Pain and emptiness


We search for definite answers in order to avoid pain. Of course this avoidance in the long run doesn’t pay of, but here and right now it seems to be a good strategy to avoid pain by creating the illusion of a definite answer.

Take an addiction – the mind creates the illusion your addiction is going to get rid of the pain.

With emptiness I mean the fear that the most fundamental nature of the universe would be the fact there is no real meaning to it all. If we go deep enough into the emptiness and don’t have a strong spiritual, existential or motivational foundation, we start to believe there is nothing worth living for.

Optimism versus realism

There is a subtle fight between happy and unhappy people. Those unhappy struggle for recognition and those happy struggle to maintain there happiness.

And I believe this fight might be unnecessary. Unhappy people deserve recognition, but in order to give them they and you need understanding of where and the other really experiences. This understanding takes time, empathy and openness.

So what about the really big and horrible problems?

There is no God if he allows for such terror as war and rape. If he allows us to continually be afraid, angry, destructive, confused and in pain. So much horror.

I struggled with this realization a lot. Yet I notice their are ways of feeling better. There are solutions and if we don’t see them it is a good thing to realize there is something positive which is bigger then ourselves.

We are small and huge at the same time.

We need to realize we are only a very small part of the universe. I learned to look more positively at the word “humbleness”. To me it doesn’t mean following a spiritual leader and being humble to his principles, to me it means nobody on this earth is certain what our existence is about. We can stay open for answers, because nobody really knows. And then it helps to believe in a positive “force or intelligence” outside of ourselves. The moment I really started connecting to the bigger, an intelligence stronger than my mental (often habitually determined brain), my life changed fundamentally for the good.

Identification, emptiness and openness

One eastern concept is that of emptiness. If you peel the skins of an onion, what you will find is emptiness. It is a metaphor often used to  explain the fact that you cannot mentally understand what life is really about. Things are the way they are, you can only experience them. In a negative way it could mean life is just that “empty”. In a positive way it means that with an open mind change is almost always possible.

The feeling of emptiness can be dreary, can be hard, can be lonely, can be depressing. When depressed this emptiness seems to be “all there is”. There is no way around. The negative truths seem more true than anything else.

This is a limitied perception. The problem is you identify with what your mind tells you. You make it your ultimate truth. You are ultimately believing your experience is more true than anything else. Often the need behind this is recognition but a lot of other needs, which are real and fundamental needs are not being met.

Body intelligence vs mental knowledge – internal dynamics vs spoken language


I studied mime theatre, contemporary dance and bodywork. I encountered a lot of theories about the body which seem to overlap and contradict each other. I realized the body is a complex system.

  • There is conscious intelligence, the part of us that thinks and interprets our perception while we are awake. This information is only a small part of the information processed in our body.
  • The body itself is directed by other parts of the brain, the spinal cord, the rest of the nervous system and, if you are open to it, Qi or energy, another form of intelligence.
  • We perceive the body as one entity and yet know a lot of different processes happen. We see one, we tend to group and see a certain function or organ or system. We create a “oneness” a “solid” image in our mind of what we are and how we function.

The contradiction is:

  • >We need this oneness in our perception to judge reality, in order to know which choices to make. We need to label better or worse.
  • <In it’s function the body’s intelligence structures information in completely different ways. It is not thinking the way our neocortex is thinking. This “body intelligence” has a dynamic of it’s own.

For example your body’s balance – Could you exactly describe how the body keeps its balance? There are people researching the topic, but the mechanisms are only gradually showing itself.

Another example: do you know how you walk? What is happening on a muscular level? How does your body coordinate your actions?

As I imagine the mental brain evolved mainly because out of a practical advantage. It organised social structures in groups and actions of early humans in order to hunt and to survive. The mind started labeling information in order to get control.

But the mind needs a lot of time to mentally understand the different dynamics of the body. There is a huge amount of information going through the body and brains. It is infinitely complex.

Yet there are patterns and we learn to understand those patterns better and better.

The mind tries to “grasp” reality and doesn’t realize it’s impatience. You need to observe very long to notice what really goes on. Spoken language doesn’t really cover what happens on a subtle level. A lot of words don’t exist yet.

And people who do bodywork and develop spiritually train their minds.

