Objectivity

[Man.0]

Most of what followed the above by you was answered both by the point of language and how it functions and is measured in definition, which I provided prior.

I do not think you provided a substantive answer. I felt no satisfaction with the answer you gave - it could have been more detailed. And you could have given greater depth to the answer. You may say to me, 'The answer I gave is sufficient and substantial'. But who is that determines if a substantial answer has been given - is it not the one who asks the question? If you give an answer on a test, is it not the examiner/teacher (the one who formed the questions) who decides if the answer is substantial? I have assessed your answer and I do not think that it properly addresses the questions that I put forth. It seems that you're rather adept at parrying questions that are put forth to you, appearing to answer them, when not actually answering them. You seem to be a person who thinks that to provide just an answer - any answer - is enough.

Fish contains subsets. If you want to distinguish between a trout and a catfish, well, there you go. Beyond that a fish is a fish, it's the sounds/symbols that, within the way we arrange language has been decided as the fit.

It seems that you totally and completely missed the point(s) I was making - through the hypothetical scenarios that I gave.

Language can be messy, but context usually clears up any ambiguity. It's harder for those who aren't native speakers, but they do all right.

Even context doesn't always clear up ambiguity.





















That's the type of answer which I feel you have often given me. Answers which provide no further reasoning, or concrete explanation.

But I will not do the same. And I hope I haven't been doing so. To my knowledge, I have been giving you ample reasoning, and analogies, and examples.



I will do that now. I will give you an example - in the form of a short story - in response to.your above statement.

Mary is on a trip to England. She comes from America, and is a native of that country. The purpose of Mary's vacation is to visit her friend, Jane. When Mary arrives at the airport, Jane picks her up. Jane then suggests that they both go to a bar for a drink. "A nice drink will ease the jetlag that you're feeling', says Jane. "It's not far from here, it's just round the corner'. When they arrive at the pub, they place their orders. After sitting down to drink, they get chatting to two gay men, who are husbands. They also a met a man, carrying a dog. Later on he made the decision to put down the dog. They also met a young man who had two little birds on both arms. In the pub, they all end up getting very inebriated. They leave the bar in the late hours of the day.'Good night' Jane says to Mary. The next morning at the hotel where Mary is staying, the receptionist checks her out. Mary had only flown over to stay for one night, and is now getting ready to return in the same way she arrived.

There a number of ambiguities in the story:

'She comes from America, and is a native of that country.'

1. Is Mary an American Indian? Or simply a citizen of America? Or both?

' When Mary arrives at the airport, Jane picks her up. '

2. Did Jane physically lift up Mary; was Jane flirting with Mary; or did Jane simply go to collect Mary?

' "It's not far from here, it's just round the corner" .'

3. Was the bar literally around the corner?

'...they get chatting to two gay men...'

4. Are they happy men or homosexual men?

'...who are husbands.'

5. Are the men married, or are they simply houseowners (which is what the word 'husband' used to mean - how do you know the story isn't set in that era of time)? If married, are they married to each other?

'They also a met a man carrying his dog. Later on he made a decision to put down the dog.'

6. Is he going to euthanise the dog, or simply stop carrying it?

'They also met a young man who had two pretty, little birds on both arms.'

7. Did the man have two small, gorgeous women on either side of him, or two feathery animals?

'In the pub, they all ended up getting very inebriated.'

8. Who is that gets very drunk? Mary, Jane, and the men they meet... or everyone in the pub?

' "Good night" Jane says to Mary.'

9. Was Jane expressing her enjoyment of the night; or wishing Mary a good night?

'The next morning at the hotel where Mary is staying, the receptionist checks her out.'

10. Was the receptionist admiring Mary's physical appearance, or was the receptionist simply checking her out of the hotel?

'Mary had only flown over to stay for one night, and is now getting ready to return in the same way she arrived.'

11. Did Mary literally fly over to England from America? How do you know she's not a superhero, with the ability to fly?

You say that context can usually clear up ambiguity. Well, I've provided you with a context in the form of a short story. Clear up the ambiguity - answer those questions.

By the way, I needn't have written a story. Context could have been provided with just one, single sentence. Like in a newspaper headline, for example.

It doesn't make sense because you can't rely on the meaning of the sounds/symbols I've used and, as you understand those sounds/symbols they aren't conforming to rules established to facilitate communication. And that's what language boils down to in the end. That is it's truth and measure.

