Episode 059 - The Uses Of The Body Were Not Designed Before They Arose
Date: 02/27/21
Link: https://www.epicureanfriends.com/thread/1887-episode-fifty-nine-the-uses-of-the-body-were-not-designed-before-they-arose/
Summary
Section titled “Summary”(Add summary here)
Transcript (Unedited)
Section titled “Transcript (Unedited)”Welcome to Episode 59 of Lucretius Today. I am your host Cassius, and together with my panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, I’ll walk you through the six books of Lucretius’ poem and discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book Epicurus and His Philosophy by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt. For anyone who is not familiar with our podcast, please check back to Episode 1 for a discussion of our goals and our gro und rules. If you have any questions about that, please be sure to contact us at EpicureanFriends.com for more information. In this Episode 59, we’ll discuss how the uses of the body were not designed before the body arose, and we will continue to discuss the mind’s use of images. Our text comes from Latin Lines 823 through 906 of Book 4. Now let’s join the discussion.
Martin reading today’s text. But in subjects of this nature, guard yourself to the utmost of your power against that error, that gross mistake, and never believe that those bright orbs, the eyes, were made that we might see, or that our legs were made upright, and things fixed upon them, and were supported by feet, that we might walk and take large strides, that our arms were braced with strong sinews, and that our hands hung on both sides, to assist us in those offices that are necessary to the support of life. And whatever constructions they put upon other parts of the body, they are all absurd and against reason, for no member of the body was made for any particular use. But after it was made, each member found out a use proper to itself. For there was no such thing as to see before the eyes were made, nor to speak before the tongue was formed. But the tongue was rather in being before there was speech, and the ears were made long before any sound was heard. In short, all the members, in my opinion, were in being before their purpose, their particular uses were said.
Out. This is so true that to engage in battle, to mangle the limbs, and to stain the body over with blood, these were in being before any shining darts flew through the air. And nature taught us to avoid a wound before the hand learned to oppose a shield in our defense. And so to commit the body to rest was long before the invention of soft beds. And to quench the thirst was practiced before the use of cups. All these things, we may believe, were invented for common benefit, as they were found proper and convenient for the occasions of life. All things, therefore, that were in being before the use of them was determined, applied themselves afterwards to the office that was most suitable and serviceable to them. Of this kind, principally, are the senses and members of all bodies. And therefore you are to avoid, upon all accounts, so much as to think that they were at first formed for any particular design or use. Nor is it wonderful at all that it is the nature of every animal to require meat. I have told you that the train of effluvia are ever flowing from all bodies. but most are discharged.
From those animals that are most used to motion. Many particles forced from within are carried off by sweat and many exhale through the mouth when we are fatigued and pant for breath. The body therefore by these discharges becomes very refined and all nature is falling to pieces which is attended with great pain. Food therefore is taken to prop up the limbs and being given from time to time. It renews the strength and satisfies that gaping desire of eating through the limbs and veins. The cooling drink likewise descends into all the parts that require moisture and the flowing liquid scatters all that heap of hot particles that set our stomach in a flame and extinguishes them as fire so that the heat has no longer power to scorch our bowels and this is panting thirst washed away from our bodies thus our craving hunger is satisfied and now attend and you shall know how it is that we are able to walk when we will. That we have a power to move our limbs as we please and what it is that trusts the body forward with all.
Its weight. I say then, that the images of motion first affect and strike the mind as we observed before. This makes a will, for we never attempt to do anything before the mind knows what it is we desire to do. And the image of that thing which occurs to the mind must be present before it. And thus the mind, having moved itself so as to resolve to go forward, strikes immediately upon the soul, which is diffused through the whole body, and this is easily done because they are both closely joined together. Then strikes the body, and so the whole bulb by degrees is thrust forward and put into motion. Besides, the body by this means is rarefied, and the air which is ever disposed to move enters the open passages and pierces through the pores in great abundance, and so is dispersed through every minute part of the body. These two therefore, by the soul laboring within and by the air entering from without, the body is moved, as a ship is by oars and wind. Nor is this at all strange that particles so very small should turn about the bulk of all bodies, and move so great.
