Absolut Relativism

[From Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1315)]

In honor of the election of the new Pope, I suggest that we discuss the
notion of moral relativism, an idea to which, I hear, the new Pope is
implacably opposed. I think the Pope believes that there are moral
absolutes, in the sense that there are rules that always apply; they are not
context dependent. So, for example, the rule "do not use birth control" is
true no matter what -- overpopulation, AIDS, danger to the mother, etc.

I think the idea that some rules always apply, no matter what -- the idea of
moral absolutism -- is similar to the idea of what might be called "rational
absolutism" -- the idea articulated in Alan Randall's essay
(http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Phenomenology/). In his essay, Randall
argues that the perception of the truth of a logical proposition, like 2 + 2
= 4 is more certain or real than the perception of, say, the existence of a
ball. In his review, Bill Powers (2005.04.17.0805 MDT) notes that the essay
is a good example of "what happens when one lives too exclusively within any
one level of perception and control", in this case, the level of logic and
reasoning. When one views the world only from a particular perceptual
perspective, one becomes (in Bill's words) "subject to [its] restrictions ..
without any critical judgments from a higher level...". In Randall's case,
the restrictions are those of logic and reasoning. Those restrictions make
it impossible for him to perceive anything other than the fact that 2 + 2 =
4 is absolutely true. What he can't see from that level is "that under
different premises and in different contexts, 181 + 181 = 2 (degrees modulo
360)".

I think that a similar "one level" approach to experiencing reality may be
the basis of the belief in "absolute morality". People who experience the
world mainly in terms of rules (which is also at the level of logic and
reasoning) would tend to see such rules as absolutely true, just as Randall
saw 2 + 2 = 4 as absolutely true.

Another possibility, however, is that belief in moral relativism is simply
part of one's desire to force other people to follow certain rules. These is
some evidence for this explanation in the new Pope's own writings, some of
which were printed in the LA Times today. Here's what I think is a
particularly telling passage:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the
application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not
for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy
Communion. While the church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war,
and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it
may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have
recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion
even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not,
however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

This is part of the text of a memorandum sent by then Cardinal Ratzinger to
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington last year. Here, I think,
Ratzinger is saying that some rules (the one's concerning war and capital
punishment) are less absolute than others (the one's concerning abortion and
euthanasia). So, while Ratzinger may deplore relativism, he's clearly not
above being relativistic. My guess is that the rules he considers absolute
-- the one's about abortion and euthanasia -- are the one's he wants others
to follow; the rules he considers relativistic -- the one's about war and
capital punishment -- are the ones that he's more permissive about.

I think both of these explanations of the belief in moral absolutism -- a
one level approach to experiencing reality and a desire to make other people
behave as we think they should behave, ie. A desire to control them -- may
be involved in moral relativism to different degrees in different people. I
think the "one level" explanation applies to many of the lay people
interested in having the 10 commandments posted all over our public
buildings. I think the "behavior control" explanation applies to many of the
religious leaders who are railing against the relativism and secularism in
society.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Mike Acree (2005.04.20.1320 PDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1315)--

I was expecting a vodka ad and found a philosophical essay.

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0420.1638)]

Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1315)

In honor of the election of the new Pope, I suggest that we discuss the
notion of moral relativism, an idea to which, I hear, the new Pope is
implacably opposed.

I agree with your analysis. I myself follow Hillel, "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow; this is the whole law; everything else is commentary."

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

[From Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1350)]

Mike Acree (2005.04.20.1320 PDT)--

Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1315)--

I was expecting a vodka ad and found a philosophical essay.

     Well,
    I was
    going
    to try
  to write it
  in the form
  of a vodka
  bottle but
  that, it
  turns out,
  is quite a
  difficult,
  task as,you
  can see. Per
  haps Best,

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Mike Acree (2005.04.20.1400 PDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1350)--

   Well,
  I was
  going
  to try
to write it
in the form
of a vodka
bottle but
that, it
turns out,
is quite a
difficult,
task as,you
can see. Per
haps Best,

Very cute!

