Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:12 pm

There is no self in need of salvation.

Self is just as much a figment of our imagination as thing.

The self is an idea, used to explain processes that aren't fundamentally disconnected from other processes, but a part of the cosmos which is in some senses a whole. The word self is or ought to be saying - there's a similarity between these processes in all stages of their development, that unifies it, distinguishes it from other processes. Such a conception of the self is approximate and relative, rather than something to be taken absolutely, literally. When one realizes this, one begins to take the self a little less seriously. It's a flickering of the flame, rather than something static that came into existence at a precise point in time, and will cease to exist at a precise point in time.

We tend to believe in this exaggerated unity of the self, that we are Essentially the same self we were when we were born, and that we are Essentially the same self we will be when we die, but that isn't the case, there is no Essence, rather, we're approximately, relatively the same, or, we're more similar to what we were than we are to anything else, not exactly the same, identical in any way.

There is no sameness, rather, there is similarity, which is relative to ourselves and everything else we observe and experiment with in the cosmos, so while it's also inaccurate to say there is no self, it's inaccurate to say there is a self, there both is and isn't a self, and while it's inaccurate to say we're all separate, it's also inaccurate to say we're all one, we're both one and many at the same place/time, we're only approximate/relatively one or many, or selfish or selfless, from a perspective, from this instance of the process we call self making sense of itself and others with its peculiar cognition and sensory apparatuses.

So I am not a pluralist, but nor am I a monist either, whatever can be said about the self or the cosmos, is just as much a projection/subjective as it is a reflection/objective. Thusly, my metaphysics is somewhere in between that of the hard western sense of self, and the lack of a sense of self in much of eastern thought, I have what I call a soft conception of self, and of things. In some senses, I am more like say any of you now, than I am like what I was when I was a fetus or an infant, for what I am now is so very different than what I was then
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kvasir

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 836
Join date : 2013-01-09
Age : 32
Location : Gleichgewicht

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 1:49 pm

Divergense wrote:

Such a conception of the self is approximate and relative, rather than something to be taken absolutely, literally.

Yes,

And so, we can see that Descartes Cogito is a Priori starting point of self-valuation to self-projection to self-identification. Subjects are the abstractions of the objects the self identifies with, to a greater or lesser degree. However, the precision of this degree is dependent upon the awareness and its foundation of memory. To say there ‘is and isn’t a self’ is stagnate and accomplishes nothing more than reinforcing an existential conundrum that keeps you in mental limbo.

The challenge is to surpass one point of comparison to reach another, more sophisticated point where selfness establishes a deeper connection to the world giving the subject a relationship to its object that goes beyond mere juxtaposition as a reference. This is the challenge of the Overman.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:20 pm

Nicely put stargazer. I did an entire module on the Self for my degree and the concept is still as elusive as ever. You tend to find that when you study western psychological literature, most academics take the 'hard Self' stance and patronise the Eastern view, saying in one piece of literature "some of the Oriental ideas about the Self we've now found out to be true..."
But isn't it N himself who says "...and science leads us to believe men are superficial."
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:47 pm

Divergense wrote:
There is no self in need of salvation.

Self is just as much a figment of our imagination as thing.

The self is an idea, used to explain processes that aren't fundamentally disconnected from other processes, but a part of the cosmos which is in some senses a whole. The word self is or ought to be saying - there's a similarity between these processes in all stages of their development, that unifies it, distinguishes it from other processes. Such a conception of the self is approximate and relative, rather than something to be taken absolutely, literally. When one realizes this, one begins to take the self a little less seriously. It's a flickering of the flame, rather than something static that came into existence at a precise point in time, and will cease to exist at a precise point in time.

The self is a becoming..., an ongoing interactivity within genetic and environmental limits - potentials nurtured/inhibited in variance with surroundings.
It is a power-organizing expression of inherited tendencies in relation to an environment, or a will-to-power.
And yes, only a semblance of a unit, not a real static unit.

