the “path”delusion by

Post from

“Religions and dogmas tends to point out towards a distant “perfection” one has to aim too.
Its the typical “carrot in front of the donkey nose” procrastination postponement, avoiding the experience of the here&now including past&future.
The more the human tries to “better”himself towards this goal, the more he is missing self acceptance.”

28 Responses to the “path”delusion

  1. enleuk says:

    I’ve read your posts, but havn’t really gotten a grip on where you stand on spirituality. Do you believe in a soul, in a metaphysical plane, in a God of some description? Because religion is not just about setting a goal, it’s based on the idea that we are not just material beings, which is a necessity for God, being special (having a purpose) and the reward at the end of your struggle.

  2. I am not into “believing” but experiencing reality.This includes awareness of all aspects of reality.The “reward” is in aliveness itself, not in a postponed “worthiness” after all.We are, what we are and I do not divide our BEING into category’s like material/immaterial as my perception of life included the permanent immanence of everything in everything.I do not need a Oedipal struggle with a god father projection, as I see “godliness” is everything.
    The difference between the authentic experience of the eternal whole in the here&now(including all aspects, even the honest acceptance of pardoxes and the trust into partial eventual “not knowing”), and procrastinating path concepts towards a “more”, a “better”, a “holy”, is the difference between spirituality and religion/dogma.Seen from near, the most are not “religious” but subjugated by their trained patterns and in a conflictual relationship between their own split aspects. That for is “re-ligare”(religion) attractive to those who neglect own shadows, plus the group belonging comfort as long the individual subordinates himself to the rules of the group, who are NOT universal, and far from being “natural” or neurological/biological adequate.But to be able to understand what I say, one has to “step outside the boat”.A risk, A task, A new horizon.

  3. enleuk says:

    Ok, well even if you like experiencing reality, as soon as you put words on it you use your belief in the definitions you use so unless you never speak (even in you mind) you have to believe in something, unless you say that all your words are in error. Do you believe in a spirit of some sort or why do you use the word spirituality?

    I didn’t ask about specific religions, I asked about metaphysics. If you see God in everything and not a judeo-christian God-father, what kind of God is it? Is it a creator, is it a maintainer, does it interact with the world, or is God the world in a passive and irrelevant way?

    What do you mean by “the permanent immanence of everything in everything”? You believe in some kind of synthesized dualism, like transcendentalism?

  4. You insist seeing my way of perception through you glasses.

  5. enleuk says:

    Through which eyes should I see it if not my own? I have no neural access to your mind. I’m very curious, I’m asking these questions because I’m interested in your opinion.

  6. Strangely enough I think my neuronal system understands your way of thinking, but understands too, that despite your declared willingness it might not be me who has to make the effort of “grinding the meal” till the baby is able to eat it.Sometimes thoughts requires the process of “chewing the thing”.That said in all human honest friendliness.
    That reminds me the story of the samurai who insist that the old forest hermit tells him “all what he knows about the mystery’s of life” and the old fills up the teacup of the samurai, and fills, and fills, till the samurai thinks “who is this mad man!”.Hermit says: your mind bowl is too full, my tea drops over!
    Well, you know, that kind of joke!
    So, maybe try to rephrase ONE question first, who might be truly CURIOUS, I am CURIOUS myself if I might hear her and will try to share my little experience.Not new ones trying to make me a bird in a cage of your concepts.
    Will you?

  7. enleuk says:

    Ok, ONE question at a time then. You say that godliness is everything. What do you mean by godliness?

    Btw, your story reminded me of Buddha’s parable of the posion arrow:

  8. I was trying to join your way of therms.I don’t mind how to name it.Tend normally to avoid “holy” paternalist familiarity.
    I have experienced that the kernel of each atom, was,(now use your seat belt,I am going to be very banal!)LOVE.Energy,bliss,whatever.Choose your favourite, but if possible, lets talk about it from the inside.
    Thank you for your parable,it started just fine, but than the usual scared of life nihilistic procrastinating /renouncing Buddhist metaphysical rattail followed, I don’t go “that path”.Pseudo escapism is not my thing.I have no golden member card in this select country club.
    Yeah, they are many similar story’s, the point it about remaining in the here&now essential authentic,…”plop!” said the pond meeting the frog!