The essay also made some good points, by the way. And Hitler's birthday
is perhaps an apt time to be making them.

Mike

[From Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1430)]

Mike Acree (2005.04.20.1400 PDT)]

Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1350)--

   Well,
  I was
  going
  to try
to write it
in the form
of a vodka
bottle but
that, it
turns out,
is quite a
difficult,
task as,you
can see. Per
haps Best,

Very cute!

The essay also made some good points, by the way. And Hitler's birthday
is perhaps an apt time to be making them.

Wow. Shakespeare's birthday is assumed to be April 23. What a difference
three days makes.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.04.22.1255CDT]

···

From: Richard Marken <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:15 pm
Subject: Absolut Relativism

Nice call on that issue of moral absolutism--behind it the desire to
have others do what one wants them to. I hadn't thought about the new
Pope's relativism in terms of control levels.

On another note: I'm finally recovering pretty well from the
complications with my pacemaker implantation.

Best,

Dick R.

[From Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1315)]

In honor of the election of the new Pope, I suggest that we discuss
thenotion of moral relativism, an idea to which, I hear, the new
Pope is
implacably opposed. I think the Pope believes that there are moral
absolutes, in the sense that there are rules that always apply;
they are not
context dependent. So, for example, the rule "do not use birth
control" is
true no matter what -- overpopulation, AIDS, danger to the mother,
etc.
I think the idea that some rules always apply, no matter what --
the idea of
moral absolutism -- is similar to the idea of what might be called
"rationalabsolutism" -- the idea articulated in Alan Randall's essay
(http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Phenomenology/). In his essay,
Randallargues that the perception of the truth of a logical
proposition, like 2 + 2
= 4 is more certain or real than the perception of, say, the
existence of a
ball. In his review, Bill Powers (2005.04.17.0805 MDT) notes that
the essay
is a good example of "what happens when one lives too exclusively
within any
one level of perception and control", in this case, the level of
logic and
reasoning. When one views the world only from a particular perceptual
perspective, one becomes (in Bill's words) "subject to [its]
restrictions ..
without any critical judgments from a higher level...". In
Randall's case,
the restrictions are those of logic and reasoning. Those
restrictions make
it impossible for him to perceive anything other than the fact that
2 + 2 =
4 is absolutely true. What he can't see from that level is "that under
different premises and in different contexts, 181 + 181 = 2
(degrees modulo
360)".

I think that a similar "one level" approach to experiencing reality
may be
the basis of the belief in "absolute morality". People who
experience the
world mainly in terms of rules (which is also at the level of logic
andreasoning) would tend to see such rules as absolutely true, just
as Randall
saw 2 + 2 = 4 as absolutely true.

Another possibility, however, is that belief in moral relativism is
simplypart of one's desire to force other people to follow certain
rules. These is
some evidence for this explanation in the new Pope's own writings,
some of
which were printed in the LA Times today. Here's what I think is a
particularly telling passage:

> Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and
euthanasia.> For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the
Holy Father on the
> application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war,
he would not
> for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to
receive Holy
> Communion. While the church exhorts civil authorities to seek
peace, not war,
> and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on
criminals, it
> may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or
to have
> recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate
diversity of opinion
> even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death
penalty, but not,
> however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

This is part of the text of a memorandum sent by then Cardinal
Ratzinger to
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington last year. Here, I think,
Ratzinger is saying that some rules (the one's concerning war and
capitalpunishment) are less absolute than others (the one's
concerning abortion and
euthanasia). So, while Ratzinger may deplore relativism, he's
clearly not
above being relativistic. My guess is that the rules he considers
absolute-- the one's about abortion and euthanasia -- are the one's
he wants others
to follow; the rules he considers relativistic -- the one's about
war and
capital punishment -- are the ones that he's more permissive about.