But this doesn't immediately mean the self doesn't exist at all [the same mistake the no-self school of heretic Buddhism made]; the absence of strong dominating core - an organizing Strong will simply results in a feeble sense of self - im-potent, poor inner fitness, that is unable to dominate and then resorts to slave values to survive, or wills its self-destruction than will nothing.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:50 pm

Idiot,

Diver didn't say that the self "doesn't exist at all". Why don't you read the words before posting word spew, retard?

This isn't a copy-paste thread......


The "self" is a construction and identification of properties, objective and subjective.

Go get another brain to think for you, because you need the help, moron.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:14 pm

Neon wrote:
Idiot,

Diver didn't say that the self "doesn't exist at all".  Why don't you read the words before posting word spew, retard?

This isn't a copy-paste thread......



If you read attentively with that half a turkey f---ed up brain of yours, you would have spotted the sentence 'figment of our imagination'.

Dont waste my time, idiot.




_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:18 pm

Lyssa wrote:
If you read attentively with that half a turkey f---ed up brain of yours, you would have spotted the sentence 'figment of our imagination'.

Dont waste my time, idiot.
Dumb twat, your time is worthless compared to mine or Diver's. You are shit beneath my boots.

"Self is just as much a figment of our imagination as {any} thing {else}."

The added part is my interpretation.

Dumb twat, maybe you should stick with copy-pasting, or echoing the words straight out of Satyr's mouth.......because your empty skull is revealing itself.

Go play with your barbies now.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:23 pm

Divergense wrote:
There is no self in need of salvation.

Self is just as much a figment of our imagination as thing.

The self is an idea, used to explain processes that aren't fundamentally disconnected from other processes, but a part of the cosmos which is in some senses a whole. The word self is or ought to be saying - there's a similarity between these processes in all stages of their development, that unifies it, distinguishes it from other processes. Such a conception of the self is approximate and relative, rather than something to be taken absolutely, literally. When one realizes this, one begins to take the self a little less seriously. It's a flickering of the flame, rather than something static that came into existence at a precise point in time, and will cease to exist at a precise point in time.

We tend to believe in this exaggerated unity of the self, that we are Essentially the same self we were when we were born, and that we are Essentially the same self we will be when we die, but that isn't the case, there is no Essence, rather, we're approximately, relatively the same, or, we're more similar to what we were than we are to anything else, not exactly the same, identical in any way.

There is no sameness, rather, there is similarity, which is relative to ourselves and everything else we observe and experiment with in the cosmos, so while it's also inaccurate to say there is no self, it's inaccurate to say there is a self, there both is and isn't a self, and while it's inaccurate to say we're all separate, it's also inaccurate to say we're all one, we're both one and many at the same place/time, we're only approximate/relatively one or many, or selfish or selfless, from a perspective, from this instance of the process we call self making sense of itself and others with its peculiar cognition and sensory apparatuses.

So I am not a pluralist, but nor am I a monist either, whatever can be said about the self or the cosmos, is just as much a projection/subjective as it is a reflection/objective. Thusly, my metaphysics is somewhere in between that of the hard western sense of self, and the lack of a sense of self in much of eastern thought, I have what I call a soft conception of self, and of things. In some senses, I am more like say any of you now, than I am like what I was when I was a fetus or an infant, for what I am now is so very different than what I was then
To me you seem like a pluralist, Diver.

I would say that "Self" is real as much as it is ideal. The self can be treated as a "thing", if anybody wants to. And most people do, treat the concept as a static thing.

This immediately leads to humanism. Humanists believe that "self" is human, when born, throughout life, before death, and even after death. This connects with judaeo christian religion. Humanism mostly coincides with christian spiritual belief. The discrepancy is before birth, in the womb, and during conception.

That is the only time people are "not human" or ambiguously human. Semi-human, pseudo-human. Also political groups routinely demonize and dehumanize others, to strip the label of humanity away.

The vast majority of population, over 95% I guess, immediately identify "Self" with "Humanity".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:26 pm

Æon wrote:
Lyssa wrote:
If you read attentively with that half a turkey f---ed up brain of yours, you would have spotted the sentence 'figment of our imagination'.

