Caesar, Gurdjieff and abduction

[Turgon]

It seems to me that Gurdjieff assessed the level of being of his students as "average Joes off the street" in this passage and had a very utilitarian view of sex for them. Since they were a long way from transmutation or being able to form the richer and higher relationships that Mouravieff talks about, it seems that when you strip all of the layers away, Gurdjieff was trying to deal with their horniness by letting the machine do what it does without messy emotions getting in the way.

That might explain why G was so adamant about not seeing any sexual relations happen between his students yet have them take trips to Paris to "relieve the tension." With his view that most of mankind are sleeping machines, I wonder if he thought his students having sex with prostitutes or whoever, someone that there was no emotional attachment to, was basically a way to fulfill the biological function of the machine without certain entanglements occurring and then coming back to the Institute to engage in consciously trying to look at other members as brothers and sisters and Work on themselves, all the while that imperative is "taken care of", at least in the short term. That the issue of relationships and sex within the Institute could have impeded Gurdjieff's ideas about the direction of his students so he nipped it in the bud without going monkish, as you say.

 

[realitybugll]

UFO's really only entered into the public consciousness during the 40's, right. After we had aviation, and capable security agencies. I kind of always thought that it might be similar with abductions. I'm not saying aliens didn't interact with humans throughout history, but perhaps not in the the same way, they do today, that is associated with recall of being aboard a craft, medical instruments, the grays, and so on. The important races, that the aliens care about, they preserved their genes naturally, historically. So I don't think we have to bring aliens into the discussion to explain this habit of these two men.

Gurdjieff did think he was sabotaged -- so maybe in that way -- with his accident. But certainly, his proclivities with women, were not some accursed actions. I don't think that. There is a very good passage somewhere in which Kathryn Hulme recounts a night that Gurdjieff takes her to a brothel.

 

[shijing]

I think you're projecting our cultural values today onto another time/social conventions. There's no reason to think that any of Caesar's children did not have adequate care. I'm sure you're aware of the less than ideal upbringing many children have today under the auspices of a 'traditional family unit'.

Sure -- those seem like different questions to me though (actually being present with one's children as opposed to how one behaves when present). I don't know if Caesar's children had adequate care or not -- maybe they did, or maybe some did and others didn't. The social conventions of that time and place were certainly different than those of our shared culture today, and perhaps the societal infrastructure was set up in such a way that this kind of situation could be accommodated well; I don't have enough background to know.

From the point of view of a breeding program undertaken by such individuals, I think both G and Caesar were the opposite of 'superior stock'. A farmer wants his animals to be complacent, obedient and easily controlled.

Although possible interrelated, that seems to be more of a question of attitude and willpower than genetics. All things being equal, 4D STS would likely choose the path of least resistance, but cases like Karla Turner's make me think that this won't always be the case -- if I understand correctly, people who are harder to dominate can potentially provide more "loosh" as well. It's possible that it might be a cost/benefit gamble depending on the particular objective.

I think an answer to the abduction question would be informative either way, though. If Caesar and/or Gurdjieff had been abducted, what made them vulnerable and why were they targeted? If they weren't, what made them invulnerable or of no interest? If one was really curious, you could even ask about related personalities -- like Brutus, for example, or Cicero.

UFO's really only entered into the public consciousness during the 40's, right. After we had aviation, and capable security agencies. I kind of always thought that it might be similar with abductions. I'm not saying aliens didn't interact with humans throughout history, but perhaps not in the the same way, they do today, that is associated with recall of being aboard a craft, medical instruments, the grays, and so on. The important races, that the aliens care about, they preserved their genes naturally, historically.

Researchers like John Keel and Jacques Vallee argue that the UFO presence has always been with us, it just gets adapted to the context of the time. There are earlier accounts of things that seem similar to what we know today as UFOs and abductions -- interactions with various kinds of "little people", missing time, people disappearing and then reappearing, and so on -- so I wouldn't be surprised if some form of the abduction phenomenon was occurring before the '40s. How long it's actually been going on is anyone's guess. For example, maybe it post-dated Caesar but not Gurdjieff. And it may have gone through different stages in different parts of history, determined by the objectives of particular phases.

 

[Alada]

From the point of view of a breeding program undertaken by such individuals, I think both G and Caesar were the opposite of 'superior stock'. A farmer wants his animals to be complacent, obedient and easily controlled.

