Some volumes are pretty good, others a little wooly. However, to paraphrase the Aphorist, Christianity may not not solve every earthly problem, but it is the only doctrine that raises and endeavors to address them all. Think of it: is there any other contemporary philosophy that even pretends to address the questions of our origins, nature, destiny, and purpose in a systematic and intellectually satisfying manner? Consider the alternatives: materialism, scientism, Darwinism, Marx and all his retarded progeny. Those are all nice philosophies, except they don't apply to this cosmos or to human beings.
Anyway, maybe I'll try to work in some of this new material as we proceed in unearthing and revisiting the old....
"By gnostic movements," Voegelin is referring to such ersatz religions as "progressivism, positivism, Marxism," not to mention "communism, fascism, and national socialism." He tosses in psychoanalysis, which is only half-true (but more true when this was written in 1960), and would require some lengthy qualifications, so we won't go there. At least for long.
Suffice it to say that there was a time when psychoanalysis took on the trappings of a hierarchical, gnostic cult that had all the answers to life's conflicts and enigmas, with analogous rituals such as sacrifice (of money), descent into the netherworld (of the unconscious), forgiveness, rebirth, and initiation. It can become a kind of closed world, which is precisely when it becomes pneumopathological (as is true of any open system that closes itself to the vertical and horizontal Real).
[And it is entirely possible that it has reverted to form in the 25 years since I last had any intimate contact with that world. Like the rest of the humanities, I suspect it has been hijacked by the left and rendered inane if not demonic -- or both, like deconstruction, feminism, African-American studies, etc.]
For me, the psychoanalyst W.R. Bion provided the means of escape from psychoanalysis without invalidating it. It's too bad something analogous can't happen with Darwinists and other reductionoids, since it is simply a statement of fact that no ideology can enclose the soul, unless the soul wants to be enclosed, which is to say, swaddled in twaddle, muffled in piffle, and cocooned in buffoonery. When one realizes this (?!), it is either liberating or terrifying, depending on how badly one is in need of an intellectual onesie.
[For what is man, really? Homo sapiens? Homo faber? Homo lumens? Homo religiosus? Good questions. One could indeed say Homo (?)ian, for enclose him as you will in theory, he can always ask another why? And why is that? Because man is simultaneously finite and aware of the infinite. He knows when you're trying to pull the natural wool over his transnatural I AM.]
[Something in man always transcends nature, or he is no longer man. Deny it and you have transcended it. Man "in his being is an addition to nature: Homo additus naturae" (Man and Metaphysics). Or, viewing our predicament from right-side up, creation is a prolongation of the Logos in which man participates. As we've pointed out on many occasions, viewed from the bottom up the cosmos contains a number of unbridgeable gaps and disconinuities. Viewed from the top down the discontinuities are seen as necessary distinctions in the spectrum between absolute and relative.]
From whom did Bob borrow the preconceptual symbol O, and why? (In this context, "preconceptual" means an innate category of thought awaiting experience in order to be real-ized.) Bion:
I shall use the sign O to denote that which is the ultimate reality represented by terms such as ultimate reality, absolute truth, the godhead, the infinite, the thing-in-itself. O does not fall in the domain of knowledge or learning save incidentally; it can 'become,' but it cannot be 'known.' It is darkness and formlessness but it enters the domain K when it has evolved to a point where it can be known, through knowledge gained by experience.
Similarly, "the reader must disregard what I say until the O of the experience of reading has evolved to a point where the actual events of reading issue in his interpretation of the experiences."
[This applies, for example, whenever we use the term "God." For clearly, God by definition can never be contained by any thought, concept, idea, or experience. And yet we can obviously have "knowledge of God," which is none other than O-->(k). Dogma, you might say, is (k)-->O. It clearly has its place, but it must be complemented by O-->(k), or risk becoming static and sterile. You know the old gag: "faith seeking understanding," or (o) seeking O-->(k).]
[O] stands for the absolute truth in and of any object; it is assumed that this cannot be known by any human being; it can be known about, its presence can be recognized and felt, but it cannot be known. It is possible to be at one with it. That it exists is an essential postulate of science but it cannot be scientifically discovered.... The religious mystics have probably approximated most closely to expression of experience of it. Its existence is as essential to science as it is to religion (ibid).