  9. enleuk says:

    Love, energy, bliss. Sounds like you believe in some form of metaphysical and physical duality. Or do you believe the universe is material and monist and that love is just a metaphor for a physical phenomenon? Let me share one of the reasons I don’t believe in an immaterial soul.

    The sense of self is a delusion, because the mind does not equal the body. The minds contain all the known universe, but only in the present, and only tiny bits of it each time. One second you see a keyboard, one second you hear a piece of music, one second you think of your brother sitting in the next room, one second you feel you need to go pee after you’re done writing this comment. Self-consciousness is a misnomer because we’re never aware of every atom of our body (3 billion atoms in a DNA molecule, 1 DNA molecule in each cell, 1 billion human cells in the body – 10 billion bacterial cells in the body – ) and our mind is filled with external awareness as well. The most important aspect of consciousness is that it’s created by activity of both the neuronal firing of the senses and the neuronal pathways that contain our memory, and we “go down memory lane” by thoughts taking that path created both by what we see, hear and feel in the moment, and from previous thoughts and memories thought just a second ago. We become aware of what our senses perceive like 200 ms after it happens, so it’s actually wrong to say we live in the present, although it’s more true than saying we live in either the past or the future; we only live in the now of the mind. BUT, the brain stores memories and so the mind has simultaneous access to neuronal pathways created by past experiences and current experiences. This creates an imaginary line of time, indeed it creates the delusion of time itself, that leads us to believe that there is a constant, a soul, that goes along the entire line as a constant companion all the way back to our first memories. This line into the past gives us the abilitiy to predict future events, creating a line going the opposite direction, into the future, and we have a whole life-time, with our self existing in the middle, constantly. But, it’s not 1 mind, or soul, that stays constant throughout the experiences of the body, instead the body creates a new mind each instant and destroys it afterwards, but the new mind will always think of itself as the same mind it has always been because it has physical access to previous mind’s neuronal imprints, the experiences of the body. Thus, the issue of death is easy for me, because then there will no longer be new minds created, that will simply cease and I don’t have to come up with some fantastical world into which the eternal soul will pass.

    I’m trying to get you to react to the words immaterial and metaphysical and whatnot because I don’t believe in them, I believe that the metaphysical is an invention caused by the nature of our language and it in turn is flawed because of our inability to express ourselves properly because of our inability to understand ourselves, because it is indeed hard for something to understand itself if it is everything it is, you know? An eye does not see itself, it can only deduce its own existence from its impact on everything that is not itself.

    In essense, I believe all words are metaphors, and words like love, bliss, energy are very unspecific metaphors and therefore not very useful, as opposed to induced and deduced descriptions of the world, which are by definition detailed and not internally contradictory an therefore much better descriptions of the world than words like God, love, and other metaphors we use instead of the more complicated and detailed descriptions for explaining the same phenomenons they are supposed to explain.


  10. I think you are more attracted by exclusivity/duality/polarisation, so, my naive aim to share with you my inclusive experience of life “does not fit in your mind system”. Simple!
    Now,is chewing a bubblegum to his flavourless end a metaphysical god/Dawkin&co non material/material or frustrating mind body experience?
    As “glimpse full” agnostic I say: chubby-chubby-yeah!

  11. enleuk says:

    I don’t believe in duality no. I think all polarisations are delusional constructs of the mind. And just because you don’t want to figure out how the world works or if we can’t find out, why we can’t find out how the world works, doesn’t mean I’m not gonna try to figure it out and/or figure out why I can’t figure it out.

    You go on with your agnostic avoidance of trying to figure things out.

  12. Are you sure, you don’t avoid something?

    Like….sharing truly personal experience?
    It s not all “concept”,sometimes dipping the big toe in feels more real.

    This is a fractal multiverse my friend, and it looks like you are good at sliding around my 5 penny worth thoughts and I sniffed at your collection of words, and thought who needs such stamps and what for?
    But at least you tried gogo dancing around “the real thing”,great artistic performance. thank you very much!

    In a nutshell, what are YOU truly saying?

  13. enleuk says:

    In a nutshell, I’m saying that we’re all monkeys with teeth, claws and hairy extremities and shouldn’t let our limited minds get confused by wishful thinking that we’re something more, like connected via love or a Christ consciousness/Brahma or happiness or whatever. Maybe it’ll help us realize what Alan Watts tries to get at when he’s saying: Why do we need to go into space, we’re already way out in space!

