Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Tiger killing a deer is manifestation of "order" of the universe?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 138 in total
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #61
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

So where are we with understanding of order of Lion killing deer? The more inquire into this, it's raising more questions.

Lion can kill a deer to eat

Deer can escape from Lion

Lion can die from failure to kill deer and from starving

JK might call all of above as part of order of universe. Why does this notion exist that anything that happens naturally in nature is part of order? Does order have any causation? Is order indifferent to effect? What relationship does order have with "cause and effect"? If none then how is order different from disorder?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #62
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
Why does this notion exist that anything that happens naturally in nature is part of order?

It is a humanocentric notion. Man says everything besides himself is natural but that he himself is above nature. As a reaction to this, some humans say humanity is below nature, a curse on nature. But both sentiments, the for and the against, are man speaking, considering himself different.

Man is nature and man's thought is also nature. Thought is natural, which means both the products of thought and its outcomes are also natural, part of nature. So, if nature is order then so is everything men do.

That doesn't make it good. But again, good and bad are human concepts. Unless one uses dualistic terms such as order/disorder, good/bad and natural/unnatural scientifically, then they are simple presentations of man's ego-centredness. And as scientific tools, those dualistic terms must always be used conditionally, relatively and contextually. Ego's mistake is in using them in absolute ways, according to its moral dispositions.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #63
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul, I agree with your above post.

And nature is not necessarily perfect, there is possibility that its working in trial and error method, in this process tiger may be an error, so the many other things....

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #64
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
In the present moment there is nothing to die, neither physical nor psychological.

That is right, but only from a logical view. Life is not only that present moment, it is a movement and it is a movement of both time and timeless.

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
Why does this notion exist that anything that happens naturally in nature is part of order?

What does it mean? It means that it happens naturally, it means that there is no plan behind it, it's nature is such, it's conditions are such and at the given time they cannot be other, however they may change with time.

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
Is order indifferent to effect?

It is. Natural disaster, or deadly virus can kill millions of people, the order doesn't know anything about the effect.

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
What relationship does order have with "cause and effect"?

The relationship is in conditions between cause and effect.

In all this, there is a great danger that you are excluding man and focusing on something abstract instead, this leads to many fallacies. We, as a human beings, can be responsible for our actions, and that is what is important in the first place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #65
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1471 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
in this process tiger may be an error

If the tiger was an 'error', it certainly was a magnificent one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #66
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
That is right, but only from a logical view.

Krishnamurti pointed out that truth is not logic, but it is always logical.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #67
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If the tiger was an 'error', it certainly was a magnificent one.

Not more magnificent than human brain...is it?

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #68
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1471 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

If the tiger was an 'error', it certainly was a magnificent one.

dhi:Not more magnificent than human brain...is it?

depends on how the human brain get used...if in its ignorance and greed and cruelty, it leads to the extinction of the tiger, well, not so sure how 'magnificent' a brain that is...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #69
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
And nature is not necessarily perfect, there is possibility that its working in trial and error method, in this process tiger may be an error, so the many other things....

There is a certain vein in our upper body that does a quite unnecessary circuit through the chest before reaching its destination. It is a vestige of the past when our animal predecessors walked on four legs. Now this arrangement is a clear waste of energy. If the human body were to be remodeled according to optimize efficiency, that vein and some other things would have to be altered. "Nature," in so far as there is such a thing, builds upon the past, as necessary, but through a very indirect process called evolution. There is no designing and redesigning. Things happen according to some very basic laws. It does not require perfection and does not know perfection. It does however lead to increasing sophistication, which man then calls beauty, according to his vanity.

Really, there are no "trials and errors" either, as there is no mind and no purpose behind evolution. We humans say, in retrospect, that this was a trial and this an error and this a success and so on. The deepest beauty we should recognize about nature is that it just is, without rhyme of reason. And we are, too.

"Nothing to get hung about . . . Strawberry Fields forever." John Lennon

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #70
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
No one is obligated to care about living a religious life. There is no "point", a point being a sort of selling promotion on the "marketplace", as I see it.

Huguette, please see below conversation between JK and DB. K seems to indicate point(meaning) for being virtuous but I could be wrong

“DB: Yes, that is the question. Does man have some significance to it? And does it have significance to man? May I add one more point? I was discussing with somebody who was familiar with the Middle East and traditions of mysticism; he told me that in these traditions they not only say that what we call this ground, this infinite, has some significance, but that what man does has ultimately some significance.

 
K: Quite, quite. Suppose one says it has—otherwise life has no meaning, nothing has any meaning—how would one find out? Suppose you say this ground exists, as I said the other day. Then the next question is: what relationship has that to man? And man to it? How would one discover, or find out, or touch it—if the ground exists at all? If it doesn’t exist, then really man has no meaning at all. I mean, I die and you die and we all die, and what is the point of being virtuous, what is the point of being happy or unhappy, of just carrying on?”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #71
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
Natural disaster, or deadly virus can kill millions of people, the order doesn't know anything about the effect.

If effect has no significance or order is indifferent to effect, why is it important to have order?

I see the danger of you spoke about. Thank you for pointing out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #72
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
K: Quite, quite. Suppose one says it has—otherwise life has no meaning, nothing has any meaning—how would one find out? Suppose you say this ground exists, as I said the other day. Then the next question is: what relationship has that to man? And man to it? How would one discover, or find out, or touch it—if the ground exists at all? If it doesn’t exist, then really man has no meaning at all. I mean, I die and you die and we all die, and what is the point of being virtuous, what is the point of being happy or unhappy, of just carrying on?”

K is wrong there. At other times he correctly pointed out that life IS its own meaning. Life has no referent, in the sense that it needs some "ground" to have a meaning.

And what is being said by K in that quotation? That man has meaning only by the grace of God (called the "ground" but the same meaning).

And he ends by asking what is the point of being virtuous. Well, we may ask, has virtue a point, a reward or is it its own reward?

So, why was K doing propaganda for a point of view there?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #73
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Man is nature and man's thought is also nature. Thought is natural, which means both the products of thought and its outcomes are also natural, part of nature. So, if nature is order then so is everything men do.

Nature, as with all the universe, is the present only. Nature doesn't exist in the past or in the future -- if nature doesn't exist now, in the present, it doesn't exist at all. There is no continuity from the past to the present; what we witness is a forever unfolding present.

The products of thought and the outcomes of thought appear as a continuity, but it is through thinking that this illusion of continuity arises -- illusion because there is no continuity in the present. The present is a timeless movement, forever new. Continuity is in the thinking that there is continuity.

What does all this have to do with order? Order is the unfolding of the present; disorder is the illusion of continuity, brought about through thought, on this unfolding.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 15 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #74
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
If effect has no significance or order is indifferent to effect, why is it important to have order?

The nature does not needs order, it is in it's own order. The problem is that man is not in order inwardly, and if we want to live peacefully on this Earth we need to be in order, and it should be common, it should not be created by a human thought. But, if we don't want to live peacefully, if we are good to be indifferent, if we don't want to be aware of our own actions, then we don't need an order.

This post was last updated by Anonymous . Sat, 15 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #75
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re: #70

Praveen,

One does not KNOW whether there is significance to life, whether life can be anything beyond living as a slave to compulsion, desire, fear, anger, greed, depression, etc. One can come to the conclusion that there is no significance, no point in right or wrong action, in observing, learning about the processes or mechanisms which engender fear, anger, and so on. One wants significance and, as things are, there is no significance to life. Life is cruel, life is suffering, and the conclusion is that there’s no point to attention or observation, the conclusion is that one KNOWS that life has no significance, might as well pursue pleasure or power or commit suicide, and so on.

But if one realizes that one knows nothing except that discontent is a fact, if discontent is not avoided or denied, then discontent - not fear, greed or anger - drives one to observe, and observation guides one to the “religious life”, to meditation. So one simply observes, without any guarantee that observation will bear fruit. No guarantee - that’s what I meant by “there’s no point to a religious life”. Yet, in the very observation of fear, compulsion, greed and so on, in actual attention, one is not a slave to fear and so on. Action is guided by observation itself, not by fear. This to me is a complete change in direction.

What has significance has significance not because one attributes significance to it. The fact that one does not understand the significance, does not mean there is no significance. Or one might attribute significance to what is insignificant. Something either has or does not have significance, regardless of what I think about it. I could be wrong too.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 16 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #76
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
One does not KNOW whether there is significance to life, whether life can be anything beyond living as a slave to compulsion, desire, fear, anger, greed, depression, etc.

Yes, it can't be known until one does not discovers this significance, until one will not get out of that trap of ignorance.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #77
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

K was asked a similar question in this video but he seems to have dodged the question! Do you find answer in his response?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcION-P7lIQ&amp...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F22mU6ncBvo&amp...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #78
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

We are shocked to see the tiger killing the deer. We identify to the deer, and also we know that the tiger is also able to kill us, so we say that the tiger, who is a very beautiful, but also very dangerous animal, is disorder.

We think it is disorder because it is a danger not only for the deer but for ourselves. But we are confusing two things in thinking that the tiger is disorder.

We are confusing danger and disorder. Order does not imply absence of danger. Order implies, for a human being, total attention, and in total attention, the mind is able to act intelligently and therefore it can deal with the dangers of nature like the tiger.

But as pointed out in the videos above, the greatest danger for human beings is not nature or the tiger. It is actually himself. Man is the greatest danger for himself, because it divides himself and lives in such way that it cultivates conflict, violence, wars and fragmentation of mankind.

So nature, or the universe, is not a cocoon for human beings, it is a place with its own dangers, but that does not imply that nature is disorder. Disorder is in the way of living of human beings, not in the dangers of nature. Human beings can learn to minimize the dangers of nature, and it has done so very efficiently throughout the history, but apparently it has not succeeded to end the very danger that it represents for himself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #79
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
We are confusing danger and disorder. Order does not imply absence of danger

The "Nature" in which Deer lives in constant threat of danger from Tiger, do you call that Nature having "Order"? if suffering and killing is part of order, what is disorder?

To me, take away from JK response in the video is...inner world(human mind which is in disorder) wants to understand order/disorder in outer world(Nature) but to understand that, inner world first needs to establish the order. Until then inquiry has no meaning. So this is where my inquiry stops!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #80
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
The "Nature" in which Deer lives in constant threat of danger from Tiger, do you call that Nature having "Order"? if suffering and killing is part of order, what is disorder?

To me, take away from JK response in the video is...inner world(human mind which is in disorder) wants to understand order/disorder in outer world(Nature) but to understand that, inner world first needs to establish the order. Until then inquiry has no meaning. So this is where my inquiry stops!

We 're getting sentimental with Deer, Praveen. We personalize Deer and make him/her like a human. Deer is an animal, and its place in nature as Deer, is to enjoy the forests, to eat delicious yummy green leaves, but also to escape from Tigers and Hunters.

The nature where lives the Deer is the same as ours. There is no two natures. We share one and only nature, which is Earth, with the Deers and all the animals. Human beings are also a danger for the Deers and for all the animals.

And human beings also kill animals and vegetables for living. Order is to find the good equilibrium between living and killing. Killing other human beings is disorder, as is killing animals is disorder. Human beings don't need to kill animals nor human beings to live. That means when they are killing, they are not killing for living, which is the order of nature, they are killing from disorder, which may be pleasure, violence, or any other perversions brought about by the self.

This post was last updated by aub b (account deleted) Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #81
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
...but to understand that, inner world first needs to establish the order. Until then inquiry has no meaning. So this is where my inquiry stops!

Inner world can not establish order. Order can't originate from disorder. The mind has to understand disorder within itself at a very fundamental level. Then, perhaps, is there the possibility for order to be. But order can not be attained from a state of disorder, or from any progression starting from disorder. Disorder has to be understood first, the inner and the outer, which are not separate. This process is inquiry, and inquiry has no real beginning nor end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #82
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
. . . order can not be attained from a state of disorder, or from any progression starting from disorder. Disorder has to be understood first, the inner and the outer, which are not separate.

This is true. We must understand disorder. But what is this disorder that is so much a part of us and our society?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #83
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

aub b wrote:
Human beings don't need to kill animals nor human beings to live. That means when they are killing, they are not killing for living, which is the order of nature, they are killing from disorder, which may be pleasure, violence, or any other perversions brought about by the self.

Let's look at what you have written, Aub. One wants to find what it means.

Human beings don't need to kill animals to live. True, they can kill plants. Or one can reverse the formulation. Humans don't need to kill plants to live - they can kill animals. Both are true. So why say one is disorder and the other is order? What is behind the choice?

Is it that we are more capable of identifying with the deer than with the broccoli? Is it about identification? And if not, then what else is it?

Are we supposed to have a natural moral compass that says that killing animals is wrong? Do you assume humans have this and then go against it when killing an animal for food? Is that it? But there are many other species of animal that are omnivore, that eat both meat and vegetable. If it is about natural morality, why is it assumed only humans should have it? What is it about a human, in such a theory, that should make them have it and not the pig or the monkey, both omnivores and both intelligent?

Is a cosmic rule not being applied? Is it cosmic law that those animals that can eat vegetable should not eat flesh? 'Cosmos' means 'order.' Are we defying the natural order of the universe, as you have suggested, Aub? And surely, if such a natural order exists, we should obey it but so should the other omnivorous species. And if they do not . . . where is the natural order? Does it exist or is it only an invention of thought?

Well, just some thoughts for you to consider, Aub, before offering your response.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #84
Thumb_stringio Julian S United Kingdom 194 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Praveen Boyeneni wrote:
K: Quite, quite. Suppose one says it has—otherwise life has no meaning, nothing has any meaning—how would one find out? Suppose you say this ground exists, as I said the other day. Then the next question is: what relationship has that to man? And man to it? How would one discover, or find out, or touch it—if the ground exists at all? If it doesn’t exist, then really man has no meaning at all. I mean, I die and you die and we all die, and what is the point of being virtuous, what is the point of being happy or unhappy, of just carrying on?”

I agree with K (and Bohm), but will add one more thing.

If there is no 'higher self', 'atman' or 'individuality', what exactly is the point of being virtuous or anything else? Without some kind of individual soul then that means all consciousness is completely dispersed into the ground when the brain dies. In other words, the very best and the very worst of humanity end up in exactly the same state. The consciousness of a Buddha ends up dispersed into the infinite in the same way that the consciousness of a psychopath does. What is the point of enlightenment? What is the point of what the Buddha went through?

A ground without an 'atman', it seems to me, is the same as no ground at all - in terms of human meaning, virtue, etc. Life is effectively an infinite, unknowable ground up against an almost infinite universe of matter. Bohm hints at that; K doesn't really address it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #85
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julian S wrote:
If there is no 'higher self', 'atman' or 'individuality', what exactly is the point of being virtuous or anything else? Without some kind of individual soul then that means all consciousness is completely dispersed into the ground when the brain dies. In other words, the very best and the very worst of humanity end up in exactly the same state. The consciousness of a Buddha ends up dispersed into the infinite in the same way that the consciousness of a psychopath does. What is the point of enlightenment? What is the point of what the Buddha went through?

I don't think K really ever directly gave an answer about reincarnation. It doesn't mean it need imply a higher self or atman, but being part of the stream of human consciousness. It is a vital question. Personally I live as though there were reincarnation- both Hinduism and Buddhism adhere to it, I believe. And I think K has hinted at it, especially in his younger years. But I don't know. I could die tomorrow; what would be the use of all this study and learning? Unless it affects mankind as a whole...I don't know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #86
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Julian S wrote:
The consciousness of a Buddha ends up dispersed into the infinite in the same way that the consciousness of a psychopath does.

I do question this understanding. The consciousness of the ordinary man may return to the stream of consciousness, but the one who steps out is no longer a part of it, I think. He is completely out of the stream of suffering, greed, envy and so on. Of "being", you could say. What do you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #87
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
I don't think K really ever directly gave an answer about reincarnation.

Did he have an opinion on it?

Can it ever be known if there is incarnation or not?

The one who is alive, can he know what will happen after he is dead? Look, we hardly have a clue about what will happen tomorrow, let alone about our death. We can only generate opinions and have been doing so for millennia. Why?

But why 'believe' in something one has no personal knowledge of? Why be 'inclined' to believe? The belief is the summation of the inclination, so investigate the inclination.

Reincarnation is an invention of thought. Follow the rabbit, not the carrot.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #88
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
This is true. We must understand disorder. But what is this disorder that is so much a part of us and our society?

When one says: "We must understand disorder", one has to be very cautious and aware of who or what is asking the question. Is it the self, is it disorder, is it intelligence asking the question ?

Because disorder trying to understand disorder as something external can only nurture abstractions, intellections, illusions. The self can build a lot of theories, a lot of images about itself and disorder, but it may remain mere intellectual knowledge, and therefore it won't bring about a radical change within consciousness. It won't end the disorder.

But if the mind doesn't create any separation between itself and disorder, being acutely aware of the disorder within and without (the conflicts, the sorrow, the illusions, etc), then it begins to unveil itself and to unveil disorder. This means, that self-knowledge is to understand disorder, is to perceive the structure of the self, which is common to all mankind.

The difficulty is the one of saying, this is "my" problem, "my" sorrow, "my" conflicts, "my" disorder. Once the mind thinks in those terms, either "my", or "your", or "their", then it won't really perceive the nature of disorder, which lies into thought itself.

It doesn't mean that thought is disorder, it means that disorder is in thought, is in self which is part of, created by thought. Can there be order within the chaos and misery of human consciousness ? Order, in the sense of clarity of perception, not confusion, not conflict, not struggles for understanding, or not understanding.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #89
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Well, just some thoughts for you to consider, Aub, before offering your response.

Well, Paul, one is not suggesting that vegetarianism or omnivorism or whatever way of eating is what one should follow. It is not about to follow some principles based on moral or sentimentalism, or non sentimentalism.

One is saying that human beings are not mere animals, they have evolved from animals, but consciousness has made them highly superior animals into their way of mastering their environment. But as highly superior as they are, they are not intelligent, because they are both destroying themselves and their environment. They have much power into the art of mastering their environment compared to other animals, but they are not wise in their use of this power.

Mankind is really unbalanced. It has evolved considerably technologically, but inwardly, psychologically, human beings are not as different as other animals, and even are the most dangerous amongst the animals because of their technical power. They are fighting for territories, they are killing each other, they are destroying the environment, they are at war with each other, and so on and so on.

All this indicates that mankind has no intelligence in the sense of order. There may be partial expression of order, in science, in art, in expression, but in its way of living, mankind is highly disordered.

It is quite obvious that human beings have a distorted relationship with nature and with other human beings. A relationship not based on order and intelligence, but on exploitation. One exploits animals, killing them industrially for one's pleasure of eating meat, one exploits human beings for producing a lot of unneccessary and polluting goods, all that in the name of some economical system within a society which is highly divided and disordered.

This is not intelligence and this is not order.

This post was last updated by aub b (account deleted) Wed, 26 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #90
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
It is quite obvious that human beings have a distorted relationship with nature and with other human beings. A relationship not based on order and intelligence, but on exploitation.

Very true, all of this.

What is the source of this exploitation? I would say it is the belief in the self. It is in humanity's giving the imaginary psychological self and its phony world primacy over the actual physical reality.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 138 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)