« Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? | Main | When Homosexuals Show up at Church »

January 04, 2016

Comments

“Does sentience give us value?”

First, let’s establish what sentience is given the Non-Theist’s tools.

The Non-Theist has but one, singular, tool with which to build – and we find that he in fact has no (actual) "*Man*" at all – anywhere – but only his own singular ontology of his "singular and seamless continuum of particle (or whatever) in motion" (Debilis). Such leaves him with only arbitrary cutting points. As each cutting point is factually arbitrary – the stuff of semantic/epistemic – then it is factually the case that there are no (actual) "stages" of "man" and thus no (ontological) possibility of "*emerging*" properties and thus no “self-awareness” in the “actual” or “ontological” sense – and this becomes important when we (latter on here) begin the attempt of finding objective moral fact.

A few steps further:

David Oderberg briefly touches on the physicalist’s (Non-Theist’s – or whatever) problem of "Self-Assembly" finding coherence:

“Metaphysically, moreover, the very concept of self-organization is suspect. More precisely, the idea that an entity can organize itself into *existence*, which is what is at issue, is deeply suspicious. For if an entity – any entity – is to organize itself into existence, it has to exist before it can do *any* organizing, let alone organizing its own existence; so it has to exist before it exists, which is absurd. This means that self-organizing systems are really systems that are organized into existence from *without*, as a convection cell is organized into existence by its environment, albeit with apparent spontaneity and unpredictability. Once in existence, there is no conceptual problem with the entity's continually organizing itself through self-regulating, homeostatic, or other mechanisms that involve, say, taking in energy from the environment, utilizing it and expelling waste products. But that it could organize its entry into the world in the *first* place looks like as good a case of metaphysical impossibility as one is likely to get.”

While the Christian has the metaphysical and scientific wherewithal to *distinguish* the Human Being -- and Mind -- and so on -- as an actual substance, a real entity, the Non-Theist had better show us his explanatory terminus in such claims. Mind? Really? A mind which “designs” laptops? Well, not "really", as that pesky and "singular and seamless continuum of particle (or whatever) in motion" leaves him with but *one* metaphysical landscape incapable of housing ‘design’. Illusions of such, yes, but actual – never.

David Bentley Hart carries the state of affairs into locations the physicalist (Non-Theist) cannot (metaphysically) reach as he describes consciousness:

“[Consciousness] is the ....absolutely singular and indivisible reality which no inventory of material constituents and physical events will ever be able to eliminate. Here again, and as nowhere else, we are dealing with an irreducibly primordial datum."
D.B. Hart also further echoes Oderberg’s earlier descriptive of the painfully obvious:
“A true physicalism makes no allowance for emergent properties in nature that are not already implicit in their causes. Unless, then, one is positing the existence of proto-conscious material elements, particles of intentionality and awareness that are in some inconceivable way already rational and subjective, and that can add up to the unified perspective of a single conscious subject (which seems a quite fantastic notion), one is really just talking about some marvelously inexplicable transition from the undirected, mindless causality of mechanistic matter to the intentional unity of consciousness. Talk of emergence in purely physical terms, then, really does not seem conspicuously better than talk of magic.”

Full stop.

Okay then, moving forward we’ll just sort of “pretend” that (for the sake of discussion) it is “As-If” the Non-Theist actually has his “….proto-conscious material elements, particles of intentionality and awareness that are in some inconceivable way already rational and subjective, and that can add up to the unified perspective of a single conscious subject….”. Pure magic, sure, but lest we never get to the question of worth, the question of value……….

A few steps further:

Before getting to the Christian’s ultimate explanatory terminus of immutable love as such relates to inherent, irreducible worth, let’s look at the Non-Theist’s stopping point. The following quote begins discussing radical pluralism (off topic) but makes its way into the where and the how by which we value one another regardless of differences (on topic) as we find worth transcending contingent agent(s) and their many differences:

“……It says that “Each individual constitutes reality,” so that there is no objective reality; but that is itself a statement about objective reality. It states that the proposition “Truth is pluralistic” is objectively true, which is self-refuting. The Radical Pluralist cannot escape this incoherence by saying that it is only from his perspective that there is no objective truth about the world. For if that is true only from his perspective, that does not preclude that there is objective truth about the world, in which case his perspective is objectively false. If he replies that it is only from someone else’s perspective that there is objective truth about the world, then it follows that all truth is perspectival, or that Radical Pluralism is objectively true, which is incoherent.