It exists is an essential postulate of science but it cannot be scientifically discovered. That's what you call a key principle. The typical muddleheaded materialist will deny what he can never actually do without, which is to say, Absolute Reality:
The whole of human history is evidence of how man is never in fact without an absolute and how the real problem becomes one of correctly defining the nature of the meaning of something which reason itself is tireless in seeking and evoking (Man and Metaphysics).
[Thus, "If you don't believe in Spirit you will believe in Matter -- and in spirits under the counter!" In short, every man has a religion and can't help having a religion. Identify a man's absolute, and the rest falls into place. "Our freethinkers are less free than they suppose, and are still very religious, though devotees of religions which flourished many centuries before our own era" (Origins of Christian Philosophy.)]
You can see how Bion would be considered controversial among fellow analysts, especially the old-school ones of the time who were well up in the hierarchy of the Church of Psychoanalysis. The peevish poobahs whose pride and identity revolve around their superior intellects don't generally like to be informed that they not only know nothing, but that what they know is a kind of cowardly lyin' in the face of the uncontainable Wizardry of O.
Back to Voegelin. He writes that none of the above-noted gnostic nostrums "began as a mass movement." Rather, they always begin with some intellectual clown, or posse of clowns, who tries to enclose O and thereby drink the ocean. If their arguments were compelling, then no one would have to be forced to accept them, which shows the lack of intellect at the heart of this destructive intellectualism.
You will have noticed that Obama always speaks as if everything he says, believes, and prescribes is self-evident. But again, if it were true, then no one would have to be forced to accept it. If he actually had faith in truth, then he would simply express it and wait for others to nod in agreement, as they did back in college.
One conspicuous irony -- and this is vividly displayed in the rantings of Obama's spiritual mentor -- is that these types of political religions are ultimately "modifications of the Christian idea of perfection" (Voegelin). For the Christian, life is a pilgrimage toward a goal that isn't attainable in this world, even though it is the source and vector of meaning in this world.
In this context, one could say that time -- its human structure and meaning -- is a measure of the distance between man and God: "The Christian looks at creation as irreversible in time, directed toward a definite end, namely its divinization, and with no return" (Origins of C. P.). Time and creation are vectorial.
But gnostic man simply transposes this journey to the immanent plane, which thereby becomes both his axis in space and his destiny -- or his fate -- in time. Instead of the pilgrimage of cosmotheosis, life is reduced to a vain exercise in cosmobliteration; or, as we've said before, cutting off your nous to spite the face before you were born.
Classical liberty and progressive liberation turn out to be opposites. For to be liberated from O is like being liberated from gravity -- exciting at first, until the oxygen -- and money -- runs out.
When the teleological component is immanentized, the chief emphasis of the gnostic-political idea lies on the forward movement, on the movement toward a goal of perfection in this world. The goal itself need not be understood very precisely; it may consist of no more than the idealization of this or that aspect of the situation, considered valuable by the thinker in question (Voegelin).
Of the prophetic idiom, O'Malley writes that "fundamentalists both religious and secular are comfortable here," for "it is the culture, above all, of the reformer decrying injustice and corruption in high places."
It is the culture that denounces the existing order, while holding out vague but grandiose "promises of better times to come," i.e., weaponized hopenchange. It is "the culture of great expectations, expectations that surpass anything that seems humanly possible." And it is usually gnostic, since it is "revealed to the few, hidden from the many." Which brings us full circle and ends this post: the enemy of Homo (?)ian is the man who collapses the space between ? and O.
31 comments:
has been hijacked by the left and rendered inane if not demonic
I got lost at hijacked. How did this happen?
I attended a few college classes with a Jewish closeted bisexual type, not because there “isn’t anything wrong with that”, but because he was entertaining and street wise and I was a sheltered naïve Christian townie wanting to be better with the street smarts. Plus he was the only guy in class I’d known from high school. He once warned me about “that guy”, pointing across the way to “a socialist YSA” type. I'd never heard of such a thing. I though I was being clever when I replied that that was no way to get oneself laid. That was our entire political talk those two quarters.
Many years later he’s a law professor in Miami, described by students as “far left”. At our high school reunion I confronted him with this. He found it amusing, saying he hasn’t changed, that society has been “hijacked by the right and made dysfunctional”. I find the opposing similarity with Bob’s statement interesting.
