Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness


Recommended Posts

Folks,

Could you try from both sides not to turn this into slurs on the other side's motivation?

Ellen,

My intention was not to be rude, and I know Laure and George were not, but my intention was to think about the story, and what it might mean. Those are kinds of questions I think about when coming across stories with moral implications. I ask myself those kinds of things all the time in regards to my art. You can look at one side, then switch to opposite side and see what comes up. For me, its fun to talk about. And Michael repeatedly asked why he felt the way he did, but didn't ask a range of possible questions.

Perhaps it ISN"T any of the negative suggestions raised above -- and perhpas not feeling touched by the story doesn't indicate lack of empathy either.

...But imagining it as true gives me something of both sets of reactions being described. On the one hand, I find the details of the story not only implausible but not a good way to have handled the circumstance if the father really had made the request.

On the other hand I feel the pang of being moved by it, though I think not as much so as MSK -- and I, like him, find the question of what's the source of the emotion perplexing.

Of course. You know the exercise of coming up with titles? In which you write the first 25 that come into your mind? That is all part of the fun, it doesn't mean they all are the right ones, but one or two might hit the right nerve and balance.

I think that at least part of the answer pertains to evolution and to the competing competition/compassion, conquest/mercy proclivities. The sports scene is one where the former proclivities are usually uppermost. In this story they're set aside in favor of the second -- compassion and mercy. So there's a shift of priorities, with a twang at the heart strings in the shift. Or something to that effect.

Oh, I didn't feel anything remotely like a twang of heart strings, but the opposite--something like revulsion towards the father, and totally sympathy for the poor kid with such a dad. Oh I know, there was a film I recently saw, The Secret Garden, with Maggie Smith as the caring (or evil) housekeeper, taking care of the invalid kid. It is similar to this story, but with a totally different outcome. I loved it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am simply suggesting that those who demand empathy provide a similar situation in which the recipient of the 'kindness' is a person who does not suffer from a learning disability.

George,

Who demanded anything? From that kind of reaction, I get the impression you are misreading this.

Perhaps it ISN"T any of the negative suggestions raised above -- and perhaps not feeling touched by the story doesn't indicate lack of empathy either.

Ellen,

That is it exactly. There aren't any limitations to such reality on either end. At least not in reality.

But I have to mention something. I don't mind people not being moved by the story. I do mind people who think kindness is evil. People who believe this rarely say it and even deny it at times, but they show this belief clearly in their acts.

(For the record, I don't know of any poster on OL who fits that description.)

I do want to be clear on one fact: nothing I have read in Objectivism leads me to believe that it is about declaring kindness to be evil. I find it profoundly disturbing that this connotation constantly creeps in. The plain fact is that holding a genius as a higher value does not mean one should despise the mentally incompetent.

The person to despise is the one who says the mentally incompetent is superior to the genius. But also, the person to despise is the one who says (in word or deed) that the mentally incompetent is to be despised or should not receive kindness.

In my world-view, good exists for (and toward) both genius and lesser minds. You can have both.

If the comment about serotonin increase is true, kindness would be a profoundly selfish thing to feel and do because of the biological and health benefits.

As to the story being true, at least one source I found thinks it was originally one of those New Age-like emails that circulate. That sounds about right. Dyer is a mixed bag and later I will post some thoughts on him. I like and dislike different aspects of what I have seen and I think it is productive to analyze this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists tend to mistake the eventual silence of their critics on their own unyielding and superior grip on reality.

Its usually because their critics often see them as missing the point of everything entirely.

Good Bye.

Joel, you simply need to focus on ideas, not people--i.e., "Objectivists." Objectivism, if you want. Only if you don't want does your "Good Bye" make any sense. Everybody gets some friction in serious Internet posting, especially if they aren't naturally at home on the lists they bless with their being there.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel demanded empathy.

I don't think kindness is evil. That would be oxymoronic. But I say that faking reality is not kindness.

All the players in the Shaya story despised the boy enough to fake reality for him - including (led by) his own father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I say that faking reality is not kindness.

