Relative and Absolute Self-Esteem: Removing The Jerry Springer Effect

All lives are trade-offs of each other; no one life is any better then any other: no one has it all.

Scandals, gossip, drama, and the like. For many people, stories and events having such themes make up a huge portion of their entertainment diet. They watch with vicarious excitement at the next outrageous issue or dilemma troubling some person or group. This kind of humor at others problems is similar to the comedy of slapstick. Its obvious that people find amusement in the problems of others when they are at a safe distance from those troubles. The question then emerges: why do people like to see the misery of others, preferably, from a (spacial and mental) distance? Although there may be other explanations, I believe this is because people use others problems as ways of either justifying their own issues or to provide themselves a relative frame work where there own problems fit into a context where they perceive their troubles as “not that bad” in the light of those “worse” problems. Because of this, people in our society build their self-esteem on the backs of others. I suggest another way of creating self value which does not rely on marginalizing others and creating a sense of superiority over them.

The building of self-esteem on top of the perceived troubles of others can be named. I prefer to call it: The Jerry Springer Effect (JSE). This is based on the talk show with the same name. The talk show serves as a prime example of this way to prop-up self-esteem. The show's main premise is to host guests who's problems are deem outrageous by the status quo. This includes things like: finding out your significant other was born the opposite sex they appear to be now, or that ones spouse was cheating on them with their parent, or that a family member is a prostitute and proud of it. These extremely taboo and uncommon (we hope) issues are they key to why the show has been one of the longest running on TV. For most people watching, the problems of the shows guests are so far removed from their daily lives, it gives them more then sufficient psychological and personal distance from the guest's troubles. Because of this, people use this show to frame their own problems. They may say to themselves in the back of their mind: “John not washing the dishes is annoying, but at least he's not sleeping with my mother.” The shows overly shocking guests give most a reason to see their troubles as not so bad, thereby raising their self-esteem. In a sense, they proper their self-worth on the backs of the show's guests.  

Although there are many ways of increasing self-esteem, many find it hard to do so in an ethical way. It may seem that one can only prop themselves on the backs of others to elevate their sense of self. Some may argue that gaining self-esteem can only be done at the expense of others, like a kind of social food chain or hierarchy. This point fails to acknowledge that there are two basic ways of gaining self-esteem: absolute and relative. The argument that self-esteem comes at the expense of others fits into the absolute category. Absolute refers to the idea that there is an objective measure to which everyone can compare their situation. Self-esteem becomes dependent upon ones opinion or perception regarding their place on that objective scale. The people they perceive to be below them on the scale represent the base on which one props their self worth on. One looks at those below them with a range of emotions from pity to contempt. While they look at those higher then them with feelings like envy or admiration. On the other hand, relative self-esteem acknowledges that all people are on a level playing field when it comes to self worth. None are more valued then others; there is no social ladder or objective scale to adhere too. Rather, people see each other as equal by virtue of the fact no one can have it all. That is, although from a distance another self-esteem or life-condition may seem desirable and superior, but the law of habituation ensures that all lusts lose their shine, and all novelty becomes habit. In other words, people get used to what they have, turning it into the mundane banality of day to day life. Because of this, a relative self-esteem sees all self-worth and life-conditions as trade offs of each other; each one has something positive and negative about it, thereby neutralizing it and evening all of them out. Its plain to see how relative self-esteem is the more ethical choice, but are the various self-esteems really even?

It can be hard to imagine how the life of a CEO at a fortune 500 company can be a trade off of the life of a homeless person. Its obvious that the CEO has a lot more money and is thereby able to get the necessities and wants of life which are denied to the homeless person. The poverty of the homeless person seems to stand as an obstacle between them and any kind of happiness and security. Although this may be a common view, its a facile one. Consider the case of a self made millionaire who after gaining his fortune, returns six months out of the year to the life he had before his riches: that of a hobo. He leaves his big house, prestigious job, and lovely wife, to live a life “off the grid” as he calls it. For him and perhaps many others, there are perks to living a homeless life free from stagnate commitments and responsibilities. He talks with great fondness about the feeling of watching the stars from a freight train car, or feeling excitement about what the next day brought. I would like to make note that although all lives may be trade off of each others, it does not necessarily justify keeping people in positions of poverty or oppression. What a trade off signifies is that although one understands that all lives have their good and bad sides to them, it does not mean that one’s life-condition or self-esteem must stay in the same place. Counter-intuitively, there may be good sides to poverty like a lack of boredom or an absence of existential nihilism; but it does not mean a poor person would want to stay poor. Part of the possible good sides of being poor may be the hope of a better tomorrow, which colors their present moment with a positive/optimistic mood. Appearances are deceiving by leaving out most of the story. We let our superficial assumptions hinder a complete view of these “undesirable” kinds of lives.