Why is it, then, that in our day and age so many people seem attracted to pluralistic and relativistic views of truth, despite the fact that they are both preposterous and self-refuting? I believe the attraction is due to a misunderstanding of the concept of tolerance. In our democratic society, we have a deep commitment to the value of tolerance of different views. Many people have the impression that tolerance requires radical pluralism with regard to truth. They seem to think that the claim that objective truth exists is incompatible with tolerance of other views because those views must be regarded as false. So in order to maintain tolerance of all views, one must not regard any of them as false. They must all be true. But since they are mutually contradictory, they cannot all be objectively true. Hence, truth must be relative and pluralistic.

But it seems to me pretty obvious that such a view is based on an incorrect understanding of tolerance. The very concept of tolerance *entails* that you *disagree* with that which you tolerate. Otherwise, you wouldn’t tolerate it; you would *agree* with it! Thus, one can only tolerate a view if one regards that view as false. You can’t tolerate a view which you believe to be true. Thus, the very concept of toleration *presupposes* that one believes the tolerated view to be false. So objective truth is not incompatible with tolerance; on the contrary the objectivity of truth is presupposed by tolerance.

The correct basis of tolerance is not pluralism, but the inherent worth of every human being created in the image of God and therefore endowed with certain God-given rights, including freedom of thought and expression. That’s why Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” The basis of tolerance is not relativism, but love.” (William Lane Craig)

Indeed, it is the case that [A] tolerance itself presupposes objective truth and [B] loving one’s enemy (the sine qua non of tolerance) obtains in and by the transposition of Logos – in and by love’s eternal sacrifice of self – in and by “…… the God who is glorified by sacrificing Himself for creation and not by sacrificing creation for Himself…..” (Fischer)

The farthest reach of the Non-Theist’s sentience:

Let us pretend that the Non-Theist has got his actual mind – that his paradigm can account for, say, design – that he can (short of metaphysical gibberish) claim that laptops (then) are in fact “designed” – and that all such claims (somehow) in some intelligible sense (somehow) withstand logic’s relentless demand for lucidity – well okay then – where does the contingent sentient agent end up? Well the answer is that his view is of an ultimate horizon which is, quite literally, nothing:

“The will, we habitually assume, is sovereign to the degree that it is obedient to nothing else and is free to the degree that it is truly spontaneous and constrained by nothing greater than itself. This, for many of us, is the highest good imaginable. And a society guided by such beliefs must, at least implicitly, embrace and subtly advocate a very particular “moral metaphysics”: that is, the nonexistence of any transcendent standard of the good that has the power (or the right) to order our desires toward a higher end. We are, first and foremost, heroic and insatiable consumers, and we must not allow the specters of transcendent law or personal guilt to render us indecisive. For us, it is choice itself, and not what we choose, that is the first good, and this applies not only to such matters as what we shall purchase or how we shall we live. In even our gravest political and ethical debates — regarding economic policy, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, censorship, genetic engineering, and so on — “choice” is a principle not only frequently invoked, by one side or by both, but often seeming to exercise an almost mystical supremacy over all other concerns.

All of this, undoubtedly, follows from an extremely potent and persuasive model of freedom, one that would not have risen to such dominance in our culture if it did not give us a sense of liberty from arbitrary authority, and of limitless inner possibilities, and of profound personal dignity. There is nothing contemptible in this, and there is no simple, obvious moral reproach to be brought against it. Nevertheless, as I have said, it is a model of freedom whose ultimate horizon is, quite literally, nothing. Moreover, if the will determines itself principally in and through the choices it makes, then it too, at some very deep level, must also be nothing: simply a pure movement of spontaneity, motive without motive, absolute potentiality, giving birth to itself. A God beyond us or a stable [actual] human nature within us would confine our decisions within certain inescapable channels; and so at some, usually unconscious level — whatever else we may believe — we stake ourselves entirely upon the absence of either. Those of us who now, in the latter days of modernity, are truest to the wisdom and ethos of our age place ourselves not at the disposal of God, or the gods, or the Good, but before an abyss, over which presides the empty power of our isolated wills, whose decisions are their own moral index. This is what it means to have become perfect consumers: the original nothingness of the will gives itself shape by the use it makes of the nothingness of the world — and thus we are free.” (David Bentley Hart)

Indeed, the Non-Theist’s sentience is, if not magical, certainly born of nothingness as the will self-assembles by said nothingness and – therein taking what shape it has – makes its claim upon the nothingness of the world – and therein declares inherent worth.

Well – the Christian affirms the conclusion that, in fact, I am, you are, we are, valuable – the beloved – ad infinitum – but of course the idiocy of the tools/means by which the Non-Theist attempts to rationally justify what is an ultimately unintelligible claim is just bizarre. *IF* the term “value” is supposed to be a mere epistemic contrivance designed (whatever “designed” means in Non-Theism) to get over one’s horizon of nothingness – well yeah – sure – the sentience of the Non-Theist’s sort gives us value.

But facts are far more interesting than imaginary thingamajigs – more interesting than useful fictions. And it seems the question is asking us about moral facts.

So we are forced to leave the Non-Theist’s means and ends behind and move on to the Christian paradigm – the express instantiation of the Triune God by which and in which reason herself is, as truth-finder, obligated to chase after love's categorical elements rather than after contours of some other, lesser, smaller reality (lest reason herself …. as truth-finder…. be factually, ontologically *un*-reasonable).

The peculiar relational interfaces unique to the Christian’s Triune God carry us into the immutable love of the Necessary Being. But then, there’s that pesky “meta-narrative” business again. Where? Up there in Trinity in Whom Being Itself house three unavoidable vertices – and – just the same – down here where all the same corridors constitute the Imago Dei. In all these lines we discover what just does sum to the infinitely worthy Self amid the infinitely worthy Other as such relational interfaces unendingly beget love’s infinitely worthy and singular Us. Such sums to love’s ceaseless reciprocity amid the relational interfaces housed with the unavoidably triune landscape of “Self / Other / Us” as the Triune God transposes Himself into time and physicality such that the Imago Dei obtains in and by being’s three unavoidable vertices as reason affirms that such, and no less, constitutes infinite love.

All things are but means toward the Divine Perfections themselves wherein we find the triune corridors of love – Being’s inescapable vertices – constituting all such contours. M. Henry comments,

“And faith, hope, and love, are the three principal graces, of which love is the chief, being the end to which the other two are but means. This is the divine nature, the soul’s felicity, or its complacential rest in God, and holy delight in all his saints. And it is everlasting work, when faith and hope shall be no more. Faith fixes on the divine revelation, and assents to that: hope fastens on future felicity, and waits for that: and in heaven faith will be swallowed up in vision, and hope in fruition. There is no room to believe and hope, when we see and enjoy. But love fastens on the divine perfections themselves, and the divine image on the creatures, and our mutual relation both to God and them.”

Well, a few typos as well as a helpful part of Matthew Henry's commentary left out. With that said, a bit of slightly re-worked closing to the last post (from Jan 05 08:19 AM) to follow......

......But facts are far more interesting than imaginary thingamajigs – more interesting than useful fictions. And it seems the question is asking us about moral facts.

So we are forced to leave the Non-Theist’s means and ends behind and move on to the Christian paradigm – the express instantiation of the Triune God by which and in which reason herself is, as truth-finder, obligated to chase after love's categorical elements rather than after contours of some other, lesser, smaller reality (lest reason herself …. as truth-finder…. be factually, ontologically *un*-reasonable).

