back during a trip to Japan in 1965, and we're going to present another one of those talks today. It's the talk, �Importance of Space.� First, a reminder that if you'd like information on the complete spoken word of Alan Watts, you should send a self-addressed envelope to MEA Box 303, Sausalito, 94965, California. We'll repeat the address at the end of today's program. Now here is the late Alan Watts with the talk, �Importance of Space.� I want to talk to you tonight about the most important thing in Eastern philosophy and aesthetics, which is space. Space largely neglected by us as being nothing. Even though our architects talk about uses of space, characters of space, and qualities

[01:11]

of space, and though our astronomers talk about curved space, expanding space, and therefore active space, there is a saying in the Sutra, which is recited by all Buddhists practically in Japan and China, called the �Makahanya-haramita-shingyo,� or the �Heart Sutra-shingyo,� which is �The form precisely is emptiness.� This character also means the sky, and so space. This means both form and color. It corresponds to the Sanskrit word rupa. It isn't the same as our word matter, which has come to have the meaning of stuff, substance in the sense of stuff, out of which things are made.

[02:11]

This refers rather more to shape, because there is not, in Buddhist philosophy, a concept of stuff. So, what is shape, what is form, what is outline, what is significant, a perceptible or audible form is the same thing as space. Now this is not quite what we mean by equal sign. When you get this kind of equation �is� in Eastern thought, that is to say, you will get a Japanese saying �byōdō, soku, shabetsu, shabetsu, soku, byōdō.� Soku means, well these two things mean �unity is differentiation, differentiation is unity.� Now we know ordinarily that nothing could be more different than the different and the same.

[03:17]

And people will argue themselves into a bloody fight that, by God, the same is different from the different, and the different is different from the same. And so, when you argue it that way, difference seems to have an edge over sameness, doesn't it? Because you're going to argue, the same is different from the different, and by God, the different is different from the same. There are more times the word �different� is used in this argument than the word �same.� And yet, you realize that you don't know what the different is unless you know what the same is, and that these two experiences designate each other. And it's this business of designating each other which is meant by these two characters here, which link form and space. And you could say they imply each other.

[04:24]

That is a little better translation than �are the same as.� So then, we are looking at a culture here which in its aesthetics shows an immense valuation of space. Also, today, under the great pressures of the population explosion, space is the most expensive thing in Japan. More expensive than food, transportation, or anything else, space. And it is a country which has learned how to make small spaces seem enormous. So great is the appreciation of space. So in contrast with our point of view, for which space is nothing, and for which space

[05:26]

is also disturbing, look at the ways in which we find space disturbing. Space free from sound or silence is a form of space, and that is something which is to most modern people, whether American or Japanese, disturbing. Silence should be filled. And you know that in the Far East where people have radios, they believe that they are not getting their money's worth out of the radio unless they have the current turned down as high as possible. They should get the maximum noise out of it because that's what after all it brings you. So turn it up high. This intrusion, therefore, into all life of constant noise to destroy silence. Silence bothers us. And so in the same way, space bothers us because there's nothing in it.

[06:28]

And you remember those glorious Victorian rooms where no space whatsoever was allowed. The walls had to be covered with patterns. You couldn't have a blank page, say a blank area on the binding of a book, but you had to fill the whole thing up with flowers and curlicues and all kinds of things, and you couldn't have a surface of wood without, in some way or other, covering it all. All because of the feeling that space just is something that's not there. Now what I want to do this evening is to show you various ways in which space is as important as the things that are supposed to be in it. And that once you can grasp that point, you have very many problems solved. Now let me start by repeating something that I've already told you.

[07:31]

But I want to do this for the purpose of making it fresh in your mind and also illustrating it vividly so that you can't forget it. This is the most elementary lesson in space, and it starts with a universe in which there is only one ball. There has to be, of course, in this universe, space surrounding the ball. Because the ball is a solid, and the solid must go with the space. After all, if the ball is all that there is, then it's no ball at all, because nobody can see its limitations. And on the other hand, if the space surrounding it is all that there is, nobody will notice the space, because there won't be anything in it.

[08:35]

So we have to start with a primordial world of ball or solid and space. These two poles or qualities, because the human nervous system is so arranged that the neurons constituting it have two possible operations, to fire or not to fire, to be or not to be. And so all thought is founded on an elaborate combination of what you might call yang and yin or zero and one, on which, with these two symbols, you can put all arithmetic on that, and computers use nothing but these symbols, no and yes, to do the most elaborate calculations. So, our way of thinking is entirely based on is you is or is you ain't.

[09:47]

And so we have a certain difficulty in realizing something in common between those two, which is suggested, you see, by this phrase, goes with. And about this come endless arguments, but at any rate, here is this universe in which all that there is is one ball and space. In this world, of course, no motion is possible, because that ball cannot be said to be moving up or down or to the left or to the right, to the north, south, east, or west, above or below, because there is nothing else in relation to which it can move. So we don't know even that it's still. We don't know whether it moves. Neither stillness nor motion can be attributed to it. It is only when we get a second ball, and now we're going to call them A and B, that

[11:00]

there can be any motion at all. And so we can watch balls A and B growing closer to each other or further away from each other. But we cannot say whether A is moving and B is still, whether B is moving and A is still, or whether both are moving. There is no way of deciding it. They grow either closer together or further away from each other, back and forth, but we cannot decide which one of them is doing it. Furthermore, I want you to notice this, that these two balls can only move in a straight line. In other words, any position whatsoever in which they may be found will be along a straight line. And so they are confined to that dimension of motion.

[12:04]

And so now we introduce a third ball, C, and we get a new problem. First of all, let us suppose that balls A and B stay together at the same relative distance from each other, and that C moves off. Now the question arises, who has moved? Have A and B moved away from C, or has C moved away from A and B? How is this to be decided? You can decide it only on the rather fallacious basis of the majority being in the right.

[13:12]

So that because A and B constitute a majority, they can decide whether they moved away from C or C moved away from them. And so by constituting themselves a majority, they can rule the situation, unless C decides to stay with them at a constant distance. Then, so long as they stay together and C stays the same distance from them, they can't move. Because they can only move in relation to C. The only thing they can do to demonstrate movement is to break it up. If C decides to stay here at this constant distance from them both, you see, the only way they can change the situation is to break up this and for B to move out here. And notice this, that in this situation the three of them can only move within a plane,

[14:25]

within a surface. Because wherever there are three points, they will always lie on a surface. Just as where there are only two points, they will always lie on a straight line. So here in the first place we had a one-dimensional world with two balls. We now have a two-dimensional world with three balls. You see that? Is there difficulty here? Yes, very. All right, now look here. Wherever you have three points in space, and supposing we're looking now not on the flat surface of the blackboard, but in the volume here, I have two fists here. And to add to this, we will use the base of the vase. Now do you see that however I move my fists, I can always have the base of the vase, the bulb here, and each fist in one flat plane.

[15:30]

In other words, supposing now you see here, they're in a plane, there's a triangle, a flat triangle, which joins all these three points. If I move this one, I've simply turned the triangle. If I move it this way, I've turned the triangle again. They're always in a plane. Yes, but even with that, you see, you can see with the three. Now these fellows say, look here, we can't decide where we are in relation to each other. This really, this majority thing doesn't give us the real truth. It's only popular opinion. And furthermore, since we're only thinking in surfaces, our judgment is rather superficial. What we need is thinking in depth. Somebody profound, somebody who can stand aside from the situation and look at it objectively and tell us what we're really doing.

[16:32]

So we now invent a fourth ball, D. D for depth. And immediately you find that D can move into a third dimension and stand underneath A, B, and C. Because once I have the three points fixed, I can take a fourth and move it out of the plane into a third dimension. Do you see that? And from this point of reference in a third dimension, see, all these three are on a surface. But this lies underneath them and looks up at them, each. And this is the objective observer who will now tell us how these three are moving. And so you've got now your third dimension, the dimension of depth, thickness, which gives

[17:34]

us substance. All this was hitherto rather abstract. But problems keep cropping up because three dimensions aren't enough. This fellow, D, can tell us how these three are moving, A, B, and C, but it can't tell us when they're moving. Do you see that? The rate of motion is going to be quite as important as the how and the, or shall I say, the where of their movement. When do they do it? And so we're going to get a fourth dimension into the picture, which is not, however, a fourth, a fifth ball, but a scale, a way of marking off any motion, as from here to

[18:42]

here, like this. You see? And if we've got this way of saying how much they move in such and such a time, we have a better way still of describing what they're doing than from this point here, alone. But you see, once you've done that, that you can take step after step after step after step, dimension after dimension after dimension after dimension, and there is no end to it. You will never really, finally, be able to pin down what all these people are doing in

[19:46]

reference to each other. You can only do it going back to the three situation, where we haven't even got D yet. We constitute a majority, and therefore what we say goes. But we always know that that is fallible. Now let's look at it in this way. All of us here have two eyes, two ears, one nose, one mouth, and approximately the same sense organs all round. And therefore, because we have these organs the same, we all more or less agree as to what sort of a world we're in. Because we are in the majority about this. But there are some people who perceive the world differently from us. And the great problem that we have to decide is, do they have diseased sense organs, or

[20:53]

do they have extraordinary sense organs? Are their organs worse than ours, or are they on the way to an improvement? We don't like to have to face this question, because wherever somebody perceives the world in a different way from us, we feel threatened. We may not be right. You remember in Kipling's story, in the second jungle book called Cars Hunting, the monkeys tribe, the bandalog, used to get together and every now and then they would all shout in unison, we all say so, so it must be true. And so every great majority which has formed a consensus, a set of conventions commonly held about the nature of the universe, feels terribly threatened by somebody who suggests that it might be different. Is this person a genius or a madman?

[21:57]

And we try to find out ways of testing it. And we say by the fruits of his acts we will know whether he's a genius or a madman. Because if his new way of perceiving things, of seeing things, destroys the kind of order which we agree is the right order, then he's a madman. But if his way of seeing things in the long run agrees with the kind of order which we think is order, then we'll say he's a genius. So you can't win against this. But there is this to be said, the crazy man has perceptions of a world which he gets lost in and he can't relate to the world of the majority of the ordinary people, he can't talk their language, he's got lost. Whereas the genius who has a new kind of consciousness can always keep in touch with ordinary everyday

[22:59]

people and explain or try to explain very clearly his point of view in their language so that he is, as it were, a bilingual person. A crazy man is simply a monolingual person. He can only talk one language, his own language, and if that doesn't happen to be your language and my language, then he's crazy. But the person you see, I think we can decide this, who goes beyond craziness into something quite else, becomes bilingual. He can talk the language of convention, of ordinary everyday society, and the language of a world seen as beyond that or transcending that. So, this is what bothers us when we are confronted with new concepts and with revolutionary ideas of the nature of the world. We wonder whether the whole structure of sanity is being threatened or not, whether this is

[24:09]

a crazy man uttering ideas or whether it is some kind of a new evolution in the structure of thought, even perhaps in the structure of the nervous system. So, the crazy idea which I wish to commend to you, which I will try to put into conventional language, assuming that all of you understand conventional language, is that of the reality of space. Let's go back to our problem here, where we have three balls moving in relation to each other, and look at it again from still another point of view.

[25:12]

Let's suppose they all seem to go outwards from each other in this direction, uniformly. We can consider two arguments about this. The balls are all on their own, moving away from each other uniformly. Of course it must be that way. After all, it's common sense. The balls are the things, they are the solid, they are what's real, and they must be doing the moving. Only things that exist that are solid can do anything. But then there's another school of thought altogether that says, those things can't move. They're just balls, they're just solid things, they have no vitality. And furthermore, they are three separate ones, they have no common mind. How could they possibly arrange to move away from each other at a uniform speed? The thing that moves is the space between them.

[26:16]

After all, we say the distance increases, and that's using the verb increases transitively, or rather, I mean, it's a verb that is being used to indicate an action, and it's the distance that does the action, apparently. When you say the distance increases, you use the noun distance in the same way as you say the man walks. So this school of thought says, so you see that what is really moving is the space. So you get the idea in astronomy that because all the nebulae, the galaxies, are apparently moving away from each other uniformly, this is put in the form of saying that it is space that is expanding. And these things float in space. Then it's terribly disconcerting because people wanted to feel, see, that space was something. And so we had ideas about the ether, and light would have to be transmitted through an ether

[27:25]

in the same way that sound waves are transmitted through air. You can't, according to common sense, have the transmission of something through emptiness. There must be something in the emptiness to support this transmission. And so we invented ether. But as you will all know, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that there is no ether. That you have to think about the propagation of light and about the properties of space, not in analogy with some fluid or liquid or gas which lies between all these things. You see, we keep wanting to invent ghosts, to invent a solid. We can't accept the idea of space. Now air is a solid. Water is a solid. Ether is a pseudo-solid.

[28:27]

It's something we had to invent to fill in this gap and say, no, although these solids are real good material solids, there must, if they are to be related to each other, be some kind of a tenuous, filmy, gaseous solid that joins all these things together. We've got to have that thing, we've got to have the strings attached, you see. We couldn't stand the idea that space just made, there's nothing but space, you know, was important. So then you've got these two theories then, that the solids are moving, or that the space between them is moving. And both sides have got good arguments, I've tried to present them. But what both sides overlook is that they are, each one, one-sided. That what is moving is neither the solid, nor the space, but the solid space. There's a Zen story, two monks were arguing about a flag that was flapping in the wind.

[29:32]

And one of them said the wind is moving the flag, and the other said the flag is moving the wind. And the sixth patriarch, Huineng, was asked about this, and he said, you're both wrong, the mind is moving. And so, what you might say here, is the point about this is, when you get down to this question, which one is moving, the mind is moving. Because, what is meant here by the word mind, is the necessary interdependence of the concept space and the concept solid. That is of the nature of mind, that you can't have the one without the other. And so, the mind used as a word, to signify the interdependence of these two poles, one of which is solid and the other of which is space. This moves. And so, mind in the sense, is the creator of the world.

[30:41]

I'm not saying that you imagine the world. Each one of you, out of your own private whimsy, imagines the kind of world that there is. What I'm saying is this, that the construction of the nervous system, selects a world. You see, your senses are selective. There are certain vibrations which they receive and others that they don't. Then on top of your senses, comes your noticing, what your senses tell, because you don't notice all, and that again is another act of selection. And then on top of that is how you interpret what you notice, what patterns of sense you fit it into, what patterns of reason, what patterns of what you call good judgment.

[31:59]

And that's still another level of selection. So constantly, the world that we are aware of is a selection of our mind. But the way we have, in our culture, selected has always left out space and rejected that, rejected the interval between things as something relatively insignificant. But now let me try and show you that it is the interval that matters immensely. Let us take another kind of space altogether. Not the space of distance between objects, nor even the space of distance in time between events, but let's take musical space. The difference between, in the major scale of C, the notes C, E, and G, forming the common

[33:10]

chord of the scale of C. Now, you have intervals between these tones. The notes C, E, and G are tones. But the intervals between them are something else. Da-da-da, da-da-da, da-da-da. And you can hear in that three intervals the basis of the melody. Da-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la-la-la-la. You see, it begins to make a tune. But if you hear only the tones and you don't hear the intervals, you don't hear a melody. There are people who are what we call tone-deaf, and they only hear noise. They don't hear melody because they don't hear intervals. So, here's the fascinating thing, that when you hear a melody and sound begins to make

[34:22]

sense to you, what you are actually hearing to constitute melody is the space or interval between the tones. It's the same as this. You recognize that? The Big Dipper. Alright. But why do we recognize it? Because we recognize the relative spaces between these points. If it was just da, [...] we could arrange them this way, whatever, you know? But it is how they are patterned, and there are no strings joining these points in the

[35:29]

sky. In just the same way as there's no join between da, [...] you see? But nevertheless, you hear that pattern, and that's what makes sense. So in the same way, if we increased enormously the magnification of a human hand, we would find a huge multitude or flock of molecules, and we'd look and look and look and look in and in and in, and we'd find there's enormous spaces with no strings joining them. And yet when I did this, suddenly all those molecules would move together. Why? See what has moved is not only the molecules, but the space. It's like birds in flight move together in the same way.

