School #160

Post-Structuralism

Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lyotard, Baudrillard

Post-Structuralism is the wave of French thought that emerged in the late 1960s as both an extension and a critique of the structuralism of Saussure and Lévi-Strauss, dismantling the assumption that stable structures — linguistic, social, psychic — underlie and explain cultural phenomena. Jacques Derrida's 'Of Grammatology' (1967) introduced deconstruction as a reading practice exposing the metaphysics of presence in Western texts; Michel Foucault's 'The Order of Things' (1966) and 'Discipline and Punish' (1975) traced the historical mutations of knowledge and power; Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's 'Anti-Oedipus' (1972) and 'A Thousand Plateaus' (1980) replaced fixed structures with rhizomes, becomings, and assemblages. Jean-François Lyotard's 'The Postmodern Condition' (1979) declared incredulity toward grand narratives, while Jean Baudrillard's 'Simulacra and Simulation' (1981) diagnosed a culture in which signs no longer point to anything beyond themselves. Despite their differences these thinkers share a suspicion of the unified subject, a refusal to grant any signifier final referential authority, and a sense that power and meaning circulate through networks rather than radiating from a centre.

Worldview

To inhabit post-structuralism is to live with a permanent suspicion of stable centres, foundational origins, and master narratives — to read every text, including one's own, as the site of unresolved tensions that no act of will can finally settle. The mood is restless, often ironic, alert to the way that what passes for natural or self-evident is in fact the residue of contingent historical struggles. Power is everywhere, but so is the possibility of resistance and reinvention, and the post-structuralist takes pleasure in unmasking the cosy unities of liberal humanism while remaining sceptical of any revolutionary alternative that would simply install a new centre. Reading Foucault one becomes attentive to the micro-physics of surveillance; reading Derrida one learns to listen for the silences that hold a text together; reading Deleuze one is invited to think in terms of flows, becomings, and lines of flight rather than identities. The framework classifies this as None: post-structuralism rigorously avoids any appeal to a personal deity, cosmic ordering principle, or transcendent spirit, treating such figures themselves as effects of discourse to be analysed rather than positions to be defended. The framework reads this as Constructed: normative authority is taken to be produced within historical regimes of power-knowledge and to lack any extra-discursive foundation, so that ethics becomes a matter of critical practice, immanent resistance, and the invention of new forms of life rather than obedience to scripture, tradition, or a timeless reason.

Moral Implications

Post-structuralist ethics is suspicious of universalist moral systems and attentive to the local, contingent, and embodied conditions under which particular norms come to count as moral. Foucault's late work on the care of the self, Derrida's reflections on hospitality and justice, and Deleuze's ethics of becoming all sketch ways of acting that take the constructedness of the self as a starting point rather than as a defeat. The ethical task is genealogical and inventive: to expose the violence concealed in apparently neutral norms, to side with the marginalised whose exclusion such norms require, and to experiment with new modes of relation rather than to enforce a code. Responsibility is real but never reassuringly grounded.

Practical Implications

Post-structuralism has reshaped literary studies, history, anthropology, cultural studies, queer and post-colonial theory, museum practice, and contemporary art. It informs critical approaches to media, surveillance, and digital culture, and underwrites much of the methodological self-reflection in the social sciences. In law and policy it appears in critiques of the carceral state, the medicalisation of difference, and the politics of identity categories. Its lasting practical contribution is a habit of reading institutions and texts against the grain — asking who benefits from a given account and what alternatives have been foreclosed — that has migrated far beyond the philosophy seminar.

I. Time

Time is emergent, relational, and pluralised — there is no single homogeneous timeline but a multiplicity of temporalities woven through different discourses, institutions, and bodies. Deleuze's reading of Bergson and Nietzsche, Foucault's archaeologies of discontinuous epistemes, and Derrida's analyses of deferral and the trace all conspire to break the linear narrative of progress. Direction is multi-directional and traversability branching, registering the way the present rewrites the past and the future folds back into now. The continuity of grain and the finitude of any concrete temporality are preserved, but the unified arrow of history is rejected.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Branching Dimensionality: One Direction: Multi-directional

II. Space

Space is relational and finite rather than substantival, constituted through networks, assemblages, and discursive practices. Foucault's heterotopias and Deleuze and Guattari's smooth and striated spaces stand in for a topology in which the dimensionality is whatever the assemblage requires — hence N rather than a fixed three. Locality fails because power and discourse operate at a distance through institutions, archives, and media, and curvature is undefined because the very Euclidean idiom on which curvature is plotted is treated as one historically specific projection among others.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Relational Curvature: Undefined Dimensionality: N Locality: Non-local