  14. Good old Alan, may I, as hairy monkey be allowed to use the hiiii evil therm of LOVE, when I think of him.He had a hard time with his English stiff background sometimes, what a lovable smart cookie he was(is in some hearts still!).Many are a bit “spaced out” in vino veritas.Not many have the spirit to look beyond in simplicity.
    During my bunch of Satori’s, I noticed that the experience of enlightenment requires a great sense of self irony.Somewhere I get the impression that you act as serious as a Scottish Calvinist choosing his Sunday socks when it comes to “losing the ego,oops!falling into the bigger dimension”.I think, YOU tend to believe a lot in abstractions and are quiet proud of your non abstractions.I miss a bit some play full curiosity in you!Such a SURE mindset!

  15. enleuk says:

    I don’t understand you. Could you please write proper sentences? What do you mean I believe in abstractions and non-abstractions?

    Well, there are many things I’m certain of to such a degree that I will call it knowledge, despite “knowing” that knowledge is nothing other than subjective belief, but compared to what people in general say is true, my truths are far more well-founded so although subjective delusions, they’re far more true than what is generally claimed to be “known”. Or it’s just my way of speaking that leads you to believe I’m very sure of my world-view.

    Btw, in vino veritas means “in wine, truth”, i.e. drunks tell it like it is.

    All these side-issues aside, do you have an idea of the world apart from the atom being filled with love, or maybe an argument how or why the atom contains love? I don’t know if you know what an atom is, but there are many different atoms, up to 8 proton atoms can be made in our sun, but gold is made in supernovas. Is this fact included in your theory that the atom holds love?

    What do you mean by losing the ego? You mean connecting with a metaphysical plane/becoming one with Brahman/realizing Lila/Nirvana? You do know that dimensions don’t exist, right? This is part of the same delusion of supermateriality (something more than just matter) caused by “not being able to bite one’s own teeth”. There’s no such thing as 4 dimensions (Newton) or 11 dimensions (string-theory) either. They’re just linguistic tools, metaphors. On that note, have you read any deconstructivists?

  16. How to talk about the beauty of flowers to someone who think that cutting them in pieces to analyse them, tells about their substance.

    “I don’t understand you. Could you please write proper sentences?”. Who do you think you are?
    If YOU do not understand me, it is maybe not my inability to please your teacher mentality.I have no great problems to figure out your need for “safe” limitation.I could turn my phrases upside down and round and round, it would not matter as it would remain the helpless attempt of “wild kid”(me)who went on “the path less walked” facing mister know it better insisting on the right roads to drive. A poet once said, the shortest line between 2 points is the arabesque.I miss truly fresh air in this dusty library and I reminds that too “regularly” heart beats are a sign of vital issues.

    And yes, “my” perception of atomic structures has been compared to the physics “way of perception”, and they are many “ways” to come to the same results.

    I am not into deconstrivism, I am not a post modern poseur, I am someone who wonders if your main drive is “to be right”.What motivates YOU to talk with me(the obvious imbecile)?

  17. enleuk says:

    This post was easier to understand, thanks.

    You know that I need safe limitations? Who do you think YOU are?

    And how can you assume I do not appreciate the beauty of a flower just because I like to know its construction?

    And how can you dismiss all deconstructivists as posers? Have you even read any of them?

    I’ve never said you were an imbecile, I’ve never implied it either. I’ve tried to state what I thought could potentially be an opposing view contrasting your statements to make you expand your thoughts because I am curious about your opinions, not because I have a desire to falsify your beliefs or ridicule you. I have not been aggressive in any of my posts, I may be cold and factual in my appearance, but I don’t mean no harm by it, it’s just my personality.

    I understand if you don’t want to explain your thoughts, but I am truly interested so I would hope you would talk about your thoughts instead of just focusing on the relationship between you and me, where you think you are outside the box and I’m a conventionally blind follower of some doctrine. I don’t know the “truth” and I don’t follow anyone. You havn’t asked me a single question about my beliefs, you’ve only made prejudice assumptions.

    I often think to myself that I don’t care whether I figure things out or not, but aiming to achieve it gives me pleasure in the present. The goal is not the goal, the path is the goal, as was the statement of this post that led me to comment here in the first place.

    Your idea that I perceive you as a “wild kid” is self-flattery. You shouldn’t rely on saying like that about the heart beats. As Voltaire said, and this is the quote I fancy over all others, “A witty saying doesn’t prove anything”, and I think it wasn’t even Voltaire that said it, but convention has erroneously given him credit for it, making it even more powerful in it’s irony in my opinion.

    You mention the arabesque, have you read Delueze? He’s on my to-read-list, if I had had one, that is.

  18. I have never been attracted to MF.
    This postmodern authors have never attracted me AT ALL.
    As baby I was sitting on the lap of Sartre, Camus, Vian and Simone de Beauvoir, as they were friends of my mum, but did that impacted me? maybe!
    I find more echoing spirits in people like Kerouac ,Durrell ,Miller or pre socratics.
    My man starts to find my patience with you “admirable”, he said, he would not have been able to go that far with someone who obviously remains in his safe corner patronising (passive agressive) .
    I doubt that someone who confuse emotional “cooldness” with intellectual seriousness can ever understand me.
    You remind me the song “little boxes” and Laura Huxley speaking about the unwillingness of pigeons to remain in them and their tendency to fly around .
    Can we agree that we have 2 different mindsets with less tangibles?
    I guess that might help:

  19. MF=Mindf.heard it could mean something else, I did nt meant!that for the correction.

  20. enleuk says:

    I didn’t say I was factual because I was emotionally cold, I said I was cold and factual and I am well aware of the distinction; they are two independent aspects of my personality and they’re both relative as well, they’re in the eye of the beholder and perhaps I shouldn’t be the judge of my own character here.

    MF = mindfuck? I first assumed you meant M. Foucault…

    Although I don’t know all the people you list, (and I’m surprised by the fact that you met those people, you grew up in France? I grew up on a farm in Sweden and learned to milk cows), I’ve read Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism and I don’t disagree with him, except for maybe the emphasis on Angst, which seems close to the idea of Sunyata, the emptiness that Kerouac embraced.

    I also got a copy of Le Deuxième Sexe but it’s a thick book, havn’t gotten through it all. Havn’t heard the song either, couldn’t find the lyrics online.

    What does “with less tangibles” mean?

    I shouldn’t make assumptions, but I was interested in your ontological worldview and not so much your view of practice, which I, again making assumptions, think those people you mentioned wrote more on than on ontology. But if you do agree with the Gestalt prayer, then I agree with you, but it says nothing about the world an Sich. I think everything is subjective and all acts are egoistic, but I believe in anarcho-communism because I believe that symbiosis, cooperation, altruism is the most egotistic way of life. You make sure your own life is good by making everybody else’s lives good.

    But does the prayer go with your idea of a real presence of some immaterial substance called love? I would say that the prayer says that love is personal, individual and not something that exists between two people. Chemically, happiness, love and all other emotions are contained to your own brain. You get input from the world, yes, in the form of touch sensation and pheromones, but although a real link between lovers, pheromones are just molecules, they’re not immaterial and they’re produced and absorbed by the individual bodies in the moment and not a coherent or constant link between them or a constant neurochemical brainstate in the individual either for that matter. Love is a function of the brain and thus subject to change as the molecules in the body are subject to change.

  21. I am still surrounded by cattles, and I watch the lovely Franche bush and prairie landscape destroyed to fit a speculative profit pretending agro fuel and pesticide wheat is the future of humanity.Some lost their senses making sense.

    Milking the cows by steal machines or leaning on them, feeling their warmth, the contact between hand and teats, their expressive gentle eyes.

    In one of Salinger s story s, one of his main character tells about his first “insight” watching his sister drinking milk.

    I had the feeling that this distant milk in the test tube had a Calvinist taste.

    It feels quiet cold sometimes up north.

    Must be a long time back, since you enjoyed Astrid Lindgren s philosophy.
    Do children like playing with you?

  22. enleuk says:

    Yes, they do, although I don’t have a family of my own and I’ve always liked Astrid Lindgren, especially the boys who die and go to Nangijala.

    I don’t think one should romanticize milking a cow, no matter how cozy an udder feels. We keep them prisoners, force them to produce milk after taking their children away, steal the milk and when they’re used up we kill and eat them. It’s like a concentration camp, whether you talk to them nicely when you’re taking their milk or not. But I enjoy staring into their eyes, I still do it. They’re so calm and let you look into their eyes and there are so many thoughts in their heads. There’s a big difference between the ones that have been near humans and those who have been out on their own, we don’t keep them indoors during the summer. Their eyes are not disconnected, they don’t dream of greener pastures, they live in the now, their looks are dark and harsh, they feel free and alive. If you’ve seen it you know what I mean.

    Sorry for the agro-fuel people, there’s so little soil on earth and we think we can use it all whichever way we please, but without soil there’s no life on the surface and yet we use it to fuel cars. Without life there’d be no soil either.

    Humans are the only animals that drink milk as grownups. All mammals drink milk as babies, but we keep drinking throughout our lives. Was that was Salinger realized? :) Probably not.

    Which distant milk in the test tube are you referring to?

    And how does my description of love fit your idea of atomic love?

    And are you gonna ignore the other questions I asked?

  23. “And are you gonna ignore the other questions I asked?”
    Maybe! I think its called a free will!
    (hell, the demanding moralist sits deep!)
    At least we can agree on the wise beauty of cow eyes and the thin crust of fertile soil some transform into dust devils.
    No, the story of Salinger was not about mamal glands but he used a word, I fear to repeat, as he meant it metaphorically, and I bet my last camember on, you would take straight one to one.
    From all Lindgren books you went for the most “funniest”(THAT was sarcastic!).The boring politicly correct charm of Scandinavian criminal story’s could be considered as another depressive metaphysic.AH Strindberg and bikinis!
    They are moments where you remind me the old professor in my favourite Bergman film “wild strawberry’s”.Maybe I should start to warm up the conversation with Antonioni s “la Note”,
    How is the atomic structure of a mosquito bite in the midnight sun? humm?

  24. enleuk says:

    I’ve never seen the midnight sun cuz I live at the southern-most tip of Sweden. I don’t know the atomic structure of the bite. Did you mean the molecular structure of the substance the mosquito injects in place of the blood? I don’t know that either, except that it reacts with the skin, turning on the body’s defenses.

    I do understand metaphors, I’m just aware of the difference between detailed, coherent descriptions of the world and generalized, illogical descriptions of the world and the world an Sich, which we have no way of knowing anything about and the metaphysical world which does not exists, unlike dualists claim. I.e. I say the opposite of Buddha: the world is a delusion (not an illusion) and the unknown material world is the true world (Buddha said the unknown immaterial world is the true world). I havn’t seen those films you mention, I prefer Kubrick to Bergman, The Doors to Abba and Terry Pratchett to Strindberg.

    Free will is just another delusion. You’re just cause and effect, there’s no interception of an immaterial will affecting the process.

  25. Who speaks to me?
    You or “an immaterial will affecting the process?”
    (writes it down as excuse of a man to assume his own attitude,n* 879472!)
    Its a fractal multi-verse to me, and we are the whole reality’s and affecting everything and each other in an interactive amazingly coherent free style ballet.
    After years of deconstructivism, hightime for responsibility(the “must” of liberty!).
    I don’t know(and do I care?)what Buddha said as I cant remember him talking!I highly mistrust those who make later schools out of the understanding of an individual. It ends mostly as dogma clergy power tool disgracing the human potential.

    The grave of Jim, looks more and more “distant”.
    It used to be full of bras,candles & flowers.

  26. enleuk says:

    I am unknown to myself. That’s what “you can’t bite your own teeth” means. I’m a monkey, I’m not a soul. It’s not a free will that is writing to you, it’s this monkey and this monkey is the one who is going to have to take responsibility for its actions. “I” don’t exist. Only the monkey exists. “I” is just a linguistic construction, a metaphor for the monkey. In reality I’m not a monkey, that’s just a simplification for practical purposes. I am all the experiences I have, the toe hurting, the taste of strawberry, the kind face of a friend, the vision of the sun in the sky; that’s me, that’s the real I. I is my universe.

    Well, we don’t know for certain what Buddha said, but his words seems to have been better preserved than Jesus’s words, even though their words may have been equally corrupted. I recommend reading Nagarjuna, the 2nd guy in Buddhism. He’s very similar to Nietzsche and Derrida in many respects.

    Yes, it’s a fractal multiverse, but only because our understanding of the world is limited to the idea that 1=1, the axiom we base all scientific knowledge on and which cannot be proved. I = I. I am me. And still, there’s no reason to assume any metaphysicality existing in the fractal multiverse, except to give philosophers and priests jobs, because without the metaphysical we wouldn’t need them.

  27. Your poor mum must have had a surprise at your birth!

    You forgot something, You sound very clinging to a certain post modern “fashion of thought” who in my eye ends in a “everything goes and nobody cares” devastating neoliberal 5 penny show off communication ending nihilism .

    I AM, you ARE!(monkey,I,Buddha)and the fact that we tend to have winds after too much half digested philosophy, does not mean that we are not entity enough to have the respect towards ourself and other to not give him/her a hand like a pseudo transparent real itchy jellyfish.

  28. enleuk says:

    “Everything goes”. Yes, and anyone who says differently is in denial of everything. There is no objective moral because there is no supreme being. There’s only subjectivity, we have to invent moral ourselves, and there’s no objective reason saying we must invent one, we can do it if we want to.

    No, we don’t deserve any kind of respect. We are just molecules and to give ourselves any more credit than that is the purest form of selfishness. “Look at me, I have a soul, I’m so special!” No, you’re just deluded.

    And yes, I believe life is meaningless in a grander sense. It’s only worth itself. When the life ends it’s no longer worth anything. Life is its own purpose, no more, no less.

    But that’s no reason to kill anyone, or to stop communicating, or to not help each other out. You can do all of this just as much as before, without doing it for fear of divine punishment when the day of judgment comes.

    I know grammar, thank you very much. I was just trying to point out that we don’t need to stay within the limitations of grammar or of the ideas behind our current grammar.

    And when it comes to morals, I’ve already stated that I think altruism is a good idea. Just because I’m a bit nihilistic doesn’t change that. I believe in altruism, because I’m an individualist, not for ontological reasons, just for practical reasons, and I think altruism is the best form of egoism.

    I’m not a neoliberal either, I’m more of a collectivist when it comes to resource management. Although, it’s not like my opinions are set in stone, they more I learn, the more they might change.

    Let me ask you, do you think it would be a good idea to remove humans from the ecosystems of earth and place them within an ecosystem of their own that only contains plants and bacteria and viruses and no sentient beings, no matter how small? Give back the soil to the rest of the life on earth and keep resource production and disposal within a confined “city”? It’s just an idea and it has no ultimate goal, I just think it’s a possible future, scary or romantic I don’t know, just a possibility.


Tags: , , , , ,

One Response to “the “path”delusion by”

  1. enleuk Says:

    “I do not divide our BEING into category’s like material/immaterial as my perception of life included the permanent immanence of everything in everything.”

    I don’t see how the invention of immateriality is relevant to BEING.

    “I have experienced that the kernel of each atom, was LOVE.Energy,bliss,whatever… if possible, lets talk about it from the inside.”

    The subjective experience is not absolutely metaphysical just because it doesn’t easily relate to the material description of the world.

    There’s an insect sitting on my screen. It too is material and experiences the world. Why add a metaphysical dimension to this description? Why is the energy of the world metaphysical or connected to emotions like love and bliss and not just a material energy? The material description is coherent and sufficient, the metaphysical add-ons are superfluous and misleading. The sum is not greater than the whole, although it feels that way. Instead, the true enlightenment is the thought wherein you grasp the totality of the sum as purely its parts without the sum itself. The grasping of 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1…+1 (finite but feels infinite when you try to comprehend them all at once) in place of the grasping of the whole as a singular concept. It is misleading to suggest that the sum is greater than its part, that the unknown is something more than an empty unknown, that the energy is something more than physical. I don’t see how one can argue for it not being misleading, and why the experience of BEING and the subjective neurological experience of beauty and love is not enough, why there has to be “something more”. In the worst case this leads to an external God or an immaterial/metaphysical/higher/more/extra meaning/purpose/cause/goal/free will/metaphysical will/immaterial will. Why is a description not enough, why do we always crave more?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: