slightly Zhizni 9
: VA
I find that it all deserves to be camim on its own, without a goal.
: however. It is worth noting that there is no contradictions to be still useful (ie to be under your printsipop good). For example, the "Mona Lisa" may be a hole in the wall to cover up or sell and to feed all those who need a couple godkov.
: But here I stand on the following principle: if a thing, cause, etc. - Can be themselves without the need to be useful for other things, cause, etc., hence it is necessary to value in themselves and only by chance - it is useful.
: example. Painting "La Gioconda" contains no need to cover up a hole in the wall, or be sold for big money, or serve as a self-preservation of the universe, etc. Hence, on putting principle: she in itself is valuable, but helpful - by accident.
Abdullah:
And I believe that the usefulness of (appropriate) and has one objective-anthological criterion, which determines / Degree of Values / anything. And in the minds of people, I think there is no clarity about the nature of values in the area of high / mother / of the historical gaps, that have not yet taken into account the nature of this criterion.
whether to close the picture of a hole in the wall, or to harmonize their attitude contemplation of creation Artist - are, I think the same. Overcoming CHAOS in matter and in spirit.
I do not understand how something can be in itself valuable, but helpful - by accident. In my opinion if something is valuable and useful (which, as I understand, the same thing) - is, in strict accordance with the metaphysical laws of Genesis and the global linkages with the entire universe (and not itself). A child may answer that the ball falls to the floor by itself, and bounce off the floor by accident, but that does not mean that all it's really not going according to immutable laws of physics.
terms "accident" and "itself" does not seem to me ... particularly philosophical (intentionally I do not use some / vulgar / expression). I propose to think about it thoroughly.
VA:
: So the question to the beautiful (as opposed to useful) things, affairs, careers, etc. "WHY" to carry them out? - Has the answer: for their own sake.
Abdullah:
As between "beautiful" and "useful" not in my understanding opposites, and since all that was done in the world, is carried out (in my opinion) for a common goal - I can not treat your "exercise for themselves "what else except eydosnym misunderstanding need to be corrected, a challenge for the successful survival. "For the sake of ourselves" and "self- per se "and the" accidental "- it reminds me something.
Nietzsche:
I walk among men as among fragments of the future - that
future, I see.
And in my work and the desire to collect and
connect together all that is a fragment, a riddle and
terrible accident.
VA:
Why be a traveler? Then, to them to be, ie go and look at the world with wide-open mouth. Why be fireworks? Then, to be named, ie, contemplate the fireworks and fireworks, without any other goals acre contemplation of this combination of light and darkness, and black, noise and silence.
Abdullah:
This attitude, as measured me as a typically-human, seems to me to "fragment, a mystery and a terrible accident," the way of genuine concern to return.
: VA
well. And as an example (not personal).
: Whether you choose to all of humanity lived 1000 000 000 years are guaranteed a safe and sound in the cellar, or that it survived a couple of thousand years, but in the set realities (arts, sciences, relations (play, friendship, love ...), etc.)?
Abdullah:
I do not see any reason that would spend some limited time. This, in my opinion, all exactly what NOT to live at all. Living (self-perpetuating) can only be forever. Therefore, the two proposed options seem to me equally meaningless.
VA:
: «Abdullah: And if I take this pot, pour in the milk and he'll drink - the alien will understand what it is (how to promote life)?
: (on your the eyes of the milled paste complex parts in the mechanism and you can see exactly how it contributes to the functioning of the mechanism - you have has developed a greater understanding of the purpose of this part itself (that etotakoe), is not it?) »
: VA That's you, Abdullah I, and caught in their "network" (as the saying I guess).
: See what happens. You assured me a lot of messages without any arguments that the concept to be understood, must be shown in his appearance.
: Immediately! Immediately on the above example, I, you know the pot and detail - only at their further use, rather than through Seeing their occurrence. Which was required to show an example.
Abdullah:
So it's the same / I / you harder all the time, meaning that something can not be understood on the basis simply from the fact that there is a fact of combining diverse stuff. The fact that we combine technological machine, professional wizard, precious metals and other does not make a product good (useful); only designed shows, reveals the meaning. The fact that pot is the result of combining - is not the cause of estimation. Beethoven's Symphony, a masterpiece of Da Vinci and all, all that is good in virtue of the correspondence, the degree of service to his / destination. So it must be idea of predestination. Do not see the destination, it is unclear what it is - you can not understand the meaning. Not understand the meaning - is unclear and the situation with the good.