To clarify this a bit further, consider a hypothetical scenario involving a real world person. In the MTV reality show Rob & Big a commercially successful skateboarder (Rob) and his bodyguard (Big) perform various outrageous activities, usually at the command of Rob. For rob, everything is paid for, from his house utilities to his clothing are all provided for him by his skating sponsors. Many see this as an ideal life. One does what they love, gets attention and fame for it, and lives free from bills and others adult responsibilities. The show itself perhaps attracts most of its viewers because of a kind of celebrity voyeurism. Although some see this as the perfect life, its worth mentioning some drawbacks that would make this life unbearable for the person as any poverty condition, notwithstanding whether the distress is physical/external or mental/internal. Its well known that skateboarding can lead to various moderate and serious injuries. But a deeper, maybe more agonizing pain, would be the fact he needs to stay within the contracts issued to him by his sponsors. If for example he hears or sees a skateboard which is much better then any he has access to now, but is patented by another company, it would defiantly become a problem for him. Another possible issue facing Rob would be the lost of interest in his sponsored activity. If for any reason he feels he does not want to skateboard anymore or finds that he hates it, he would be forced to continue, or face losing the ideal life so many cherish as their dream. Its clear how although at fist glance a life may seem more valuable or have better self-esteem then another, with a closer look, the negatives come out, ultimately evening out all lives because of this balance between positive and negative aspects; no one has it all.

Its important to addresses the issue of people, for some reason or another, who have rob, are violent, commit theft, are con artists, etc. Some would ask how a life which is devoid of these kinds of negative behaviors be equal to a life filled with those kinds of habits. The answer is simple: relative self-esteem is subjective, in that the good and bad aspects are defined by the persons own feelings and thoughts. The good and bad aspects of live are not measured from outside. Because of this, a person who lives a life of theft may have the negative of being a few steps from prison, but may also have the positive of lots of quick money and the excitement of a big heist. The aspects are subjective. This is important for self-esteem because it does not allow one to use the absolute style by propping their self-worth on top of those they perceive to be bad or evil people. A relative self-esteem acknowledges that although actions may be hurtful to others, those committing them are ultimately equal because all people are products of forces they themselves are not in much control of, if at all. Again, a relative self-esteem does not mean to allow negative behaviors, thereby allowing people to be arrested. The point is that one does not build their self-esteem or worth on others who they perceive to be worse then themselves.

How does one derive their self-esteem, if not by relation to others perceived either better or worse then oneself? It seems second nature to feel good about not being this person, or trying to become that person. But what is lost is a focus on the self and its own abilities. That is, when one has an absolute sense of self-esteem, they spend their time in a kind of fantasy running away or toward imagined ideals or icons of others. No attention is given to the good and bad aspects of one's self. With a relative self-esteem one understands that their good and bad aspects are like light and dark aspects. When it comes to self worth or value, if one focuses on themselves, rather then on others, they can become more familiar with these two aspects of themselves, altering them in turn. Focusing on one's light or good side for example can lead to thought over what one sees good in themselves. This helps to have the person develop these good qualities, expanding and enriching them. The same can be said about the negative aspects but in reverse. The person can help themselves to lesson the bad aspects and help either accept and integrate them, or replace them with better aspects. Its with a relative self-esteem that one can help to progress their self-development through focusing on their good and bad qualities, rather then the qualities of others. In short, absolute self-esteem encourages stagnation and stratification because one feels in a perceptual middle between the better and the worse, and one perceives others in different levels on a hierarchy of good and bad. While a relative self-esteem encourages production and growth because the individual, in focusing on their own qualities, is able to fix or expand on them.

Like many things in recent human history and society, there has been a change in how we relate the multiplicity of things in the world, including each other; we have gone from a absolute to a relative understanding of the world. For example, culture used to be thought of in the in an absolute sense where all cultures fell on an hierarchy with western civilization on top being the most advanced. Today a relative understand is favored, with the difference that all cultures are seen as equal and unique in of themselves. Another instance of moving from relative to absolute is evolution. People used to talk of humans or other animals as higher or better then others, but now most researches are stern to point out that there is not vertical ladder of better and worse in nature, its all equal. Perhaps the most personal case of this change in understanding is with morality. Most people in our society today believe that people are entitled to their own morals. They wouldn't consider that their morals are inherently any better then others, maybe just suited better for them because of their familiarity to it. But more traditional societies understood morals to be absolute and would use the law to enforce moral codes on people. Granted today’s laws are kinds of morals, but they are much broader and allow more freedom then anything that has existed before. Therefore, the change from an absolute to a relative self-esteem is not alone in that process; many aspects of our society and understanding of the world and each other have also undergone the same absolute/relative change.

A common habit of ours is to build our self-esteem in an absolute way. We prop ours on the backs of others, deriving our self-worth and mood from our difference, whether better or worse, to others. This way is not conducive to a society where people learn to respect each others differences and see one another as equal. Rather it fosters a society which keeps people in a vertical line caught between the ideal and the undesirable, causing them to see each other as different and more antagonized by their differences and shortcomings. A relative self-esteem can fix this by helping people grow through self-development and cultivate a sense of unity in diversity by virtue of everyone not only being equal but unique as well.

My religion: gnosticism with a small g

gnostic with a small g

My religion is gnosticism, which makes me a gnostic.

Its main notion is gnosis

This term means, that which pertains to knowledge.

Gnostics believe that everyone is striving towards gnosis, which makes up all the motivations and goal directions of their behavior. But what signifies a gnostic as distinct from other is their awareness of and drive to immersion and acceptance in striving toward their gnosis. All gnostics believe in the liberty to choose ones own gnosis and to respect other people’s gnosis, not interfering with them. Gnosis can be liken to one's personal meta-narrative or overall story of life.

What does it mean to strive toward gnosis? It means taking all the loose facts and ambiguous judgments about life and connecting them into a coherent, personal, and unique picture, meta-narrative, or story, we call gnosis. This picture serves as a motivator toward a specific pattern of behavior that is perpetual. This is the striving aspect of gnosis; that is, a striving toward the meaningful and holistic picture of existence that we created. We are driven to become a reflection of our unique meaning, which we strive to continuously create in the world.

A quick definition of religion has nothing to do with the supernatural, and much to do with one’s attitude toward life: mainly one’s purpose and motivation. In this sense we are all religious. And our religion is the total of our purposes and motivations, our approach and attitudes toward life, weather we are aware of it or not. Everyone is a religious person in that respect. With that said, all religions whether organized or not have three parts: doctrine, ethics, and ritual. Now as this is cleared up we can move on.

The doctrine of gnosticism can be summed up with the term gnosis and our relation to it. gnostics believe that everyone including themselves are searching for gnosis in life. This is the whole aim of our existence and nothing more or less. Gnosis means knowledge. So we are all looking for knowledge. But what is knowledge? On the face of it, knowledge is understood to deal with blunt facts. But the actual definition is much broader then most think. To define it easily, knowledge can be broken up into two kinds: procedural and declarative. The former is knowledge of how to do something, while the latter is knowledge of something. So you have a procedural knowledge of how to ride a bike, and a declarative knowledge of what the capital of franc is. This way, knowledge becomes much broader then how most understand the term to mean. In this sense, knowledge becomes includes all human activates.

There are many kinds of knowledge that people strive to know or learn. The gnostic sees everyone’s actions as striving for a particular knowledge state. A knowledge state is state of mind either immediate or imagined, which brings some kind of closure to the person, while allowing for a furthering of progress in their behavior toward that closure. The knowledge state could be like a carrot at the end of a stick which drives us but ultimately is unreachable because of its very nature to motivate us. A simple analogy to illustrate this idea would have the closure as the purpose and the striving toward the purpose as the motivation. Therefore, we are motivated toward our purpose. It’s important to note that the person may or may not be aware of these motivations and purposes. Nevertheless, their behavior is geared in such a fashion because if it was not, there would be no other force propelling them to be any different from any other animal. Therefore, all people are all determined to reach a certain knowledge state called gnosis which brings motivation and purpose, tying up the all the facts, to life.

