Home | Community | Message Board


MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Microscope

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblesunyata
nonexistentexistentialist
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 133
Classic Watts
    #1634930 - 06/15/03 01:20 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

I'm sure many of you have read this before but I came back to it again this morning and appreciated the genius of this passage so much I had to post it here, in the hope of stimulating some conversation... It's an excerpt from "The Book (on the taboo against knowing who you are)" by manmythlegend Alan Watts...

Quote:

If I first see a tree in the winter, I might assume that it is not a fruit-tree. But when I return in the summer to find it covered with plums, I must exclaim, "Excuse me! You were a fruit-tree after all." Imagine, then, that a billion years ago some beings from another part of the galaxy made a tour through the solar system in their flying saucer and found no life. They would dismiss it as "Just a bunch of old rocks!" But if they returned today, they would have to apologize: "Well--you were peopling rocks after all!" You may, of course, argue that there is no analogy between the two situations. The fruit-tree was at one time a seed inside a plum, but the earth--much less the solar system or the galaxy--was never a seed inside a person. But, oddly enough, you would be wrong.

I have tried to explain that the relation between an organism and its environment is mutual, that neither one is the "cause" or determinant of the other since the arrangement between them is polar. If, then, it makes sense to explain the organism and its behavior in terms of the environment; it will also make sense to explain the environment in terms of the organism. (Thus far I have kept this up my sleeve so as not to confuse the first aspect of the picture.) For there is a very real, physical sense in which man, and every other organism, creates his own environment.

Our whole knowledge of the world is, in one sense, self-knowledge. For knowing is a translation of external events into bodily processes, and especially into states of the nervous system and the brain: we know the world in terms of the body, and in accordance with its structure. Surgical alterations of the nervous system, or, in all probability, sense-organs of a different structure than ours, give different types of perception--just as the microscope and telescope change the vision of the naked eye. Bees and other insects have, for example, polaroid eyes which enable them to tell the position of the sun by observing any patch of blue sky. In other words, because of the different structure of their eyes, the sky that they see is not the sky that we see. Bats and homing pigeons have sensory equipment analogous to radar, and in this respect see more "reality" than we do without our special instruments.

From the viewpoint of your eyes your own head seems to be an invisible blank, neither dark nor light, standing immediately behind the nearest thing you can see. But in fact the whole field of vision "out there in front" is a sensation in the lower back of your head, where the optical centers of the brain are located. What you see out there is, immediately, how the inside of your head "looks" or "feels." So, too, everything that you hear, touch, taste, and smell is some kind of vibration interacting with your brain, which translates that vibration into what you know as light, color, sound, hardness, roughness, saltiness, heaviness, or pungence. Apart from your brain, all these vibrations would be like the sound of one hand clapping, or of sticks playing on a skinless drum. Apart from your brain, or some brain, the world is devoid of light, heat, weight, solidity, motion, space, time, or any other imaginable feature. All these phenomena are interactions, or transactions, of vibrations with a certain arrangement of neurons. Thus vibrations of light and heat from the sun do not actually become light or heat until they interact with a living organism, just as no light-beams are visible in space unless reflected by particles of atmosphere or dust. In other words, it "takes two" to make anything happen. As we saw, a single ball in space has no motion, whereas two balls give the possibility of linear motion, three balls motion in a plane, and four balls motion in three dimensions.

The same is true for the activation of an electric current. No current will "flow" through a wire until the positive pole is connected with the negative, or, to put it very simply, no current will start unless it has a point of arrival, and a living organism is a "point of arrival" apart from which there can never be the "currents" or phenomena of light, heat, weight, hardness, and so forth. One might almost say that the magic of the brain is to evoke these marvels from the universe, as a harpist evokes melody from the silent strings.

A still more cogent example of existence as relationship is the production of a rainbow.(1) For a rainbow appears only when there is a certain triangular relationship between three components: the sun, moisture in the atmosphere, and an observer. If all three are present, and if the angular relationship between them is correct; then, and then only, will there be the phenomenon "rainbow." Diaphanous as it may be, a rainbow is no subjective hallucination. It can be verified by any number of observers, though each will see it in a slightly different position. As a boy, I once chased the end of a rainbow on my bicycle and was amazed to find that it always receded. It was like trying to catch the reflection of the moon on water. I did not then understand that no rainbow would appear unless the sun, and I, and the invisible center of the bow were on the same straight line, so that I changed the apparent position of the bow as I moved.

The point is, then, that an observer in the proper position is as necessary for the manifestation of a rainbow as the other two components, the sun and the moisture. Of course, one could say that if the sun and a body of moisture were in the right relationship, say, over the ocean, any observer on a ship that sailed into line with them would see a rainbow. But one could also say that if an observer and the sun were correctly aligned there would be a rainbow if there were moisture in the air!