Although possible interrelated, that seems to be more of a question of attitude and willpower than genetics.

Wouldn’t the two go hand in hand though? That for a beings with certain characteristics / potentials / mission destiny profiles to incarnate and fulfill their potential, they would need to be born into genetic lines that at least gave a sporting chance of those things coming into actuality?

All things being equal, 4D STS would likely choose the path of least resistance, but cases like Karla Turner's make me think that this won't always be the case -- if I understand correctly, people who are harder to dominate can potentially provide more "loosh" as well. It's possible that it might be a cost/benefit gamble depending on the particular objective.

As Laura wrote in Stripped to the Bone, it’s not the quantity but a particular quality of "loosh" which is sought.

I think an answer to the abduction question would be informative either way, though. If Caesar and/or Gurdjieff had been abducted, what made them vulnerable and why were they targeted? If they weren't, what made them invulnerable or of no interest? If one was really curious, you could even ask about related personalities -- like Brutus, for example, or Cicero.

I think that’s heading in the direction of questions that we can answer for ourselves. If you think of the numerous times the Cs said that "Knowledge protects", and how much work and discussion has come about from that about how that can work? Then you might get a "review answers already given" reply.

Researchers like John Keel and Jacques Vallee argue that the UFO presence has always been with us, it just gets adapted to the context of the time. There are earlier accounts of things that seem similar to what we know today as UFOs and abductions -- interactions with various kinds of "little people", missing time, people disappearing and then reappearing, and so on -- so I wouldn't be surprised if some form of the abduction phenomenon was occurring before the '40s. How long it's actually been going on is anyone's guess. For example, maybe it post-dated Caesar but not Gurdjieff. And it may have gone through different stages in different parts of history, determined by the objectives of particular phases.

Maybe abductions were of little or no value at earlier points in "time"? Maybe there’s something about the quality of those living in the present "time" which is much more interesting than beaming up your average Roman or any pre 20th century whoever. If you can scoot back and forth endlessly tinkering, why bother abducting someone from 74b.c. if you can roll forward in the target’s incarnation timeline to a more profitable point? Maybe the apparent increase in abductions through recent decades are the equivalent of pulling a cake out of the oven to 'see if it’s done yet'?

 

[Joe]

Although possible interrelated, that seems to be more of a question of attitude and willpower than genetics. All things being equal, 4D STS would likely choose the path of least resistance, but cases like Karla Turner's make me think that this won't always be the case -- if I understand correctly, people who are harder to dominate can potentially provide more "loosh" as well. It's possible that it might be a cost/benefit gamble depending on the particular objective.

I think attitude and willpower are probably a function of genetics and awareness, and vice versa.

I think an answer to the abduction question would be informative either way, though. If Caesar and/or Gurdjieff had been abducted, what made them vulnerable and why were they targeted? If they weren't, what made them invulnerable or of no interest?

The Cs have said that when a certain alignment is reached, people become less 'palatable' to 'aliens'.

Q: (A) There are those who are happy in the STS mode; and there are those who are trying to get out of the STS mode...
A: STO candidate.
Q: (A) These STO candidates cannot just simply BE, even theoretically, because then, STS would eat them.
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: STS does not eat according to protocol.
Q: What does that mean?
A: What do you suppose?
Q: I have no idea!
A: STS "eats" whatever it wants to, if it is able.
Q: That's what we said. If you are STO in an STS world, you are basically defenseless and they eat you.
A: No.
Q: Why? What makes STO unavailable or 'inedible?'
A: Frequency resonance not in sync.

 

[Muxel]

We don't have a clue of the dramas going on in higher densities and each rip in the veil could be for a different reason, much like how humans do to animals.

And the question could be generalized to, do higher density beings mess with people in high positions with some measure of conscience? And even if that does happen, knowing that piece of trivia wouldn't change the human predicament much anyway. I think the number of years since our realm was taken over is 300,000?

Regarding what G did, I think there's a good example found in the Ra group. Don and Carla got romantically "involved" with each other, and then Carla and Jim carried on a romantic/sexual relationship with one another as well, and if I recall correctly it ate away at Don, and was one of the factors in his decline and subsequent suicide? Then it was bye-bye to the Ra contact, and all the while they chose not to focus on any "negativity"!

So it seems to me that G understood sexuality for what it was, and that things get messy when sex - and all it entails - is involved.

 

[mkrnhr]

Speculating here. We can assume that everyone is abducted at some points in his life. I don't see why Caesar or Gurdjieff or anybody else would be an exception if the abduction program was implemented at their time, whether for monitoring (and implementing OP vectors in their lives) or for behaviour modification. Maybe some weaknesses were amplified by these interventions, but in the end it is not 100% irresistible because there is some room for the strong willed individual to act against these programs.

 

[luke wilson]

Interesting question about abductions. I've thought about the 'getting around' thing and figured it was a part of their 'mission density profile' to seed particular genes in the pool.

I just wanted to mention that as JC and G were living their lives, it's unlikely they knew that 'getting around' was part of their mission density profile i.e. they weren't getting around and telling themselves all the while "I'm doing this because it's part of my mission profile so I need to bed as many women as I can". That's an assumption though!

The more likely answer is that they were men in positions of power/influence and as a result naturally attracted females and they did what came naturally or they were men who just had a certain kind of appetite and did what needed to be done to satiate it. This is the more likely answer as this is what usually applies when men can't keep it in their pants.. However, naturally, there could also be other reasons e.g. mission density profiles but it would be hard to know objectively!

The above is not to take anything away from what these men did in their lives.

What obyvatel said rang more true...

Higher level of knowledge and being is relative. Great men and women still have areas where their actions are not very skillful and virtuous. Even if STDs were not a big issue, the "getting around" is not justifiable from the value dimension.

So, I am not inclined to justify questionable actions of any great person. I can accept that there are areas where their actions are not praiseworthy and these are not actions I would either want to emulate myself or encourage others to emulate. That should not detract us from learning from their skillful and virtuous actions and hold them in high esteem regarding these aspects.

Another case against the notions of getting around is that as per the Cs transcripts, it ties you to physicality, it's an addictive behaviour and that lose sexual behaviour played a major part in the fall of man. It's highly unlikely that STO orientation would use such avenues to further their agenda e.g. spread genes around, knowing how dangerous it was to the participant and not only that, the influence this would have on those around them (i.e. in emulation, those they influenced might take to the behaviour and see it as moral and acceptable)... All in all, what rings true in terms of values is that promiscuity is not moral behaviour so for this reason I'm personally more inclined to think these men were 'not very skilful and virtuous' (to quote obyvatel) in this arena at least when judged against those criterias.

 

[Joe]

Interesting question about abductions. I've thought about the 'getting around' thing and figured it was a part of their 'mission density profile' to seed particular genes in the pool.

I just wanted to mention that as JC and G were living their lives, it's unlikely they knew that 'getting around' was part of their mission density profile i.e. they weren't getting around and telling themselves all the while "I'm doing this because it's part of my mission profile so I need to bed as many women as I can". That's an assumption though!

The more likely answer is that they were men in positions of power/influence and as a result naturally attracted females and they did what came naturally or they were men who just had a certain kind of appetite and did what needed to be done to satiate it. This is the more likely answer as this is what usually applies when men can't keep it in their pants.. However, naturally, there could also be other reasons e.g. mission density profiles but it would be hard to know objectively!

The above is not to take anything away from what these men did in their lives.

What obyvatel said rang more true...

Higher level of knowledge and being is relative. Great men and women still have areas where their actions are not very skillful and virtuous. Even if STDs were not a big issue, the "getting around" is not justifiable from the value dimension.

So, I am not inclined to justify questionable actions of any great person. I can accept that there are areas where their actions are not praiseworthy and these are not actions I would either want to emulate myself or encourage others to emulate. That should not detract us from learning from their skillful and virtuous actions and hold them in high esteem regarding these aspects.

Another case against the notions of getting around is that as per the Cs transcripts, it ties you to physicality, it's an addictive behaviour and that lose sexual behaviour played a major part in the fall of man. It's highly unlikely that STO orientation would use such avenues to further their agenda e.g. spread genes around, knowing how dangerous it was to the participant and not only that, the influence this would have on those around them (i.e. in emulation, those they influenced might take to the behaviour and see it as moral and acceptable)... All in all, what rings true in terms of values is that promiscuity is not moral behaviour so for this reason I'm personally more inclined to think these men were 'not very skilful and virtuous' (to quote obyvatel) in this arena at least when judged against those criterias.