For the driving wind formed of so fine and supple seats, thrust forward a large ship with mighty force, and one hand can govern it under full sail, by turning one little helm which way it pleases, and an engine with small labor is able, by pulleys and wheels, to move many bodies of a great way. Thank you, Martin, for reading that section today. It’s slightly shorter than the sections we’ve done for the last couple weeks, but the first passage today, which is one of the references in Lucretius that appear to be referencing what we would consider today to be an evolutionary theory, one of the more important ones or interesting ones in the book, and so I wanted to make sure we had plenty of time to discuss that. So… Let Martin go first. Okay. Martin. Yeah, I mean, this is, I mean, if I had not known about this evolution, evolutionary theory, and also not about creationism, I wouldn’t really get evolutionary theory out of that. What I understand is this is definitely.
Against the creationist approach, but what I see in this paragraph, what he states is somewhat compatible with evolutionary theory, but the key things, other than that it’s against creationism, don’t really show up here. Your voice kind of cut out. Can you say that last part again? Oh, okay. So in this paragraph, we can see the opposition to the creationism, but the key things of the evolutionary theory theory itself do not show up. Great. I’m going to expand on that, Martin, because I think that’s a very interesting thing that we need to discuss today, that there’s not really a… When you say the key parts of evolutionary theory don’t show up, which key parts are you saying are not here? Yeah. First of all, that there are chance changes in this one, and that there’s selection. So this both doesn’t really show up here. I do think there’s another section that talks about nature trying different options and so forth,
And this section, and I can’t remember.
But at least right now… I don’t think we’ve covered that yet. That sounds like five. Yeah, it does sound like five to me. So I do think that’s a very interesting point that Martin is raising, that while people today do see this as presaging evolution, it’s really not going there. Which, if it’s not going there, it’s important for us to figure out where is it going and why it is inserted here. In fact, I think the commentators talk about this passage being something that Lucretius might have inserted during a rewrite because it sort of breaks the flow of some of the other discussion. But it’s obviously a very important one. So go ahead. I was going to say, I absolutely agree, Martin. That was my same thought reading this first section, that this is really, even though it doesn’t argue against evolution, it’s not an argument for it. It doesn’t really have anything to do with specifically evolutionary theory. It’s just an argument, against creationism.
And having a design for a purpose. So that part is in there. What is it arguing for then, Elaine? Do you see? It’s arguing. Well, it’s more arguing against. It’s arguing that we weren’t made for the purposes that we are seeing our bodies use for. That the use came about after the physical development of a part. And that’s true. Although the way he phrases it, it’s a little difficult to tell if to me from this, whether he means it this way. But it kind of reads as if he’s saying, oh, you know, hey, I’ve got this hand here. What can I do with it? And not quite the way it is. And if you do put evolutionary theory in with it, then that makes more sense. You know, why some parts persisted and others didn’t. Yeah, it’s because they were functional in this specific environment. But it wasn’t. like he almost makes it.
Sound like it was a conscious thing that we realized we had this stuff and then what could we do with it? I don’t think that’s exactly the way to think about it. I’m not sure. I’m not sure that’s what he means. What about the context of where we are in the discussion of basically the senses and so forth? Is there anything that comes to mind as to why he would have thought to insert this here in this part of the argument? Yeah, I mean, if you had a God making your eyes, you know, it would be, because you knew there were images out there and you wanted this human to be able to see them. But now he is not saying that the images weren’t there before we could see them. So that’s really important because he did hold to a material world. So it’s not like they suddenly appeared after we got eyes, but we didn’t have any experience of seeing without eyes. So even if the images were out there, we couldn’t perceive them. For somebody who might not have listened to the last episode,
Where we were last week is discussing the mind’s direct receipt of the images and the mind’s selecting among the images what to focus on. And as you were referring to the fact that the images in his theory are being distorted and potentially coming together spontaneously and so forth. And he goes from that discussion basically into this discussion about there’s no intent behind the formation of the limbs, no intent behind the formation of the eyes. That he starts out with the eyes as his first example here. So maybe that’s how he’s kind of linking together with the image. Yeah. One thing what I would rather see there that he has here a theory of the individual’s development because the baby is born with all these organs and it has to figure out how to use them. So it’s more like fitting to that one than evolutionary theory. And the comment was made, we had some recent discuss.
