STUDY - Technical - New Dacian's Medicine
How
it Works... Our "Body" (17).
Translation Draft
About the intelligence of nature would be enormous lymats to be "told" and argued especially in the direction of the instincts and deliberate acts found at this level, the scientific literature giving wide spaces to animal conduct, which by its adaptive purpose bears the imprint of intelligence. Understanding such conduct is intended to give us a key to our own understanding, suggesting the stages that preceded human thought (because, after all, we are nothing but Homo Sapiens). But I will not get into the wonderful examples that come from this direction especially because of the time crunch. Maybe another time... maybe...
I'm going to go straight to some small conclusions that can be drawn from here.
A deliberate act with adaptive efficiency requires an experience acquired through learning and memorization, anticipation and proper elaboration. In instincts (present at the level of all nature, including at the human level) appears only a past experience and memorized in the engrams of the genetic code (and not only). Their transmission to descendants is in itself an anticipation of the environmental conditions and experiences to which their wearer will be subjected.
When individual experiences and environmental conditions do not correspond to those stored by the species in these instincts, the individual is obliged to resort to deliberate acts or to perish by lack of adaptability. As life is full of the unexpected, we believe that at all levels of life we must encounter deliberate more or less complex, more or less instinctive elaborations. A single "constant" derives from all this: life can never be fully programmed, however complex the previous experience taken as a model.
In reality there is a combination of the two possibilities of action. A "freedom of will", the limits of which extend at the same time as the philogenetic development of the nervous system. In a world of ever-moving/changing and evolving, no instinct can be effective in anticipating all the conditions in which its wearer will live. It must therefore also be equipped with possibilities for action taken ad hoc. When they are overcome, the individual disappears.
That way we could explain the extinction of species about which we have only paleontological evidence. So the researchers have now given up making a clear separation between instincts and deliberate acts, any conduct involving both courts. Even in humans it is not always possible to determine where free will begins and where instincts end, the latter being nothing but intelligent programs (literally). We can consciously feed using the hygienic and dietary means prescribed according to modern scientific norms, but we do not, until after the onset of hunger, imposed by the instinct of preservation.
Instincts are guarantees that the species takes so that perpetuation does not break. That is why we meet them in the living world, and that is why their manifestation takes place under the empire of a tension to which the animal cannot resist without attracting its suffering, and their satisfaction is rewarded by pleasure. In their essence, instinctive conduct sits intelligently with adaptive ends, they are an expression of the intelligence of living nature.
What we are interested in here in this post is, of course, communication. And we'll start with the one without articulated language. I was saying that, beyond the experiment, the existence of communication to the living world, regardless of the evolutionary step on which it is located, follows through the very thermodynamic definition of life. If all living systems are open systems allowing, among other things, an exchange of information with the environment, then we need to talk about the existence of a language, a form of communication throughout the living world.
For all living things language, as a possibility of communication with people and the environment, is of vital importance. Ethologists believe animals are "conversing" with each other more than we think. Finding food, avoiding hazards (of which nature is not without), mating conduct, raising of chickens, social behavior present in many animals would not be possible without the presence of a communication code. And there are a multitude of such codes, often "used" cumulatively.
For example, at the level of single-celled organisms, significant (apart from an occult language, which is "indeterminable" only by logical consequence), the primary language is the chemical language, which is also found in multicellular organisms, obviously. Here he is directly related to the sense of smell and taste, much better developed in other species than in humans. More specifically, one of these forms of communication is represented by pheromones. The next form of communication is through sounds, where ultra and infrasound can also be considered. There would also be "appearance", literally, which is a pretty significant way of communicating.
All this is found at all levels of life, regardless of the time of its manifestation. Thus, every newborn being comes into the world with a number of behavioral predispositions strictly necessary for life (mathematicians dispute their name as programs, keeping it only for their work schemes - and even so, even in a metaphorical sense, it is not wrong to use the term for the innate conducts of the living world). All mammalian chicks know how to suck, and birds open their beaks to get their food. Singing, flying, swimming, hiding in the face of danger are innate conduct, like many others. But in order for these programs to work efficiently throughout life, it is necessary that in a certain well-determined period of the animal's life a specific trigger appears, in this aspect its brain becomes a sensitive signal receptor.