In and by Christ – in and by the transposition of Logos – in and by love’s eternal sacrifice of Self – and, again, in and by “…… the God who is glorified by sacrificing Himself for creation and not by sacrificing creation for Himself…..” (Fischer) all which any mutable and contingent creature attempts to call sacrifice is subsumed into non-entity as we spy the fullness of the God Who is love. While it is true that the God Who is love is our First, is our Last, in Him we find all moral and relational vectors converging within the metaphysical landscape of Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self streaming seamlessly amid the Beloved within what we are told is Living Water void of what we call first, void of what we call last – without beginning, without end.

The peculiar relational interfaces unique to the Christian’s Triune God carry us into the immutable love of the Necessary Being as Mankind’s true metanarrative streams from unicity’s singularity within love’s seamless simplicity summing to Trinity in Whom Being Itself houses three unavoidable vertices as all those same corridors constitute the Imago Dei. In all these lines we discover what just does sum to the infinitely worthy Self amid the infinitely worthy Other as such relational interfaces unendingly beget love’s infinitely worthy and singular Us. Such sums to love’s ceaseless reciprocity amid the relational interfaces housed within the unavoidably triune landscape of “Self / Other / Us” as the Triune God transposes Himself into time and physicality such that the Imago Dei obtains in and by being’s three unavoidable vertices as reason affirms that such, and no less, constitutes infinite love.

All things are but means toward the Divine Perfections themselves wherein we find the triune corridors of love – Being’s inescapable vertices – constituting all such contours. M. Henry comments,

“And faith, hope, and love, are the three principal graces, of which love is the chief, being the end to which the other two are but means. This is the divine nature, the soul’s felicity, or its complacential rest in God, and holy delight in all his saints. And it is everlasting work, when faith and hope shall be no more. Faith fixes on the divine revelation, and assents to that: hope fastens on future felicity, and waits for that: and in heaven faith will be swallowed up in vision, and hope in fruition. There is no room to believe and hope, when we see and enjoy. But love fastens on the divine perfections themselves, and the divine image on the creatures, and our mutual relation both to God and them.”

Continuing with M. Henry's comment, we travel into Man's final good – his true felicity – constituted of Man in God, of God in Man – fully actualized – the ontology of the only metanarrative there ever has been:

“……..and there will love be made perfect; there we shall perfectly love God…..and there shall we perfectly love one another…… When faith and hope are at an end, love will burn forever with the brightest flame……. Those who border most upon the heavenly state and perfection are those whose hearts are fullest of this divine principle…… It is the surest offspring of God, and bears His fairest impression. For God is love. And where God is to be seen as He is, and face to face, there love is in its greatest height – there, and there only, will it be perfected.”


So many errors in this video.

1. People can make qualifications on what gives human beings value without being arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is:based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. You might make the case that there have been many arbitrary classifications of human value throughout history, but that does not entail that sentience is one of those arbitrary whims. One can always play the "well what makes that so special" card.

Why do humans have value?

Because they are human and not animals

Well what makes that so special?

Why do humans have value?

Because they have souls.

Well what makes that so special? Isn't that arbitrary?

Why do humans have value?

Because we are made by God.

Well what makes that so special? Isn't that arbitrary?

These allegations can be made on all sides. It won't due to just assume sentience is an arbitrary whim for personhood.


Intuitively we all recognize that sentience gives one value. Why do we step on ants indiscriminately, but feel guilty for shooting a horse? Why do we go fishing for trout but condemn killing whales? Why is killing a healthy sixty year old different than pulling the plug on a brain dead sixty year old? Sentience. If given the.choice between saving a baby with a severe and crippling mental disorder or saving a baby that was totally healthy which would you choose? If a day care and an embryo clinic were both on fire, each containing twenty human beings which would you save? Sentience. Every time.

Does that make it ethical to kill an unborn baby? No. But it means it's not AS unethical as killing a full blown sentient creature. Because sentience is valuable.

Further, I can't help but notice the comments that equate "non theists" with physicalism. False dichotomy.

Non-Theists means Non-Theist. Physicalism is one under that umbrella. There are many other items under that umbrella. But, granted, "non" and "theist" are really big words. And reading is difficult at times.

"Intuitively we all recognize that sentience gives one value."


How naïve, inexperienced, and wrong. On top of simply begging the question.


