| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
|
Alive Again Registered: 11/10/05 Posts: 9,230 |
| ||||||
|
I once in a very assuming way characterized (famous and perhaps brilliant historical figure we were talking about) as someone who experienced brief moments of lucidity. After making the statement I had misgivings as it had little to do with the person in question but rather my general view of humanity and by extension myself. I'm not so pessimistic now, though I don't think my viewpoint in that regard has changed much. I can't say as a matter of fact that pre-Descartes things were much difference but suspect Descartes wasn't the first Cartesian in practice. Full knowledge of our mortality brings troubled thoughts, and perhaps even on a more basic level we're prone to anxiety that by function results in better survivability.
I think in practice we do experience brief moments of lucidity, results varying of course. Ideally we are able to incorporate those experiences into our daily life and perhaps with some understood cognitive dissonance being a reasonable price, we experience a separation between how we feel deep down at times and how we learn to view and interact with the world in ways that tend to promote and maintain harmony. Quote: -------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours |
| ||||||
|
For the life of me I can't figure out why I can't find the opening post on other philosophy sites.
Quote:
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Well said Rahz although I think we might disagree on genius. Lucidity is something I can follow.
I'd say tentatively (on a common sense way) that lucidity is quintessentially philosophical. But I take it, it is basically an ease in one's thoughts and expressions, which seemingly flow from the clarity or transparency of one's perceptions. Lucidity as an ease in the way from one's perception may likely be psychological in principle, in this way, so I will have to access a few points to you there. I would more readily accede that we discuss the world in these terms than in our "mental existence" which I believe (especially in the Cartesian sense) is an intellectual aspiration to ascribe closure to the "existence" of minds in a more technical way. I'll give you the fundamental place of psychological analysis of existence, for this argument, gladly. Before even precartesian philosophers like Aristotle talked of matter and the forms it takes (as being) and before this language modulated into Descartes system, surrounding a formal "subject" of the mind, (which indubitably "must exist", therefore raises more or less profound questions of its substance and origins), perhaps what was expressed as being, Before either of them was a psychological lucidity toward being, or existence itself, one's "situation" in nature, so to say? One way to say this, is that in being we face our own mortality, or non-being. If this is felt in a sense of challenge, and duality too, (first between human and nature) it can be a proposition one human being named and another considers. I think there is a limit to this approach, in that the proposition that we fear nature's way, can't be necessarily true as some psychological fact, which goes with the fact of death. The mistake would be to take the theoretical postulate, as a necessary explanation for everything and anything. Freud himself said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (and not an oral fixation or symbol of a phallus). Sex is a theoretical drive if it is also most real according to Freud. So what is fear of mortal existence and death? Fear comes in varieties of sweaty hands on a date, to the neurological response to shadow flitting on the periphery of vision (which neurologists find has a basic necessary reflex) to a drawn out anxiety a human has about one's being-toward something, and in this way realizing one's being can be towards nothing, or what we conceive of that, in death. If that is what a person theorizes upon, as anxiety, that investment seems complex, and philosophical, and generally it would seem to be a mistake to assume that "necessity" (of psychological fear) in general belongs to what we talk about, even if we well know the complex difference between being-towards something, and being-towards death and and the dread this can inspire. To quote Richard Rorty; Quote: As final and necessity as death of nothingness may seem, in the way we think on it, or in the way some say that we should when we have life in the one hand and death in the other, what can we say of this? Do we not have to come back to admit the philosophical complexity of the question of death and nothing, rather than project this in the guise of a theory, to fallaciously say "one must fear as I do?" Isn't death anxiety theory, a coping mechanism for feeling philosophically pessimistic, or alienated from life, and humanity in some cases? People have these explanations for existence, and they can be seen as symptoms, and we can see things this way in general. I will say I fear death though. In fact that (fear) has been many things and significantly changed alot. The suffering of existence, to me (as in wondering "why do I choose, or incline so much to suffer existence, as I do") has somewhat tempered that anxiety I felt before. That complex sentence was more a question, a menagerie of things I felt I was to be, "being towards" and that being met with a difference. I do not see this position as pessimism or something anyone should be challenged to see. There was some ancient Buddhist line I read before that said something like "the enlightened one sees clearly that all that arises is suffering and nothing aside. I didn't read this or find this as comforting when I felt existential But when life the positive term was pretty bad. (An illness