That you fit this maybe into the issue of the anticipations and as Elaine was talking about last week, the sort of the flip book aspect of how images come at you and you assemble them into something that’s moving. Maybe the assembling of the images in the mind is in Lucretius’ back, in the back of his mind as he’s writing this. There’s a relationship between that process and the process of the limbs coming to, they have a use over time that they were not born with. I don’t know. You know, that could be in that last section. We’re not to that yet, but that’s possible. He doesn’t quite say that, but it wouldn’t be incompatible with what he said. Do you want to go down straight to the last part? Because that’s that last, very last section here that you’re talking about. About how willing to move, yeah. Yeah, go ahead. I think this one is a fairly compact passage and we can just flip back and forth from all, sections of it as we’re talking.
So, how do you relate that, Elaine? So, this is real interesting because Lucretius had to give an explanation for imagination, dreams, you know, how do we come up with this stuff that is not actually in front of us? And he said that it was because there were images that we weren’t seeing with our eyes, but were penetrating through the skin. And, you know, we were perceiving them with our mind rather than the brain itself being creative. So, it. Does make sense that if you thought that you would not think that you could imagine a motivation to move that, you know, how would you know how you wanted to move in his model if you weren’t presented with an image beforehand? Because you’re not, you know, we talked about last week about the memory being more of like a pattern restoring, not an actual image. So, well, he doesn’t have that in his model at all. So, this has got to come from outside. and so the worst.
Surrounded by all these images of moving that i guess the mind would decide to focus on something moving and that would give it an understanding of what to do and then the and then it would decide to move really really fascinating idea not how it worked but cool well clearly one of the important lines catch my eye right this second is in the last paragraph it says quote this makes the will for we never attempt to do anything before the mind knows what it is we desire to do and the image of that thing which occurs to the mind must be present before it yeah so this is the same as you know what he said before somehow the mind is thinking without imagining an actual image that it wants to move but he’s separating the actual the picture of moving you know what that would look like from this just thought i want to move so i want to move and the mind happens to pick out out of all these images in the air that are coming out of the mind and through the skin of the.
Brain. A moving image is like okay, yeah, that’s it. That’s the one. I want to do that. Really, it’s really creative. Charles, you haven’t had much to say so far. Any comments already at this point? Okay, I know you joined us a little late today. Jump in at any point. Martin, any thoughts on what Elaine has said? I have no first addition to it. It’s okay. So, this is interesting to think about some of the how does that really work? It’s fairly complicated so we don’t know everything about we know there’s not images coming through the air that are telling us how to move. But, you know, we can decide to move when we’re alone. There’s nobody else in the room moving. We know how to do it. But often, I have had an experience I imagine most of you have of starting to move before I was aware of choosing to move. being startled.
And jumping and like I didn’t think oh I’m going to jump in the air I’m looking for the image of jumping so I can jump you find your feet moving before you have the thought oh I’m running from a snake or you know whatever whatever it is that you’re doing the moving can come first or I could be sitting on the couch thinking I want to walk in the kitchen and get some water water my plants and I’m going to have the experience of thinking about it before I actually move my muscles so I don’t know anybody else want to report on what it seems like to them when they’re moving yeah I mean what I learned about this for the reason for this of course with the conscious part of the brain we decide this and we know this before but if it’s a reflex or an automatism that means something where the body has been trained to that can very well happen before a conscious decision is made to move yeah yeah Yeah, and I mean that’s the common.
Experience. So we can just even without knowing any neuroscience, we can observe that. But when it gets really, really wonky is when you do look at some of the research. It does appear that at least sometimes we reorder events very quickly but not at the level of conscious awareness so that they appear to proceed in the correct order. There’s some weird studies about hitting a baseball and players will report that they can see the ball all the way through, see it hit the bat on closer examination. The speeds at which things are going, the speed of information and the getting to the visual cortex, it actually happens after. They’re seeing and they’ve already hit it in real time. But to them, if our perception were arranged in that way, it would be a very confusing world. We wouldn’t really know what to make of it. So we have evolved, I guess.
Selected for brains that order things in a way that isn’t confusing. I’m just thinking through the fundamentals of what we’re discussing here and going back to the beginning of the passage. So as Martin has pointed out, this is not really probably directed at an evolutionary theory of where we came from as much as it’s continuing to analyze this process of thinking and acting and living and whether it’s directed by some ultimate goal. So he’s rejecting that there’s an ultimate goal that is directing the uses of the body. I think probably, at least in my mind, that’s probably the takeaway point of that beginning passage. There’s no, just because the hands and the arms are good for fighting with shields and so forth, they have all sorts of uses, that doesn’t mean that there was a pre-existing use that summoned them into existence to fulfill that purpose. So he’s rejecting that purpose-driven argument.