“The philosopher Peter Singer has attempted to give an ethical justification for euthanasia on the utilitarian principle that approves of actions that enhance the happiness of the individual—in this case the relief from suffering and the exercise of autonomy—as well as the happiness of others who are aware they have that option. Singer assumes that when guidelines are in place, as in the Netherlands, abuses such as non-voluntary euthanasia are rare; in fact the Dutch government's own sanctioned studies show they are common (Van der Maas et al., 1992, 1996). Moreover, there is substantial evidence that palliative care in the Netherlands has suffered and hospice care has lagged behind other countries because of the easier option of euthanasia. Thus, on purely utilitarian grounds there may be reason to reject euthanasia.

Singer is guided by another principle that influences his thinking on euthanasia. He believes that society has an obligation to protect only sentient persons (i.e., persons capable of reasoning, remembering, and recognizing others). Infanticide of a child with hemophilia is justified when it increases the happiness of the parents. Nonvoluntary euthanasia for the elderly could on the same principle be justified not only on grounds of compassion but also, Keough Singer does not explicitly say so, because it increases the happiness or lessens the burden on children. Philosophers have rejected Singer's position as dealing with the consequences of actions while ignoring the tradition in Western philosophy that judges the morality of actions not just by their consequences but also by the intentions that motivate them.”


Happiness and autonomy cloud the picture of our naïve friend. Of course, happiness and autonomy are, quite clearly, arbitrary. 21 is old enough to insist on the right to physician assisted suicide -- "....because I choose to, thank you very much." It's happened. People actually have to "discuss" if we ought to head off in that direction. Because we don't all agree. Happiness? Autonomy? Sentience? Let's not get into the unending maze of "happiness" when it comes to "definition of truth". Oh dear.


That is the real word when it comes to "feelings" about the worth of sentience.


Or a man's life period.


This is a good example as to the trouble one can run into by ending one's regress short of the ending of one's ontological paradigm. The pains of circularity and equivocation and hedging all emerge.


Every time.


But then, the Non-Theist prefers having to tackle that rather than face his own limited means, rather than base his definitions on his own ontological end. Why? Because the only other option is absurdity. The failure of Non-Theism as a plausible T.O.E. emerges in and by its many corridors painfully constituted of the following:


From Wiki: “Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: “argument to absurdity”, pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance……. this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.”


One’s T.O.E. needs to be brave enough and hungry enough for Truth such that it is not afraid to embrace the real world as it actually is in a sort of eyes wide open approach to reality. That is one of the reasons I embrace Christianity.

scbrown,

You ignored everything that I wrote only to critique some other idea from Peter Singer. How about you deal with my comments rather than arbitrarily picking from whomever you think is easiest to refute?

"We all recognize..."

False.

Also:

Say 100% of us have a feeling.

Call it feeling "Z".

So what?

Clarification:

On feeling "Z", we run into this:

100% ubiquitous neuro-biological reflexes temporarily effervescing amid mutable and contingent particle cascades (like, say, "homosapien"), isn't "inherent worth" in any possible universe.

Well, it can be such if one equivocates, conflates, hedges, and embraces the pains of circularity, such as defining one's claims while avoiding one's own (metaphysically) irreducible ends.

Intuition certainly can be wrong, but you haven't given me any reason to think so in this instance.

You're not wrong.

Nor are those who disagree with you.

No one *can* be wrong.

The universe is a universe of nonsense, but since you are here, grab what you can. Unfortunately, however, there is, on these terms, so very little left to grab — only the coarsest sensual pleasures. You can’t except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from the behavior of your genes. You can’t go on getting any very serious pleasure from music if you know and remember that its air of significance is pure illusion, that you like it only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like it. You may still, in the lowest sense, have a “good time”; but just in so far as it becomes very good, just in so far as it ever threatens to push you on from cold sensuality into real warmth and enthusiasm and joy, so afar you will be forced to feel the hopeless disharmony between your own emotions and the universe in which you really live. (C.S. Lewis)

Well, on the C.S. Lewis quote, we may as well give the full context:

From “Present Concerns” by C.S. Lewis:

“Let us suppose that nothing ever has existed or ever will exist except this meaningless play of atoms in space and time: that by a series of hundredth chances it has (regrettably) produced things like ourselves— conscious beings who now know that their own consciousness is an accidental result of the whole meaningless process and is therefore itself meaningless, though to us (alas!) it feels significant. In this situation there are, I think, three things one might do:

[1] You might commit suicide. Nature which has (blindly, accidentally) given me for my torment this consciousness which demands meaning and value in a universe that offers neither, has luckily also given me the means of getting rid of it. I return the unwelcome gift. I will be fooled no longer.

