Abstract
This article argues that algorithmically mediated communication environments displace phronesis, or practical wisdom, by making anticipatory, reception-oriented deliberation increasingly normative. The central issue is not merely how agents act within such environments, but whether the conditions for wise deliberation have themselves been structurally transformed. The article names this mode of reasoning pronoia: not ordinary foresight, but a form of deliberation in which anticipated reception becomes constitutive of intelligible action under conditions of quantified visibility. Drawing on Aristotelian and Thomistic accounts of practical judgment alongside media theory and digital theology, the article argues that algorithmic feeds reorganize moral deliberation through ranking, commensuration, and recursive feedback. These mechanisms do not simply influence behavior externally but reshape agency internally by normalizing predictive calibration to visibility conditions. Theologically, the article distinguishes this form of pronoia from divine providence, arguing that algorithmic pronoia contracts deliberation into the management of reception. The result is a deformation of moral formation that weakens habituation and redirects agency toward signal management. The article concludes by identifying liturgical counter-formation and ascetic withdrawal as practices capable of sustaining phronesis under algorithmic conditions.
Keywords
Introduction: Moral Formation Under Algorithmic Conditions
A central concern of Christian moral theology is the formation of character through habituation, such that the agent becomes capable of perceiving and responding rightly to the demands of concrete situations. This capacity, classically articulated as phronesis, is not merely a cognitive skill but a cultivated disposition grounded in practices, traditions, and forms of life oriented toward the good. 1 It presupposes a moral environment in which discernment can unfold without being continuously subordinated to external evaluation, and in which practical judgment remains ordered toward intrinsic goods rather than fluctuating forms of recognition. 2
The problem this article addresses is therefore not simply that contemporary agents deliberate badly. It is that the conditions under which deliberation becomes possible are themselves being reorganized. The decisive question is not primarily how agents should act within algorithmically structured environments, but whether the conditions that make wise action available have been structurally altered.
This article argues that algorithmically mediated communication environments structurally pressure these conditions by displacing phronesis with a distinct mode of anticipatory reasoning, here termed pronoia. By pronoia, the article does not mean ordinary foresight, rhetorical sensitivity, or prudent awareness of audience. Such forms of anticipation have always been part of practical reasoning and communicative life. Rather, pronoia names a mode of moral deliberation in which anticipated reception becomes partly constitutive of what counts as intelligible or effective action under regimes of quantified visibility. In such environments, the question is no longer only what is good, fitting, or faithful in a given situation, but also what will be recognized, amplified, or sanctioned within a recursively evaluated field of visibility. The claim is not that audience-awareness is novel, but that algorithmic environments elevate anticipated reception from one consideration among others into a structurally dominant condition of action itself, thereby reshaping the internal orientation of ethical agency. 3
Several delimitations are necessary. The article does not claim that all forms of digital mediation are identical in their formational effects. It identifies a structural tendency rather than a universal law. It does not claim that phronesis disappears entirely under algorithmic conditions–practical wisdom remains possible, but is exercised under increasing structural resistance. Nor does it treat anticipatory concern for reception as intrinsically pathological. What distinguishes pronoia from ordinary rhetorical anticipation is that reception is continuously quantified, ranked, and fed back into future visibility, such that predictive calibration becomes an expected adaptation to altered conditions of intelligibility. A sincere agent may reason according to pronoia when the environment makes legibility and uptake dependent on algorithmically mediated reception.
A terminological clarification is essential. In patristic and Byzantine theology, pronoia (πρόνοια) denotes divine providence–the ordering wisdom by which God sustains and directs creation toward its proper end. 4 The present article employs the term in deliberate contrast with this tradition. Where divine pronoia orients the creature toward goods that exceed its own calculation, the algorithmic form identified here contracts deliberation into predictive self-management within a field of visibility. Divine pronoia frees the agent to act within a moral order that exceeds managerial control; algorithmic pronoia compels the agent to anticipate and manage reception within a system whose evaluative criteria are continuously operative. The displacement of phronesis by algorithmic pronoia thus represents a structural distortion of the creature's relation to the good.
