Metaphysics as an Error

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Someone pointed me to this post, and looking back, there are some interesting irregularities.

My problem with many Platonic-Kantians is that whilst I can agree that there is a distinction to be made between "appearance" and "reality", the distinction is by no means absolute nor exclusive. Put crudely, "appearance" is a subset of "reality", not a duality. Plato made the distinction an ontological duality, whilst Kant endorsed an epistemic dualism. Whilst I find these conclusions/metaphysics unsound, I certainly empathise with some of the basic premises. The problem lies not so much with the concepts these thinkers begin with, but, as you noted earlier, what they supposed these concepts (appearance, reality) implied.

Hi and welcome to the cesspool of egoism and agression which passes for a thread in these parts

I am interseted in this part of your post, because I agree that Kant made the (platonic) error of setting up the distinction between phenomena and neomena, defining all knowable by senses the 'phenomena' and all unknowable by senses the 'neomena' and thus brewing the duality which has poisoned western thought ever since. If we start with the neomena as the 'truth' and this is 'unknowable' we should not be suprised to conclude 'truth' is unknowable. This goes no where, its a simple circle back to the start point!
So, phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality but cant be known.
Kant's conclusions that we can not know anything outside the phenomena is also his premise, and open to potential dismissal on this ground.

Kant supposed that the philosophical concept of material substance (reflected in the scientific assumption of an external world of material objects) is an a priori condition for our experience. This is now known to be an error, there is no bottom turtle to material substance, and open to potential dismissal on this ground

We know Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories as pure concepts of the understanding applicable a priori to every possible experience, we might naturally wish to ask the further question of him; whether these regulative principles are really true. Are there substances? To these further questions, Kant himself firmly refused to offer any answer.
Yet modern western thought plows ahead regardless, taking these as-if they were facts, resulting in threads like this as the culmination of thousands of years of thought!

(speculation warning! Looking at the big picture, applying the great hind-sight, maybe it was better that western thought believed truth unattainable so that science with its approximations and models could develop - it would possibly have never taken off in a metaphysical frame work where truth was attainable, but science could not claim to produce truth...)

I noted the incorrect spelling of 'noumena' before. This is something an amateur might get wrong, but someone who has read as much philosophy as I have, this is not an error you would make. This I found at the time conflicting, which is why I remarked at it, at the remarkably well description of Kant. It's actually a decent description of Kant. I didn't make this observation as I'm not in the business of complimenting people who generally make shitty posts, but when this post was pointed out to me with a link to another article, I first wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, monkeys typing and all that, but I have coloured in the post what I find very profound.

At the following website : Philosophy pages (Google cache) large parts of that post can be found back. Monkeys and typewriters not withstanding, the spelling errors of noumena as neomena make a fairly convincing case, I think.

If Little Idiot is still serious about being an educator of science, it's an educator who faces charges of plagiarism. In combination with the bullshit about 'proving' and Quantum Mechanics, I have no problem ridiculing him. Next to Jamest who can not to be taken seriously as an opponent against Metaphysics, I suppose we are left with the words of Surendra about 150 years and Galapagos islands. I'm no fan of Darwin, but it seems as if metaphysics can only be defended by this.. I am a being of conflict and all that this world throws against me is.. this.. I'd risk a thousand waterloo's for one serious opponent.. Woe unto me!

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Not exacly on topic but a couple of problems I have with Penrose/Hammeroff.

1. Microtubules polymerize/depolymerize at a very high rate inside neurons. I fail to see how quantum fluctuations could possible record any information that would be useful to a brain.

2. I'm not aware of any quantum influences on folded proteins. Other than the fact that they ARE proteins, anyway.

3. I fail to see how a calculation inside of a neuron that fires or does not fire adds anything useful. I suppose frequency modulation of the spike trains could be information and have some influence on which populations of neurons fire but I think the neuronal groups are too course grained to really give a shit about a little FM. But I fail to see how this information could be encoded in something as dynamic as tubulin polymers.

4. I tried to find the problem with gamma synchrony being too fast to be explained by action potentials but didn't have any real good luck. Freeman's papers are dense and a little strange. I'm not sure if they are worth reading. There are neurons that course across the entire brain in cortico-cortical bundles and they could synchronize in around 2 msecs. Particularly if we are talking about temporal binding and consciousness. The areas that are thus connected are the prime candidates for associative qualia spaces. Yet I have an open mind on this particular claim. Anyone have any more info on this?

5. What's up with the super intelligent paramecium?

I don't do these sorts of discussion because to do an exhaustive post, because this is a project I could work for weeks on. It's something, by the way, that you would pay many thousands of dollars for. You'd get an exhaustive exploration of the problems and objections within neuroscience of this sort of thing. It's not currently, but hopefully in the future, my job to do that sort of thing. Research and critical analysis - science, I mean. It's not something I like doing in my spare time, which is why I won't contribute to psychology here or elsewhere.
I once discussed 'precognition' with someone, spend many hours reading articles only to be ultimately disappointed since the guy went ahead with believing he was right anyway. Hours of work had been wasted. Literally. I don't like that, especially when I don't get paid. No disrespect to your post, but it's entirely insufficient. It's disrespectful to science. To be respectful to science would be to list the many tens of mistakes and blatant disregard for scientific articles Hameroff makes. Your post is very good, but science demands more than that. It demands that we address all errors, work out all errors, and propose how they may be countered. Criticism, in one word. I have no intention of providing it here.
I have no intention of correcting and fixing Jamest's arguments before rebuking them. This will not turn into a monologue, and as soon as we take the charges held against science by the opposition seriously, that's what will happen.
Others are welcome to, but I have no intention of spending that sort of time on something so.. wasteful.

[jamest]

If Little Idiot is still serious about being an educator of science, it's an educator who faces charges of plagiarism.

Unless the words that you type are YOUR OWN, then everyone is guilty of plagiarism, of sorts. And since you frequently refer to the works of dead philosophers (or an understanding of past philosophy) as the basis of your own position, then I tarnish you with the same brush.

Next to Jamest who can not to be taken seriously as an opponent against Metaphysics,

Why not? Would that be because I'm not as 'well read' as yourself? Hence, aren't you relying upon the words of others as the basis of your 'own' argument? Certainly, nothing you have said has actually refuted any of my posts, since nothing you have said has even addressed them.

I am a being of conflict and all that this world throws against me is.. this.. I'd risk a thousand waterloo's for one serious opponent.. Woe unto me!

You are a being evidently reliant upon rhetoric and self-promotion as the basis for your position. But please don't overlook the significance of the insignificance I place upon this.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

If Little Idiot is still serious about being an educator of science, it's an educator who faces charges of plagiarism.

Unless the words that you type are YOUR OWN, then everyone is guilty of plagiarism, of sorts. And since you frequently refer to the works of dead philosophers (or an understanding of past philosophy) as the basis of your own position, then I tarnish you with the same brush.

What you say directly contradicts each other. By referring to the works of others I clearly avoid plagiarism. In fact, I have been abundantly clear that not a single thought in this thread is original.. Everything written by me has been written more succinctly by Nietzsche. The point is that Little Idiot allegedly copied parts of another website and pretended they were his own. That's radically different from using a metaphor that has been used by someone else.
"Oh, it's quite alright for him to murder her, after all, we've all killed something in our lives, a fly, a mosquito.."

Next to Jamest who can not to be taken seriously as an opponent against Metaphysics,

Why not?

Oh, I did not expect you to understand.

Would that be because I'm not as 'well read' as yourself?

No, there are few people that are as well read as I am. Oddly enough, a rather intelligent individual - Surendra - posts here and I'm not yet sure how far his knowledge extends, though he has surprised me a couple of times. It's not that you are not well-read, but that you seem to believe that a hiatus is something that is trivial, that a lack of reading philosophy is unimportant when discussing it.

Hence, aren't you relying upon the words of others as the basis of your 'own' argument? Certainly, nothing you have said has actually refuted any of my posts, since nothing you have said has even addressed them.

None of your posts are on-topic. Why would I address them when they do not even come close to addressing my original post?

I am a being of conflict and all that this world throws against me is.. this.. I'd risk a thousand waterloo's for one serious opponent.. Woe unto me!

You are a being evidently reliant upon rhetoric and self-promotion as the basis for your position. But please don't overlook the significance of the insignificance I place upon this.