When it comes to ethics, gnostics understand liberty, self-awareness of one’s short comings and a full acceptance/complete immersion into their striving toward gnosis to be the three highest moral virtues. They believe understanding one’s limitations and personal/social biases helps one become more sensitive to the word and others, in turn increasing empathy and allowing for consideration of multiple perspectives. It is only through knowing our own limitations that we can become humble toward existence and find a place in it by following one’s own gnosis. Free will is thought by gnostics to be the state of mind in which one is fully aware of their own bias and limitations of their perceptions and understanding of the world. This helps one control the problem of ambiguity in life’s situations by allowing for it and finding within it one’s own unique of expression of it; this helps one in their striving for gnosis. The only constraint on social behavior is to respect others liberty to chose and pursue their gnosis, without the threat of one interfering with another’s endeavor. The gnostic also believes that the awareness of ones humility and ultimate ignorance helps deter negative behavior toward others, not with punishment, but with an awareness that can not only, perceive the world, but feel for it. The sense of ecology grows with this kind of self-awareness; one becomes integrated with the grander scheme of things by balancing the smallness of their perspective and understanding, with the grandness of their own personal striving toward gnosis. The personal striving aspect toward gnosis also helps in one’s behavior toward others by focusing on their own understanding of knowledge of the world, which puts their priorities in building and giving to the world, rather then taking from and destroying things in the world.

The ultimate ethical goal of a gnostic which separates them from others who are not gnostics, but nevertheless follow their gnosis, is to reach a mental state of acceptance and immersion into their striving toward gnosis. Acceptance means to want to follow the gnosis one has without any doubt that this is one’s own proper gnosis. This means not performing ones gnosis halfheartedly or with a divided attention filled with distractions. Immersion refers to fully engaging one’s self into the activity of striving toward gnosis. This means that one’s mind becomes lost in the experience, so as to feel a sense of “flow” or what some call “being in the zone”. This state of mind is very healthy and shows the pinnacle of a successful activity. This sate of mind allows a fuller and richer emotional experience of happiness because one’s sense of purpose is complete and accomplished.

As for ritual, gnostics simply follow or discover their gnosis and strive for it. This aspect is related to the ethics described above, but with the difference that ritual is focused more on personal transformation/striving, then on moral imperative or duty. That is, this aspect regards the individual’s own striving for gnosis, and not how the individual relates to others. The ritual one performs as a gnostic is to pursue their gnostic endeavor at all times. One is responsible for creating and applying meaning to their daily activities which directly reflect their striving for gnosis. This means that whatever gnosis one strives for, they need to make sure each activity they perform is related toward the gnosis. Nothing should be done that is not a part of their striving, no matter how trivial it may seem. Failure to do this can bring distractions which make one lessen their concentration on gnosis. Therefore, although the only ritual to be performed is one simply stated and broad, it required constant diligent engagement, so as to not falter in their concentration and striving.  

A gnostic fantasy of the ideal world would be one in where all people strive for gnosis in two basic ways: technology/science and  artistic/expressive endeavors. This would be a world where people would strive toward discovering the world through observation and experiment, or to use that knowledge to create new technology. Another group of people would peruse gnosis related to artistic expression. These areas also mix and overlap, creating many people who purse gnosis which blends aspects of the before mentioned endeavors. An example of an individual’s gnosis may be their will toward finding new ways of bettering or performing a particular sport. Another example may be a person’s love and wish to understand the biology of a living cell. One’s gnosis can be broad to include several activates. Take for instance the person who loves a particular sport, they may perform many different actives related to that specific sport or group of sports. One may pursue to learn the art and technicality of cinema; learning both how to use their intuition to create, as well as the mechanics of the cinematic process. Whether or not the ideal world is reached, it does not and should not infringe on a persons ability to follow their gnosis. The personal ideal always trumps the collective ideal. This prevents gnostics from ushering other to be like them.