George,

You mean faking like the following? (From Atlas Shrugged, p. 912—Rearden is talking to Tony, Wet Nurse, who has been shot and is near dying.)

"You've done me a big favor tonight, but I want you to do a still bigger one. You've done a great job, climbing out of that slag heap. Now will you try for something still harder? You were willing to die to save my mills. Will you try to live for me?"

"For you, Mr. Rearden?"

"For me. Because I'm asking you to. Because I want you to. ..."

Rearden is asking him to fake reality.

Of course I present this in contrast to the following, which I presume you consider to be the grounds of true kindness. (From Atlas Shrugged, p. 675—inscription in granite over the acess door to Galt's motor.)

I SWEAR BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE.

But then again, that was Rand. She knew when faking reality was needed for a greater value at an exceptional moment and she did it without apology. "Love is exception-making" she wrote in The Fountainhead. That is one of the reasons why she wrote Atlas Shrugged and those who came after have not done anything near the magnitude of that achievement.

As I said, Rand was much kinder than her fans and critics have given her credit for.

Michael

PS to Laure: How does Barbara's white lie to her dying mother bear up alongside this? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This little story by Dyer and my interest in examining the ideas behind it has caused a small ruckus elsewhere. As usual, the kneejerk misinterpretations started immediately.

So, for the record, I do not think that "Objectivists" are against kindness. I never said that. I never implied that. I know many Objectivists who are kind, starting with me. But there are many others (and thank God they are in the majority).

I do think that "some so-called Objectivists" are against kindness. They are very nasty contemptible human beings. I won't name them now (I am starting to get bored with the interforum thing), but I have named them enough so that many readers know exactly who I am talking about. I also despise these petty nasty people.

I can't make it clearer than that. May the circus carry on.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You've done me a big favor tonight, but I want you to do a still bigger one. You've done a great job, climbing out of that slag heap. Now will you try for something still harder? You were willing to die to save my mills. Will you try to live for me?"

"For you, Mr. Rearden?"

"For me. Because I'm asking you to. Because I want you to. [...]"

Rearden is asking him to fake reality.

What utter balderdash. Every time I suspect you have a subtle understanding of some of the psychological insights in the Objectivist milieu, you wreck it with saying something like this.

Rearden is portrayed as knowing what human fortitude means, from how it enabled him to build up his industrial success and persevere with his discoveries, when the whole world had been telling him to stop and to give up. He clearly knows what determination can do for a sinking human spirit.

He's not telling the wounded and dying Tony to pretend that those pieces of lead and spills of blood don't exist. He's telling the boy that the determination, the focus, the clarity of intent and of knowing who the real heroes are, all of these are achievements on his part — for however long, or short, a time.

He's not asking for pretense during the boy's last moments. He's asking for focus, for choice, for trying to make his mind hold his body together long enough to have a few moments of experiencing that he made the right decisions. He wants to know that the boy, in turn, knows that feeling of success, for more than fleeting moments, before he expires — as he does, shortly, in Rearden's arms, after showing that he had made a moral victory of self-awareness.

The boy was being asked to fake nothing. That you can suggest this — or put it within striking distance of an anecdote that exalts a false lesson about reality, on which I entirely agree with Laure and the others — astonishes me.

Rearden made "a command to rise," if only for the last two minutes of one's life. Those in the other story (if it happened) were the fakers and liars, erecting a false achievement. Only the former signifies love. Or, for that matter, kindness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

All that is interesting what you said, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I posted.

Rearden asked the boy to live for his sake, not for the boy's sake. That is faking reality (for a moment, just to hang on). Sorry if you don't think Rand meant what she wrote. I think she did.

Michael

(EDIT: btw - The boneheads live for the sake of Rand, not for their own sakes. If that isn't faking reality, I don't know what is. From my observation, underacheivement, mediocrity and snarkiness are the essential characteristics of that group.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] I won't name them now (I am starting to get bored with the interforum thing) [...]

Thank the GODS.

Steve,

I have to be honest since you opted for this line of rhetoric.

Whenever I see a post by you, my initial reaction—before reading it—is usually to cringe. I have to brace myself. I have grown to expect you to (1) not fully understand what someone wrote, (2) attribute that person with statements and ideas that person does not hold and did not write, (3) condemn the person for the ideas in your own head, and (4) exude an enormous amount of bad vibes.

I have seen you contribute very little of a positive nature, but I have seen much of what I have described.

Thus, when you say, "Thank the GODS," your context kinda waters that touch of snarkiness down for me.

Michael

(EDIT: My post crossed with yours here and it pleases me to be wrong for that respite.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(EDIT: btw - The boneheads live for the sake of Rand, not for their own sakes. If that isn't faking reality, I don't know what is. From my observation, underacheivement, mediocrity and snarkiness are the essential characteristics of that group.)

No, they don't live for the sake of Rand.

There's a problem which Allan Blumenthal dubbed "living for self-esteem" and which I independently dubbed at close to the same time "living up [to a moral ideal]" which is a frequent problem amongst earnest, morally focused Objectivists.

Allan briefly describes this in remarks Barbara quotes in Passion:

The Passion of Ayn Rand

pg. 387

[bold emphases mine]

"For many years, I had been aware of negative effects of the philosophy on my Objectivist patients. At first, I attributed them to individual misinterpretations. But then I began to see that the problem was too widespread. Objectivism's insistent moralism had made many patients afraid to face their own conflicts and that was counterproductive in psychotherapy. They were afraid of the judgments that they and other Objectivists would have to pass. They experienced, to an unwarranted degree, feelings of inadequacy and guilt and, consequently, they repressed massively. This led to a tragic loss of personal values. Instead of living for their own happiness--one of the ideas that attracted them to Objectivism in the first place--they sought safety by living to be 'moral,' to be what they were 'supposed' to be and, worse, to feel 'appropriate' emotions. Because they had learned the philosophy predominantly from fiction, the students of Objectivism thought they had to be like Ayn Rand heroes: they were not to be confused, not to be unhappy, and not to lack confidence. And because they could not meet these self-expectations, they bore the added burden of moral failure. These were people who were particularly concerned with morality. For them, what was seen as a failure in the moral realm was devastating. In that atmosphere, it was difficult for us to deal with the real problems."

.

But this isn't what's going on with those who use Objectivism as an excuse for indulging behavior which they sanction in their own eyes using Objectivist rhetoric. Instead of "living for Ayn Rand," they're hiding behind Ayn Rand; they're morally exploiting the mask of Ayn Rand.

Ellen

___

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I agree with you with respect to a good many Objectivists I have seen. We are essentially saying the same thing with different words.

"Instead of living for their own happiness..."

Whether you replace that with Rand, being moral, belonging to a pseudo-Objectivist tribe based on a personality cult, etc., it is still all faking reality.

My only caveat is that there are some people I have observed who go way beyond this and constantly practice bullying, intimidation, snarkiness, power games, etc., and they know this is bad but they do it anyway because they like it. Objectivism is simply an excuse to be an asshole with a moral sanction. These people would be that way irrespective of the philosophy or religion they advocated.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I agree with you with respect to a good many Objectivists I have seen. We are essentially saying the same thing with different words.

"Instead of living for their own happiness..."

Whether you replace that with Rand, being moral, belonging to a pseudo-Objectivist tribe based on a personality cult, etc., it is still all faking reality.

My only caveat is that there are some people I have observed who go way beyond this and constantly practice bullying, intimidation, snarkiness, power games, etc., and they know this is bad but they do it anyway because they like it. Objectivism is simply an excuse to be an asshole with a moral sanction. These people would be that way irrespective of the philosophy or religion they advocated.

Michael

Michael -

For some reason, I suddenly remember a Robin Williams comedy bit in which someone says that they do cocaine because it "intensifies their personality." Williams asks the rhetorical question . . . "But what if you're an a*****le?"

Application to the current context - obvious, I think.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You've done me a big favor tonight, but I want you to do a still bigger one. You've done a great job, climbing out of that slag heap. Now will you try for something still harder? You were willing to die to save my mills. Will you try to live for me?"