Somehow the first set of conditions seems to preserve the reality of the rainbow apart from an observer. But the second set, by eliminating a good, solid "external reality," seems to make it an indisputable fact that, under such conditions, there is no rainbow. The reason is only that it supports our current mythology to assert that things exist on their own, whether there is an observer or not. It supports the fantasy that man is not really involved in the world, that he makes no real difference to it, and that he can observe reality independently without changing it. For the myth of this solid and sensible physical world which is "there," whether we see it or not, goes hand-in-hand with the myth that every observer is a separate ego, "confronted" with a reality quite other than himself.

Perhaps we can accept this reasoning without too much struggle when it concerns things like rainbows and reflections, whose reality status was never too high. But what if it dawns on us that our perception of rocks, mountains, and stars is a situation of just the same kind? There is nothing in the least unreasonable about this. We have not had to drag in any such spooks as mind, soul, or spirit. We have simply been talking of an interaction between physical vibrations and the brain with its various organs of sense, saying only that creatures with brains are an integral feature of the pattern which also includes the solid earth and the stars, and that without this integral feature (or pole of the current) the whole cosmos would be as unmanifested as a rainbow without droplets in the sky, or without an observer. Our resistance to this reasoning is psychological. It makes us feel insecure because it unsettles a familiar image of the world in which rocks, above all, are symbols of hard, unshakeable reality, and the Eternal Rock a metaphor for God himself. The mythology of the nineteenth century lead reduced man to an utterly unimportant little germ in an unimaginably vast and enduring universe. It is just too much of a shock, too fast a switch, to recognize that this little germ with its fabulous brain is evoking the whole thing, including the nebulae millions of light-years away.

Does this force us to the highly implausible conclusion that before the first living organism came into being equipped with a brain there was no universe--that the organic and inorganic phenomena came into existence at the same temporal moment? Is it possible that all geological and astronomical history is a mere extrapolation--that it is talking about what would have happened if it had been observed? Perhaps. But I will venture a more cautious idea. The fact that every organism evokes its own environment must be corrected with the polar or opposite fact that the total environment evokes the organism. Furthermore, the total environment (or situation) is both spatial and temporal--both larger and longer than the organisms contained in its field. The organism evokes knowledge of a past before it began, and of a future beyond its death. At the other pole, the universe would not have started, or manifested itself, unless it was at some time going to include organisms--just as current will not begin to flow from the positive end of a wire until the negative terminal is secure. The principle is the same, whether it takes the universe billions of years to polarize itself in the organism, or whether it takes the current one second to traverse a wire 186,000 miles long.

I repeat that the difficulty of understanding the organism/environment polarity is psychological. The history and the geographical distribution of the myth are uncertain, but for several thousand years we have been obsessed with a false humility--on the one hand, putting ourselves down as mere "creatures" who came into this world by the whim of God or the fluke of blind forces, and on the other, conceiving ourselves as separate personal egos fighting to control the physical world. We have lacked the real humility of recognizing that we are members of the biosphere, the "harmony of contained conflicts" in which we cannot exist at all without the cooperation of plants, insects, fish, cattle, and bacteria. In the same measure, we have lacked the proper self-respect of recognizing that I, the individual organism, am a structure of such fabulous ingenuity that it calls the whole universe into being. In the act of putting everything at a distance so as to describe and control it, we have orphaned ourselves both from the surrounding world and from our own bodies--leaving "I" as a discontented and alienated spook, anxious, guilty, unrelated, and alone.






Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible2Experimental
Male User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 18,073
Re: Classic Watts [Re: sunyata]
    #1634943 - 06/15/03 01:30 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

How can I discuss that? Theres too many points in there to discuss them all, and thats from reading only the first half. I do agree with him on the aspect of our envirorment and interaction with it coexist........


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Classic Watts [Re: sunyata]
    #1634960 - 06/15/03 01:38 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Watts was so deeply intune with life that he found refuge in a vodka bottle. Poetic word-manipulation and a life well-lived are two very different things.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible2Experimental
Male User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/03
Posts: 18,073
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Swami]
    #1634967 - 06/15/03 01:41 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

He did use alot of fancy words.... are you saying swami that hes just a drunk that plays things up? I dunno, but I think he has some very philosophical ideas.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Classic Watts [Re: 2Experimental]
    #1634981 - 06/15/03 01:47 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

How can one be any clearer?

Your true philosophy on life is reflected in how you live it, not how you speak it.

How many pedophilic priests speak the words of Jesus week after week?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesunyata
nonexistentexistentialist
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 133
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Swami]
    #1634988 - 06/15/03 01:52 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Watts was so deeply intune with life that he found refuge in a vodka bottle. Poetic word-manipulation and a life well-lived are two very different things.