Dont waste my time, idiot.
Dumb twat, your time is worthless compared to mine or Diver's.  You are shit beneath my boots.

"Self is just as much a figment of our imagination as {any} thing {else}."


Idiot, he means everything - the world itself as a fiction...

You stick to moaning and obsessing over powerful females who have victimized you... idiot.

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:28 pm

Lyssa wrote:
Idiot, he means everything - the world itself as a fiction...

You stick to moaning and obsessing over powerful females who have victimized you... idiot.
Who said the world is a fiction, you stupid piece of shit...........???

You see, this is where you expose yourself, and your emptiness. You need a lot more practice to do what you probably imagine is "thinking".

I know you're a twat and need your hand held through all challenges in life, pussy. If you want somebody to do your thinking for you, then go beg to you know who.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:33 pm

Hey look Lyssa, you see my response to Diver here, just now???

Notice how I'm using my own thoughts, brain, reasons, logic, rationalizing??? See how I did not copy-paste? See how I did not link to another's definitions which are not my own?

You may learn something............but, probably not.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Kovacs



Gender : Male Posts : 63
Join date : 2014-03-09
Location : Yes

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:34 pm

Lyssa wrote:

The self is a becoming..., an ongoing interactivity within genetic and environmental limits - potentials nurtured/inhibited in variance with surroundings.
It is a power-organizing expression of inherited tendencies in relation to an environment, or a will-to-power.
And yes, only a semblance of a unit, not a real static unit.
And so the self that was, the object, experiencer that was 10 years ago has been utterly replaced, as all the matter is replaced in the body over time. The new body, the many generations later copy, bears resemblances to the earlier copies. One can think of it as part of a process and so related to earlier stages conceptually. But this is not a persistant existence.

Quote :
But this doesn't immediately mean the self doesn't exist at all [the same mistake the no-self school of heretic Buddhism made]; the absence of strong dominating core - an organizing Strong will simply results in a feeble sense of self - im-potent, poor inner fitness, that is unable to dominate and then resorts to slave values to survive, or wills its self-destruction than will nothing.
This paragraph reifies through nouns a bunch of things that also do not persist through time. Observers may, when comparing to memories, consider something to have persisted - the strong will you mention - but this is not the same strong will that was there earlier in time, it is a copy (of a copy ((of a copy...........

No Buddhism denies the possibility of a strong will being present at various times in process of this or that human. What they deny is some persistant identity

I am not a Buddhist, and in fact I do believe in a persistant self, but then I am not a physicalist. Physicalists simply cannot believe in a self that persists through times. At least, without being inconsistant.

It's a sad thing about retirement, any physicalist tired of the work world must conclude that it will only be some future copy who experiences retirement.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Divergense



Gender : Male Posts : 219
Join date : 2014-06-22
Location : Stasis

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:50 am

Aeon is right, I'm not arguing for no self, I'm arguing for a more dynamic, ephemeral and fluid sense of self, approximate/relativistic.

I'll address the rest tomorrow.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:05 pm

Kovacs wrote:
Lyssa wrote:

The self is a becoming..., an ongoing interactivity within genetic and environmental limits - potentials nurtured/inhibited in variance with surroundings.
It is a power-organizing expression of inherited tendencies in relation to an environment, or a will-to-power.
And yes, only a semblance of a unit, not a real static unit.
And so the self that was, the object, experiencer that was 10 years ago has been utterly replaced, as all the matter is replaced in the body over time.  The new body, the many generations later copy, bears resemblances to the earlier copies.   One can think of it as part of a process and so related to earlier stages conceptually.   But this is not a persistant existence.

Quote :
But this doesn't immediately mean the self doesn't exist at all [the same mistake the no-self school of heretic Buddhism made]; the absence of strong dominating core - an organizing Strong will simply results in a feeble sense of self - im-potent, poor inner fitness, that is unable to dominate and then resorts to slave values to survive, or wills its self-destruction than will nothing.
This paragraph reifies through nouns a bunch of things that also do not persist through time.  Observers may, when comparing to memories, consider something to have persisted - the strong will you mention - but this is not the same strong will that was there earlier in time, it is a copy (of a copy ((of a copy...........