For life itself, really. Oh, wow. Martin, do you have any thoughts on that, or Charles? Not immediately. Go ahead, Elaine. What is your thought? Well, it’s really difficult to get the wording down completely for this, because in evolution, if the organism doesn’t survive and reproduce, you’re not going to see more of them, right? So, it has to be fit for the environment in that way, or it’s going to die out, whatever that mutation is, is not going to survive. So, it’s not an advanced purpose, but it’s survival and reproduction is what evolution is selecting for. So, I guess it’s kind of like a purpose. Well, that’s the question. Is what you’re describing a purpose? It’s not a purpose, but it’s the deciding factor about, you know, whether something, you know, a trait makes it. So, it’s close. it’s close. It’s not like some.
Body who’s out there deciding, oh, but in function, it works like a purpose. But if what you’re concerned about is whether there’s some external entity that has a purpose. Right, right, right. Definitely not that. Definitely not that. It’s just kind of have to be careful that it’s not that there’s no deciding factor that’s driving what happens. There is, you know, you have to survive and reproduce. So that is, if you were going to claim a purpose for nature, that would have to be it, but it’s not a conscious purpose. It’s just what happens. If you don’t, you won’t be here. Maybe you could phrase it in terms of this is what you observe is the reason why certain things survive and certain things do not. It is an observational again. Yes. It’s an observation. It’s not an explanation. It’s not a, therefore some other entity created these factors. It’s just simply that we observe that these factors are there and that explains why certain things survive and certain things don’t. It’s what you’re talking about, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that doesn’t mean that… There’s no intelligent design. Yeah, there’s no intelligent design by God, by any force of any kind that is external to the thing itself. And I guess there’s this clear analogy between that observation and just thinking about how you walk and do anything else in life is that there are explanations. There are things we can observe about the process of walking and living, but they don’t imply that those things were set in motion as a purpose by a God. You kind of cut out a little bit there. Those observations that you can make about how things actually work do not contain within them any implication that there’s a higher intelligence or guiding principle. Right, right, exactly. Definitely. So maybe that’s the train of his thought here is that he’s just still focusing on the implications of what we observe and how we observe the senses to operate, that the senses operate the way they operate,
And that doesn’t imply that they were set in motion by God or by the prime mover. Yeah, I agree. Okay, so that’s one basic aspect that strikes my mind as very important.
There’s a lot of issues here that ought to be thought about in terms of how this would relate, again, to the issue of determinism. I think we raised that last week or the week before just briefly, and it’s certainly possible, I would think, that unless you’re careful, you’re going to fall into the conclusion that everything you do is just driven by whatever images are striking your mind at a particular time, and that you’re solely just a robot run by whatever images are striking your mind at a particular time. Right. I think Elaine last week said that would not be the case, because the mind is an active participant in selecting what images it’s going to focus on. Is that what you said, Elaine? Well, that’s what Lucretius is saying. That’s how he’s explaining it. He’s not thinking of us creating the images, but he’s thinking of us having a desire to see a certain image, and then out of the ones that are out there, we can perceive whatever image it is with our minds. Okay, well, that’s an important distinction, and we’re not attempting to.
We can’t at the same time apply the modern standard to understanding his theory and I guess where I’m going right this second is that in order to understand his theory I think somebody could within the confines of his theory question whether this is inconsistent with his view against determinism or not because if in fact you were to read this as these images controlling every moment what you’re doing and thinking then you’d have to work pretty hard to fit that into an anti-determinism determinist framework except for what you said I think that’s the answer to it the mind is an active participant taking an active role in focusing on which images it chooses to focus on at least it’s doing that while it’s awake maybe it’s not doing that while it’s asleep though yeah I don’t know that’s interesting you just talk about the cognitive faculties being asleep maybe yeah but if you’ve got all these images at once.
