School #66

Shintoism

Motoori Norinaga, Hirata Atsutane

Shinto, the indigenous spiritual tradition of Japan, holds that reality is pervaded by kami — sacred powers or presences that dwell in natural phenomena, ancestors, and extraordinary human beings. There is no sharp ontological boundary between the sacred and the profane, the spiritual and the material: a waterfall, a mountain, an ancient tree, or a mirror may be a kami or the dwelling place of one. Motoori Norinaga (1730–1801), the great scholar of National Learning (kokugaku), argued that the authentic Japanese way was prior to and deeper than the imported Chinese and Buddhist systems: the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki record the primordial acts of the kami who generated the Japanese islands and the natural world through creative, generative activity rather than ex nihilo creation. Hirata Atsutane (1776–1843) extended this into a systematic theology of the afterlife and the invisible world (kakuriyo) that coexists with the visible world (utsushiyo). Purity (harae) and pollution (kegare) are the central categories: ritual purification restores the original brightness and clarity of things, while pollution obscures the kami-nature that pervades all of reality.

Worldview

The Shinto adherent inhabits a world that is alive with sacred presence: every mountain, river, tree, and stone may be a dwelling place of kami, and the boundary between the sacred and the profane is permeable rather than absolute. To hold this ontology is to feel that nature is not an inert backdrop for human activity but a living community of powers deserving reverence, gratitude, and careful ritual attention. The fundamental orientation is one of aesthetic sensitivity and ritual purity: beauty, cleanliness, and sincerity (makoto) are not merely ethical ideals but ontological attunements to the brightness and vitality that pervade reality when pollution and obstruction are removed. Reality feels seasonal, rhythmic, and renewed through the cyclical practice of matsuri. The framework reads this as Spirit-relational metaphysical agency: kami are real, particular spirits of places, ancestors, and natural forces operative in the world — not a single personal high-god and not a purely impersonal cosmic principle. The framework reads this as Experience-grounded moral authority: direct encounter with the kami in shrine, festival, mountain, and grove — the felt sense of awe (sūgū), purity, and rightness in place — is authoritative; norikoto and tradition transmit and frame these encounters but do not replace them.

Moral Implications

The ethical framework of Shinto is centered on purity, sincerity, and the maintenance of harmonious relationships among human beings, kami, and the natural world. Moral failure is understood not primarily as the transgression of abstract rules but as the accumulation of pollution (kegare) that obscures the original brightness of one's nature and disrupts the communal bond with the kami. Purification (harae) is the primary moral practice, restoring right relationship rather than punishing wrongdoing. Responsibility is communal and intergenerational: the individual participates in maintaining the welfare of the community and the land through proper ritual observance and sincere conduct.

Practical Implications

Practically, Shinto shapes Japanese attitudes toward nature, architecture, cleanliness, and seasonal celebration. Shrine visits, ritual purification, and festival participation structure daily and annual life. The tradition's emphasis on the sacredness of particular places informs Japanese environmental consciousness and resistance to the desecration of natural landscapes. Shinto aesthetics, including simplicity, natural materials, asymmetry, and the celebration of impermanence, pervade Japanese art, design, and architecture, from the torii gate to the tea ceremony.

I. Time

Time is infinite, relational, and cyclical — constituted by the seasonal rhythms, festivals, and ritual cycles that structure Japanese communal life rather than existing as an abstract, independent container. The matsuri calendar creates a cyclical temporal structure in which each year renews the primordial acts of the kami. Time is non-directional: there is no linear eschatology, no final judgment, no teleological endpoint; the world perpetually renews itself through the cycles of nature and ritual. Freedom is non-deterministic: the kami act spontaneously and creatively, and human beings participate in shaping their world through sincere ritual action.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Cyclical Dimensionality: One Direction: Non-directional

II. Space

Space is finite, relational, and curved — constituted by the sacred geography of shrines, mountains, rivers, and forests rather than existing as an abstract geometric container. The torii gate marks the threshold between ordinary space and the sacred precinct of the shrine, but this boundary is permeable: kami pervade the landscape, and any place may become sacred through theophany or ritual consecration. Space is non-local: the visible world (utsushiyo) and the invisible world (kakuriyo) interpenetrate; kami move freely between realms, and sacred power is not confined to any single location.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Relational Curvature: Curved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local

III. Matter

Matter is finite, relational, and conserved — the natural world is the body of the kami, not a fallen or illusory substance to be transcended. Mountains, trees, rivers, and stones are sacred not because they symbolize something beyond themselves but because they are themselves sites of kami presence. Matter is conserved: the natural world persists and renews itself through the cycles of the seasons. It is non-local: the distinction between material and spiritual is not sharp in Shinto; a shimenawa (sacred rope) around a rock does not add something immaterial to something material but reveals the sacred character already present in the material thing itself.