No Buddhism denies the possibility of a strong will being present at various times in process of this or that human.   What they deny is some persistant identity

I am not a Buddhist, and in fact I do believe in a persistant self, but then I am not a physicalist.  Physicalists simply cannot believe in a self that persists through times.  At least, without being inconsistant.

It's a sad thing about retirement, any physicalist tired of the work world must conclude that it will only be some future copy who experiences retirement.




Kovacs, I believe you already made a thread about this on ILP [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].


Nietzsche wrote:
"Excess is a reproach only against those who have no right to it; and almost all the passions have been brought into ill repute on account of those who were not sufficiently strong to employ them-.

In detail, the following must be distinguished:

1. the dominating passion, which even brings with it the supremest form of health; here the co-ordination of the inner systems and their operation in the service of one end is best achieved-but this is almost the definition of health!

2. the antagonism of the passions; two, three, a multiplicity of "souls in one breast":1l7 very unhealthy, inner ruin, disintegration, betraying and increasing and inner conflict and anarchism -unless one passion at last becomes master. Return to health-

3. juxtaposition without antagonism or collaboralion: often periodic, and then, as soon as an order has been established, also healthy. The most interesting men, the chameleons, belong here; they are not in contradiction with themselves, they are happy and secure, but they do not develop---their differing states lie juxtaposed, even if they are separated sevenfold. They change, they do not become." [WTP, 778]


Nietzsche wrote:
"One becomes only what one is."


So there is a difference between saying the self-that-is-becoming and the self-that-merely-changes *because it could not bring it under a dominant co-ordination, only a juxtaposition.

The self is memory, a potentital that it carries, [entelechy]... that depending on the environment can be brought into focus or shut off focus. When the will is weak, there are only shifting states; the self doesn't become.

Buddhism [Theravada] assumes absolute impermanence, while the classical Nagasensa debate assumes a resisting order;

Quote :
"“The thought of the Arhats is developed, well developed, it is tamed, well tamed, it is obedient and disciplined. When invaded by a painful feeling, the Arhat firmly grasps at the idea of its impermanence, and ties his thought to the post of contemplation. And his thought, tied to the post of contemplation, does not tremble or shake, remains steadfast and undisturbed. But the disturbing influence of the pain, nevertheless, makes his body bend, contorts it, makes it writhe.”
“That Nagasena, is indeed a most wonderful thing in this world, that someone’s mind should remain unshaken when his body is shaken. Tell me the reason for that!”
“Suppose, Your Majesty, that there is a gigantic tree, with trunk, branches, and leaves. If it were hit by the force of the wind, its branches would shake, but would the trunk also shake?”
“No, Venerable Sir!”
“Just so the thought of the Arhat does not tremble or shake, like the trunk of the gigantic tree.”
“Wonderful, Nagasena, most admireable, Nagasena!”



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/quote]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Henry Quirk

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 328
Join date : 2014-06-03
Age : 55
Location : everywhere, doin' too much

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:30 am

From  http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13364  three posts which may be relevant. Being dis-embedded from the original context, the posts may muddy more than clarify: my apologies.


Wyman,

"I am not sure if Henry believes that his 'I' or 'mind' or 'self' (I'll settle on 'self') is just a concept, or if he thinks it's a physical thing."


Well, I thought I was clear with 'mind is what an animal with a particular and peculiar kind of complexity does' but it seems I just muddied the water.

Let me try again...

I don't have thoughts; I think.

I don't have feelings; I feel.

I don't have consciousness; I'm conscious.

As I point out up-thread: the language we use in conversations like this, on topics like this, colors things. Intended or not: talkin' about 'mind' and 'consciousness' and whatnot (no matter the perspective any of us take on those notions) is to treat the phenomena in question as 'object' that can be investigated unto itself.

I'm as guilty of this as any one (perhaps more so since I actively reject the idea of 'mind' or 'self' or 'consciousness' being anything other than 'action' [and, still I 'objectify' the phenomena]).

