Bernardo Kastrup, Mainstreaming Controversial Philosophy of Mind Theories |378|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Apr 18, 2018.

  1. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    111
    Is it just me or is this forum less "fun" than it was before? I'm commenting anyway so I can keep up with replies to this thread.

    I loved this interview and shared it on facebook because even my skeptical friends have to give his rigorous arguments some respect. Bernardo was fantastic as always and kudos to him for getting 11+ Scientific American articles published against the materialist narrative! Even just one would be an incredible accomplishment. Can you imagine that happening like 10 to 20 years ago? It truly does seem like a new world. He's in a very unique position. I would love to hear what kind of private feedback he is getting from scientists and readers of SciAm. (I'd also love to hear what kind of private feedback Shermer got on his 'paranormal radio event' article, but we'll probably never hear the truth on that one.)

    Then again, as much as I have loved Dean Radin and Rupert "Morphogenic" Sheldrake, Skeptiko has helped me see them kind of playing a religion-justification game. Like, they were believers in early life and then materialism gave them cognitive dissonance, and then they pulled apart materialism until they could get back to that comforting state of belief with intellectual rigors intact. // Not that they aren't right, but it's like a guy on youtube someone posted here that was showing the flaws in evolution - I was right there with him on the critiques until I heard the religious arguments he was trying to prop up. That soured me. I never read Bernardo's specific book on religion, but I suspect he's in the same boat. Right, but for the wrong reasons? For some reason I would trust someone more if they were raised an atheist, found the flaws, and then revised their opinions without faith/belief ever entering the picture.)

    My Bernardo objection, as always, is that I don't understand how pan-psychism is written off as a crutch for leaving materialism or a baby-food version of idealism. I think it was around 1/3 of the podcast in where Bernardo was saying that a human being IS a part of the whole of consciousness (agreed), but it is also separated/individuated, like a whirlpool in the water. So.......... pseudo-psychism? semi-psychism? Is it only humans who have this magical property? Doubtful. Nature doesn't strike me as being that sloppy to be making exceptions here and there.

    I think we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that everything is consciousness and things can be individuated within consciousness at least on some level, so every particle is part of the whole AND somewhat conscious in its own right. At least personally this works for me so I don't have to think about whether a virus is technically 'alive' or not. Also similarly, Alex needs to see that, yes, there can be hierarchies within a system and yet the whole system isn't necessarily top-down:

    [​IMG]

    You see all those triangle patterns interwoven? There are plenty of hierarchies, but not one is in total control - at least from within the system. The system/equation that made the pattern IS.

    --
    Also, there was a post early on in this thread with someone stomping their foot about UFOs being only a mental phenomenon that was so wrong it made me too exhausted to refute it. There are mountains of physical evidence for UFOs. Scoop marks, indentations in the ground, not to mention the people who have reported both types of abductions -- floated out the window in an astral body kind and the reptilian you can touch standing in the living room kind. If you want to know why no one ever finds an alien notebook that was accidentally dropped on the job you might seek the answer in the fact that these beings can navigate probability streams and anything that breaks the believer/non-believer balance is corrected so as not to harm our free will to decide what we believe. It would be too disruptive otherwise. Of course what is physical evidence? Certainly not physical, it's more quanta - more narratives for us to parse. So is any of it physical or mental? I'm trying to think beyond that binary, but saying it doesn't exist in what we call the physical is overstepping in my opinion.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2018
    Judith, dpdownsouth and Hurmanetar like this.
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,118
    Do you think it is important for a forum like this be "fun"? I guess it depends on what you mean by "fun".

    David
     
  3. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    301
    Absolutely. There is a ton of evidence for a physical aspect to the UFO phenomenon. You’ve named a few, and I’m aware of several others. This is what makes the phenomenon so confusing. It appears physical in nature AND largely psychological. Are they from another planet in the universe and are so in tune with technology and/or spirituality that they can manipulate time, space, and matter in a way that seems purely psychological to us? Or, are they spiritual or interdimensional beings that manipulate our environment in a manner that makes them APPEAR physical? Or, are we experiencing BOTH these types of “aliens?” It would be more simple to believe that it is either or and not both.

    I love that you touched on the “alien notebook” and the ET covering up of proof. There is a real crossover of phenomenon with regards to UFOs AND ghosts, hauntings, demonic phenomena etc. This commonality involves exposing people to this phenomenon while withholding absolute proof. It appears obvious that 1) People experience ghosts, demons, and UFOs and 2) These “entities” (while showing themselves) are also engaged in covering up any real proof. Time and time and time again cameras don’t work, film doesn’t develop, videos are mysteriously erased etc. I know people personally who have had this experience and it comes up ALL THE TIME in account after account, which people can begin reading about anywhere.

    So, are ghosts, UFOS, and cryptids all born of and the result of the same coscious entities? Because they behave quite similarly in MANY ways. Or, are they distinct, but mutually involved in withholding absolute proof from humanity? Is this some “rule” that they are complicit in for some reason?

    People with pre-birth memories frequently state that they remember “accepting a veil.” This veils purpose, apparently, is to cause temporary amnesia, so we forget who we really are in order that we may properly learn the lessons which we were sent here to learn. Are aliens aware of this? Are they looking after our spiritual development by withholding proof of other realms etc? Ghosts, demons, and cryptids all behave in the same way...
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2018
  4. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,118
    We really need Bernardo to comment on this, but here is my point of view.

    Pan-psychism at the lower level - that of atoms or even electrons, has never made much sense to me because QM requires that all particles of the same class are IDENTICAL. This has mathematical consequences. Even if you assume that consciousness is associated only with larger chunks of matter, the problem becomes how can smaller chunks of matter that aren't conscious (because of the above argument) come together to make something that is. My feeling is that pan-psychism, is more something that a materialist says if he is really cornered!

    Now, to conceptualise Idealism, I think of any human society - say a university. A university is primarily a collection of thinking people (the lab equipment and buildings are somewhat secondary). you have a collection of consciousnesses that can combine to attack some problems, or divide up to attack others. Some information is shared across everyone, some is well hidden. I mean, I feel our social structures somewhat mimic the Idealist reality.

    So if, for example we chat to a friend over the phone, the idealist conception of that would be that two bits of consciousness send each other messages by using another consciousness that mimics the physical reality of the phone network. Crazy as that sounds, computer programmers often do something vaguely similar. If I want to know what a computer would do with a bit of code, I mentally simulate it at about 10^(-10) of the speed of the computer!

    Having said that, I am not 100% convinced that Idealism is necessarily the only way to go.

    David
     
    Hurmanetar and KindaGamey like this.
  5. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,118
    If Idealism is true, do you think it is possible that ideas start out as myths, and then those myths invade the reality generating bits of consciousness, and start to manifest themselves as UFO's and other entities?

    David
     
    Hurmanetar likes this.
  6. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    301
    Interesting. Maybe, many possibilities. They do seem intent on delivering certain messages to us. As far as I can tell, the most common being 1) we are all connected 2) We're trashing the Earth 3) Nuclear weapons are bad. Whatever they are, they absolutely appear to be fully sentient and packing a plan.

    Maybe we can count ourselves lucky that we aren't (apparently) on their bad side. Or, maybe (more likely) luck has nothing to do with it. I'm of the mind that they are spiritually advanced (whatever that means exactly) and so they understand what appears to be the spiritual truth of interconnectedness. That being the case, they know that the spiritual good of just one man (let alone 12 billion Earthlings) is directly relevant to themselves and the rest of creation.
     
    Michael Patterson and Hurmanetar like this.
  7. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,991
    By interacting with each other? The interactions must be absolutely key.
     
    Hurmanetar likes this.
  8. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    111
    If a forum is not enjoyable people don't post on it anymore. So yes, I think it does need to be somewhat "fun." Engaging might be a better word? I just want us to work together like we're trying to solve the great puzzle and we each have a piece. I hate when we get rude and stuck on the messengers instead of the message.

    I think general ideas are derivative from more primary ideas - what we might call archetypes. Like going from primary solids to more complex ones. The dot, one line which can make a circle, two lines to make an almond, three for a triangle, four a square ~or~ a parallelogram ~or~ a diamond... and from idea archetypes we derive our myths and narratives. The way all the colors are the subdivision of white to make up the greater palette or the first sound was Aum before the cacophony (supposedly).

    Primary ideas:

    Existing /v/ Annihilation-NotExisting - 0 vs 1
    Self /v/ NotSelf-TheOther
    Known-Familiar / Unknown-Unfamiliar
    Courage-Confidence / Fear-Trepidation
    Overconfidence-TheFool / Underconfidence-TheMouse

    Archetype: Fear of the unknown (the not-self/known causing trepidation because the self as it exists will no longer be the same/will be annihilated with the new knowledge. The unknown thing could just as easily be a physical threat and cause physical annihilation -- but its the same archetype!)
    This archetype is the same for Aliens, Ghosts, or a scientist having to accept a new challenging premise and present it to the academic mainstream.

    It's also about growing, the archetype of plant life. We are growing and they are catalysts for that.

    You will get stuck if you're still setting up your chess pieces on a materialist board. Is it this - is it that? Here's the material side and here's the idea side. All of these things, no matter what they are, are the same thing - that is, the only thing we can truly say are that they are all your experience of juggling these ideas and things. (Qualia) Or your experience of an immaterial alien. Or your experience of a material alien. Or your experience of reading a little bit about both. They're all filtered through your consciousness. If I wanted you to experience a video game simulation of a city (e.g. SimCity) I could do that even though I'm fudging some numbers in the background and not truly simulating every single 'person' in that city to a 1v1 correlation, nor the destination of every dot on the screen (a street with high traffic is just a looped sprite of loads of cars "moving"). As the programmer, what matters is your experience of the simulation and your interaction with it, not how accurately I've actually done the legwork in the background sim. It wouldn't make for a more pleasant experience. (Although if you were capable of noticing flaws I'd certainly rewrite those bits of the program.)

    Archetypes:
    * Entropy - Things that aren't maintained or given attention to fade and disappear (like forums, like entropy, like you can look at our society with the cracks in the pavement and the old posters still hanging on telephone poles and SEE a representation of what we give attention to in our society, and what we don't. all that information is there. aliens don't seem to have their past cluttering up their present, have you noticed that?) This ALSO WORKS FOR IDEAS. And language. Ideas will fade in time without the reapplication of attention.

    * Momentum - Things that are very large/complex are harder to change

    * Like attracts like

    * You must destroy in order to create (life itself! breathing! memory!)

    * Sometimes giving up (relaxing) is the way to advance

    ... there are plenty more

    I'd love to map it all out one day. If you admit that everything you know is just something somebody told you and you can't verify anything at all what are you left with -- your experiences. That's all. Can we work from there? Is there anything left to work with?
     
    Larry, dpdownsouth and Hurmanetar like this.
  9. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,300
    I think these are really interesting observations and questions which get at the crux of the issue.

    Number 22 observes that consciousness is neither physical nor energetic, and that nor does it have form ("shape").

    Both Number 22 and Baccarat then wonder about the relationship between consciousness and (non-conscious) energy, in particular the energy of (or that is) the brain.

    The first observation is the basis of the critical analysis in my review of Bernardo's book "Why Materialism is Baloney" (I linked to that review in post #13 in this thread).

    If consciousness is by definition undifferentiated, formless, and non-energetic, then, strictly speaking, idealism is by definition falsified, because idealism requires that consciousness is everything, and, as we know, "everything" includes much which comprises energy and form ("shape"). Yes, Bernardo tries hard to avoid the conclusion that idealism reifies consciousness in this way, but I think that despite his valiant attempts, it is a very difficult conclusion to avoid.

    My review was more liberal, allowing that some sense of idealism is still possible, and trying to scope out an abstracted framework which was compatible with that sense of idealism, as well as with some senses of dualism and panpsychism too.

    Basically, that framework was one in which a universal consciousness (still - by definition - undifferentiated, non-energetic, and formless) expresses and experiences itself through the (otherwise non-conscious) differentiated or at least differentiable energy of the universe - and here is where the questions of Number 22 and Baccarat regarding the relationship between consciousness and (otherwise non-conscious) energy become relevant.

    Going further: I contend that there is by definition a unitary subject of each consciousness. This applies to the universal consciousness too.

    On this definition of consciousness, it is difficult to see how the unitary subject of the universal consciousness could "split" into new consciousnesses with their own subjects - or "alters" in Bernardo's terminology - based on its interactions with the (otherwise non-conscious) energy of the universe, even given a sufficiently self-reflexive structuring of that energy (basically, that which we perceive as brains), which Bernardo (very creatively) contends is the cause of the splitting off of alters.

    I tried to express this difficulty in my review through some admittedly intuitive rather than rigorously logical observations based around the problem I have with the "experiences" of one (by definition, unitary) subject of consciousness causing a new (also, by definition, unitary) subject of consciousness with its own experiences.

    Admittedly, this discussion/analysis is very semantically-driven, but I think the semantics I've employed are defensible.
     
    dpdownsouth and Hurmanetar like this.
  10. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,300
    What do you make of the prospects for engineering extended consciousness?

    If Todd Acamesis is right in the talk he presented in the video which Ian synchronously shared over on Psience Quest, then the military already have the technology to induce OBEs at will, and have a corresponding presence on the astral realms as on the physical realms - so the prospects appear to be not only good but to some extent realised already. Todd relates being stopped at the gates of the White House in the astral by a military guard also in his astral body who told Todd that the president was not taking visitors at this time! Todd also relates being asked to join the military by a military officer while both were in their astral bodies - a request which Todd decisively rejected. Overall, the talk is very, very interesting.
     
    Hurmanetar and malf like this.
  11. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,118
    People like Koch shifted over to pan-psychism precisely because interactions between non-conscious entities couldn't explain consciousness - they tried and tried to argue that our consciousness is just a phenomenon created out of complex interactions, and ended up supporting pan-psychism - I would argue without thinking through what that might mean.

    David
     
  12. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,300
    Also somewhat synchronously w.r.t. this question, Chris just posted on PQ about Dream control at MIT.
     
    Hurmanetar and Trancestate like this.
  13. Number 22

    Number 22 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    44
    I used to have very faint dreams and wrote it in my diary.
    And it was right, I really have no explanation other than believing that consciousness is not limited by matter.
     
    Hurmanetar likes this.
  14. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,030
    The word "interactions" is already loaded with materialistic connotations. "Interaction" implies that there are things that interact. As soon as one uses the word, one is at least half-trapped in the materialistic paradigm. In my interpretation of BK's Idealism, there aren't any "things", but rather appearances, or phenomenology. A la Kant, behind every phenomenon is the thing in itself (can't get away from the use of the word "thing":)), or the noumenon. It is the noumenon that is real (albeit unknowable): the phenomenon is just an appearance. Appearances, having no reality as such, aren't interactions between "things", though regarding them that way has proved immensely useful for science and technology.

    I try to think in terms of processes rather than interactions. Galaxies, stars, planets, bodies, atomic and subatomic particles, forces and energy, etc., are names we give to the appearance of processes occurring in the consciousness of MAL. We don't ordinarily perceive the processes, the noumena, but only the phenomena, which we concretise and come to take as real, solid objects external to us. It is the noumena that are real, and in a sense external, at least to our ordinary state of consciousness. But they aren't real as they appear to our senses. They're only real as they exist as processes in the consciousness of MAL, and appear to perception as objects in space and time. In Idealism, there are no objects, no space and no time: these are just a useful way of modelling reality.

    IMO, Koch and people like him can't help but take appearance as real: mistake the model for reality. It's a lack of imagination, really, which weds them to phenomenology and leads them to seek to explain consciousness in terms of appearances. Put in almost religious terms, there is nothing that is not God: no thing, right? All "things" that seem to "interact" are just appearances. One can't talk in literal terms about objects interacting, because there are no objects. Furthermore one can't talk in terms of what the word "object" is pointing to as being conscious: in consciousness (of MAL) as a process or thought, for sure, but not in and of itself conscious, be it an "elementary particle" or "brain".
     
  15. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,359
    Home Page:
    Yes.

    I think the structured mechanistic aspect of reality is surrounded by ambiguity such that will or intention or ideation can alter the mechanism to any degree and the mechanism will always appear to be perfectly intact and unaltered because a chain of causality will always exist leading back into the ambiguity of the quantum soup or of perceptions and language.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
    Number 22 and Laird like this.
  16. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    This blog post sheds some light on his views re: animism. It's an interesting read, imo.

    http://aspiringanimist.com/2018/01/06/why-animism/

    Also, I think Michael P. was more having a go at some of my statements, as opposed to Bernardo or idealism (in the quoted post, anyway). Besides, who could not think Bernardo rocks?

    At the same time, maybe I kinda get Michael P's point re: idealism (which I do hold to be an ultimate truth) being a little abstract.

    I find Panpsychism and or panexperientialism to be a useful intellectual underpinning when it comes to the practical business of engaging with the broad spectrum of Existence's inhabitants (events) as individual conscious beings. By 'broad spectrum' I mean animals, plants, planets, solar systems, forests, etc.

    This in turn leads me to imagine the ways in which we might communicate with these non-human inhabitants via some sort of imaginal/archetypal realm, maybe via fields, and interpreted through our own individual/cultural contexts. Stretch Whitehead a little, and suddenly we're intimately a part of the Earth's consciousness, the Solar System's, even. Here we also have a built-in theory of hierarchy.

    With idealism, I look at a tree and see an aspect of a cosmic mind.... as opposed to an individual entity (event).

    Panpsychism+ works for me.

    I do not see this as being a negation of idealism and am quite willing to accept that finding idealism abstract (unlike Whitehead :)) is a personal thing.

    Peace.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  17. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    115
    Home Page:
    I didn't mean to be dismissive. There's just a fundamental problem with imagining absolute states. We all do it. The temptation to do so is overwhelming. But an absolute state is actually, by its very nature, beyond our capacity - beyond thought and beyond imagination as our early philosophers understood it.

    So there is a futility in trying to get there in one sense, and a use in that getting to the point of futility is actually useful. We can aspire to deeper states of awareness, rather than absolute states.

    I grew up reading what turned out to be badly translated texts on Eastern metaphysics. So I wasted a lot of time trying for absolute states,, when I what I really needed just a little better than I had. I wanted to fly before I had learned to walk.

    I don't want to make a contest of Bernardo's and my perspective. I like and appreciate what he says. However there is always a counterpoint between the intellectual and the experiential. It is not that one trumps the other, but that the useful truth lies between both.

    I confess I did not articulate my notion of animism in depth. That is an essay, almost, and the forum was not the place for it. But at the same time I could not not mention it. And I appreciate your comments on the Western Philosophy tradition. I can't defend that briefly. If you are interested I recommend Emma Restall Orr's The Wakeful World, the book that opened my eyes and mind.

    Relational awareness is essentially what comes out of Emotional Intelligence - EQ as opposed to IQ. But it is deeper than that. Briefly we manage how we 'feel' other entities and agencies in a way that is usually informed by intellectual or rational interpretations of them. If we allow ourselves a 'heart' or 'gut' connection, rather than a 'head' one, we have a very different experience. If we can become adept at using heart and gut awareness this is what I call relational awareness. That is, our relationship to another entity or agency that is not mediated by intellect, or at least dominated by intellect.

    We all have relational awareness, but it is usually dominated by the intellect that 'talks' us out of following that deeper awareness because what is perceived is not 'rational'. Eg last weekend I was at the supermarket and had an impulse to buy cream, which I needed for the meal I was cooking. But I 'knew' there was cream at home and dismissed the impulse. But my partner had thrown the cream out because she assumed it was the cream she had bought earlier and was off. But I had thrown that out when I bought the new cream. So my relational awareness told me to buy cream because I was imagining what I was going to cook as I walked through the supermarket. My intellect thought it knew better. It didn't.

    My view is that we are all fundamentally animistic, but we are persistently persuaded to be rationalistic. So we talk ourselves out of being relationally aware in favour of cognitive and intellectual awareness. Its hard work undoing that conditioning.

    We buy the materialistic bias in assuming that spirit connects to us via the head alone. There is another school of thought, to which I subscribe, that asserts there is a connection to to the heart as well. Are the connections equal? Is one in service to the other? Does head serve the heart or the heart serve the head? These are important questions, because our answer sets up so much about how we experience our reality.

    For my purposes I am deficient in relational awareness, hence a bias toward it. I think that deficiency is common, but not conscious.

    I am not intending to take the piss with the idea of high falutin' notions. Bernardo is doing a great job. But the balance is a kind of street fighting approach that allows for a rough and ready understanding. Often we let ourselves be convinced that what seems respectable is better. I come back to the assertion that as an 'experiencer' I had the crap kicked out of me a long time ago. This is not to boast or claim any special privileges. Its a counter to the intellectual and the theoretical, regardless of their merits. We can dare to be open to experiences.

    We all have to craft our own engagement with reality and to make that a competition is absurd and pointless. I can articulate a counterpoint to Bernardo without dissing him or competing. The brevity the forum requires means as argument can sometimes be only singled, rather than properly expressed. I am happy to discuss on a separate thread.
     
    Laird likes this.
  18. KindaGamey

    KindaGamey Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    111
    Oh, my bad. In this definition I do not suport panpsychism: "there is one reality that is both mind and matter..." (8:38)


    It's all mind, including matter.
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  19. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,030
    Thanks for your reply. I also read your post at The Aspiring Animist that Kindagamey linked to, which helped somewhat in that you say:

    As we move toward the idea that is essentially animism –but which is popularly called consciousness these days – how we understand it will evolve as we open up emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. Our present approach is structured by materialism and a masculinist mentality, even when we are working hard to be as open and empathic as we possibly can.

    It appears that you equate animism with consciousness as popularly understood, and if that's so, then we're using two different languages for the same thing. My finding Idealism intellectually satisfying doesn't mean I'm only interested in head rather than heart. I too experience my coincidences and synchronicities; have an inner experience that is very important to me. Nonetheless, I also experience an intellectual desire to understand in a "rational" way.

    I try to walk the fine dividing line between head and heart, if one may put it that way. I note my synchronicities, but don't pursue them because I deem pursuit as pointless and counterproductive. The more one pursues them, the more evasive they seem to become, and if one takes them too seriously, one forgets the head and can become somewhat imbalanced.

    Like it or lump it, I see us as incarnate beings with the faculties of both head (2nd person view) and heart (1st person view). I think there must be some value in the head way of thinking, otherwise why experience life? Take head thinking too far, and one risks becoming a materialist cynic; take it not far enough and one risks becoming detached from reality, too much of a dreamer. IMO, the best way is the middle way.

    It's an approach that I first learned about from Idries Shah's books on Sufism: Sufis say we should be in the world, but not of the world. We have responsibilities to ourselves, our friends and families and society in general. Nothing we do should abrogate those responsibilities, but at the same time, the heart should have the final say. We need to experience it having the final say. I think that's how we learn to strengthen the heart.
     
    Michael Patterson and Hurmanetar like this.
  20. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    @KindaGamey Hey, apparently you and I have merged into a single psychological complex within Michael Larkin's head. Well, I like the company. :)
     
    Michael Larkin and Laird like this.

Share This Page