Conversation with Graham Powell on Issue XI of WIN ONE: Co-Editor, “Phenomenon” (10)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/01/01

Abstract

His Lordship of Roscelines, Graham Powell, earned the “best mark ever given for acting during his” B.A. (Hons.) degree in “Drama and Theatre Studies at Middlesex University in 1990” and the “Best Dissertation Prize” for an M.A. in Human Resource Management from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England in 1994. Powell is an Honorary Member of STHIQ Society, Former President of sPIqr Society, Vice President of Atlantiq Society, and a member of British Mensa, IHIQS, Ingenium, Mysterium, High Potentials Society, Elateneos, Milenija, Logiq, and Epida. He is the Full-Time Co-Editor of WIN ONE (WIN-ON-line Edition) since 2010 or nearly a decade. He represents World Intelligence Network Italia. He is the Public Relations Co-Supervisor, Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, and a Member of the European Council for High Ability. He discusses: the pattern for the publication; Elizabeth Anne Scott; Mandela; “The Universe as Automaton”; “A Critique of Modal Ontological Arguments”; “Quantum Computing in 2013”; “The Nine Dots Puzzle Extended to nxnx…xn Points”; “The City Sleeps”; “ATEM (Breath)”; “Photos of the moon”; “Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”; “Part Two: Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”; and “The Rectangular Spiral Solution for the n1Xn2X…Xnk Points Problem.”

Keywords: Graham Powell, WIN ONE, World Intelligence Network.

Conversation with Graham Powell on Issue XI of WIN ONE: Co-Editor, “Phenomenon” (10)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With Issue XI, we have the pattern for the publication with 11/12/13 (11 December 2013). Why?

Graham Powell[1],[2]*: As noted previously, the publication date of the magazine traditionally has a numerical sequence, hence 11, 12, 13… a simple sequence this time.

Jacobsen: For the cover page, who is Elizabeth Anne Scott? What was the inspiration for it? Readers can see page 34 for the cover artwork.

Powell: Elizabeth is a member of the WIN. She is from Scotland and likes to paint. I was busy at the time and she volunteered to do something for the magazine, so I gave her the task of designing the front cover. Her pictures arrived near the publication time and were both of a similar theme: Christmas. I didn’t have much time and expanded one picture to cover the whole page, the originals being quite small – as you can see on page 34. Elizabeth had not added any text to indicate the magazine title, as requested, so I had to do it myself. I upset her (and, in retrospect, she was right to be so) because the picture was distorted. I would do things differently now. Sorry again, Elizabeth.

Jacobsen: This issue was one with a particular charm with the ease of submissions. It shows a changing culture and network of professional trust in the conduct of the journal and the submissions to the journal. Paul Edgeworth, Elizabeth Anne Scott, Beatrice Rescazzi, Phil Elauria, Claus Dieter Volko, Therese Waneck, Anja Jaenicke, Marco Ripà, Alan Wing-Lun, and Krystal Volney contributed to Issue XI. Was there change in the sensibility of the development of literary, artistic, and problem-solving community? Why quote Mandela for this issue of WIN ONE?

Powell: Firstly, Mandela. He is a personal favourite and he had just died – as noted in the editorial. I thought he warranted a quotation. Most of the contributors to this edition had become friends by this point, so the ‘feeling’ was, and is, more congenial, you are right. I think my cosmopolitan lifestyle and breadth of interest by 2013 meant that diverse talents were being expressed within the pages. That was satisfying, I must admit. It was also what I had envisaged for the magazine at the outset of my editorship.

Jacobsen: The issue opens with a piece by Claus Dieter Volko entitled “The Universe as Automaton” (2013). Volko deals with the conceptualization of a three dimensionality of space with a fourth dimension of time (Minkowskian space without explicit statement) while in reference to the Einsteinian formulation of a unified space-time as a computer scientist. He further extends into a hypothetical of a five-dimensional object, which he terms, in the formalities of computer science applied here, a “deterministic, finite automaton.” He writes, “If the hypothesis is right that there was initially just one point and the universe expanded with time, this means that the number of states per unit of time is growing with time, as well as the number of transitions.” In short, the hinges between states grow in proportion to the growth of time as the multidimensional “deterministic, finite automaton” progresses through time. He compares this idea to Stephen Wolfram’s (now-more-prominent) “A New Kind of Science” and cellular automata. Any thoughts on this idea? It links disparate fields and concepts in some principled ways and some others not in its loose extrapolations.

Powell: If you will indulge me a moment, Scott, I think firstly of the Ted Talk “The Invisible Woman”  by Nicole Johnson. In it, she notes how she is not listened to, and humorously concludes that she must be invisible. That continued until, according to Johnson, her friend gave her a book on cathedrals, fundamentally, because the immense work that goes into building any cathedral includes the creation of things that nobody will ever see. The details and finery continue to be worked on, as Johnson points out, even when the huge task that has been set the workforce is going to take longer than any of the craftsmen’s lifespan, and to reiterate, will not be seen by other people. But why do they dedicate themselves so assuredly? Well, Johnson says it’s because “He sees”.

In the case of the search for answers to the origins, existence and the extent of the universe, this seems to have a similar status, only the concept of ‘proof’ is the ‘God’, or the ergon of scientific investigation, as we may call it. Humankind will pursue the explanation of the universe and seek the TOE, even if it takes longer than each individual’s lifetime, which, for each scientist must seem to be so, or was so – and in this, think of Einstein, since you mention him. As we seek explanations, Claus gives a basic prognostication of a five state universe, an extension of Minkowskian space, and which was extrapolated upon by Minkowski’s PhD student, the aforementioned Albert Einstein. The concept of the ‘multiverse’ underpins string theory and this,, for many appears to be the closest we have got to a TOE in modern physics. We’ll see where it goes… perhaps, so will ‘He’.

As for my own opinion, I felt in my twenties until recently that the universe we inhabit is expanding, yet will eventually cease that expansion, then contract, reforming a singularity which will repeat the cycle. Now, as Penrose and others suppose as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, they influence my thoughts as we have evidence of Hawking Points (as they are known) whereby, large Black Holes also shrink and cause singularities pertaining to the formation of universes. Hence, regarding Claus Volko’s article, I think you summarise it well at the end of your question.

Jacobsen: Phil Elauria wrote “A Critique of Modal Ontological Arguments.” He delves into the formalisms of St. Anselm of Canterbury, Mr. Onto. A sort of “my God is bigger than your God” argument with the pivot solely on “P4” or Premise 4 with the evaluative judgement of existence in the world and in the mind as “greater” than in the mind alone. Elauria states, “Personally, I find it difficult that such an argument could be taken seriously. I leave the task of explicitly criticizing or supporting points in Anselm’s argument to those who feel compelled to do so. I’m certainly not one of them.” I leave this task of interpretation to readers here. However, he references Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Kurt Gödel and spins on adaptations of the foundational structure of the argument. We should note. Craig views Plantinga as the single greatest living theologian or Christian philosopher. Dana Scott, Christoph Benzmüller, and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo extend the formalization notions from Volko more into Anselm’s modernizations for a proposed ‘proof of the theorem’ as recently as 2013. Looking at the purported or asserted proof, what about an evil or bad god? A god with negative qualities rather than positive qualities. People worship those. Invert the valence of the premises, you ‘prove’ an argument for the existence of an evil god, too – hardly satisfying, let alone reassuring. One could use the logical formulation as a logical and moral refutation of Abrahamic formulations of theology with a ‘proof’ for an evil or bad god and, in a sense, Satan/the Devil/Beelzebub as the good guy, the real god, based on having the real qualities of a god as negative qualities inhered in its being (but then opposite becomes logically consistent and true, too, i.e., one comes to A and not A, where only paraconsistent bandits sneaking in the night can save us from the explosion of a deeper – non-structural – logical contradiction). Elauria admits to the equivocatory nature of the formulation of the MOA god with ‘proof’ of property “possibility” because one can fill in the blanks for a god here, not much substance. This differs from asserted properties of god in pop theology, e.g., omnibenevolence, omnipotence, aseity, etc. One would need connective tissue to make possibility co-extensive with other properties or to derive others. Whence mind-independence for the Mr. Onto disciples? Any thoughts on this argument for the existence of a god or the derivation of a god from abstract notions of proof of property possibility?

Powell: Another deep question, Scott – well done! You’re on a roll!

I suppose this harks back to our previous discussion because: this is the God that Johnson wanted her audience to recognise during her Ted Talk, that is, the best of us do good because the benevolent and appreciative God sees all that we do. We should display ‘good’ Christian values and behaviour at all times, particularly because God is omnipresent.

Whether there is a god (or not) for me is not as important as the moral behaviour that we should follow and display. In my experience, especially since about the time Phil wrote this article, when my life was thrown into disarray for a few years (mainly because I transgressed some Christian social doctrines) I seemed to be punished, and, in this sense, I now follow my wife’s belief that some ‘higher powers’ are mapping out a better future for us, which has definitely reinforced the determination to succeed, though we also share the doctrine of maintaining kindness and civility at all times, which has proven to be helpful and inspirational, not only for us, but for those who interact with us as well. If that can actually be taken as the influence of a god, then fine. If not, that is also fine.

As such, I think that it is in our behaviour (and the mode of interaction that we pursue) which is the major force that binds humanity together. The relationship we have with our bodies and minds (and with other people) plus our notions of our own existence (as purported by Heidegger, for example) have all been shown to influence our emotions and our cognitive responses to them.

So, this is my own philosophy, if you will, and by living this way, affirming the positive as much as possible and maintaining, as best I can, an agreeable relationship with self and others, I think (so, let’ say, ‘believe’) that this is the best way to maintain a happy life. I am certainly happy, and I feel that this will continue, despite the ups and downs that will inevitably come along.

Jacobsen: Krystal Volney talks about “Quantum Computing in 2013.” Her talents of comprehension and clarity of expression shine here. She talked about interviewing an expert named Dr. Vinton “Vint” Cerf. I found the statement of the four primary forms of practical quantum computation – one-way quantum computer, Quantum gate array, adiabatic quantum computer or computer based on Quantum annealing, topological quantum computer – interesting because, almost immediately after listing them, she stated the four competing models do not compete. They equal one another in functional power. The ability to process information through the manipulation of the potentials of states of electrons in a Quantum computer makes them unusual compared to classical computers in ways laid out by Krystal. Any thoughts of the technical presentation of the materials here? What was the original inspiration for Krystal’s submission here?

Powell: I remember that Krystal was studying computing at the time and at quite a high level, so I guess that was the inspiration for presenting this for publication.

Krystal was also interested in journalism and was networking to increase her potential for disseminating her work, hence, to a certain extent, her interview with the expert Dr. Vinton Cerf took place.

Krystal lays out the historical background to computing, much of which I recall because in the early days of my career I was a geophysicist, one who used computers, and hence, computing power, pretty much as she states, though in the late seventies, developments included hexadecimal programming and the utilization of multiple functioning chips, ones which did not cease operating when the first operation being dealt with was paused, a second function being taken on to fulfil ‘the job’ (as we referred to it). An early example was the Vax 11/780 computer, which greatly increased the processing time available, and hence increased our work rate considerably as we searched for potential oil fields.

I know the recent advances in quantum computing are akin to the points outlined by Krystal and the way forward is definitely via the fantastic work that is being done within the relevant university departments around the world. Soon, the knowledge and communication age will be underpinned by almost infinite computing power and our lives will have to adjust ever more quickly and appropriately to address it, preferably via creativity, innovation and the increased interactive means made available to humankind.

Jacobsen: Marco Ripà and Pablo Remirez published “The Nine Dots Puzzle Extended to nxnx…xn Points.” You helped with part of the solution or the presentation of the materials. To shorten this one, what was solved, in plain English?

Powell: The Nine Dots Problem is a famous one in which nine dots, arranged in three rows of three dots, must be joined by a minimal number of lines, the drawing implement used also drawing continuously, so without leaving the page, and it must only touch each dot once. It is the origin of the phrase: ‘To think outside the box.’ The human mind perceives the three rows of dots as ‘a box’ (actually, ‘a square’, so 3 squared), a quirk of the gestalt mindset, which organises to create patterns. Another example would be gazing at the stars at night and seeing patterns, ones we categorize as Astrological Signs. Marco didn’t stop at having nine dots, he increased the number as 4 x 4, 5 x 5, etc. and even produced, at a later stage, a beautiful video whereby the multiples of dots went three-dimensional, so truly expressed ‘Thinking Outside the Box’. I talked to Marco about this problem during the 12th Asia-Pacific Conference in Dubai and we talked again when we met at Rome airport near the time this magazine came out. I still have the original paper on my computer.

Marco worked with Pablo Ramirez on the presentation on YouTube and it is self explanatory there. I recommend people view it. Basically, the team worked on making a formula for the lowest number of connecting lines that would connect any number of dots that formed a square from any number, so, for example, ‘5 squared’ as 25 dots). This became extended to resolve the ‘connection problem’, as stated earlier, in three dimensions.

Jacobsen: Therese Waneck in “The City Sleeps” juxtaposes some of the cynicism and superficiality of the city life and then the expectation of a new generation. On the latter image, the new generations amount to a new spring in some fashion. It is, in its own way, a hopefully cynical presentation of life anew and the world that awaits the new. What do you get from this poem?

Powell: I view her poem as I view my own country of origin, England, even now. There is an innocence in the voice of the poem, the father figure seeking to protect and get his family though hard times, this being expressed a little sardonically on the part of the father, and with a fundamental lie to get them through. Lying about the fundamentals seems to be politically expedient these days, part of the strategy for getting what is wanted, so conscionable to those partaking in it. So, in this, Waneck’s poem expresses some of the zeitgeist of 21st century existence.

Jacobsen: Anja Jaenicke wrote “ATEM (Breath).” Something like an ode to lovers as “stars” while a son, rather than a daughter, brought to life and having its first breath with silent meditation of the story to unfold. I suspect the reference to celestial objects references the cosmic significance in such events. What do you get out of this poem?

Powell: Technically, what strikes me initially is the fact that the first and second lines don’t rhyme, nor half-rhyme. All the others are in rhyming couplets. At that time, I wondered if the first line could end in ‘bridge’, for example, but I don’t like to change poetry and there was no time to liaise with Anja about this point. The line ending in ‘begun’ is also written in a way that should use ‘began’ (past simple) so it would be better to change it to ‘On the day life had begun’, – which would also maintain the rhythm. As for the meaning, it seems to be a case of body parts kept preserved, fallen from the heavens, but for which purpose? Well, that seems to be the point being made: it’s not clear. Perhaps that is why the early structure is unclear too.

Jacobsen: Beatrice Rescazzi published some “Photos of the moon” with some commentary about the context for the visibility of the “tortured” surface of the moon. I really like the upper left quadrant photo with the heavy pock marks on the moon. Was there any commentary behind the submission other than that provided below the four photos?

Powell: The photos were published with Beatrice’s only comments for each photo, so no, there was no other text to be added, and that was what she wanted.

Jacobsen: Paul Edgeworth published “Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” with a focus on Hegel and Hegel’s emphasis on ethical virtue and ethical conduct bound to individuality and a rational society. That’s a tall order. One may be bound to have a coffee from Starbucks labelled “Karl” in half-legible scrawl for a Mrs. Carla Jakkobsdottir returned with such complicated requirements for the Hegelian caffeinated brew. Edgeworth makes the argument for Hegel and the interplay between individualism and statism for a communal ethic, where the communal ethic is rational. To Hegel’s credit, he accrues a series of concrete examples, freedom and the communal ethic, as the interplay for individuals and states. His individualism as the basis for the communalism rests on an axiom of individual volition bound to an assertion of the “world of spirit” as in a “second nature.” Maybe, something like an active, volitional nature deriving from a second world. Although, even more confusing, Hegel blurs the distinction between the will and thought. To think is to have a rationality, to have a rationality amounts to an ethical conduct in potentia as thought and action (and so ethical acts for ethical conduct based on duties) with possible realization in the world, one assumes in potentia from a “world of spirit.” In Hegel’s system, the individual becomes a singular infinite, as the real “I” is pure thinking or thought. Edgeworth proposes this unlimited thought leads to the “Reign of Terror.” The proper thinking delimits itself into an object for study, so as, presumably, to reduce the possibility of a “Reign of Terror.” A self-determining “I” as a proper will (balanced will). There is an admittance of the fundamental reflective and recursive nature of consciousness in the text, which may belie a particular flaw in the pure thought idea as some pure and otherworldly abstract – and rather a derivation and a special type of derivation that – well – derivates indefinitely due to its recursive nature. (In this sense, it may not be “pure” and could function as a basic undermine of the entire philosophical system.) On objectivity, Hegel works to make objective individual proper will unified with the unity between the proper will of the individual second world comprised of the “whole realm of objective freedom and the whole of objective organization” or the Right. The proper I meets the Right when the subjectivity of proper will and the objectivity of the objective realm and organization come together, where a real world exists external to the mind and the mind can abstract it inside of itself. Hegel assumes a freedom of the will in this formulation. A means to will and own oneself, and a foundation for an “ethical consciousness.” An ethical consciousness as grounds for a common will and social contract, and the objective will as “what ought to be” setting the standard for the proper will (individual will) “as it is.” With a disunity between the objective will and the proper individual will, a wrong exists there. What do you think of this first-half presentation of the philosophy of Hegel with the objective will and the subjective will, ethical consciousness, and pure thought, as the basis for communal or individual-statist ethics?

Powell: In short, I agree with the caveats that you have highlighted in your introduction. Furthermore, I think the disjuncture between individual and statist ethics, as outlined by Hegel, in a great part explains why the British approach to the pandemic has gone so disastrously awry, the ‘common sense’ approach and reliance on retaining a sense of ‘individual freedom’, not being respected by the forces of nature in play. The approaches that have worked are either the common imposition of restrictions, that is, one presented as ‘being for the common good’ (like New Zealand’s government stipulated) or has been a governmental approach from leaders who are not questioned as authority figures (as in the United Arab Emirates). As such, the COVID 19 pandemic has been a great leveller in this argument.

Jacobsen: In “Part Two: Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Edgeworth continues in some of the similar vein. For some reason, he dropped the intellectual scaffolding terms from earlier. There’s a double sense of morality. A moral subject, a subjective proper will with ethical consciousness, must conform itself to the universal will and, in so doing, an act and thought conforms to the Right of the “what ought to be” based on the moral subjects “as it is”-ing. Hegel remains clear: social animals must morally act socially to act morally rightly; pure subjectivism is an evil. Through a process of externalization of the individual will, and in a collective of individual wills in conformity with the universal will, and the construction of institutions in a society in the externalization process, the Right as abstract becomes actual through an intersect of the Right, collections of individuals acting with the rightness of and in conformity with the universal will, and the institutions of the society. The institutions of the society represent this internal-made-external and the construction of a rational state. The in potentia of the universal will represented in the actualization of rightly ordered individual wills in the society via its laws and institutions. Citizens acting in a rational society would act ethically substantively as representatives of the ideals of the society where the ideals and actualities of the society represent the universal will: subjective and objective as substance and, in morality, ethically substantive. Not authoritarianism with a lack of choice, a set of choices constrained in such a manner consistent with a rational society (and so rational life), e.g., choice in career. A choice permitted by a framework creating an individual ethical consciousnesses in accordance with the universal will while within the realm of correct moral choices within the Right. Individual, family, state (institutions and laws), become the three points of tension with a rational society permitting each freedom for construction and constraint for consistency/solidity. The state is “the highest expression of objective spirit,” where the “highest duty of an individual [is] to be a member of the state.” With rationality bound to notions of freedom and freedom of the will, Hegel posits an organicism of the state responsive to some of the changes of its constituents. Edgeworth sums this long formulation as a justification for one form of government: constitutional monarchy. The definitive representative of the individuals, the family, and the state in this constitutional monarchy as the monarch of the state, i.e., a representative of the universal will and collective wills of the people in alignment. An intersect of the subjective and objective discourses as a proposal for a society. Something like the monarch as the “Synthesis” to the subjective and objective “Thesis + Antithesis.” Do you think the constitutional monarchy is tenable? Does this form of thinking about ethics hold water to you?

Powell: To continue the idea of a constitutional monarchy, and with reference (again) to my own country of origin, I believe that the monarchy in place is the best way of representing what is best in society there, with its long sense of tradition and its stability of position, though much of its potential (to vary your phrase a little) has been attenuated, and it is largely a token position at the top, with theoretical powers that are not used, nor desired to be used. The modern era has, I am sorry to say, been identified as being full of falsities and misrepresentations, just to give the appearance of validity, and be falsely representative of the true will of those in power, and many of their followers. In that sense, the state has ceased to be ‘the highest expression of objective spirit’ and the majority of people seem to be accepting it. As such, the arguments presented don’t hold water for the long-term good of the majority because the dichotomy between objective truth and falsity has been blurred.

Jacobsen: Marco Ripà produced a conundrum as a short puzzle and then “The Rectangular Spiral Solution for the n1Xn2X…Xnk Points Problem.” Any thoughts on this one? He has been submitting mathematical pieces to In-Sight Publishing, more recently.

Powell: Yes, Marco presented the spiral solution to the points problem within the workings that we discussed earlier, and this works for all the n values. It is a neat little conundrum.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Graham.

Powell: You’re welcome, Scott, and thank you for the inspiration to review and reflect upon the deep issues presented in the magazine.

References

Edgeworth, P. (2013, December 11). Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Edgeworth, P. (2013, December 11). Part Two: Individuality and the Ethical Life in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Elauria, P. (2013, December 11). A Critique of Modal Ontological Arguments. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Scott, E.A. (2013, December 11). Artwork for this WIN ONE. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Jaenicke, A. (2013, November 20). ATEM (BREATH). Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Rescazzi, B. (2013, December 11). Photos of the moon. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Ripà, M. (2013, December 11). Conundrum designed by Marco Ripà. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Ripà, M. & Remirez, P. (2013, December 11). The Nine Dots Puzzle Extended to nxnx…xn Points. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Ripà, M. (2013, December 11). The Rectangular Spiral Solution for the n1Xn2X…Xnk Points Problem. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Waneck, T. (2013, December 11). The City Sleeps. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Volko, C.D. (2013, December 11). The Universe as Automaton. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Volney, K. (2013, December 11). Quantum Computing. Retrieved from http://winone.iqsociety.org/issues/WIN_ONE_11.pdf.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Co-Editor, “Phenomenon.”

[2] Individual Publication Date: January 1, 2022: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/powell-10; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2022: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.