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

IV. Observer

The human observer in Shinto is an embodied being situated in the natural world, intimately connected to the kami through lineage, place, and ritual practice. Each person occupies a single moment and a single place, perceiving reality through direct, immediate experience rather than abstract philosophical reasoning. Knowledge is immediate and present-focused: Shinto has no canonical systematic theology, and wisdom is transmitted through ritual practice (matsuri), oral tradition, and the felt sense of sacred presence rather than through doctrinal accumulation. Knowledge retainment is immediate — each ritual must be performed anew; the matsuri renews the bond with the kami annually, and purification (harae) restores original brightness in the present moment rather than building on accumulated insight. The observer is fully embodied: there is no Shinto aspiration toward disembodied spiritual existence, and bodily purity is inseparable from spiritual purity. Agency is active: the observer participates in the maintenance of cosmic harmony through ritual, offering, and the cultivation of sincerity (makoto). Multiple observers share a common world pervaded by kami, and communal ritual is the primary mode of engagement with the sacred.

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

V. Energy

Energy is infinite and emergent — musubi (the creative, generative power of the kami) pervades reality but is not a fixed, quantifiable substance; it arises through the relational activity of the kami and their interaction with the natural world. Conservation is non-conserved: musubi can be renewed, amplified, or diminished through ritual action, and pollution (kegare) represents a genuine loss of sacred vitality that must be restored through purification. Dispersibility is reversible: the entire Shinto ritual system presupposes that dissipated or corrupted sacred energy can be restored — harae (purification) reverses pollution, and the matsuri renews the generative power of the kami in the community and the land.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Non-conserved Dispersibility: Reversible

VI. Information

Information is relational and non-conserved — knowledge in Shinto is not a body of fixed doctrines but a web of relationships between kami, people, and places that must be actively maintained through ritual practice. There is no canonical systematic theology; the meaning of a shrine, a festival, or a kami is constituted by its relational context rather than by abstract propositional content. Information is non-conserved because traditions that are not actively practiced and transmitted can genuinely fade — a shrine that loses its community loses its living meaning. The framework distinguishes scales: at the cosmic scale information is non-conserved because knowledge is enacted relationally with kami rather than stored as fixed doctrine, but at the personal-identity scale information is conserved — the deceased become kami or ancestors and remain present to the lineage.

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

Films Reading Through This School (2)

← #65 Islamic Philosophy / Falsafa All Schools #67 Sikhism →

Works that name Shintoism in their embodiments

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

30%
Naobi no Mitama (Middle)
Motoori Norinaga · 1771
30%
Kojiki-den (Late (career-spanning))
Motoori Norinaga · 1764-1798 composition; completed 1798 (44 volumes)
20%
Patriotism (Mid-mature)
Yukio Mishima · 1961 ("Yūkoku")
20%
Shibun Yōryō (Early)
Motoori Norinaga · 1763
15%
Runaway Horses (Late)
Yukio Mishima · 1969 (the second of the four Sea of Fertility novels)
10%
The Sea of Fertility (Late (the major late work, completed the day of his 1970 ritual suicide))
Yukio Mishima · 1965-70 (Spring Snow 1965-67, Runaway Horses 1967-68, The Temple of Dawn 1968-70, The Decay of the Angel 1970-71)
10%
Zen and Japanese Culture (Late)
Daisetsu Teitarō Suzuki · 1959 (developed from his 1938 Zen Buddhism and Its Influence on Japanese Culture)
10%
Shōbōgenzō (Late)
Dōgen Zenji · 1231-1253 (95 fascicles)
10%
Wild Ivy (Itsumadegusa) (Late)
Hakuin Ekaku · 1765-66
10%
Attaining Enlightenment in This Very Existence (Sokushin Jōbutsu Gi) (Early)
Kūkai (Kōbō Daishi) · c. 817
10%
Climate and Culture (Fūdo: ningengakuteki kōsatsu) (Mid)
Watsuji Tetsurō · 1935
10%
The Sea of Fertility (Last)
Yukio Mishima · 1965-71 (four-volume tetralogy)
10%
Attaining Enlightenment in This Very Existence
Kukai (Kobo Daishi) · c. 817 CE
10%
Seventeen-Article Constitution
Prince Shotoku · 604 CE (traditional date)
5%
The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch
Hui-neng (638–713), as transmitted by Fa-hai · c. 780 AD (Dunhuang manuscript); refined recensions through 13th century
5%
I Ching
Anonymous / composite (traditional attribution to King Wen and Confucius; the Ten Wings to the Confucian school) · c. 9th–8th c. BC (core hexagrams); c. 4th c. BC (Ten Wings); standard form c. 200 BC
5%
Confessions of a Mask (Early (the breakthrough novel that established Mishima's literary reputation))
Yukio Mishima · 1949 (Mishima's breakthrough novel, written at age 24)
5%
Essays in Zen Buddhism (Mid (Suzuki's major early period of Western dissemination))
Daisetsu Teitarō Suzuki · 1927 (First Series), 1933 (Second), 1934 (Third) — published in English by Rider & Co. London
5%
The Temple of the Golden Pavilion (Mid)
Yukio Mishima · 1956
5%
An Inquiry into the Good (Zen no Kenkyū) (Early)
Nishida Kitarō · 1911
5%
Philosophy as Metanoetics (Zangedō to shite no tetsugaku) (Late)
Tanabe Hajime · 1946
5%
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind (Late)
Shunryu Suzuki (Suzuki-rōshi) · 1970