Swami, I appreciate that you have chosen not to listen to the ramblings of anyone whose life you perceive to be less perfect than your own, but IMO Watts' alcoholism in no way invalidates his philosophical ideas, which are in fact not necessarily his but rather an interpretation of wisdom handed down by generations of presumably non-alcoholic thinkers. Nietszche ended his life in a mental hospital; does that mean none of his ideas are worthy of our attention? I would hope we could leave aside personal biases against individuals and just discuss the ideas, as your thoughts on all this would greatly interest me.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Classic Watts [Re: sunyata]
    #1635006 - 06/15/03 02:03 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Dear Sun,

There is a logical fallacy about mixing up an idea with the person when it comes to external things such as physics or agriculture, etc.

Yet, here is a man with many deep philosophical insights that he, himself, apparently has trouble integrating into his own life. But somehow, mysteriously, those of us who get these insights secondhand can do a much better job of living them.

If they had no power to transform the originator's life, why would you think they might have a profound impact on yours?



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Edited by Swami (06/15/03 02:04 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesunyata
nonexistentexistentialist
Registered: 12/26/02
Posts: 133
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Swami]
    #1635029 - 06/15/03 02:22 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

This is a good question, and I guess we could get it out of the way if you like, but I feel like we're getting sidetracked from the original intent of my post, which was to explore issues of teleology and human perception and whatnot. But this is a conversation, and I am feeling silly for trying to control it, so let's just go with it...

I guess I have only two direct responses for the issues you raised, probably neither of which will be very satisfactory to you. First, I think that the logical fallacy you mentioned does apply here, because (in this passage) Watts is not talking about how to live a perfect life free from addictions and he is not claiming that he lives such a life. He is talking about external things much as a physicist or farmer does. I am unclear as to whether you have read the passage above (I know it's lengthy) so maybe you missed that. A quantum physicist can ramble all day about the true nature of the universe (subject and object being inseperable, and so forth) but if he does not live according to these "truths" we do not hold his ideas to be invalid. I think Watts deserves the same consideration here, but that's just my opinion. He is not instructing us in how to live in this passage, he is simply pointing out some of the perceptual errors experienced by humans almost universally.

Second (and this is the point that I know you will not agree with, but I feel compelled to mention it anyway), you are using your own standards of what comprises a "transformed" life, and I think that perhaps you have not examined the assumptions that you are making. I believe that someone who truly lives the cosmic truths Watts expounds is not necessarily going to be a saintly figure in the stereotypical sense. In fact, I think that often what we see in people who have liberated themselves from the traditional bounds of thought is the exact opposite -- complete freedom of expression and action unmediated by cultural expectations. Humans are generally governed by self-consciousness that dictates what is "right" and "wrong" in our behaviours, but to know the truth is to truly know that these are just concepts, and that the universe does not make such distinctions. Life just is, it is neither good nor bad. Zen masters used to do the craziest things in order to demonstrate this, like cutting off a student's finger for example. Is this a sociopathic action? In our estimation, yes, but in the absolute sense, no, it is just an action, like an apple falling off a tree. The judgement exists only in our minds.

So Watts may have been an alcoholic, but perhaps he was happy. I don't know. Maybe he was miserable, but it doesn't matter to me because he had an ability to explain the wisdom of the East in such a way that it has had a profound impact on MY life, and I presume others' lives as well. So I could care less about his personal life, it has nothing to do with me, and I can say from experience that I have found much value in his writings. Perhaps you might too if you would give them a chance...


Edited by sunyata (06/15/03 02:27 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: Classic Watts [Re: sunyata]
    #1635432 - 06/15/03 06:07 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

swami-


this book was written before the time of the 5 step self help manual. Watts communicates in an engaging manner- perhaps even "poetic"- but his primary purpose is translating eastern philosophy.

sure, you could look then at how well say, taoism "worked" on asian people... but that too would be missing the point.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,772
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 5 hours, 33 minutes
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Swami]
    #1635617 - 06/15/03 07:25 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

You're always throwing the baby out with the bath water Swami.

There are absolutely NO perfect human beings. You would have us ignore all teachings unless they come from one who is faultless. That's ridiculous.




--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: BLC - I Don't Wanna Go



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Learyfan]
    #1636292 - 06/16/03 01:59 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

I don't know... I like some of what Watts says, but addiction is a MAJOR PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM. I find it hard to see how a man that seems to be all about internal coherence would be still be able to provide reliable insight into the "ways of the world/whatever" when he himself is plagued with his own addiction. I'm all about internal conflict, but Watts' case seems like a blatant and ongoing contradiction.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Sclorch]
    #1636353 - 06/16/03 02:34 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

I've never met anyone who's not a hypocrite at one time or another, have you? If you have, well shit.. introduce me to him and tattoo 666 on my forehead. Send me his book as well, because obviously I can't read anything anyone else writes!  :blush: 


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Adamist]
    #1636356 - 06/16/03 02:36 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

It's not spotted instances of contradiction that is the problem (those are normal).
The problem is when it's an ongoing contradiction (i.e. alcoholism).


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Sclorch]
    #1636366 - 06/16/03 02:40 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

And who is the omnipresent judge who determines what is spotted instances of contradiction and ongoing contradiction? Us?


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Adamist]
    #1636381 - 06/16/03 02:48 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Well, learning can be a contradictory phenomenon. So that's not bad.

It is common for alcoholics to drink every day. Everyday, to me, means ongoing (read: quasi-incessant). I don't make bad choices NEARLY that often. But Watts did. So I'm skeptical of an intelligent alcoholic's writings... so what?

Does this make me an inflexible, intolerant, hyper-rational, Skeptic-with-a-capital-S?
To each his own then, eh?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAdamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/24/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Sclorch]
    #1636412 - 06/16/03 03:02 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

So I'm skeptical of an intelligent alcoholic's writings... so what?
Does this make me an inflexible, intolerant, hyper-rational, Skeptic-with-a-capital-S?



It depends on how intolerant your judgements are. But I'm pretty sure you personally don't fit those adjectives, (at least concerning Alan Watts), because I've read past posts in which you think critically and expound upon what he had to say.

Now, an inflexible, intolerant, hyper-rational Skeptic would read Watts and totally disregard his ideas as hogwash, poppycock, rubbish, tommyrot, twaddle, or malarkey, just because he had a loosely-defined 'problem' with alcohol... I know you're more open-minded than that. :laugh: 


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:


Edited by Adamist (06/16/03 03:04 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,772
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 5 hours, 33 minutes
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Sclorch]
    #1636814 - 06/16/03 08:43 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Hypothetical situation:

I am a philosopher who teaches that love is the way and that killing is wrong.

I just killed a termite.

Now this renders all of my teachings null and void and people should take my words with a grain of salt.




--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: BLC - I Don't Wanna Go



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIn(di)go
People of the sun.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/00
Posts: 8,150
Loc: Cologne, Germany
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Swami]
    #1636886 - 06/16/03 09:32 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Watts was so deeply intune with life that he found refuge in a vodka bottle. Poetic word-manipulation and a life well-lived are two very different things. 


this is exactly the reason i am not posting here anymore... :tongue: swami you are never going to change, are you?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIn(di)go
People of the sun.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/30/00
Posts: 8,150
Loc: Cologne, Germany
Re: Classic Watts [Re: Adamist]
    #1636892 - 06/16/03 09:35 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

disregard his ideas as hogwash, poppycock, rubbish, tommyrot, twaddle, or malarkey


you forgot boohawkey :grin:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Classic Watts [Re: In(di)go]
    #1636909 - 06/16/03 09:46 AM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watts was so deeply intune with life that he found refuge in a vodka bottle. Poetic word-manipulation and a life well-lived are two very different things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this is exactly the reason i am not posting here anymore...


Because truth is painful? Here is a quote from Watts (The World As Emptiness - an essay on Buddhism)

"But the point is this: when you're feeling blue and bored, it's not a good idea to have a drink, because you may become dependant on alcohol whenever you feel unhappy."

swami you are never going to change, are you?
Seems you need to resort to personalism again and again (contrary to Shroomery rules!) rather than staying on topic. You want others to change (to what?), but not yourself, kind of like Watts teachings.



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Microscope

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* ESSAY:Psychedelic induced mystical experiences by Alan Watts tekramrepus 1,494 6 03/21/03 01:43 PM
by pattern
* Alan Watts
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
hot48yearolds
3,405 81 05/21/06 05:40 PM
by Deviate
* Alan Watts.
( 1 2 3 all )
TheHateCamel 2,289 44 08/24/05 07:38 PM
by ninjapixie
* Alan Watts is the bizz-omb!
( 1 2 3 4 all )
buttonion 4,543 64 08/07/02 05:16 AM
by PaleE
* Alan Watts interviews Aldous Huxley (mp3) Learyfan 1,381 4 01/18/04 03:59 PM
by Learyfan
* Alan Watts psychomime 572 3 06/18/07 08:39 PM
by psychomime
* The Rainbow fireworks_godS 421 3 09/08/03 04:01 PM
by fireworks_god
* Alan Watts Video
( 1 2 all )
hot48yearolds
1,989 24 02/06/07 01:22 AM
by hot48yearolds

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
2,181 topic views. 2 members, 3 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.121 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.