I think both of these explanations of the belief in moral
absolutism -- a
one level approach to experiencing reality and a desire to make
other people
behave as we think they should behave, ie. A desire to control them
-- may
be involved in moral relativism to different degrees in different
people. I
think the "one level" explanation applies to many of the lay people
interested in having the 10 commandments posted all over our public
buildings. I think the "behavior control" explanation applies to
many of the
religious leaders who are railing against the relativism and
secularism in
society.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
andmay contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copiesof the original message.

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.04.21. 14.55 CST)]

<On another note: I'm finally recovering pretty well from the
complications with my pacemaker implantation.>

Good...I'm glad to hear it.

I found an interesting book that seems to be psycho-spiritual in nature, not
too weird though, and it involves a series of questions--four main
ones--it's called The Work (the process developed by Byron Katie). It
reminds me of a method for going up a level when you are trapped in some
thinking pattern and suffering. Have you seen it? The book is called "Loving
What Is." There is a website too called www.thework.org

I think it is technical and organized enough to be of interest to a
scientific minded person vs. the granola style writings I come across--which
are OK to me in their own way.

I may post it...I am studying it still and comparing to PCT.

Here's to your health! Jason

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Robertson Richard [mailto:R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:00 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Absolut Relativism

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.04.22.1255CDT]

From: Richard Marken <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:15 pm
Subject: Absolut Relativism

Nice call on that issue of moral absolutism--behind it the desire to
have others do what one wants them to. I hadn't thought about the new
Pope's relativism in terms of control levels.

On another note: I'm finally recovering pretty well from the
complications with my pacemaker implantation.

Best,

Dick R.

[From Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1315)]

In honor of the election of the new Pope, I suggest that we discuss
thenotion of moral relativism, an idea to which, I hear, the new
Pope is
implacably opposed. I think the Pope believes that there are moral
absolutes, in the sense that there are rules that always apply;
they are not
context dependent. So, for example, the rule "do not use birth
control" is
true no matter what -- overpopulation, AIDS, danger to the mother,
etc.
I think the idea that some rules always apply, no matter what --
the idea of
moral absolutism -- is similar to the idea of what might be called
"rationalabsolutism" -- the idea articulated in Alan Randall's essay
(http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Phenomenology/). In his essay,
Randallargues that the perception of the truth of a logical
proposition, like 2 + 2
= 4 is more certain or real than the perception of, say, the
existence of a
ball. In his review, Bill Powers (2005.04.17.0805 MDT) notes that
the essay
is a good example of "what happens when one lives too exclusively
within any
one level of perception and control", in this case, the level of
logic and
reasoning. When one views the world only from a particular perceptual
perspective, one becomes (in Bill's words) "subject to [its]
restrictions ..
without any critical judgments from a higher level...". In
Randall's case,
the restrictions are those of logic and reasoning. Those
restrictions make
it impossible for him to perceive anything other than the fact that
2 + 2 =
4 is absolutely true. What he can't see from that level is "that under
different premises and in different contexts, 181 + 181 = 2
(degrees modulo
360)".

I think that a similar "one level" approach to experiencing reality
may be
the basis of the belief in "absolute morality". People who
experience the
world mainly in terms of rules (which is also at the level of logic
andreasoning) would tend to see such rules as absolutely true, just
as Randall
saw 2 + 2 = 4 as absolutely true.

Another possibility, however, is that belief in moral relativism is
simplypart of one's desire to force other people to follow certain
rules. These is
some evidence for this explanation in the new Pope's own writings,
some of
which were printed in the LA Times today. Here's what I think is a
particularly telling passage:

> Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and
euthanasia.> For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the
Holy Father on the
> application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war,
he would not
> for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to
receive Holy
> Communion. While the church exhorts civil authorities to seek
peace, not war,
> and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on
criminals, it
> may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or
to have
> recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate
diversity of opinion
> even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death
penalty, but not,
> however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

This is part of the text of a memorandum sent by then Cardinal
Ratzinger to
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington last year. Here, I think,
Ratzinger is saying that some rules (the one's concerning war and
capitalpunishment) are less absolute than others (the one's
concerning abortion and
euthanasia). So, while Ratzinger may deplore relativism, he's
clearly not
above being relativistic. My guess is that the rules he considers
absolute-- the one's about abortion and euthanasia -- are the one's
he wants others
to follow; the rules he considers relativistic -- the one's about
war and
capital punishment -- are the ones that he's more permissive about.

