DIALOGUES page 13
intro. page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 comments
Doug 03.05.07 112.2 (13)
Membrain, had I not been nearing the end of a major addition to my website I would have been annoyed with your post. At the time of our first exchange I felt I explained "the last why" simply, to the best of my ability and your follow-up question, which you reposted a few days ago, just indicated I could spend the rest of my life trying to explain "the last why" to you and you wouldn't get it. So I decided that I wouldn't continue and ignored your follow-up.
This thread is about 11 months old. I have put my supreme effort into every post. It is the kind of thread I wanted to have on my own site and a while back it occurred to me that is where it should be. I asked Ben if I could copy this thread to my site and he gave me permission. I just completed the 4 week process of copying yesterday. This link is to a short introduction to "dialogues" and at the bottom is an index. Click on 8 and when the page opens scroll down just less than 2/3 and look for "Membrain 09.14.06 11.1 (8) and you will find your original question and my thorough, simple reply.
The title of my website is "THE LAST WHY". When I set it up 20 months ago I added the subtitle "The essence of life", a reference to my poem "The Last Why" that for me explains the essence of life. I am not sure when but during the last month, perhaps when I was copying our first exchange, I had the idea of using the space allotted for a subtitle, to explain the significance of "the last why".
The statement that "the last why gave birth to humanity" which you found "ironic", is a very recent addition to my thoughts. I think the first time I expressed it was in the post where you found it. For me "why am I?", which I call "the last why" was the last in a series of questions that transformed "homo" into "Homo sapiens", a process it is hoped we repeat. However, after due consideration, I am allowing that the last why is at the same time the first why, a threshold question, the omega and the alpha, the death and the birth.
In the space allotted for the subtitle I can not include the notion of "the last and the first" and the more important consideration that when all other questions that can be asked are answered, "why am I?" will remain. It will be the "last why". So in my subtitle I included only the idea that the last why gave birth to humanity and that it will never be answered. I think I have done that. Only comments will tell.
Membrain, this has been a useful post. I will copy it to my web site. Thanks.
_____________con'd @ 112.3
Doug 03.05.07 14.2 (13)
North, I should leave your post here. You copied my OP and then ranted on about your own concept of god without reference to anything in my post. You could have capitalized your entire post and it would still remain weightless. I urge you to begin a thread of your own with this post of yours:
north wrote:
actually I think that it is a form of brainwashing thinking that this void is only filled , satisfactorily by some sort kind of concept of god. and quite frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing about it.
it is this concept of god(s) that has caused ALL this MESS in the World first place.
if we , as a being , a unique being , called Humans , in this Universe believed in ourselves, beyond any concept of god(s), our life , our existence , is more important than any teachings from any god , from the begining of our time in this Universe. WE would ALL RESPECT each other NATURALLY , no matter where in the World you were from.
I believe in the Human Spirit. and NO other , EVER. NATURALLY.
You could go on to define "the Human Spirit", and "EVER. NATURALLY" then make sense of your third collection of phrases. In the process you might help raise ILP from the trough of drivel that is diminishing the ranks of the legends.
_____________con'd @ 14.3
Membrain 03.05.07 112.3 (13)
Cool. Your flexibility is a testament to your thoughtfulness. While I still don't completely grasp your philosophy, it is encouraging to know that any comments will get an intelligent review. Well done and thanks for the positive experience!
_____________con'd @ 112.4
Doug 03.07.07 112.4 (13)
Membrain, it is gratifying to know you have made an effort to "grasp" my "bio-philosophy". It is not worth spit if I am the only one who can 'see' it. Perhaps sometime you will shine your light on another dark spot.
