Humans- Homo Sapiens- by far the most intelligent species on the planet. True so far. The pinnacle of evolution, the most important species on the planet. Absolutely not!!!! That is just our anthrocentric arrogance speaking. Blasphemy, say you? Surely human beings are unique, you ask? Of course we are. After all, we have, perched between our ears, the most complicated machine on the planet. But, complexity is not the goal of evolution. Every species on the planet is unique in its own way. Uniqueness is, if anything, a commodity in oversupply. The story of a briefly abundant hairless primate originating in Africa is but a footnote in the history of life, but in the history of the hairless primate, it is central.
Human beings are an ecological success, no doubt about that. They are probably the most abundant large animal on the planet. Moreover, human beings has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to various habitats, cold or hot, dry or wet, marine or desert. No doubt, this ecological success of ours comes at a high price and we are doomed to catastrophe soon enough; for a successful species, we are remarkably pessimistic about the future. For now, we are a success.
Yet, the truth is that we come from a long line of failures. We are apes, a group that almost went extinct 15 million years ago in competition with the better designed monkeys. We are primates, a group of mammals that almost went extinct 45 million years ago in competition with the better designed rodents. We are synapsid tetrapods, a group of reptiles that almost went extinct 200 million years ago in competition with the dinosaurs. We are descended from limbed fishes, which almost went extinct 360 million years ago in competition with the better designed ray finned fishes. We are chordates, a phylum that survived the Cambrian era 500 million years ago by the skin of its teeth in competition with the brilliantly successful arthropods. Our success has come against humbling odds.
How did we survive? At all times, the specter of natural selection was waiting to claim us, and yet it was him who gave us the proverbial boost up the ladder, the ability to evolve, to compete, to carve out our own little niche. And yet, today, the same forces are kept at bay by us, consciously. The sheer arrogance of it all is overwhelming. Our superior medical technology implies that almost no-one dies before they reach reproductive age. This causes ‘bad genes’, which otherwise would have been weeded out to return to the pool. Obviously, the alternative to this is not acceptable in our society any longer. Merely considering it would make us as bad as the Francis Galton with his eugenic principles or perhaps the Nazis. Ethically, we have an obligation to save those who we can. Agreed. This now leaves mutation as the only source for variation in the pool. And yet, in out society, mutants of any kind, physical, physiological or psychological are just not given equal standing. They are shunned, perhaps not consciously, but shunned nevertheless.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, our parasites are becoming more and more streamlined. With an absurdly low generation time, they can evolve around and over anything we throw at them in absolutely no time at all. In the war between us and the parasites, right now, we are losing!!
Some say, human evolution is not at a standstill, it is merely very slow. They tell us not to worry, that as and when the attack becomes more serious, natural selection will swing back into action. Is that really what it will take?? A pandemic?? Isn’t that too much of a risk? Will any of us survive?
The average lifetime for a species is about 10 million years. We have been around perhaps half that time, and have yet not spawned a daughter species. Perhaps I am being overly pessimistic, but the more I think about it, the more I am certain that unless we change soon, the doom of our species awaits. And I weep, not for our species, for we always knew we were but ephemeral, not for life, for it will go on, with or without us, but for intelligence and perception. And, in this, I have no comforting shoulder to weep upon!!!
*(This post borrows heavily from Matt Ridley’s “Genome”, a must read for any student of life-sciences)
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
THE DISEASE OF DOUBT
Basic human needs: food, clothing, shelter……… praise and reassurance??? My dear perceptive reader, I have wondered more than once what it is about the human psyche that makes most of us inherently insecure; so much so that we need the approval of others??
I understand the Darwinian concepts of ‘acceptance of the herd’ and all those other old, dried out clichés about man being a social animal that people seem so fond of perpetrating, but some part of me has always viewed this almost puppy-like seeking of society’s approval as, frankly, childish. All it accomplishes, I fear, is to expose ones inherent insecurity, fear, self-doubt and vulnerability. And, surely, it can’t be a good idea to display your weaknesses for all to see, can it?