Good teachers help, but abstract thinking takes time to get it right. A lot of time. A huge lot of time.

The illusion of clarity and the ideas of Carl Popper


Most thought systems that give guidance to the behavior of people, like psychotherapy, eastern philosophy or religion try to search and give clear answers to people. These clear answers can seem very real.

Think about the good advice you get from self help literature or people who don’t really know or understand you – how often the other treats their advice as “certain”, as truth, and how often do you really feel helped by what you hear?

There is a certain feeling of “being right” and following that a seeming certainty. It seems honest, complete, true. The clearest description of this phenomenon I read in the first book of Carlos Castaneda: the clarity of mind gives us a false certainty. In the books it is explained as “a point before your eyes”.

Here is a link to a clear description of this principle:

I think of it as more complex than a mere illusion. A lot of truths are sold together with nonsense.

An example: People teaching in a shiatsu school often see their acquired knowledge as absolute. They can make very certain statements about the reason why a person has a certain ilness.
The teacher has noticed that his way of treating can sometimes really helped some people, but doesn’t realize the limits of his knowledge. I personally know a teacher that tells his students that every organ in the body is connected to a country in the world. This to me is a preposterous idea, but I believe he can be good at shiatsu.

The teacher in the example interprets his thinking as clear enough, but in fact his thinking is to quick. He fools himself by a false feeling of “being right” Interpretations goes to fast.

The philosopher Carl Popper held similar ideas – he made up that falsification is the only way to search for truth. Thoroughly searching for a reason why a claim is false is the only way to know wether it is true.

In the last few years I have started to notice how fundamental this problem is. This false security of knowing is a difficult trap to overcome.

One of the causes of this problem I try do describe under the next part of this series.

Nagual and Tonal – the approach of Carlos Castaneda and the evolution of thought.


Carlos Castaneda talks about the difference between the “tonal and the nagual”. The “island of the tonal” is our world as we know it. It is full of labels, symbols, interpretations about the nature of our universe. It is the principles we know of in our conscious thinking.

The tonal is an island on the nagual, including everything in the universe which is not named yet. A lot of people take our world for granted. The way we look at our universe is our universe. Everything we can imagine is the only thing in existence. I think that is an absurd statement. We have no possibility to know that we see as reality is all there is.

An example: 2000 years ago a computer was part of the nagual. It didn’t exist yet. It was impossible for humans to think of something like a computer. It probably couldn’t exist for the people of that age.

Copernicus turned the world view around of so many people. Now we see it as evident truth that our world turns around the sun and is part of a solar system. How many of us really realize that there could be an infinite amount of copernican evolutions yet to come?

String theory has a similar concept, in a sense that our dimensions and perceptions are built out of strings and an infinite amount of other strings are possible.

We can only see what we are “trained” to see. We can only percieve the what our senses allow us to see.

There is no one doubting there are radio-signals in the air, together with wi-fi, television, telephone, light, gps,… But yet to some the eastern concept of energy, qi, prana, kundalini are impossible.

The difficult moment in every big discovery or new way of thinking is the point where worldview isn’t the right anymore. This means alienation, fear, the unknown.

I had the same experience with the ideas of Carlos Castaneda and his of way of approaching them. The books can be creepy, confusing, dark and frightening while they pretend to have the only worthwhile answer to life. They give access to another experience of the world, but they can be very confusing as they don’t give a fulfilling answer to all the feelings of emptiness that comes with these truths.

In one of his books Don Juan, the teacher of Castaneda says life makes no sense to him. He enjoys the greatness of perception, but doesn’t care about mankind and it’s follies. Most people to him are unaware, idiots.

I don’t like this way of thinking and I long searched for an answer. I give my answer later on, but first I want to explain how the problem of clarity manifests in our daily reality.

A good description of the nagual, though a bit different as I approach it:


Convergent and divergent thinking


One way of approaching the difference between static and dynamic thinking is by the difference between “convergent” and “divergent” thinking.

As simple as I can explain:

convergent thinking: only one solution is possible to one specific problem.

divergent thinking: many solutions are possible to a problem and there are many  possible ways to get to those solutions.

Here is a beautiful video about this subject:

Leaving ideas next to each other,  “and” vs “or”:
This is part of the difference between convergent and divergent thinking. Ideas can exist next to each other instead of needing to take the one place available for this idea. The word “and” indicates option, “or” indicates only one possibility. Should I do this “or” should I do that? I have this option “and” I have this option.