The first voice the cub hears is, under normal circumstances, that of his mother. It's enough to never forget her again. The gesture of following one's mother is also taught in the first days of life. With no discerning power, the cub blindly follows any form of movement, and then remains attached to its first experience for a long time. This phenomenon, called "printing" or printing, has been extensively studied. for example, the duck bud learns to follow its mother between the 13th and 17th, during this time he attaches himself to the first form he sees in motion (to which, of course, the mother's sounds are added, if possible). Beyond this interval the buds can no longer attach themselves to someone and remain uncomfortable, as happens with any baby or child deprived of the mother's warmth in the first childhood. For this reason the mother remains the most important character in life, she is also the first teacher and the pattern by which the affective life of the future adult will be shaped.
But there's another form of communication in the galaxies of life. Modern research has revealed that all living tissues emit light radiation, a phenomenon that has been called bioluminescence. If we do not normally notice it, this is explained by the emission background below the optical reception threshold (there are also organisms that emit high-intensity, perceptible radiation). However, there are people who have this ability and their descriptions confirm the data obtained from instrumental records. The amount of light emitted is directly proportional to the metabolic activity of tissues and the health status of organisms. And, let's not forget the forms of "radar", the forms of electrical detection, etc.
But, now, let's discuss some things about language communication. They can begin with the fact that various researchers have been able to obtain by replacing words, in various forms, true conversations with various animal species, which denotes that in their natural environment it is very possible that these animals use a certain form of language. The language of animals, unlike that of humans, is poor, strictly limited to the situation that signals it. Only man has a language of luxury, nuanced, with namesakes and synonyms, figures of style, etc., elements due to his intelligence and culture. Only people can play abstract notions and hide the truth in deft phrases.
And, from the study ("how" in-depth) conducted by the researchers, only three major, significant, "basal" groups of signals could be staked: 1. food and territory, 2. love and development and 3. fear and aggression. About the first group there is no need to make details, many of us being clear lye this kind of language that often exceeds the boundaries of communication between people, there are numerous cases of collaborations between totally different species but which, through language, achieve an admirable symbiosis.
Only the other categories remain to be discussed. And, I'll start with the fear and aggression born of it. So the question of this final posting is: are animals being aggressive (the rest of the "discussions" will be the subject of a few future posts)?
The meeting of many animals of the same species is done by an exchange of "pleasantness", interpreted by biologists as a ceremonial greeting. For example, dogs and cats sniff each other, and monkeys embrace. But this harmony is not a law, especially when gregarious animals meet congeners from another clan, from another family. Here, studies have determined that it is primarily the first form of instinctual manifestation, that related to food and territory to which, accessory (and not only) intervenes the reaction related to the territory related to love and development (including procreation).
The owner's instinct is so great, that in the brawl between a territory owner and an intruder, he defeats, in most cases, the one on whose side is "justice", that is, the animal that is at his "home". It can even be noted that the animal on "travel" has affected the courage quite strongly, even in the conditions of "hormonal inundation" during the maximum sexual activity. Another example is that of females who, for the most part, become aggressive when defending their young, aggression that is believed to signal the very presence of chicks, since a bird can be easily removed from the nest when it broods, but not when the chicks have appeared (without extending to other examples).
But how far does this aggression go? The researchers studied the behaviour of the animals and claim with obvious evidence that their scuffs result only rarely seriously injured or injured, because, unlike humans, animals have the generosity to give life to the one who recognizes himself defeated and even to live with the loser afterwards. Let us remember how many times Roman women refused to give the life of the defeated gladiator only for the cruel pleasure of seeing life go off brutally with the evil of blood gushing from the neck torn by the trident of the victor. The menacing "Vae victis" (woe to the defeated), attributed to the Gal King Brennus, often marked the lives of men in their troubled history. This is why the claim of contemporary sociologists to justify human aggression from the alleged aggressiveness of the animals that preceded us on the line of evolution cannot be motivated.
In some animals, aggression is only a prelude to mating. Animals that, until then, had lived together, began to manifest themselves as "owners" of land, and females and males fighting for their territory. Eventually, the females let themselves be defeated and the pair end up fulfilling the destiny of all beings, that of reproducing. And examples of this can be given "hard". But despite all appearances, the behaviour of animals on a lower/pre-human stage is not carried out at random, but has well-established laws.