Purpose (смысл) газонокосилки предельно ясно. Ибо это почти как треугольность крыши – всё очевидно и просто. Отсюда простота в понимании благостности фрезерного lathe and milling-machine specialization. But everything depends on the meaning of mowing the lawn. If you find that sense of bringing in a neat appearance lawn in front of their homes is not clear - everything hangs in the air. The belief that the purpose of mowing machine, milling clear to us - evaporates. But I explain the meaning of caring for foreign culture of life that these are just attributes / living in general. Under this sauce can be cut, by the way, everything, and Bach, and Da Vinci and Diogo Maradona and everything you want. I do not need to justify all gracious individually my criteria. For my evaluation criterion justifies the meaning of life itself in general. To live in order to avoid was a return to chaos. Accordingly - everything else you need to do the same. And you say:
«Why be a traveler? Then, to make them be, ie, go and look at the world with wide-open mouth. Why be fireworks? Then, to be named, ie, contemplate the fireworks and fireworks, with no other purpose acre contemplation of the combination of light and darkness, and black, noise and silence. »
your philosophy does not know the general purpose and, as I understand, not Maybe for this reason, propose a universal sense of all that happened, is happening and will happen. To the question "why?" You answer "just so". It seems there is no consistency, there ought, positive vseistoricheskogo accumulation Goals / Destination. Hence, there can be, I think, and perceptions of value (good and evil, the good and Antiblage).
VA:
: Ie Of course, pouring milk and become thirsty, the alien will understand that such a pot. (Or I begin to understand the detail of when uzryu how and where it will operate).
: Well, take and drink of milk, "my concept of good. Take it and paste it into a well-known You a "mechanism" of my concept of good. And then you have instead of the bare "not to understand" there will be specific questions to my notion of good.
Abdullah:
I have already said, I understand that this example only as in "their favor."
VA:
: Because I did exactly that with your concept. Take your concept of good and use it. For example, determining their specific (judge for yourself: his notion of the good I define any specific, so if you have - the good, then I must also define them all specific).
: And if not, then I run to you and make claims, for example, one of them: "a Mona Lisa - may be useless ...". And do not beg you have a history of occurrence, from which no good there and you are now shown themselves.
Abdullah:
How Gioconda is useless, so as I think she is NOT a good thing. Do you want a "yes" or "no", "black" or "white", "definitely something" or "specifically is? Or do you want to be an expert good for all eternity ahead? I do not think so. Like all of science - philosophy will evolve forever, and the idea of good, too. Consequently, no one had ever can not be a connoisseur of good; only / as a /, to some extent, on some level, to some extent. And nobody's formula can not claim infallibility. All our theories about the good / defective by definition / imperfect, always flawed.
VA:
: «Abdullah: ... How can you claim that you have some logical idea of good? If it is not logical then what? Intuitive? Empirically contemplative?
: That you have something at random, and inquired of the combined - Why not be good? ", And not finding the answer to that and decided to do - it does not seem correct to me by looking."
: VA I beg your pardon, Abdullah, Do not think for being rude, but you never know what you do not. Give a specific argument, what is wrong my concept of good. And all business.
Abdullah:
I have already said my opinion: I can not give a specific argument, what is wrong your notion of good, because I do not think that there is irregularity of your concept. All notions of welfare as a right. The eagle can not fly because of the diametrically opposite side of the production! In the same way with our concepts, ideas. How is it that they would have to be false? But in contrast to the simplicity of the mechanism of predator hunting for their specific good - we have an incredible complexity. Therefore, if the two wolves almost exactly the same maneuver for their own benefit kinky, between thinkers may be qualitative differences in the abyss! This assumption gives hope that the hierarchical order may be installed in our relationship.
specific arguments in the proof of my philosophy superiority over you I can not give. Maybe all of life, we do not have enough to deal with insubordination. So it all seems to me difficult triangularity roof. But what would we have done on this road Proceedings - our work is not wasted. We have at least laid the groundwork, create a precedent for the right move to the right Sofilosofstvovaniyu ...
VA:
: Also no logic at all, but there is a formal, transcendental, speculative, or take the "Logical research "Husserl's ... etc. So I could not say that my concept of logical. (Unless it was crucial in any one place).