_____________end
north 03.05.07 14.3 (13)
the meaning of life , to us Humans should be the preservation of our very existence. and the Human Spirit. we see a " void " when we ask for the meaning of life because we simply don't respect our ourselves , we are not Proud of our own being. as a being in this Universe which has survived. we don't turn inward examine what we have been through to get to this point in time in our history.
disease, viruses, preditors, fear , wheather , and more of which this Earth and the Universe can throw at us. all of which were delt with by our ancestors. and allowed us to still be. and now that we have survived and evolved into a thinking being , we suddenly question what the meaning of " Life " is?
this concept of god has distorted and taken away , it seems , any hope of us Human Beings of ever , as a whole of Humanity , just simply believing in ourselves.
let me ask you this; if an astroid, big enough to destroy all life on Earth, 20km in size , was coming directly to Earth. would you do nothing and pray for god to do something. or would you use your brain power to think of a way to either destroy the astroid or divert it? to do the latter is the answer to your void question.
we have abstracted the " meaning of life " question to the point where the meaning of life has gone beyond our own existence. this concept of god has made our own existence seem irrelevant.
our existence is the meaning of life. it always has been and in the end all that matters. we just have to understand this. in the end
_____________con'd @ 14.4
Doug 03.07.07 14.4 (13)
North, you need a sluice box. I think I see a few 'nuggets' here but they are difficult to separate from all the 'gravel'. Again, you sound like a preacher, the only difference being you recite a collection of vaporous secular phrases. Your view of God is a certainty, mine is only a possibility. Based on the evidence to date I have no doubt that if all of humanity asked God to save us from the "asteroid" of global warming, we will prove with the "certainty" of our self-destruction that God was not in control. If on the other hand all of humanity reached out to the limits of our capacities, to each other and to God, I think we will live on and continue to wonder about the "possibility".
_____________con'd @ 14.5
kingdaddy 03.06.07 13.8 (13)
What if your question to the meaning of life has been comprehensively answered to your complete satisfaction, what if that Void has been filled, is your life over?
_____________con'd @ 13.9
Doug 03.07.07 13.9 (13)
Kingdaddy, I am surprised by your return visit given you are convinced you have the absolute truth. I can't imagine you have been plagued by doubt over the intervening weeks so perhaps you are just looking for another opportunity to present your view. Nevertheless, I appreciate your question because it gives me an opportunity to explain my view that absolutes are self-destructive.
The last time we talked you said you couldn't open the link I provided for "the void". The problem is definitely yours because I've had several people open the link since. If you have upgraded your browser here again is the link. If you still can't open it and want to read my short essay "the void", it is on page 11 of this thread in my Nov 29 10:59 post.
I can't answer your question with a yes or no but though it might seem a bit pedantic, I can tell you why. In my view the void can not be filled so I can't answer a question that begins with the premise that the "void has been filled". There is no question that we try to fill the void and I observe that we are making a hell of a mess of our existence trying to fill it with our materialistic reaction to the void, our religious/philosophical reaction and the other six ways we can try to fill the void.
Had you asked me "is (our) life over?" if we try exclusively to fill the void I would not have hesitated to answer, absolutely. In my view, to live is to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, which is the natural activity that is, incidentally, the ideal reaction to the void. Any effort to fill the void, with for example religious theories, restricts the ideal reaction and diminishes life in proportion to our efforts so the exclusive effort to fill the void means our life is over.
You are alive so by my definitions you are not trying exclusively to fill the void. However, given your conviction that you know the absolute truth I suggest you have restricted your natural activity and consequently diminished your life to the point you are somewhat more dead than alive. Like my sisters you can't reach out to the limits of your capacities, to me or others or to God because you have your 'arms' wrapped around your beliefs.
You are certainly not alone. The mess I suggest we are in at the present time is I believe, the consequence of humanity generally being absolutely convinced if we just try harder we can fill the void in our own way. Indeed, we are more dead than alive. Based on this assessment I maintain if we continue our present activity we will eventually be all dead. If we increase our efforts to fill the void we will self-destruct sooner rather than later. I hope it is not already to late and if it isn't, our only salvation is to empty the void of all ways we try to fill it and exclusively reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God.
_____________end
Coberst 03.09.07 15.1 (13)
Doug, I think that you have experienced understanding which I describe as the creation of meaning. I describe understanding as the peak experience that can happen when we go beyond just knowing. It is a constant building of a subjective experience which culminates in an unusual confluence of emotion and intellection.
I think that Becker puts all of these things together in his attempt to provide us with an intellectual comprehension of why humans do as they do. I think that few people have this kind of experience.
Becker tries to tie this together with the aesthetic experience. He does so with the help of the work of James Mark Baldwin �Thought and Things�. I have a �Friends of the Library� card from a local college and thus have access to a very large library and have borrowed a copy of Baldwin�s book. It is a tuff read but I am slowly getting a sense of the aesthetic and how it relates to the things that you and I have discovered. I do think that there is a definite correlation between what we do and what an artist does. We all create meaning and that is truly creative activity.
(this post was in response to Doug 03.02.07 0.9 (12) )
_____________con'd @ 15.2
Doug o3.11.07 15.2 (13)
Chuck, back in Doug 10.06.06 12.10 (10) I replied to a post by Jacob in which he used the phrase "create meaning". I had never used that phrase but the notion that reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God creates in us the greatest possible sense of meaning has always been fundamental to my view of life. For me the consequences of "reaching out..." has always been self-realization but I have no difficulty equating self-realization with self-creation. Still the phrase create meaning was one of those secular religious vaporous phrases until I changed it to "we all create (me)aning". Then the statement "by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God we create (me)aning" enhanced my view.
I don't think our analyses of my aesthetic experience are similarly congruent. I have replayed the experience over and over and I can not see in it any evidence that I was creating (me)aning. As I stated I think the experience of understanding certainly creates (me)aning. However, at the moment I am inclined to think the aesthetic experience goes beyond understanding and still creates in much of humanity as it has throughout our history, the possibility of God.
Chuck, you say Baldwin is a "tuff read". Has it ever occurred to you that it might be the more difficult a writer is to comprehend the less he knows about what he is writing. I may not have yet been able to communicate the fact but I think life is an easy read. It is simply a "reaction to the void".
_____________end
north 03.10.07 14.5 (13)
Doug wrote:
North, you need a sluice box. I think I see a few 'nuggets' here but they are difficult to separate from all the 'gravel'. Again, you sound like a preacher, the only difference being you recite a collection of vaporous secular phrases. Your view of God is a certainty, mine is only a possibility. Based on the evidence to date I have no doubt that if all of humanity asked God to save us from the "asteroid" of global warming, we will prove with the "certainty" of our self-destruction that God was not in control. If on the other hand all of humanity reached out to the limits of our capacities, to each other and to God, I think we will live on and continue to wonder about the "possibility".
actually my view is that whether god exists or not is, irrelevant , to our existence in the first place and always has been.
while we ponder the "possibility" of god , we , as Humans , must continue on with using our intelligence to , I hope in the end , to preserve our very existence.
for in the end the only thing that can let us down , Humans down , as far as our continued existence , is not the belief in any god or such.
but Really, is the belief in ourselves.
and in my experience , the belief in the Human Race is shamefully lacking.
our ancestors, from 50,000 yrs ago , and back further , would be appalled. by how we view ourselves.
_____________
justcurious wrote: north,
I agree and would add not only the belief in ourselves will continue our journey through life, but also a vision of where we are going, always someplace new, someplace better.
_____________con'd @ 14.6
north 03.12.07 14.6 (13)
I agree
your statement should take care of any "void". but "they" will continue to search for the answer to the void because "they" just don't get it.
you and I are in class of Humanity that there are very few members. and where there is NO void at all 
_____________con'd @ 14.7
Doug 03.13.07 14.7 (13)
North, I am so happy you honored us with one last post to my thread because you really are wasting your time here. I think I managed to extract enough meaning from you first collection of phrases to say I don't share your view. I think our historical record is evidence enough to show that the "possibility" of God has been relevant "to our existence" now and "always has been". I think we are finding that as we dismiss the possibility we are becoming philosophical monsters for whom, given the technology, survival of the fittest is taking on new meaning.
I am just guessing but I think your second collection of phrases sounds close enough to "to preserve our very existence" we must reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God that I can agree with you but it really was a stretch.
A while back I wrote a poem I called SOLDIER'S LAMENT in which I tried to express a dead soldier's critical view of life. I thought you might be trying to convey the same sentiment in your last collection of phrases but I wasn't sure.
To decipher the three remaining collections of words whether taken separately or together has been a real struggle and thankfully your most recent post revealed the reason, so I can give up. You and justcurious truly "are in class of Humanity that there are few members". Your understanding of life is so superior to my own I wonder again why you are wasting your time commenting in this thread. For the second time I urge you to set up your own thread. The first time I suggested you start by explaining "Human spirit" and "Ever Naturally". To these I add "belief in ourselves" and "belief in the Human race". Justcurious could contribute to your thread by presenting "a vision of where we are going, always someplace new, someplace better". I listened to an interview with a man whose son was killed by the Atlanta tornado. He said, "My son is in someplace better". Perhaps that was the same place justcurious was talking about. Whatever, I look forward to seeing your thread lead the "class of Humanity" the rest of us are in, out of the darkness.
_____________end
Ierrellus 03.12.07 9.78 (13)
Doug,
You might wish to examine what Chinese philosophy has to say about the Void. Xunzian can best describe that.
_____________con'd @ 9.79
Doug 03.13.07 9.79 (13)
Ierrellus, you know how highly I regard your contributions to this thread but this one leaves me feeling we have temporarily lost our connection. I have described life as a reaction to the void because that allows me to suggest our efforts to fill the void have brought us to the brink of self-destruction. However, it has also allowed me to suggest that if there is still time, the only way to reverse our direction is to empty the void of all the ways we try to fill it allowing the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God to transform the void from the destructive black hole we have created into the impotent expanse of "white emptiness" that we would no longer talk about except to evoke the image of a 'canvas' on which we create ourselves. So I'm not sure why I should examine what Chinese philosophy has to say about the void when I suspect I would advocate removing it from the void along with all religious/philosophical reactions and the other 6 way we try to fill the void. However, as always I am open to education.
_____________con'd @ 9.80
Ierrellus 03.13.07 9.80 (13)
Doug,
There is little in Chinese philosophy that does not address your thesis and has done so centuries before any Western philosophers began to tackle the epistemological quandaries that arise from known experiences of being and becoming. The void, just as you describe it, was, and probably still is one of the hottest topics in Chinese philosophy. Why I would recommend that take on your subject is because the Chinese thinkers often seek to integrate or synthesize ideas, whereas we Westerners are happy making dichotomies and polarities, dead-end abstractions!
_____________con'd @ 9.81
Doug 03.20 07 9.81 (13)
Hi my good friend. I searched "the void" and Chinese Philosophy. All I saw was an unnecessarily complicated view of life that is an anathema to me. However, because you have read more than most, as always I am keenly interested in the reason you might have associated the words "dichotomies and polarities, dead-end abstractions!" to my writing. As far as I know the only "dead-end" I mention in my writing is self-destruction. It is definitely the opposite of open-ended self-realization but there is nothing I can do to reconcile them, nor would I want to. They are nevertheless on a continuum like the rest of what I see.
_____________con'd @ 9.82
Ierrellus 03.20.07 9.82 (13)
Doug,
I recommended certain aspects of Chinese philosophy, not as a criticism of anything you have said here, but as a possible expansion of your ideas. If you look closely, it is the arguments of those who oppose your entire thesis that rely on dead-end abstractions. Personally, I opt for dynamic, organic considerations, which is why I posted in your thread in the first place and which is why my posts elsewhere suffer.
_____________con'd @ 9.83
Doug 03.27.07 9.83 (13)
Ierrellus, I always welcome opportunities to thank you for posting "in (my) thread in the first place". "My posts elsewhere suffer" as well. I am not sure why. A few months ago Bill Walton said my explanation of life was "an over simplification". He became quite irate when I questioned how an explanation can be over simplified, especially an explanation of life which is inherently simple. Still he unintentionally make a good point. As long as he is convinced life is complex he will never understand my explanation. Likewise, my Christian siblings will never understand the freedom they claim Christianity gives them is only the freedom to quit thinking.
If restricted minds on a philosophical site are the reason my posts suffer then I will quit writing sometime. In the meantime I am hoping that the readers of my thread are just unfamiliar with my language. In an effort to make it more familiar I have been rewriting a precis of my essay that contains my full view of life. I am at this time working on the last few paragraphs in which I explain that our individual reactions to the void combine to form our collective reaction to the void, the resultant reaction of humanity. I will use the image in my original post in which I suggest we consider the natural and unnatural activity in our reactions to the void, threads of activity we weave into a fabric of existence that becomes part of the fabric of humanity. You will know what I mean, no dichotomy, no polarity, no room for any discussion of individuals separate from some segment or all, of humanity. Indeed, we are in this life together
Someone else who would understand is Tu Weiming. Unfortunately, I think he is dead. I found this gem in Xunzian's signature.
