Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 'Knowledge formation' in sugarland

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Of course Kim. Reading is wonderful too! I can t count the books that have changed my life - though more in my youth than recently, perhaps for obvious
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 27, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Of course Kim. Reading is wonderful too! I can't count the books that have changed my life - though more in my youth than recently, perhaps for obvious reasons. All we're objecting to is Der Staudi's eternal refrain that anyone disagreeing with him hasn't read the 'right' books, the books he has, and are therefore too ignorant to have a valid, informed opinion. What actually happens in reading is that one's experience leads one to books, often serendipitously, which may be, as you suggest, a resonance from a previous life - I can think of several points in my life when books or articles fell into my hands and words, phrases, fragments of thought that I came across sent my mind into different dimensions (the image of the cave from Plato's republic when I was 18; the phrase 'the gnostics' during my international studies diploma at Warwick uni at bit later; the '83 Byte magazine article on the Smalltalk language..) Books can supplement, deepen and extend one's knowledge, and trigger new apercus. But there are whole worlds that are passed by by the kind of narrow, repetitive reading that Der Staudi advocates.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" <kimgm@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yes, but it can also be a way to regain what you have acquired in
      > previous lives.
      > Kim
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Ain't it so. Reading as a surrogate for thinking!
      > >
      > > Yours for thinking,
      > >
      > > T.
      > >
      > > Ted Wrinch
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" elfuncle@
      > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > "Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls
      > into lazy habits of thinking." ( -- Albert Einstein)
      > > >
      > > > Tarjei
      > > >
      > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
      > <elfuncle@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Der Staudi is a trip and a half; this time he's apparently
      > ruminating
      > > > > about how to acquire knowledge without the
      > empirical-epistemological act
      > > > > of learning and knowing, how to learn wiothout experience. This
      > lends
      > > > > credence to Frank's theory that Der Staudi is a machine, a
      > computer. A
      > > > > computer doesn't experience anything when you feed data into it.
      > In the
      > > > > event of technological singularity
      > > > >
      > <http://uncletaz.blogspot.com/2010/05/our-technological-culture.html> ,
      > > > > cyborgs and robots may indeed invent their own epistemology when
      > they've
      > > > > conquered and domesticated homo sapiens, and perhaps this is is
      > > > > something Der Staudi wants to do.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Tarjei
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
      > > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Over in you know where, Der Staudi has described why 'knowledge
      > > > > formation' is superior to experience for knowing the truth of
      > something:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "Knowledge formation involves many things other than personal
      > > > > experience; it
      > > > > > relies on evidence, argument, reasoning, analysis, verification,
      > and
      > > > > so forth."
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Of course, he entirely misses out his own supplementary
      > techniques of
      > > > > sarcasm, mockery, ridicule, polemics and the use of logical
      > fallacies.
      > > > > So much for public discussion in the hole.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > T.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Ted Wrinch
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Kim
      For obvious reasons:), as it is in youth we repeat previous incarnations, the longer the older the souls. Some books is empty on real knowledge and it presses
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 30, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        For obvious reasons:), as it is in youth we repeat previous
        incarnations, the longer the older the souls.

        Some books is empty on real knowledge and it presses the spirit out of
        the soul. Within science that kind is produced on assembly line about
        insignificant subjects which nobody really reads. Few reports are really
        worth reading.
        With age you don't need to read as much, you have reacquired your old
        knowledge, now you should create new knowledge by combining your old
        knowledge and your experiences.