The argument proceeds as follows. First, relevant literature on phronesis, technomoral virtue, media theory, and theological formation is engaged through a continuous argument rather than discrete disciplinary reviews. Second, the conceptual distinction between phronesis and pronoia is developed and clarified in relation to classical prudence, rhetorical awareness, and embodied social responsiveness. Third, the algorithmic feed is analyzed as a formational environment. Fourth, the theological implications for attention, agency, and habituation are examined. The article concludes with constructive proposals for theological ethics and ecclesial practice.
Virtue, Formation, and the Conditions of Moral Reasoning
The literature converges on a shared but often implicit assumption: practical wisdom depends on conditions of deliberation that are not themselves continuously reorganized by external systems of evaluation. Virtue ethics, technomoral philosophy, media theory, and theological accounts of formation all recognize that environments shape agency–yet none fully accounts for how algorithmic mediation may reorient the structure of practical reasoning itself.
In Aristotle, phronesis names a mode of practical rationality irreducible to rule application or calculation. It requires perceptual attunement to particulars and the capacity to discern what is salient within contingent circumstances. 5 The Thomistic account specifies this further: prudence perfects practical reason by integrating memory, experience, and attentive perception into deliberation ordered toward right action. 6 Its anticipatory moment remains subordinated to the good as the proper end of action. Modern virtue ethics makes explicit the social and institutional conditions that sustain this structure. MacIntyre argues that practical reasoning is intelligible only within traditions that preserve internal goods against external pressures, 7 while Hauerwas and Smith show that moral perception is formed through communal and liturgical practices that shape attention and desire over time. 8
This is importantly distinct from responsiveness in embodied encounter. When agents respond to one another's facial expressions, gestures, and bodily presence, their responsiveness is immediate, episodic, and non-quantified. It is oriented toward the particularity of the other in a given situation. Algorithmic environments introduce a qualitatively different structure: feedback is continuous, cumulative, and recursively integrated into future distributions of visibility. The difference is not simply one of medium but of formational logic.
Responsibility ethics offers a further instructive contrast. Niebuhr's account of the responsible self describes practical reasoning as fundamentally shaped by responsiveness to a prior action upon the agent–including, ultimately, responsiveness to divine action. 9 Here too, responsiveness is ordered by a prior moral claim that transcends the agent's calculation of reception. Pronoia differs precisely in this respect: anticipated reception becomes the primary ordering horizon, displacing both the particular demands of the situation and the prior claim of the good.
Technomoral philosophy rightly emphasizes that technologies shape moral agency. Vallor's work is especially important in showing that emerging technologies function as sites of habituation. 10 Yet this framework largely assumes that the basic structure of practical reasoning remains intact–that the problem is one of virtue adequacy rather than structural transformation. The present article departs from that assumption. Zuboff describes surveillance capitalism as oriented toward prediction and behavioral modification, 11 while van Dijck and Couldry and Hepp show how datafication reorganizes visibility, sociality, and public discourse. 12 What remains underdeveloped across these accounts is how these conditions affect the internal structure of deliberation–how the criteria by which action is judged become internal to reasoning itself.
Girard's analysis of mimetic desire is instructive here: desire is mediated through others and tends toward rivalry and imitation. 13 In digital environments these dynamics are intensified through continuous, quantified visibility. 14 Yet what is distinctive in algorithmic systems is not simply greater exposure to imitation but the fact that evaluation becomes continuous, predictive, and consequential for future visibility. Imitation becomes anticipatory rather than merely reactive. The tradition's accounts of kenodoxia and acedia–orientation toward appearance before others and the dispersal of sustained attention–identify precisely the vulnerabilities that algorithmic environments intensify. 15
Contemporary digital theology extends this insight by treating media environments as formative rather than merely expressive spaces. 16 Brock argues that technological systems reshape the conditions of moral perception, 17 while the Vatican's document Encountering Artificial Intelligence and recent work by Phillips and Campbell show that digital environments affect not only individual virtue but the contexts in which it is cultivated. 18 The present article builds on this work by arguing that algorithmic mediation reorients practical reasoning by making anticipated reception a condition of intelligibility–a shift more fundamental than fragmented attention or reshaped desire.