There are countless possibilities for gnosis; all that is required is that the individual is fully immersed and accepting of their particular gnosis. The process of discovering one’s gnosis is simply a course of trial and error. It involves learning from others and trying out different activates or pursuits. This is all done by experiment: trying out different actives until the right one is found. This would take place in childhood and would be the equivalent of schooling. After discovering what the individual is right for, they pursue the activity as their occupation. With regard to changing gnosis, the beauty of finding the right gnosis is that with the proper understanding, they can apply their current gnosis and connect it toward a new activity, whilst reaming within the theme or category of the original gnosis. This is achieved through one’s creativity and the fact that all knowledge is connected and contingent on each other, although we may not be aware of this fact overtly. The possibilities for and endless array of gnosisi unsurprising considering that gnosis encompasses all human activities and behavior.    

An important note should be made addressing the word/term gnosticism itself. It is already used in the religious world. It is the name of the oldest Christian sect. gnosticism with a small g is not directly related in any way to Christianity. Rather, the choice of the term gnosticism is the definition of the word itself, meaning knowledge. gnosticism is always written with a small g to empathize this separation. The strict use of the small g also signifies humility by not giving the name the importance of a capital letter so as to not let the word become an icon, shadowing the practice of striving toward gnosis itself. This is meant to help people not to confuse worshiping the idea of gnosticism rather then fully immersing and accepting their own gnostic endeavors and pursuits.  

The purpose of human existence, to a gnostic, is the ongoing learning and application of knowledge toward their gnosis. It’s easy to see how the human being unlike any other animal is capable of not only transmitting genetic information, but cultural information and memes as well. This capability far removes us from the realm of pure animal, and stretches out our identity between some kind of biological creature and a tool or piece of artificial technology. The gnostic sees this drive to transmit cultural information as the process of striving for gnosis itself. Everyone is involved in the transmitting of culture, whether conscious of it or not. One of the main benefits of a gnostic awareness and lifestyle is that one becomes aware of their role as a transmitter of cultural information, and in turn become more considerate of it, careful not to cause negativity. To the gnostic, humans are the part of the universe which is reflected back upon it, so as to make the universe appear to itself. Questions of the nature of nature, and whether there is anything beyond it, are open to speculation and debate for gnostics. But our role in the universe and nature is very clear, striving toward gnosis through transmitting cultural information to oneself and others.

This concludes a brief overview of the dynamics of this new religious position, gnosticism and their followers, gnostics. Although the topic has not been exhausted in this essay, it has been/will be fleshed out in older/new essays.

We are predators

We are tireless predators

Our greatest prey is each other

This is why as a species we have conquered the planet, literally bringing it to the edge of catastrophe.

We, unlike any other life form, can shape our environment with our imaginations.

A piece of pop culture which is a perfect illustration of our predatory nature towards each other is the zombie killing spree meme.

Here we have a human devoid of personality
But it is a human one can kill without a second thought

This image fills the void where the enemy of a culture once stood, in the traditional societies.

But today’s global cosmopolitan society cannot tolerate to have another peoples fill that void

So we substitute peoples with mindless zombies as the enemy of a culture and society. Requiring and ultimately enjoying their slaughter.  

We are an invasive species. We hunt too well.

Whole hole

An Incomplete wholeness.

Our missing pieces are anchors through time,
Tying us to the yet to be.

Moving forward means leaving a piece of us to chance.
Where we cannot come close to it in time, feeling, or certainty.

Progress requires an empty space,
A hole,
Where the gasses of anticipation and anxiety settle.

The need to see forward,
Takes a piece of us
And throws it in front of our eyes and out of our reach.

Striving perpetually in forward motion.
Treading threads of hopes and fears,
Hoping to bring the space between you and it to a close.

This incomplete self stretched out through time feels fragmented,
Yet unaware of its true wholeness.  

Masked by the pains of running the game of progression,
A true nature remains veiled to ensure the proper pace is kept.
We march to this beat for the sake of itself.

A wholeness unseen.
A wholeness unfelt.
Nevertheless, a true wholeness.

A w-HOLE-ness incomplete.

You don’t need psychedelics for…?

What are unique about the subjective effects psychedelic drugs?

Some people say they these effects or states of mind can be reached without the use of them. They point to techniques like meditation, fasting, sensory deprivation, pain ordeal, and others as being sufficient.

I ask, what exactly is being reached in these states for us to say that the drug’s effects aren’t unique? I like to think that these drugs have unique effects which cannot be achieved otherwise. The most obvious unique effect is the sensory distortion. I can’t think of any other state of mind which processes sense data in the same way. Another unique effect is the way one handles thought. The mental chatter and imagery we normally experience is altered in a way that none of the claimed “substitutes” can achieve. An additional unique effect is the reliability of repeating the experience with different people. The other techniques may or may not produce any effect; but with the psychedelic, one is guaranteed of having an effect be felt. It’s clear how psychedelics should be understood to be in their own class of effects because of the intensity and repeatability of the experience compared to the alternative given.  