I have since learned better to deal with.) I am not sure if this anecdote means anything, but when I have thought and emotionally felt myself as a being towards death, like say, yesterday morning for some reason I have found it more relative to what I have experienced, and it was sort of like... Yup, deal with what is in your plate. I figure (and again it's just my experience) I am more afraid of concrete losses, which I deal with anyway, as enough of a problem than what the strange philosophical animal feels and thinks at the same time. And this makes me wonder. Why does Descartes say a mind "must exist"? Must it? The argument preceding this, If you recall, Rahz is essentially that the world is falling away; as it is being doubted into oblivion, for possibly being deceiving (by the senses). I am not sure what is so deceiving about life, but Descartes claims this as an intellectual position of skepticism, not a psychologically visceral claim, as a crisis, or spiral (etc) but I still do not know why the mind must exist, at least in these technical terms. It seems like something "must" necessarily exist in the mind only on the grounds that the world was falling away to doubt in the first place. So in that sense, how Cartesian arguments work, seems to be kind of strange.They seem to too necessarily relate different arguments. For example, it seems to me the Cartesian says something like: "I must doubt my senses and the external world until I come to my mental experience, which must in turn exist to ground the world and existence", but "must" we think this way, either coming to this, or its seeming consequence? I neither have the spiral of doubt, or the redeeming proposition of my relatively certain mentality, either psychologically or philosophically. I agree with that Descartes expresses something that has been expressed many times by different names, as philosophical lucidity. But this is where Descartes seems to me to be obscure, and a shifting pool. He can't figure out where he comes from, if he can't clear away these presumptions of the necessities in doubt (of the senses) and how this leads him to say mental existence "must be". I think this whirlpool and a certain circulatory in Descartes' argument is why some people pull towards an idealism and some towards a method of doubt. But they are the same statement. The idea that mind or intellect, or "I" must be, the challenging and stumbling forward may be a good part of what we call our collective intellectual ego, (I definitely would agree there) but what really at all is true to the nature of life and nature about this?
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
I used to and still post at Google search: "philosophy forums", and it was alright.
I have been trying to just quit too, to develop better posture. The shroomery is aware of my tragicomedy, I just came back. I am doing Pilates now, though and getting more fresh air so things do change sometimes.
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
In my opinion Cartesian dualism is a kind of violence in the sense that it cuts one away from the powers of the cosmos such that all pursuits become totally profane and finite in the grand scheme of it all.
The philosopher Charles Taylor whose book A Secular Age (which you should definitely read) uses Max Weber's dichotomy of disenchantment vis-à-vis enchantment to describe the transition we have gone through since Decarte and the scientific/industrial revolution as a transition of the self. The enchanted self is characterized by the permeability of the individual and the world such that an individual may be affected by external phenomena and find grounds for a meaning to life in the cosmos. For the enchanted self meaning can exist both inside and outside the individual such that the meaning of a thing exists both within the subjective experience of the individual, but also within the surrounding environment. So, just as the individual is colonized by the world of magic and spirits the individual also effectively enchants the world. This is a very old way of seeing the world which contains many supernatural phenomena. From our modern perspective however, it appear quint, outmoded even ridiculous. The disenchanted self is characterized by the barrier that exists between the individual and the world, such that meaning is only a property of subjective experience and cannot exist outside of the individual, which is largely cut off from the world, and most definitely cut off from justifying his/her existence as a meaningful player in the cosmos. This is the Cartesian self. Its development has caused a crisis of meaning in the modern soul, but has ushered in a new era of material prosperity through scientific and industrial advancement. Th violence you speak of is this crisis of meaning. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I like what you have to say about death (you have clearly read heidegger) however I disagree. You say you fear the concrete losses, I take this to mean the little things, a beloved pet or the fact that a wonderful evening has come to an end etc. What you need to understand is that these "concrete losses" ARE little deaths. Each one brings you into contact with the finite nature of human existence, which is ultimately what is feared. In other words; the fear of death is the primordial fear from which all other fears descend. Rationally we can understand this, which is why people fear being too rational, that's why we have religion. Rationality is a little death, which is the same as the violence of Cartesian dualism you speak of. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,810 |
| ||||||
|
So can anyone summarise or give a quick word on what Cartesian dualism has to do with violence? Or at least what you think the relationship is?