Thesis: Structural Displacement, Not Individual Failure
Against this background, the central claim can be stated precisely: algorithmically mediated communication environments function as formational structures that systematically displace phronesis by rendering reception-oriented deliberation normatively dominant. More fundamentally, the issue is not primarily how agents should act within such environments, but whether the conditions that make deliberation of the good available have been structurally altered. The transformation concerns not the visibility or external recognition that makes moral deliberation seem valuable to others, but the structural conditions under which wise deliberation becomes possible for the agent.
This claim is structural rather than psychological. It does not depend on the intentions of individual agents, nor on the presence or absence of sincerity. It concerns the transformation of conditions under which moral reasoning becomes intelligible and effective. 19 The argument therefore aligns with broader accounts of how social and institutional structures shape the possibilities of ethical subjectivity, while extending these into the domain of algorithmic mediation.
Phronesis and Pronoia: The Displacement Thesis
The distinction between phronesis and pronoia identifies not merely a difference in emphasis within practical reasoning, but a shift in its underlying orientation. Where phronesis is responsive to the demands of a concrete situation in relation to the good, pronoia is oriented toward the anticipated reception of action within a field of quantified visibility. The contrast is between two orderings of deliberation: one governed by attunement to intrinsic goods, the other governed by prediction under conditions in which visibility and uptake determine the intelligibility and efficacy of action. 20
In classical and theological accounts, prudence includes foresight, but this anticipatory dimension remains subordinate to the good as the proper end of action. Aquinas emphasizes deliberation ordered toward right action, grounded in habituated perception and guided by reason informed by virtue. 21 Anticipation in this sense concerns consequences in relation to fitting action, not the management of how action will appear within a continuously evaluated field.
This distinction becomes clearer when pronoia is differentiated from several neighboring concepts. It is not reducible to rhetorical awareness, which operates within communicative environments in which feedback is episodic, non-quantified, and not recursively integrated into future visibility. Nor is it equivalent to strategic self-presentation in Goffman's sense, 22 which concerns impression management in social interaction rather than the internalization of system-level visibility criteria into the structure of deliberation. Nor is it identical with virtue signaling, which typically presupposes insincerity. By contrast, pronoia is independent of sincerity. A fully sincere agent may deliberate according to pronoia when the conditions of visibility render anticipated reception constitutive of whether moral expression will register at all.
Algorithmically mediated environments introduce precisely such conditions. Moral action becomes legible not primarily through its relation to intrinsic goods but through its circulation within systems of visibility governed by engagement metrics. 23 Because recognition is continuously quantified and recursively fed back into future visibility, it acquires a constitutive role in deliberation. Situations are encountered not solely as fields of ethical demand, but as sites of potential exposure, circulation, and reputational consequence. 24
Pronoia can be analytically specified through three interrelated features. The primary feature is anticipatory calibration: the agent evaluates possible actions in light of predicted audience responses, adjusting expression in relation to expected patterns of amplification or sanction. 25 Two secondary features typically accompany this shift. Temporal compression: the horizon of deliberation contracts from long-term formation to short cycles of feedback, aligning ethical reasoning with the temporal structure of the feed. 26 Externalized validation: the adequacy of action is increasingly assessed through measurable signals rather than through its intrinsic relation to the good. 27 These features do not eliminate phronesis, but they systematically displace it.
Pronoia and Providence: Theological Disambiguation
The appropriation of pronoia requires careful theological clarification. In patristic theology, pronoia theou denotes God's sustaining and directing governance of creation toward its proper telos. Gregory of Nyssa employs the term to describe a divine wisdom that orders all things toward the good, exceeding human calculation because it operates from a perspective not limited by creaturely finitude. 28 John of Damascus similarly treats pronoia as the expression of divine care that holds creation in being and guides it toward fulfillment. 29 Aquinas develops this through the doctrine of divine governance, in which providence directs all things to their ultimate end through secondary causes. 30
The present article's usage stands in deliberate tension with this tradition. Both divine and algorithmic pronoia present an ordering horizon within which action becomes intelligible, yet they differ fundamentally in telos, in the role of calculation, and in the place of trust. Divine pronoia orients the agent toward goods that exceed calculation and enables action without the need to secure outcomes. Algorithmic pronoia organizes deliberation around the anticipation and management of reception within a system of quantified visibility. It does not relieve the agent of calculation but intensifies it.