Personas with Shintoism as a declared influence

60%  Motoori Norinaga 25%  Yukio Mishima 15%  Kukai (Kobo Daishi) 15%  Prince Shotoku 10%  Heȟáka Sápa (Black Elk) 10%  Nishida Kitarō

How Shintoism resolves each dilemma

57 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 31 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way.

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

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 18% of schools agree (38/208)
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.
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
On these views, time is not a one-way arrow but a structure of return: cosmic cycles, karmic cycles, the seasons, the succession of generations. To act now is always also to act for the ancestors who shaped your inheritance and for the descendants who will …
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. (31%) · The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create. (2%)
Distinctive · only 18% of schools agree (38/208)
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?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
On cyclical views, the past is not a fixed thing behind you — it is part of the ongoing structure of return: karmic cycles, cosmic cycles, the cycle of seasons and generations. Regret, on these views, is less about an unchangeable past and more about …
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. (31%) · Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real. (2%)
Distinctive · only 18% of schools agree (38/208)
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.
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
On cyclical views, the relationship to past beings — ancestors, lineages, predecessors — is structurally present, because past and future are part of the same ongoing structure of return. Extinct species are not categorically different from extinct human ancestors or non-yet-born descendants: all are part …
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. (31%) · Extinction is path-dependent; the species exists in branches we didn't take. (2%)
6 mainstream positions

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
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 is the ledger of obligations among real people.
On relational views, money is not a substance you have; it is a record of who owes whom what. Debts and credits are real because the relations they track are real — to kin, to community, to ancestors, to land. Money is the form this …
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” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
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.
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
On relational views, the nation is the relational fabric — extended kinship, ancestral inheritance, shared ecology, communal practice — that hosts a people across generations. Borders matter less than belonging; lineage and land carry the weight that political structures only ratify.
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%) · “Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
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.
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
On relational views, identity is not a property a person has alone; it is constituted by the web of recognition the person sits in. What makes someone a man or a woman in any thick sense is the relations of kinship, community, ritual, and recognition …
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%) · “Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
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.
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
On relational views, what makes someone a person is the web of kinship, ancestry, and community they sit in — not a property the body carries alone. Heritable editing intervenes in exactly this fabric: the lineage that ancestors handed on, the descent that descendants will …
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%) · 'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/208)
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 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. (56%) · 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 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%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (21/208)
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
What kind of thing is a true claim, and how does it relate to the standpoint from which it is made?
Truth is real but accessible only from within a tradition.
Truth is not constructed but tradition-constituted; you have to be inside the tradition to see it.
Roads not taken Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. (66%) · Truth is real but always known from a perspective. (16%) · What counts as truth is constituted by language, practice, history, power. (8%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (26/208)
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Carbon emissions in your country contribute to flooding in another. A factory's effluent across the border kills ecosystems you'll never see. Whether you bear moral weight for what happens far away turns on whether distance dilutes obligation.
Distance doesn't dilute obligation; what is real is the connection, not its length.
On this view, the obligations one bears extend across distance because the connections do. Carbon emissions, trade flows, the global supply chains we are part of, the ancestral and ecological webs that hold the planet together — these constitute real connections that distance does not …
Roads not taken Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. (50%) · Distance doesn't dilute obligation; communion of saints / divine relation spans the cosmos. (29%) · Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real. (8%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (30/208)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
On relational views, person was never the name of a thing that exists on its own — it is the name of a node in a web of recognition, obligation, kinship, and ecology. The question of when a being becomes a person is the question …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (55%) · A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop. (16%) · The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there. (8%)
32 mainstream positions
What is marriage? Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates. 14% What is our place in nature? Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. 14% Should we colonize space? Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. 14% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow. 14% 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 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% What happens to "you" when you die? You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates. 18% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form. 18% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history. 18% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle. 18% Could causation work backwards? Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle. 18% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions. 18% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't. 18% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% 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% Are the dead morally present to the living? The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. 37% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The community of persons is the moral primary. 28% 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% Could an AI have a mind that matters? An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters. 14% Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? The community is saved together or not at all. 14% 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%
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
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