I'd say no one knows consciously that they are fulfilling their "mission density profile" or how specifically to do it. The most we can probably achieve is to become aware that that is what we are (probably) doing by "doing what we will do".

I'm not sure what Obyvatel meant by "getting around is not justifiable from the value dimension", but it sounds a bit like a personal judgment.

I don't think "STO orientation" "spreads genes" in any way. According to the Cs they tend to take a very non-interventionalist approach. Instead, genes seem to be spread through the natural process that is well known, which seems to be part of the living system's inbuilt design to perpetuate itself.

 

[Laura]

That's "mission DESTINY" not "density".

Anyway, I'm not sure Caesar got around THAT much. Heck, he didn't have time! And the way he burned up energy? I doubt he was spending much on such things.

 

[Joe]

That's "mission DESTINY" not "density".

Oops, my bad. For some reason I've always read that as "density".

Anyway, I'm not sure Caesar got around THAT much. Heck, he didn't have time! And the way he burned up energy? I doubt he was spending much on such things.

He probably didn't, and any such claims are part of the highly distorted image of him that has come down to us from his detractors.

 

[obyvatel]

[quote author=Joe]
I'm not sure what Obyvatel meant by "getting around is not justifiable from the value dimension", but it sounds a bit like a personal judgment.
[/quote]

What I meant by the"not justifiable from a value dimension" is that the action violates certain moral foundations. This post expands on the concept of moral foundations from the standpoint of contemporary psychological research. There is right and wrong and the specific situation which determines which is which. In this context, from the available information, I would say that promiscuous sexual relations with multiple partners outside of a married relationship is wrong and not morally justifiable through invoking the law of three.

I do not know the historical details of Caesar's life enough to know whether he was promiscuous or not. If he was, some or most of the following may be applicable for his case too. There is more data available about Gurdjieff's life. And indications are that he did have sexual dalliances with multiple female students. If Gurdjieff was alive today and acting as he allegedly did in his lifetime, we would very likely have thrown him and his entire teaching to the garbage can in this forum. There could even be allegations of psychopathology (osit based on past observations of forum discussions). But we have not done this for Gurdjieff because in hindsight, his intuitions and teachings have a value that is not overshadowed by his dalliances.

Why do I consider Gurdjieff's alleged actions morally injustifiable? He was a teacher with a very strong magnetic personality. I could say "it is just not right". If I try to find reasons to support it, I would say that such acts violate the "sanctity" (a moral foundation) of the teacher-student relationship, even if the act is consensual. The teacher-student relationship is not a relationship of equals. There is more power on one side, which makes a relationship of this kind unbalanced at the source. There is far more chance of causing "harm" in the long term than any potential benefits (cannot think of any but assuming there is some) that can come out of it.

Besides, if Gurdjieff was married at the time, then he most likely violated the marriage vows he took. He would have betrayed and harmed his wife unless she would have known and permitted such acts. Even if she did, the grounds for justification are still shaky - would she have permitted it if she was not the "weaker" member of the relationship and dependent on Gurdjieff?

One could try to justify all the above with a "for the greater good" type argument. The counter question would be "was this the only available way to achieve whatever goal he was after? Could there not be other, more skillful ways of getting there, especially for a man of his calibre?" A teacher's job is to seed ideas to help students as well as preserve them for posterity. Gurdjieff was well aware of this and spelled it out clearly in his writings. So creating offsprings with students to ensure continuation of his work is unlikely to be a strong argument to justify sexual dalliances.

Hopefully this clarifies my stand. Yes, it is a personal judgement that is based on what I think are facts and reasons. I doubt there is a very firm ground to make any judgement which is objective enough in such matters.

 

[shijing]

Wouldn’t the two go hand in hand though? That for a beings with certain characteristics / potentials / mission destiny profiles to incarnate and fulfill their potential, they would need to be born into genetic lines that at least gave a sporting chance of those things coming into actuality?

I think attitude and willpower are probably a function of genetics and awareness, and vice versa.

That’s probably correct – and perhaps that makes the initial question that much more interesting.

As Laura wrote in Stripped to the Bone, it’s not the quantity but a particular quality of "loosh" which is sought.