[36:35]

They don't seem to need a leader who gives a signal and says, follow me and do as I show you. They seem to have one mind, so that they all move together, all right? Now let's translate this into another thing altogether, a problem which is quite fundamental to Far Eastern culture, and that is the question of birth and death. In popular thought, in India, and to a slightly lesser extent but nonetheless powerful extent, China and Japan, people tend somehow to believe that they have many lives. There is a prevalent philosophy of reincarnation, although it's interpreted in many, many different ways. According to some theories, there is in each one of us a soul, which is a permanent and

[37:43]

enduring principle, and that incarnates itself in body after body after body, gradually progressing or regressing, and we hope eventually progressing, to higher and higher levels of spiritual evolution. But in Buddhist philosophy, the existence of any such soul is denied. There is no permanent ego or permanent soul which moves from life to life, and yet the funny thing is that most Buddhists, for all that, that they don't believe in any transmigrating soul, they still believe in transmigration. And they talk about the karma which you have been working out from your many past lives, and the karma which you are now creating for your lives to come, and yet how can they possibly

[38:45]

say this? Because they don't believe in any soul which moves from one life to another, any entity that is, as it were, the bearer of this karma. So to see how there might be a philosophy of transmigration, you've got to realize the importance of space, the importance of links or relationships between points that don't have any strings tying them together. So let's imagine, first of all, a river. Here is one bank, and here is the other bank. And in this river lie many rocks. Now, I am looking at this river from above, and I am looking at this bank from below.

[40:03]

Because I am standing on a high cliff, but I see down below a man, and he is wanting to cross the river, and he looks at it from the immediate point of view. And he does this, and he does this, he does this, [...] this. Let's trace out that course. He did this, [...] this. See? He found it, whether he could connect these pebbles, these rocks, depended on how far his legs could stretch. He took that way over. That was the way he saw. But I, from my vantage point, can see that there were other ways he could have gone. He could have gone from here to here, [...] there. See? So he could have had as an alternative this line.

[41:03]

See? And you can pick out other possible ways which he could have gone. And so, when you look at the sky at night, you can think of the stars in certain groups of constellations. But that's not the only way you could figure them. You could figure the stars in other groups, and they would be just as satisfactory, provided we all agreed about them, and how to figure them. Now then, I want you to imagine that each one of these pebbles in the stream represents the biography of a human individual. That this bank of the stream represents the year 1965, and that this bank of the stream represents the year 1465. And that between these times, there have been human lives lived between certain spans of

[42:22]

years. You see what I mean? All those stones constitute biographies. And now we have a historian looking at those biographies, lying between these two points in time, and saying, by Jove, it really does seem, doesn't it, that where this life left off, this one seemed to begin. And so there really does seem to be a logical connection between these lives. And there also seems to be a logical connection between these. Although when it gets to this point, to this one here, it seems equally logical that this one go that way, and this one go that way. Or it seems really here, that it could have gone that way just as well as it went that way. Do you see what we're doing here? We're looking at human lives, and we're making the same kind of sense out of their continuity

[43:25]

as we make in the patterns of the stars, by figuring out constellations. And that is the doctrine of reincarnation. Now you say, is that just projection? Is that just a way we have of figuring things out? Like when you look in a Rorschach plot, you make your own sense of it. And because you project yourself into it, that's what's so important to the psychologist who interprets what you are, because that was your projection into this plot. And as it were, the plot itself had nothing to do with it. But actually, the whole world is a Rorschach plot, only we have forced each other to agree

[44:30]

about how to interpret it. Because you see, when some abstract figure is drawn, see? What is it? What have I drawn? Well what is it? What does that look like? Nobody wants to be forceful about this? All right, if you're not going to be forceful, all right, you saw flames, that's why I was going to say the same thing. Now you see, you and I agree, and we're going to lead this group. We're going to tell them it's all flames, you see? And so they're going to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, I see that after all, it's flames, isn't it? So basically in this universe, when little brains and nerves and tickety-tickety things

[45:36]

come into being inside the little pods called skulls, some of them say all around here, this is the way it is. And it doesn't make any difference, you see, whether they succeed or whether they don't as a result of saying this. Because if as a result of saying it's flames, they survive longer, then they say that was success because we survived longer. If on the other hand they didn't survive longer, they survived shorter, they would say it's success because the important thing is to survive a short time sweetly rather than a long time not so sweetly. Are you going to want to go off with a flash, or do you want to drool your life out at a steady glow? See it's any way you want to interpret it. So everything's a Rorschach plot in everyday life, only we've all agreed about it, and so it doesn't seem like a Rorschach plot. Because certain strong human beings, people like Jesus Christ, Mohammed and the Buddha,

[46:42]

and the man who made up the laws of Manu and Moses, and all these cats, have throughout the centuries impressed other human beings that this is the way it is. And the Lord God says so. So if they can invoke that authority, then this is the way it is. Here we are. Now, what we do, in other words, we convince ourselves who we are, that we are the same person sitting here now as came into this room 50 minutes ago. All this is interpreting a Rorschach plot in exactly the same way as one sees a continuity one set or other of these stones in the river, or these biographies lying between the centuries. And you can't say, you see, that that is something merely imaginary, or merely arbitrary.

[47:53]

Which you project onto the external world, and that it's your own imagination and nothing more than that, because your own imagination is something in the external world. In other words, you couldn't have that kind of imagination, or the kind of nervous system that you had, unless you lived in this particular kind of universe. Your being an imaginative being, projecting all sorts of ideas onto the external world, is in its own turn something that is a function of the external world, something the external world is doing. So, patterning, finding connections between points, is the whole operation of life. You can call it, there are two principles that correspond to space and to solid.

[48:59]

One is called continuity, and the other discontinuity. In one place we see a connection, in the other place we don't see a connection. I get your point. I see the connection between one thing you've said and another thing you've said, or between something I thought and something you thought. I don't see your point. I don't see any connection. So, if I want you to see one, I have to be very ingenious to get you to see it. Then you recognize it. In other words, I can get you to see these connections, but it's going to be difficult for me to persuade you about this connection here, simply because my fingers won't stretch that far. Now in this, you can see that in this theory of reincarnation, there could be, for any

[50:17]

one individual life, several individual lives at the next step. For example, you see, by stretching of the fingers, this fellow here could go here, here, and here for the next time. So we could say he has, this individual in his next life incarnates as three individuals. In their next step, he can go here. This one can go here or here. This one can go here or here or here. This one could become three. Sometimes there are situations in which three of them could only become one, because there's only one that is consistent in the pattern. By whatever rules, you're making up the pattern of connection. Yes, I'm saying it is in the eye of the beholder, but also that the eye of the beholder is in

[51:44]

the world. And the way the eye of the beholder sees has something to do with the structure of the world, which knows itself through the eye of the beholder. The identity of it is the identity of a pattern, which you can see as linking them. All right, let me put it exactly in this way. Let us consider the University of California. The University of California has endured for many years and will endure, doubtless, for many, many years to come. And in the course of its endurance, all the students, all the members of the faculty and staff, and indeed all the buildings, will change completely. And yet the University of California will go on. What is it that goes on? A pattern, which is identifiable as a university, and in particular as the University of California.

[52:48]

In that geographical spot. That's one of the rules of identification. Actually, the University of California has about seven campuses, and its geographical location is somewhat vague, and as compared, say, with Harvard, and nevertheless, the thing is recognizable. But precisely what is recognizable here? What goes on? The pattern. But what is that pattern? Well, I'm talking, in this case, I mean, let's supposing... There is a pattern, isn't there? Yes. In other words, we are going to say there is a pattern of personality and character behavior between this one, and [...] this one, or this one and this one, which makes them look as if they were continuations of each other. Yes, certain people do show similarities. Yes, right. Of course. Of course. In other words, there is a pattern that links all of us. Because we wouldn't be here unless there was.

[53:50]

Our being here together indicates a certain common-mindedness and a certain degree of pattern. We are in a sense, therefore, sitting around here, all reincarnations of each other. And the same thing is true of all human beings. Yes. But you can see patterns, in other words, when you look at the sparks in the soot against the back of a fire, and they're all coming and going, coming and going, coming and going. And you can see all sorts of patterns in those sparks. And all of them are right, they're all legitimate. They depend, of course, on your vision, but you in turn, your brain, your neurons, is part of the same world in which those sparks are coming and going on the back of the fireplace. So, the fundamental thing, then, that one needs to see, though, is that what I've been

[54:56]

talking about as the links here, there are no links, except spatial relationships. Just as between the stars in the Big Dipper and as between the tones in music. There is a spatial, or interval, relationship between them. And this is what makes the sense. You've been listening to the late Alan Watts with a talk entitled The Importance of Space. It's number 700 in the Alan Watts Lecture Series. If you'd like more information about Alan Watts, send us a self-addressed envelope at MEA Box 303, Sausalito, 94965, California. Thank you.

[55:54]

@Text_v004
@Score_JI