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours |
| ||||||
|
In a nutshell I think the proposition is that arguments counter to science are a violation of sensibility. The opposition posited that thought itself constitutes a violation thereby initiating science into categorical violence only subdued by self appointed regulation from the standpoint of science whereas the Cartesian can dispute the regulation as 'self-appointed'.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
I don't think there is anything people need to understand about death. We have anecdotes...about life. To take a Heideggerian approach; the question might be; are you clear when you move in and out of temporal structures of existence? (By the way, I actually like the post Heideggerian philosopher Emmanual Levinas alot for his acknowledgement of ethics and experiences with others, as first philosophy).
Blingbling, to your argument I would say it seems like you are positioning a post hoc rationale, whereas to me the psychological anecdotes is a leap forward, and more positive. I mean in general it seems to me that sometimes people can get stuck on these things, and ironically not just in how death can be, in life, but as a theory explaining life, or human sociology and psychology. Better not to get stuck at all if you ask me, in life. Although I do enjoy Heidegger and other heavy thinkers, I tend to see a limit in the approach, practically sometimes. I think sometimes people just feel alienated and seek a justification for this, and if we focus on broad theories there'd might as well be a theory for that too. At any rate I would say the thematic of questions I would be interested, and which relate to this thread are in the temporal as such, just as much as the finite. Consider the extent to which temporality, the Heraclitian river that is stepped into, is commonly looked away from in the partiality platonic philosophy, where form itself has stood for the present, or presence of being. Look to how much modern cartesian philosophy emphasizes this above all, and how in the technological epoch of science, being as presence, becomes an unconscious narrative of the standing reserve, as much as the disposability of what is. The premise of this thread could be that we overload the present, or make too much issue of it's representation. One response, which seems to get a psychologically resonant response, is what about absence? What about yin to yang, the morphology of change, which we can represent to some extent, (for instance in historicizing and temporalizing philosophy) rather than just challenging forth to manifest presence, as what is, throwing aside what is not, the nothing, as irreality? There is a limit to what we can say in this sense though too. Your question about the possible relation of concrete losses and understanding temporal finitude in a related way, can be a good question. "Concrete losses" can become what we encounter in the stream of finite experience, but these notions are related, only where a person affirmatively makes a connection. For instance, in philosophical terms, "the being of beings" has through the history of western metaphysics been considered concretely as god. Or in science, the being of beings is the sum totality of presences and entities or dimensions in a domain of nature. But arguably what we encounter as this phrase, or common prerogative to the "being of beings", may be considered existence. The "being of beings" is existentiality, not just presence of an entity; but being temporally ecstatic, and ultimately more or less conceivably, as facing finite existence. At no point does the fear of death (if that is in the temporally extatic experience of being-towards-death) simply become the sum total cargo of experiences, or sUm of the things, one can lose, or one big thing accrued from the past to lose on the way, by rationale alone. Where is the specific temporal structure? Projecting as being towards something and the possibility of this being an end or nothing, is in one sense the anxiety of death, as temporal finitude, that may come up, psychologically expressed. You can rationalize and press on this, in different ways, but if we straight forward, we do not know what it is we may conceive more or less sensibly as "losing ourselves" or if the ideas people have one way or another make sense at all. More likely we relate or associate concrete loss of something with the insight into temporality. This is where I think existential analysis begins. We have lost, and know loss, and we can find this positively meaningful, or psychologically cathartic when we do think of the nature of temporal being. Likewise, contemplating impermanence can bring us to terms with loss and suffering in life. We dip in and out of this. It is not a truth or fact of existence in a technical sense, so much as a common experience, or spirituality, a "noble truth". It is also not just a "psychological" philosophy either, but (something the strain of contemporary west has difficulty with due to its embeddedness in tradition, but let's put that aside for indvidual experience) a way of thought that can positively affirm temporal being. The temporal structures are not "necessities" in the classic sense where what is necessary is true. This is the mistake I think many people make. There are limits to being able to represent temporal structure. There is a good reason w have talked about being as "presence" by priority, over the interspersed absence, (which only in symphony are able to represent arising, becoming and ceasing). It is just that we look away from our nullities, by tendency. When Rorty says we fear a "concrete loss", this connection to temporal structures can bring a closure. But then; not necessarily. Maybe people hold on, and maybe they have good reasons to hold on to an experience or something though. What do you tell a girl is love holding on or letting go and letting be? I have learned you don't try to say either thing. We more bear this care to mind in general. We care that things are at stake, that they come and go, and this is not necessarily suggesting a one dimensional reality or truth to this. Or likewise we can see a hint, in front of us when the "beings" in front of us, or in this stream of temporality seem to resonate or shine in their finitude. Why