III. Matter

Matter is relational, finite, and three-dimensional in the conventional sense, but always already enmeshed in discursive practices that determine what counts as a body, a substance, or a thing. Foucault's analyses of the medicalised body, Deleuze and Guattari's body without organs, and Baudrillard's critiques of the commodity-sign all insist that matter cannot be read off the world independently of the regimes that frame it. Conservation is accepted as a feature of the physical theories that the contemporary episteme privileges, and locality holds within those frames. The post-structuralist neither denies materiality nor lets it stand outside critique.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Relational Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The post-structuralist observer is a decentred effect of discourse rather than a self-transparent Cartesian ego: produced by language, disciplined by institutions, traversed by desire, and never coincident with itself. Knowledge is mediated by inherited codes and partial by definition, since every reading is itself a position within a larger field that escapes synoptic view. The observer is both active — author, interpreter, agent of resistance — and passive, spoken by the very systems she would describe, which is why agency is rated as Both. Subjects are plural and irreducibly so, occupying multiple discursive locations and temporalities at once, and the unified author of classical thought is treated as a historically dated construction. The task is genealogical and deconstructive rather than confessional: to map the conditions under which any given subject-position becomes thinkable.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Multiple Extent of Knowledge: Mediated Retainment of Knowledge: Partial Physicality: Embodied Agency: Both Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None Moral Authority: Constructed Theological Method: Critical

V. Energy

Energy is relational rather than substantival — for Deleuze and Guattari it is the flow of intensities across surfaces, for Foucault it is power circulating through capillary networks, for Lyotard it is libidinal force binding and unbinding the social field. Conservation is preserved as a physical truism but reframed: what matters philosophically is not the preservation of a quantity but the topology of how energy is captured, coded, and discharged by assemblages. Dispersibility is irreversible because power relations leave traces — discursive sediment, archived gestures, embodied habits — that cannot be reset. The horizon is finite because every assemblage exhausts itself; the post-structuralist's task is to map where the next deterritorialisation is gathering force.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Relational Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Information for the post-structuralist is relational through and through: signs gain whatever sense they have only from their differential play within unstable systems, and any attempt to anchor meaning in a transcendental signified is precisely what Derrida set out to deconstruct. Granularity is continuous because signification is a matter of trace, deferral, and contextual reactivation rather than of discrete atomic propositions. Information is non-conserved at the cosmic scale because epistemes succeed and overwrite one another and because Baudrillard's simulacra demonstrate the capacity of signs to detach from any originary content. The framework distinguishes scales: personal-identity information is likewise non-conserved, since the subject itself is a passing configuration of discursive forces rather than a soul whose pattern persists.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous
← #159 Continental Philosophy All Schools #161 Hegelianism →

Works that name Post-Structuralism in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

8%
The Order of Things
Michel Foucault · 1966
8%
Discipline and Punish (Late)
Michel Foucault · 1975
8%
The History of Sexuality (Late (his last major project))
Michel Foucault · 1976 (vol. 1); 1984 (vols. 2-3, shortly before Foucault's death); vol. 4 (Confessions of the Flesh) published posthumously 2018
8%
Madness and Civilization (Early (Foucault's breakthrough work, his doctoral dissertation))
Michel Foucault · 1961 (Foucault's doctoral dissertation)
8%
The Birth of the Clinic (Early-mid (between Madness and Civilization and The Order of Things))
Michel Foucault · 1963
8%
The Archaeology of Knowledge (Mid (methodological transition between archaeological and genealogical phases))
Michel Foucault · 1969
8%
Speech and Phenomena (Early)
Jacques Derrida · 1967
8%
Margins of Philosophy (Middle (one of three 1972 volumes))
Jacques Derrida · 1972
8%
Limited Inc (Middle-late)
Jacques Derrida · 1977 (with later 'Afterword', 1988)
8%
Specters of Marx (Late)
Jacques Derrida · 1993

How Post-Structuralism resolves each dilemma

53 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 33 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 4 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
How much weight do future people deserve?
If a billion people will exist in the 25th century, do their interests count for as much as the interests of a billion people alive now? The answer turns on what kind of reality the future has.
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create.
On these views, time is not a single line stretching forward but a tree of possibilities, at each moment opening into alternatives. Future people are real in some sense, but which future people exist depends on which branches get actualized — and that is the …
Roads not taken Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. (47%) · Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. (32%) · Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course. (17%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Is regret rational?
If the past is fixed and unchangeable, what kind of mental act is regret? An error, a duty, a lesson, a perspective on a moment that is still in some sense present?
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real.
On branching views, what you regret not doing is, in some sense, what you did do — in another branch. The regret tracks the difference between the branch you are in and the branches you might have been. Whether this makes regret weightier or lighter …
Roads not taken The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. (47%) · The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. (32%) · The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle. (17%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
A species that no longer exists cannot be helped, cannot be consulted, cannot benefit. Whether anything is owed to it anyway turns on what kind of reality past beings have.
Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take.
On branching views, an extinct species exists in branches where its decisive moments went differently. Whether we owe the species something depends on whether we identify with this branch alone, with all branches, or with the multiverse as a whole. De-extinction research, on this view, …
Roads not taken Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. (47%) · Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future. (32%) · Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors. (17%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon.
On this view, time itself is finite — the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Heat death (or whatever the actual end-state turns out to be) is a real horizon, structurally implied by the kind of cosmos we live in.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (24/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit.
On this view, the cosmos is bounded in both time and matter; resources are categorically not renewable beyond what cosmic processes provide. Practical limits and metaphysical limits coincide. Living well means living within limits, not engineering around them.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering. (15%)
4 mainstream positions

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/202)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal.
On this view, gold, fiat currency, cryptocurrency, frequent-flyer miles, prison cigarettes, and the IOUs scribbled on a bar napkin are not all the same kind of thing. They share family resemblances but no common essence. Trying to define money univocally is asking a question that …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (54%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (15%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/202)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together.
On this view, what we call nations are large-scale imagined communities — necessarily imagined because their members will never meet most other members, necessarily imagined as bounded and sovereign. The imagination is real and consequential; the underlying kind is not.
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (54%) · A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) · A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (15%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/202)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence.
On this view, the everyday categories of male and female pick out overlapping clusters of features — anatomy, physiology, social role, self-understanding, behaviour — that do not reduce to a single essence. The categories are useful but lossy; the demand for a single definition is …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (54%) · Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice. (16%) · Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition. (15%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/202)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.
On this view, 'human nature' picks out an overlapping cluster of features — anatomical, developmental, cognitive, social — without a single essence the cluster reduces to. The question of whether germline editing is permissible doesn't turn on transgressing an essence (there isn't one) but on …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (54%) · The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other. (16%) · Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric. (15%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
On this view, matter is not a stuff but a patterning — the standing relations among things, ancestors, processes, and places. The creatio-ex-nihilo question doesn't quite arise, because the ontology has no slot for a free-standing substance to be created or eternal. What persists is …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) · Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing. (23%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
2 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Extinction is forever; soil erosion takes centuries to repair; the carbon we emit will warm the climate for millennia. But whether 'forever' or 'millennia' means what they say depends on what kind of process the universe is.
What is irreversible in this branch is reversible in another.
On branching views, the universe contains branches where the damage didn't happen, where the species didn't go extinct, where the ecology held. Whether the damage is 'permanent' depends on whether you identify with this branch or with the wider branching structure. The same physical fact …
Roads not taken Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. (66%) · Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form. (17%) · From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Rome fell; Maya cities emptied; Bronze Age trade networks collapsed in a single generation. Whether what was lost can be recovered — or whether collapse is structurally final — depends on what kind of process civilization is.
In one branch the civilization collapses; in another it doesn't. Recovery depends on which branch you're in.
On branching views, the civilization that collapsed in this branch persists in others. Recovery in this branch is engineering work on a specific trajectory; the lost is not lost everywhere. The metaphysical question of cross-branch identity is open, but the framing matters for how to …
Roads not taken Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. (66%) · Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history. (17%) · From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
The universe trends from order to disorder. Whether that physical pattern carries moral weight — making the preservation of order, beauty, complexity a kind of cosmic duty — depends on whether time has the kind of structure morality could lean on.
Entropy looks different from different branches; the moral reading is branch-relative.
On branching views, the appearance of irreversibility is partly an artifact of which branch one occupies. Across the whole tree of branches, configurations are perpetually being instantiated. The moral reading of the second law has to take seriously the multiplicity of branches before treating any …
Roads not taken Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. (66%) · Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle. (17%) · From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Could causation work backwards?
If the laws of physics are time-symmetric, what makes causes precede their effects? And if the asymmetry isn't metaphysical, could retroactive causation be coherent?
Time branches; 'forward' picks out the branch you're in, not the only available direction.
On branching views, time is a tree of possibilities. Causation within a branch runs in the ordinary way, but the larger structure of branches embraces possibilities that this branch's forward arrow doesn't capture. Quantum-mechanical retrocausation, in the delayed-choice sense, finds natural framing here.
Roads not taken Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. (68%) · Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle. (17%) · From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category. (8%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (5/202)
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
You remember the past but anticipate the future. Whether that asymmetry tracks something deep about time, or just something contingent about how minds happen to be wired, depends on what direction time has.
Memory is of the branch behind you; what would 'remembering' another branch even mean?
On branching views, memory tracks the path through the tree of branches that the observer has taken. Anticipation is about which downstream branches are possible. The asymmetry tracks the tree structure: backwards is one definite path, forward is many possibilities. Remembering the future would have …
Roads not taken The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. (68%) · Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions. (17%) · From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional. (8%)
28 mainstream positions
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is the path through the branches; reality has many arrows pointing many ways. 2% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The class or historical movement is the moral primary. 5% When does a person begin? The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there. 8% What is marriage? “Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. 8% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power. 8% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Historical-critical method is the authority. 10% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length. 12% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way. 13% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering. 13% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach. 13% Does prayer change God's mind? Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode. 13% What makes someone the same person over time? There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose. 14% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here. 14% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed. 14% What happens to "you" when you die? You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates. 18% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 37% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 37% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 37% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is not where the deepest truth lives. 37% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust the practice, not the practitioner. 14% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? 'Revelation' is a category communities construct for what counts as authoritative. 14% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? Whether an LLM 'knows' is the constructive question the practice has to answer. 14% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through historical-critical engagement and the working-out of contradictions. 13% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have. 10% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have. 10% Could an AI have a mind that matters? The question presupposes a kind of mind that never existed in the first place. 7%
4 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (202)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202