Abdullah:
What do you mean "no logic at all? You want to say that is not open yet, not found? After all, "was not yet understood" does not mean that "will never be understood? And if you can come to understand that earlier had not yet understood, we can not exclude the possibility that Abdullah might already be aware that Victor More is known about the logic at all.
: VA Why
understand the concept of welfare? I do not know. I understand the benefit of ourselves, beauty, truth, time, etc. I
Abdullah:
And I, I think, I know why / should get better and better / understand the concept of welfare? In order to effectively carry out all of his (to increase their chances). The deepening of this understanding and refers to me as the spiritual and intellectual growth. And ... I do not think that, without understanding the meaning of understanding of the concepts of the good can be any significant move in terms of "good, beauty, truth, time, etc. I» ...
: VA
However, I can not say with regard to the arguments otherwise, except as unambiguously: "You not right. "
Abdullah:
Why? Why can not you say double-valued: "You are, as far as I can tell, is not right"? What hinders?
: VA
Looks Nietzsche on Bazaar did not go anywhere ... and security more important to him swiftness ...
: To each his own. I deal with you.
Abdullah:
And I, as I understand it, I was dealing with / all / ever lived, living, and all those that ever will live (co-creation to increase the CHANCE of salvation).
VA:
: «Abdullah: The question, in fact, must, I believe, be reduced to the philosophical subordination. "
: VA The question of the nature of benefits must be reduced to anything that is inherent in the entity. Why fuss about some philosophical subordination? I do not understand what you mean, because when I think about the good, then I do not think the philosophical subordination.
Abdullah:
And I - I think. For, as / I / I understand Good - Its successful implementation requires more understanding samovzaimosozidanii and in the universal co-creation at all. And all this is not me as something that is possible without increasing the effective consolidation of the spiritual and hierarchical relationships.
for successful implementation of our philosophical descendants should rule the world. All the philosophers of the future, as I understand it, should philosophize as a single brain (for a common goal of a single organism). A single brain can not function without a certain hierarchy, subordinativnosti its structure.
Who we are today? Ridicule and something totally uninteresting for the masses! But such is not to be ever public opinion about us. The world has to manage the people's will? Excellent! And we must become a force control formation of the will of the people.
VA:
: Maybe this: if a little knowledge, but it effectively and the other lot (although, in comparison with infinity both the same) and it is only possible, it is from these first two - MORE knowledge than the second.
Abdullah:
you think so? And I think that your idea about what it means to "effectively" not even close to my idea is this. What it means to be effective? What is / useful action /? (I hope you understand where I'm going)
VA:
And then the winner of the first - takes pride of first place in the hierarchy of these two Wisdom. You are satisfied with my understanding of this "subordination", you speak of? Or not? If yes, to me it - makes no difference because knowledge whose first place of any increases or decreases my learning very good.
Abdullah:
If knowledge is an empty word and is not aimed at the creation of the psyche and the world in general ... then really, what does it exactly to learn whether who is right or not (although I can not imagine - as it can lay claim to greater right, without having to qualify for the role of the Teacher). But my understanding of the benefits requires action creative intervention into all spheres of the universe, the constant and relentless spiritual and intellectual feat of ALL. It requires power and control. My understanding is expansive. I'm not just philosophize about the good - I preach Him. My attitude to our communion ideologically-integration, but not idly, abstract, posidelochnoe.
you said that did not even know why you need to understand what is good. You said yourself that you can not understand anything without understanding its purpose! Not making a sense of understanding of the benefits of options - how you can qualify for substantial knowledge about the subject?
======================
Love:
:: Abdullah:
:: For example? With what you can not identify, and why? What do you not accept?
: LOVE:
pain, evil and violence, so much more. And why You took what if it is on Earth, then this is not in the universe?
Abdullah:
What on earth is just it, I think, in the universe, for the earth into the composition of the universe, as part of it and makes their movement ...
How can you not accept any negative elements of existence! After all, it must be creatively RESCHAT. And to to solve - you need not trying to distance itself, but to accept, is identified with himself, with his life challenges and problems.
: LOVE:
but you expect that in the distant prospects for all will be harmony and there will be disharmony. Hard to believe. Let me explain why. The fact is that when a person is in complete harmony with the surrounding world, he's already dead ... But chaos is not harmony.
Abdullah:
«is in complete harmony with the surrounding world", and "do not have any problems, life tasks" - in my opinion different things. For, as / I / understand the problem, it can not be definitively made any degree of effectiveness of interactions of all the creative forces. Most in perfect harmony in all spheres of life will always be a even greater chance, but not the "final solution". So zakosnevanie because even the highest degree of harmonization of relations, as I understand it, is not threatened.
: LOVE:
There is a hypothesis that life on Earth will last for quite not for long. And with her disappearance will disappear the subject of our conversation with you. Perhaps it will be some form of mind and consciousness and the concept of welfare as we understand them will generally be alien.
Abdullah:
If "disappear the subject of our conversation with you, then why should this conversation lead? I think it is for Creativity Prevent this, the possibility of extinction. What do you think?
: LOVE:
Remember the moment when, after communication with the beautiful you go out into the street. Or when You are leaving the church and go down into the subway. Here it is - an imperfect world. You are pushing, name-calling, pulled ... And you affect all the benefits Savrasov ??????
: Of course not.
Abdullah:
two times are not necessary. Sometimes the world crushes his obstructive problematic, sometimes affects Stanovlencheskim impulse ever living (including Savrasov). But it is not specifically about how I behave exactly when you exit the museum! Impression of something will not go anywhere! Suppose when you exit from the museum, I do not navliyal, but potentially influence Savrasov developed in me in the context of my entire worldview of growth in general and ever necessarily affect the other command. Here it is not about the size of the influence of ... question here about / principles / my creative interaction with all who lived, living and with all those who will live in the future ... No matter how much I give of Savrasov and all the rest (modified and updated) information to samovzaimosozidaniya future generations. I seems to me, showing you the very possibility in principle and purpose of the Eternal Cooperation. And if it is possible in principle, then possibly an arbitrarily large increase in quantitative and qualitative level of this cooperation in a single, universal Ya
Love:
you are trying to save, to deliver the state of your soul to the place or time where you would be comfortable to continue to live at ease and in harmony.
Abdullah:
In the days of gloom and bogoostavlennosti so maybe ... but not when I set Zhizneutverzhdayusche.
Love:
: I completely agree that Savrasov through his painting influenced the formation of Your and my Ya
: BUT share this blessing with all hardly.
Abdullah:
Why is this "BUT share this blessing with all of it is hardly worth? What are you doing?
Love:
Yes, and whether they want pieces of your benefit from Savrasov? In these times to someone closer to the green piece of paper in your wallet.
Abdullah:
We have been in the army is a saying "do not know how - to teach, do not want - will force»:)
... But seriously ... You never know who does not want, or that someone closer to you! Man is not perfect and may so that there may be doomed to poor orientation in the values of life. We must, I understand, ennoble the human race. It is necessary to gain eternal life ... like I understand.
And if life is condemned to death, then I am not only in our dialogue - I am in no way see the point. I was just as inspiring to the vital functions serving the will of the creator-development, which, as I understand it, to increase the CHANCE of No Return ... And what inspires you to this our conversations, do you think?
=========================
SB:
: Abdullah:
According to the degree of loyalty to my understanding of "I" - not "someone something "mentality, but there is a general mentality of the" ideal self "in the Person of Christ Savior, who ... etc.
: Sat: I can not judge about you personally, but the phrase deeply yavrotichna as unduly exalts your personal H:
Abdullah:
Why unnecessarily! Why / surely / unreasonable? Maybe there's some reason?
proposes an approach to this "scrupulous" moment with Statements about a possible personal excellence with scientific, dispassionate conceptually. Nobody interrupts a consultant dentist or a lawyer with the wrangling: "what are you actually perform, get smart - smarter than everyone else what?" Similarly, many centuries people with respect and understanding attitude to specialists in spiritual matters. Why the practice of the relationship very quickly withered, turned aside their course - on that score I could have diluted whole theory ...
Yes, I consider myself to those who most zapravskim way specializes in the mental processes of man in general. As far as my self esteem in this plan is adequate - a separate issue. But I want first to clarify your position regarding most of the question this way ... How do you think, so ... uh ... a bold approach is consistent with objectives of the forum? Is relevant to these problems? I personally think that the most direct, and perhaps even paramount. After all, how you can argue about the good, without disassembling the question of the degree qualifications in these cases, each participant? Those considerations, that the best expert gracious way of thinking and feeling is, in theory, more pious, more spiritual and intellectual development of individuals - is it really can be a problem ... nepreodalImoy in relations scholars?
«Kawabata thought for a moment, and the wrinkles on his forehead smoothed out.
- you're right - he said. - Me, in fact, not move
desire to show that I'm in something you understand better, and compassion fatigue
animal. There really is no shame - if I happened to say
stupidity, I did not lose face.
He put the sword back in its sheath, he staggered and fell again to the bottle.
- If two men of noble and there is some
small misunderstanding, perhaps there is not crumble to dust if they are both directed to a
him the tip of their minds? - He asked, handing the bottle Serdyuk.
Serdyuk finished tire.
- of course fall to pieces - he said. - Clear business. »
Viktor Pelevin," Chapaev and void. "
(by the way - Funny Philosophical Fiction! Recommend all the lucky ones, still have not read.
http://lib.ru/PELEWIN/pelev04.txt
) SB:
: - what is the role of the I-ideal content of a part of humanity is raised Jesus Christ, this is not your opening, and the value of the entire Christian tradition-long 2000 years,
: - and that's just the way you continue to set out for the mission and goals of Christ, I think I recognized would be really, only your understanding.
Abdullah:
Thanks ... But I think I have not yet fully clear your estimate to do with how I treat mission and goals of Christ, who understand and his / personal problems, and even tasks and missions in general.
: Sat:
remark is true, but do not include objectives of the forum. This forum is intended as METAPHYSICS GOOD, so you have to leave aside questions of psychology, sociology, theology, theosophy, etc. Elsewhere я с удовольствием пофилософствовал бы на эти темы. А пока, действительно, приходится сдерживаться от распыления на инопредметности.
Абдулла:
Видите ли… Sergei ... I consider our dialogue as something much more promising, global and inclusive, rather than just an interview for a specific, limited subject.
Inopredmetnost - is in my opinion is nonsense for philosophy. I think the idea that there are other, not reducible to each other subjects - is a temporary misunderstanding in philosophical outlook. All the great philosophers have sought specifically to wholeness, inclusiveness of his vision. And only "Philosophical workers" all the time breaks up the great heritage of the individual currents, individual consideration, fragmented research. Maybe it happened because they just could not cover that too, for myself, broadly? I personally would not rush to consider anything apart. Moreover, I / organically unable / to such a review. This seems ridiculous and absurd to try to philosophize SO.
Nietzsche:
When they give themselves for the wise, I am shivering from small
sayings and truths of them often comes from the wisdom of their smell, as
if she comes out of the swamp, and, indeed, I had heard how
frog croaked it!
Nimble they are, and skillful fingers at them - that my identity
with the variety of them! Every line of threading and weaving and knitting
know their fingers: so they knit stockings spirit!
They are good timers, you need only right
start them! Then they show unmistakable
time and produce a slight noise at the same time.
Like mills, they work and knock:
just threw them their grain! - They too will be able to crush them and
make white dust out of them.
They vigilantly monitor the fingers each other and not too
trust one another. Ingenious tricks,
they await those who have knowledge of lame - like spiders,
lurk they are.
I saw how they were always carefully prepare the poison, and
always put them in this glass gloves on her fingers.
also fake bones are able to they play, and I caught them
game with such fervor that they have been sweating.
We are strangers to each other, and their virtues
disgusted me even more than guile and fake dice them.
And when I lived with them, I lived on them. That's why they disliked
me.
they hear and do not want anyone to go over their heads
; and because they have imposed a tree, land, and Copy between me and
their heads.
So they drowned the sound of my footsteps, and worst of all listening
I still have most scientists among them.
All errors and weaknesses of the people they heaped between themselves and
me: "black sex" they call it in their homes.
And yet I go with my thoughts / Over /
their heads, and even if I wanted to walk on his own
mistakes, still I would have been over them and their heads.
For men / not / are equal - so says the justice. And
what I want / they / would not have the right to choose! -
Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Abdullah:
Yes ... in these words a lot of genuine contempt. I understand ... And a lot of Yavroz. But no more Yavroz, I think, than our Lord Jesus.
«Jesus said to him: I am the way and the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father except through Me. »
Io. X with objectivity Ya But here we must remember that egologiya - it's not psychological, and metaphysical science, ie She examines the universal forms of H. However, your desire to make these forms a particular (Christian), I is the ideal content reduces the rank of the metaphysical debate, coming into conflict with other I-ideals (Eg, Buddhist, daosiyskim, atheist, etc. to the variety of cultural traditions).
Abdullah:
I understand ... that the democratic principles of good (Like everything else) in its place. And it is not good in such a case, as knowledge.
Margaret Hamm suggested that somehow absurd in my opinion, the system sofilosofstvovaniya on the principle of voting. What she said then President, I fully supported. I understand philosophy as an activity exclusively / aristocratic / character. There should guarantee quality dominate. No matter from whom exactly it goes. Same thing with the world I-ideals. No ambitions carriers should ideally (and can) lead the process of ideological integration, but it is that the functional significance; impartial identify objectively the potential heritage values of all cultures, not a "political compromise". In my case. If Christ is "cooler" of the Buddha and Muhammad - Then the truth requires the identification and recognition of this fact, rather than covering up of "respect" to the narrow-minded ethnic selfishness of the masses. The question may be raised In either scenario, any relation intended significance of these and other individuals. I'm talking about the importance of / against Targets /, for an increase in CHANCES self ...
SB:
: This would be easy to recognize a misunderstanding, if it does not lead to a fundamental yavroticheskomu belittling others I people.
Abdullah:
I think that there is no (neither light nor heavy) misunderstandings. Here is how I see the desire to herd egalitarianism. "People are not exactly" - Nietzsche says ... Why should it be perceived as blasphemy, or as an attack on the interests, as an insult? Is it - is not the true state of affairs, not the objective? Or do you say that you think all I do all men the same small, or the equally great? And then "I'm belittling other people? I say that I consider it necessary elucidation of the relation of these same quantities of all personalities. What other way to be true, free, sotvorcheskim relationships, both through / overcome the herd Prejudice on the qualitative equality of people do not see. I'm not talking about legal inequality!
I understand that as long as the question of student-quality Rank will not be accepted by philosophers put openly and honestly - all conversations will invariably deteriorate, slipping to a hidden, underground proving friend of a friend of his mental superiority. That is what I see, I think, across the Internet, where trying to conduct "constructive dialogue".
SB:
: Abdullah: But as we argue ... we have a temporary lack of understanding within this single becoming beings with a clear unity of Life Problem. That is - Tseleedinstvo / should be / I say ... in the sense that it needs to be creatively carried out from generation to generation ... etc
: SB: It turns out that if my or someone I "misunderstood" and even more so "do not realize" what you have said, we are diminished, and I need to be improved in accordance with the proposed Your recipes goals and objectives.
: So, your worldview is through the installation yavrotichnoy. And this fits perfectly Yavroz a symbol of a Mobius strip. On one side of a Mobius strip - I, for other goods, coupled with his egologicheskim substitute - I-ideal. You, praising your own I'm up to identification with the I-ideal, symbolically immediately carry themselves on the ideal side of a Mobius strip, and others, or otherwise I leave here on this side, with their allegedly deficient H-ideals, still needs to develop and move along the path to your H. Thus you provoke in others I imperfection and complexes the blame for the chaos. As a result, the metaphysical thinking of you degenerates into a sermon I direct identities and the Good / God (with which we are with you even in the first messages are defined) and mental-intellectual work on the lapped different I-ideals is all derived out of the brackets.
Abdullah:
And what follows from all this? No should not be anyone to teach, so it does not look so that people may samovozgordilsya and idealizes her I'm from some morbid ambitions, and at the expense of "other I?
put the question differently, from a distance: Is there, in your opinion, do any ontological reason to teach someone else to live, to understand, to feel? Fits whether such a statement of the problem in your idea of good?
As painful as possible the nature of my assumptions about the possible superiority my spiritual and intellectual level ... so I'm not only that - I do everything possible anything with a willingness to tolerate and / principle / willing to expose question any provision of all the things that I have ever been said or will ever be told.
:)))) And ... .. when I'm talking about the spiritual and intellectual hierarchies in the relationship - I did not mean myself some place! The question of a purely abstract and theoretical as well as ... - eschatological. I'm talking about the principle it seems to me, in my IMHO.
=======================
0 comments:
Post a Comment