"For you, Mr. Rearden?"

"For me. Because I'm asking you to. Because I want you to. ..."

Rearden is asking him to fake reality.

I just reread this section and a bit around it. Rearden did not fake reality - or ask it to be faked - even once for the wet nurse.

Ok I see you now say:

"Rearden asked the boy to live for his sake, not for the boy's sake. That is faking reality (for a moment, just to hang on)."

The sentence immediately following your quote is:

Because we still have a great distance to climb together, you and I.

And this is extremely important because it reveals that Rearden wants him to continue living so they can work together. The sentences that follow only reinforce this. So, according to your logic, if I invite someone to join me in a business or other worthy venture, I am asking them to live for my sake?

I can only surmise that you are trying to bait conversation because that is utterly ridiculous.

I'm reading AS right now (5th time), just started Section 3. I had forgotten about this part. It is very touching - because the wet nurse transforms himself from looter to defender-of-the-right, and because Rearden loves him like a son. Rearden being a real tough guy, that was unexpected. Perhaps the most powerful part is that the wet nurse decides to stick his neck out, and is killed for doing what's right. That is powerful.

Of course I present this in contrast to the following, which I presume you consider to be the grounds of true kindness. (From Atlas Shrugged, p. 675—inscription in granite over the acess door to Galt's motor.)
I SWEAR BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE.

But then again, that was Rand. She knew when faking reality was needed for a greater value at an exceptional moment and she did it without apology. "Love is exception-making" she wrote in The Fountainhead. That is one of the reasons why she wrote Atlas Shrugged and those who came after have not done anything near the magnitude of that achievement.

You throw this out in the tone of an insult or an unwinnable challenge. But I missed the challenge, what is it? And your argument is a bit confusing. "She knew faking reality ..." Care to elaborate/substantiate that?

Michael why does it seem like half of your comments are against nameless people who aren't participating in this discussion? This throws a bit of a shadow over things.

Edited by George Donnelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Instead of living for their own happiness..."

Whether you replace that with Rand, being moral, belonging to a pseudo-Objectivist tribe based on a personality cult, etc., it is still all faking reality.

Isn't being moral the same thing as living for your own happiness?

Isn't living for your own happiness, the same thing as being moral, or at least requires being moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I agree with you with respect to a good many Objectivists I have seen. We are essentially saying the same thing with different words.

"Instead of living for their own happiness..."

Whether you replace that with Rand, being moral, belonging to a pseudo-Objectivist tribe based on a personality cult, etc., it is still all faking reality.

My only caveat is that there are some people I have observed who go way beyond this and constantly practice bullying, intimidation, snarkiness, power games, etc., and they know this is bad but they do it anyway because they like it. Objectivism is simply an excuse to be an asshole with a moral sanction. These people would be that way irrespective of the philosophy or religion they advocated.

Michael

I'm not so sure we are "essentially saying the same thing with different words."

If we were, then why would you have added the "caveat"? The persons you describe there are those I was describing as the 2nd type I spoke of, viz:

But this isn't what's going on with those who use Objectivism as an excuse for indulging behavior which they sanction in their own eyes using Objectivist rhetoric. Instead of "living for Ayn Rand," they're hiding behind Ayn Rand; they're morally exploiting the mask of Ayn Rand.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we would seek a way to be kind without being dishonest.

Yep.

George: "But I say that faking reality is not kindness."

Yep.

An important element to the story was the compromise of the game. The story probably would not have the same power without that. A more realistic thing would have been that one of the players offered to play some with the slow kid after the game was complete--but then you only have kindness. ;)

In my teens, there was a kid about my age at the tennis club--he had something wrong with him, I don't know what exactly--and I know he died before his time. He wasn't very coordinated. A couple of times I went out and played some tennis with him--I was taking time away from my real practice to do this (I was ranked top 10 in U.S. Juniors, and got a full scholarship for tennis at U.S.C.). The tennis practice I was doing was very important for me, not a hobby. His mother had seen me play tennis with her son. Within a week of this, I was intensely practicing for a tournament, with a peer, after school, with just a hour of light left to play. His mother, a housewife (ie. didn't have a job) and a few of her friends kicked me and my partner off the court--the adult members had that privilege.

I told her that she was in wrong, that I was getting ready for a tournament, that she could play anytime in the day, and that I had generously played with her son (there was absolutely no tennis benefit for me in that), and she could be more thoughtful. She was outraged. ;) And told me she was going to make my parents make me apologize to her. To which, I replied: "My parents would never make me do that. It is you that owe me an apology."

hahahaha, different values for different folks.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't being moral the same thing as living for your own happiness?

Isn't living for your own happiness, the same thing as being moral, or at least requires being moral?

No and no. You have some unstated premises and frozen abstractions packed into those questions!

Do you know what "the fallacy of the frozen abstraction" is? I might be referring to something you haven't encountered in Rand's writing yet.

Also: How many Objectivists do you know? I mean personally. One probably needs observations of actual cases to recognize the problem I'm talking about.

Also: Notice the wording of the quote from Allan Blumenthal (post #37), which you altered in your question. He didn't say "being moral"; he said "living to be moral." It's an important difference. A way he described what he meant was to say that these people were living as if their goal was to achieve an inscription on their tombstone, "Here lies a moral person." They examined their behavior with the question, "Am I being good [a good Objectivist]?" rather than by asking whether the way they were living was producing their happiness.

Bob Bidinotto has described the same problem as "living for virtue" instead of "living for values."

It's possible that none of these descriptions will click for you if you haven't seen instances in vivo.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within a week of this, I was intensely practicing for a tournament, with a peer, after school, with just a hour of light left to play. His mother, a housewife

I thought this would end with her bringing you a snack or something to drink. Kindness often goes unrewarded but it is definitely to be valued anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

All that is interesting what you said, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I posted.

Rearden asked the boy to live for his sake, not for the boy's sake. That is faking reality (for a moment, just to hang on). Sorry if you don't think Rand meant what she wrote. I think she did.

I'm with Steve on this one. There's nothing selfless about love. Rearden was expressing his love for the boy and that he was acknowledging the boy's love for him. But if we accept your position we also have to accept Rand's position that "love is exception making."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You've done me a big favor tonight, but I want you to do a still bigger one. You've done a great job, climbing out of that slag heap. Now will you try for something still harder? You were willing to die to save my mills. Will you try to live for me?"

"For you, Mr. Rearden?"

"For me. Because I'm asking you to. Because I want you to. [...]"

Rearden is asking him to fake reality.

What utter balderdash. Every time I suspect you have a subtle understanding of some of the psychological insights in the Objectivist milieu, you wreck it with saying something like this.

Rearden is portrayed as knowing what human fortitude means, from how it enabled him to build up his industrial success and persevere with his discoveries, when the whole world had been telling him to stop and to give up. He clearly knows what determination can do for a sinking human spirit.

He's not telling the wounded and dying Tony to pretend that those pieces of lead and spills of blood don't exist. He's telling the boy that the determination, the focus, the clarity of intent and of knowing who the real heroes are, all of these are achievements on his part — for however long, or short, a time.

He's not asking for pretense during the boy's last moments. He's asking for focus, for choice, for trying to make his mind hold his body together long enough to have a few moments of experiencing that he made the right decisions. He wants to know that the boy, in turn, knows that feeling of success, for more than fleeting moments, before he expires — as he does, shortly, in Rearden's arms, after showing that he had made a moral victory of self-awareness.

The boy was being asked to fake nothing. That you can suggest this — or put it within striking distance of an anecdote that exalts a false lesson about reality, on which I entirely agree with Laure and the others — astonishes me.

Rearden made "a command to rise," if only for the last two minutes of one's life. Those in the other story (if it happened) were the fakers and liars, erecting a false achievement. Only the former signifies love. Or, for that matter, kindness.

AMEN, Greybird!

As I read the scene with Rearden and the Wet Nurse, Rearden is saying "I'm asking you to LIVE for me", NOT "I'm asking you to live FOR ME". It's totally unrelated to Galt's Oath.

Michael why does it seem like half of your comments are against nameless people who aren't participating in this discussion? This throws a bit of a shadow over things.

No frickin' kidding!! I don't know what you're on about, Michael. It's like you're trying to piss us off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't being moral the same thing as living for your own happiness?

Isn't living for your own happiness, the same thing as being moral, or at least requires being moral?

No and no. You have some unstated premises and frozen abstractions packed into those questions!

Do you know what "the fallacy of the frozen abstraction" is? I might be referring to something you haven't encountered in Rand's writing yet.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/101...cies.htm#frozen ?

I am referring primarily to the Objectivist sense of living for your own happiness. How can you live for your own happiness, within Objectivism, and not be moral at the same time?

In other words, if your goal is to be happy, but you do not act morally, then you are working against your own goal (and, in reality, it's NOT your goal). If your goal is to be happy, but you fake reality, steal, murder and do not think, well, what kind of happiness will that produce? Not much I suspect.

And how can you be a moral person, within Objectivism, and not live for your own happiness?

In other words, if you are a moral person and an Objectivist, then you place your own life and values above those of others. Given this, how can your own happiness not be one of your top - if not primary - values? If your top values do not include your own happiness, then perhaps they include either happiness for others, or things that lead to happiness for others, in which case you are placing others' above yourself, which means you are not being a moral person, within Objectivism.

I admit I haven't given it a lot of thought but offhand I think these two concepts are very much tied together in Objectivism.

Also: How many Objectivists do you know? I mean personally.

Zero. I have some good friends who introduced me to Rand (her fiction), but they are by no means Objectivists. They just thought I would like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am referring primarily to the Objectivist sense of living for your own happiness.

Ok. That unfreezes the abstraction. ;-)

How can you live for your own happiness, within Objectivism, and not be moral at the same time?

Theoretically, you can't. In reality, however, what can happen -- and time and again did happen with O'ist after O'ist -- was that the person's focus was on whether or not the person was acting morally and the person forgot to ask, Where is this getting me? Yes, the supposed goal was happiness, but it became an ever-vanishing goal while in practice the person was uptight over his or her every action.

Now that isn't the way Rand's fictional characters live. They aren't going around asking themselves, Is this action moral? They aren't putting their behavior through a check list of proper procedures. Their focus is on their goals and how to get there.

But what happened with so many Objectivists was that they were focusing on the supposed means and making the means in effect the goal. They became rather like the centipede that was thinking about how its legs move and couldn't walk. They were tied in knots of moral self-examination and guilt and kept getting farther from rather than nearer to the supposed goal of enjoying their lives.

Thus, although if asked they would of course have said that their happiness was their top goal, in effect it wasn't. Being virtuous was instead the actual goal sought.

Also: How many Objectivists do you know? I mean personally.

Zero. I have some good friends who introduced me to Rand (her fiction), but they are by no means Objectivists. They just thought I would like it.

I thought you probably didn't know any Objectivists. Do you know any guilt-ridden Catholics? Probably some of those. ;-)

It's the same sort of problem. The goal of the Catholic, theoretically, is to go to heaven. Meanwhile life on earth can be an ordeal of fearing being sinful. The Objectivists I'm talking about lived as if "happiness" were "heaven," something to be achieved in the hereafter -- though they'd say that happiness was their goal. In practice fear of sinning was the active force.

I've mostly used past tense above, since my examples are people I knew in the New York City O'ist circles of '68 - circa '80. It looks to me from occasional perusal of OO and 4aynrandfans that the same sort of problems continue with the young crop of Objectivists, but I don't know any of those people directly.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting post, Ellen. I've noticed this in some of the participants on The Forum and oo.net, too. Instead of asking "what do I want" they ask "what should I want." Not "what do I feel" but "what should I feel," etc. I wonder if some of it could be a vestige of a religious upbringing.

Looking at the masthead here... is it possible that some people are living a bit TOO consciously? I like the centipede example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now