The Cs have said that when a certain alignment is reached, people become less 'palatable' to 'aliens'.

Thanks to both of you for the quotes – I think they add some good context to the discussion. I think these also make the initial question more interesting. I imagine that both Caesar and Gurdjieff would have been potential sources of high-quality “loosh”. Had they reached that point when they were no longer palatable? Did they engage in some form of “mental martial arts” of the type that was ascribed to Putin? If so, learning more about that could be both interesting and valuable.

If you think of the numerous times the Cs said that "Knowledge protects", and how much work and discussion has come about from that about how that can work? Then you might get a "review answers already given" reply.

It’s possible if the answer were negative – even that would tell us something, though. Or the answer could be positive – another possible scenario could be a mixed situation where they had been involved in the abduction program until they learned to protect themselves with knowledge and by raising their FRV. We probably can figure out some of the generalities ourselves, but given the difference in cultural and historical contexts, it would be interesting to know more about that. How would they have interpreted it? It’s been speculated that Gurdjieff may have known more about this than he let on in his teachings and resorted to allegories like ‘Food for the Moon’ to describe 4D STS in an oblique way, but what about someone in Caesar’s time? We’ve generally discussed abduction on the forum from our current point-of-view – one of the interesting things about this question (to me) is that it brings together two subjects that are not normally thought of as having a connection, namely research on historical personas and the alien agenda.

Maybe abductions were of little or no value at earlier points in "time"? Maybe there’s something about the quality of those living in the present "time" which is much more interesting than beaming up your average Roman or any pre 20th century whoever. If you can scoot back and forth endlessly tinkering, why bother abducting someone from 74b.c. if you can roll forward in the target’s incarnation timeline to a more profitable point? Maybe the apparent increase in abductions through recent decades are the equivalent of pulling a cake out of the oven to 'see if it’s done yet'?

That’s entirely possible – the foremost reason I can think of that might require going back further in time would be to engage in genetic manipulation so that it would have a trickle-down effect. It’s also kind of a strange thought that some of those bodies that abductees see aboard UFOs during an abduction may not actually be from the same time period. But that’s all speculative, since we have no way to know through our own research.

Speculating here. We can assume that everyone is abducted at some points in his life. I don't see why Caesar or Gurdjieff or anybody else would be an exception if the abduction program was implemented at their time, whether for monitoring (and implementing OP vectors in their lives) or for behaviour modification.

I basically agree. And don’t forget the reproductive program and all it seems to entail – God forbid that there’s a Caesar clone in cold storage somewhere awaiting activation or downloading of some kind when the moment is right.

Anyway, I'm not sure Caesar got around THAT much. Heck, he didn't have time! And the way he burned up energy? I doubt he was spending much on such things.

He probably didn't, and any such claims are part of the highly distorted image of him that has come down to us from his detractors.

I’m sure that Caesar’s detractors would have made something of this if they could (and they probably did). I’m not personally relying on historical accounts in framing this question – just the following session excerpt:

Laura, Andromeda, Ark, PoB, Pierre, Perceval, Kniall, Chu, Data, Alana, Timotheos, Mr. Scott

Q: (Pierre) And how many descendants of Caesar are in this room? (L) Oh, that's a tricky question!

A: All of you! Caesar "got around!"

Q: [laughter] (Pierre) He sure was active!

So if you do the math, there were twelve people in the room at that time. There are two pairs of family members, so that reduces the number of individual lineages to ten. Given that the American members (including both continents) can probably all trace ancestors back to Europe, you still have a wide geographic distribution ranging from the UK to eastern Europe.

At first glance, this looks pretty impressive – not quite Genghis Khan-level, but still a pretty wide spread. It may not be an unrealistic assumption that some of these lineages have their origins in Caesar’s military adventures abroad. However, it’s important to remember that a lot of the geographic range may have been due to Caesar’s descendants and not necessarily to Caesar himself. Given a 2,000-year period, we could estimate, say, 25 generations between Caesar’s time and present day, with at least some of the migration taking place long after his death.

There is also this exchange which is probably relevant to the topic:

Q: (L) Okay. Now you mentioned in previous sessions when we asked about Jesus, and I think probably the closest clue - and this is just my take on it - to the fact that we weren't talking about Jesus of Nazareth when you said that there were three Roman women who had children with Jesus. So, were these three Roman women actually having children with Julius Caesar?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And they were like mistresses or something?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Were those the only three?

A: No, but others had no long term relationship. Also understand that "Roman" does not necessarily mean "from or in Rome" or even Italy. Many Gauls were "Roman".

Q: (L) So, are you saying that these women could have been actually Gaulish Romans? Maybe I'm making an assumption...

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Yes to my question, or yes to my assumption? [laughter]

A: Both.

The more likely answer is that they were men in positions of power/influence and as a result naturally attracted females and they did what came naturally or they were men who just had a certain kind of appetite and did what needed to be done to satiate it […] Another case against the notions of getting around is that as per the Cs transcripts, it ties you to physicality, it's an addictive behaviour and that lose sexual behaviour played a major part in the fall of man.

It does seem that if someone is going to have one vice, it’s likely to be sex. It reminds me of this exchange when Caesar was seanced:

Q: (Atriedes) Did you have any vices?

A: None that controlled me.

Note that Caesar isn’t saying he didn’t have vices – just that he wasn’t enslaved to them. If you compare this to the quote above from the same session, it may be reasonable to conclude that sex was one of his vices.

I do not know the historical details of Caesar's life enough to know whether he was promiscuous or not. If he was, some or most of the following may be applicable for his case too. There is more data available about Gurdjieff's life. And indications are that he did have sexual dalliances with multiple female students. If Gurdjieff was alive today and acting as he allegedly did in his lifetime, we would very likely have thrown him and his entire teaching to the garbage can in this forum. There could even be allegations of psychopathology (osit based on past observations of forum discussions). But we have not done this for Gurdjieff because in hindsight, his intuitions and teachings have a value that is not overshadowed by his dalliances.

There are seven children usually ascribed to Gurdjieff, each with a different mother. When I’ve searched the web on this topic, I find that most sites refer back to this article, with occasional modifications and additions. I’m deactivating it just in case since I haven’t been able to identify the author:

_http://gurdjiefffourthway.org/pdf/sexual.pdf

I’m not aware of anything in the article that’s untrue, nor does the author seem to be specifically trying to defame or discredit Gurdjieff; however, while I’m versed in some of his autobiographical material, I haven’t read it all and there may be other members who can comment more specifically on this.

It’s hard not to infer some degree of abuse of his position, given what is known about his relationships and sexual comportment. However, I think this is why it’s important to have heroes and not idols. With a hero, one can admit their shortcomings while at the same time valuing and attempting to emulate their strengths. With an idol, things are usually black-and-white, and shortcomings (real or perceived) will evoke feelings of anger and betrayal on the part of their worshipers.

 

[sitting]

Given a 2,000-year period, we could estimate, say, 25 generations between Caesar’s time and present day, ...

There are a lot more generations than 25 I think.

In any event, I believe a teacher-student relationship is sacrosanct. Any teacher violating that principle, detracts from his or her own essential character. (Whatever social climate prevailing notwithstanding.) It sullies & diminishes the value of their so called "teachings."

Carlos Castaneda was notorious in that regard. And I've come to view his material as medium grade at best. Due partly to this and other reasons.

I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Joe]

What I meant by the"not justifiable from a value dimension" is that the action violates certain moral foundations. This post expands on the concept of moral foundations from the standpoint of contemporary psychological research. There is right and wrong and the specific situation which determines which is which. In this context, from the available information, I would say that promiscuous sexual relations with multiple partners outside of a married relationship is wrong and not morally justifiable through invoking the law of three.

I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that from a law of three perspective, which includes a detailed understanding of the specific context and 'life and times' (before and after) of the person in question, that our standards of 'morality' are not even relevant, except in terms of our own personal beliefs and attitudes, which again aren't really relevant.

I'm reminded of JFK and the similar allegations made against him. In the context of the life and work and likely nature and influence on so many others of these people, focusing on their sexual activities and applying our own moral finger-waging to those activities, seems a lot like nitpicking.

From what the Cs have said about the genetic spread of Caesar for example, I'm inferring that he was motivated to father the children he did to spread his particular genetic profile, that he was not consciously aware of this (the same might be said of the women involved) and that this had a net positive effect on humanity. Might be a good question for the next session.