The inversion lies precisely here. Where divine pronoia frees the agent to act faithfully without anxious preoccupation with reception, algorithmic pronoia binds the agent to continuous predictive vigilance. Classical accounts of prudence presuppose that the agent acts within a moral order that is, in some fundamental sense, trustworthy–the good is not dependent on its immediate recognition, and faithful action is not rendered futile by lack of visibility. 31 Algorithmic environments place this assumption under pressure by making visible the extent to which reception depends on factors extraneous to moral quality. In this sense, pronoia is not merely an alternative mode of deliberation but an implicit counter-theology: a practical reorientation in which the good no longer suffices as a criterion of action unless it is rendered visible and effective within a system of evaluation.
Several clarifications are necessary to avoid overstating the scope of the argument. First, pronoia is proposed as an analytic category identifying a structural tendency within algorithmically mediated environments, not as a totalizing description of all digitally mediated reasoning. Agents continue to exercise phronesis within such conditions, often in fragmented, resistant, or hybrid forms. Second, the contrast between phronesis and pronoia is heuristic rather than absolute. Anticipatory calibration and practical wisdom frequently coexist within concrete acts of deliberation. The claim is not that algorithmic mediation eradicates moral agency, but that it systematically pressures deliberation toward reception-oriented adaptation. Finally, the contrast drawn between algorithmic pronoia and divine providence should not be interpreted as a symmetrical theological opposition. The analogy functions diagnostically rather than metaphysically: it identifies how platform systems may assume quasi-providential functions within moral perception and social intelligibility without thereby constituting an alternative providential order in any strict theological sense.
The Feed as a Formational Environment
To understand why pronoia becomes dominant, the algorithmic feed must be analyzed not as a neutral medium but as a formational environment that reshapes the conditions of practical reasoning. Theological accounts of formation have long emphasized that moral agency is cultivated through practices and structures that orient attention, desire, and perception. 32 Digital platforms extend this insight by introducing infrastructures that continuously modulate these orientations through algorithmic mediation. What is distinctive is that these structures do not merely influence behavior from the outside but reconfigure what counts as intelligible and effective action from within.
The feed performs three interrelated operations. First, it commensurates: heterogeneous moral expressions are translated into comparable units through metrics such as likes, shares, and comments, reducing qualitative distinctions to quantitative signals. 33 Second, it ranks: these signals are ordered according to algorithmic criteria, producing hierarchies of visibility that determine what is seen and what acquires salience. 34 Third, it feeds back: these hierarchies are recursively integrated into future distributions of visibility, structuring expectations of reward and sanction across time. 35 Together, these operations establish a regime in which visibility is not incidental to action but constitutive of its uptake.
Contemporary platform architectures deploy engagement-optimization models that select for content generating maximum interaction–watch time, likes, comments, shares–rather than content that is truthful, virtuous, or oriented toward the common good. 36 The “For You” feed exemplifies this logic: content is surfaced not in relation to stable communities or evaluative standards, but according to its predicted capacity to capture and retain attention. 37 A carefully discerned judgment that does not conform to the platform's evaluative criteria may receive no visibility, and is therefore functionally equivalent to not having been expressed at all. Conversely, a morally superficial but algorithmically calibrated expression may achieve wide circulation. This learning is not primarily reflective or strategic–it is habituated.
The feed thus functions analogously to what Smith 38 describes as a “secular liturgy,” forming desire and perception through habitual engagement. Yet unlike traditional liturgies, which aim at the stabilization of disposition, the feed operates through continuous recalibration. This introduces a structural misalignment between the temporal logic of the feed and the temporal requirements of moral formation. Virtue, as both Aristotle and Aquinas emphasize, depends on slow habituation and the gradual sedimentation of character. The feed operates at high velocity, privileging immediacy, adjustment, and perpetual responsiveness. 39 Formation is thereby reorganized from stabilization to modulation.
More fundamentally, the quantification of moral expression introduces a grammar of commensuration that has no direct analogue in traditional moral life. When diverse forms of moral speech are rendered comparable through the same metrics, the qualitative distinctions that underwrite practical wisdom are flattened. 40 Agents are trained to perceive their own actions through the lens of measurable uptake. The result is a structural tension: moral seriousness and algorithmic visibility do not reliably coincide, yet both operate as criteria of action within the same environment. Pronoia emerges as the mode of reasoning that attempts to navigate this tension by calibrating moral expression to the conditions under which it can appear, circulate, and have effect.
