Recommended Posts

Let me ask you a question:

If a robber has a gun to your head, is it "evil" to "manipulate" a criminal from firing a gun?

What about "manipulating" the tax code so as to pay less taxes? 

Is figuring out a way to double the response rate on an advertisement (and thus more money) through appealing to powerful basic emotions/needs "manipulation"?

Here we come again to an interesting question. What exactly is "manipulation" and under what context is it "evil"? 

It is clear under the examples above, manipulation is not a clear-cut, black and white issue. "Manipulation" is simply cleverness. Finding new ways interpret and use the rules of a system to your benefit. Like a gun, it can be used for defensive or offensive purposes. Many forms of martial arts have used manipulation techniques for thousands of years. In certain cases, using or not using it could come down to a life or death issue.

Objectivism looks down on "manipulation" as a strategy (this is actually irrational, as I demonstrate) , but makes no mention of manipulation as a defensive/neutral strategy, only as an "offensive" strategy. The Fountainhead depicts Ellsworth Toohey's machinatons, through his slick, slimy maneuvers to thwart the work of the main hero as the work of a "blond louse".

The hero of the novel, Howard Roark, by contrast, does not even advertise his business. Early in the book, he goes broke needlessly because of lack of advertising and a failure to defend himself from an ongoing smear campaign. My question is, if he did how much *more* successful would he have been? How much closer and quicker would that have put him to his self-professed goals? In that context, how is "manipulation" not rational?

Manipulation, in my view, is a rational strategy when pursued neutrally/defensively. Irrational/evil when used for offense.

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're using "manipulation" as in passing of information attempted to persuade, without physical (and legalized) coercion? My old COD mentions only "handle, treat, esp. with skill ..." etc. Only in recent times has it picked up further (mental) connotations, I guess.

Similar to "radicalization", I think the new version emerged from the notion that men have no independent minds and no free will to resist whatever they hear or read - and must automatically accede. (Children would be another matter). The fact that many people do follow unthinkingly and a popular acceptance of some degree of determinism, is the cause the word collected its psychological stigma, I fancy. But one can't con an honest man, so it's not the consequences on themselves of the "information" honest men would be concerned about, merely the moral quality, truth/falsity of the content.

And I admit to disliking some advertising techniques, usually when appeals to emotion are coupled with an altruist undertone. But it's guaranteed one won't approve of everything, moreso in a free country!

(In an election season one will have a justifiable worry about those other people: so many, perhaps responding to 'manipulation' of their emotions by the media, the powers that be, etc., so to influence one's future).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, anthony said:

You're using "manipulation" as in passing of information attempted to persuade, without physical (legal, etc.) coercion? My old COD mentions only "handle, treat, esp. with skill ..." etc. Only in recent times has it picked up further (mental) connotations, I guess.

Similar to "radicalization", I think the new version rests on the fallacy that men have no independent minds and no free will to resist whatever is heard or read - and must accede to authority. (Children would be another matter). The fact that many people do follow unthinkingly and a popular acceptance of some degree of determinism, is the cause the word collected its psychological stigma, I fancy. But one can't con an honest man, so it's not the consequences on themselves of the "information" honest men would be concerned about, merely the quality, truth/falsity of the content.

And I admit to disliking some advertising techniques, usually when appeals to emotion are coupled with an altruist undertone. But it's guaranteed one won't approve of everything, moreso in a free country!

(In an election season one will have a justifiable worry about those other people: so many, responding to 'manipulation' of their emotions by the media, the powers that be, etc.).

Men have free minds, but we also have highly predictable and common patterns of behavior, patterns with biological/emotional causes. We are not free of our biological needs. Advertisers know this. 

Most people for example, want to get married. Most people want children. Most people patiently stand in line at grocery stores (naturally cooperative). Most people like music. Most people are captivated by pictures of food, sex, violence etc.

Humans are rational animals, but never underestimate the power of the basal ganglia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. You started with manipulation as being possibly rational - I replied it's simply information, which can be rational, depending on its content and with no coercion - and now you turn the tables with "most people", biological/emotional causes and the basal ganglia.