Have one coherent image in a dream. If he were here, I’d ask him what his explanation is. Right, right. And I’m telling you, too, that I think, whether we agree on this or not, I think that somehow memory has to come into this, that it’s not going to be solely a matter of the images that strike you at a particular moment, but you are at least affected by the images that struck you in the past. Yeah, but he doesn’t say that. So we had to, that was the one thing we decided to put in the suspense file, because he has not said that you can actually re-see memories, you know, visualize them, rather than having a thought about this thing happened. He has made no assertion about the mind being able to actually create the picture. What is a thought, then? Well, he’s separating it in a way that is real hard for us to imagine, but I guess it would be, yeah, because we don’t really separate memories of events beyond I was gonna say, like, let’s say,
If we didn’t have sight, how would we remember a vent? But we would remember it as, you know, the other sensory components. We would kind of recreate those experiences in our, you know, using our sensory cortexes. So he apparently thought about the way the brain works very, very differently from either how we experience it or how we are able to understand it currently. It’s a really, really different. And I don’t think we should gloss over the rather extreme differences in that model. It would, you know, just to try to squeeze them into what we have now. That is a real different. Yeah, there’s a lot of rabbit holes we could go down here that would be unproductive, probably, but labor over time. This is very different and potentially has, those differences have lots of implications that would be difficult. But interesting maybe to trace. Interesting to trace. And for me, I think it emphasizes not trying to shoehorn some of these things, even where they’re not now thought to be.
Still don’t try to twiddle with his ideas too much, you know, otherwise you’re going to miss how it is that he was thinking about things, which is really interesting historically, even if it’s not quite how it is. Charles, any thoughts yet today? No, I’ve been listening to Elaine the whole time. Okay. Do you agree? Yeah, I would say so. Still kind of thinking on the evolution train, though. Yeah. Think out loud, though. Think out loud. But there is another section, and I think it is in book five, where we come back to the formation of society and a pretty clear reference or two to nature attempting many different things and only some of them succeeding. That’s going to be another section that may be even much more clearly related to natural selection and other evolutionary aspects. So that really may be one that’s been difficult for me over the years to think about this particular passage as being a presage of evolution,
Necessarily going in that direction at all. It’s just simply talking about that there is no ultimate purpose for the parts of the body or for the eyes or anything else. Well, so the one part in here in the second section in the brown, where it says nature taught us to avoid a wound before the left hand learned to oppose a shield in our defense. Yeah. You know, so this is where I want to say not exactly. I mean, that’s really not even how evolution works. What happened is, let’s say, if you’re going to personify nature, let’s say it’s nature rewarded the spontaneous development or the, you know, mutational development of avoiding wounds with reproduction and survival of that trait. So it’s like an after the fact thing, even by a personification of nature, more than nature teaching us to do it. I did think the part about the stomach being on fire. Yeah. Keeping the stomach moist.
Moist is an obviously important part of it. Now we find out why your stomach’s going to catch on fire. You better be sure. And I wonder if he was eating something spicy. That’s real interesting. Scorching your bowels. It’s very frightening. Well, I’m looking at that paragraph that you’re mentioning there. One of the sentences that seems to summarize this, of this kind principally are the senses and members of our bodies. And therefore, you are to avoid upon all accounts so much as to think that they were at first formed for any particular design or use. Yeah. And he hasn’t really in this section, he hasn’t made too much, if any reference at all to gods really. So it’s not exactly like he’s throwing this in as another attack on religion. He’s actually more into the mechanisms of the senses than he is on even refuting the idea of gods. Yeah. Yeah. But I, It still reads like partly.
An argument against creationism. Yeah, yeah. I feel like that’s got to have been part of the intention. Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. You know, I’ve seen it observed as well. This is one of the few references that I’ve seen that talks about, I know back when I was reading some Nietzsche, this discussion of the will and that there’s not a lot of discussion in philosophy or some of the ancient texts in general about the word will or willpower, but there’s, in this last passage we have here where it says the image of motion first affect and strike the mind as we observe before. This makes but we never attempt to do anything before the mind knows what it is we desire to do. I guess… All three translations we have here are… The word will? Let’s look and see, Martin Ferguson Smith. Because there’s not a lot of discussion of consciousness or words that we tend to use today I think is describing the what is it? The id I don’t know.
What to use as the word to describe the you, the ultimate you, the ultimate. And of course, this is apparently a word different than desire. It would have been possible that the word desire would have been the one to use here because that word gets used much more frequently. So if there’s a difference in word, that would be potentially interesting. Martin Ferguson Smith says it will. Then comes the act of will. And similarly when Lucretius was talking about the images, did they just arise when we had the will to see them? He said no, you know, they were always there. It’s just that, you know, by the act of will, we decided which ones to focus on. Boy, that’s another rabbit hole that I’m not prepared to go down and haven’t even looked at the Latin to distinguish it and so forth. But I’ll file that away in the back to see eventually if there’s some distinction here in wording between desire and will. Because I don’t think we’ve generally talked about or seen reference to will.