I think both of these explanations of the belief in moral
absolutism -- a
one level approach to experiencing reality and a desire to make
other people
behave as we think they should behave, ie. A desire to control them
-- may
be involved in moral relativism to different degrees in different
people. I
think the "one level" explanation applies to many of the lay people
interested in having the 10 commandments posted all over our public
buildings. I think the "behavior control" explanation applies to
many of the
religious leaders who are railing against the relativism and
secularism in
society.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
andmay contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copiesof the original message.

All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.04.21.1730CDT]

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Gosnell <JGosnell@BRIDGEWAY.ORG>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2005 3:03 pm
Subject: Re: Absolut Relativism

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.04.21. 14.55 CST)]

<On another note: I'm finally recovering pretty well from the
complications with my pacemaker implantation.>

Good...I'm glad to hear it.

Thanks, Jason.

I found an interesting book that seems to be psycho-spiritual in
nature, not
too weird though, and it involves a series of questions--four main
ones--it's called The Work (the process developed by Byron Katie). It
reminds me of a method for going up a level when you are trapped in
somethinking pattern and suffering. Have you seen it? The book is
called "Loving
What Is." There is a website too called www.thework.org

Nope, I haven't heard of it. But, I'll look at the website.

I think it is technical and organized enough to be of interest to a
scientific minded person vs. the granola style writings I come
across--which
are OK to me in their own way.

I may post it...I am studying it still and comparing to PCT.

Here's to your health! Jason

Thanks,

Dick R.

To all the people that have been communicating with my father, David Wolsk,

This is to inform you that my father has passed away. He died a week ago from a massive stroke.
He died peacefully and in harmony with his own beliefs and wishes.

We want to thank you all for your participation in his ideas, hopes and dreams for a better world. I know that the big circle of people that corresponded with him through the years meant everything to him, being able to communicate with likewise thinking people around the globe was what made his own creative thinking meaningful. The everyday dialogue through email, meetings, workshops, conferences and work situations, was a daily joy and inspiration.
Thank you all.
If you have any messages to the family then please send them to me.
juliewb@mail.dk

Thank you kindly,
Julie Wolsk Bentzon and Nina Wolsk, his daughters
and his wife Ingrid Wolsk

In loving memory of
Dr. David Wolsk
Associate, Centre for Global Studies
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Education
University of Victoria, Canada

···

On Apr 21, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Jason Gosnell wrote:

[From Jason Gosnell (2005.04.21. 14.55 CST)]

<On another note: I'm finally recovering pretty well from the
complications with my pacemaker implantation.>

Good...I'm glad to hear it.

I found an interesting book that seems to be psycho-spiritual in nature, not
too weird though, and it involves a series of questions--four main
ones--it's called The Work (the process developed by Byron Katie). It
reminds me of a method for going up a level when you are trapped in some
thinking pattern and suffering. Have you seen it? The book is called "Loving
What Is." There is a website too called www.thework.org

I think it is technical and organized enough to be of interest to a
scientific minded person vs. the granola style writings I come across--which
are OK to me in their own way.

I may post it...I am studying it still and comparing to PCT.

Here's to your health! Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Robertson Richard [mailto:R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:00 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Absolut Relativism

[From Dick Robertson, 2005.04.22.1255CDT]

From: Richard Marken <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:15 pm
Subject: Absolut Relativism

Nice call on that issue of moral absolutism--behind it the desire to
have others do what one wants them to. I hadn't thought about the new
Pope's relativism in terms of control levels.

On another note: I'm finally recovering pretty well from the
complications with my pacemaker implantation.

Best,

Dick R.