"The more one penetrates into one’s inner self, the more one will be capable of realizing the true nature of one’s human-relatedness. . . . The profound person does not practice self-watchfulness for the intrinsic value of being alone. In fact, he sees little significance in solitariness, unless it is totally integrated into the structure of social relations."
When I finish my precis I will publish it on my website right next to the more compact and thus perhaps more intimidating poetic presentation of my view. Even at precis length it doesn't fit into the context of this forum but I will at least post a link to it in Membrain's thread about "cutting edge philosophy". Perhaps it will attract the attention of one or two people who would be willing to help me hone it so I can be assured that language is not the problem. I need to know I've made it clear I am not presenting a "dead-end" answer. It is merely an explanation of why we answer and that the only possible answer to "the last why" is that we keep on looking. Otherwise we will self-destruct perhaps even by continuing to focus on money, the dominant answer in our present resultant reaction to the void.
_____________con'd @ 9.84
Murdoc 03.27.07 15.1 (13)
I wish I was in the making of this.
_____________con'd @ 15.2
Doug 04.03.07 15.2 (13)
Murdoc, "I wish (everyone) was in the making of this" common existence of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the ideal reaction to the void. The alternative, the absolutely restrictive reaction of trying to fill the void in our own way is destroying humanity. We are generally so committed to "self-affirming absolutes" to quote my friend Ierrellus in "The problem with Kierkegaard", we can not be open to possibilities. My own absolutely committed Christian sister can't stand to be in my company because I once told her if God is, God wouldn't believe in Christianity or any other religious/philosophy. Our mother lives with me and my sister won't visit. Multiply that by 9 billion and you get a vision of humanity, each of us driving our vehicle through life looking in the rear view mirror and arguing about what we see. Is it any wonder we are about to "hit the wall". WAF waste.
_____________end
Ierrellus 04.03.07 9.84 (13)
Doug,
My favorite book in the Bible is the NT Book of James. Right at the outset James explains that being holy means being whole. He goes on to explain that the wars outside us begin with wars inside us. The wars inside us amount to imagined conflicts between parts of the human, psychic trinity
of body, mind and spirit. (Edgar Cayce thought this human trinity is our image of God.) Religions that deny the value of mind or body inflame our inner conflicts, disallow our wholeness (holiness), which should be a given. Philosophies that deny body or spirit do the same.
In "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas", scholar Elaine Pagels notes that the Gospel of Thomas, with its ideas of a possible kingdom within, was probably left out of the NT because it seemingly contradicts the religious tenets the first "church fathers" believed were established by John. Likewise, it is a wonder that the book of James made it into the NT, since it is a direct argument agains Paul's faith formulation.
For any who think this matter is trivial;, the current resurrection of an old culture war between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists could not be possible without firm beliefs in self-affirming absolutes at the expense of any future of mankind. The crusader and the jihadist are true believers, i. e., they have attempted to split spirit from body and mind with disasterous results.
_____________con'd @ 9.85
Doug 04.11.07 9.85 (13)
Ierrellus, what a reassuringly post. I am just now finalizing the last paragraph in the hand written draft of the precis I referred to a couple posts ago. In the past few days I have been explaining conflict within us, between us and with Nature. In my view that we are body/mind/spirit in reaction to the void I say that at conception we began to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, an individual process of natural, biological change that more or less continues until we die. I say we become more or less what we are capable of being because we have inherited the ability to interfere with this ideal reaction to the void by introducing into our reaction a measure of the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void. It is by introducing the unnatural component that we create within us the conflict between it and the natural.
To explain the conflict between us I introduce the concept of a resultant reaction to the void that is the sum of all our individual reactions. Like the individual reaction the resultant has resultant components of natural and unnatural activity that create the conflict between us and with Nature. However, I do not see that the conflict is caused by the different ways we try to fill the void. The differences really are irrelevant. Indeed, despite apparent conflict over religious/philosophical differences, the conflict that is dominating our present resultant reaction to the void is over the same thing, money. The actual cause of conflict is due entirely to the inward direction of the unnatural activity, toward the void within, that puts us in opposition to all other efforts to fill the void regardless of the way.
Finally, to explain the obvious variability in both the amount and intensity of conflict I say it is due to the relative sizes of the the natural and unnatural components of activity and thus the proximity of the reaction that contains them, to either the ideal or the absolutely restrictive end of the continuum. The bigger the size of the unnatural component and thus the smaller the complementary natural component in a reaction, the closer it will be to the absolutely restrictive end and the greater will be both the amount and intensity of the conflict.
Your latest post in "Ex Aspiration" confirms you will understand. Judging by his post I am quite sure Al would understand as well. After my last post I wrote and invited my sister to join our mother and me for a picnic lunch by the ocean during a trip we had to make to Vancouver. She accepted and we had a decent time. Although I suspected her motives she visited us on Good Friday and left without taking our mother with her for a proper Easter. Perhaps the many letters I have written to her have had an effect. My hope extends beyond tomorrow. It looks as if I will write for at least a few more weeks.
_____________con'd @ 9.86
Ierrellus 04.14.07 9.86 (13)
"The last Christian died on the cross."--Nietzsche.
_____________con'd @ 9.87
Doug 04.24.07 9.87 (13)
When I first saw this quote I thought I would just segue into a quotation from the precis I have been writing. I didn't want to do it right away because though I had written the particular paragraph in longhand, an ingrained habit I like, I hadn't yet typed it and wouldn't until I finished the precis. I have but now that I return to his quote I find I'd like to spend a little more time with Nietzsche.
I think Nietzsche said there was the original Christian and the rest were copies. I don't know what Nietzsche said before or after his quote. I say "the rest" have only more or less copied the original. I suggest the closest approximation would be someone who lived simply according to "the golden rule" and the deeper anyone sunk into the holy crap, the less like Jesus they would be. However, this statement should not be interpreted as an endorsement of copying others to any degree. In my view that life is a reaction to the void, we have original genetic material to work with and that copying anyone subtracts from our becoming what we are capable of being. In HARMONY a short poem I wrote for another purpose I said it with these words:
I can not hold to your belief.
I have my own you see.
Belief that tells me what to do;
It can not let me be.
My gut feeling is that Jesus felt the same way and in no way intended to begin a new religious/philosophical reaction to the void for others to follow. In my interpretation of the events of 2000 years ago Jesus merely wanted to change his inherited reaction to the void. As the only illustration of change I wrote in my precis:
"In one that is well known, Jesus apparently found that Judaism, the part of the unnatural component in his inherited reaction to the void, made it far too restrictive. So he made it much less so with his “Golden Rule”. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a more natural direction for activity by which Jesus moved his reaction to the void closer to the ideal. It seems successive followers of Jesus didn't hear the message for they buried it deeper and deeper in a reaction to the void that became so restrictive it split into two about 1000 years later. Even so, 500 years after the schism Martin Luther decided his inherited Roman Catholic reaction to the void was far too restrictive, apparently particularly with respect to sex, and began his Protestant Reformation. The reformers removed a fair amount of the accumulated unnatural activity from their inherited reactions to the void but less than Jesus removed from his so their reactions found locations on the continuum of reactions accordingly further from the ideal."
There a few paragraphs after this one but in the end I suggest if it matters that we don't self-destruct we have to continue the reformation of all our reactions to the void and go back to our individual biological original, the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, and become what we are capable of being.
_____________con'd @ 9.88
Ierrellus 04.25.07 9.88 (13)
Doug,
I really like your latest post. Let me add only one thing--The Golden Rule appeared in various cultures--Greek, Middle Eastern, Far Eastern (Plato, Buddha, Confucious)--circa 500-300BCE. It is a truth that transcend time and place.
Timequake
Jesus split our time's flat line,
Shook the Buddha's hopeful feet;
And, on this, cluttered, painful street,
Makes to tremble--mine. (See Boethius on temporality)
Agreed--Jesus did not intend to start a religion; Paul did! Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandia did. Augustine did.
Nietzsche goes too far in his critiques. It seems to be an extemely personal matter with him; and he would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
_____________con'd @ 9.89
intro. page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 comments
Email Article