All of the previous mentioned techniques do alter consciousness in general, but they are usually in much less of a degree. For example, a person attempting sleep deprivation may see very mild sensory alteration like colors or halos of light after a few days. But a person who has dosed some LSD will not only see extra or heightened colors, but geometric shapes, lattices, patterning, breathing textures, flowing grains, magnified details, etc. Or consider a meditator who experiences a change in the way they understand person identity. After a while they reach a state of mind where he or she feels to have lost their sense of self against a backdrop of pure emptiness or void. An individual who has taken some psilocybin mushrooms may also feel like their sense of self has dissolved into the world, merging with it; but they are able to be awake and interact with the world, thereby adding much more to the experience by not being tether to the same mediation position. Without a doubt, the alternatives offered do not come close to match the immediacy of the effects of psychedelic compounds, because that sense of urgency is not common to them.  

These intensified effects do have their price. Psychedelic drugs are notorious for being very mentally abrasive, with negative effects leaving an imprint long after the metabolism of the drug has finished. However, the opposite scenario is also true: a person may experience long lasting positive effects. Another drawback to their use is the fact the effects are temporary, with only pieces remaining to help foster insight. In much the same way like everything else, psychedelics do have their less then helpful features.  

Saying these drugs effects are unique does not give them a flawless potential for use. They have problems like anything else, but they are also unique in their own right. So when it comes to psychedelics, things like meditation, fasting or sensory deprivation may seem like substitutes, but they are not. The effects may overlap, but it must be treated in its own class distinct from other non drug ways of altering consciousness.

Why I listen to noise music

It’s the postmodern era

All our feelings are fake
They are Social constructions which perpetuate themselves though our behaviors and feelings
They’re the selfish memes: creators of normality

Noise
Noise is not music
Music is this
Not that

Acquired tastes, what’s with that?
Darwin, how do olives, beer, Noon Chai and weird art fit in your scheme?

We are controlled, this is music
Not that

Social engineers behind the curtain dictate
Made of memes devoid of personhood

I listen to noise
It sounds like music to me

The normative bias assures us what the signal to noise ratio should be
This makes us programmed
Popular culture: the cul-de-sac of creativity

I know you cant market this
And for that…..


I know my feelings are real
I know they are unique
I know They are not a product of your creation
Of your propagation

They are real, not your fabrication

My tastes are independent of the market machine
This is what I discover in noise music

This is why I listen to noise music
Noise Music
Thank you for validating my taste by showing me its not tethered to market economics
To the social engineers, to the machine

Confessions of a Drug Enthusiast: Picturing a Recreational Pharmacology Industry (BETA)

This is the introduction to an essay I have in the works. I'm putting it up because I feel it efficiently summarizes my main points for the subject, although each point isn't fleshed out or exhausted to a degree which I would think decent for an actual persuasive essay.



Confessions of a Drug Enthusiast: Picturing a Recreational Pharmacology Industry

Some wise fool said once that life is all sensation. Seeing that we are humans with the capability to consciously alter our experiences and in turn our life, it would be natural or inevitable for us to develop ways of altering, optimizing, or enhancing our sensations. Not surprisingly, much of human behavior aside from basic survival (which most people in this society don’t worry about) deals with this endeavor. Some may see it as reducing boredom or making a moment more interesting. Unfortunately, with the numerous ways of altering our sensations/perceptions, some happen to be against the law; these are the illegal drugs, for which all nations around the world (in some form) are waging a war on their own populations. These wars a fought in the vein of stopping a perceived threat to humanity as a whole: drug abuse. I’d like to show how this kind of reasoning, making drugs illegal because of the possibility of abuse, would be like making sex illegal because of the possibility of disease, or food illegal because of diabetes/obesity; it is impractical and immoral in a society based on individual civil liberties. Moreover, I’d like to show how in a drug tolerant society, a recreational pharmacological industry could be established and integrated into the economic system as a whole, ultimately benefiting society by allowing for the research of these substances for their most effective uses.