[From Rick Marken (2005.04.20.1315)]

In honor of the election of the new Pope, I suggest that we discuss
thenotion of moral relativism, an idea to which, I hear, the new
Pope is
implacably opposed. I think the Pope believes that there are moral
absolutes, in the sense that there are rules that always apply;
they are not
context dependent. So, for example, the rule "do not use birth
control" is
true no matter what -- overpopulation, AIDS, danger to the mother,
etc.
I think the idea that some rules always apply, no matter what --
the idea of
moral absolutism -- is similar to the idea of what might be called
"rationalabsolutism" -- the idea articulated in Alan Randall's essay
(http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Phenomenology/). In his essay,
Randallargues that the perception of the truth of a logical
proposition, like 2 + 2
= 4 is more certain or real than the perception of, say, the
existence of a
ball. In his review, Bill Powers (2005.04.17.0805 MDT) notes that
the essay
is a good example of "what happens when one lives too exclusively
within any
one level of perception and control", in this case, the level of
logic and
reasoning. When one views the world only from a particular perceptual
perspective, one becomes (in Bill's words) "subject to [its]
restrictions ..
without any critical judgments from a higher level...". In
Randall's case,
the restrictions are those of logic and reasoning. Those
restrictions make
it impossible for him to perceive anything other than the fact that
2 + 2 =
4 is absolutely true. What he can't see from that level is "that under
different premises and in different contexts, 181 + 181 = 2
(degrees modulo
360)".

I think that a similar "one level" approach to experiencing reality
may be
the basis of the belief in "absolute morality". People who
experience the
world mainly in terms of rules (which is also at the level of logic
andreasoning) would tend to see such rules as absolutely true, just
as Randall
saw 2 + 2 = 4 as absolutely true.

Another possibility, however, is that belief in moral relativism is
simplypart of one's desire to force other people to follow certain
rules. These is
some evidence for this explanation in the new Pope's own writings,
some of
which were printed in the LA Times today. Here's what I think is a
particularly telling passage:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and

euthanasia.> For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the
Holy Father on the

application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war,

he would not

for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to

receive Holy

Communion. While the church exhorts civil authorities to seek

peace, not war,

and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on

criminals, it

may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or

to have

recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate

diversity of opinion

even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death

penalty, but not,

however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

This is part of the text of a memorandum sent by then Cardinal
Ratzinger to
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington last year. Here, I think,
Ratzinger is saying that some rules (the one's concerning war and
capitalpunishment) are less absolute than others (the one's
concerning abortion and
euthanasia). So, while Ratzinger may deplore relativism, he's
clearly not
above being relativistic. My guess is that the rules he considers
absolute-- the one's about abortion and euthanasia -- are the one's
he wants others
to follow; the rules he considers relativistic -- the one's about
war and
capital punishment -- are the ones that he's more permissive about.

I think both of these explanations of the belief in moral
absolutism -- a
one level approach to experiencing reality and a desire to make
other people
behave as we think they should behave, ie. A desire to control them
-- may
be involved in moral relativism to different degrees in different
people. I
think the "one level" explanation applies to many of the lay people
interested in having the 10 commandments posted all over our public
buildings. I think the "behavior control" explanation applies to
many of the
religious leaders who are railing against the relativism and
secularism in
society.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

--------------------

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
andmay contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copiesof the original message.

All electronic mail communications originating from or transmitted to
Bridgeway Center, Inc. are subject to monitoring. This message and the
information contained in it, which may consist of electronic data
attachments, are the confidential and proprietary communications of
Bridgeway Center, Inc. and are intended to be received only by the
individual or individuals to whom the message has been addressed If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please take notice
that any use, copying, printing, forwarding or distribution of this message,
in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the Bridgeway Center, Inc. Privacy Officer
at (850) 833-7540 and/or forward the message to hipaa@bridgeway.org and
delete or destroy all copies of this message.

Dr. David Wolsk
Associate, Centre for Global Studies
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Education
University of Victoria, Canada