Theological Implications: Attention, Agency, and Habituation
The displacement of phronesis by pronoia does not merely alter patterns of moral expression. It reorganizes the internal conditions under which moral agency is formed and exercised. The central implication can be stated directly: when anticipated reception becomes a condition of action, attention is redirected, agency is externalized, and habituation is destabilized.
Attention Reoriented
Christian accounts of moral formation consistently treat attention as foundational. Attention is a disciplined receptivity to reality and to the good. Simone Weil describes it as a form of non-instrumental openness, 41 while Augustine understands moral disorder as a misdirection of attention toward lesser goods. 42 The monastic tradition develops practices aimed at sustaining this receptive orientation against distraction and dispersal. 43
Algorithmic environments alter this orientation at a structural level. By continuously presenting stimuli optimized for engagement, they redirect attention toward what is immediately salient and measurable rather than what is intrinsically significant. 44 The agent no longer attends primarily to the moral situation as such, but to its anticipated reception within a field of visibility. This produces a characteristic division: the agent is oriented simultaneously toward the demands of the situation and toward its projected representation. The resulting fragmentation closely parallels the tradition's account of acedia–an inability to remain present to what is given. 45 The difference is that, in this context, dispersal is not simply a failure of discipline but a structural feature of participation.
Agency Externalized
In classical theological accounts, action is intelligible through its relation to the good, independent of its reception. The unity of intention, judgment, and action is preserved even when recognition is absent. 46 Under conditions of algorithmic mediation, this relation is altered. Because action only registers within systems of visibility when it meets certain evaluative criteria, anticipated reception becomes partly constitutive of whether action can function as action at all. Agency is reorganized around the management of signals.
This shift is not adequately described as insincerity or moral failure. It is a structural reconfiguration of intentio. Actions remain oriented toward the good, but they are simultaneously oriented toward their legibility as good. 47 Where classical accounts assume that the adequacy of action is internally grounded, algorithmic environments make adequacy dependent on external uptake. Ethical validation is displaced from the act itself to the response it generates–a displacement that places pressure on the unity of interior and exterior that underwrites accounts of virtuous action.
The Reconstitution of the Good
The combined reorientation of attention and externalization of agency produces a deeper theological shift. The tradition has consistently understood moral disorder as the misordering of love, in which created goods are treated as ultimate. 48 Under algorithmic conditions, visibility itself assumes this role. It is no longer merely a medium of recognition but a criterion of value.
The agent who must secure visibility in order for action to function is implicitly compelled to treat recognition as a necessary condition of moral efficacy. The platform, as an ordering system that sorts and distributes attention, assumes a quasi-providential function. Yet its logic differs fundamentally from the providential order described in theological tradition: where divine providence orients action toward goods that exceed calculation, the algorithmic order reduces value to what is measurable and amplifiable. This is the theological core of the displacement thesis. It is not simply that agents act differently, but that the conditions under which action counts as meaningful are redefined.
Habituation Disrupted
These transformations culminate in a reorganization of habituation. Virtue formation depends on the repetition of action in conditions that allow dispositions to stabilize over time. 49 MacIntyre emphasizes that such formation is sustained within practices oriented toward internal goods resistant to external evaluation. 50 Algorithmic environments disrupt these conditions by reintroducing external metrics into the core of moral activity. Because recognition is continuously measured and fed back into future action, the agent is compelled to adjust behavior in response to fluctuating signals. Instead of stabilizing character, habituation trains responsiveness.
The temporal structure of formation is thereby altered. The slow sedimentation required for phronesis is replaced by rapid cycles of adjustment characteristic of pronoia. Formation becomes episodic rather than cumulative. This has direct implications for communal formation: ecclesial practices depend on shared participation in forms of life oriented toward internal goods over time. When participants are simultaneously habituated into responsiveness to external metrics, this shared orientation is weakened. The practices that sustain phronesis presuppose temporal continuity and non-calculative attention, while the surrounding environment trains anticipation, adjustment, and visibility management.
Toward a Theological Response
If algorithmic environments reorganize the conditions under which moral action becomes intelligible, then the appropriate response cannot remain at the level of individual exhortation. Appeals to sincerity, restraint, or authenticity presuppose conditions that are already under structural pressure. Theological ethics must address not only the cultivation of virtue but the environments that render such cultivation possible.
