Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'
the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

Posted on 05/23/2003 3:59:51 PM PDT by unspun

The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'
This paper has been read to the University of Southern California philosophy group and the Boston 1972 meeting of the American Philosophical Association, as well as to the Houston meeting of the Southwestern Philosophical Society. Appeared in The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, IV(1973), pp. 125-132. Numbers in "<>" refer to this journal.

Among the principal assumptions of major portions of philosophy in recent decades have been: (1) That philosophy somehow consists of (some sort of) logic, and (2) that logic is a study of and theory about (some sort of) language. There, of course, follows from these a third assumption: (3) That philosophy is a study of and theory about (some sort of) language--though this implication should not be taken as representing any phase of the historical development of recent philosophizing. Instead of listing these three points as assumptions, it would probably be more correct to regard them as categories or complexes of assumptions; or perhaps, more vaguely still, as 'tendencies' or proclivities of recent philosophical thinking. But precision of these points need not be put in issue here, as this paper does not seek any large-scale resolution of the problem area in question.

The aim here is to examine only one proposition which plays a role in the clearly existent tendencies referred to: Namely, the proposition that we think in or with language. I hope to show, first, that we do not always think in or with language; and then, second, that the very conception of thinking in or with language involves an absurdity. What implications this has for broader philosophical assumptions or tendencies will not be dealt with here, though the implications in question seem to me to be extremely important ones.

That human beings think in language is explicitly stated in such diverse places as ordinary newspapers, the more sophisticated popular magazines and journals, and serious discourse in the humanities and the social sciences, as well as in the technical writings of philosophers. To prove this broad range of consensus would be idle; but, in order to have the philosophical context clearly before us, we may give a few brief quotations. <126> 

     (1) Man, like every living creature, thinks unceasingly, but does not know it: the thinking which becomes conscious of itself is only the smallest part thereof. And, we may say, the worst part:--for this conscious thinking alone is done in words, that is to say, in the symbols for communication, by means of which the origin of consciousness is revealed. (Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom, sub-sec. # 354)

     (2) Let no one be contemptuous of symbols! A good deal depends upon a practical selection of them. Furthermore, their value is not diminished by the fact that after much practice, we no longer really need to call forth a symbol, we do not need to speak out loud in order to think. The fact remains that we think in words or, when not in words, then in mathematical or other symbols. (Frege, Mind, Vol. 73, p. 156)

     (3) It is misleading then to talk of thinking as of a 'mental activity'. We may say that thinking is essentially the activity of operating with signs. This activity is performed by the hand, when we think by writing; by the mouth and larynx, when we think by speaking; and if we think by imagining signs or pictures, I can give you no agent that thinks. If then you say that in such cases the mind thinks, I would only draw your attention to the fact that you are using a metaphor, that here the mind is an agent in a different sense from that in which the hand can be said to be an agent in writing. (Wittgenstein, Blue Book, pp. 6-7)

     (4) ... The woof and warp of all thought and all research is symbols, and the life of thought and science is the life inherent in symbols; so that it is wrong to say that a good language is important to good thought, merely; for it is of the essence of it. (C. S. Peirce, Collected Papers, II, p. 129)

     (5) Words only matter because words are what we think with. (H. H. Price, Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. XIX, p. 7)

     (6) Theorizing is an activity which most people can and normally do conduct in silence. They articulate in sentences the theories that they construct, but they do not most of the time speak these sentences out loud. They say them to themselves.... Much of our ordinary thinking is conducted in internal monologue or silent soliloquy, usually accompanied by an internal cinematograph-show of visual imagery.... This trick of talking to oneself in silence is acquired neither quickly nor without effort.... (Ryle, Concept of Mind, p. 27. See also pp. 282-83 and 296-97) <127>

     (7)This helps to elucidate the well-known difficulty of thinking without words. Certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself. Consider the way in which I 'thinkingly' wrote the last sentence. I can no more do the 'thinking' part without the talking (or writing) part than a man can do the being graceful part of walking apart from the walking (or some equivalent activity). (J.J.C. Smart, Philosophy and Scientific Realism, p. 89)

These quotations will suffice to establish the context within which philosophers speak of thinking in language (or with language). Many other quotations could be added from the literature.1 It is not assumed here that the persons quoted all occupy the same position with reference to the relationship between thought and language. Yet it would be interesting to see what any of these thinkers, or others who suppose that human beings think in language, could save of their position from the critique which follows.