I want to pick up on a point you made earlier, which I feel is relevant to what you say here. You said that the 'point of a common language is first and foremost communication' (post #5). Now in what you say here, in the quote above, you seem to continue to stick by this point. I do not agree with your sentiments. Rather, I believe that the point of a common language, is first and foremost, expression, not communication. I think they both go hand in hand, but one precedes the other. Babies and young children express themselves (through language) before the point of communication is reached. What do I mean by that? I mean that, for example, when a baby cries, his first and foremost desire is not to communicate, but to express himself. Likewise, when primitive people first made marks on cave walls, it could be argued that the primary motive and desire wasn't communication, but expression. Expression first, and then communication follows - but both are interlinked.

'they aren't conforming to rules established to facilitate communication.'

Who says they have to conform to those rules?

Because the truth of language is in its function, which relies on rules of construction and a common lexicon.

But don't you understand that the 'rules of construction and a common lexicon' could be althogether different than to what is currently established', if society had chosen a different framework?

The answer to 1+1 cannot be 2, 8 and 13.

Right. And yet is objectively true that any number of words have primary, secondary and tertiary meanings and that understanding which is being applied is contextual.

I don't think you get the connection I was making here - by using the analogy of a mathematical statement that has only one correct answer. I really don't think you comprehend the connection. Nor do I think you comprehend the other things that I've been expressing to you. You may think you have understood, but by the answers you are giving, I really don't think you have. We are currently on different wavelengths, trying to get each other to understand our own point of view. I don't wish to convert you to my own point of view - and by own efforts I think it would be impossible to do so.

I imagine that you have a different intellect than I do, and nothing I can do can cause you to see things the way I see them. Now the question is, whose statements up until this point have been right, and whose have been wrong? I think we will need to appeal to an objective judge, that is, God - for He, who knows all things, would be able to decide who is right, and who is wrong. If I am wrong in anything I've said, may He make it known to me - either through revelation or via someone else. And if you are wrong in what you are saying, may He make it known to you - again, through revelation, or someone else. Lastly I shall say that what you, or I, must try not to do is present our own subjective reasonings as if they are objective truth - which it seems we have both been guilty of. Can you say you have not been guilty of doing so?

The objective truth of language is that words have meaning and that meaning can change depending on usage. The truth of a word is found within that understanding.

You say 'meanings can change'. Well, let me ask you... can objective truth change? Isn't objective truth solid, concrete and unchangeable? If a meaning of a word can change, how can it then be objective truth? It can be relative truth, but not objective truth. And even the existence of 'relative truth' - that in itself is contradictory. I hope you can see why.

The meanings of 'bread' cannot all equally be true.

Only if you misapprehend the truth you're looking for.

What if I'm looking for one truth? What if i'm looking for a singular meaning of the word 'bread'?

It doesn't. It is, to the one currency at that time. It is to another food at that time. And so on.

Then it is relative, and not objective. If you hadn't realised, my focus and concern is on objective truth, not relativity.

To you, you're using the right word, but to the cashier - who doesn't know your slang (let's presume that he doesn't) you're using an incorrect word for 'money'. Who is right, you or the cashier?

That's not a meaningful question.

Interesting how you fail to answer the question itself, because it is apparantley not a 'meaningful question'. Who are you to determine what is meaningful or not?

There's the intended communication and either a deficiency in presented context or some other impediment in play that brings a momentary confusion. But it should only be a momentary one, if that. It would be odd for a banker to suspect the man approaching him had mistaken his place of work for a bakery and odder still for the man to have made the mistake.

You say that would be odd for such things to happen, but I do not think such things are unheard of.

Rather, you removed it from the context, the sentences in support an illustration. Without context language is fairly pointless.

I don't need your beloved 'context' to help me define whether a sentence is objectively-worded or not. And it was an objective sentence, was it not? Re-read it again, and tell me whether the sentence was personal (that is subjective) or impersonal (that is, objective).

 

[Man.0]

It would probably help if you knew the most basic distinctions between signum and res, signifier and reality. That the actual animal 'cat' has several words for it, and that these words in some sense arbitrary (they are conventions), what they signify is not. Whether someone use the signums 'cat', 'felis catus' or 'katze', they refer to the same reality or res, it is this common act of reference that is objective. It is not claimed that the word chosen in a particular language is objective.