If that's the easy power of manipulation on most people, you've answered yourself, it is not rational and we're screwed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anthony said:

I see. You started with manipulation as being possibly rational - I replied it's simply information, which can be rational, depending on its content and with no coercion - and now you turn the tables with "most people", biological/emotional causes and the basal ganglia.

If that's the easy power of manipulation on most people, you've answered yourself, it is not rational and we're screwed.

Tony, to clarify, my basic point about defensive vs offensive manipulative strategies has not changed.

What I mean is that the basal ganglia is often the *basis* of what makes manipulation possible. If humans were 100% totally rational, no manipulation would be possible or even necessary. They would simply do the right thing all the time. The need for manipulation really arises due to human error/emotionality so as to produce more beneficial outcomes and keep yourself from being "screwed". I earlier gave the example of "manipulating" taxes. If there were no taxes to pay would there be a need to manipulate the tax code?

So the answer is not necessarily that "we're all screwed" but without manipulation "being screwed" is the likely result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Marcus said:

The hero of the novel, Howard Roark, by contrast, does not even advertise his business.

Marcus,

Roark certainly manipulated Peter Keating into getting him the low-cost housing gig and manipulated the government into hiring him under false pretenses.

I get where you are coming from, though. It's good to start asking the questions you are asking. (My own path started that way.) They will ultimately lead you to neuroscience and modern psychology and, maybe, marketing. Once you accept the moral neutrality of how humans communicate and influence each other outside of logic, then you can properly assign evil or good to intents and situations when using this reality.

Put another way, covert influence is like nuclear power. It's morally neutral. It depends on what you want to use if for. With nuclear power, you can light up a city or blow it up.

With covert influence, you can use it for good or for manipulating people to do what they don't want to and what is bad for them. You are the one who makes it good or evil, not the existence of it.

I'll only mention one instance where it is good, but a black-and-white only thinker would call it bad. In the BW thinker's mind, volition is an on-off switch. You use it or you don't--by choice at that. However, after you learn more about how the brain actually exists, you see that different parts govern different thoughts and values. Sometimes they conflict, in other words, you can want something in one part and not want it in other part at the same time--and all this happens on the subconscious level.

If you are a salesperson and know the prospect before you wants the house you are selling and will step into a great future by buying it because it fits his life and dreams, and you truly believe that (not just rationalize it for your commission), you will use covert influence to combat the guy's automatic objections that are also in his mind. He's divided and if you don't address the division, he will most likely not purchase, robbing you of a commission and him of a great future. So you reframe, whet his appetite, talk past the sale, use embedded commands, throw in a little sexiness if relevant, etc., to push him over the edge.

Such salespeople are always thanked by their customers later for "talking them into it."

Needless to say, the sleazy ones are not. :) 

In a more perfect world (presuming the world could be deduced from principles only), the prospect's mind would never be divided. In reality, the prospect's mind always is divided to some extent. Mine, yours, everyone's.

There is a lot of stuff to learn on this journey should you wish to take it. And you will not lose your soul by doing it. On the contrary, you will learn how to recognize covert influence in real time and even realize when you fall for it (which is more often than you think). And you will be able to judge when that was a good thing and when it wasn't. At the very least you won't beat yourself up for being stupid when you weren't.

(When you are stupid, though, you should beat yourself up. :) )

If you want to spread reason, there is nothing wrong with using covert influence to get people interested in looking at it. If they don't look, they can't get interested.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marcus,

Our posts crossed and I had only skimmed earlier. I see you talking about the basal ganglia.

Very good...

There's a crapload more, but you are on the right path.

I highly recommend the following book: Why We Snap: Understanding the Rage Circuit in Your Brain by Douglas Fields. This is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than a book about snapping and rage.

It's a bit technical at times, but if you have the persistence to get through it, you will see where the automatic part of values actually get pegged to specific neurons in the brain, at least according to 9 different automatic values Fields calls LIFEMORTS triggers: Life & limb, Insults (denigration), Family, Environment (territory), Mate, Order (social order and rules), Resources, Tribe, and Stopped (stuck).