It might seem to obvious at, but I noticed it is a common mistake. Often I was searching for a way, a clarity to see how I can do right, to find meaning in my life, to direct the meaning in my life. I searched for “the” right answer. The possible answers started to compete. Perfectionism or searching for “right” and “wrong” doesn’t allow the whole to be and to the possibility there might be different answers to one problem.

One of the biggest problems in convergent thinking and communicating is that it means one dominating the other. By definition it doesn’t allow for another idea or feeling to exist. You need to make choices and before you make those choices you can allow multiple perspectives.

We are often cought in judgmental thinking, in moralisation in which we only leave the space for one option. There are many ways to deal with life and many of them are worthwhile. There is no one truth. The truth is carried in many ways.

The multiple meanings of words

The same words are often used in different ways, with different meanings. The way a word is defined for a particular person is not clarified enough.  I give a few examples:

The Ego:

For a lot of guru’s, religion’s and thought systems the ego is something to conquer, to vanquish, to eliminate.

To other’s it is something you need to balance in order to be able to achieve something in society.

What is it exactly? Well it is defined differently by different people.

a few possible definitions:

  • your idea of self worth
  • your entire concept, all of your ideas about who you are
  • the one that makes decisions in you
  • the part of you that believes your emotions are important
  • your pride

More on the unfortunate different and unclear uses of the word ego in this text: The ego By James Harvey Stout

The biggest risk in this misconception is that people actually start to believe the ego is something to get rid of without exactly knowing what they are getting rid of. And that can be a destructive conviction, it can make people believe they are battling the source of all evil while in fact they are killing their ability to make decisions. I don’t say healing your self-perception or humbling or questioning your feeling of importance is a bad thing. I’m saying it needs to be with care for the multiple meanings of the word.

How are we Thinking?

Philosophy, Uncategorized

I believe ingrained patterns in thought are feeding big problems worldwide. The aim of this post series is to give principles and examples to arrive at a more dynamic, adaptive and rich way of thinking.

We all have our crises. It’s normal to get “stuck” while searching for answers to life’s biggest questions. Some believe searching for existential answers only gives rise to more questions, more thinking and a frightning feeling of emptiness. Yet I found that next to confusion, unrest and mental overload there are mental principles that actually help to understand the world.

These principles are often implicit and therefore not communicated clearly enough. They might seem evident, but everyone is blundering on them. I really mean everyone including me. Even the highest spiritual guide, the people regarded as the wisest, they all fail because our reality is a highly complex and dynamic entity. Clarity is fading in and fading out and not appearing what it seems to be. We are all juggling to get it right. It’s most serious and at the same time it is a play, because the truth is elusive.

I have long searched for these kind of answers, at times it was really a struggle. In the process I realized this is actually a fundamental problem of our society. I noticed my own thinking has different qualities in different situations. Sometimes my thought is sloppy and chaotic, other times it is clear and insightful. I recognize everyone in our society has the fluctuations in the quality of their thinking. The construction of our thought systems and beliefs are most of the time not fundamental enough. We don’t take the necessary time and don’t have the right techniques to think it through and we don’t realize that most fundamentally truth – reality is dynamic. That is what this post is about – learning new ways of thinking that open up our thinking potential in order to build a better world for ourselves and others.

My basic statement:

  • The universe is dynamic in nature.
  • A lot of thinking is static in nature.
  • It is better to learn how to think dynamically.


True Openness

Perception, Uncategorized

True openness means not knowing the answer, knowing that we are searching. Humanity is searching. Theory is searching. Science is searching. Spiritual people are searching.

We can allow ourselves to not know. This notion can be liberating  and can also be daunting and complex.  We have a choice as human beings. We can define our lives within the limits given. Or is it beyond? The limits we can percieve are not the true limits, they are most of the times common limits. They seem “true” because they have been before most of times. But true innovation often is surprising, unknown, unimaginable.

You couldn’t imagine a computer in the middle ages. Maybe Nostradamus could but still…

What is there to be discovered what right now seems unimaginable, unknown, untapped, unseen, unspoken…?