But why does there need to be different signums in the first place? Why can't there just be one?

And the problem is right there - in using different signums. If I use one signum, 'cat', and you use another 'katze' (which is german for cat) then who is right in their usage? How can both be right in an objective sense? Say if a man outside of our society, comes to visit us. He sees a cat for the first time, and wants to know what that animal is called. Wouldn't it be confusing for him if we gave him multiple signums; if we said that it's a 'cat' but also a 'katze'? Would it not be much simpler if we could all agree on one signum? One signum pointing to one res. Isn't that simpler, and better?

I assume you make the same argument for mathematics, because number systems work as different signums. You would be equally mistaken. It is not the numbers themselves that are objective, but rather the relationships between them and reality they point to. I've yet to see a non-insane argument for the actual subjectivity of mathematics, that would make for some ridiculous coincidences in the history of mathematical discovery.

In what way(s) does objectivity exist in mathematics? Isn't mathematics based on principles which themselves are subjective? Isn't it based on a system, or systems, which have been subjectively devised by humans?

 

[Selaphiel]

But why does there need to be different signums in the first place? Why can't there just be one?

And the problem is right there - in using different signums. If I use one signum, 'cat', and you use another 'katze' (which is german for cat) then who is right in their usage? How can both be right in an objective sense? Say if a man outside of our society, comes to visit us. He sees a cat for the first time, and wants to know what that animal is called. Wouldn't it be confusing for him if we gave him multiple signums; if we said that it's a 'cat' but also a 'katze'? Would it not be much simpler if we could all agree on one signum? One signum pointing to one res. Isn't that simpler, and better?

It would be more convenient, but it does not change the fact that the reality that these various signums point to are the same objective reality.

In what way(s) does objectivity exist in mathematics? Isn't mathematics based on principles which themselves are subjective? Isn't it based on a system, or systems, which have been subjectively devised by humans?

You are begging the question. You have already made an unjustified claim in asking your question. You assume that just because something is devised by humans, it is only subjective. The particular signs and symbols of mathematics are of course subjective, the concepts that they point to does not seem to be, as they are translatable to other systems of signs and symbols. You are confusing particular expressions of facts with the facts themselves. The particular expressions are subjective expressions of objective facts.

There is also the fact that we find out that what was considered purely theoretical mathematics for hundreds of years then proved to accurately describe observed natural phenomena. If what is described by mathematics is purely subjective, then that would be a coincidence of a ridiculous order.

 

[Man.0]

I can understand how a piece of paper - which was devised by humans - is objective. But I do not understand how a philosophical system (that seems open to multiple interpretations) is objective. Is mathematics not a philosophy itself? Doesn't alot of it consist of theories?

The particular expressions are subjective expressions of objective facts.

How can an objective fact be subjectively expressed? Could you give some mathematical or non-mathematical examples?

then proved to accurately describe observed natural phenomena.

Such as?

 

[Danoh]

The Macmillan online dictionary defines objectivity as 'a state or situation in which something is based only on facts and evidence'. The Collins online dictionary defines it as: 1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

I, for one, believe that in the following areas: language, mathematics, music, and art, there exists no actual objectivity. In language, for example, who decides that a particular word should mean what it means? Let's say that I decide to call a gorilla a fish, am I wrong for doing so? If so, why? One might say: ''Because society says so - society defines the meaning of words''. Well, why is society right and the individual wrong? Why is the majority correct, and the minority incorrect?

Also, when it is said that society makes the definitions, well, which society is it that possesses the correct definition? Modern society? If so, why is modern society right and past societies wrong? Take the word 'gay', for example. A past society defined this word as meaning 'happy'. Modern society defines it as meaning 'homosexual'. Which society is right?

But it may be said that both are right. That words can have double meanings; that 'gay' can mean both 'happy' and 'homosexual'. Not objectively they can't. Objectivity deals with truth, and there cannot be two truths for the same thing. Thus there cannot objectively be two meanings of the same word.

Because society is relative, it cannot objectively define a word.

