1 of 3
1
What is postmodernism wearing?
Posted: 05 October 2007 11:51 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19

It has been brought to my attention that postmodernism may not be wearing any clothes.  My college education had to do with art and some how I managed to get the impression that postmodernism was clothed.  I am having some trouble wrapping my head around this argument.  I thought a good way to clear things up would be to start a discussion.

I am suspicious that the reason I agree with postmodernism is my understanding of the concept may be flawed or adapted from the widely accepted position.  I would like to make my case for postmodernism and see if it stands up to others scrutiny.  I’ll start with my interpretation.

[quote author=“Jean-Francois Lyotard”]Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives. This incredulity is undoubtedly a product of progress in the sciences: but that progress in turn presupposes it. To the obsolescence of the metanarrative apparatus of legitimation corresponds, most notably, the crisis of metaphysical philosophy and of the university institution which in the past relied on it. The narrative function is losing its functors, its great hero, its great dangers, its great voyages, its great goal. It is being dispersed in clouds of narrative language elements—narrative, but also denotative, prescriptive, descriptive, and so on [...] Where, after the metanarratives, can legitimacy reside?

What this says to me is that there are no absolute truths.  Truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.  You have to start with assumptions to make any progress towards a defined truth.  For me, this sets up the best ground work for science & skepticism.  If you have to start somewhere, start as close to nothing as you can and build up from there.

The scary part of this is that I see existentialism & postmodernism as completely unable to stand on their own.  Postmodernism needs some chemistry with idealism to have meaning.  For instance my statement earlier about applying science and skepticism only makes sense if there is some motivation for truth.  Without this chemistry, postmodernism is the excuse of all excuses.  It is a void.

The common argument against postmodernism is that Alan Sokal’s hoax or Andrew Bulhak’s postmodern generator proved the theory wrong.  I argue that it didn’t prove the theory wrong; it just proved that the authority figures who accepted the articles didn’t understand the concept.  They made assumptions to form their truths that made the article relevant to them or they assumed the article would be relevant to others.  To assume makes an ass out of u and me.  That is the postmodern principle the journal editors were guilty of.

People will always make assumptions, hypothesis and opinions to stay motivated or maybe it is because of their motivations.  It’s the chemistry with these motivations that stops people from moving completely into the postmodern condition.  It’s kind of like becoming completely compassionate.  It is explainable, but almost impossible to accomplish due to our human instincts.

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2007 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Postmodernism is usually—at least in its laughable extreme forms—the notion that there is no truth, only opinion; that every story is as good or bad as every other story; that all that exists is “text”, and that all texts can be deconstructed as containing their own refutations; that every interpretation of a text is as good as every other interpretation of a text; that science is just one form of mythical narrative, as true or false as any other myth, and only supported by a power structure; that power is all that matters since there is no truth ...

... and of course all of this said in the most highfallutin’, overblown lingo, so as to demonstrate the supposed erudition of the writer. And all of it argued with a complete desire for obfuscation and obscuration of the particular theses they hold.

One of my philosophy friends referred to pomo thinking not as descriptions of the world but as “creative sharing”. At its best, perhaps ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2007 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I did a double-take, Doug, at your reference to “pomo thinking”.  The font on my screen is such that the lower case m can easily be mistaken for an r and an n, e.g. rn.

However, I can’t say that I would disagree with the description of postmodernism as PORNO thinking.  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2007 09:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Ha!

LOL

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19

When I think about postmodernism I don’t want to limit it to the text based realm.  Text doesn’t explain paintings & architecture.  I would rather discuss the ideas and concepts in the text, rather than the puffed up overblown lingo of the writers.  That sounds like an ad hominem excuse.

dougsmith - 05 October 2007 04:39 PM

science is just one form of mythical narrative, as true or false as any other myth, and only supported by a power structure; that power is all that matters since there is no truth ...

Wouldn’t you say that science agrees with postmodernism?  Science can’t offer any 100% truths.  There is always the argument that our observations are illusions and that there is no absolute certainty.  We classify truths until an event requires that classification to be modified.  This revision of truths can be explained as a power struggle.  I would say science exemplifies the ultimate man vs. nature and man vs. self power struggles.  Science cures diseases, justifies philosophies and takes people to the moon.

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

Well, postmodern theorists usually extend the word “text” to apply to anything that can be viewed as a narrative when deconstructed, not just the conventional meaning of written words, so in that sense the term would apply to visual arts as well.

I think postmodernism, like most self-reinforcing theoretical constructs, takes a good idea and extends it to ridiculous extremes. The idea that all human behavior and instituions are embedded in cultural contexts, that they reflect the ideology of the culture in which they emerge, that they can be analyzed as exemplifying this context, and that absolute and immutable truth is a slippery, and probably unachievable thing, is a useful and sensible one. The extension that there arfe no differewces of importance between ideas or that all ideas are equally true in all ways is nonsense. Science is a great example. It is clearly a cultural institution, and over and over again in the history of science we see ideas emerge that are clearly narratives of cutlure, history, class, race, etc. This is a useful way to look at the history of science. But as you point out, retrospy, science also over time proves it’s practical truth in the things it acomplishes, so it clearly deserves to be privileged, as the pomos would say, over other mythic narratives such as religion. Scientists would like to believe they are immune to the influences of culture and history, but they are not. The method, however, over historical time, successivley approximates real truths about the physical universe despite the limitations of scientists as individuals. This is the unique genius of science. Sure, it arose as a narrative in ways similar to other narratives such as mythology, and it can still be hard to tell pseudosceintific narratives from the real thing. But science does what no other narrative can in that over multiple iterations ideas are gradually stripped of their cultural foundations. If they are false ideas, they collapse. But if they don’t, then they have a claim to truth other forms of mythmaking do not.

So I’m in the minority in that I both believe in the relative superiority of science over religion and other systems of making narratives to explain the universe and I believe a judicious use of postmodernist cultural relativism is appropriate, especialy when looking at the history of science and when trying to check the ionfluence of the biases we as sceintists all have. I guess whether you think postmodernism is of any value depends on what flavor of it you are talking about and what you want it to do. It’s a lot better at lit crit than at evaluating science, for example.

Oh yes, and the pmos are among the worst writers in the history of the world. Even as a student of comparative literature, at my most sympathetic to the school, my skin crawled at slogging through some of their texts. Sort of like how Occam feels when reading my posts, I imagine. wink

[ Edited: 08 October 2007 12:08 PM by mckenzievmd ]
 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

What is postmodernism wearing?

clothes made of hemp

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2007 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
retrospy - 08 October 2007 11:48 AM

When I think about postmodernism I don’t want to limit it to the text based realm.  Text doesn’t explain paintings & architecture.  I would rather discuss the ideas and concepts in the text, rather than the puffed up overblown lingo of the writers.  That sounds like an ad hominem excuse.

It’s not ad hominem if the use of lingo is explicitly obscurantist—if it works to conceal the weakness of the argument. BTW, I think it was Derrida who claimed “il n’y a pas de hors-texte”, (Of Grammatology, p.158), that is, that there is nothing outside of text.

retrospy - 08 October 2007 11:48 AM
dougsmith - 05 October 2007 04:39 PM

science is just one form of mythical narrative, as true or false as any other myth, and only supported by a power structure; that power is all that matters since there is no truth ...

Wouldn’t you say that science agrees with postmodernism?  Science can’t offer any 100% truths.  There is always the argument that our observations are illusions and that there is no absolute certainty.  We classify truths until an event requires that classification to be modified.  This revision of truths can be explained as a power struggle.  I would say science exemplifies the ultimate man vs. nature and man vs. self power struggles.  Science cures diseases, justifies philosophies and takes people to the moon.

Science is not just one form of mythical narrative, as true or false as any other myth. Our observations are not illusions; if they were, science could not tell us otherwise, since science is based on observation.

Science also doesn’t tell us there is no absolute certainty; that’s something we learn from philosophy, although in fact there are some things that are absolutely certain, even according to Descartes who came up with that manner of approaching the world. Namely, we can be absolutely certain that we exist and that we are having certain sorts of sensory impressions.

Now, what I think you’re getting at here is that the theories of science are always provisional, and we can’t ever be certain that they are true. That may be so, but we at least have reason to believe that they are empirically the best founded theories in existence. Scientific theories are certainly much more epistemically secure than myths. And this isn’t an issue of a power struggle at all, it’s an issue of where the evidence lies and what it tells us.

If the point of postmodernism were simply to tell us that scientists have cultural biases like the rest of us, that we have our beliefs partly because of culture, that some ideas are popular because of the money and power of people diffusing them, etc., then there would be nothing whatever objectionable about it. All these things are true—banal, but true. And in fact they are studied in the social sciences like anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, et cetera.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2007 02:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

Hmm….

I am not quite sure, but the post modernists have a kind of point, when they say it is all text, and nothing else. And that is even so for natural science: the (provisional) truth of a theory is proven when the it is brought in the right lingistual form. Be it mathematical (i.e. a very formal language), or may be just convincing for others (evolution can be very speculative in the details). On the other side, there is something ‘empirical’ sneaking in, but to make that hard is very difficult: today, ‘facts’ are already very theory loaden. Take the slight peak in a graph from some CERN device, proving that the Higgs particle would be found. There is a lot of assumption in it about how the measuring devices work, and it is all theoretical. A lot of scientists talk as if they know the truth, and if you then point out such things, they draw back on their only safe bastion, that their theories are ‘just a model of reality, not reality itself’. Put in another way, one cannot know what something really is.

So what makes natural science so special? In my opinion, it is that they have very hard criteria for what to accept as a good model, and what is not: (mathematical) consistency, and making forecasts, the latter being the reason that technology can be based on it. The scientist knows, that when you do this and this, that that and that will happen. (Here lies a point of my critic on science and technology: it forces us so to speak to live in a giant labaratory. Given our aims, science tells us how we must change our environment to reach that aims. In this respect the definition of magic would be to reach results without fundamentally changing the environment. Hey, we all can fly today, but it is not quite the old dream of sitting on a broom… You have to build airplanes, airports, wait in queues etc.)

Even if these points are valid, they still do not help the critic from e.g. proponents of alternative medicine. In the end, alternative medicine, in which form whatever, is still technology. By doing certain things, one reaches a result, and this should be based on some kind of knowledge, a forecast. But with that forecast, it entered the realm of science, i.e. from testable hypothesis. And this they do not want to see. The ‘alternatives’ make empirical claims (we can heal you), but refuse to test them.

But what if you are not interested in empirical forecasts or mathematical consistency? I think nobody will deny that there other ways to look at the world: poetical, esthetical, moral. In my opinion a lot of problems arise when mixing up these different cultural areas. Then a religious person might feel threatened by science, because he had some funny ideas about a god creating a world, or about an ‘empirical god’ needed as a basis for moral behaviour.

In short, I think post modernists point to some important aspects of our praxis, but overshoot by reducing everything to language. Just this tiny piece of ‘observables’ make a huge difference.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2007 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
GdB - 09 October 2007 02:28 AM

... one cannot know what something really is.

Why not?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2007 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
dougsmith - 09 October 2007 07:10 AM
GdB - 09 October 2007 02:28 AM

... one cannot know what something really is.

Why not?

Hi Doug,

As a quicky: because it is essentialist thinking. A little bit longer: just listing a whole lot of attributes of some object, is that to touch what the object really is? Still another way: because we cannot know the thing in itself (or what is the translation of the kantian ‘ding an sich’?)
I never met a serious physicist who said he knows exactly what an electron is. You hear then something like ‘a tendency of correlation between some events’ that can be explained in terms of electical charge, a certain mass etc. Modern physicists even have problems to explain what mass is. (Of course we all know it, we can feel it…)

Or as another example: it is very difficult to define exactly what a ‘species’ in biology is. Belong two animals to the same species when they can get offspring? A horse and a donkey? Where do have animals evolved so far, that they cannot produce offspring anymore? Where is the ‘border between species’?

The point I am making: a lot of science critics try to attack science on these kind of topics: that the concepts with which science is working are not clear to the last point. My answer to them: that is not needed, as long science progresses under the view of making better, preciser forecasts, and getting more and more consistent, we increase our understanding of the world.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2007 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
GdB - 09 October 2007 08:51 AM

As a quicky: because it is essentialist thinking. A little bit longer: just listing a whole lot of attributes of some object, is that to touch what the object really is? Still another way: because we cannot know the thing in itself (or what is the translation of the kantian ‘ding an sich’?)

Hello GdB,

Here’s my problem. Why think there are such things as the Kantian “ding an sich”? Isn’t it just a lot of hot air?

Do you know what time it is? Do you know where you live? Do you know who the President of the United States is? Do you know what a chair is? Yes? Then you can know what something is.

GdB - 09 October 2007 08:51 AM

I never met a serious physicist who said he knows exactly what an electron is.

Ah. But now we are changing the subject, and talking about “knowing exactly”, which is different from just knowing. You may know what time it is without knowing exactly what time it is. If you ask a physicist (even a serious one) if she knows what an electron is, she will say she does. If you ask her if she knows “exactly” what an electron is, she will likely think you are asking some other sort of question, like does she have a complete theory of the electron which allows her to know everything there is to know about it. And then, of course, she doesn’t. But that’s a different question from simply knowing what the electron is.

GdB - 09 October 2007 08:51 AM

Or as another example: it is very difficult to define exactly what a ‘species’ in biology is. Belong two animals to the same species when they can get offspring? A horse and a donkey? Where do have animals evolved so far, that they cannot produce offspring anymore? Where is the ‘border between species’?

Yes, this is yet a third issue, one having to do with vagueness. All of our everyday concepts are vague. What counts as a chair? What counts as living in Boston? Do you live in Boston if you spend half the year in Nantucket? What counts as a planet? But that doesn’t mean that there are no chairs, or no planets or that Boston doesn’t exist. Neither does it imply that we can’t know about these things. It just means that we have to be somewhat concerned around the edges.

GdB - 09 October 2007 08:51 AM

The point I am making: a lot of science critics try to attack science on these kind of topics: that the concepts with which science is working are not clear to the last point. My answer to them: that is not needed, as long science progresses under the view of making better, preciser forecasts, and getting more and more consistent, we increase our understanding of the world.

Yes, exactly. The point of science isn’t to know about meaningless philosophical constructs like the “ding an sich”, it’s to know about the real world, real things that we can see and touch around us. It isn’t to have perfect knowledge about everything, since that is unachievable.

But we use the word “to know” every day, unproblematically. When we ask whether we “can know what something is”, we’re using that same word, and the unproblematic answer is that we can. Now, if your concern was about “what something really is”, well, an electron is really an electron. And so if we know what an electron is (which we do), then we know what it really is.

If “really” is something above and beyond that, then I just don’t know what that “really” means in that context.

I am emphasizing this line of argument because many people have twisted the banal fact that we cannot have perfect knowledge of the world into the clear falsehood that we cannot know anything about the world.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2007 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

Hi Doug,

Sorry for my inexactness, but I get bothered a lot by people who ask exactly this question, and this always was more or less the line of my answer. I try to be friendly, and to say that ‘knowing exactly’ what something is, is bullshit, does not fit in very well…  red face

I had some physics at university as subsidary subject, and I have a quite good feeling about what an electron is… But this does not suffice some hardcore science sceptical. Of course, it wouldn’t suffice a hardcore physicist too.

GdB

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2007 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
GdB - 09 October 2007 12:28 PM

Sorry for my inexactness, but I get bothered a lot by people who ask exactly this question, and this always was more or less the line of my answer. I try to be friendly, and to say that ‘knowing exactly’ what something is, is bullshit, does not fit in very well…  red face

I had some physics at university as subsidary subject, and I have a quite good feeling about what an electron is… But this does not suffice some hardcore science sceptical. Of course, it wouldn’t suffice a hardcore physicist too.

Hello GdB,

Nothing to be sorry for. When someone asks you questions about “knowing exactly” or “knowing really” or whatever, I think it’s sometimes just best to ask what they mean. Because clearly we agree that it’s no sort of knock on scientific investigation that it can’t make us omniscient. We’re finite creatures, we’re stuck with doing the best we can.

For the hardcore science skeptical, it’s probably just best to ask what sort of better evidence they have, and where it comes from ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2007 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19
mckenzievmd - 08 October 2007 12:06 PM

The extension that there arfe no differewces of importance between ideas or that all ideas are equally true in all ways is nonsense.

dougsmith - 05 October 2007 04:39 PM

Postmodernism is usually—at least in its laughable extreme forms—that every story is as good or bad as every other story.

I fail to see Lyotard make the claim that all ideas or stories are equally as good as any other.  I may have been derailed from Lyotard’s true intent by his terrible writing technique.  If this is the case, a few quotes should clear up my misunderstanding. My interpretation has always been that science, if done properly or at its best, was distinguished from narratives.  That science was the ticket away from the errors of narrative discourse.  Lyotard defines postmodern thought in contrast to modernism. Modernism, he claims, is…
Lyotard -
As long as we are critical of these meta-discourses not interfering with scientific rigor, science is divorced from the narrative discourse.  In that sense I suppose this… [quote author=“dougsmith” date=“1191893363”>If the point of postmodernism were simply to tell us that scientists have cultural biases like the rest of us, that we have our beliefs partly because of culture, that some ideas are popular because of the money and power of people diffusing them, etc.
…is my take on postmodernism.  I want to know why postmodernism is commonly interpreted to mean all ideas.  That seems silly to me, because under that definition even postmodernism is just an idea and is no better than any other idea.  By that logic, any movement done in the name of postmodernism is breaking the rules of postmodernism by actually making any claim whatsoever.  You have to accept some truths to make a claim.  I took this to mean science, the best option available.
 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2007 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
retrospy - 09 October 2007 01:39 PM

I fail to see Lyotard make the claim that all ideas or stories are equally as good as any other.  I may have been derailed from Lyotard’s true intent by his terrible writing technique.  If this is the case, a few quotes should clear up my misunderstanding.

I didn’t mention Lyotard in particular, however here is one quote: “the games of scientific language become the games of the rich in which whoever is wealthiest has the best chance of being right.” (The Postmodern Condition, p. 45). He seems to me to be saying that money buys you the scientific results you want; in other words, that science is simply a story the rich people tell themselves.

The main problem scientists find with Lyotard’s work, however, is that he is confused about the actual science. For more on this I’d suggest Sokal & Bricmont’s book Fashionable Nonsense, e.g., ch. 7.

retrospy - 09 October 2007 01:39 PM

Lyotard defines postmodern thought in contrast to modernism. Modernism, he claims, is…

[quote author=“Lyotard”]any science that legitimates itself with reference to a meta-discourse of this kind [i.e., philosophy] making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth.

Could you explain what all that verbiage actually means?

retrospy - 09 October 2007 01:39 PM

I want to know why postmodernism is commonly interpreted to mean all ideas.  That seems silly to me, because under that definition even postmodernism is just an idea and is no better than any other idea.  By that logic, any movement done in the name of postmodernism is breaking the rules of postmodernism by actually making any claim whatsoever.  You have to accept some truths to make a claim.  I took this to mean science, the best option available.

Well, I don’t see how that can be if (as Derrida believes) every text is subject to deconstruction. This would mean that there is no particular way to interpret any scientific text, a fortiori no reason to see it as any more epistemically reliable than any other sort of text. And since as we already know from Derrida that everything is text, there is no privileged way to read the evidence, reality or nature. If the Discovery Institute wants to read the evidence as showing that creationism is true and biologists want to read it as showing that evolution is true, well, that’s just two incompatible and equally valid “modes of signifying”, as the phrase goes.

I’d also suggest taking a look at Gross and Levitt’s Higher Superstition, where you see more of this stuff outlined in some detail.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1