Not sure how to respond, to be quite honest.. It's a bit like an eagle landing to discuss the issue of diet with a worm, and the worm suddenly saying that the position of the eagle only emerges from his self-love. I mean.. What would the eagle say to that?

[SpeedOfSound]

Not exacly on topic but a couple of problems I have with Penrose/Hammeroff.

1. Microtubules polymerize/depolymerize at a very high rate inside neurons. I fail to see how quantum fluctuations could possible record any information that would be useful to a brain.

2. I'm not aware of any quantum influences on folded proteins. Other than the fact that they ARE proteins, anyway.

3. I fail to see how a calculation inside of a neuron that fires or does not fire adds anything useful. I suppose frequency modulation of the spike trains could be information and have some influence on which populations of neurons fire but I think the neuronal groups are too course grained to really give a shit about a little FM. But I fail to see how this information could be encoded in something as dynamic as tubulin polymers.

4. I tried to find the problem with gamma synchrony being too fast to be explained by action potentials but didn't have any real good luck. Freeman's papers are dense and a little strange. I'm not sure if they are worth reading. There are neurons that course across the entire brain in cortico-cortical bundles and they could synchronize in around 2 msecs. Particularly if we are talking about temporal binding and consciousness. The areas that are thus connected are the prime candidates for associative qualia spaces. Yet I have an open mind on this particular claim. Anyone have any more info on this?

5. What's up with the super intelligent paramecium?

I don't do these sorts of discussion because to do an exhaustive post, because this is a project I could work for weeks on. It's something, by the way, that you would pay many thousands of dollars for. You'd get an exhaustive exploration of the problems and objections within neuroscience of this sort of thing. It's not currently, but hopefully in the future, my job to do that sort of thing. Research and critical analysis - science, I mean. It's not something I like doing in my spare time, which is why I won't contribute to psychology here or elsewhere.
I once discussed 'precognition' with someone, spend many hours reading articles only to be ultimately disappointed since the guy went ahead with believing he was right anyway. Hours of work had been wasted. Literally. I don't like that, especially when I don't get paid. No disrespect to your post, but it's entirely insufficient. It's disrespectful to science. To be respectful to science would be to list the many tens of mistakes and blatant disregard for scientific articles Hameroff makes. Your post is very good, but science demands more than that. It demands that we address all errors, work out all errors, and propose how they may be countered. Criticism, in one word. I have no intention of providing it here.
I have no intention of correcting and fixing Jamest's arguments before rebuking them. This will not turn into a monologue, and as soon as we take the charges held against science by the opposition seriously, that's what will happen.
Others are welcome to, but I have no intention of spending that sort of time on something so.. wasteful.

No problem. I was just hoping to not have to spend the time on it myself. I doubt I will other than to look further into gamma synchrony for other reasons. If you ever do run into a critique of his garbage I would appreciate a link. My 5 points were certainly not meant to be a scientific analysis. Just things that make no sense to a pedestrian.

Biggest problem that I am running into is that they want 25 bucks a paper and they wont let me smoke at the UofM library.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Biggest problem that I am running into is that they want 25 bucks a paper and they wont let me smoke at the UofM library.

If they'd allow cognac and Scotch at my library along with cigars, you could have bet I'd been around there a lot more. Probably would have gotten higher results in my classes too. A sin that shall remain a blemish on our history for millennia.

[jamest]

If Little Idiot is still serious about being an educator of science, it's an educator who faces charges of plagiarism.

Unless the words that you type are YOUR OWN, then everyone is guilty of plagiarism, of sorts. And since you frequently refer to the works of dead philosophers (or an understanding of past philosophy) as the basis of your own position, then I tarnish you with the same brush.

What you say directly contradicts each other. By referring to the works of others I clearly avoid plagiarism. In fact, I have been abundantly clear that not a single thought in this thread is original.. Everything written by me has been written more succinctly by Nietzsche. The point is that Little Idiot allegedly copied parts of another website and pretended they were his own. That's radically different from using a metaphor that has been used by someone else.
"Oh, it's quite alright for him to murder her, after all, we've all killed something in our lives, a fly, a mosquito.."

Then you're no philosopher - you're just a narrator of philosophies. You evidently lack the ability to philosophise for yourself. Quite telling.

Would that be because I'm not as 'well read' as yourself?

It's not that you are not well-read, but that you seem to believe that a hiatus is something that is trivial, that a lack of reading philosophy is unimportant when discussing it.

I don't believe that at all. And neither am I ignorant of past philosophy. But nothing you have reported has proved your point, has it? In fact, you've spent precious little time in proving or disproving anything.

Hence, aren't you relying upon the words of others as the basis of your 'own' argument? Certainly, nothing you have said has actually refuted any of my posts, since nothing you have said has even addressed them.

None of your posts are on-topic. Why would I address them when they do not even come close to addressing my original post?

How can posts that seek to provide a basis/grounds/'something' for metaphysics, not be on topic?

You are a being evidently reliant upon rhetoric and self-promotion as the basis for your position. But please don't overlook the significance of the insignificance I place upon this.

hiatus

Not sure how to respond, to be quite honest.. It's a bit like an eagle landing to discuss the issue of diet with a worm, and the worm suddenly saying that the position of the eagle only emerges from his self-love. I mean.. What would the eagle say to that?

Such nonsense only serves to prove what I initially said, doesn't it, 'eagle'?

Do you actually understand what a philosophical debate should entail? You're not trying to win the presidency of the United States, here. That is, this issue doesn't reduce to, nor is resolved by, which individual here present has the better credentials, or is the best looking, or has read the most books, or has been asked to tutor. You really need to distance 'yourself' from philosophy when you actually do philosophy. In fact, one isn't doing philosophy unless one distances 'himself' from the debate. You have alot to learn. But you're young, so perhaps you can.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

If Little Idiot is still serious about being an educator of science, it's an educator who faces charges of plagiarism.

Unless the words that you type are YOUR OWN, then everyone is guilty of plagiarism, of sorts. And since you frequently refer to the works of dead philosophers (or an understanding of past philosophy) as the basis of your own position, then I tarnish you with the same brush.

What you say directly contradicts each other. By referring to the works of others I clearly avoid plagiarism. In fact, I have been abundantly clear that not a single thought in this thread is original.. Everything written by me has been written more succinctly by Nietzsche. The point is that Little Idiot allegedly copied parts of another website and pretended they were his own. That's radically different from using a metaphor that has been used by someone else.
"Oh, it's quite alright for him to murder her, after all, we've all killed something in our lives, a fly, a mosquito.."

Then you're no philosopher - you're just a narrator of philosophies. You evidently lack the ability to philosophise for yourself. Quite telling.

Quite. This thread isn't about demonstrating my prowess, but about metaphysics. I'm not concerned with how I come across.

Would that be because I'm not as 'well read' as yourself?

It's not that you are not well-read, but that you seem to believe that a hiatus is something that is trivial, that a lack of reading philosophy is unimportant when discussing it.

I don't believe that at all. And neither am I ignorant of past philosophy. But nothing you have reported has proved your point, has it? In fact, you've spent precious little time in proving or disproving anything.

Nothing has sofar been offered.

Hence, aren't you relying upon the words of others as the basis of your 'own' argument? Certainly, nothing you have said has actually refuted any of my posts, since nothing you have said has even addressed them.

None of your posts are on-topic. Why would I address them when they do not even come close to addressing my original post?

How can posts that seek to provide a basis/grounds/'something' for metaphysics, not be on topic?

You have not attempted to even provide an understanding how such a thing could be possible, let alone undertake it in a grounded way. You have only sofar speculated, and asserted that which is set to be proven as 'obvious'.

You are a being evidently reliant upon rhetoric and self-promotion as the basis for your position. But please don't overlook the significance of the insignificance I place upon this.

hiatus

Not sure how to respond, to be quite honest.. It's a bit like an eagle landing to discuss the issue of diet with a worm, and the worm suddenly saying that the position of the eagle only emerges from his self-love. I mean.. What would the eagle say to that?

Such nonsense only serves to prove what I initially said, doesn't it, 'eagle'?

I don't care either way.

Do you actually understand what a philosophical debate should entail?

Actually, I've had one on the internet. I won.

You're not trying to win the presidency of the United States, here. That is, this issue doesn't reduce to, nor is resolved by, which individual here present has the better credentials, or is the best looking, or has read the most books, or has been asked to tutor. You really need to distance 'yourself' from philosophy when you actually do philosophy. In fact, one isn't doing philosophy unless one distances 'himself' from the debate. You have alot to learn. But you're young, so perhaps you can.

Actually, the issue was pretty much settled in the first post. All the subsequent posts were mocking my oppnents by showing I am more qualified, more intelligent, more brilliant and more well-read than the opposition. I make no secret of that. I don't take any pride in my superiority over my opponents. I would like a serious discussion. I would love to be proven wrong.. I think people here underestimate how someone like me could benefit from having a reason to believe in absolute truth. Hell, I'm already pretty much settled on me being God. To be able to prove his existence - which is what we are talking about in this thread (no one should miss the flirtations with the ontological article, I pointed it out after all ) - would put a serious dent to establishing my cosmic dominion.

Again, none of this is as mad or outlandish as the proposition you have set out to 'defend'. Of course, your lack of doing it says something about the realism as well. I have established that if not the, then certainly one of the most convincing candidates for being 'God'. There can be only one Comte de Saint-Germain, after all.

[SpeedOfSound]

In a nutshell, I think that it's vitally important - in regards to this issue - to acknowledge the significance of 'a reportER' as integral to 'empirical data'. Consequently, I think that your response fails to counter/refute what I said. That is, any enquiry regarding the internal/external nature of 'empirical data', is still valid.

Are you claiming that the observer is as important as the data observed? Or What?

I don't see the relevance of making the I/E distinction. I suspect you want to take this in the direction of all is internal. ??? If so then what is left for the E part of the distinction? Seems kind of serpentine.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Seems kind of serpentine.

[jamest]

Then you're no philosopher - you're just a narrator of philosophies. You evidently lack the ability to philosophise for yourself. Quite telling.

Quite. This thread isn't about demonstrating my prowess, but about metaphysics. I'm not concerned with how I come across.

You're not concerned with how you come across?! Then why all the references to your brilliance?

How can posts that seek to provide a basis/grounds/'something' for metaphysics, not be on topic?

You have not attempted to even provide an understanding how such a thing could be possible, let alone undertake it in a grounded way.

I understand enough to know that 'something' other than 'empirical information' has to be substantiated in order to do metaphysics. Hence, my posts have focussed upon proving that. Certainly, they have been on topic.

You have only sofar speculated, and asserted that which is set to be proven as 'obvious'.

I have provided reason for my conclusions - reason which you have ignored, or whitewashed.

Such nonsense only serves to prove what I initially said, doesn't it, 'eagle'?

I don't care either way.

You evidently do care, or you wouldn't be equating yourself to the eagle, and myself to the worm.

You're not trying to win the presidency of the United States, here. That is, this issue doesn't reduce to, nor is resolved by, which individual here present has the better credentials, or is the best looking, or has read the most books, or has been asked to tutor. You really need to distance 'yourself' from philosophy when you actually do philosophy. In fact, one isn't doing philosophy unless one distances 'himself' from the debate. You have alot to learn. But you're young, so perhaps you can.

Actually, the issue was pretty much settled in the first post.

Really? That is, you weren't interested in debate, you were just preaching?

All the subsequent posts were mocking my oppnents by showing I am more qualified, more intelligent, more brilliant and more well-read than the opposition.

My God, you really don't understand the significance of distancing oneself from a philosophical debate, do you?

I make no secret of that. I don't take any pride in my superiority over my opponents.

What superiority? We've already established that you don't think for yourself, or understand the significance of distancing 'oneself' from a philosophical debate.

I would like a serious discussion. I would love to be proven wrong.

Bullocks.

I think people here underestimate how someone like me could benefit from having a reason to believe in absolute truth. Hell, I'm already pretty much settled on me being God. To be able to prove his existence - which is what we are talking about in this thread (no one should miss the flirtations with the ontological article, I pointed it out after all ) - would put a serious dent to establishing my cosmic dominion.

Rhetoric and self-importance, again.

[jamest]

In a nutshell, I think that it's vitally important - in regards to this issue - to acknowledge the significance of 'a reportER' as integral to 'empirical data'. Consequently, I think that your response fails to counter/refute what I said. That is, any enquiry regarding the internal/external nature of 'empirical data', is still valid.

Are you claiming that the observer is as important as the data observed? Or What?

Of course, since 'empirical data' is a subjective report - open to constant revision - about the relations between conceived entities. There is no 'empirical data' that is not arbitrary or dependent upon the values that the observer himself has valued.

I don't see the relevance of making the I/E distinction.

The relevance is that 'empirical data' is either an internal self-construct, or knowledge reflecting constructs that are external to the observer.

I suspect you want to take this in the direction of all is internal. ???

Not in this thread. My project here is to demolish relativism, which happens regardless of whether empirical data is internal/external to the entity that harbours it.

[SpeedOfSound]

Seems kind of serpentine.

No. It's not about you this time.

[SpeedOfSound]

In a nutshell, I think that it's vitally important - in regards to this issue - to acknowledge the significance of 'a reportER' as integral to 'empirical data'. Consequently, I think that your response fails to counter/refute what I said. That is, any enquiry regarding the internal/external nature of 'empirical data', is still valid.

Are you claiming that the observer is as important as the data observed? Or What?

Of course, since 'empirical data' is a subjective report - open to constant revision - about the relations between conceived entities. There is no 'empirical data' that is not arbitrary or dependent upon the values that the observer himself has valued.

I don't see the relevance of making the I/E distinction.

The relevance is that 'empirical data' is either an internal self-construct, or knowledge reflecting constructs that are external to the observer.

I still don't see why that is relevant. Nor do I see a strict either/or divide here. How does this trash relativism?

[Surendra Darathy]

I understand enough to know that 'something' other than 'empirical information' has to be substantiated in order to do metaphysics. Hence, my posts have focussed upon proving that. Certainly, they have been on topic.

What your argument boils down to, James, is taking three or four words in the King's English (and their conjugations or declensions) and adding to them some weird theory that metaphysics is the insistence that these words have exact meanings that surmount their colloquial usage. The words you have chosen are the verb "to be" or "to exist", the pronoun "I", and the noun "thing" (or "something"). The unwritten part of this theory is that the English language has achieved mastery over these forms. If there are other forms you wish to include, don't hesitate to add them.

I don't know for sure, but brief research would answer the question, as to how tormented Indo-European languages are in their love affair with copulative verbs.

But focus for just a moment on what you seem to be suggesting about words being surmounted by exact meanings. I don't wish to wibble about semantics, but to do metaphysics the way you seem to want to do it, it appears as if you are insisting on this, for example, that "thing" points to a transcendent referent, or however a linguist might handle it. So you say metaphysics can be done if we restrict ourselves to using words as if we were doing algebra.

The task for the metaphysician, from my point of view, is to show how words can achieve transcendent references, or whatever it is you think you are "proving" by writing a few words into an internet forum. That's the magic of metaphysics. It can be done if we obsessive-compulsively write definitions and syllogisms until we've convinced ourselves that we are "reasoning".

I really want to hear the transcendental version of what the verb "exist" points to.

Then we can get on with discussing solids, liquids, and gases, and in what sense they "exist" as other than empirical concepts. More definite than any "thing", more powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall wibbles at a single bound.

Is "beef" a "thing"? Where does it go after you eat it? Where's the beef?

Is a mousie "outside" of little kitteh consciousnessness because we see it that way with our special sauciness, and have a magic word "outside" to name where the mousie is from little kitteh? Or does a higher consciousnessness have to be observing or generating each event as it occurs, like a paper tape through a Universal Turing Machine? Does everything that "exists" have to be created by the Big Mind and every "event" that "happens" have to be caused by some divine handwaving? Because Little Idiot is trying to tell us something like that. The kind of philosophers who really-o truly-o want to do metaphysics are doing it as foreplay before fucking us with theology.

There's nothing to be taken seriously, yet. Some obscure capacity, called "reason" - we haven't been told what the fuck it is, except maybe "propositional logic", but without the propositions. Reason apparently has the capacity to discern the transcendent meanings of a few words of value in performing metaphysics, and, voilá!, we have proved that the universe is composed of two substances, mind and material, or of one substance, the pervasive allnessness of totality. And since we've proved THAT, we've shown that metaphysics is possible, because we've constructed a discourse we call metaphysics.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

HAPPY. HORSE. SHIT.

MI. FA. SCHIFO.