Another example of relativity is cultural languages, or tongues. Consider thiis: which of the following is the correct word to call the four-footed, furry animal which barks? Is it 'dog' (English), 'hond' (Dutch), chien (French) , jukel (Slovakian), or perro (Spanish)? Or is the correct answer found in another language apart from these? Which language is right? Objectively speaking, only one can be right; they can't all be. And in a relative sense they can't all be right - that would be contradictory. When it comes to what is right, what is correct, and what is objective, there can only be one truth.

You relied on a dictionary for "a definition" of "what objectivity is." From there, all was lost within that void that is "what this," or that "means to me."

It appears you yourself have shot yourself in your foot.

Look to yourself as to how and where you ended up... subjective...

 

[Man.0]

You relied on a dictionary for "a definition" of "what objectivity is."

Are you saying I should naturally know what the word means, without the use of a dictionary?

From there, all was lost within that void that is "what this," or that "means to me."

It appears you yourself have shot yourself in your foot.

Look to yourself as to how and where you ended up... subjective...

Yes, what I have written is subjective. It's theoretical more than conclusive. I will admit that. What I have written is simply some food for thought, for people to digest. They can vomit it back out if they don't like it.

Also, I never said I was objectively defining objectivity. I thought it was clear that I was presenting my own subjective view?

 

[Town Heretic]

I do not think you provided a substantive answer. I felt no satisfaction with the answer you gave

Your feelings, while important to you, aren't the issue. What you can demonstrate and illustrate is. So if you quote me and illustrate a deficiency in the quote I'm interested. If you're going to do this, less so.

You may say to me, 'The answer I gave is sufficient and substantial'. But who is that determines if a substantial answer has been given - is it not the one who asks the question?

In an argument, no. Because anyone, regardless of their level of rationality, could simply (and some here will) declare a thing invalid or insufficient without having illustrated either an understanding of the answer or it's objective insufficiency, if you can imagine.

...It seems that you totally and completely missed the point(s) I was making - through the hypothetical scenarios that I gave.

This would be where someone who could sustain that point would illustrate it, set out what I missed and where someone who simply wanted to manufacture an appearance would declare it and then move on to the next declaration, which is what you're about to do.

Even context doesn't always clear up ambiguity.

Example?

I will do that now. I will give you an example - in the form of a short story - in response to.your above statement.

I'll take a few of them. One or two would have been sufficient I think in any event.

'She comes from America, and is a native of that country.'

That's not ambiguous if you understand the term's primary. Given you haven't supplied a context that would move us to the secondary or any other reading the meaning should be understood to indicate Mary was born in America. There is no "native" in America, though there are Native Americans. And that usage would have provided the context necessary to alter our understanding.

1. Is Mary an American Indian? Or simply a citizen of America? Or both?

Answered. See, even in your attempt to introduce ambiguity you clarify by using the appropriate term (or one of them).

' When Mary arrives at the airport, Jane picks her up. ' 2. Did Jane physically lift up Mary; was Jane flirting with Mary; or did Jane simply go to collect Mary?

All you've done is interject a colloquialism, something that isn't meant to be taken literally, into the narrative. Colloquialisms are cliches that native speakers of the language will understand easily enough.

' "It's not far from here, it's just round the corner" .'

3. Was the bar literally around the corner?

Supra. No one will expect it to literally be just around the corner and if it actually is then the response would likely be laughter of a mild sort, because the colloquial and the literal would have matched one another.

'They also a met a man carrying his dog. Later on he made a decision to put down the dog.' 6. Is he going to euthanise the dog, or simply stop carrying it?

That one has an ambiguity that goes to the writer adding detail without sufficient qualification. The reader is free to think either.

But I've never held that you couldn't write an ambiguous sentence. A good deal of humor leans on that very thing.

You say that context can usually clear up ambiguity.

That's right. It doesn't follow that everyone using language does a good job or even makes the attempt.

I want to pick up on a point you made earlier, which I feel is relevant to what you say here. You said that the 'point of a common language is first and foremost communication.

Right. Language is first and foremost a tool.

I do not agree with your sentiments.

It isn't a sentiment. It's an expression of a fact.

Or, as Merriam Webster would have it, language is: "the system of words or signs that people use to express thoughts and feelings to each other."

Rather, I believe that the point of a common language, is first and foremost, expression, not communication.