Another source of conflict is non-compliance with the individual's hierarchy in the existing social group. It is interesting to note that sometimes the dominance of a male gives the rights of "great lady" and his partner, and if he expresses his preference for several females then a hierarchical submission of them occurs. In general, according to the laws only known to them or after a confrontation/confrontation, a hierarchical stratification of each individual appears in the group, from the first to the last. Over time, through the emergence of young people, confrontations take place and the rank changes, increasing for some and decreasing for others. For example, in groups of gorillas often there are quarrels between females, which even reach physical molestations, but cease as soon as the leader of the mob intervenes. All the specimens know him and his mere presence is enough to meet order, there is no need to resort to violence.
It is a language of signals understood not only by individuals of the same species, but some, such as those that announce danger or food, are often decrypted by individuals of other species who will react accordingly. For example, the alarming screams of a magpie that fills the sky with their streak also alert a number of mammals, not just the birds around.
Descriptions of conduct in the world of animals without articulated language abound today, thanks to the development that has taken it ethology, its importance far exceeding the level of a simple curiosity, by the theoretical and practical consequences that our knowledge has imposed itself and in the relations between man and other animals. All these discoveries have revealed to us a world in which, although there is no moral code, no fear of the supernatural, no school to train spirits, we do not encounter to the same extent the colds present in man such as lying, suicide, murder and many, many others.
Therefore, the intelligence of the animal world inferior to man is a subject of meditation with many unknowns. The simplistic label of "instinct" that we put whenever in the corners of our mind we see no light to turn to cannot be a complete explanation as long as the notion still remains vague and with limits that today can no longer be treated with yesterday's certainty. We also prove by this paradoxical assertion that the more certain we are, the less we know. The delimitation of intelligence-instinct, by which hubris emphasizes human-animal distance, is no longer easily acceptable (examples in this respect being multiple). Undoubtedly, the intelligence of the other animals is not, as I said, a luxury intelligence, such as that of man, it corresponds to the vital requirements of the possessor, but it is, undeniably, intelligence.
Life is, regardless of the level at which it is present, a gift of the Universe, of its laws of organization, which we barely struggle to understand and in no way direct them. We also notice that every being is an intelligence that includes in itself the chance to be and the definite meaning in the "counts" of the Universe, even if our mind naively and erroneously believes that they are not hers. It follows from this a major moral command, since it is hard to believe that we will ever be truly able to create life, we have no right to kill it for free and out of fun, whether it is called leaf, blade of grass, eagle or man. The origin of life is connected to the origin of the Universe and as a result is not in the possibility of the human mind either to discern it or to create it. Our scientific theories about the origin of life may be just imagination, the effort to make a science absolutely necessary and meritorious. But let's recognize the limits of our thinking when we approach the unknown.
We make it clear that here we do not want to advocate for strictly vegetable feeding, it is not the intention of this work. but one is the slaughter of animals out of necessity and another is to kill them for pleasure (especially if we target the hunt for humans regardless of the "level" and its justification). To shout the joy of victory when you take the life of an innocent being, weaker or less equipped than you (regardless of the legal or material landmark existing as justification), regardless of the drama that you cause when you kill the mother or father of a chicken left without protection and support, raises doubts about the intelligence of some of the fellows and the name of "beasts" given to animals. Between the man and his victim killed for pleasure who is the "beast"?!?
Animals, like us, have feelings, memory, sensitivity, desire, affection and aversion, including the possibility of reasoning, which sometimes prove surprising. They can find their lost owner, even from distances of thousands of kilometres, as happened to dogs and cats, overcoming waters, rugged terrain, cities, being assaulted, starved, hounded. Each of us knows at least one story of this kind so as not to give examples here. There have been manifestations of maternal feelings towards the offspring of other species, including the human one, such as the multiple cases of "wolf children" (leaving from the famous Romulus and Remus). Notice the animals around the house! You will see the manifestation of the joy of having returned home, the disappointment in their eyes when you don't have time for them, the anger when you cause them pain, the happiness when you love them, the sadness when you leave them, their stubbornness when you don't allow them anything. It's the same as our children, even if they're angels and not animals.
The game of baby animals is the game of all the children of the world. We still have a testimony to common "programs" in organizing life on Earth. And the life of other beings must be respected, even if only for kinship with us and them, without forgetting that, in all faiths, the deities first created animals and, finally, man, the shepherd.
But that's enough for today...
About the intelligence of nature would be enormous lymats to be "told" and argued especially in the direction of the instincts and deliberate acts found at this level, the scientific literature giving wide spaces to animal conduct, which by its adaptive purpose bears the imprint of intelligence. Understanding such conduct is intended to give us a key to our own understanding, suggesting the stages that preceded human thought (because, after all, we are nothing but Homo Sapiens). But I will not get into the wonderful examples that come from this direction especially because of the time crunch. Maybe another time... maybe...
I'm going to go straight to some small conclusions that can be drawn from here.
A deliberate act with adaptive efficiency requires an experience acquired through learning and memorization, anticipation and proper elaboration. In instincts (present at the level of all nature, including at the human level) appears only a past experience and memorized in the engrams of the genetic code (and not only). Their transmission to descendants is in itself an anticipation of the environmental conditions and experiences to which their wearer will be subjected.
When individual experiences and environmental conditions do not correspond to those stored by the species in these instincts, the individual is obliged to resort to deliberate acts or to perish by lack of adaptability. As life is full of the unexpected, we believe that at all levels of life we must encounter deliberate more or less complex, more or less instinctive elaborations. A single "constant" derives from all this: life can never be fully programmed, however complex the previous experience taken as a model.
In reality there is a combination of the two possibilities of action. A "freedom of will", the limits of which extend at the same time as the philogenetic development of the nervous system. In a world of ever-moving/changing and evolving, no instinct can be effective in anticipating all the conditions in which its wearer will live. It must therefore also be equipped with possibilities for action taken ad hoc. When they are overcome, the individual disappears.
That way we could explain the extinction of species about which we have only paleontological evidence. So the researchers have now given up making a clear separation between instincts and deliberate acts, any conduct involving both courts. Even in humans it is not always possible to determine where free will begins and where instincts end, the latter being nothing but intelligent programs (literally). We can consciously feed using the hygienic and dietary means prescribed according to modern scientific norms, but we do not, until after the onset of hunger, imposed by the instinct of preservation.
Instincts are guarantees that the species takes so that perpetuation does not break. That is why we meet them in the living world, and that is why their manifestation takes place under the empire of a tension to which the animal cannot resist without attracting its suffering, and their satisfaction is rewarded by pleasure. In their essence, instinctive conduct sits intelligently with adaptive ends, they are an expression of the intelligence of living nature.
What we are interested in here in this post is, of course, communication. And we'll start with the one without articulated language. I was saying that, beyond the experiment, the existence of communication to the living world, regardless of the evolutionary step on which it is located, follows through the very thermodynamic definition of life. If all living systems are open systems allowing, among other things, an exchange of information with the environment, then we need to talk about the existence of a language, a form of communication throughout the living world.
For all living things language, as a possibility of communication with people and the environment, is of vital importance. Ethologists believe animals are "conversing" with each other more than we think. Finding food, avoiding hazards (of which nature is not without), mating conduct, raising of chickens, social behavior present in many animals would not be possible without the presence of a communication code. And there are a multitude of such codes, often "used" cumulatively.
For example, at the level of single-celled organisms, significant (apart from an occult language, which is "indeterminable" only by logical consequence), the primary language is the chemical language, which is also found in multicellular organisms, obviously. Here he is directly related to the sense of smell and taste, much better developed in other species than in humans. More specifically, one of these forms of communication is represented by pheromones. The next form of communication is through sounds, where ultra and infrasound can also be considered. There would also be "appearance", literally, which is a pretty significant way of communicating.
All this is found at all levels of life, regardless of the time of its manifestation. Thus, every newborn being comes into the world with a number of behavioral predispositions strictly necessary for life (mathematicians dispute their name as programs, keeping it only for their work schemes - and even so, even in a metaphorical sense, it is not wrong to use the term for the innate conducts of the living world). All mammalian chicks know how to suck, and birds open their beaks to get their food. Singing, flying, swimming, hiding in the face of danger are innate conduct, like many others. But in order for these programs to work efficiently throughout life, it is necessary that in a certain well-determined period of the animal's life a specific trigger appears, in this aspect its brain becomes a sensitive signal receptor.
The first voice the cub hears is, under normal circumstances, that of his mother. It's enough to never forget her again. The gesture of following one's mother is also taught in the first days of life. With no discerning power, the cub blindly follows any form of movement, and then remains attached to its first experience for a long time. This phenomenon, called "printing" or printing, has been extensively studied. for example, the duck bud learns to follow its mother between the 13th and 17th, during this time he attaches himself to the first form he sees in motion (to which, of course, the mother's sounds are added, if possible). Beyond this interval the buds can no longer attach themselves to someone and remain uncomfortable, as happens with any baby or child deprived of the mother's warmth in the first childhood. For this reason the mother remains the most important character in life, she is also the first teacher and the pattern by which the affective life of the future adult will be shaped.
But there's another form of communication in the galaxies of life. Modern research has revealed that all living tissues emit light radiation, a phenomenon that has been called bioluminescence. If we do not normally notice it, this is explained by the emission background below the optical reception threshold (there are also organisms that emit high-intensity, perceptible radiation). However, there are people who have this ability and their descriptions confirm the data obtained from instrumental records. The amount of light emitted is directly proportional to the metabolic activity of tissues and the health status of organisms. And, let's not forget the forms of "radar", the forms of electrical detection, etc.
But, now, let's discuss some things about language communication. They can begin with the fact that various researchers have been able to obtain by replacing words, in various forms, true conversations with various animal species, which denotes that in their natural environment it is very possible that these animals use a certain form of language. The language of animals, unlike that of humans, is poor, strictly limited to the situation that signals it. Only man has a language of luxury, nuanced, with namesakes and synonyms, figures of style, etc., elements due to his intelligence and culture. Only people can play abstract notions and hide the truth in deft phrases.
And, from the study ("how" in-depth) conducted by the researchers, only three major, significant, "basal" groups of signals could be staked: 1. food and territory, 2. love and development and 3. fear and aggression. About the first group there is no need to make details, many of us being clear lye this kind of language that often exceeds the boundaries of communication between people, there are numerous cases of collaborations between totally different species but which, through language, achieve an admirable symbiosis.
Only the other categories remain to be discussed. And, I'll start with the fear and aggression born of it. So the question of this final posting is: are animals being aggressive (the rest of the "discussions" will be the subject of a few future posts)?
The meeting of many animals of the same species is done by an exchange of "pleasantness", interpreted by biologists as a ceremonial greeting. For example, dogs and cats sniff each other, and monkeys embrace. But this harmony is not a law, especially when gregarious animals meet congeners from another clan, from another family. Here, studies have determined that it is primarily the first form of instinctual manifestation, that related to food and territory to which, accessory (and not only) intervenes the reaction related to the territory related to love and development (including procreation).
The owner's instinct is so great, that in the brawl between a territory owner and an intruder, he defeats, in most cases, the one on whose side is "justice", that is, the animal that is at his "home". It can even be noted that the animal on "travel" has affected the courage quite strongly, even in the conditions of "hormonal inundation" during the maximum sexual activity. Another example is that of females who, for the most part, become aggressive when defending their young, aggression that is believed to signal the very presence of chicks, since a bird can be easily removed from the nest when it broods, but not when the chicks have appeared (without extending to other examples).
But how far does this aggression go? The researchers studied the behaviour of the animals and claim with obvious evidence that their scuffs result only rarely seriously injured or injured, because, unlike humans, animals have the generosity to give life to the one who recognizes himself defeated and even to live with the loser afterwards. Let us remember how many times Roman women refused to give the life of the defeated gladiator only for the cruel pleasure of seeing life go off brutally with the evil of blood gushing from the neck torn by the trident of the victor. The menacing "Vae victis" (woe to the defeated), attributed to the Gal King Brennus, often marked the lives of men in their troubled history. This is why the claim of contemporary sociologists to justify human aggression from the alleged aggressiveness of the animals that preceded us on the line of evolution cannot be motivated.
In some animals, aggression is only a prelude to mating. Animals that, until then, had lived together, began to manifest themselves as "owners" of land, and females and males fighting for their territory. Eventually, the females let themselves be defeated and the pair end up fulfilling the destiny of all beings, that of reproducing. And examples of this can be given "hard". But despite all appearances, the behaviour of animals on a lower/pre-human stage is not carried out at random, but has well-established laws.
Another source of conflict is non-compliance with the individual's hierarchy in the existing social group. It is interesting to note that sometimes the dominance of a male gives the rights of "great lady" and his partner, and if he expresses his preference for several females then a hierarchical submission of them occurs. In general, according to the laws only known to them or after a confrontation/confrontation, a hierarchical stratification of each individual appears in the group, from the first to the last. Over time, through the emergence of young people, confrontations take place and the rank changes, increasing for some and decreasing for others. For example, in groups of gorillas often there are quarrels between females, which even reach physical molestations, but cease as soon as the leader of the mob intervenes. All the specimens know him and his mere presence is enough to meet order, there is no need to resort to violence.
It is a language of signals understood not only by individuals of the same species, but some, such as those that announce danger or food, are often decrypted by individuals of other species who will react accordingly. For example, the alarming screams of a magpie that fills the sky with their streak also alert a number of mammals, not just the birds around.
Descriptions of conduct in the world of animals without articulated language abound today, thanks to the development that has taken it ethology, its importance far exceeding the level of a simple curiosity, by the theoretical and practical consequences that our knowledge has imposed itself and in the relations between man and other animals. All these discoveries have revealed to us a world in which, although there is no moral code, no fear of the supernatural, no school to train spirits, we do not encounter to the same extent the colds present in man such as lying, suicide, murder and many, many others.
Therefore, the intelligence of the animal world inferior to man is a subject of meditation with many unknowns. The simplistic label of "instinct" that we put whenever in the corners of our mind we see no light to turn to cannot be a complete explanation as long as the notion still remains vague and with limits that today can no longer be treated with yesterday's certainty. We also prove by this paradoxical assertion that the more certain we are, the less we know. The delimitation of intelligence-instinct, by which hubris emphasizes human-animal distance, is no longer easily acceptable (examples in this respect being multiple). Undoubtedly, the intelligence of the other animals is not, as I said, a luxury intelligence, such as that of man, it corresponds to the vital requirements of the possessor, but it is, undeniably, intelligence.
Life is, regardless of the level at which it is present, a gift of the Universe, of its laws of organization, which we barely struggle to understand and in no way direct them. We also notice that every being is an intelligence that includes in itself the chance to be and the definite meaning in the "counts" of the Universe, even if our mind naively and erroneously believes that they are not hers. It follows from this a major moral command, since it is hard to believe that we will ever be truly able to create life, we have no right to kill it for free and out of fun, whether it is called leaf, blade of grass, eagle or man. The origin of life is connected to the origin of the Universe and as a result is not in the possibility of the human mind either to discern it or to create it. Our scientific theories about the origin of life may be just imagination, the effort to make a science absolutely necessary and meritorious. But let's recognize the limits of our thinking when we approach the unknown.
We make it clear that here we do not want to advocate for strictly vegetable feeding, it is not the intention of this work. but one is the slaughter of animals out of necessity and another is to kill them for pleasure (especially if we target the hunt for humans regardless of the "level" and its justification). To shout the joy of victory when you take the life of an innocent being, weaker or less equipped than you (regardless of the legal or material landmark existing as justification), regardless of the drama that you cause when you kill the mother or father of a chicken left without protection and support, raises doubts about the intelligence of some of the fellows and the name of "beasts" given to animals. Between the man and his victim killed for pleasure who is the "beast"?!?
Animals, like us, have feelings, memory, sensitivity, desire, affection and aversion, including the possibility of reasoning, which sometimes prove surprising. They can find their lost owner, even from distances of thousands of kilometres, as happened to dogs and cats, overcoming waters, rugged terrain, cities, being assaulted, starved, hounded. Each of us knows at least one story of this kind so as not to give examples here. There have been manifestations of maternal feelings towards the offspring of other species, including the human one, such as the multiple cases of "wolf children" (leaving from the famous Romulus and Remus). Notice the animals around the house! You will see the manifestation of the joy of having returned home, the disappointment in their eyes when you don't have time for them, the anger when you cause them pain, the happiness when you love them, the sadness when you leave them, their stubbornness when you don't allow them anything. It's the same as our children, even if they're angels and not animals.
The game of baby animals is the game of all the children of the world. We still have a testimony to common "programs" in organizing life on Earth. And the life of other beings must be respected, even if only for kinship with us and them, without forgetting that, in all faiths, the deities first created animals and, finally, man, the shepherd.
But that's enough for today...
Love,
Gratitude and Understanding!!!
Dorin, Merticaru