this is potentially meaningful to temporal existence, what we go through, seems to be good question... but also it only presumes we might catch something, face to face like this. A glimpse is not saying one's existence, ("being" in the temporal sense) from which these anecdotes of finite experiences are made; is the sum of beings or experiences, added together necessarily. It is also not just that one big fish, and we are not always fishing for these statements and claims anyway. We are more alongside each other in this way as the being of beings, existing. But when we see finite being in front of us, face to face, we are at least not hypostatizing one special being in the center of the world (a special "I") making things go around it, when other beings shine in their finitude. Existential analysis then is not an end, in itself, but what allows us to encounter meaningfullness, and renew our wonder of being (the being of beings) in a positive ways which we might otherwise be afraid to see, when we cling only to the present. Levinas, unlike Heidegger, writes we come to the other, face to face, to understand the responsibility of death. And I agree it is not that we need to face something or understand something, or there is some claim to make. Sometimes it seems like people think this is an interrogation or they try to "argue" death anxiety. It is more we come "face to face", and that does not have a necessary structure of meaning. It would be right as you say that fear of death, temporal and finite existence, can be related to concrete experiences, or our losses in anecdotes. We are not telling big fish stories though I would say. We are not measuring something as human authenticity. And yet this wouldn't be possible to say if there wasn't some baseline commonality to our experiences that resonates, as life and existence that we come to. Philosophically you do not solve a problem; or have a theory about what death "is". So these temporal structures, existentiale, are not "necessary" in the idealized sense, as true to nature or being (as "necessarily true") or present objects as we encounter them. What they are, are the temporal ecstacies, "standing outside oneself", being thrown or projectional in a stream of being as we are. The significant proposition is that we can experience this, the being of beings face to face, as existence. By living, and experiencing, (not backwards rationalizations; not by treating all things as "present" or as objects) one can make a connection to the concrete losses of temporality, (being arising ceasing and eventually some picture of impermanence) and this relates to our insights into finitude. So like before I can describe an analogy, from my own way, but when we talk it is just another anecdote about life, not any moral of the story, any necessary truth... What is concrete loss, to existence? Well we will say something. Maybe it is like the moment, when as you have in theory or in principle sought a nonviolent approach to living, or temporally ecstatic life which affirms life and (not be morbid) but mistakenly step on a frog barefooted on your porch. There may be a psychological moment of squeamishness, both in your rationale or principle like "I messed up", and at the same time this might overlap with a less noble like "this is a mess, get it off me...quickly". This is life and existence. We have all been through things like this, or there is an existential commonality in this. This could be the moment of making a connection too, I am not sure. Maybe you are authentic in a principle and see if the little guy is okay, and actually care, beyond rationalized principles of ethics... If you don't freak out and fling him or scrape a living thing away as quickly as you can, maybe you can be "more authentic". Mostly authenticity is relative to you yourself, but there may be something common (say to reflective people) in that too. But just as well, don't follow the myth of authenticity; sometimes when people have rationalized non-violence they sort of react this way, without realizing they run or flee from the face to face, constantly. There is no necessary or true experience in authenticity. A truth typically, is a presence ("what is") but is that you? Maybe you are more in existentiality. For instance this may be incidental to anyone else but me, but it is not meaningless to me for that. I am a long time vegetarian and have been through looking to myself in this way, and seeing the better and worse side of my principles. I have a bit of an anecdote in it, that is all. I don't have any moral of the story except my own. I'd venture people who say they found some psychological closure about death, or about life and finitude, are usually talking about going from an ignoble squeamishness, to responsibility and looking life face to face. In a way, that is the only way we can go. But it is also true that it is not a moral, or belief about the world. There is no necessary rationale, and nothing so edifying, just as, as such, (apologies to those who psychologically project) there is no necessary fear of death, to insinuate as squeamishness to overcome, if we are ourselves authentic, and not projecting insecurity. We can all tend to appreciate when something is at stake, and we look closer, or something itself seems to shine out. Think about frogs and bugs, and little lives we ourselves live, or look closer and see something there and maybe you have a moral of the story, a psychological fable, a good story, if you give animals voices. But it seems to me like we are just passing through, and there are no stories or anecdotes, or approximately common experiences like this that really or necessarily hold, or put to others; the "existentiale" are only true to being or experience. No one "has" to understand a concrete loss, of finite being, (as being towards death is not a philosophical or logically determinant necessity anyone has laid out in its consequence) but it seems to me we can in affirmative ways, and in good measure, in philosophy and anecdote. There is something common about our existences and something different or other at the same time.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,810 |
| ||||||
|
So self appointed regulation is why we don't have violence? And why we can focus on and develop things like science?
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: I like to think so.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,810 |
| ||||||
|
Do you think it's fair to say that 'self appointed regulation' could be the inhibition of the innate fight or flight response in humans?
To be able to step back from natural instincts to be less impulsive and hence more rational in the moment?
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Sure.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,810 |
| ||||||
|
Alas, how could one learn to override their instinctive fight or flight response?
Quote: Quote:
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Our primal response to situations can be adjusted by our mind; Mind over matter (situation).
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Mind over matter is always a good approach, especially as an expression of the stoic, who faces his or her age...
Through intellect, we can maintain different intellectual attitudes. How about some historical sensibility? Cartesianism, as a method of doubt, primarily, could be seen as necessary to pull the sciences out of dogmatic appropriations, the institutions of knowledge led and sanctioned only by the church in the 17th century. In the previous centuries, since Galileo, the church was denying first person experiences, for an over-formalized and non-inquisitive, Aristotelianism (which was an injustice to Aristotle as much as any scientists of that time). So Descartes basically, in a pretty stark political opposition, said that all we can trust is our own minds, this new "subject" (as the ground of the world as we understand it). Maybe how literally we take this, in his technical arguments, may be the question. How stark this opposition and tension should be, (in all the oppositions we can fill in) if it should need to be at all, could be what intellectuals could consider temperance. It is not like Galileo is locked up in the tower in our day... Self discipline could be a really good idea...
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours |
| ||||||
|
Given that individual experience is a dye in the fabric of a personality, and that 'colors' their expression, one might extrapolate "death" and "finite" and "temporality" as a nihilistic perspective.
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Blingbling, to your argument I would say it seems like you are positioning a post hoc rationale, whereas to me the psychological anecdotes is a leap forward, and more positive. I mean in general it seems to me that sometimes people can get stuck on these things, and ironically not just in how death can be, in life, but as a theory explaining life, or human sociology and psychology. Better not to get stuck at all if you ask me, in life. Although I do enjoy Heidegger and other heavy thinkers, I tend to see a limit in the approach, practically sometimes. I think sometimes people just feel alienated and seek a justification for this, and if we focus on broad theories there'd might as well be a theory for that too.
I think you are correct that some cynical people use these ideas as a justification for their cynicism, but that does not necessarily imply that the theory is untrue. Also, your argument that this is simply a post hoc rationalisation can be made against any argument as all theory is a post hoc rationalisation. You say that people can get stuck on things and I agree with this. Life is a contradiction between being alive, striving for life and yet knowing death. We are all stuck. So, it should not come as any surprise that people become stuck in these things as you say. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
|
Darwin's stagger Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 10,810 |
| ||||||
Quote: True but do you really think that ability has been inherent in humans throughout our entire evolutionary history, or did we somehow learn to use our relatively large neocortex to achieve this state of 'mind over matter'?
| |||||||
|
what you chicken stew? Registered: 09/04/10 Posts: 2,987 Last seen: 3 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: In my opinion cartesian dualism creates existential angst. Separation from the redemptive power of the cosmos is a product of dualism, as mind and experience is cut away from material reality, the cosmos and the cycles of birth, death and rebirth found in the natural world. -------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
cartesian dualism is unsound ( |
3,115 | 28 | 02/20/10 09:42 PM by Kickle | ||
![]() |
Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!)... ( |
11,179 | 107 | 05/03/10 01:26 AM by Withinity | ||
![]() |
Cartesian Dualism | 1,317 | 9 | 04/29/08 11:51 PM by johnm214 | ||
![]() |
Are Believers Rational Beings? ( |
8,172 | 60 | 04/22/02 03:23 AM by infidelGOD | ||
![]() |
Why Dualism is Forlorn ( |
4,224 | 50 | 12/17/04 03:29 PM by Phluck | ||
![]() |
Is Buddhism Cartesian? ( |
3,076 | 22 | 06/02/07 09:45 AM by redgreenvines | ||
![]() |
Dualism ( |
2,354 | 24 | 12/14/04 07:46 PM by ninjapixie | ||
![]() |
Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs ( |
10,629 | 39 | 01/14/05 05:58 PM by Alan Stone |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 3,114 topic views. 2 members, 11 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

