## Self-evidence (main q)

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

jamest wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
Its a comparison between different models,

Exactly. A comparative exploration of the internal consistency of particular models. This started with the utter demolition of naive realism and has progressed towards more suave and sophisticated models... especially my own.

Nobody has presented a proof for anything here. The annoying vultures and flies can scarper.

Not only internal consistency in the sense of being coherent, or passing the 'Goldi-locks test' of not self-contradicting. But also an exploration of how models offer explanations of observations.
Its all OK.
Little Idiot

Posts: 6546

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

jamest wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
jamest wrote:
Further, if one adopts your narrative of things, we lose the wave/particle consistency exhibited in my own. That is, for you, something definite is always something definite, even when not observed by our consciousnesses, which means that there's no scope for matter having a wave/particle dual nature.

I dont think that we do. Only to our dualistic form of logic and thinking must a thing be either A, or be B. We (humans) have even come up with three-state logical systems that we can do some work within. If you look it up, dont confuse tri-state logic with ternary logic. I am speaking of the later with three states; true, false and indeterminate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic

So my point is that you are mistaken to say that 'for me something is always definite'.
Mentalism is very much at peace with wave particle duality, 'light is a wave' and 'light is a particle' are both half-truths, and a fuller understanding of the nature of light is neither one of them alone.

Afaik, QM lends itself to the notion that quanta exist in either definite particle form [when observed/measured], or in some blurry wave-like probablistic potential form [when not observed/measured]. The problem, as I see it, is that if 'things' are always in a state of being observed (by individual consciousnesses and/or the totality of the 'world mind'), then there doesn't appear to be any scope for the "blurry wave-like probablistic potential form" which scientists claim to have knowledge of... since all things are being persistently observed - and therefore must be in their particle state at all times.

Anyway, my main concern is how 'X' can have an all-encompassing observation of a material body. Get back to me on that.

The whole wave form concept is just a mathematical representation for what happens. I dont think its a very popular interpretation that the probability wave is an actual thing, a form of that which becomes either wave or particle when observed.
I think its nearer the fact that light is a wavicle that is sometimes the way it behaves is better described as a wave, sometimes as a 'particle' (or indivisible piece of wave with a quantum of energy) but it is neither wave nor particle. Although it can be represented by a probability wave, I dont think its commonly accepted that the entity actually is a 'blurry probabilstic potential form' - this is just a way to deal with it being in the third indeterminate state.
Its all OK.
Little Idiot

Posts: 6546

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

jamest wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
The issue then becomes, when speaking of the experienced world, does the experienced world actually exist when not being observed by any individual. Asdjkl says no. I think Jamest answers it exists in blueprint form, but I answer that it exists just as it does when observed by an individual - this is not because it is independent of observation, but rather because it is observed by World Mind. It is independent of individual observation. This is why we can find rocks which can be dated to times before individual entities lived on Earth.

From which perspective does the 'whole' [world mind] observe something like a rock?

Given that space and time are relative to one's particular perspective, you have a major problem with this. You see, one cannot observe a rock without having a particular relative perspective (frame of reference), since this is what lends value to the concepts of space/distance and time. Thus, it doesn't seem possible, from an 'absolute' perspective (whatever that would entail) that space and time would have any specific value, meaning that 'a rock' could not be observed.

The idea that there can be a 'God's eye view' of specific objects in space and time, doesn't gel at all, imo.

Your mentalism needs hammering into shape.

The rock can not and does not exist in the absolute, which in mentalism means the non-dual.
No 'thing' can exist in non-duality, obviously, as to be a thing means to be distinct from not-thing by nature of being a thing, things are only possible in duality; also non-duality can not observe anything external to itself, as this requires a second entity and invalidates non-duality. So no thing can be observed by the non-dual as either part of itself or apart from itself.

Therefore, as you suggest, the rock can not be observed by the non-dual absolute reality.

However, such an understanding is only half of the whole picture, it is an example of a great truth in the sense of Bohr, its opposite is also true, and complementary not contradictory.