        Kim

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
        <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Of course Kim. Reading is wonderful too! I can't count the books that
        have changed my life - though more in my youth than recently, perhaps
        for obvious reasons. All we're objecting to is Der Staudi's eternal
        refrain that anyone disagreeing with him hasn't read the 'right' books,
        the books he has, and are therefore too ignorant to have a valid,
        informed opinion. What actually happens in reading is that one's
        experience leads one to books, often serendipitously, which may be, as
        you suggest, a resonance from a previous life - I can think of several
        points in my life when books or articles fell into my hands and words,
        phrases, fragments of thought that I came across sent my mind into
        different dimensions (the image of the cave from Plato's republic when I
        was 18; the phrase 'the gnostics' during my international studies
        diploma at Warwick uni at bit later; the '83 Byte magazine article on
        the Smalltalk language..) Books can supplement, deepen and extend one's
        knowledge, and trigger new apercus. But there are whole worlds that are
        passed by by the kind of narrow, repetitive reading that Der Staudi
        advocates.
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" kimgm@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Yes, but it can also be a way to regain what you have acquired in
        > > previous lives.
        > > Kim
        > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
        > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Ain't it so. Reading as a surrogate for thinking!
        > > >
        > > > Yours for thinking,
        > > >
        > > > T.
        > > >
        > > > Ted Wrinch
        > > >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
        elfuncle@
        > > wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > "Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little
        falls
        > > into lazy habits of thinking." ( -- Albert Einstein)
        > > > >
        > > > > Tarjei
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
        > > <elfuncle@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Der Staudi is a trip and a half; this time he's apparently
        > > ruminating
        > > > > > about how to acquire knowledge without the
        > > empirical-epistemological act
        > > > > > of learning and knowing, how to learn wiothout experience.
        This
        > > lends
        > > > > > credence to Frank's theory that Der Staudi is a machine, a
        > > computer. A
        > > > > > computer doesn't experience anything when you feed data into
        it.
        > > In the
        > > > > > event of technological singularity
        > > > > >
        > >
        <http://uncletaz.blogspot.com/2010/05/our-technological-culture.html> ,
        > > > > > cyborgs and robots may indeed invent their own epistemology
        when
        > > they've
        > > > > > conquered and domesticated homo sapiens, and perhaps this is
        is
        > > > > > something Der Staudi wants to do.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Tarjei
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
        > > > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Over in you know where, Der Staudi has described why
        'knowledge
        > > > > > formation' is superior to experience for knowing the truth of
        > > something:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > "Knowledge formation involves many things other than
        personal
        > > > > > experience; it
        > > > > > > relies on evidence, argument, reasoning, analysis,
        verification,
        > > and
        > > > > > so forth."
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Of course, he entirely misses out his own supplementary
        > > techniques of
        > > > > > sarcasm, mockery, ridicule, polemics and the use of logical
        > > fallacies.
        > > > > > So much for public discussion in the hole.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > T.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Ted Wrinch
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • ted.wrinch
        I think I spent nearly my first 30 years reacquiring this knowledge. I felt *so* adrift after I left the magical world of childhood and from 14-30 read
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 30, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I think I spent nearly my first 30 years reacquiring this knowledge. I felt *so* adrift after I left the magical world of childhood and from 14-30 read everything on every topic I could find: initially the sciences, later the humanities then the mystical and the occult. I used to think I was a young soul as it seemed to me that I knew so little compared to those around me. From my 40s I began to feel the opposite. I spent many years in the IT industry, through my 30s and 40s, experiencing just the 'insignificant assembly line knowledge' you describe, but finding few people that recognised it as such. I think I was using the capital of my early years to interpret the experiences of my middle ones. And I now frequently experience creative phases in the manner you suggest, when this unified knowledge and experience has became understanding, that I can use to suggest new approaches to problems, new ways of achieving goals. I was rejected at interview for a virtual reality software company recently for 'having too many ideas', and an idea I've researched over the Summer has become the basis for a new product at my old company. But I've also been physically and psychologically assaulted at other companies by people that find 'new' ideas threatening (I don't believe that they really are new, more clarifications and restatements).

          We could discuss what I've called the magical world of childhood. It's a big and even more wonderful topic than the world of reading, and I never quite left it all through my early adult years, finding that it echoed into my reading of that time. I find it strange and significant that none of the critics appear to have experienced much of this magic. I didn't learn to read till the very late age of 7, and that only under a degree of duress from my concerned mother. I just wasn't interested, instead being taken up with my own world of imaginative play (memory vignettes from that period used to leap into my mind all through my 20s). I only really began to read with interest when I was about 9, and from that time onward I loved reading and was always a couple of years ahead of what they used to call our 'chronological reading age'. It's clear that the development of my reading interest and ability rather well matched that of the Waldorf curriculum. It's equally strange and significant that the critics *only* describe this delayed reading approach of Waldorf as damaging, retrograde and 'anti-progressive' ('progressive' has recently become a rather meaningless, emotional buzz word over there).

          T.

          Ted Wrinch

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" <kimgm@...> wrote:
          >
          > For obvious reasons:), as it is in youth we repeat previous
          > incarnations, the longer the older the souls.
          >
          > Some books is empty on real knowledge and it presses the spirit out of
          > the soul. Within science that kind is produced on assembly line about
          > insignificant subjects which nobody really reads. Few reports are really
          > worth reading.
          > With age you don't need to read as much, you have reacquired your old
          > knowledge, now you should create new knowledge by combining your old
          > knowledge and your experiences.
          >
          > Kim
          >
          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
          > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Of course Kim. Reading is wonderful too! I can't count the books that
          > have changed my life - though more in my youth than recently, perhaps
          > for obvious reasons. All we're objecting to is Der Staudi's eternal
          > refrain that anyone disagreeing with him hasn't read the 'right' books,
          > the books he has, and are therefore too ignorant to have a valid,
          > informed opinion. What actually happens in reading is that one's
          > experience leads one to books, often serendipitously, which may be, as
          > you suggest, a resonance from a previous life - I can think of several
          > points in my life when books or articles fell into my hands and words,
          > phrases, fragments of thought that I came across sent my mind into
          > different dimensions (the image of the cave from Plato's republic when I
          > was 18; the phrase 'the gnostics' during my international studies
          > diploma at Warwick uni at bit later; the '83 Byte magazine article on
          > the Smalltalk language..) Books can supplement, deepen and extend one's
          > knowledge, and trigger new apercus. But there are whole worlds that are
          > passed by by the kind of narrow, repetitive reading that Der Staudi
          > advocates.
          > >
          > > T.
          > >
          > > Ted Wrinch
          > >
          > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" kimgm@ wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Yes, but it can also be a way to regain what you have acquired in
          > > > previous lives.
          > > > Kim
          > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
          > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Ain't it so. Reading as a surrogate for thinking!
          > > > >
          > > > > Yours for thinking,
          > > > >
          > > > > T.
          > > > >
          > > > > Ted Wrinch
          > > > >
          > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
          > elfuncle@
          > > > wrote:
          > > > > >
          > > > > > "Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little
          > falls
          > > > into lazy habits of thinking." ( -- Albert Einstein)
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Tarjei
          > > > > >
          > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
          > > > <elfuncle@> wrote:
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Der Staudi is a trip and a half; this time he's apparently
          > > > ruminating
          > > > > > > about how to acquire knowledge without the
          > > > empirical-epistemological act
          > > > > > > of learning and knowing, how to learn wiothout experience.
          > This
          > > > lends
          > > > > > > credence to Frank's theory that Der Staudi is a machine, a
          > > > computer. A
          > > > > > > computer doesn't experience anything when you feed data into
          > it.
          > > > In the
          > > > > > > event of technological singularity
          > > > > > >
          > > >
          > <http://uncletaz.blogspot.com/2010/05/our-technological-culture.html> ,
          > > > > > > cyborgs and robots may indeed invent their own epistemology
          > when
          > > > they've
          > > > > > > conquered and domesticated homo sapiens, and perhaps this is
          > is
          > > > > > > something Der Staudi wants to do.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > Tarjei
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
          > > > > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > Over in you know where, Der Staudi has described why
          > 'knowledge
          > > > > > > formation' is superior to experience for knowing the truth of
          > > > something:
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > "Knowledge formation involves many things other than
          > personal
          > > > > > > experience; it
          > > > > > > > relies on evidence, argument, reasoning, analysis,
          > verification,
          > > > and
          > > > > > > so forth."
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > Of course, he entirely misses out his own supplementary
          > > > techniques of
          > > > > > > sarcasm, mockery, ridicule, polemics and the use of logical
          > > > fallacies.
          > > > > > > So much for public discussion in the hole.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > T.
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > > > Ted Wrinch
          > > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • Kim
          Ted, it just sounded like my own life;-)My first 30 years were also repetition for me.I started in school eight year old, and loved math/calculus but couldn t
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 31, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Ted, it just sounded like my own life;-)
            My first 30 years were also repetition for me.
            I started in school eight year old, and loved math/calculus but couldn't see why I should learn to read, I could see the pictures in Donald Duck and my father could read the text for me, so no need to learn reading. I have never done anything serious if I wasn't motivated, with time I got better in motivating myself, and fate has been good serving me variation in my (IT) jobs.

            I got a ten years older friend and he made a crystal radio and I thought it quite fascinating. My sister took him for boyfriend, so I had to find out myself, and I had inherited many books from my grandfather, and one of these books contained a diagram of a crystal radio, but I couldn't read the text. Then I started in my second school year (9 years old a month in the year) to learn reading, and I became a heavy reader and book collector;-)

            In the school I were also two years in front when the topic interested me as math, geometry, physics, never preparing so I got grades in the middle for the year, but top grades in exams.

            But I stopped reading spiritual books before I reached thirty, I worked a little with Astrology (I made the program myself), but otherwise I focused much on my work.

            Today I don't read books from first page to last page, it's not good for contemplative thinking, it presses the spirit out of the soul. I look for specific topics instead, typically using electronic searches.

            Most companies are calcified in their thinking, what Steiner called Ahrimanic, that is, they don't understand common sense, simple logic, they make rules which everything should follow. A company I worked for had made a lot of rules in a Cobol environment, very sophisticated, but hopeless in their complexity, but that was not the worst, they wanted to press their Oracle development into that foreign rigid standard.

            It's not natural for children to read in a too early age, partly because they don't need it, there is no motivation in it, it's pure abuse, destroying fantasy.
            Seen spiritually the spirit is working to find it's place in the child and that is hindered through reading and writing, and the work done from the astral down into the etheric body is also hampered with, and this is essential for the child to get it's karma set rightly in motion.

            Kim

            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
            >
            > I think I spent nearly my first 30 years reacquiring this knowledge. I felt *so* adrift after I left the magical world of childhood and from 14-30 read everything on every topic I could find: initially the sciences, later the humanities then the mystical and the occult. I used to think I was a young soul as it seemed to me that I knew so little compared to those around me. From my 40s I began to feel the opposite. I spent many years in the IT industry, through my 30s and 40s, experiencing just the 'insignificant assembly line knowledge' you describe, but finding few people that recognised it as such. I think I was using the capital of my early years to interpret the experiences of my middle ones. And I now frequently experience creative phases in the manner you suggest, when this unified knowledge and experience has became understanding, that I can use to suggest new approaches to problems, new ways of achieving goals. I was rejected at interview for a virtual reality software company recently for 'having too many ideas', and an idea I've researched over the Summer has become the basis for a new product at my old company. But I've also been physically and psychologically assaulted at other companies by people that find 'new' ideas threatening (I don't believe that they really are new, more clarifications and restatements).
            >
            > We could discuss what I've called the magical world of childhood. It's a big and even more wonderful topic than the world of reading, and I never quite left it all through my early adult years, finding that it echoed into my reading of that time. I find it strange and significant that none of the critics appear to have experienced much of this magic. I didn't learn to read till the very late age of 7, and that only under a degree of duress from my concerned mother. I just wasn't interested, instead being taken up with my own world of imaginative play (memory vignettes from that period used to leap into my mind all through my 20s). I only really began to read with interest when I was about 9, and from that time onward I loved reading and was always a couple of years ahead of what they used to call our 'chronological reading age'. It's clear that the development of my reading interest and ability rather well matched that of the Waldorf curriculum. It's equally strange and significant that the critics *only* describe this delayed reading approach of Waldorf as damaging, retrograde and 'anti-progressive' ('progressive' has recently become a rather meaningless, emotional buzz word over there).
            >
            > T.
            >
            > Ted Wrinch
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" kimgm@ wrote:
            > >
            > > For obvious reasons:), as it is in youth we repeat previous
            > > incarnations, the longer the older the souls.
            > >
            > > Some books is empty on real knowledge and it presses the spirit out of
            > > the soul. Within science that kind is produced on assembly line about
            > > insignificant subjects which nobody really reads. Few reports are really
            > > worth reading.
            > > With age you don't need to read as much, you have reacquired your old
            > > knowledge, now you should create new knowledge by combining your old
            > > knowledge and your experiences.
            > >
            > > Kim
            > >
            > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
            > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Of course Kim. Reading is wonderful too! I can't count the books that
            > > have changed my life - though more in my youth than recently, perhaps
            > > for obvious reasons. All we're objecting to is Der Staudi's eternal
            > > refrain that anyone disagreeing with him hasn't read the 'right' books,
            > > the books he has, and are therefore too ignorant to have a valid,
            > > informed opinion. What actually happens in reading is that one's
            > > experience leads one to books, often serendipitously, which may be, as
            > > you suggest, a resonance from a previous life - I can think of several
            > > points in my life when books or articles fell into my hands and words,
            > > phrases, fragments of thought that I came across sent my mind into
            > > different dimensions (the image of the cave from Plato's republic when I
            > > was 18; the phrase 'the gnostics' during my international studies
            > > diploma at Warwick uni at bit later; the '83 Byte magazine article on
            > > the Smalltalk language..) Books can supplement, deepen and extend one's
            > > knowledge, and trigger new apercus. But there are whole worlds that are
            > > passed by by the kind of narrow, repetitive reading that Der Staudi
            > > advocates.
            > > >
            > > > T.
            > > >
            > > > Ted Wrinch
            > > >
            > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Kim" kimgm@ wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > Yes, but it can also be a way to regain what you have acquired in
            > > > > previous lives.
            > > > > Kim
            > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
            > > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Ain't it so. Reading as a surrogate for thinking!
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Yours for thinking,
            > > > > >
            > > > > > T.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Ted Wrinch
            > > > > >
            > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
            > > elfuncle@
            > > > > wrote:
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > "Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little
            > > falls
            > > > > into lazy habits of thinking." ( -- Albert Einstein)
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > Tarjei
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
            > > > > <elfuncle@> wrote:
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Der Staudi is a trip and a half; this time he's apparently
            > > > > ruminating
            > > > > > > > about how to acquire knowledge without the
            > > > > empirical-epistemological act
            > > > > > > > of learning and knowing, how to learn wiothout experience.
            > > This
            > > > > lends
            > > > > > > > credence to Frank's theory that Der Staudi is a machine, a
            > > > > computer. A
            > > > > > > > computer doesn't experience anything when you feed data into
            > > it.
            > > > > In the
            > > > > > > > event of technological singularity
            > > > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > <http://uncletaz.blogspot.com/2010/05/our-technological-culture.html> ,
            > > > > > > > cyborgs and robots may indeed invent their own epistemology
            > > when
            > > > > they've
            > > > > > > > conquered and domesticated homo sapiens, and perhaps this is
            > > is
            > > > > > > > something Der Staudi wants to do.
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > Tarjei
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
            > > > > > > > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Over in you know where, Der Staudi has described why
            > > 'knowledge
            > > > > > > > formation' is superior to experience for knowing the truth of
            > > > > something:
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > "Knowledge formation involves many things other than
            > > personal
            > > > > > > > experience; it
            > > > > > > > > relies on evidence, argument, reasoning, analysis,
            > > verification,
            > > > > and
            > > > > > > > so forth."
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Of course, he entirely misses out his own supplementary
            > > > > techniques of
            > > > > > > > sarcasm, mockery, ridicule, polemics and the use of logical
            > > > > fallacies.
            > > > > > > > So much for public discussion in the hole.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > T.
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > > > Ted Wrinch
            > > > > > > > >
            > > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.