As far as I can see, this trait of our species takes on two forms. Firstly, there is the need for emotional reassurance. I have lost count of the number of articles I have read in various newspapers or Readers Digest and similar magazines which essentially say, open up to your loved ones; tell them how much you care. While a certain part of me can see the logic the author(s) of these articles are trying to put forth, another, much more dominant part of me, dismisses it outright. I am, by nature, an intensely private person, so much so, it is actually an colossal effort for me to truly open up, as you, my perceptive reader, have no doubt already figured out from the fumbling nature of this post. All that said and done, I find that I am at total peace with myself. I know my exact position in the lives of those around myself, and am content. I suffer no illusions about my importance in the life of others, nor do I, on the other hand, consider myself to be unimportant. (And no, no matter what you think, this is not a form of narcissism)
Surprisingly for me, a vast majority of the human race has still to come to terms with themselves in this respect as I have myself done. Trouble is, I expect others around me to have the same degree of self-possession I do, and therefore run into conflict many times with friends and family, who keep trying to get me to ‘open up’, as they put it, to let them know what they mean to me. For all their efforts, they might as well try to coax a Harley into climbing a tree by it own. My opinion is, if you do not already know, or if you still have doubts, nothing I can ever say will erase them, will it? (Of course, this opinion of mine might well be influenced by my own private nature, of which I have already made mention) Not needing any praise or reassurances myself, I am, I believe, understandably reluctant to dole them out either.
The second, and to me, even more surprising form this insecurity takes, is professional. Emotional insecurity, if not justifiable, is at the least understandable. Emotions are not exactly the most scrutable of things, I grant you that much. But your work?? Clearly, there are objective standards to which what you do, whatever you do, must live up to! Do other’s personal opinions really matter?? Do you not just KNOW, for yourselves, how good or bad your work is? Surely, surely, you are the best of yourself!! Again, I find a vast majority of the human population look to others for approval. (Also again, thus far, I, thankfully, seem immune to this malaise)
Frankly, this worries me! Somehow I have this gut feeling that this constant human vulnerability compromises the productivity of our lives. Of course, I may be wrong. It may well be, that what I portray as a malaise may indeed be the norm, and it is I who am the diseased one, the odd one out! Yet, somehow, I do not think so. But I am, I believe, wise enough to realize that my intuition might be a consequence of the very nature I describe above. Am I deluding myself? My dear, perceptive reader, I would appreciate your views on the matter.
*(Before you should comment on the matter, as I have no doubt you will, I acknowledge that my last paragraph seems a lot like the very problem of insecurity I consider myself immune to. The thing is, the mind is indeed a complex object, very often inscrutable. The borders between intellectual curiosity and insecurity are too fuzzy to be put down into words. I believe myself to be on the right side of that border. You, my perceptive reader, are, of course, very welcome to your own opinion)
I understand the Darwinian concepts of ‘acceptance of the herd’ and all those other old, dried out clichés about man being a social animal that people seem so fond of perpetrating, but some part of me has always viewed this almost puppy-like seeking of society’s approval as, frankly, childish. All it accomplishes, I fear, is to expose ones inherent insecurity, fear, self-doubt and vulnerability. And, surely, it can’t be a good idea to display your weaknesses for all to see, can it?
As far as I can see, this trait of our species takes on two forms. Firstly, there is the need for emotional reassurance. I have lost count of the number of articles I have read in various newspapers or Readers Digest and similar magazines which essentially say, open up to your loved ones; tell them how much you care. While a certain part of me can see the logic the author(s) of these articles are trying to put forth, another, much more dominant part of me, dismisses it outright. I am, by nature, an intensely private person, so much so, it is actually an colossal effort for me to truly open up, as you, my perceptive reader, have no doubt already figured out from the fumbling nature of this post. All that said and done, I find that I am at total peace with myself. I know my exact position in the lives of those around myself, and am content. I suffer no illusions about my importance in the life of others, nor do I, on the other hand, consider myself to be unimportant. (And no, no matter what you think, this is not a form of narcissism)
Surprisingly for me, a vast majority of the human race has still to come to terms with themselves in this respect as I have myself done. Trouble is, I expect others around me to have the same degree of self-possession I do, and therefore run into conflict many times with friends and family, who keep trying to get me to ‘open up’, as they put it, to let them know what they mean to me. For all their efforts, they might as well try to coax a Harley into climbing a tree by it own. My opinion is, if you do not already know, or if you still have doubts, nothing I can ever say will erase them, will it? (Of course, this opinion of mine might well be influenced by my own private nature, of which I have already made mention) Not needing any praise or reassurances myself, I am, I believe, understandably reluctant to dole them out either.
The second, and to me, even more surprising form this insecurity takes, is professional. Emotional insecurity, if not justifiable, is at the least understandable. Emotions are not exactly the most scrutable of things, I grant you that much. But your work?? Clearly, there are objective standards to which what you do, whatever you do, must live up to! Do other’s personal opinions really matter?? Do you not just KNOW, for yourselves, how good or bad your work is? Surely, surely, you are the best of yourself!! Again, I find a vast majority of the human population look to others for approval. (Also again, thus far, I, thankfully, seem immune to this malaise)
Frankly, this worries me! Somehow I have this gut feeling that this constant human vulnerability compromises the productivity of our lives. Of course, I may be wrong. It may well be, that what I portray as a malaise may indeed be the norm, and it is I who am the diseased one, the odd one out! Yet, somehow, I do not think so. But I am, I believe, wise enough to realize that my intuition might be a consequence of the very nature I describe above. Am I deluding myself? My dear, perceptive reader, I would appreciate your views on the matter.
*(Before you should comment on the matter, as I have no doubt you will, I acknowledge that my last paragraph seems a lot like the very problem of insecurity I consider myself immune to. The thing is, the mind is indeed a complex object, very often inscrutable. The borders between intellectual curiosity and insecurity are too fuzzy to be put down into words. I believe myself to be on the right side of that border. You, my perceptive reader, are, of course, very welcome to your own opinion)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
A TAPESTRY IN GREYSCALE
ETHICS OF AN ATHEIST
My dear, perceptive reader; I have oft wondered at the power of atheism to unite theists across multitude of religions. Whatever their other differences, they invariably set these aside and join forces in the condemnation of the atheist. Invariably, when I inform someone that I am an atheist, their immediate reaction is to form that silent ‘Oh’!! I can almost hear their thoughts….. “If you don’t believe in God, there’s nothing to prevent you from committing crimes, is there? Without the fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like, can’t you?”
At times, such queries seem almost laughable, a portrayal of naïveté, so to speak; but at still others, they are frankly disturbing, as the message they convey is that a vast majority of theists still consider us atheists as the lowest scum of society!! Many people consider the phrase ‘an ethical atheist’ to be an oxymoron. Assuredly, ‘tis not so. Quite the contrary, in fact. The behavior of atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology and neurophysiology as the rest of the general population. Granted, we, as a group, do not fear retribution in an afterlife, but that hardly serves to infer that we are any less ethical than theists.
Ethics as a group, arise not out of fear, but are a natural consequence of the evolution if society. Atheists are capable of governing their own moral behavior and getting along in society the same way as anyone else. At the risk of labeling the atheist as self-centered, it does not serve the best interests of an atheist to have a radically different set of ethics from the rest of society. Basically, society will only put up with so much if it is to function smoothly. So, if an atheist wants to get along and have a decent life, it makes sense for him to be honest, work hard, pay his bills, and get along with others. Basically, he has to adopt a set of ethics common to society in order to do that. Belief in God is not a requirement for ethical behavior or an enjoyable life.
On the other hand, I must concede that the ethical system we follow is by no means rigid. It is an evolving, changing entity. The closest thing we have to an ethical absolute is the legal system of our respective countries. The principle we follow is essentially this ‘Whatever works out best for all involved, must be right’. I must admit, I can see where theists might have a problem with this. It looks suspiciously like hypocrisy, doesn’t it? Again, a common misconception. It would amount to hypocrisy if one looks purely at the situation at hand, rather than the background and events leading up to it. In my opinion, in today’s day and age, it is hardly feasible to have a blanket set of ethics, covering all possible situations under one code.
Consider, merely as an example, the practice of abortion. Unlike the Catholic Church, I do not condemn the practice outright. Nor am I an outspoken proponent of it. I believe we must consider each case by its individual merits and demerits. For instance, I might oppose abortion in the case of an affluent woman in her early 30’s with no health problems who wants to delay motherhood in order to focus on her career. On the other hand, I would support it in the case of a young teenage girl in a third world country, who just made a mistake.
I must reiterate here that an atheist’s ethics are based on the same principles of love, patience, understanding and general welfare as those of any religion. It’s just that, I believe, we have a tendency to look beyond the obvious to what lurks hidden in the shadows. Our ethical system is by no means clearly delineated into regions of wrong and right, black and white, but rather, as the title suggests, is an intricate tapestry of different shades of grey!!
*(Here, I must implore the reader to forgive my occasional and seemingly random from second person to the first and vice versa at many places in the above article. It is difficult to maintain a generic view on a topic so close to one’s heart)
**(Also, I would very much appreciate the readers thoughts on the matter. A different viewpoint often helps one to see the truth clearer J)
My dear, perceptive reader; I have oft wondered at the power of atheism to unite theists across multitude of religions. Whatever their other differences, they invariably set these aside and join forces in the condemnation of the atheist. Invariably, when I inform someone that I am an atheist, their immediate reaction is to form that silent ‘Oh’!! I can almost hear their thoughts….. “If you don’t believe in God, there’s nothing to prevent you from committing crimes, is there? Without the fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like, can’t you?”
At times, such queries seem almost laughable, a portrayal of naïveté, so to speak; but at still others, they are frankly disturbing, as the message they convey is that a vast majority of theists still consider us atheists as the lowest scum of society!! Many people consider the phrase ‘an ethical atheist’ to be an oxymoron. Assuredly, ‘tis not so. Quite the contrary, in fact. The behavior of atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology and neurophysiology as the rest of the general population. Granted, we, as a group, do not fear retribution in an afterlife, but that hardly serves to infer that we are any less ethical than theists.
Ethics as a group, arise not out of fear, but are a natural consequence of the evolution if society. Atheists are capable of governing their own moral behavior and getting along in society the same way as anyone else. At the risk of labeling the atheist as self-centered, it does not serve the best interests of an atheist to have a radically different set of ethics from the rest of society. Basically, society will only put up with so much if it is to function smoothly. So, if an atheist wants to get along and have a decent life, it makes sense for him to be honest, work hard, pay his bills, and get along with others. Basically, he has to adopt a set of ethics common to society in order to do that. Belief in God is not a requirement for ethical behavior or an enjoyable life.
On the other hand, I must concede that the ethical system we follow is by no means rigid. It is an evolving, changing entity. The closest thing we have to an ethical absolute is the legal system of our respective countries. The principle we follow is essentially this ‘Whatever works out best for all involved, must be right’. I must admit, I can see where theists might have a problem with this. It looks suspiciously like hypocrisy, doesn’t it? Again, a common misconception. It would amount to hypocrisy if one looks purely at the situation at hand, rather than the background and events leading up to it. In my opinion, in today’s day and age, it is hardly feasible to have a blanket set of ethics, covering all possible situations under one code.
Consider, merely as an example, the practice of abortion. Unlike the Catholic Church, I do not condemn the practice outright. Nor am I an outspoken proponent of it. I believe we must consider each case by its individual merits and demerits. For instance, I might oppose abortion in the case of an affluent woman in her early 30’s with no health problems who wants to delay motherhood in order to focus on her career. On the other hand, I would support it in the case of a young teenage girl in a third world country, who just made a mistake.
I must reiterate here that an atheist’s ethics are based on the same principles of love, patience, understanding and general welfare as those of any religion. It’s just that, I believe, we have a tendency to look beyond the obvious to what lurks hidden in the shadows. Our ethical system is by no means clearly delineated into regions of wrong and right, black and white, but rather, as the title suggests, is an intricate tapestry of different shades of grey!!
*(Here, I must implore the reader to forgive my occasional and seemingly random from second person to the first and vice versa at many places in the above article. It is difficult to maintain a generic view on a topic so close to one’s heart)
**(Also, I would very much appreciate the readers thoughts on the matter. A different viewpoint often helps one to see the truth clearer J)
Saturday, July 14, 2007
THE ILLUSION OF ‘I’
My dear perceptive readers, before I begin, I must implore you to forgive these few awkward lines. What I mean to write of today is no more than a transcript of certain nebulous thoughts floating in my head. I perceive the most fragile of connections, the merest beginnings of sense, no more.
Oft have I wondered, what is the concept of the ‘I’?? Indeed, it is one of the mysteries of life. The closest anybody has ever come to describing it is, I think, the vague, ephemerous term of ‘Anthrocentrism’. Self-delusion is something all of us have, at some point in our lives or other, almost certainly indulged in. Each and every man (and woman, to my many vices shall not be added sexism) believes that he or she is the most important person in the world. Oh, do not get me wrong, I do not say that we voice these beliefs openly, or that we are monsters of our pride. Not at all. In fact, we are perfectly aware that it is neither admirable nor useful to be driven by pride, so we try to subdue that drive, but we might as well disapprove of having oneself powered by one’s heartbeat. Intellectually, we recognize ourselves as merely a part of a greater whole, but not really; not in our guts, which, incidentally, is where an average persons thinking mechanism is located.
But, I wonder, is this delusion really as bad as it is made up to be? Isn’t it this very indulgence that drives a man towards success? And I answer myself, indeed, it is so. But, there is always a ‘but’, isn’t there? In this case, there is no doubt that each and every one of us is a big fish, the ‘but’ simply arises in our ability to identify the appropriate pond. We are indeed the centers of our respective worlds, only the world has become a lot smaller. In the large scale, one is no more than a component, and, this is the cinematic moment of revelation with big bass beats, by no means an irreplaceable one. Here, I must add that this is a revelation which, as far as my perception goes, cannot seep into ones consciousness steadily. It has to hit one with the full force of a speeding automobile suddenly encountering a brick wall.
One must realize that in the grand scheme of human civilization, there is no single person who is truly important. I have no doubt that, by making this assertion, I have condemned myself to heated arguments from many quarters, most of them armed with examples. I’ll quote a few myself. Newton and Einstein are the cornerstones of science today. Great men, no doubt. But do you truly believe that without them, science would not have progressed? Would no one have invented the technique of calculus or discovered gravity? Would no one have introduced the concept of relativity? Of course someone would have done it!! Perhaps the achievement would have come a little later, but it would have come nonetheless. The single greatest engineering feat of the last 150 years is the IC engine. But, in the long run, does it really matter who invented it or if its invention was delayed by a decade or two? Would the Second World War have taken place if Hitler had never been born? Of course it would have!! The sweep of history is inexorable, inescapable. The socio-economic pressures which led to the War had nothing to do with Hitler. He was merely the catalyst. Same goes for Gandhi, or any major historical figure. Even if none of them had ever existed, I believe that the world today would not have been quite different, in essentials, from what it is today.
Isaac Asimov, in his groundbreaking Foundation series, introduced a concept called ‘Psychohistory’. It is, in essentials, a mathematical technique to predict the broad sweeps of civilization. Asimov himself was conveniently vague about the precise details of psychohistory, but stressed many times over, and in no uncertain terms, that the governing equations would break down when applied to an individual. His official argument was of course that an individual’s reaction to any stimulus could not be accurately predicted, but those of a mob could be. I wonder, though, if he had the thoughts expressed above in the back of his head when he created psychohistory. Interesting speculation, is it not?
My dear reader, as I promised at the very outset, the post seems to have no easily apparent order or chronology. I humbly beg you to pardon these inchoate musings, and I hope you will share your thoughts with me, in the process perhaps enlightening my lost, troubled soul.
Oft have I wondered, what is the concept of the ‘I’?? Indeed, it is one of the mysteries of life. The closest anybody has ever come to describing it is, I think, the vague, ephemerous term of ‘Anthrocentrism’. Self-delusion is something all of us have, at some point in our lives or other, almost certainly indulged in. Each and every man (and woman, to my many vices shall not be added sexism) believes that he or she is the most important person in the world. Oh, do not get me wrong, I do not say that we voice these beliefs openly, or that we are monsters of our pride. Not at all. In fact, we are perfectly aware that it is neither admirable nor useful to be driven by pride, so we try to subdue that drive, but we might as well disapprove of having oneself powered by one’s heartbeat. Intellectually, we recognize ourselves as merely a part of a greater whole, but not really; not in our guts, which, incidentally, is where an average persons thinking mechanism is located.
But, I wonder, is this delusion really as bad as it is made up to be? Isn’t it this very indulgence that drives a man towards success? And I answer myself, indeed, it is so. But, there is always a ‘but’, isn’t there? In this case, there is no doubt that each and every one of us is a big fish, the ‘but’ simply arises in our ability to identify the appropriate pond. We are indeed the centers of our respective worlds, only the world has become a lot smaller. In the large scale, one is no more than a component, and, this is the cinematic moment of revelation with big bass beats, by no means an irreplaceable one. Here, I must add that this is a revelation which, as far as my perception goes, cannot seep into ones consciousness steadily. It has to hit one with the full force of a speeding automobile suddenly encountering a brick wall.
One must realize that in the grand scheme of human civilization, there is no single person who is truly important. I have no doubt that, by making this assertion, I have condemned myself to heated arguments from many quarters, most of them armed with examples. I’ll quote a few myself. Newton and Einstein are the cornerstones of science today. Great men, no doubt. But do you truly believe that without them, science would not have progressed? Would no one have invented the technique of calculus or discovered gravity? Would no one have introduced the concept of relativity? Of course someone would have done it!! Perhaps the achievement would have come a little later, but it would have come nonetheless. The single greatest engineering feat of the last 150 years is the IC engine. But, in the long run, does it really matter who invented it or if its invention was delayed by a decade or two? Would the Second World War have taken place if Hitler had never been born? Of course it would have!! The sweep of history is inexorable, inescapable. The socio-economic pressures which led to the War had nothing to do with Hitler. He was merely the catalyst. Same goes for Gandhi, or any major historical figure. Even if none of them had ever existed, I believe that the world today would not have been quite different, in essentials, from what it is today.
Isaac Asimov, in his groundbreaking Foundation series, introduced a concept called ‘Psychohistory’. It is, in essentials, a mathematical technique to predict the broad sweeps of civilization. Asimov himself was conveniently vague about the precise details of psychohistory, but stressed many times over, and in no uncertain terms, that the governing equations would break down when applied to an individual. His official argument was of course that an individual’s reaction to any stimulus could not be accurately predicted, but those of a mob could be. I wonder, though, if he had the thoughts expressed above in the back of his head when he created psychohistory. Interesting speculation, is it not?
My dear reader, as I promised at the very outset, the post seems to have no easily apparent order or chronology. I humbly beg you to pardon these inchoate musings, and I hope you will share your thoughts with me, in the process perhaps enlightening my lost, troubled soul.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE
My dear, perceptive reader, I come back to you with what I hope will affect you as profoundly as it has me. This stunning picture is of Messier 81(M81) or Bode’s Galaxy taken from the Hubble Space Telescope. It is a spiral galaxy, similar in many, many respects to our very own Milky Way.My train of thought runs thus….. There are about one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. The space between each of them is more tenuous than any laboratory vacuum, and stretches for many times the size of the galaxies themselves. An average galaxy has about 200 billion stars. Now, consider our Milky Way galaxy. It is, as I have said, merely one out of 10^11 galaxies. Our sun, on the edge of one of the spiral arms of the galaxy, is merely one of 200 billion. Our sun would be less than at a pixel in a similar image of our galaxy. Our earth would be just about a pixel in a similar size image of the solar system. I know this may seem like mathematical masochism, but a long human life is barely 7.3*10^-11 of the present age of the universe.
The scale of this immense vastness is so gargantuan that I can barely conceive of it without a shudder. The cosmic forces which are responsible for the creation of all this magnificence is what most call God. I myself beg to differ, but this article isn’t about that at all. It is about how infinitely insignificant any and all of us are. Our lives are in the inexorable grip of these vast forces, forces which are beyond resistance, and yet, do we really matter?? Are these forces even cognizant about our existence?? There is a theory that the current vacuum prevalent in our universe is a high-energy one, an excited quantum state, so to speak. It could collapse at any instant, anywhere in the universe. A bubble of the real vacuum could be hurtling outward towards us at this very instant. We wouldn’t even realize it. We would be here one instant, gone the next. The true spine chiller comes next. We could be brushed out of existence the next instant, and the universe, in the grand scheme of things, wouldn’t even notice our absence. This is awe, in the truest sense of the world, to confront something so much greater than ourselves, and to be humbled in comparison.
My dear, perceptive reader; with this I take your leave for now. I would, however, appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)