C is shifting

About this Website, Perception, Self Improvement, The Story, Uncategorized

Our human race is developing at a crazy pace. At the same time things that should change seem stuck behind large structures, behind a dishonest elite. But also by our own judgments, our disability to to connect with something that makes sense existentially and on a larger scale, our difficulty to honestly and truly openheartedly nourish our personal and professional relationships, the fear to be vulnerable. How can we know what to do to make a real difference?

One moment i started noticing how perception is different for everyone. What seems honest and sincere to someone might seem fake and far fetched to another. What seems cool to one seems bland to another. What seems absolute truth one moment is completely reversed and countered the other.

And I noticed I had hard time to believe in my own experience of wonder. I was almost ashamed of feeling wonder by watching nature videos on national geographic. I felt uneasy to say that in my dancing any idea could be valuable, any way of dealing with art can be of value. I saw cloud formations with awe. I woke up in nature, any kind of nature and saw true beauty.

I was searching for radically honest answers to complex questions. I noticed we don’t like to think about what really matters because it is blocked by myriads of criticism, complexity and self doubt,  we hide in fear of worthwhile seeming sarcasm and dislike. I used a lot of sarcasm myself but at one moment I noticed this is not what life is about.  Not that I started to completely dislike sarcasm, but I noticed something was not showing because of it’s “touchy feely quality”. For many it is hard to just be themselves because of possessing an unaccepted quality. Because self value comes with validation. And validation has a way to be strangely harsh and categorical.

My own views are constantly shifting. Allowing the vulnerable. Trying to get out of a black hole of realisation of what our world is really about. Seeing political, economic and religious structures and feeling overwhelmed and pinned down at first. I started a search that by many was seen as unrealistic, yet I hold on to the belief more is possible.

I grew up with this idea somewhere in the back of my mind. I had many euphoric maybe manic moments where I thought I had a great idea about who I was or what I could and would do but I’d always fall back. But somehow I kept remembering and understanding more and more. Things can be better. For real. The possibilities are here. What I experienced was real, no matter how many would like to prove me wrong.

What is this shift of C’s?

C is for consciousness. C is for seeing. C is for Common perception, C is for Collaboration, C is for Close to our heart which is opening up and growing.

C is for coming back even if all the odds are against you. C is for creases in our existence, parts that need to be discovered. Creative, Community, Complementary health, Canvas, embracing the Crazy.

C is for something very open and wide, which makes waves that make you calm or great and giant powerful ones of epic proportion.

I love discovering new. I am a most vulnerable individual. I have power. I want to learn and grow. Infinitely. I want to change things. Big things. To realize our true potential. And to C the shift.


Radical optimism


Cshift is about a radical form of optimism.

It is about knowing better is possible. Saying no to defitism, nihilism, to “things are as they should be”, fatalism,…

It’s remembering happiness. Remembering what really matters to us.

This is not a forced, moralistic thing, it’s about going for what is real and what is inner.

It’s about finding real answers to complex problems, knowing they are possible.

It’s in and beyond your imagination. It’s beyond any conceived limit. And yet it searches for radically honest and realistic answers.

Even if depression is eating your life or any other pattern, disease or worry you know it is true because deep inside you want a more beautifull, satifying life, you want significance, you want to be significant to others. You want to live fully.

Why the world needs Introverts.

Self Improvement

Rosa Parks: an introvert who changed the world. Photograph: Bettmann/CorbisRosa Parks: an introvert who changed the world. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis

Read by 59,451 people

Tuesday 13 March 2012

Shy, unconfident, solitary: there are many popular conceptions of introversion – most of them negative – but the reality is far more complicated

Our lives are shaped as profoundly by personality as by gender or race. And the single most important aspect of personality – the “north and south of temperament“, as the scientist JD Higley puts it – is where we fall on the introvert-extrovert spectrum. Our place on this continuum influences our choice of friends and mates, and how we make conversation, resolve differences, and show love. It affects the careers we choose and whether or not we succeed at them. It governs how likely we are to exercise (a habit found in extroverts), commit adultery (extroverts), function well without sleep (introverts), learn from our mistakes (introverts), place big bets in the stock market (extroverts), delay gratification (introverts), be a good leader (depends on the type of leadership called for), and ask “what if” (introverts).

It’s reflected in our brain pathways, neurotransmitters, and remote corners of our nervous systems. Today introversion and extroversion are two of the most exhaustively researched subjects in personality psychology, arousing the curiosity of hundreds of scientists.

These researchers have made exciting discoveries aided by the latest technology, but they’re part of a long and storied tradition. Poets and philosophers have been thinking about introverts and extroverts since the dawn of recorded time. Both personality types appear in the Bible and in the writings of Greek and Roman physicians, and some evolutionary psychologists say that the history of these types reaches back even farther than that: the animal kingdom also boasts “introverts” and “extroverts”, from fruit flies to pumpkinseed fish to rhesus monkeys. As with other complementary pairings – masculinity and femininity, East and West, liberal and conservative – humanity would be unrecognizable, and vastly diminished, without both personality styles.

Take the partnership of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr: a formidable orator refusing to give up his seat on a segregated bus wouldn’t have had the same effect as a modest woman who would clearly prefer to keep silent but for the exigencies of the situation. And Parks didn’t have the stuff to thrill a crowd if she had tried to stand up and announce that she had a dream. But with King’s help, she didn’t have to.

Yet today we make room for a remarkably narrow range of personality styles. We’re told that to be great is to be bold, to be happy is to be sociable. Closet introverts pass undetected on playgrounds and in corporate corridors. Some fool even themselves, until some life event – redundancy, an empty nest, an inheritance that frees them to spend time as they like – jolts them into taking stock of their true natures.

We live with a value system that I call the Extrovert Ideal – the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha and comfortable in the spotlight. The archetypal extrovert prefers action to contemplation, risk-taking to heed-taking, certainty to doubt. He or she favours quick decisions, even at the risk of being wrong; works well in teams and socialises in groups. We like to think that we value individuality, but all too often we admire one type of individual – the kind who is comfortable “putting himself out there”. Sure, we allow technologically gifted loners who launch companies in garages to have any personality they please, but they are the exceptions, not the rule, and our tolerance extends mainly to those who get fabulously wealthy or hold the promise of doing so.

Introversion – along with its cousins sensitivity, seriousness, and shyness – is now a second-class personality trait, somewhere between a disappointment and a pathology. Introverts living under the Extrovert Ideal are like women in a man’s world, discounted because of a trait that goes to the core of who they are. Extroversion is an enormously appealing personality style, but we’ve turned it into an oppressive standard to which most of us feel we must conform.

The Extrovert Ideal has been documented in many studies. Talkative people, for example, are rated as smarter, better-looking, more interesting and more desirable as friends. Velocity of speech counts as well as volume: we rank fast talkers as more competent and likable than slow ones. The same dynamics apply in groups, where research shows that the voluble are considered smarter than the reticent – even though there’s zero correlation between the gift of the gab and good ideas. Even the word introvert is stigmatised – one informal study, by psychologist Laurie Helgoe, found that introverts described their own physical appearance in vivid language (“green-blue eyes”, “exotic”, “high cheekbones”), but when asked to describe generic introverts they drew a bland and distasteful picture (“ungainly”, “neutral colours”, “skin problems”).

But we make a grave mistake to embrace the Extrovert Ideal so unthinkingly. Some of our greatest ideas, art, and inventions – from the theory of evolution to Van Gogh’s sunflowers to the personal computer – came from quiet and cerebral people who knew how to tune in to their inner worlds and the treasures to be found there. Without introverts, the world would be devoid of Newton’s theory of gravity, Einstein’s theory of relativity, WB Yeats’s The Second Coming, Chopin’s nocturnes, Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, Peter Pan, Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Cat in the Hat, Charlie Brown, the films of Steven Spielberg, Google (co-founded by introvert Larry Page) and Harry Potter.

As the science journalist Winifred Gallagher writes: “The glory of the disposition that stops to consider stimuli rather than rushing to engage with them is its long association with intellectual and artistic achievement. Neither E=mc2 nor Paradise Lost was dashed off by a party animal.” Even in less obviously introverted occupations, like finance, politics and activism, some of the greatest leaps forward were made by introverts. Al Gore, Warren Buffett, Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi achieved what they did not in spite of but because of their introversion.

Yet many of the most important institutions of contemporary life are designed for those who enjoy group projects and high levels of stimulation. As children, our classroom desks are increasingly arranged in pods, the better to foster group learning, and research suggests that the vast majority of teachers believe that the ideal student is an extrovert. As adults, many of us work for organisations that insist we work in teams, in offices without walls, for supervisors who value “people skills” above all. To advance our careers, we’re expected to promote ourselves unabashedly. The scientists whose research gets funded often have confident, perhaps overconfident, personalities. The artists whose work adorns the walls of contemporary museums strike impressive poses at gallery openings. The authors whose books get published – once a reclusive breed – are now vetted by publicists to make sure they’re talk-show ready.

If you’re an introvert, you also know that the bias against quiet can cause deep psychic pain. As a child you might have overheard your parents apologise for your shyness. Or at school you might have been prodded to come “out of your shell” – that noxious expression that fails to appreciate that some animals naturally carry shelter everywhere they go, and that some humans are just the same. “All the comments from childhood still ring in my ears, that I was lazy, stupid, slow, boring,” writes a member of an email list called Introvert Retreat. “By the time I was old enough to figure out that I was simply introverted, it was a part of my being, the assumption that there is something inherently wrong with me. I wish I could find that little vestige of doubt and remove it.”

Now that you’re an adult, you might still feel a pang of guilt when you decline a dinner invitation in favour of a good book. Or maybe you like to eat alone in restaurants and could do without the pitying looks from fellow diners. Or you’re told that you’re “in your head too much,” a phrase that’s often deployed against the quiet and cerebral.

Of course, there’s another word for such people: thinkers.

You can be a shy extrovert too

There are now almost as many definitions of introvert and extrovert as there are personality psychologists. Still, they tend to agree on several important points: for example, that introverts and extroverts differ in the level of outside stimulation that they need to function well. Introverts feel “just right” with less stimulation, as when they sip wine with a close friend, solve a crossword puzzle, or read a book. Extroverts enjoy the extra bang that comes from activities like meeting new people, skiing slippery slopes, and cranking up the stereo.

Many psychologists would also agree that introverts and extroverts work differently. Extroverts tend to tackle assignments quickly. They make fast (sometimes rash) decisions, and are comfortable multitasking and risk- taking. They enjoy “the thrill of the chase” for rewards like money and status. Introverts often work more slowly and deliberately. They like to focus on one task at a time and can have mighty powers of concentration. They’re relatively immune to the lures of wealth and fame.

A few things introverts are not: the word introvert is not a synonym for hermit or misanthrope. Introverts can be these things, but most are perfectly friendly. One of the most humane phrases in the English language – “Only connect!” – was written by the distinctly introverted EM Forster in Howards End, a novel exploring the question of how to achieve “human love at its height”.

Nor are introverts necessarily shy. Shyness is the fear of social disapproval or humiliation, while introversion is a preference for environments that are not overstimulating. Shyness is inherently painful; introversion is not. One reason that people confuse the two concepts is that they sometimes overlap (though psychologists debate to what degree).

You can be a shy extrovert, like Barbra Streisand, who has a larger-than-life personality and paralysing stage fright; or a non-shy introvert, like Bill Gates, who by all accounts keeps to himself but is unfazed by the opinions of others. You can also, of course, be both shy and an introvert: TS Eliot was a famously private soul who wrote in The Waste Land that he could “show you fear in a handful of dust”. Many shy people turn inward, partly as a refuge from the socialising that causes them such anxiety. And many introverts are shy, partly as a result of receiving the message that there’s something wrong with their preference for reflection, and partly because their physiologies compel them to withdraw from high-stimulation environments.

But for all their differences, shyness and introversion have in common something profound. The mental state of a shy extrovert sitting quietly in a business meeting may be very different from that of a calm introvert – the shy person is afraid to speak up, while the introvert is simply overstimulated – but to the outside world, the two appear to be the same. This can give both types insight into how our reverence for alpha status blinds us to things that are good and smart and wise. For very different reasons, shy and introverted people might choose to spend their days in behind-the-scenes pursuits like inventing, or researching, or holding the hands of the gravely ill – or in leadership positions they execute with quiet competence. These are not alpha roles, but the people who play them are role models all the same.

Extracted from Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking by Susan Cain, to be published by Viking on 29 March at GBP 20.00.

Taken from “The Guardian on Facebook”