I’m thinking that we either need to get these two academics together, or maybe, figure out who’s doing all this hijacking, left and right.
A law professor in Miami wouldn't even know what the right is, since there is no right in Miami. To live in Miami is to swim in an ocean of leftist sewage. Born and raised there. Probably went to the same school at which the law professor teaches. Pound sand, troll.
Christina! :D
Christianity may not not solve every earthly problem, but it is the only doctrine that raises and endeavors to address them all.
One of the interesting things about Christianity, I find, is how profoundly different it is from pretty much every other belief system I know of, as well. There's no pantheon of deities living the heavenly equivalent of Real Gods of Asgard; in fact, it is profoundly human in a way that human imagination wouldn't likely come up with on its own. It's too mundane.
Back to Voegelin. He writes that none of the above-noted gnostic nostrums "began as a mass movement." Rather, they always begin with some intellectual clown, or posse of clowns, who tries to enclose O and thereby drink the ocean.
Reminds of the "news" stories coming out this week about some Christian pastor who, after advocating the purity lifestyle, has come out and completely renounced his faith and announced his divorce. many are speculating a leap from the closet in the near future.
He thought he had all the answers. When life proved to be more challenging than he expected based on his reading, he decided that all the answers must lie in the other direction, instead. Still trying to drink the ocean, but now from the bottom instead of the top.
Christina M,
This is confusing. Miami’s mayor Suarez claims to be a Republican, as was the previous mayor. And who are those students?
Besides, aren't Cubans honorary white supremacists?
Julie: speaking of Kooky Kristians who completely miss the point, get a load of this posse of Trump hating clowns hiding behind Jesus. Coincidentally, I'm reading an excellent book that thoroughly documents how nationalism is fully rooted in biblical principles.
Wow. So they can't stand up for Christianity, and they can't stand up for America. What are the for, I wonder?
"The diffusion of a few drops of Christianity into a leftist mind transforms the idiot into a perfect idiot."
As always, Don Colacho puts it best.
Hi Julie!
I'm having trouble reconciling the old testament's ideology of the whole sacrificial lamb.
This, to me, is scapegoating and that doesn't line up with personal responsibility and recieving just rewards.
Now there’s something we can all agree on. American Christians not selling out to atheist communist China or the terrorarabs. Trumps our man for that when he's actually being the man for that. The Miami rocky horror picture show we’ll deal with later.
So who’s doing all this hijacking anyways?
Hi Doug!
I agree, on its face the idea of the sacrificial lamb would seem to render the relationship between man and God as something essentially transactional, as opposed to a more deeper, loving relationship. We know (from experience, I hope!) that we can't buy our way out of our sins; it must, therefore, have a much deeper meaning than that.
I don't have the answers, obviously, but there are several key moments in the Bible which point to Something More Going On in re. the whole lamb thing. First, we have Abel, the shepherd, offering up a lamb to the Lord - not for a sin offering, notably, but rather in thanksgiving (Eucharist?) - while his brother Cain, the farmer, offered produce from the land. God looked with favor on the lamb offering. I wonder why?
Then of course, there's Passover, where the blood of a lamb - again, not a sin offering - saved the Israelites from the final plague against the Egyptians. There's the Law of the Torah, where any number of animals were prescribed as a means of cleansing one of sins great and small; and finally, of course, there is Christ, "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Truly, I don't understand it, but there is something very deep there, and I think it goes beyond mere scapegoating.
From the outside, too, there is the reality that pretty much every religion besides Judaism and Christianity, sooner or later, devolves into animal and ultimately human sacrifice, a reality which is as true today as it was 5000 years ago. Somehow, time and again, people get the idea that if they only kill this thing, that Something will reward them. Particularly if what is offered up is young and innocent. Again, I wonder why? Where do they get thisss idea?
Thank you for your thoughts on this matter!
It's quite the mystery.
I'll be studying more on this.
As an aside, my son had his DNA traced back. He's.01% Ashkenazi Jew.
I don't know where it comes from yet, my wife or myself.
Gil Bailee’s books are helpful to learn about the cultural and anthropological meaning of sacrificial systems and how Judeo Christianity turned them upside down.
Jordan Peterson has an excellent YouTube series on the psychological significance of the biblical stories. His Cain and Abel chapter discusses humanity’s gradual recognition of the power of sacrifice and delayed gratification.
In terms of salvation theology, sacrifice is the ultimate counter to original sin. Original sin is the elevation of man above God. Sacrifice is an act of contrition, placing things back in their proper order.
But Israelite history (and my daily experience in my own life) showed time and again that man is not capable of sufficiently sacrificing - giving of himself - to fully repair the defects to which his nature is prone. Hence God jumps in to help, meets us in the middle, with a substitute sacrifice.
The ability to transfer and offload sin that we cannot overcome on our own to a scapegoat is God’s mercy to his creation. It is a temporary and temporal mechanism for reconciliation in our current chapter in the arc of salvation, as the nature of man is perfected and there is no need for repentance in the world to come.
Bob has mentioned a few times in posts over the past few months, something to the effect that original sin was unavoidable given the nature of our created selves. To paraphrase, you might say that the movement from innocence to wisdom requires eating of the knowledge of the tree of good of evil.
There is an elegance and beauty to the catastrophe and horror of Christ’s murder. Resortoration of order and love and full communion with the divine through the shedding of sacrificial blood.
Humanity rises to God by demonstrating its desire for transcendence through sacrifice and god descends by allowing the wages of sin to be transferred instead of paid in spiritual death.
It is really a perfect manifestation of how God and humanity are intended to partner and meet at the center of the Cross.
Sacrifice and transference. Rising and Descent.
It’s so beautiful and elegant it’s hard not to think that this was the plan from the beginning.
I think I’m close...
Beautifully put, Anon. Thanks.
Sounds more like a death cult to me. "Beauty in gods sacrifice," etc. etc... just so you can all avoid your own death. In my opinion, ultimately everyone pays and there's no way around it.
I've read Rene Girard and Gil Bailee btw so I'm well versed in their views.
All religious myths has scientific and natural explanations. The dead god myth goes back to the age when Saturn was the central sun and was worshiped as the "Father" or creator, as saturn is a brown dwarf star and mars and earth were satellites within it's red plasma glow. Mankind couldn't see outside of this glow and was unaware of the universe at large, the stars etc, hence we lived in an undifferentiated realm, like a cell or an egg. Saturn was electrically usurped upon coming into the domain of our current star and flared up, as that's what brown dwarfs do to adapt to their electrical environment. "Let there be light," was mankind's earliest memories of the flair up, which gave birth to Venus, a new planet, and this action set in motion the new order of the solar system, i.e., creation.
Mars and Venus existed so close to earth in those days that they caused world catastrophe for thousands of years, including earthquakes, floods, plagues, etc. Saturn became a negative god satan with it's associations of fire and brimstone. And Venus was associated Lucifer, the morning star, which at one point existed in a erratic orbit and came close to earth every 50 years or so. You might want to reread some scripture to see:
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, the son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars."
And this from the Bablonians:
" O Istar, queen of all peoples... thou art the light of heaven and earth...At the thought of thy name the heaven and the earth quake...And the spirits of the earth falter. Mankind payeth homage unto thy might name (via sacrifice)...Bright torch of heaven and earth, light of all dwellings..
The priest of Iran:
"We sacrifice to Tistrya, the bright and glorious star, for whom long flocks and herds and men, looking forward for him and deceived in their hope: When shall we see him rise up, the bright and glorious star Tistry.
And pretty much all cultures around the world remembered when Venus was a comet that came close to earth, and everyone still has a ptsd from the original destruction of earth, our expulsion from the cosmic egg of Saturn, and the entrance into the new electrical domain of the our current star.
I could go on and one... could fill books there's so much material. But the universal theme seems to be that mankind blamed himself for creation, and in order to metabolize the new environment along with repeating trauma over and over again, turned to sacrifice. End the end, it's just superstition and error.
Just as Abraham learned when Elohim demanded sacrifice. Elohim was just another Father Saturn deity, the dead god, demanding sacrifice.
Regardless, all of these myths originally have to do with the actions of celestial bodies in the sky that are not present today. Hence we all get lost in our imagination in not connecting myths with the past sky. And we're all taught in grade school that the solar system has been like this forever, so called "uniformitariansm."
The dead god including Jesus myth go back to our experience of being bound to a dying star.
Original sin is.... I'm not sure. Probably a spiritual autoimmune disorder that's passed generation to generation; an electrical fall from saturn's field to the new evolutionary electrical field of the sun. Spiritual and mental atrophy. Self blame for things we aren't to blame for. Ritualistically repeating the same original trauma over and over again in our sickness.
If you want to read more Immanuel Velekovsky's "World in Collision" goes into detail with the myths. Pretty much all religion is human kind getting lost in our imagination as the original inspirations of the myths (the planets) left the scene, and we forgot. Now everyone just insane.
I'm currently not buying the "Jesus died for our sins" thing. More like our sin destroyed Jesus, and we'll do anything to avoid responsibility for it.
Just my opinion for now until someone changes my mind.
Why on earth should we care to change your mind?
Anonymous is right: Christianity was just an elaborate myth the early Christians invented in order to get themselves martyred.
Yep. Worked so well, people today are dying for it in greater numbers than ever.
Christian doctrines have the implausibility of objects that we do not construct, but that we stumble across.
Certain dogmas of Christianity seem so evident to me that it is not difficult for me to believe in those that are difficult to believe.
Whoever wants to know what the serious objections to Christianity are should ask us. The unbeliever has only silly objections.
The concept that Jesus/cross may have been multitasking is cool. Was he also showing us what we really are, that we too are made in Gods image? That idea is that Jesus may have been to the material part of humans, as God is to the spiritual part. So Jesus wept and got pissed off and felt physical pain just like us, so we could know that God knows exactly what it’s like to be physical. We can’t say, “Well God doesn’t know what it’s like. Sometimes it's so hard and messed up that I can't believe a loving God even exists.” That’s the idea anyways.
I like the idea that keeping in touch with those spiritual selves (Gods and ours) helps steady us through our physical existence phase. But I don’t like seeing so many Christians KNOW better than every outsider, that Jesus gives them perceptual superpowers, that they're always right no matter what their group believes. Outsiders will note all the times that mass Christian movements were counterproductive, where Christians were manipulated by evil, and say “No thanks. I’ll invest my spiritual energies elsewhere.”
I do not know about mega church stuff. Just ghetto stuff like no gold but taking care of a brother.
It is interesting that the homeless and poor and prisoners and hungry and old women and men have the best seats in the house.
Like a barn or a stable or a grotto or a hill.
I guess the nameless and faceless are just doing what is commanded without any talents.
Of course, the poor are always most everywhere and take insults with the Christ.
I would not trade this for nothing, but that is what it is.
Yep despite Jesus's intentions religions that built around his sacrifice are mostly perverted systems of ritualistically scapegoating God himself so that everyone can go on imagining they'll go to heaven or that life will get better.
The thing I came away with reading Rene Girard was that this was probably exactly what Jesus wanted to do was to draw it all into himself like lightening rod, so that everyone that organizes around his murder is destroyed or exorcised over time. That's quite the contrary view of "he died for my sins." No that's the judgement and no one escapes it.
I don't doubt that Jesus was a historical figure, but sure myth was built around him. Girards point was that he overcame myth by placing the murder as the attention piece of the myth whereas before it was always hidden, and this affectingly neutering the disease for all time.
Still I agree with anon, mostly Christians are know it alls. They can be arrogant too.
Hi, this is the original anon. I remember when I was a dumb philosophy student who believed stupid things about the world. Not sure if I ever believed anything quite as stupid as Anon’s Saturn diatribe, but I was definitely a moron. And as I wallowed in that darkness, I was always still attracted to the light. First as an adversary, then as a knowledge seeker, and then as a convert.
It’s hard to believe that I found Bob’s blog almost 15 years (and that he has been going this long). In that time I’ve gotten married, had a few kids, built a pretty decent career and started on a very long road to fully realizing my Judaism in the Catholic Church.
My life today and the worldview it is founded on was unthinkable 20 years ago. I can’t imagine where I would be If I hadn’t dumped the reductionist, nihilist, postmodernist, atheist bullshit I learned in school.
Anon, nobody can convince you of Truth, but it is ready accessible to those who seek it. Keep an open mind and you might be surprised by what you find.
But what if one has gone in the opposite direction?
You started where the life you were building was quite good (better than yours) thanks to all the prudent prayerful decisions and being blessed by God as a best and brightest sort (as objectively measured everywhere you could see).
But then your naive ethicality was taken advantage of and your life was destroyed. Not by some obvious black hat sinister, but with the aid of fellow conservatives and Christians.
So you retreat to reconsider everything, especially your own role in the events. That's when all the "reductionist, nihilist, postmodernist, atheist bullshit" finds its way into your thinking. It's very compelling. You realize that everybody is conditioned to believe what they do. Everybody tends to project what works for them onto everybody else. Everybody wants everything but nobody wants to pay for it. They want you to pay for it. And you never, ever want to be that guy.
So now what?
So I've been reading this blog as long as you have. Maybe longer. I'm defiantly not some postmodern whatever bullshit so save that for the actual trolls.
And all the know it all attitudes about the "Truth" is just a veiled form of megalomania. It's a common disease caused by projecting ones own insanity and ego into religion. One doesn't have to be an adi da and self declare as god. You can just believe in Jesus and have your megalomania through him, and it's socially acceptable to boot. Plus you know everything, and how convenient.
I prefer an empty head and self. That way I can learn new things.
I'm actually having to reread the bible because I figured out that when prophets were predicting disaster, or like Isiah describes rocks falling from the sky (thought a superstition until the 18th century), or brimstone and pitch, or scorching blast of fire from the sky, or darkened sun, change in the seasons, the day the earth stood still, etc, that these were all literal descriptions of changes in nature: tilt of earth and rotation, comets, dust clouds from cometary fallout, plasma discharges from close approaching planets, etc. Not some fancy of poetic language like we've all been taught. These were cosmic events and they're recorded in all ancient myths and histories given that we have the proper context to understand it instead of the current view that they were all just "primitive" no nothings who like to use poetic language of the stars to describe everything. What nonsense that is!
And I'm the moron.
All this stuff is just Jungian Archetypes taken to their final conclusion. It's comparative mythology --- finding the agreements between far flung cultures so as to weed out the imagination.
Yes all cultures remember 2 suns, that is two stars close to earth. Yes all cultures remember Venus as a comet in the sky. All cultures remember Mars being close to earth. The American Indians actually called Mars "scar face." Tell me how would they be able to see valles marineris, which is 10 times larger than the grand canyon without aid of telescopes?
Guess they were just making stuff up and got lucky.
Or the solar system went through a radical reorganization since the end of the last ice age, and that's what inspired the mythology and obsession with the planets and sky in ancient cultures.
Clearly, you've been on the Chans way too much lately.
I get it, there's a lot to be dis-illusioned about these days, not just with faith but with the way our country works and the idea of success in everything from jobs to raising a family. Religious leaders turn out to be charlatans, women are divorce-raping bitches, and only the connected who commit acts of atrocity can get fabulously wealthy. Same as it ever was. Sounds like you've gone from red pill to full black.
This is a bummer, man.
So life got hard, you've had a fall or a few, and everything you thought you understood about faith and the world looks shallow and stupid. Now you don't know what to believe. Congratulations, you've been tested!
Christians are smugly self-assured? Yes, often. The problem with any congregation is all the sinners.
Looked in a mirror lately?
On the plus, I recall seeing videos of a physically beautiful young Christian couple, high school king and queen, where the guy went to fight for his country, He came back with only one limb and face badly scarred from an IED incident. His still beautiful wife has stuck with that hero to this day. Talk about Christian inspiring.
Same as it ever was
Not in my own personal projection onto the world. That couple was more the kind of Christians I grew up with. Maybe I just got really, really super unlucky. And my Christians are just fake Christians of the mammon kind. I'd think that if anybody from any "loving god" theistic religion is going to proclaim that they know more than anybody else and and that they're are just plain better than anybody else (see above comments) maybe they as a whole, could at least learn why Christianity was such a rousing success in the first place.
I stay away from people telling me to look in the mirror or that I'm a "sinner." The devil is the accuser. I see all the guilty on their way to church every Sunday morning no need to blame me for anything.
I'm doing better than ever and I know more than ever. I've pushed knowledge and science all the way back to creation itself. I'm glade I keep reading.
Here's some Sun Ra for your entertainment pleasure. He was on to something. He was well versed in myth. Definitely more cosmic and way cooler than any of you.
Sun Ra
Post a Comment