In mentalism, not only is there the non-dual source, the passive aspect, there is also the active aspect, World Mind. (You may recall some years ago I tried to convince you of the necessity to consider two aspects of the one X, a passive and an active, in order to avoid confusion particularly when relating the world of duality to the absolute.) World Mind is not the entire non-dual reality, it is a limitation upon the whole, it is the one to the naught of the source. Source can only become World Mind by an act of limitation, World Mind is not separate from Source, it is a part of it, but not the whole of it. If we say Source (non-duality) is infinite potential, but no actuality, then World Mind is the first actuality. By limitation part of the passive non-dual is the active World Mind, but this limitation is an act of World Mind limiting itself from source, not an act of Source, as non-dual can not act (action requires change and time). This is the moment of genesis, from and within the limitless potential by an act of limitation, an instance of World Mind self-generates. Cosmos is the mental content of this World Mind. The cosmos, space and time and things are mental content generated and known by World Mind in and of itself.Time and space can not be in the non-dual source, and are possible and actual only in World Mind, and there can be no time/space/cosmos external to this World Mind or which is not know by this World Mind. At any point of space or moment in time this is so, the rock is included in this - the rock is mental content known by World Mind.
Last edited by Little Idiot on Apr 13, 2012 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Its all OK.
Little Idiot

Posts: 6546

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina

Posts: 15627

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

i agree w/ inductive reasoning
but my pt still is:
you cant see what is not self evident.
you cant touch it.
you cant otherwise perceive it.
as if it doesnt exist
from a self-evident perspective whould it not mean that it doesnt exist?
asdfjkl

Posts: 349

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Little Idiot wrote:
jamest wrote:
Afaik, QM lends itself to the notion that quanta exist in either definite particle form [when observed/measured], or in some blurry wave-like probablistic potential form [when not observed/measured]. The problem, as I see it, is that if 'things' are always in a state of being observed (by individual consciousnesses and/or the totality of the 'world mind'), then there doesn't appear to be any scope for the "blurry wave-like probablistic potential form" which scientists claim to have knowledge of... since all things are being persistently observed - and therefore must be in their particle state at all times.

The whole wave form concept is just a mathematical representation for what happens.

The pertinent point is that the behaviour of quanta (fundamental matter) can only be explained in terms of them having a dual nature. This is borne out by mathematics and experimental verification, afaik. This is not philosophy/reason, then - it's an empirical fact.

I dont think its a very popular interpretation that the probability wave is an actual thing, a form of that which becomes either wave or particle when observed.

It's not popular because most people's heads implode whilst trying to make sense of it. However much it makes our heads hurt, quanta - in unobserved/unmeasured wave-form - behave in a manner commensurate with being "blurry wave-like probablistic potential entities", or suchlike. The distinction between this and the observed/measured form quanta take, is profound. It amounts to 'world things' having both a definite and indefinite form. We cannot ignore this, and must therefore incorporate it within any idealistic model which seeks to make sense of the 'empirical world'.

Further, the observation of something is contingent upon that thing having a definite form (otherwise, there's nothing to observe of it). So, if you think that 'things' are always being observed (by our consciousness or by 'X'), then 'things' should always exhibit an observed/definite form and there should be nothing to facilitate this wave-like indefiniteness unto which our physicists have become privy.

In other words, 'wave-like blurryness' is commensurate with matter/quanta having both an observed and UNobserved form.

I think its nearer the fact that light is a wavicle that is sometimes the way it behaves is better described as a wave, sometimes as a 'particle' (or indivisible piece of wave with a quantum of energy) but it is neither wave nor particle.

The point of any idealistic narrative, is that no 'thing' IS anything other than a phenomenon happening to/within/at consciousness and/or unconsciousness. What you say, above, is what a materialist/physicalist would say, since it seeks the singular reality/explanation for matter itself.

... However, as idealists, we know that it is X which has a dual nature - as there are conscious and unconscious elements of it, as discussed earlier. Therefore, the apparent dual nature of matter is actually explained in terms of X's dual nature. That is, matter takes a definite form within consciousness and some kind of indefinite form within unconsciousness. There is no need for any 'wavicle'.

Although it can be represented by a probability wave, I dont think its commonly accepted that the entity actually is a 'blurry probabilstic potential form' - this is just a way to deal with it being in the third indeterminate state.

Again, afaik, a fundamental element of matter/energy is deemed to 'exist' everywhere at once.

As an idealist, you need to incorporate this understanding into your mentalism, not into a material reality. I am of the opinion that your 'wavicle' has betrayed you.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest

Posts: 18548

Country: England
Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Regina wrote:
jamest wrote:
I've just taken a rational hammer to solipsism and reshaped it - rational solipsism. Is the name of a philosophy that important?

You have done the exact opposite. You have introduced a completely superfluous entity that explains nothing.

In spite of their reluctance both LI and jamest are arguing for god. They both have naive and green platitudes of idealists long refuted, to support some ontology that only makes sense if you replace a physical universe with a scheming and extensive god with blueprint in hand.

It is no surprise that the blueprint is exactly what science and physicalism find.

SpeedOfSound
RS Donator

Posts: 32086
Age: 70

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

jamest wrote:
The self is the totality of mind, or (from your perspective) the totality of the universe. Those who think that they have an identity distinct and separate from the whole, are deluded.

One of the few things we can agree on.

SpeedOfSound
RS Donator

Posts: 32086
Age: 70

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Little Idiot wrote:.. I know the cosmos is mental, but seriously; ..

I just Know It Man!

I'll be damned.

SpeedOfSound
RS Donator

Posts: 32086
Age: 70

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

and no, just cause i have ocd doesnt mean i'll always be obsessed w/ solipsism.
last time i used to be was 2 yrs ago and for different reasons.
asdfjkl

Posts: 349

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

asdfjkl wrote:my last post wasn't addressed.
and no, just cause i have ocd doesnt mean i'll always be obsessed w/ solipsism.
last time i used to be was 2 yrs ago and for different reasons.

Look. Know one here has the heart to tell you this but you need to know. You are the only one here. You will get a response to your last post only when you think it to happen. Stop holding yourself back and respond to your post!

SpeedOfSound
RS Donator

Posts: 32086
Age: 70

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

asdfjkl wrote:i agree w/ inductive reasoning
but my pt still is:
you cant see what is not self evident.
you cant touch it.
you cant otherwise perceive it.
as if it doesnt exist
from a self-evident perspective whould it not mean that it doesnt exist?

You cant see X-rays, you cant touch X-rays, you cant perceive X-rays, but you can perceive the effects of X-rays.
Therefore you cant perceive X-rays and by your arguments they dont exist because they are not 'self evident', but they have perceivable effects and therefore exist.
Same for magnetic fields. Same for Ultraviolet, radio-waves and all the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.

There are many things that we cant sense (which seems to be what you mean by self evident) but which we know exist.

You are still wrong if you think only what you observe exists.
You cant observe me, but you can see the effect of my posting. Do I exist?
Its all OK.
Little Idiot

Posts: 6546

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:.. I know the cosmos is mental, but seriously; ..

I just Know It Man!

I'll be damned.

You probably will be damned, but dont worry there are some nice people with books and salvation for sale.

More seriously, I do know, but I didnt put the word 'just' in there. Thats your addition in a pernicious attempt to belittle and undermine the statement - obviously in ignorance as you can know very little about (the specific content of) my knowledge.
You may rightly question the validity of the knowledge, not all things we know are correct, but your attempt here is a sad illustration of an ignorance which is not mine.

I know it like I know lots of other things, because it fits with not one but a series of observations and experiences, both personal subjective experiences in the experienced world and in contemplation, and group observations from a variety of fields of inquiry.
Its all OK.
Little Idiot

Posts: 6546

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

jamest wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
jamest wrote:
Afaik, QM lends itself to the notion that quanta exist in either definite particle form [when observed/measured], or in some blurry wave-like probablistic potential form [when not observed/measured]. The problem, as I see it, is that if 'things' are always in a state of being observed (by individual consciousnesses and/or the totality of the 'world mind'), then there doesn't appear to be any scope for the "blurry wave-like probablistic potential form" which scientists claim to have knowledge of... since all things are being persistently observed - and therefore must be in their particle state at all times.

The whole wave form concept is just a mathematical representation for what happens.

The pertinent point is that the behaviour of quanta (fundamental matter) can only be explained in terms of them having a dual nature. This is borne out by mathematics and experimental verification, afaik. This is not philosophy/reason, then - it's an empirical fact.

Yes, the behaviour is modeled by the mathematics, and the current explanation is of a dual nature.

I dont think its a very popular interpretation that the probability wave is an actual thing, a form of that which becomes either wave or particle when observed.

It's not popular because most people's heads implode whilst trying to make sense of it. However much it makes our heads hurt, quanta - in unobserved/unmeasured wave-form - behave in a manner commensurate with being "blurry wave-like probablistic potential entities", or suchlike. The distinction between this and the observed/measured form quanta take, is profound. It amounts to 'world things' having both a definite and indefinite form. We cannot ignore this, and must therefore incorporate it within any idealistic model which seeks to make sense of the 'empirical world'.

Another very similar point, not to be confused with the mathematical 'probability wave' is that both particles and waves are wavicles.
Electrons, 'fundamental particles', exhibit diffraction effects (a wave-only behaviour), called 'electron diffraction' They ARE wavicles; they exhibit either wave or particle behaviour, showing the particle model OR wave model is not a complete understanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction.
Light causes the photoelectric effect, and cant be explained by the wave model, (it used to be called the ultraviolet catastrophe because the wave model of light failed) but as Heisenberg showed it can be well explained as soon as one assumed a particle model rather than a wave model. Showing again that the wave model or particle is not a complete understanding.

The way the world works is that particles can have wave properties, and waves can have particle properties.
But I still think the probability wave is only a mathematical representation, representing the indeterminate state, not an actual state.

Further, the observation of something is contingent upon that thing having a definite form (otherwise, there's nothing to observe of it). So, if you think that 'things' are always being observed (by our consciousness or by 'X'), then 'things' should always exhibit an observed/definite form and there should be nothing to facilitate this wave-like indefiniteness unto which our physicists have become privy.

In other words, 'wave-like blurryness' is commensurate with matter/quanta having both an observed and UNobserved form.

Not so. I can observe a spinning dice as it spins, and its in an indeterminate state. Therefore it does not follow that an observed entity is in a definite state.
Also, a light ray is visible (to a detector, even if not the eye) splitting a ray and looking at half of it does not mean the other half of the ray can not cause either diffraction or the photoelectric effect.
Note also that a light ray could be bent (refraction - wave effect) just before it strikes a metal and causes a photoelectric effect (particle effect) - the same ray shows both wave and then a particle nature, not one OR the other.
My point being the ray does not have a definite wave OR particle form, and looking at it doesnt have to force it to one or the other, an observed object does not have to be a definite form.

I think its nearer the fact that light is a wavicle that is sometimes the way it behaves is better described as a wave, sometimes as a 'particle' (or indivisible piece of wave with a quantum of energy) but it is neither wave nor particle.

The point of any idealistic narrative, is that no 'thing' IS anything other than a phenomenon happening to/within/at consciousness and/or unconsciousness. What you say, above, is what a materialist/physicalist would say, since it seeks the singular reality/explanation for matter itself.

... However, as idealists, we know that it is X which has a dual nature - as there are conscious and unconscious elements of it, as discussed earlier. Therefore, the apparent dual nature of matter is actually explained in terms of X's dual nature. That is, matter takes a definite form within consciousness and some kind of indefinite form within unconsciousness. There is no need for any 'wavicle'.

I think this is a possible point of confusion on your part. Is X non-dual, monist or dual in nature?
Unless you have a model where it can be more than one, or otherwise explain how it can appear to be more than one, I think your creating a big problem by having a dual nature to X, which you do if saying X has a non-conscious element.
The duality is a property of the experienced world, not of the source of the observed world.

Also, for me the non-dual source is unlimited (self)awareness, World Mind is a limited part of this (limited in awareness to 'only' every-where and every-when in one cosmos) and the individual is a more limited part of this awareness.
But this means Source and World Mind are aware, not non-conscious. An individual can have a non-conscious component of itself. World mind is conscious of its cosmos (thats what the cosmos is) non-conscious of non-cosmos. Source is aware of all.

Although it can be represented by a probability wave, I dont think its commonly accepted that the entity actually is a 'blurry probabilstic potential form' - this is just a way to deal with it being in the third indeterminate state.

Again, afaik, a fundamental element of matter/energy is deemed to 'exist' everywhere at once.

As an idealist, you need to incorporate this understanding into your mentalism, not into a material reality. I am of the opinion that your 'wavicle' has betrayed you.

The wavicle is a description of the experienced world (oft called physical world), there is no need to posit any 'material' anything to describe the content of the experience.
Its all OK.
Little Idiot

Posts: 6546

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Little Idiot wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:.. I know the cosmos is mental, but seriously; ..

I just Know It Man!

I'll be damned.

You probably will be damned, but dont worry there are some nice people with books and salvation for sale.

More seriously, I do know, but I didnt put the word 'just' in there. Thats your addition in a pernicious attempt to belittle and undermine the statement - obviously in ignorance as you can know very little about (the specific content of) my knowledge.
You may rightly question the validity of the knowledge, not all things we know are correct, but your attempt here is a sad illustration of an ignorance which is not mine.

I know it like I know lots of other things, because it fits with not one but a series of observations and experiences, both personal subjective experiences in the experienced world and in contemplation, and group observations from a variety of fields of inquiry.

Yes I belittle it. You don't know this. You believe it. You believed it before you started to actually think about it and analyze it.

SpeedOfSound
RS Donator

Posts: 32086
Age: 70

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:.. I know the cosmos is mental, but seriously; ..

I just Know It Man!

I'll be damned.

You probably will be damned, but dont worry there are some nice people with books and salvation for sale.

More seriously, I do know, but I didnt put the word 'just' in there. Thats your addition in a pernicious attempt to belittle and undermine the statement - obviously in ignorance as you can know very little about (the specific content of) my knowledge.
You may rightly question the validity of the knowledge, not all things we know are correct, but your attempt here is a sad illustration of an ignorance which is not mine.

I know it like I know lots of other things, because it fits with not one but a series of observations and experiences, both personal subjective experiences in the experienced world and in contemplation, and group observations from a variety of fields of inquiry.

Yes I belittle it. You don't know this. You believe it. You believed it before you started to actually think about it and analyze it.

You assert very poorly.
You have no evidence nor reason to support that assertion (about I believed it before...), and absolutely no way that you can claim to actually have knowledge of what I used to believe.
There is at least some basis for my claim about what I know, believe or used to believe - it's my knowledge and belief after all.

The fact is that I did not believe the world is mental before I began to think about it. Like almost all others, I started off with the unconsidered belief in a mind-independent material world, a naive realist/materialist view.
I moved through a great deal of inquiry, thought and research before I reached the early stages of what has developed into my current position after a couple of decades of life. Another couple of decades of refinement of the primary concepts, and here I am, master of my own little universe.
Its all OK.
Little Idiot

Posts: 6546

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Little Idiot wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Little Idiot wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:

I just Know It Man!

I'll be damned.

You probably will be damned, but dont worry there are some nice people with books and salvation for sale.

More seriously, I do know, but I didnt put the word 'just' in there. Thats your addition in a pernicious attempt to belittle and undermine the statement - obviously in ignorance as you can know very little about (the specific content of) my knowledge.
You may rightly question the validity of the knowledge, not all things we know are correct, but your attempt here is a sad illustration of an ignorance which is not mine.

I know it like I know lots of other things, because it fits with not one but a series of observations and experiences, both personal subjective experiences in the experienced world and in contemplation, and group observations from a variety of fields of inquiry.

Yes I belittle it. You don't know this. You believe it. You believed it before you started to actually think about it and analyze it.

You assert very poorly.
You have no evidence nor reason to support that assertion (about I believed it before...), and absolutely no way that you can claim to actually have knowledge of what I used to believe.
There is at least some basis for my claim about what I know, believe or used to believe - it's my knowledge and belief after all.

The fact is that I did not believe the world is mental before I began to think about it. Like almost all others, I started off with the unconsidered belief in a mind-independent material world, a naive realist/materialist view.
I moved through a great deal of inquiry, thought and research before I reached the early stages of what has developed into my current position after a couple of decades of life. Another couple of decades of refinement of the primary concepts, and here I am, master of my own little universe.

Not likely that reason came first. I think what is likely is that life put you in touch with that master mentalist of yours and you were driven by life and emotions to seize onto your version of mentalism. Now it has seized your brain in such a way that you make ridiculous assertions like 'you know'. Sure you do buddy.
Like almost all others, I started off with the unconsidered belief in a mind-independent material world, a naive realist/materialist view.

Everyone starts out there and dies there. You still believe in a mind independent world. If you didn't you could not function. We have been over this and you conceded that we are all physicalists many times. What you are doing is adding some additional metaphysical garbage and using nonsense concepts about mind dependence and independence in an additional metaphysical way. This is what gets your juices flowing for some unfathomable reason. Moral predictions I suspect.

SpeedOfSound
RS Donator

Posts: 32086
Age: 70

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Little Idiot wrote:The fact is that I did not believe the world is mental before I began to think about it. Like almost all others, I started off with the unconsidered belief in a mind-independent material world, a naive realist/materialist view.

This implies that you were wrong about some thing in your former belief. You also imply that I am wrong about some thing.

What is it? Is it just that I am wrong about the world not being all 'mental'?

SpeedOfSound
RS Donator

Posts: 32086
Age: 70

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

No, SoS, he implies that you are naive. Just as jamest considers some of my contributions in this thread silly.
Apparently, an idealist position requires some deep thinking, and understandably so, because it needs a lot of effort to bend reality into the shape that appeals to the idealist.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina

Posts: 15627

Print view this post

### Re: Self-evidence (main q)

Regina wrote:it needs a lot of effort to bend reality into the shape that appeals to the idealist.

The spoons! The spoons! Will no one think of the spoons?!

Little Idiot wrote:here I am, master of my own little universe.

Anecdotes and assertions. How do you tell the difference? (Hint: One of them uses first person singular!)

SpeedOfSound wrote:Not likely that reason came first.

Damn. I thought that was going to get us talking about the origin of everything. How do mentalists account for the beginning of existence? Do they just say, "Oh, it's been around just forever...."? Turtles all the way down? How?

Little Idiot wrote:Also, for me the non-dual source is unlimited (self)awareness, World Mind is a limited part of this (limited in awareness to 'only' every-where and every-when in one cosmos) and the individual is a more limited part of this awareness.

But this means Source and World Mind are aware, not non-conscious. An individual can have a non-conscious component of itself. World mind is conscious of its cosmos (thats what the cosmos is) non-conscious of non-cosmos. Source is aware of all.

And the source of the Source? Ah, I see. The universe began as a word salad, and sentences were generated analogously to a Bose-Einstein condensate. Let LI play around with BEC for awhile. He'll love the pretty colours.

What you get at the end of all this is that the World Mind had to evolve from something simple. It's like empirical cosmic evolution, but with the assertion of the existence of the World Mind. Made you say 'god'. Neener.

Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.

Cito di Pense

Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29553
Age: 23

Country: The Heartland
Print view this post

PreviousNext