consideration is already a part of you, which makes you aware of that consideration.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

          I got traction from this one time before and now that its come up again, its having a new consistency for me.

          Problem is fractal. Consistency becomes that way within a construct. Consistency does not seem to me to be inherently true. And it does not seem particularly to carry over to other frames of reference.

          But then I have to look at “true.” (again). Or in the immortal words of Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.” (true is as true does.) True seems to be as true as it is and no more. It is also as tautological as it is and no more and no less.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 6:34 PM

          There is nothing inherently true or false per KHTK AXIOM ZERO. Everything is relative. So, the best we can do is go for consistency. Maybe another iteration sometinme in furure will bring about more consistency. All we can do is remove the inconsistency that is obvious. It is fruitless to go searching for more inconsistencies in an area because it makes one disregard obvious consistencies that are staring at one.

          What gives the best results is the resolution of obvious inconsistencies one after another as the appear. That is how the mind wants to unravel itself. So, do not resist the mind. Let it unravel itself.

          It is what it is. No assumptions, justifications or speculations need be added.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM

    “Becoming aware” is like a switch turning on. What would point to something else going on? My own answer: nothing.

    • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      I think that intuition is like a switch turning on. Awareness is simply there. It continues from already existing frame to frame. It is what the person is.

      But intuition is a shift in that awareness. It propagates through the whole beingness lifting it to a new level. It is electrifying.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 5:00 PM

        And from that I raise the question whether or not a “person” is truly aware frame to frame. This seems unlikely to me and when I publish an essay on “time” I will explain my idea more. However, as to your reference, I think that sensation that you feel from intuition may in fact be intuition “turning on” or otherwise, making its appearance.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM

          As you look around by turning your head, aren’t things going in and out of awareness. That happens naturally and continuously.

          Same thing happens as one contemplates.

          .

  • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM

    Here is something that I wrote this morning on the Progressive Scientology Group on Facbook:

    “You are doing fine Eugene. We may just be trying to explain the same thing.

    “My epiphany came when I realized that everything that I am aware of can be reduced to my considerations. That’s all. That happened back in 1984 while studying The Phoenix Lectures. My desire to know was defined to me at that point as the seeking of simplicity of knowing by seeking consistency in all my awareness. So that’s the direction I have taken since then.

    “I may say that what is beyond consideration is “unknowable” but that is just to reinforce that THE STARTING POINT IS CONSIDERATION. This tells me that “static”, “thetan”, “individuality”, “cause” etc., are all considerations. So, what is the next thing to do? How does one simplify this and rest of the knowledge in the world for oneself?

    “The solution is not to generate any more knowledge, but to simplify the existing knowledge. I finally realized that one does this by looking at inconsistencies, as they appear, and dissolving them by looking closer and closer. This is a very simple formula that I have been following. Logic plays the simple role of telling one where to look. But it is looking that dissolves inconsistencies and not logic. If one focuses on logic one gets bogged down right away.

    “So there you have it.”

    .

  • anti  On September 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM

    when your own founder considers himself a fraud..when intelligent people look into the religion & find a rip off of freud..of psychology with added lunacy & the intelligent members of the religion itself are deaf to all of those clear & fundamental arguments- well I seriously think-.its time to think for yourself..-even the moonies founder believed in them..i can tell you now..scientologists..your captain..he wont go down with his ship..why?..even he knows its a fraud…but goddamn…he wont be skipping without your cash

    • vinaire  On September 11, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      I am not a scientologist, and if you can’t see that this blog provides adequate criticism of the technology of Scientology then I don’t know what to say about your power of observation.

      .

%d bloggers like this: