School #58

Psychedelic / Entheogenic Worldview

Aldous Huxley, Terence McKenna, Stanislav Grof, Robin Carhart-Harris

The psychedelic or entheogenic worldview holds that ordinary waking consciousness is a narrow filter on a vaster, multidimensional reality, and that altered states of consciousness — induced by entheogens, meditation, or breathwork — can lift this filter to reveal deeper layers of existence. Aldous Huxley's 'The Doors of Perception' (1954), recounting his mescaline experience, proposed that the brain is a "reducing valve" that normally restricts awareness to what is biologically useful; psychedelics open the valve, flooding consciousness with the "Mind at Large." Terence McKenna's 'Food of the Gods' (1992) speculated that psychoactive plants played a role in the evolution of human consciousness and language, and that the "transcendent other" encountered in deep psychedelic states is a genuine feature of reality. Stanislav Grof's 'Realms of the Human Unconscious' (1975) documented recurring patterns in psychedelic therapy — perinatal matrices, archetypal encounters, transpersonal experiences — arguing that consciousness extends far beyond the biographical ego. Robin Carhart-Harris's neuroscientific research on psilocybin (2010s-present) has provided a contemporary empirical framework, proposing that psychedelics increase brain entropy and dissolve the "default mode network," the neural substrate of ordinary ego-bound consciousness.

Worldview

The adherent of the psychedelic worldview inhabits a reality that feels layered, shimmering, and incompletely perceived in ordinary waking states. Everyday consciousness is experienced as a useful but drastically limited filter on a vastly richer cosmos, and the entheogenic journey reveals dimensions of meaning, beauty, and interconnection that normal perception systematically excludes. The fundamental orientation is one of reverent curiosity: reality is far stranger, more alive, and more deeply structured than consensus culture acknowledges, and direct experience rather than doctrinal authority is the ultimate arbiter of what is real. There is a pervasive sense that all things are connected at a level beneath or beyond the visible, and that the boundaries between self and world, past and future, here and there, are provisional constructs rather than ontological absolutes. The framework reads this as Spirit-relational metaphysical agency: the psychedelic-entheogenic frame typically encounters particular entities (plant spirits, ancestors, hyperdimensional beings) as real interlocutors, rather than a single personal god or a purely impersonal ordering principle. The framework reads this as Experience-grounded moral authority: the entheogenic encounter itself is the final test — what the medicine, the plant teacher, or the noetic vision discloses is authoritative in a way that no codified text or institutional tradition can override; integration honors the experience as the ultimate datum.

Moral Implications

The ethical framework that follows from this metaphysics is grounded in radical interconnection and the sacredness of consciousness. If all beings participate in a single, vast field of awareness, then harming another is harming oneself at the deepest level, and compassion becomes an ontological recognition rather than a sentimental preference. Responsibility extends beyond the human to the entire web of life, since plants, animals, and ecosystems are perceived as conscious participants in reality rather than inert resources. The tradition also generates a strong ethic of epistemic humility: because ordinary consciousness is understood as radically limited, dogmatic certainty about moral or metaphysical questions is viewed with suspicion, and openness to alternative perspectives becomes a moral virtue.

Practical Implications

Practically, this worldview supports the therapeutic use of psychedelics for mental health, end-of-life anxiety, and addiction, drawing on the clinical research of Grof and Carhart-Harris. It encourages environmentalism rooted in felt rather than merely reasoned connection to the natural world, treating ecological destruction as a symptom of perceptual narrowing. The psychedelic worldview also challenges conventional approaches to education, creativity, and social organization by insisting that expanded states of consciousness are not pathological but potentially the most important experiences a human being can have, with implications for how societies fund research, regulate substances, and understand the boundaries of legitimate knowledge.

I. Time

Time is emergent and infinite — in altered states of consciousness, ordinary temporal flow dissolves into the "eternal now." Time is continuous and non-directional: past, present, and future may merge in psychedelic experience. The entheogenic worldview holds that the everyday experience of linear, uni-directional time is a limited mode of consciousness that can be transcended through visionary experience.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Dimensionality: One Direction: Uni-directional

II. Space

Space is emergent and infinite — psychedelic experience dissolves ordinary spatial boundaries, revealing a space that is non-local, interdimensional, and alive with significance. Curvature is curved or undefined: ordinary Euclidean geometry does not apply in visionary states. Dimensionality is N because psychedelic experience accesses spatial dimensions beyond the ordinary three.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Curvature: Undefined Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

III. Matter

Matter is emergent and finite — in the psychedelic worldview, ordinary material reality is one layer of a multidimensional cosmos. Matter is non-conserved in the sense that material forms are fluid, transformable, and interpenetrated by consciousness. It is non-local because the boundaries between material objects dissolve in visionary experience, revealing underlying interconnectedness.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

IV. Observer

The observer is a consciousness capable of radical expansion — under the influence of entheogens or contemplative practice, the boundaries of self, time, and space dissolve, revealing layers of reality normally hidden from ordinary perception. The observer can access multiple temporal and spatial dimensions simultaneously: past, future, and mythic time interpenetrate; here and elsewhere merge. In the peak experience, total knowledge feels accessible — the unity of all things is directly perceived, not merely theorized. Yet integration is the challenge: the return to ordinary consciousness makes retention difficult, and the insights of the journey must be painstakingly translated into everyday understanding. The observer is both embodied and more than embodied — the body is the launching pad, not the limit. Agency is active: the journey requires courage and intention. Multiple observers can share ceremonial space, but each journey is ultimately personal.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Multiple Extent of Knowledge: Total Retainment of Knowledge: Total Physicality: Both Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Spirit-relational Moral Authority: Experience Theological Method: Mystical

V. Energy

Infinite and emergent — energy in the psychedelic worldview is not merely physical but includes subtle, psychic, and cosmic energies that emerge from deeper layers of reality. Conservation: Variable — in altered states, the normal conservation laws of ordinary experience appear suspended; energy seems to be created, amplified, or transformed in ways that defy everyday physics. Dispersibility: Reversible — psychedelic experience suggests that entropy and dispersal are not final; healing, renewal, and the reversal of psychic entropy are central themes, as Grof's holotropic breathwork demonstrates.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Variable Dispersibility: Reversible

VI. Information

Expanded states of consciousness reveal informational dimensions normally inaccessible — psychedelic experience suggests that ordinary awareness filters out vast amounts of information. Information is relational because what is accessible depends on the state of consciousness. It is non-conserved because the insights of altered states are notoriously difficult to retain. It is continuous because the psychedelic experience is a seamless, flowing expansion of awareness. The framework distinguishes scales: at the cosmic scale information is non-conserved because ordinary categories dissolve in the visionary state, but at the personal-identity scale information is conserved — the soul or essential pattern is reported to persist, often across what feel like discarnate domains.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Films Reading Through This School (1)

← #57 Transhumanism / Posthumanism All Schools #59 Afrofuturism →

Works that name Psychedelic / Entheogenic Worldview in their embodiments

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

40%
The Doors of Perception (Late)
Aldous Huxley · 1954 (essay-length; often published together with the 1956 Heaven and Hell)
40%
Food of the Gods (Late)
Terence McKenna · 1992
40%
Food of the Gods
Terence McKenna · 1992
30%
Realms of the Human Unconscious (Mid)
Stanislav Grof · 1975
20%
Island (Late)
Aldous Huxley · 1962
15%
Brave New World (Mid (Huxley's breakthrough novel))
Aldous Huxley · 1932
10%
The Birth of Tragedy (Early)
Friedrich Nietzsche · 1872 (with "Attempt at a Self-Criticism" preface added 1886)
10%
The Perennial Philosophy (Late (Huxley's mature spiritual-philosophical synthesis))
Aldous Huxley · 1945
5%
The Varieties of Religious Experience
William James · 1901–02 (Gifford Lectures, Edinburgh); 1902 (book form)
5%
Pragmatism (Late)
William James · 1907 (from 1906 Lowell Lectures, Boston)
5%
The Gay Science (Middle (between Daybreak and Zarathustra))
Friedrich Nietzsche · 1882 (first edition, four books); 1887 (second edition, with added fifth book and preface)
5%
Zhuangzi
Zhuangzi (Zhuang Zhou) · c. 4th-3rd c. BC (Inner Chapters by Zhuang Zhou; Outer and Miscellaneous Chapters by later hands)
5%
The First and Last Freedom (Mid)
Jiddu Krishnamurti · 1954

Personas with Psychedelic / Entheogenic Worldview as a declared influence

40%  Aldous Huxley 40%  Terence McKenna

How Psychedelic / Entheogenic Worldview resolves each dilemma

56 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 32 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 1 unaligned.

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

Time · 9 dilemmas, all mainstream

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
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. (55%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
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. (55%) · 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. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
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. (55%) · Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice. (16%) · Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
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. (55%) · 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. (14%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/208)
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 real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
On this view, matter is genuinely there, but it isn't the floor of reality. It depends on something more fundamental — dependent origination, mind, divine sustaining act, computational substrate, or the structure of conditions — and is conserved only at its own level of description. …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (56%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%) · 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 5% of schools agree (11/208)
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 appears irreversible is reversible by the right action.
On this view, the appearance of permanence is a function of limits we have not yet exceeded. Divine action, sufficiently advanced technology, intentional restoration practice can in principle reverse what now appears irreversible. The lost is not gone for good; it is gone for now.
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. (18%) · From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 5% of schools agree (11/208)
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.
Civilization is the kind of order that can in principle be restored.
On this view, the order that constitutes civilization — information, practices, institutions, ethics — is not destroyed by collapse, only dispersed. Given the right work, by humans, divine action, or both, it can be reconstituted. The historical pattern of recovery and renewal is partial evidence; …
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. (18%) · From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 5% of schools agree (11/208)
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.
Apparent entropy is reversible in principle; the moral category is restoration.
On this view, the second law describes local pattern rather than cosmic destiny. What is broken can be repaired — by divine action, by human work, by energetic intervention. The moral weight of restoration is real and not borrowed from the physics. The cosmos is …
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. (18%) · From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate. (8%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (14/208)
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
If you pray for a friend in another city, can the prayer reach them? The answer turns less on whether distance can be spanned than on whether anything beyond natural causation is doing the spanning.
Prayer reaches through ancestors, kami, or the spirits active in the world.
On this view, prayer is intelligible because the world includes spirits, ancestors, and energetic presences with whom petitioners stand in real relation. The prayer addresses these — particular kami, named ancestors, the orisha — rather than (or alongside) a single transcendent God. The practice is …
Roads not taken Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. (47%) · Prayer reaches because God or a cosmic ordering acts on the prayed-for. (38%) · There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another. (8%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (14/208)
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Thinking of someone and hearing from them moments later. Two friends humming the same obscure song at the same moment in different cities. Whether such patterns ever carry meaning depends on whether the world contains any ordering agency beyond chance.
Coincidence is the world speaking through spirits, ancestors, or signs.
On this view, what looks like coincidence is often the action of specific spirits or ancestors making themselves present — an omen, a sign, a felt arrival. The framework for reading such events is rich and particular: which spirit, what message, what response is fitting. …
Roads not taken Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. (47%) · What looks like coincidence is providence — there is no such thing as a real coincidence. (38%) · Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality. (8%)
31 mainstream positions
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% 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. 12% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering. 12% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach. 12% 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. 12% 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 is our place in nature? Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. 15% Should we colonize space? The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. 15% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. 15% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is real but always known from a perspective. 16% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Direct experiential union is the authority. 16% Does history have a direction or meaning? History recurs in cosmic cycles. 17% Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. 44% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. 44% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. 44% What happens to "you" when you die? A soul continues into another mode of being. 38% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 38% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise only insofar as it coheres with first-person experience. 17% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? What gets called 'revelation' is real direct experience — not a text. 17% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no first-person experience, so no knowing in the relevant sense. 17% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through direct contemplative union with reality. 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%
1 unaligned

Information · 4 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

Pattern, memory, and what is preserved or lost.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/208)
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
The memory you don't retrieve, the conversation you can't remember, the face you no longer recognise — is the forgetting a loss of something real, or just the routine operation of a finite mind?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
On these views, conservation is not a flat cosmic law but a function of the conditions that hold. Memory persists where it is sustained — by divine attention, by community, by ritual, by practice — and is genuinely lost where it isn't. The asymmetry between …
Roads not taken Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone. (50%) · Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it. (39%) · Forgetting is the cosmic case, not the exception; nothing is conserved. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/208)
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Account deletion, the right to be forgotten, the obsolescence of file formats, the slow decay of digital archives — whether any of this destroys something that was real depends on whether information is the kind of thing that can be destroyed.
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
On these views, information persists or doesn't depending on whether something is sustaining it. What is held in divine memory or in active communal practice continues; what is held only by the deleted artifact is genuinely released. The variable conservation maps onto a variable moral …
Roads not taken Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys. (50%) · Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access. (39%) · Nothing is fundamentally conserved; deletion is just routine impermanence. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/208)
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
If we had perfect information about who someone was — their connectome, their behavioral patterns, their history — could we, in principle, restore them? The question is partly engineering, but the ceiling on the engineering is metaphysical.
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
On these views, the conservation of personal information depends on what is sustaining it. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of resurrection holds that the person is preserved in God's memory and restored in the resurrection by divine action operating on what God has held. What is …
Roads not taken The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible. (50%) · The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible. (39%) · Nothing of what was can be restored; restoration is wishful framing. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/208)
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
When someone forgives, does the offense actually go away — erased, undone, no longer a fact — or does forgiveness reframe a wrong that persists exactly as it always was?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
On these views, conservation is not a flat cosmic law but a function of what sustains. An offense persists where it is held — by holding-on, by ritual continuation, by divine attention to a particular debt — and is genuinely released where it is conditionally …
Roads not taken The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away. (50%) · The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was. (39%) · Nothing is preserved; the offense is impermanent, and holding it is the suffering. (1%)
Jump to school (208)
#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 #203 #204 #205 #206 #207 #208