Uneasiness about the conception of thinking in or with language has been expressed by a number of writers, but only over limited aspects of it.2 Here we shall consider arguments which purport to call the conception into question entirely and in principle. First, consider a reason for rejecting the view that we always think in language. It consists in the fact that thinking often occurs without the production, manipulation, or perception of sense-perceptible signs, without which there is no use of language. Such occurrences often provoke offers of 'A penny for your thoughts.'

Thinking: Whatever we may decide to call them, and however it is that we are conscious of them, there are intentional states of persons, more or less fixed or fleeting, which do not require for their obtaining that what they are about or of be perceived by, or be impinging causally upon, the person involved. In order to think of3 Henry the Eighth, <128> of the first auto one owned, of the Pythagorean theorem, or of the Mississippi River, it is not required that they should disturb my nervous system. Such states (t-states) of persons are often called 'thoughts', especially in contrast with 'perceptions', and being in such a state is one of the things more commonly called 'thinking'. One no more needs to be going through a change of such states in order to be thinking, than he needs to be changing his bodily position in order to be sitting or lying or sleeping. Rarely if ever--as is alleged in the case of mystic contemplation--are these t-states unchanging. Usually they flow, at varying rates, intermingled with person states of many sorts, governed by such transitional structures as inference, goal orientation, objective structures given in perception or in other ways, and elemental association of 'ideas', among others. In what follows, we shall use 'thinking' to cover both the single t-state and the flow of such states, without regard to how intermingled with other person states.

Language: Sense perceptible signs or symbols are an essential constituent of language. It is always false to say that language is present or in use where no signs are present or in use. And, whatever else a sign may be, it is something which is apprehendable via its sensible qualities. That is, it is something which can be either seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled. Moreover, the use of language requires some level of actual sensuous apprehension of the signs which are in use on the occasion. (Confusion or distortion of this sensuous feedback can render a subject incapable of writing or speaking; and, of course, without perception of the sign-sequences emitted, one cannot understand the person emitting language.)

Now cases can be produced almost at will where thinking occurs without language being present or in use. This, of course, is something which everyone--including the proponent of thinking-in-language--very well knows. It is these cases which, together with the assumption that we always think in language, create what in (7) was called "the well-known difficulty of thinking without words." If, as in (3), "thinking is essentially the activity of operating with signs," then when there are no signs--and when, consequently, the means by which we produce, manipulate, or perceive signs are not functioning--we do have a difficulty. In fact, a difficulty so severe that it amounts to a proof that thinking is not essentially the activity of operating with signs, and that often we think entirely without language. One cannot operate with signs where there are no signs. <129> 

As the above quotations indicate, the most common move made to save 'thinking in language' at this point is the shift to 'silent soliloquy,' as in (6), or to 'pieces of intelligent talking to oneself,' as in (7). These are latter-day shades of John Watson's 'sub-vocal language.' Of course one can talk to oneself or write to onself. But talking and writing to oneself require the production and perception of sensuous signs just as much as talking and writing to another. The realization of this is what drives the thinking-in-language advocate to silent soliloquy or to nonvocal speaking--the written counterpart of which would be invisible writing. That is, they are driven to flat absurdities. A silent soliloquy--that is, silent speaking--is precisely on a par with a silent trumpet solo, for example, or silent thunder. A poet may say:

       Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard

            Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;

       Not to the sensual ear, but, more endeared,

            Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone;...

               (Keats, Ode to a Grecian Urn)

But there are in fact no unhearable melodies, no ears other than the "sensual," no ditties of no tone.

What those who speak of silent discourse have in mind is, no doubt, the fact that interlaced with our thinking of or about things is a great deal of imaging of linguistic entities. (This is especially true of academics or intellectuals in general, because of their great concern with expression of thought. Probably an adequate phenomenology of thinking would exhibit great contrast between them and other classes of persons precisely at the relation between thinking and degree of activity in imaging linguistic entities and events.) But imaging a word is not using a word, any more than imaging a horse is using a horse. Moreover, imaging a word, phrase, or sentence is not producing or perceiving a word, phrase, or sentence any more than imaging a horse is producing or perceiving--or otherwise 'having'--a horse. To image a linguistic sequence is not to have it in a special sort of place--the mind--nor is it to have a special sort of linguistic sequence. To image is to exemplify a certain sort of thinking or intentional state, and a sort which does have interesting relationships with other kinds of thinking. But there is no reason at all to suppose that all kinds of thinking necessarily involve or are accompanied by this kind of thinking (imaging) directed upon language segments. And if there were, it still would not follow that all thinking requires language, since this kind of thinking about language segments is not itself language at all. Nor does it require any <130> language present in order for it to come to pass, since intentional inexistence applies to mental events when language segments are the objects, as well as when sticks and stones and animals are.