Three directions follow. First, liturgical counter-formation. If the feed operates as a formational environment that trains agents toward anticipatory calibration, then liturgical practice constitutes a counter-environment ordered toward non-calculative attention. The Eucharistic liturgy forms agents through repetition, stability, and receptivity rather than visibility or optimization. 51 Its intelligibility does not depend on measurable uptake, nor is its efficacy indexed to amplification. Action is directed toward God rather than toward an audience whose response must be anticipated and managed. Liturgy thereby interrupts the logic of pronoia by restoring a mode of agency in which the good does not require validation through visibility. The limited time spent in liturgy relative to the ubiquity of platforms is a genuine constraint, which is why the second and third directions are equally necessary.
Second, practices of ascetic limitation. The monastic tradition recognized that moral formation requires not only right intention but conditions in which attention can be sustained. Under algorithmic conditions, such conditions must be deliberately constructed. Practices such as digital sabbath, communal fasting from media, and forms of attentional discipline derived from contemplative traditions function to suspend the constant demand for responsiveness that defines the feed. 52 These practices may involve partial character change on the part of participants, as repeated withdrawal from the logic of the feed gradually loosens its hold on attention and desire. They may also involve communal accountability structures that reinforce new digital habits–both dimensions are likely necessary, and the fuller specification of such practices remains a task for further study.
Third, structural and institutional engagement. If the displacement of phronesis is tied to the architecture of platform systems, then theological ethics must also engage the design and regulation of environments in which moral agency is exercised. This includes supporting constraints on manipulative algorithmic amplification, advocating for alternative platform architectures, and developing ecclesial forms of communication that resist metricized visibility as the primary criterion of significance. 53 The Vatican's recent work on artificial intelligence reflects growing institutional attention to precisely these concerns. 54 The aim is not to eliminate mediation but to contest specific configurations of mediation that render anticipatory reasoning structurally necessary.
These three directions share a common logic: each seeks to interrupt the alignment between intelligibility and visibility that defines algorithmic environments, and to restore conditions in which the good can function as a sufficient criterion of action without requiring prior validation through reception.
Conclusion
This article has argued that algorithmically mediated communication environments function as formational structures that displace phronesis by rendering anticipatory, reception-oriented deliberation normatively dominant. The decisive issue is not how agents should act within such environments, but whether the conditions that make wise action possible can be maintained at all. By distinguishing algorithmic pronoia from its classical theological meaning as divine providence, the analysis has shown that this shift constitutes a structural inversion: where divine pronoia frees the agent to act without securing outcomes, algorithmic pronoia binds action to continuous predictive management within a regime of visibility.
The theological significance of this inversion lies in its reorganization of moral formation. Environments structured by commensuration, ranking, and recursive feedback privilege anticipation over discernment and responsiveness over stability. In this context, the category of idolatry clarifies what is at stake: algorithmic pronoia does not merely influence action, it substitutes a manufactured order of visibility for the providential order within which practical wisdom is formed and sustained.
The distinction between phronesis and pronoia identifies a more general principle: the decisive effects of technological systems lie not primarily in the content they transmit but in the conditions of intelligibility they impose. The feed does not simply mediate moral discourse; it reorganizes the relation between attention, agency, and the good. Ethical analysis that remains focused on content will fail to register this transformation.
Liturgical practice, ascetic discipline, and institutional engagement are not secondary responses but attempts to restore a form of agency in which the good can function as a sufficient criterion of action. If the argument holds, the central question is not how agents should act within algorithmic environments, but whether the conditions that make wise action possible can be maintained at all.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author has no acknowledgements to declare.
Ethical approval
This article does not report research involving human participants or animals. Ethical approval was therefore not required.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Author contributions
Single author. Dr Åke Elden conceived the study, developed the argument, conducted the analysis, and wrote the manuscript.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
No datasets were generated or analysed for this article. Data sharing is not applicable to this study.
Materials availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Declaration on the use of AI tools
AI-assisted tools were used only for limited language support, formatting assistance, and editorial refinement. All substantive arguments, concepts, structure, analysis, interpretation, and final wording were developed, reviewed, and approved by the author.