In our prior passages. Yeah, but we did that just when we had the images. I just looked at it and it was will. We hadn’t been paying attention to looking for that, but I feel like we have seen it. But it is interesting to me that all the translators would use the word will there rather than, for example, desire. I’m regularly seeing the desires discussed throughout Epicurean philosophy. Is desire different than will? I presume it probably does have different connotations. At least for me today, it does. Yeah, will has more like a I am going to do this kind of like I will do this. A decisive decision. Yeah, like determination kind of. And so when the mind stirs itself so that it wishes to start and step forward. So it’s kind of like a combination of things there. It straightway strikes the force of soul, which is spread abroad in the body throughout the brain. You know, that linking all of this discussion.
Treadically that the images that we’ve been discussing that are being processed by the mind are then turned around and the signals sent throughout the body to do what it’s supposed to do by the soul or the spirit. I think before the soul. Yeah, the way he’s described it is not quite the same because he had it like a sort of particle thing, but but it’s similar to the nervous system, the mind and the brain and then the soul being in the in the peripheral. Nervous system, and so then the soul goes on and strikes the body. So little by little the whole mass is thrust forward. So the soul striking the body kind of an image as well. Yeah, but in the end, all of it, I think is summarized by the desire to produce a theory of non supernatural functioning of the mind and the body. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, maybe we’ve teased out most of what we want to tease out for today.
Yeah. Anybody have other general ideas before we start to close the just sort of what I was thinking earlier about the evolution was that this all just sounded like a very materialist way of explaining limb function and progression with development that that part about the shield bit was kind of what set that off as well. Those who use shields are more successful in battle, just like those who use space heaters are more successful in surviving the cold.
Minnesota, right? Yeah. Yeah. Unless they unless they set their house on fire. Yeah. I guess as long as we hear the space heater in the background, we know the house is not on fire. Well, yeah, that’s true. That’s usually how houses start on fire. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, also, I mentioned it briefly yesterday, the text from Man, a Machine. Now, there isn’t a whole lot of evolutionary stuff written before Darwin, but two most striking instances, three if you want to get technical, are of Lemaitre and then Lucretius, and here’s this little section from Man, a Machine that’s pretty relevant to this. So I’m reading an excerpt of the text because the whole sentence is about an entire paragraph long. Alright, so it’s that the eye is in truth a kind of glass in which the soul can contemplate the image of objects as they are presented to it by these bodies.
But that it is not proved that this organ was really made expressly for this contemplation, purposely placed in its socket. And in short, it may well be that Lucretius, the physician Lamy, and all Epicureans both ancient and modern were right when they suggested that the eye sees only because it is formed and placed as it is, and that given once for all the same rules of motion, followed by nature and the generation and development of bodies, this marvelous organ could not have been formed and placed differently. That’s clearly… Go ahead. Yeah, he’s not only echoing Lucretius there, but he’s also agreeing with a lot of the materialist explanations behind it. The last part about it could not have been placed differently. There’s a lot in that, what you just read. And there’s more too elsewhere. When I translated his philosophical reflections on the origins of animals, he talks a bit more about it, but I need to get into that right now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
See the argument that these commentators are making that this was placed in here as an afterthought or on an edit by Lucretius because it’s almost like there probably was a much more extensively developed section discussing the origin of life and the development of life that Lucretius decided it’s relevant here to think about that and in the context of the senses and whether there is any purpose behind them without getting into all the detail that maybe he’ll come into later on in book five so this has just always struck me as one of the sections that could really spur a lot of thought for somebody who had the time and the inclination to pursue which not all of us have either one but there’s a lot here for somebody who wants to get into it okay let’s begin to close for the day final thoughts from mark no no first start all right Charles Do you want to add anything else? No, that’s pretty much it.
That’s a kind of short, limited section. Yeah, yeah. Elaine, any final thoughts from you on this part? I mean, I think we’ve covered it pretty well. Okay. All right. Well, then, with that, let’s close for the day, and we’ll be back in another week. So thanks, everybody. All right. Have a good week. Bye-bye. Thanks. Thanks. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Thank you.