[2] You might decide simply to have as good a time as possible. The universe is a universe of nonsense, but since you are here, grab what you can. Unfortunately, however, there is, on these terms, so very little left to grab — only the coarsest sensual pleasures. You can’t, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from the behavior of your genes. You can’t go on getting any very serious pleasure from music if you know and remember that its air of significance is a pure illusion, that you like it only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like it. You may still, in the lowest sense, have a “good time” – but just in so far as it becomes very good, just in so far as it ever threatens to push you on from cold sensuality into real warmth and enthusiasm and joy, so far you will be forced to feel the hopeless disharmony between your own emotions and the universe in which you really live.

[3] You may defy the universe. You may say, “Let it be irrational, I am not. Let it be merciless, I will have mercy. By whatever curious chance it has produced me, now that I am here I will live according to human values. I know the universe will win in the end, but what is that to me? I will go down fighting. Amid all this wastefulness I will persevere; amid all this competition, I will make sacrifices. Be damned to the universe!”

I suppose that most of us, in fact, while we remain materialists, adopt a more or less uneasy alternation between the second and the third attitude. And although the third is incomparably the better (it is, for instance, much more likely to “preserve civilization”), both really shipwreck on the same rock. That rock— the disharmony between our own hearts and Nature— is obvious in the second. The third seems to avoid the rock by accepting disharmony from the outset and defying it. But it will not really work. In it, you hold up our own human standards against the idiocy of the universe. That is, we talk as if our own standards were something outside the universe which can be contrasted with it; as if we could judge the universe by some standard borrowed from another source.

But if (as we were supposing) Nature— the space-time-matter system— is the only thing in existence, then of course there can be no other source for our standards. They must, like everything else, be the unintended and meaningless outcome of blind forces. Far from being a light from beyond Nature whereby Nature can be judged, they are only the way in which anthropoids of our species feel when the atoms under own skulls get into certain states— those states being produced by causes quite irrational, unhuman, and non-moral. Thus the very ground on which we defy Nature crumbles under our feet. The standard we are applying is tainted at the source. If our standards are derived from this meaningless universe they must be as meaningless as it.

For most modern people, I think, thoughts of this kind have to be gone through before the opposite view can get a fair hearing. All Naturalism leads us to this in the end— to a quite final and hopeless discord between what our minds claim to be and what they really must be if Naturalism is true. They claim to be spirit; that is, to be reason, perceiving universal intellectual principles and universal moral laws and possessing free will. But if Naturalism is true they must in reality be merely arrangements of atoms in skulls, coming about by irrational causation. We never think a thought because it is true, only because blind Nature forces us to think it. We never do an act because it is right, only because blind Nature forces us to do it. It is when one has faced this preposterous conclusion that one is at last ready to listen to the voice that whispers: “But suppose we really are spirits? Suppose we are not the offspring of Nature…..?”

For, really, the naturalistic conclusion is unbelievable. For one thing, it is only through trusting our own minds that we have come to know Nature herself. If Nature when fully known seems to teach us (that is, if the sciences teach us) that our own minds are chance arrangements of atoms, then there must have been some mistake; for if that were so, then the sciences themselves would be chance arrangements of atoms and we should have no reason for believing in them. There is only one way to avoid this deadlock. We must go back to a much earlier view. We must simply accept it that we are spirits, free and rational beings, at present inhabiting an irrational universe, and must draw the conclusion that we are not derived from it. We are strangers here. We come from somewhere else. Nature is not the only thing that exists……..”

The comments to this entry are closed.