Note, these are not chosen values although choice is involved later. These are innate from actual neurons that control behavior in the body, including secreting hormones and neurotransmitters.

I'm only halfway through and I know this is one book I have to read at least three times, taking notes during all three. Maybe more...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Marcus said:

Tony, to clarify, my basic point about defensive vs offensive manipulative strategies has not changed.

What I mean is that the basal ganglia is often the *basis* of what makes manipulation possible. If humans were 100% totally rational, no manipulation would be possible or even necessary. They would simply do the right thing all the time. The need for manipulation really arises due to human error/emotionality so as to produce more beneficial outcomes and keep yourself from being "screwed". I earlier gave the example of "manipulating" taxes. If there were no taxes to pay would there be a need to manipulate the tax code?

So the answer is not necessarily that "we're all screwed" but without manipulation "being screwed" is the likely result.

I'm sure you agree it all starts with "know yourself". In fact, what is really new? Identifying the existence of the basal ganglia is highly useful and neuro-science is terrific, but without knowing all that, the EFFECTS of our animal selves were well and deeply experienced and felt, by the age of - when? In my case, I don't rightly recall. But whenever it may be, it is the experience of every human. One's body/emotions pulls one way and the mind another. This is self-knowledge enough -- regardless of its biological cause. There are a lot of words on the body-mind 'split' and how they should be aligned, and plenty more needs to be thought out, I think, but I won't go into that.

What jumps out at me, is that you argue for *manipulation for self-defence*, and even - for retaliation. A kind of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Is this not perpetuating the system? I.e., the reasoning goes, we, or many other people, have been "manipulated" by appeals to animal instinct and human emotions - to push bad/terrible ideas on people ... therefore, let us respond with the same method, with our better ideas?

I find it extremely dubious. "Ends justify the means", usually concludes with bad means AND bad ends. Whereas, persuading with good ideas (and I've no objection to calling it 'honest manipulation') will by their nature, appeal intellectually - emotionally, too - to those who are ready and hungry for them and who will act from resolve, sustainably. By arousing man's basal ganglia, men can be just as easily manipulated another way, tomorrow. And will be, for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike for the stimulating response. Good stuff in there. Your right, Roark did use what could be termed "manipulation" (most interestingly on Dominque) at different points in the story. But I've come to an epiphany (more on that later.)

I'll check the book out when I get the chance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After quite a bit of thinking and reading on this subject, I've changed my position which, can be summed up in three words:

Defiance is enough.

Objectivists don't need to manipulate to counter evil, they need only disobey. I think that was Rand's point all along. She probably thought about this angle too, and came to the same conclusion. Now I see why Rand called it "petty" and "small".

Nathaniel Branden too, was a genius, and has quite a few insights on the subject of obedience vs disobedience.

Martin Luther King brought down an entire evil system through open acts of disobedience. It was (strikingly!) enough all by itself. No manipulation required. Evil is easily exposed and defanged. It's the problem of people who keep going along with it.

Now I see the problem with the "Objectivist movement"  as such, and especially it's lack of appeal to the youth. It's not defiant, it's conformist. You can see this in the routine, stodgy, cordial way things are done at ARI. Pardon my French, but we need to start breaking shit and asking real questions about this culture we live in.

All youth movements are defiant. In order for Objectivism regain it's forward momentum, it must embrace defiance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 8:03 PM, Marcus said:

Objectivists don't need to manipulate to counter evil, they need only disobey..

I'd take that in a slightly different direction. In almost all situations, it's good enough to choose not to participate in evil...

...however, when evil attempts to destroy that which is good, all bets are off and there is no course of action which is off the table.

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2016 at 11:03 PM, Marcus said:

After quite a bit of thinking and reading on this subject, I've changed my position which, can be summed up in three words:

Defiance is enough.

Objectivists don't need to manipulate to counter evil, they need only disobey. I think that was Rand's point all along. She probably thought about this angle too, and came to the same conclusion. Now I see why Rand called it "petty" and "small".

Nathaniel Branden too, was a genius, and has quite a few insights on the subject of obedience vs disobedience.

Martin Luther King brought down an entire evil system through open acts of disobedience. It was (strikingly!) enough all by itself. No manipulation required. Evil is easily exposed and defanged. It's the problem of people who keep going along with it.

Now I see the problem with the "Objectivist movement"  as such, and especially it's lack of appeal to the youth. It's not defiant, it's conformist. You can see this in the routine, stodgy, cordial way things are done at ARI. Pardon my French, but we need to start breaking shit and asking real questions about this culture we live in.

All youth movements are defiant. In order for Objectivism regain it's forward momentum, it must embrace defiance.

Marcus,

In the act of defiance, the defier is giving the manipulator(s) information.  It's just something to think about.

Manipulators--to do the manipulating--are taking advantage of some virtue(s) in their target.  This is always the case, and identifying which one(s) is necessary.  It could be the virtue of rationality itself--for a logician's need to conclude things, manipulators might want to leave things undone, in disarray--or it could be a virtue of resiliency--where others might fold, a person with high resiliency might stay in the fight--or it could be the virtue of justice--a righteous person seeking rectitude in the world he lives in.  (If some of these words sound like Nathaniel Branden's, you would be right.)

Many of Rand's heroes would walk away from situations, but I don't think this is an act of defiance--I think it is an expression of liberty, of freedom.  Unfortunately, in a reoccurring situation this might not be possible, ie. an office environment.

One thing is for sure, these (adult) manipulators have done this before, to other people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing takes the wind out of "manipulators" sails, than being noted, evaluated and then mostly ignored and forgotten. ("But I don't think of you"). Power over people, ultimately, is the object of manipulation (at times it ~may~ be power for the good and one's own advantage) and it has no chance of success without one's tacit complicity. Defying or disobeying it means one grants it credit where it's not deserved.

"Mind independence", not so much "defiance" - leaves one unaffected while frustrating the power-manipulators' goals. Korben says eloquently, "it is an expression of liberty, of freedom" to walk away.

(Personally I don't make too much of specific actions by her heroes in AR's novels. First, dramatic tension of difficult moral choices is important in this genre of literature. Above that, instead of lone, out of context acts, a hero's character, virtues and gaining the success of his eventual 'justice in reality', is what sticks in mind. Howard for instance, made a definite mistake with Peter - he admitted it - and he was evidently not meant by the author to be always morally 'perfect' in every single decision, or else the book's realism becomes inauthentic to readers who, worse, will perceive striving as pointless, given such an impossible ideal of being 'always right').

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anthony said:

Nothing takes the wind out of "manipulators" sails, than being noted, evaluated and then mostly ignored and forgotten. ("But I don't think of you"). Power over people, ultimately, is the object of manipulation (at times it ~may~ be power for the good and one's own advantage) and it has no chance of success without one's tacit complicity. Defying or disobeying it means one grants it credit where it's not deserved.

"Mind independence", not so much "defiance" - leaves one unaffected while frustrating the power-manipulators' goals. Korben says eloquently, "it is an expression of liberty, of freedom" to walk away.

(Personally I don't make too much of specific actions by her heroes in AR's novels. First, dramatic tension of difficult moral choices is important in this genre of literature. Above that, instead of lone, out of context acts, a hero's character, virtues and gaining the success of his eventual 'justice in reality', is what sticks in mind. Howard for instance, made a definite mistake with Peter - he admitted it - and he was evidently not meant by the author to be always morally 'perfect' in every single decision, or else the book's realism becomes inauthentic to readers who, worse, will perceive striving as pointless, given such an impossible ideal of being 'always right').

By Howard helping Peter Ayn gave Peter the necessary standing in her novel to match up with the major characters. To that, Gail's character powered Ellsworth's. This is genius use of what we can call "character bloat." The issues are thus brought front and center for exposition and explanation and evaluation.

The idea Roark could stand living as a boarder in the same house as Keating and his mother is ridiculous but trivial. But it's part and parcel of in your face great literary art.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, anthony said:

Nothing takes the wind out of "manipulators" sails, than being noted, evaluated and then mostly ignored and forgotten.

Yes. 

A calm deliberate impersonal choice not to participate and to move on. That's also a perfect response to most thoughts. Evil thrives on the emotional entanglement of angry opposition. It dies because it cannot feed when people deprive it of their energy.

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

By Howard helping Peter Ayn gave Peter the necessary standing in her novel to match up with the major characters. To that, Gail's character powered Ellsworth's. This is genius use of what we can call "character bloat."

Brant,

That's a hell of a good phrase, "character bloat," to describe what happens when a lesser character is empowered by the strength and virtues of a stronger character.

This goes way beyond the concept of "supporting character." It's an actual transfer of standing and power. A fun house mirror, so to speak that cannot generate light, but can reflect it. Except it distorts the images illuminated by the light.

The only thing I don't like about the phrase is that it throws the spotlight on the strong character with a negative-sounding word.

You just gave me a great idea to mull over in fiction writing.

Thanks.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If there is one idea Ayn Rand hung everything on, it's the sanction of the victim--the impotence of evil.

--Brant

that quickly gets complicated

Brant,

It also kinda blanks out things like Nazi concentration camps.

If evil is impotent, how the hell did that happen? Plans were drawn up, structures built, creativity drawn upon, and so on. And the entire thing multiplied. Reproduction is a sign of potency.

I get it that Rand wanted to show how nothing good ever comes of evil because it can't (stretching the concept of impotence a bit). And I get it that she wanted to denigrate evil so much it wasn't worth looking at by rational productive people.

But evil is hellishly worth looking at if it is coming for you. You better look.

:) 

Eating is not a sign of impotence. Evil eats. It eats me and it eats you.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

That's a hell of a good phrase, "character bloat," to describe what happens when a lesser character is empowered by the strength and virtues of a stronger character.

This goes way beyond the concept of "supporting character." It's an actual transfer of standing and power. A fun house mirror, so to speak that cannot generate light, but can reflect it. Except it distorts the images illuminated by the light.

The only thing I don't like about the phrase is that it throws the spotlight on the strong character with a negative-sounding word.

You just gave me a great idea to mull over in fiction writing.

Thanks.

Michael

The word is for understanding and analysis--not for the end reader.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

It also kinda blanks out things like Nazi concentration camps.

If evil is impotent, how the hell did that happen? Plans were drawn up, structures built, creativity drawn upon, and so on. And the entire thing multiplied. Reproduction is a sign of potency.

I get it that Rand wanted to show how nothing good ever comes of evil because it can't (stretching the concept of impotence a bit). And I get it that she wanted to denigrate evil so much it wasn't worth looking at by rational productive people.

But evil is hellishly worth looking at if it is coming for you. You better look.

:) 

Eating is not a sign of impotence. Evil eats. It eats me and it eats you.

Michael

Evil is impotent starts as pure abstraction. Negative feeds on the positive, not positive on negative. Construction vs. destruction. Of course one can destruct something for the sake of constructing something--clear the way. What Rand never adequately dealt with was good and bad within one person. It's in everyone because of the nature of human nature. Thus all these Randian heroes, most without the standard chaos of a growing up childhood. This premise of hers is to think off of or it's unverifiable for it seems wrong on the surface. For instance, if evil is impotent explain totalitarianism. I can reconcile this but I don't care that much for the conversation. There are always many more things to explain out of not thinking in principles, which Rand once castigated a young Peikoff for on much the same subject matter: getting away with a con.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

Evil is impotent starts as pure abstraction. Negative feeds on the positive, not positive on negative. Construction vs. destruction. Of course one can destruct something for the sake of constructing something--clear the way.

Brant,

This is one of the few places where I disagree with Rand. I agree with her on lowering the status of evil because evil people have egos that like to be fed and they go overboard with attention. But her construct started as an abstraction and there it stays. You can twist it and turn it like pretzel in all kinds of directions.

It does not transpose to reality, though. Lots of evil people grow and multiply. Lots of evil actions committed by otherwise decent people grow and multiply. And so on. This is the opposite of impotence.

But look at the human condition. In order to live (the "positive"), we have to "deconstruct" the lives of other living things (the "negative"). This is called eating.

Believe me, a human being is the essence of evil to a chicken at slaughter time. And cooked right, it tastes great.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If there is one idea Ayn Rand hung everything on, it's the sanction of the victim--the impotence of evil.

--Brant

that quickly gets complicated

Sometimes ... it looks to me that "evil" is never defeated and always potent. It just keeps re-inventing itself in people's minds.

Isn't her "sanction of the victim" a little redolent of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". However, Rand is not so passive, for her the "good men" most definitely have to stop doing something, which is their tacit support for evil they've propped up and abetted by their constant self-sacrifice. 

Easier said than done, if one weighs oneself against majorly evil, anti-human ideas. Withdraw yourself from society (and life) in defiance -- and it won't even notice your absence. Not even a large industrialist's departure in protest will make any dent, today, unlike in fictional reductionism. :)

(This touches on a notion hanging around about dictators - I've noticed at times. It's as though to many, "a dictator" just magically pops into existence against the better judgment and will of the innocent populace who thenceforth are his victims. Obviously here is a reversal of causality. There must be support either of a majority of people or an aggressive minority, to have invited or brought in the dictator). 

The harrowing "tunnel scene" in AS is a manifestation of Rand's thinking on evil. (It comes up in other places, like her approach to foreign dictatorships). In short: there are no innocents. Every individual on the train that day is shown by her to have practised some minor evasion, of a sort. The knock-on collective effect from one to another - of complicitly not speaking up against immoral acts and/or justifying the premises of evil - is what in sum gradually provides fertile ground for greater evils. Each person on the train then, by logical consequence, 'deserved in reality' his or her fate. Tough luck I suppose, if there was one who didn't!

Each thinking individual from all walks and credos of life has to do what each can, notwithstanding his limited powers. At some point though, I believe, one has to mentally shrug, and for one's own well-being, ignore "evil" and concentrate on the good in one's life.

Evil isn't the mystical force it is still vaguely perceived as - something which strikes mankind, willy-nilly - it is a person's chosen act and non-action. The potential of it exists in people's minds, those who have never properly understood 'the good' - which, un-coincidentally, many perceive as a semi-mystical power too, I think. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

It also kinda blanks out things like Nazi concentration camps.

I heard a totally different story from a Jew with whom I pulled overnight guard duty at a business I worked at in the 1970's. He got himself out of Germany by forging papers and intimidating bureaucrats to get his way. He told me the stupid ones stubbornly refused to see what was coming. They simply wouldn't believe him.

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, moralist said:

He got himself out of Germany by forging papers and intimidating bureaucrats to get his way. He told me the stupid ones stubbornly refused to see what was coming. They simply wouldn't believe him.

Greg,

There's that, too. And I have little doubt it was only the stupid ones.

It's what happens when people get so entangled in their core story, they feel no need to turn their brains on to evaluate any feedback that challenges it. They'll use their brains for anything and everything else, but not that.

I don't think Nazism would have been anything without the teutonic mythology, a definition of Satan everyone could believe in to blame for everything bad ("inferior" races and bloodlines), a clear morality of obedience to a single authority, a messianic figure like Hitler to worship, and socialist political ideas.

Put that on top of legitimate grievances about harsh economic conditions left over from WWI and you have one powerful brain-killing core story.

In fact, when evil manages to get expressed in such a well-constructed core story and served up at the right time in the right place to the right people, it becomes potent as all hell. It reproduces easily and spreads destruction in its wake.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the impotency of evil is actually found in Objectivism, but it's found in Rand's fiction and Objectivism rests on her fiction. If you drop the impotency of evil, but keep not sanctioning evil, it seems more workable. What is dropped is endless and likely fruitless discussion. What is kept seems simple enough and effective enough to be practical. We can go straight into a moral political philosophy and the practicality, if not art, of its creation, explication and application.

--Brant

Link to post
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