It begins with the desire to express, to be sure. But the point of expression is communication, either of an idea or a state. Language allows us to do that with uncommon precision, among other things. Or, as MW has it, expression is: "the act of making your thoughts, feelings, etc., known by speech, writing, or some other method : the act of expressing something". If you're philosophically inclined you could even argue the first communication is with oneself, in formulating and clarifying an experience, state or notion.

Who says they have to conform to those rules?

No one. Baby flew the happenstance to a gramophone hotel, by way of. Or, it's in our best interest to do so.

But don't you understand that the 'rules of construction and a common lexicon' could be althogether different than to what is currently established', if society had chosen a different framework?

Rather, you don't appear to understand that my understanding that in no way moves the point or undermines it.

I don't think you get the connection I was making here

I get that about you, but it's wrong headed.

- by using the analogy of a mathematical statement that has only one correct answer. I really don't think you comprehend the connection.

If it makes you feel better by all means keep waving that little checkered flag, inferentially. But a king never has to point at his crown.

Nor do I think you comprehend the other things that I've been expressing to you.

Yes, yes, I think by now your estimation of the level and quality of your thinking is fairly well established, supra.

You may think you have understood, but by the answers you are giving, I really don't think you have.

I wonder how many different ways you'll say this before you attempt something novel for you, like a sustainable point?

I imagine that you have a different intellect than I do, and nothing I can do can cause you to see things the way I see them.

Rather, you imagine you have a superior one, supra. Let it never be said that I think you lack imagination.

Now the question is, whose statements up until this point have been right, and whose have been wrong?

That's not a hard one for someone who owns a dictionary.

I think we will need to appeal to an objective judge, that is, God - for He, who knows all things, would be able to decide who is right, and who is wrong.

Okay. I'll wait a minute (clocking). No, it appears He is going to let us rely on the satisfying sources that are at our disposal.

A look at a dictionary will, in short order, reject your premise that words can't objectively mean more than one particular thing. The rest of your error proceeds from that point.

If I am wrong in anything I've said, may He make it known to me - either through revelation or via someone else.

He gave you a number of people trying to help you out of those knots you've tied for yourself. You're a bit like the fellow on the rooftop of his home as the water rises. People stop by and offer you assistance but you're confident that God will save you....well, He tried.

Can you say you have not been guilty of doing so?

Sure, unless you can point out a particular.

You say 'meanings can change'. Well, let me ask you... can objective truth change?

This, as I see it, is your problem distilled. The truth that is unchanging is found in the thing described by language. The sun isn't made true because we call it "sun". It isn't made false if I change my name legally to "sun". Language is how we approach objects and ideas and states. The truth resides in the thing approached and the sound or symbol that we make to represent it is likewise a reflection of truth. So when I say bread and mean money the truth I approach isn't edible. Context is how we navigate that complexity.

...even the existence of 'relative truth' - that in itself is contradictory. I hope you can see why.

I'm moved by your "hope". I've long said a relativist has himself for an enemy, for if nothing can be said to be true than the statement itself is consumed by its own logic.

What if I'm looking for one truth? What if i'm looking for a singular meaning of the word 'bread'?

Then you're still confusing sounds with substance instead of understanding they reflect substance/truth. It is true that there is a thing you want to eat. You can see it, smell it and consume it. We call that bread. There is also a thing we can spend that we will call bread. And you can tell the difference, absent sight or smell or taste, by the context we provide.

Interesting how you fail to answer the question itself, because it is apparantley not a 'meaningful question'. Who are you to determine what is meaningful or not?

No, I mean it's not rational, not meaningful in that sense. Your use of "right" is mistaken, reflects the mistake in your approach to the notion of truth as it relates to language.

You say that would be odd for such things to happen, but I do not think such things are unheard of.

Right. It would be unusual. Unusual isn't unheard of, only a thing of such infrequency as to be remarkable when it happens.

I don't need your beloved 'context' to help me define whether a sentence is objectively-worded or not.

It's not my beloved, it's anyone's who wants to understand a thing or relate it understandably, honestly, as communicated.

And it was an objective sentence, was it not? Re-read it again, and tell me whether the sentence was personal (that is subjective) or impersonal (that is, objective).

"And Judas went out and hanged himself...go thou and do likewise."

Context is important. And so my remark about what you did and that remark remains objectively true. You omitted something important.

 

[Man.0]

Your feelings, while important to you, aren't the issue. What you can demonstrate and illustrate is. So if you quote me and illustrate a deficiency in the quote I'm interested. If you're going to do this, less so.

If I point out and illustrate deficiencies in what you have said, do you honestly think you will accept it? Or will you rather not stick to what you believe to be truth - even if you are wrong?

This would be where someone who could sustain that point would illustrate it, set out what I missed and where someone who simply wanted to manufacture an appearance would declare it and then move on to the next declaration, which is what you're about to do.

Before, you missed the point of what I had said. This time you've missed what I have done - which if you didn't notice (and you didn't) was, I created a parody of your style of answering questions. By doing so I was highlighting the lack of depth that your answers generally seem to have.

The answer that you have given here - asking me to provide an example - leads me to believe that you don't read everything I say, but instead cherry-pick and choose what you read. Isn't that so?

And by the way, the story I provided was the example.

I'll take a few of them. One or two would have been sufficient I think in any event.

I provided you with one. I think one is sufficient.

All you've done is interject a colloquialism, something that isn't meant to be taken literally, into the narrative. Colloquialisms are cliches that native speakers of the language will understand easily enough.

Yes, to 'pick someone up' (that is, to flirt) is a colloquialism. But that is only one of the meanings of the clause - 'Jane picks her up'. Even without the colloquialism, it would still be ambiguous, because the reader wouldn't know whether Jane physically picked up Mary, or whether she was collected by Jane.

I noticed that you only answered two of the story's ambiguities. Why is that?

Supra. No one will expect it to literally be just around the corner and if it actually is then the response would likely be laughter of a mild sort, because the colloquial and the literal would have matched one another.

Do you not think there are many cases in the real world where bars are situated literally round the corner from airports? And besides, who says the story was based on reality?

But the point of expression is communication, either of an idea or a state.

Not necessarily. How many times have you used language in situations when you weren't even communicating to someone else? Have you never sang a song to yourself? Have you never spoken your thoughts out loud to yourself? Have you never read something to yourself, out loud? Have you never shouted at something, as a reaction to something else....e.g. shouting 'Ouch!' because you injured yourself? Have you never shouted at the tv screen because you were watching a quiz show, and you knew the answer? Et cetera, et cetera.

Rather, you imagine you have a superior one, supra. Let it never be said that I think you lack imagination.

Not superior. I just have a different way of thinking to you, as you do to me; as everyone does to each other.

He gave you a number of people trying to help you out of those knots you've tied for yourself. You're a bit like the fellow on the rooftop of his home as the water rises. People stop by and offer you assistance but you're confident that God will save you....well, He tried.

You're speaking for God now, are you? How do you know He 'gave you a number of people trying to help you out...'? Did He personally make it known to you that that was the case?

Language is how we approach objects and ideas and states. The truth resides in the thing approached and the sound or symbol that we make to represent it is likewise a reflection of truth.

Nazism was an idea (an ideaology). Therefore, by the reasoning that you seem to be using, that must mean Nazism is true.

So when I say bread and mean money the truth I approach isn't edible.

The truth you approach is what? And if you mean money, why not just say 'money'? Wouldn't that be more logical and straightforward?

I'm moved by your "hope". I've long said a relativist has himself for an enemy, for if nothing can be said to be true than the statement itself is consumed by its own logic.

You're a relativist, are you? If so, why do you hold that position - and do you not see the contradiction that follows from holding such a position?

It is true that there is a thing you want to eat. You can see it, smell it and consume it. We call that bread. There is also a thing we can spend that we will call bread.

Isn't that confusing and illogical? 'Something is this, but that something which is this is also that'. Try explaining what you have just said to someone who comes from outside of our society. Such a person would surely think it quite perplexing to see the need for calling the same thing by two different words. 'Why not just call it one word?' they might ask. And that's my question to you, why not just call it by one word?

And you can tell the difference, absent sight or smell or taste, by the context we provide.

Imagine you read a dating profile of a woman. She describes her ideal man as having alot of bread. 'I love bread. I like a man who can provide me with alot of it'. Don't you thiat it would lead to her receiving requests from men wishing to take her on a date to a bakery or to a bread factory? Don't you think the man would turn up to the date with a bread sandwich to give her - two slices of bread, with a slice of bread inbetween?