Having considered a reason for rejecting the proposition that human beings always think in language, let us now consider whether they ever do. In fact, the difficulty is not, as Smart (above) and others have thought, in seeing how one can think without language, but in seeing how one would think with it. Thinking with or in language must consist in doing something with symbols, and so necessarily involves doing something to them--e.g., producing, altering, or perceiving them. If we would do something with the knife (e.g., cut the bread), we must do something to the knife, (e.g., clasp it in our hands). But, as we have seen, thinking occurs where nothing at all is being done to or with signs, there not being any signs in these cases. The power or act of having or changing t-states--that is, the power or act of thinking--is, then, not a power or act of having or altering linguistic symbols. (It is not, in fact, a power of doing anything with or in anything at all. The profound difference in kinds of powers and acts involved here is what Wittgenstein calls attention to in the last sentence of (3) above.) Thought is, of course, practical, in that it exercises an influence upon, or makes some difference in, the world of sense particulars. But it alone is not capable of acting with the sorts of particulars used in linguistic behavior as its immediate instruments. It is just this incapacity which makes it impossible for the advocates of thinking-in-language to give any account of the mechanisms or the 'how' by which the words in which we, allegedly, think are produced, manipulated, and gotten rid of--though they must be produced (or stored and hauled out), manipulated, and, in some sense, gotten rid of, if we are to think with and in them as our tools or instruments.

Merely to ask the question of how, in detail, this is done in the course of thinking reveals, I believe, the absurdity of 'thinking in language'. Mere thinking can do nothing to signs which might be used in a language, and hence it can do nothing with such signs, or in the act of modifying the conditions of such signs. It is absurd to suppose that one can do x with y without in some way bringing about a change in the condition, state, relations, or properties of y. It is this and only this that I put by saying that it is absurd to suppose that one can do something with y while doing nothing to y.

If it is replied that, of course, the mind or thought does not do these things, but that when we write, speak, hear, see, and otherwise relate to actual words in the actual employment of language, we then are thinking, with bodily parts managing the symbols involved, then it <131> must be pointed out that, while we may indeed also be thinking in such cases, we are not simply thinking. The total event here, to which language certainly is essential, is not thinking. Correct use of language can even occur, as has been pointed out by Wittgenstein, without the occurrence of any peculiarly relevant t-states. On the other hand, thinking does occur without the use of hands, mouth, ears, eyes, fingers in any appropriately relevant manner. Hence, what can only occur by the use of these is not the same as thinking, though it may somehow involve or influence thinking.

Smart remarks in (7) that, when he thinkingly wrote the sentence, "Certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself," he could "no more do the 'thinking' part without the talking (or writing) part than a man can do the being graceful part of walking apart from the walking." This may be true of thinkingly writing the sentence (whatever that means). But it does not follow that one cannot think that certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself without the use of language, though Smart clearly thinks that it does. Of course one cannot thinkingly write without writing. But that is nothing to the point of whether or not we can and do think with or without words. Also, the comparison to graceful walking is not apt. We do, as above shown, sometimes think without words or symbols, while no cases of grace without behavior are known.

Now it is very certainly true that some processes clearly involving thinking as described above depend for their occurrence upon linguistic behavior and the sensible signs which it involves, for example, the processes of learning algebra or the history of the Basques, or learning how to counsel emotionally upset persons. But it is to be noted that these are not themselves processes of thinking, but rather are extremely complex processes involving all kinds of events and entities other than language and other than thinking--e.g., feelings, perceptions, buildings, other persons, days and nights, books, and so on. None of these processes is a process of thinking; and for that reason alone it is invalid to infer from them that thinking is linguistic behavior, or that one thinks with language. What is essential to things or events of a certain sort must be shown essential to them taken by themselves, not in combination with many other things. With reference to the involved processes in question, it might be more appropriate (though it would still be wrong) to say--as some have said in recent years--that we live in or with language. Nevertheless, it is certain that some kind of dependence relation--probably similar to feedback mechanisms--exists between linguistic processes and their sensuous signs, on the one hand, and certain sequences of t-states on the other. What, exactly, this relation <132> of dependence is continues to be veiled by, among other things, a priori assumptions about what thinking and language must be and do. One such assumption is that which holds thinking essentially to be an operation with signs or symbols, or doing something with--or in--linguistic processes or entities.

The view that we (necessarily) think without language is, today, regarded as so outlandish as not to merit serious consideration. But this is not due to a lack of arguments to support it. My object here has been to focus upon certain arguments purporting to show the absurdity of thinking in language. The main points in these arguments are: Thinking does occur without any accompanying language whatsoever, and thus shows itself not to be a power or act of managing linguistic signs, once it is clear what such a sign is. Thinking, as distinct from behavioral processes involving it, can do nothing to signs or symbols, and hence can do nothing with them.


NOTES

  1. See for example, Ramsey's Foundations of Mathematics, p. 138, and Kneale's remarks in Feigl and Sellars, Readings in Philosophical Analysis, p. 42. Return to text.
  2. See S. Morris Engel, "Thought and Language," Dialogue, Vol. 3, 1964, 160-170; Jerome Shaffer, "Recent Work on the Mind-Body Problem," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. II, 1965, esp. p. 83; R. Kirk, "Rationality Without Language," Mind, 1967, pp. 369-368; G. Ryle, "A Puzzling Element in the Notion of Thinking," in Studies in the Philosophy of Thought and Action, P. F. Strawson, ed., (Oxford: 1968), pp. 7-23. Interesting remarks on the issues here are also found in Bruce Aune's Knowledge, Mind and Nature, chap. VIII and H. H. Price's Thinking and Experience, Chap. X.  See also Wm. James, "Thought Before Language; A Deaf Mute's Recollections," Mind, Vol. I, 1892; and see Wittgenstein's comments on this in Philosophical Investigations, No. 342. Return to text.
  3. I use only think here, for simplicity; but think that and other structures of such intentional states (and sequences thereof) might also be mentioned. Specifically, I would also wish to hold that instances of thinking that, in the sense of inferring or puzzling something out, occur in the absence of appropriate linguistic entities or activities. Return to text.


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: consciousness; dallaswillard; epistemology; faithandphilosophy; godsgravesglyphs; intelligence; intention; intentionality; language; linguistics; metaphysics; mind; ontology; psychology; semantics; semasiology; semiotics; sense; thinking; thought; willard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,281-1,293 next last
To: unspun
The idea that you think in words is kind of like --- like ...oh, what's the word? It's on the tip of my tongue! I know what I am trying to say, and if I wasn't trying to think of it right now the word would just come right out....

Oh, well. You know what I mean.

41 posted on 05/23/2003 5:30:09 PM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: unspun
9%2798 *79 *7(87980- {}[u@

<>_+0~~ ^38 68 %#6* #678 \]3[]?3$!` @ #4 05=--=/,.\]95&8 90

3*9 78#2 1#`- 8 87/;''

/85%# @7(7 )8^$##^%*&8 &8(87
42 posted on 05/23/2003 5:32:35 PM PDT by Semi Civil Servant (&979 #4 653 *(0 08 ":]+= ?/<,.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Whether or not we need words to think, we do need words to talk about thinking. One could characterize mental activity as chemical, rather than verbal. Much of it consists in reactions that are too instantaneous or too vague to be put into words. But how do you render this in a form that you can communicate to other people? You need language.

Words are inadequate to convey some reactions: witness the failure of "stream of consciousness" in fiction writing. The true "stream of consciousness" is subverbal or nonverbal or at most only partially verbal.

But what would we be if we had to rely on mental activity that does not make use of words? What could we think without words? Wouldn't it have to be very simple?

I wonder if truly subverbal or nonverbal activity isn't primarily emotional or sensual or at most action-oriented. It says "fear this," "this is bitter," "this feels good," "movement there" or "run!"

Perhaps I'm totally wrong, but when we get away from the bioemotional, aren't we already on the road to language? "Fear this" or "this is warm" gets perceived in the skin. More complex relations and qualities may not be so easily felt on a physical level.

And the senses bring us information that we feel strongly and directly, and other information that doesn't impress itself strongly on our emotions. Language allows us greater access to the second group. We can express not just that this or that is hot or moving, but that this object is to the left of that and behind the other thing, without pointing or needing to have the objects in our field of vision.

Consider color. Colors had to be invented or discovered by human cultures. You might see something of a certain appearance, but you couldn't say what you saw until you had a word for it. And the full palette of colors that we see today took time to develop.

43 posted on 05/23/2003 5:33:12 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Musicians and mathematicians are often the same people.

And yet popular culture often presents these as diametrically opposed personality types.

44 posted on 05/23/2003 5:34:11 PM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Truth is, I can hardly read this kind of BS, written as it is with very few concrete nouns. The eyes just glaze over.

Serously and uncontentiously, I'd be really interested in knowing if you've had any "personality" or "temperament" tests. I wouldn't be surprised at all if those who lean "objectivist" or "logical positivist" tend to be "left brained" and the Interneters of them, more ISTJ or INTJ in "MBTI/Meyers-Briggs" terms. The opposite for the opposite, of course. (I tend to be INFP, though I tend to splash around.)

But then again, this last paragraph might cause your eyes to glaze or at least roll, too! ;-`

45 posted on 05/23/2003 5:34:46 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Semi Civil Servant
85%# @7(7 )8^$##^%*&8 &8(87

My thoughts exactly.

46 posted on 05/23/2003 5:35:19 PM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
Oh, well. You know what I mean.

Eggsactly, chicken!

47 posted on 05/23/2003 5:37:13 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
u: "If you ever need a "character witness," I'll vouch for you! "

You sure are a character, so it's easy.
48 posted on 05/23/2003 5:39:02 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
I've been hanging out in both departments recently. It's amusing to notice those two students over there in complex analysis class are also in the chamber ensemble, English horn and cello, and both in the 90s on the Riemann space test. Not everyone, but it happens often enough that you do notice. And that's Einstein on second violin.
49 posted on 05/23/2003 5:40:32 PM PDT by RightWhale (Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: unspun
How do you take into consideration those people who are telepathic. They have no language, they only have understanding.
50 posted on 05/23/2003 5:42:30 PM PDT by fifteendogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; Yeti; Rachumlakenschlaff
My friend Rachy is... a chemist and computer programmer AND a concert level pianist and organist.

Must like keyboards and charts.
51 posted on 05/23/2003 5:43:22 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: fifteendogs
How do you take into consideration those people who are telepathic. They have no language, they only have understanding.

Wow, I just had a feeling that question had been asked before... and even replied to! 8-o

52 posted on 05/23/2003 5:44:37 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Using the concept of Occam's Razor, everything is exactly what we collectively think it is.

The Law of Thought.

Maybe.

53 posted on 05/23/2003 5:45:06 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
I haven't read that.  My favorite is the Origin of Consciousness
in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
.
54 posted on 05/23/2003 5:45:09 PM PDT by gcruse (Vice is nice, but virtue can hurt you. --Bill Bennett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fifteendogs
...and of course they do have language. But what is language even, if it isn't 'just' another thing our mind addresses when it wants to?
55 posted on 05/23/2003 5:46:07 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: unspun
MBTI/Meyers-Briggs" terms.

I'd be careful about internalizing that kind of label, if I were you. The results of those tests could tend to be self fulfilling prophecies.

By accepting a positive("I am stronger in language skills") we implicitly acknowledge the negative("I can't do math"), and give ourselves permission to allow those skills to atrophy. We all have the centers in our brain that correspond to any of those skills.

Likewise with "thinking" or "feeling" and "introverted" or "extroverted." Introverts care about what others think, extroverts are capable of introspection. They are false dichotomies.

56 posted on 05/23/2003 5:48:01 PM PDT by Yeti (There are two kinds of people: One is the kind who divides everyone into two groups ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: unspun
If this theory is to be credible then all humans must"Think"
similarly and equally. That the processes of thought in an Amazonian Indian are on par with that of say Steven Pinker.

It also fails to examine, as an example the former Soviet Union, which broke up into 15 states not geographically (the easy way) but linguistically. The case for the divisions was made by the statement "that we all think alike".

The author may be confusing biological functions with thinking; hunger,thirst,pain,an erection etc.etc.

Surely, some study of brain death would reveal that while
these biological functions remain, all thought has ceased.
57 posted on 05/23/2003 5:48:45 PM PDT by ijcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

People can give a body more things to read.... ;-`

Hope to read at least a bit of each reference here....
58 posted on 05/23/2003 5:49:25 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Thought associations seem to be different between Englishmen and Chinese, for example.

How about English speakers and the French? What is it about the French language that causes them to be so insufferable?

59 posted on 05/23/2003 5:49:51 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Soddom has left the bunker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Thanks. I couldn't read much either, but hadn't thought about concrete nouns. I'll look for that the next time one of these sponges-strung-out-on-a-line impersonates prose.
60 posted on 05/23/2003 5:50:14 PM PDT by gcruse (Vice is nice, but virtue can hurt you. --Bill Bennett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,281-1,293 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson