Thursday, January 14, 2010

Medieval Space Cadets and Modern Time Travelers

As mentioned previously, existence in the premodern world was a wholly vertical affair. As Gillespie describes it, "The inhabitants of that world did not await a bright and shining tomorrow but the end of days. They did not look forward to the future or backward to the past, but upward to heaven and downward to hell" (emphasis mine).

Again, it was as if they lived in space, not time; or at least a very different mode of time -- one that didn't "progress," and which contained its own more encompassing order. Denying this order would be like denying the seasons, or trying to make spring follow summer.

Thus, man lived more in vertical space than in horizontal time. And this space was hierarchically ordered from top to bottom. There was no such thing as "empty space." Among other things, it was filled with angels, gnomes, sprites, fairies, and various forces -- the "evil eye" of a neighbor troll, for example. But one of the accomplishments of scholasticism was to order this space in an intelligible manner. Analogously, if you think of the way that moderns organize time in such an obsessive manner, this is what premodern people did with space.

For example, here are a couple of pictures of the cosmos, circa 1300, one from before color TV, the other one after:



So space was not the empty abstraction that it later became with classical (Newtonian) physics. Interestingly, with the Freudian and Einsteinian revolutions, neither psychic nor physical space can any longer be thought of as "empty," but the ontological revolution has been slow to trickle down to the scientistic masses.

We still live in a primitive world of scientistic superstition, in which the mind is thought of as a bag with stuff in it, and the cosmos a machine consisting of particles and laws -- particles that are wholly external to one another, and invariant laws that are held to be universally valid while magically operating without transcending that which they operate on. Metaphysical incoherence rules the day, and systematic incoherence is always crazy making.

Metaphysically speaking, space and time are necessary reflections of the Absolute. Both time and space have their infinite and absolute modes. For space, the absolute is the point, or axis, while for time it is the now. In the premodern world, both space and time were bound, made to measure for man's psyche.

But for modern man, who buys his ill-fitting spacetime suit off the rack, they are "infinite." Thus, Pascal's crack about being alarmed by "the eternal silence of these infinite spaces," and feeling "engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces whereof I know nothing, and which know nothing of me." This signals an obvious change in man's orientation to the cosmos, from absolute to infinite -- or to infinite space unconstrained by any (relatively) absolute structure.

So modern man becomes dis-oriented; or, he becomes reoriented to matter only. The axis of the cosmos is now upside down, and man is inverted with it. But this all goes back to the nominalist revolution that swept aside the intelligible and hierarchically ordered space of the medieval world.

As Gillespie explains, "to think of oneself as modern is to define one's being in terms of time," which is an extraordinary thing. "In previous ages and other places, people have defined themselves in terms of their land or place, their race or ethnic group, their traditions or their gods, but not explicitly in terms of time." Premodern peoples temporally orient themselves around a primordial event of some kind -- this became their temporal axis -- but it is again quasi-absolute, not infinite.

But to even call oneself "modern" is to not only define oneself over and above another period of time, but to have entered another kind of time altogether. And as we shall see, it is not a "human time," for there is nothing less humanistic then secular humanism, which tries to adapt man to non-human modes, thus abolishing man.

In any event, "To be modern is to be 'new,' to be an unprecedented event in the flow of time, a first beginning, something different than anything that has come before, a novel way of being in the world, not even a form of being but a form of becoming."

It is also to "understand oneself as self-originating, as free and creative in a radical sense, not merely determined by tradition or by fate or providence." It is "not merely to be in history or tradition but to make history" -- a power that was previously limited to gods and mythic heroes.

I think you can immediately see the (qualified) upside of this liberation from the absolute into the infinite, in that man himself becomes a "mode of the infinite" with virtually unlimited potential. This is a critical point, for the nominalist revolution, in smashing that medieval cathedral of space, utterly transformed our relation to God. But this transformation ramified in two directions, one of them emphasizing the divine end and minimizing man's own significance. This was the extreme direction Luther took, culminating in predestination and the utter rejection of the idea that man's works could have any influence on his own salvation.

I would suggest that that is a profoundly unhumanistic stance, and I am sure Luther would agree with me. His response would be, "so what? Why do you care about these worthless sinners? Almost all of them are condemned to hell anyway, except for those pre-chosen by God for reasons we cannot fathom anyway."

The chapter on Luther was a real eye-opener for me, as he strikes me as unpleasant in the extreme (but of course, in his defense, he was responding to some rather unpleasant and thoroughly corrupt people). He was initially a nominalist, to such an extent that "he considered Ockham his master." This provoked his own profound spiritual crisis, as he concluded that the scholastics were incorrect, and that there was nothing one could do in this life to merit salvation. "He thus lived in terror of a wrathful God," and his later theology was largely a way to come to terms with this terror.

Luther resolved his existential terror in a zen sort of way. Since man cannot save himself, why worry? Rather "he can only be saved by faith alone," which "arises through grace and grace only through Scripture." Thus, his central insight "was that no works can satisfy such a God but also that no works are necessary," since all we have to do -- all we can do -- is believe in him.

Again, the human qua human is nearly entirely expunged from this formulation. Ancient ideas about cultivating virtue become arrogant attempts to appropriate God's powers. Cicero? Gone. Plato? Adios. Boethius? Get out. Again, only God can save you. Reason no longer matters, but only biblical exegesis. And "because there is no continuum that connects creator and creation, there can be no levels of ontological perfection." To put it another way there is no (↑) at all, only (↓), which most assuredly blows where it will.

Another key point for Luther is that (non-biblical) language no longer becomes a vehicle of truth, "for the truth comes about as a result of an inner experience of the divine that cannot be adequately captured in words." To pretend to understand God is only a form of "sinful pride." "[E]verything that occurs happens as a result of God's willing it to be so," which immediately implies that God is responsible for evil.

Luther had no logical way to deal with this objection, since he didn't believe in free will, so he basically evaded the issue by insisting that we shouldn't dwell on it, but rather concern ourselves only with what we can do about it, which again comes down to faith, and faith only. And even then, there's nothing to worry about, since faith "arises only through grace," again, because humans can do nothing to save themselves. God's omnipotence explains everything, but in so doing, explains nothing.

51 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

So in a sense, could it be said that Lutheranism has many of the same problems as non-dualism, in the same way that it is akin to Darwinism? I ask because the arguments against it are getting mixed up in my brain with Sherrard's take down of Guenon. Which could just be a result of logical argument overload on my part.

1/14/2010 09:06:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

Oooh - I think you're gonna take some flak for this one. But then, as they say, if you're taking flak, it means that you're over the target....

Does the book talk about Calvin at all? Because to my mind he was far more radical, and probably far more influential on modernity, than Luther.

1/14/2010 09:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Jeffrey said...

But then, as they say, if you're taking flak, it means that you're over the target....

What a ridiculous assertion. Sometimes a lame article is just a lame article. This article had about as much point as a basketball.

1/14/2010 09:10:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I need to get to work, so I need to be quick -- Julie: I haven't yet considered that, but quite possibly.

Warren: Yes, he does touch on Calvin.

Also, re the flak: please remember, I said that Luther was himself responding to some unpleasant and thoroughly corrupt people! Not too many folks come out smelling okay during the religious wars, and we haven't yet gotten to them.

1/14/2010 09:11:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Northern Bandit:

Another klein bottle troll: "You're not taking any flak, asshole!"

1/14/2010 09:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I didn't fling and flak at this post, because it makes pretty straight-forward sense.

It is an astute historical analysis, and does not assert any opinions that have any bearing on my ego.

Ergo, no attack.

But believe you me, I am waiting...

Mr. Klein Bot HOle.

1/14/2010 09:24:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

Julie,

What's this about "Sherrard's take down of Guenon"? This must be a book I missed - and as I would hate to miss any take-down of old Rene, could you please enlighten me?

1/14/2010 10:03:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

>> What a ridiculous assertion.

I rest my case (flak-wise).

1/14/2010 10:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does this post have any bearing on the Reformation?

I'd like to get back to the shism in the Catholic Church and how that affects the Raccon cadre today.

I was wondering if we could have a show of hands.

Protestants first.

Me. I'm one. Susannah? Who else?

1/14/2010 11:09:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Warren, I'm currently reading Philip Sherrard's Christianity: Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition. A lot of topics are covered, but there's a chapter there entitled "The Metaphysics of Logic" wherein he compares Christianity with Guenon's metaphysics. His objections are essentially what Bob has said about non-dualism, though a lot heavier on the formal logic and big words and also much, much drier (to my taste, anyway). I got about halfway through the chapter, then when I realized I had the gist and he was repeating the argument with different points, I skimmed the rest. There are also chapters on Nietzsche and Jung, but I haven't gotten to them yet.

1/14/2010 11:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Job said...

Gagdad
Back for another excursion into.....Catholicism Repair??? Well, problem is, "ol Luther didn't sorta come up with the "saved by grace" thing by himself, and unless he wrote Romans, Ephesians, Galations, Corinthians, ie, the New Testament in general, he was pretty much following scripture. And, you are right, he was dealing with some bad dudes in the Catholic Church, who were watching their franchise get away from them. They didn't want that so they started...umm....torturing and killing people.....
yeah...nice guys, those Catholics......
Kinda puts the ki-bosh on the niceties of philosophy when someone is trying to draw and quarter you and your family.

1/14/2010 11:28:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

>> Does this post have any bearing on the Reformation?... I'd like to get back to the schism in the Catholic Church

B'ob wrote:

>> [Luther] was initially a nominalist, to such an extent that "he considered Ockham his master."

The "schism" in the Catholic Church (it wasn't really that, just a serious argument) was nominalism, of which Luther (a Catholic monk) was a proponent, which led directly to the Reformation, which in turn led directly to the modern West.

Seems to me that B'ob is pretty well on topic, unless I'm missing something.

1/14/2010 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

Thanks, Julie!

1/14/2010 11:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Can't wait for Job find out who assembled the Bible...

1/14/2010 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

... and which came first, tradition or scripture....

1/14/2010 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

Job,

There was plenty of bloodshed and atrocities to go around. If you think that all or most of it was just on one side, you seriously need to read some history.

>> the "saved by grace" thing

Oh, you mean that thing about our total dependence on God's grace for salvation, which is what the Catholic Church has always taught?

1/14/2010 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

Seriously,

"Saved by grace, through faith, unto works" Is kind of straight forward. And as the James would say (he was a stern fellow!) 'Faith without Works is Dead.'

Luther is also dead.

Coincidence?

*ducks*

1/14/2010 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"So modern man becomes dis-oriented; or, he becomes reoriented to matter only. The axis of the cosmos is now upside down, and man is inverted with it. But this all goes back to the nominalist revolution that swept aside the intelligible and hierarchically ordered space of the medieval world."

Yep.

"But to even call oneself "modern" is to not only define oneself over and above another period of time, but to have entered another kind of time altogether. And as we shall see, it is not a "human time," for there is nothing less humanistic then secular humanism, which tries to adapt man to non-human modes, thus abolishing man."

And consigns yourself to a temporal provincialism, as obvious as if you were to travel to a backwater and see the 'hick' who thinks himself cool for conspicuously wearing the hot New York fashions (unaware of their now being passé).

Irving Babbitt really nailed them on this (and their mistaking Humanitarianism for authentic Humanism) back when our proregressives really felt themselves to be oh so 'modern' in the early 1900's

1/14/2010 12:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Ignatius said...

Finally Petey! I've been biting my tongue (and simply had little time to comment)...

1/14/2010 12:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Uh, me said...

Not to worry, Bob. I got yer back…with yet another installment of “scriptures what's gotta go! (‘cus I don't like 'em)”. you guessed it, Paul again. Man, that guy’s wordy, not to mention downright offensive.

“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:1-10)

Yup, get yer marker and jes cross it out. Perhaps like y'all, I myself prefer more of a “process”, thank you very much. After all, a guy deserves a little credit don’t he?

Later!

1/14/2010 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Okay, this has nothing to do with anything except it made me laugh, because those first few weeks it's all I wanted to eat. Especially bacon. Is there anything it can't do?

Mmmm... bacon...

1/14/2010 12:36:00 PM  
Anonymous uh, me said...

Sorry people, the meds ran out quick this month.
hee-haw

1/14/2010 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger robinstarfish said...

For what it's worth (1000 words?), here's a painting I found on the wall of the San Antonio Mission in central California last July.

The plaque reads: This painting was done in Mexico by an unknown artist. It is a free copy of an original done by Jean Cousin de Jeune for a church in France in 1585. Such paintings were used by the padres primarily as teaching aids.

The Jean Cousin original was significantly more, um, populated.

1/14/2010 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

job said "Kinda puts the ki-bosh on the niceties of philosophy when someone is trying to draw and quarter you and your family."

Yeah... so old fashioned... not nearly as cool as those modern Protestants, Calvinist's and such, I mean nothing quite says 'modern' like forcing the citizens of Geneva to attend church services under a heavy threat of punishment, and making the occasional statement with burning the heretical at the stake.

Sooo much more hip.

But... then of course there's the Scot's to deal with... they tended towards hanging... but then... the Scot's... whatcha gonna do.

(ahem)

Are the er... 'inappropriate punishments' of one side (or the other) really the extent and depth of your thoughts on the matter?

1/14/2010 01:12:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Hey Robin!

I kind of like the more populated version better... has a bit of the 'Dante' feel to it.

1/14/2010 01:15:00 PM  
Anonymous the real uh, me said...

Careful, Job, Sus, and other "crazy" Bible-believers. Next stop...the psychological gulag!

1/14/2010 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

RIP Teddy Pendergrass

1/14/2010 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Warren said...

Petey,

The New Testament, complete with its divinely revealed Table of Contents, descended from Heaven as Christ was Ascending. The entire Christian world totally ignored it, however, and went off to teach the exact opposite of everything the Book said and to invent ridiculous fairy tales (mostly about Jesus' Mom) for the next 1500 years, until Martin Luther straightened 'em out.

Do I win?

1/14/2010 01:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I hear you. At least we got some decent cathedrals out of it.

1/14/2010 02:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Iggy said...

Warren: Now you're swinging my friend! : )

1/14/2010 02:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both time and space have their infinite and absolute modes. For space, the absolute is the point, or axis, while for time it is the now....

"Now" is the absolute? Now is the most fleeting, transitory thing imaginable. You seem to be confused.

But for modern man, who buys his ill-fitting spacetime suit off the rack, they are "infinite."

Whether spacetime is infinite or not is a question amenable to scientific observation. Current best guess is yes.

there is nothing less humanistic then secular humanism, which tries to adapt man to non-human modes, thus abolishing man.

This word "abolish", I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is no practical alternative to adapting to the novel features of the modern world, other than retreating into the stone age (or medieval age, if you prefer). Among the things we need to adapt to is the knowledge that the universe is vast, chaotic, mostly empty, and mostly uncaring. Acknowledging this can be traumatic, but it does not "abolish man", whatever that means.

1/14/2010 03:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

More unwitting moebius trolling:

--it does not "abolish man", whatever that means

--"Now" is the absolute? Now is the most fleeting, transitory thing imaginable.

1/14/2010 03:17:00 PM  
Blogger Russell said...

Dear Anon,

I don't post much, so feel free to ignore me, but look up.

Higher. Hiiiiigher.

There, see that? Way up there? That's the point you missed. Wave to it.

Ooops! All that stretching made me notice something.

Your utter ignorance is showing.

Do be more careful in the future.

1/14/2010 03:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which is better and more complete, in the light of Raccoon knowledge--Catholicism, or Lutherism?

Bob and Petey should be able to render an opinion.

I'll weigh in--as an outsider. Catholicism seems better. It includes the Eucharist, which is explicitly desired by Christ, right? Do this in my memory?

Why take that away? After Catholic corruption was cleared away, why not just go back to the original formula instead of messing with it and cutting out Communion?

This I do not understand. I am Buddhist anyway so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

1/14/2010 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

"Which is better and more complete, in the light of Raccoon knowledge--Catholicism, or Lutherism? "

We'll eventually get around to answering that. The short answer is not "either/or" but "both/and." There was without question something providential -- or at least inevitable -- in Protestantism, in that it answered spiritual needs that were entirely legitimate. It could have been accomplished without the formal split, much less the bloodshed, but what can you do?

1/14/2010 04:06:00 PM  
Blogger Warren said...

>> I am Buddhist anyway

Here Bob's been buddhaflaw correcting all this time and didn't even know it!

1/14/2010 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Tenure. Check.
Prius. Check.
Zinn. Check.
Ponytail. Check.
Knows carbon footprint. Check.
Buddhist. Check.

1/14/2010 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

This will be fun.

If by "faith" we mean something like a state of mind or a mood -- which is how it often seems to be presented, then Luther would be full of crap.

Faith is like vision. When you look at one of Robin's or Julie's pictures, your vision becomes a kind of sublime thing. When you look at Rosie O'Donnell, you wish you were blind. The value of vision is in the object of vision. So, the value of faith is in the object of faith.

We all have faith -- everybody has faith. My late father-in-law had faith that it would be "just one damn thing after another." An alcoholic has faith that a bottle of vodka will keep him from having to deal with his problems for a few hours. Richard Dawkins has faith in science, the government, and his libido -- all of which will fail him at some point. Christopher Hitchens has faith that he'll never have to face God -- actually I don't believe he does, which is why he drinks.

"Those who come to God must believe that He is, and that He is a faithful rewarder of those who seek Him."

Jesus said, "Have faith in God."

There is plenty of ugly, pedestrian stuff in Protestantism, but the beauty of a doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is the immediate unfettered access to God in Christ. "There is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus."

Both Luther and Calvin may have had ulterior motives for all I know. There may have been a lot of politics and power struggles. But there was corruption in the Church such that the priesthood had become a barred gate rather than an open causeway, in many cases. The same charges could have been brought against the Church that Jesus flung at the Pharisees in the "woes" of Matthew 23.

I know I didn't say anything about faith that runs counter to what any Catholic believes, but the Roman Church herself got rid of some spots and wrinkles in thinking through the Reformation.

1/14/2010 07:39:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

OK, but back to Bob's stuff regarding time as space. What struck me was how much we tie "progress" to technology and technological advancements. At least 25% of the American people could not be convinced that Winston Churchill, for example, was more advanced than Barack Obama, simply because Obama has a Blackberry and knows how to use it, whereas Churchill would try to light his cigar with it.

To many people, technological advancement is the only kind that means anything, and technology always progresses and spreads -- without retreat, at least as far as our extant history shows -- over time.

1/14/2010 07:55:00 PM  
Blogger Warren said...

>> the Roman Church herself got rid of some spots and wrinkles in thinking through the Reformation

Hear, hear!

1/14/2010 08:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well as NB notes, the left is largely a Buddhist affair.

NB's checklist? Check, pretty much. I've been profiled.

Bob has a paucity of Buddhism in his sidebar, and is not a fan of the Dalai.

The beef? A seeming lack of God in the Buddhist picture. However, if you dig, you'll get statements regarding "The Great Eastern Sun" and "Basic Goodness."

It's not much of a leap of the imagination. Buddhists do have God. They don't assign It a personality.

They don't have an evolutionary overview either, which is a drawback.

They seem to want to spread enlightenment but to no discreet end except to end suffering.

Well, come to think of it I don't think I'm a Buddhist after all.

They deserve some some note for developing meditation/concentration more systematically than other belief systems.

That counts for something, I guess.

1/14/2010 10:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you look at Rosie O'Donnell, you wish you were blind.

Rosie O'Donnell is WAY hotter than Dr. Sanity. If you asked 100 men who they'd rather do, Rosie O'Donnell or Dr. Sanity, all 100 would say Rosie O'Donnell. I am not sure why Gagdad Bob deletes all comments along these lines.

1/14/2010 10:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Anne H. said...

Anon,
Have you ever smelled the morning breath on that pig? You'd change your mind in a hurry.

1/14/2010 11:15:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Hi

Why can't you add mr. vijay's blog http://spacestation-shuttle.blogspot.com/ in your blog list.

Very interesting blog. I have also added in my blog http://vigltd.blogspot.com/

Adding his blog would help many people who wants to know currently what happening in space.

So add this http://spacestation-shuttle.blogspot.com/ in your blog list.

Thanks for the request

1/15/2010 02:51:00 AM  
Anonymous JohnnyB said...

Petey,
I was conversing the other day with Job about the works of Iranaeus (which we read 20-25 years ago)and we we're surprised that with the power struggles inside the church that the conclave of 325 were kind enough to include the Origen fella from Alexandria (Since he did have a complete set of things and all). And just so you know, Job and I graduated from one of the only universities outside of Israel that actually house parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls!
Imagine that, we read!!!
You might tell the Bobster and 'ol Igflatulence to dial it back a bit. However, we both were a little mystified about Bob's insinuating that the Catholic Priest Luther (and his 95 theses about the corruption involved in the Catholic churches paying for salvation) "zenned up" the "Saved by Faith" thing....since it appears page after page in the Gospels, The Acts, the Epistles etc......Don't think ol Luther had to go to far to "Discover" that info. If your gonna tell a story, tell it right, otherwise there will probably be a another "schism".........


JohnnyB

1/15/2010 06:35:00 AM  
Anonymous son of a preacher man said...

Hey all the cool Christians gno the real Reformation happened with Tyndale. :Þ

"I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!"

1/15/2010 06:41:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

If forgot to add a quintessential item to my checklist:

Has images of both Obama and Che Guevara imprinted on clothing, posters or other possessions somewhere in home/office.

1/15/2010 07:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Job said...

Warren-

Plenty of killings on both sides, but you wonder who started that portion???? Then the Chicago-style politics took over...If he brings a knife, you bring a gun...etc.

1/15/2010 07:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Job said...

Van
I would say they learned from masters......
but wrong is still wrong

1/15/2010 07:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Job said...

Good job, Mushroom!

1/15/2010 07:38:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"...the mind is thought of as a bag with stuff in it..."

Which explains our current educational institutions.

"...only biblical exegesis."

Well, to be fair, one can't do exegesis without using one's reason.

How very interesting, though, that this fellow is a Lutheran!

1/16/2010 05:16:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home