Again: it is absurd (to me) to talk about 'walking' as an entity when walking is what legs 'do'

Legs are comprised of a number of parts and -- certainly -- we can examine each of those parts in isolation from the others (we can dissect bone, splay open muscle, and analyze skin), but only as a unified whole can we talk about what legs can do (only in the observing of legs -- as units -- can we see legs in action and comprehend how all those pieces work together, how 'walking' happens).

'Consciousness' (self, 'I'), I assert, is the same.

We can divvy up the brain amongst researchers and have them examine the myriad of bits, and -- through those researchers' efforts -- perhaps glean out sufficient information on these parts to write nice, fat, books ('101 Uses for the Hypothalamus'), but nuthin' about those efforts will, I think, tell any one about the 'person', the 'I', that extended out from the coordinated operations of all those bits.

To 'see' the person, we have to consider 'the person' in his or her whole, fleshy, glory: or, a brain is comprised of a number of parts and -- certainly -- we can examine each of those parts in isolation from the others, but only as a unified whole can we talk about what a brain can do (only in the observing of the brain [in a body, in an environment] can we see a brain in action and comprehend how all those pieces work together, how 'I'ness happens).

#

Ginkgo,

"I wonder if sight, sound and smell are a unified experience, or can I experience these thing as separate streams of consciousness?"


Irrelevant, I think, since 'I' will unify them.

I may be comprised of pieces and parts, but none of those pieces and parts exist in isolation. Each piece and part has developed along side and in coordination with all the others. These pieces and parts work together to form a whole: 'me'.

Sure, the sound is disconnected from the light which is disconnected from the smell which is disconnected from the textures, but 'I' don't exist as multiple entities (one for sight, one for hearing, etc). 'I' exist as 'one', a locus for apprehending multiple streams of disconnected information and then merging those streams into one model of the world. I do this (in this way) because 'I' am a single organism with all means of apprehension (my senses) located and connected within a single discrete mass.

It's a system ('I' am a system) that works well for moving in the world and using the world as resource.

Multiple streams of 'consciousness' need not apply.

#

Someone, up-thread, mentioned Ryle.

Gilbert Ryle, yes?

I know next to nuthin' about the man and his work but he hits it square with this...

From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Ryle asserted that the workings of the mind are not distinct from the actions of the body. They are one and the same. Mental vocabulary is, he insists, merely a different manner of describing action."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
apaosha
Daeva
avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1599
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 31
Location : Ireland

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:55 pm

I made a thread about this years ago, the Actor/Act dichotomy. Seems to have disappeared.

There's a convention of language where it is assumed that there is first a subject (I) which performs an action (thinking). This separates a phenomenon in an unnatural manner and suggests that you can have a subject which does not perform an action or an action without a subject.

In latin, "I think therefore I am" becomes cogito ergo sum, which does not separate subject/action in the same way. The "I" is the thought, the self is consciousness. The "I" does not perform thought, it is thought; the self does not perform consciousness, it is consciousness.

_________________
"I do not exhort you to work but to battle; I do not exhort you to peace but to victory. May your work be a battle; may your peace be a victory." -TSZ
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://knowthyself.forumotion.net
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness Thu Jul 17, 2014 2:37 pm

apaosha wrote:
I made a thread about this years ago, the Actor/Act dichotomy. Seems to have disappeared.

There's a convention of language where it is assumed that there is first a subject (I) which performs an action (thinking). This separates a phenomenon in an unnatural manner and suggests that you can have a subject which does not perform an action or an action without a subject.

In latin, "I think therefore I am" becomes cogito ergo sum, which does not separate subject/action in the same way. The "I" is the thought, the self is consciousness. The "I" does not perform thought, it is thought; the self does not perform consciousness, it is consciousness.

Well said.
The mind starts to believe that it is free because it moves freely within its own ideas about him/her-self.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness

Back to top Go down
 
Metaphysical Egoism & Selflessness
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Leaking Pipes and Flooding
» Lithium Quartz
» I can't remember my dreams
» Salamander
» Nuummite

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: