Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Keepin' it Real with the Old School Raccoons

A few words about my favorite pagan, Plotinus. Being that I am hardly an expert on ancient philosophy, I can say with total confidence that he represents the summit of pagan wisdom.

Furthermore, since I don't have time to check my sources, I can also spread the rumor that his thinking found its way into Christianity, first through Origen, then to Dionysius, on to John Scottus Eriugena, over to Meister Eckhart, and then on up to us. Therefore, like, say, Hermes -- even if the thrice-great one didn't undergo the formality of actually "existing" -- one could go so far as to say that Plotinus is one of a handful of Uber-Coons. Each of these men kept the Raccoon dream alive and passed it forward, preserving and prolonging the vertical in the horizontal, so that it would always be accessible to later generations, including our masters, Herman and Toots. That's pretty much all you could ask of a fellow.

Being that Plotinus represented the best of the world Christians came to inherit, it makes perfect sense that the early Christians would make some attempt to reconcile their new understanding with his, just as we would like for Christianity to make sense in the modern world in which we find ourselves. This does not mean that we reduce religion to the passing fashions of the day; rather, the opposite. Real religion is always capacious enough to make room for anything humans can throw at it, whether natural selection, psychoanalysis, heliocentrism, whatever.

Religion can and must be "flexible" without ever being amorphous or unprincipled, just as it must be uncompromising without being rigid. You could say that it must always retain both its geometrical and musical aspects, on pain of becoming sclerotic and deathbound. When that happens, it's always the fault of the humans, who kill the nonlocal spirit with the local letter, or the free-ranging music with the static geometry. New age types do the opposite, spoiling the beautiful geometry, or architecture, with bland muzak.

Here is why we love Plotinus: unlike, say, Alan Watts -- to pick a name out of thin air -- Plotinus' overriding concern was to embody his realization and to bring it down into the world. If your realization is real, you can do nothing less, because, on the one hand, "wisdom begins with awe of God," but it also works the other way around: awe of God is one of the first fruits of true wisdom, since we know without a doubt that this wisdom did not come from us. So if you think you inwardly "know God," and yet, nothing about your outward behavior changes, then you have to question your realization.

In short, if you don't walk it like you talk it and run it like you spun it, then you're probably just an enchanting or seductive gasbag at best. If your words do not come from realized wisdom, then what good are they? They will mimic the form, but they will be lacking the substance that gives them life and makes them real. In one sense this is a "subtle" difference, but in another sense, it is as obvious as the difference between.... between everything, vertically speaking.

What I mean is that there is scale of hierarchical values in the cosmos, and this scale is proof enough of the Divine, at least for people who are able to perceive it in all domains. As we move up this scale, things become simultaneously "lighter," and yet, have more existential heft. They are lighter because they specifically preserve and convey the celestial light that transcends them, but heavier because they endure, being that they partake of the eternal.

Most of the profane art that dominates our age has the opposite structure -- a thick surface that repels spirit and reflects only the lower human realm, accompanied by a gloomy kind of heaviness that "falls" or drags us down, rather then helping us "stabilize," like an axis. To the extent that it is "alive," it is only alive with the creepy-crawly things of the unconscious, so it is more like "living matter" than matter come to Life. Look at one of Michelangelo's statues and you see the miracle of matter come to life: again, geometry + music. This is to mimic the Creator. The other way is to mock him.

In Plotinus' metaphysics, the summit of reality is the One, which, for reasons we will get into later, is necessarily good (and the source of goodness, just as it is the source of all unity). In turn, the purpose of life is to 1) realize the One, and 2) crystalize this realization in the herebelow. This formula actually works both ways, so that the cultivation of virtue leads toward the vision of the One, while vision of the One should result in purification and unity of the Self. If this purification does not occur -- either as cause or effect -- then the whole exercise serves no useful purpose, either for the individual or the collective.

Hadot points out that for the ancients, philosophy was not the cold and dead, dryasdust academic game it has become for most moderns. To the contrary, it mainly connoted a way of life. Studying under a venerable philosopher was much more analogous to converting to a religion and delivering oneself into the hands of a spiritual master; its ultimate purpose was transformation of the self, not merely filling one's head with lofty ideas. The ideas are only useful to the effect that they serve as enzymes or catalysts that bring about real change.

Here you can clearly see that Plotinus drew a sharp distinction between (n) and mere (k). As I wrote somewhere in my book -- here it is, p. 211 -- "(n) has a transformative effect on the person who understands it, as it raises and expands the level of being, which in turn 'makes room' for more (n)." Therefore, if "understanding" only takes place in the mind, then it is again of little use. (n) is obviously quite different from profane knowledge, which can be passed from head to head without regard for qualifications. Again, so long as you aren't mentally retarded, you can understand Darwinism or other purely mental abstractions.

To know God means to do so with one's whole being -- body, mind, and spirit. It is knowledge of a totally different order. In fact, a spiritual practice will again primarily involve the gradual transformation of the self, as the light and warmth of (n) does its purificatory work. (Indeed, to know Darwinism "body, mind and soul" -- if such a perversity were possible -- would be to renounce one's humanness and to render oneself lower than the beasts.)

Look at it this way: philosophy is love of Sophia, or wisdom. And if you really love someone, you don't just do it with words. In fact, as often as not, words can conceal an absence of love. Real love is action is it not? We show our love in a multitude of nonverbal ways that give it real substance and depth. Look at liberals. They "love" their country, but not enough to put the words into action and actually defend it. Rather, for them, the essence of love is to criticize our country ("dissent is the highest form of patriotism"). This is like saying that the highest form of coonjugal love is for Mrs. G. to nag me.

I am reminded of Bion, who didn't even want to know if a patient was married, for he would decide that for himself. In other words, it is common for people to be "married," which only obscures the fact they they aren't, not really really. This is no different than someone who has a Ph.D, but isn't actually educated, or someone like Keith Olbermann, who is a "journalist," but not really. You know what they say: language was given to man so as to conceal his thoughts. Note that the very first words out of Adam's mouth are lies. And you tell me that Darwinism has more wisdom than Genesis!

This is why a Plotinus and an Alan Watts represent philosophical antipodes, despite any surface similarities in language. For Plotinus, "the practice of the virtues ensures a connection between the ecstatic and the everyday" in an entire style of life, and in particular, in one's relations with others. It is "the transformation of one's whole being, a practice of virtue and contemplation that makes one present to Spirit while not excluding the presence of other people, the world, and even the body."

This is absolutely in contrast to Alan Watts, who used Zen as a pretext to argue that morals were just repressive forces of social control. True, the conscience can be transcended, but from above not below. In the case of the former, one becomes conscious of the reality from which morality flows, so that the actions of the sage are at one with it. One no longer has to think about whether one is doing the right thing. It hardly means that one is free to do "just anything," or that anything the sage does is by automatically moral. But almost all cults and fraudulent gurus rely on that (lower) self-serving formulation.

To know God means that "we are never quite the same again." True, the intensity of the experience may ebb and flow, but we organize our lives "in such a way that we are once again prepared for contemplation." In other words, we prepare ourselves to be receptacles of grace: "We must concentrate ourselves within, gathering ourselves together to the point that we can always be ready to receive the divine presence when it manifests itself again." Con-centration -- i.e., to gather oneself around the center -- is the very reflection and vehicle of Unity on the human plane.

In contrast, dispersal of one's energies toward the periphery automatically results in alienation from God. So to focus upon God is nothing less than dwelling in our own ultimate unity -- body, mind and spirit. This is why Plotinus "exhorts us to a conversion of attention.... If we wish to be conscious of those transcendent things already present in the summit of the soul, we must turn inward and orient our attention toward the transcendent."

Thus, we are constantly preparing the temple for God, the temple being our minds and bodies. When he sweeps in and makes himself known, it is a grace, but if the grace is truly appreciated for what it is, we never cease attempting to make ourselves worthy of it. It is not a denial of life but a "lived plenitude," "not a means of escape, not a way of evading life but of being absolutely present to it."

Never stop sculpting your own statue. --Plotinus

(All quoted material taken from Plotinus or Simplicity of Vision)

26 Comments:

OpenID thomism said...

"never stop sculpting your own statue"

Depending on how you take this, you will be led either to sainthood or narcissism. Plotinus seems to locate the ultimate fork in the road.

7/22/2008 07:53:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

"[Plotinus'] thinking found its way into Christianity, first through Origen, then to Dionysius, on to John Scottus Eriugena, over to Meister Eckhart, and then on up to us."

You left out one major link in that chain - Augustine, who was hugely influenced by Plotinus. (He would fit in right between Origen and Dionysius, I think.)

7/22/2008 07:59:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Thomism:

Yes, I suppose one could equally say, "never stop unsculpting your own graven statue!"

7/22/2008 08:18:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

For Plotinus, "the practice of the virtues ensures a connection between the ecstatic and the everyday" in an entire style of life, and in particular, in one's relations with others.

As I recall, there was mention in that book that some of his contemporaries considered him very weird, and were suspicious of his diet, his "distance" from others, and that he seemed "unattached" to worldly desires. I thought this was funny.

Studying under a venerable philosopher was much more analogous to converting to a religion and delivering oneself into the hands of a spiritual master; its ultimate purpose was transformation of the self...

Lots of rumors that such Ways existed -- but very tough to pin down. A lot of such instruction was oral, I think.

This post is loaded with fine points, Bob! Thanks!

7/22/2008 08:52:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, the book tries to debunk rumors of Plotinus' weirdness, and instead characterizes him as quite warm and compassionate.

Regarding the oral transmission, I found it quite interesting that back then, one did not just give one's book to "anyone," but only to trusted members of one's inner circle. For one thing, if an unauthorized person got their hands on the book, they could steal or distort the ideas, or make copies riddled with errors. So from now on, no one gets to read the Coonifesto without prior permission from me or Petey.

7/22/2008 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger bobyu said...

Gagdad Bob,

How important is psychotherapy for spiritual growth?

Because of supervised spiritual training, I can more and more remain detached from psychological problems.

But on the other hand, I have been going through some sessions with a relationship counsellor and everything that I read about child psychology and the unconscious scripts that were formed then make sense now. (No wonder I had these ambivalent feelings towards women!)

I was aware of many of the issues through self cognitive therapies, but it never felt quite real, so talking to a real person makes the psychological process of observing and integrating these issues much more real.

On the other hand, some of the relationship counsellor's advice/assignment seems to create newer tendencies and habits that I wish to avoid creating. After all, it's the old habits that were the cause, so why should I create new ones now? (i.e. replace negative beliefs with positively interpreted beliefs - "I am lazy" turn that into "I am relaxed")

It's a strange feeling to know that on one hand it's perfectly ok to have these problems because they feel inconsequential and unreal. On the other hand, when I completely identify being a regular human being with these problems, and then going through therapies makes me feel really good - I can see the problems, own them and let them go.

Probably due to spiritual discipline, the rate of progress that I am making is very fast, so I am very happy with each session.

I don't know if I am engaged in endless processing of mind parasites or if these sessions are really having an authentic change.

Gut feeling says it's doing me a tremendous good.

Un autre Bob

7/22/2008 10:12:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"In short, if you don't walk it like you talk it and run it like you spun it, then you're probably just an enchanting or seductive gasbag at best. If your words do not come from realized wisdom, then what good are they? They will mimic the form, but they will be lacking the substance that gives them life and makes them real. In one sense this is a "subtle" difference, but in another sense, it is as obvious as the difference between.... between everything, vertically speaking."

Outstanding, Bob! This reminds me of Andrew Klavan, a conservative screenwriter and author.
Dirty Harry did an excellent interview wiyh the guy, and I gotta say, he's real and he's compelling!
Here's the link-

Andrew Klavan

Here's an excerpt:
Dirty Harry:
You’re a well-respected, best selling novelist, liked by the critics who had a lucrative cocktail party career ahead of him for the asking. Empire of Lies is an affront to what many people in the critical and publishing industry believe in. Maybe you’re too humble to say it, but I think it’s brave thing saying what you know will ruffle the feathers of those who can help your career. Why even take the risk when it’s so easy to stay loved?

Andrew klavan:
Well, that’s kind of you to say, and like I said, there are a lot of guys and girls taking bigger risks than me – a lot bigger. But – I’m not sure how to put this exactly… Here’s the thing: I really believe this stuff I’m talking about. You know? I’m not just saying it. When I talk about seeking the truth at all costs, when I talk about America as the embodiment of an idea worth dying to defend, when I talk about walking into the heart of inner darkness to find forgiveness and spiritual light, it’s not because I think it sounds good or because I’m running for election or anything. I mean it with my whole heart, with every scrap of me. That stuff sets me on fire inside. And to betray it, to turn my back on those ideas, for a literary prize or a good review or a cocktail party invitation… dude, that wouldn’t even be life to me, it wouldn’t be recognizable as life. I have a lot of blessings, man, a lot of blessings. I have a wife of uncommon goodness who has loved me unconditionally for thirty years and looks at me like I’m some kind of hero. I got two kids – if I’d picked them out at the kid store, I couldn’t have done any better – and they look to me with the expectation that I’ll do my best to do right in the world and act with integrity. You got an award worth giving that up for? You got a review worth that? And also I’ve got this gift, this ability to tell stories. And what’s the point of that, if it’s not about getting it right, getting it the way the muse gave it to you, telling the tale that’s in your heart without fear? I probably sound corny now or maybe just crazy, but I really believe this stuff. And I love the book I wrote, I’m proud of it. That’s my take home pay. I got nothing to complain about.

Now that's keepin' it Old School!
Anyways, I was reading what Mr. Klavan said, and now I read this from Bob and I couldn't let the syncoonicity go by without noting it. :^)

Now, back to readin' more goodies from Bob's magic keyboard...

7/22/2008 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous christopher said...

I agree, morality is transcended and only in this way you so describe: that the instinct to do the "right" gets so exquisitely detailed and clear that keeping moral precepts become outmoded and this because the Truth behind morality is completely consistent.

This is one value of intimacy with God.

7/22/2008 10:51:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

By the same token, the sage will love and honor the laws by which he rose beyond himself. The last thing he would do is denigrate and dismiss them in the manner of a Deepak Chopra or Alan Watts, by suggesting that they are "outmoded," "repressive," or "superstitious."

7/22/2008 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

"...the sage will love and honor the laws by which he rose beyond himself..."

Just so, I believe.

A poorly understood aspect of the trek up the mountain is the possibility of slippage, at any point. In mountain climbing, this is sometimes more than a temporary setback! We struggle with temptation, but also are "tempted" to assume we will get additional chances tomorrow, and the day after that.

We can use Watts and Deepak, perhaps, as examples of men who, as you alluded, had the gift but squandered it -- or who tangled it up with ordinary life, with drugs and sex on the one hand, and fame and fortune on the other, until all that was left of the gift was just "words, words." The sheer weight of ordinary life finally prevented them from "rising beyond themselves."

7/22/2008 11:25:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Here is why we love Plotinus: unlike, say, Alan Watts -- to pick a name out of thin air -- Plotinus' overriding concern was to embody his realization and to bring it down into the world. If your realization is real, you can do nothing less, because, on the one hand, "wisdom begins with awe of God," but it also works the other way around: awe of God is one of the first fruits of true wisdom, since we know without a doubt that this wisdom did not come from us. So if you think you inwardly "know God," and yet, nothing about your outward behavior changes, then you have to question your realization."

I have found that this self examination, in relation to the Truth, is absolutely necessary to realize anything.

It takes a brutal honesty to cut through the BS, which is why it's called the sword of Truth.

I would much rather have someone stab me with the sword of Truth, laying me bare sin and all, be it God or man, or both, than to be coddled with warm n' fuzzy compassion. :^)

7/22/2008 11:28:00 AM  
Anonymous christopher said...

GBob, re your keeping the Traditional Laws.

Certainly the spirit of the law is solid. Bibilical example: "Do not eat pork for pork is unclean" is proscription to avoid defilement. This is a stain on the spirit leading to loss of the capacity to make efficacious sacrifice at the altar.

At least that is my take on it.

In the modern world, this has led to a number of other behaviors, beginning with the lessening of the need for that kind of sacrifice and then through advances in nutrition, hygiene and other disciplines, making pork literally safe to eat, removing the risk of pork borne disease. And so it is no longer a precise proscription -

But symbolically, the Truth remains the same - that if I am to approach God I need to be distinct in the sense of ritually clean.

The question becomes a matter of choice in rituals, and in all the religions there are Traditions to pattern after. Then in choosing the ritual, simple or elaborate as it may be, God will welcome the approach, provided my house is reasonably in order.

I would only add that in trying this approach and that one, my experience is a strong one over time - that God welcomes many approaches.

7/22/2008 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"In Plotinus' metaphysics, the summit of reality is the One, which, for reasons we will get into later, is necessarily good (and the source of goodness, just as it is the source of all unity). In turn, the purpose of life is to 1) realize the One, and 2) crystalize this realization in the herebelow. This formula actually works both ways, so that the cultivation of virtue leads toward the vision of the One, while vision of the One should result in purification and unity of the Self. If this purification does not occur -- either as cause or effect -- then the whole exercise serves no useful purpose, either for the individual or the collective."

"Here you can clearly see that Plotinus drew a sharp distinction between (n) and mere (k). As I wrote somewhere in my book -- here it is, p. 211 -- "(n) has a transformative effect on the person who understands it, as it raises and expands the level of being, which in turn 'makes room' for more (n)." Therefore, if "understanding" only takes place in the mind, then it is again of little use. (n) is obviously quite different from profane knowledge, which can be passed from head to head without regard for qualifications. Again, so long as you aren't mentally retarded, you can understand Darwinism or other purely mental abstractions. "

What... you think there's something that needs to be added to that?

7/22/2008 12:17:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Warren--

Just scanned my dog-eared copy of "Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition from Plato to Denys" by Andrew Louth, and Plotinus was indeed a huge influence on Augustine, although Augustine naturally filtered him through his own Christian gnosis, which, to greatly summarize, had the effect of "personalizing" the One. This is something I realized some time ago: if God is beyond man, then he is "at least" man, meaning that he must be a person, only more. He certainly can't be less than a person.

7/22/2008 12:26:00 PM  
Anonymous christopher said...

if God is beyond man, then he is "at least" man, meaning that he must be a person, only more. He certainly can't be less than a person.


GBob, Amen to that one. Thus it makes sense that there can be a "conversation" between us that is holy and between us and God. It would do well to remember that this blog is as much a holy place as any other.

7/22/2008 12:31:00 PM  
Anonymous ersamus said...

Christopher says:

"It would do well to remember that this blog is as much a holy place as any other."

I am certain Ray will appreciate that particular thought.

7/22/2008 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

That's some good stuff. I like the thought that philosophy is meant to be more than dry discussions of esoteric points. Philosophy can be/should be a path to (n) arising out of the master/disciple relationship. It makes sense.

7/22/2008 01:40:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

"It would do well to remember that this blog is as much a holy place as any other."

hmm, hope you're not thinking pious n' prosy. Our masters, Herman and Toots, ain't goin for that.

7/22/2008 03:26:00 PM  
Anonymous christopher said...

Well from where I sit most days, we allow laughter to sit right next to grief, we allow passion to shout out, or strain to hear the shy, and we say "this is one place you can say God and f*ck in the same sentence." And more than one of us says, "Without God I am well and truly f*cked."

And me, at a tender moment there a few days ago, I said, "surely God is in this place." I meant it. No one objected.

My pious vein runs that way. But then, do I get prosy....well sometimes.

7/22/2008 03:48:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Shelby Steele today in WSJ writes about Obama (Jessie Jackson too)

"But could it be that this is a man who trusted so much in his cultural appeal that the struggles of principle and conscience never seemed quite real to him? His flip-flops belie an almost existential callowness toward principle, as if the very idea of permanent truth is passé, a form of bad taste."

http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB121668579909472083.html?mod=
opinion_main_commentaries

7/22/2008 05:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob wrote:

"One no longer has to think about whether one is doing the right thing. It hardly means that one is free to do "just anything," or that anything the sage does is by automatically moral."

Aurobindo writes of the endpoint in what is possible in human realization where the sage's ego is effaced to the degree that she is no longer the doer, nor is she affected by what is done. She becomeas a direct channel for the will of God, and therefore, yes, anything she does is automatically moral in the sense that God wants it done thusly.

I agree that the state is possible but difficult to achieve. The point is, an infallible human sage is possible and there are/were some.

7/22/2008 06:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The writings of good ol' Ben Franklin are always worth a second parsing. He was the Plotinus of the 18th century. He was a religious writer of remarkable clarity and depth and especially ecoonomy of words.

Everything one needs to bolster faith can be found in his autobiography.

7/22/2008 06:35:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Christopher, it's funny you should say that about this place; just yesterday, I was thinking that it's almost like an online monastery.

Re. sculpture and beauty, I just spent a couple of days in a place that is oversaturated in visual beauty (unfortunately coupled with a lot of aural ugliness), filled to overflowing with reproductions of great works of art from all over the world. From a distance, and to the casual observer, they're quite convincing, but any close observation reveals that, cut off from the original Source of their creation, the reproductions are mostly shabby and brutish, orders of magnitude lesser than the originals they try to evoke. Which is to be expected, given the spirit of the place.
A great time was had by all (which was the point of the venture), but the most beautiful sights were still those which dwarfed the works of man.

7/22/2008 06:45:00 PM  
Blogger erasmus said...

Non-troll anoymous says:

"The writings of good ol' Ben Franklin are always worth a second parsing. He was the Plotinus of the 18th century. He was a religious writer of remarkable clarity and depth and especially ecoonomy of words."

And let's not forget all the time he spent with the Vegas showgirls of the salons of France.

I seem to recall learning about how Adams was getting annoyed with Franklin because Franklin was staying out far too late and far too often. Made it hard to get work done the next day.

7/22/2008 07:13:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Interestingly it was Franklin who (apparently unsuccessfully) made a motion calling for daily morning prayer at the 1787 Constitutional Convention:

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service

7/22/2008 08:20:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Franklin was, if nothing else, complicated. Consider him to be a living embodiment of Paul's admonition: "What I want to do I cannot do, and that which I do not wish to do, that I do."

Of course, 'living perfectly' in the moral sense does not make a man holy. Rather, those who are holy often have a level of moral perfection. This reminds me of the error, "The habits of highly successful people." This puts forth the idea that it is the habits that make those people successful, not that the whole of what is making them successful also is the generator of those habits.

I'm not against living well, getting to bed at a good hour, and not carousing. But those 'shallnots' are not the point; Augustine and Mary of Egypt lived much of their lives as prolifigates. And yet, had we judged them based simply on staying up late or messing around with the young folks we'd have condemned them before grace had its chance to work.

Indeed, some of the most holy people did an ascetic feat: sleeping only 1 or 2 hours a night for their entire life. Obviously this was not just depriving themselves of sleep to prove they were holy, but instead it was a manifestation of grace working in them.

Franklin pointed, I think, in much the right direction. But like all things, when we hear. "self", "your", etc, there are always two paths to take (like thomism is saying.) There's the egotist's path of sculpting their statue in their own image by their own power, and then there is the process of doing the things which promote and enable sculpting by grace. In this sense on really is 'sculpting one's own statue' and 'helping themselves.'

Augustine is a real mixed bag, he is. Some really awesome stuff next to some... really messed up stuff. But folks like Plotinus are somewhat inscrutable on a certain level. It's hard to figure out if he really means what you think he does, or if you are just making him mean what you want him to. Or - most likely - a combination - but does it matter? Perhaps he will tell you something - something he meant to say - in a very explicit manner that others only imply - and something that is true. Thus for the discerning nous there is almost nothing that one can read and not get something out of it.

Even if that something is a lesson in "What not to read" (thinking: DailyKos)

Cheers, Bob & co.

7/23/2008 05:20:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home