Working Together: Can We Restore the World?

I ask if there is a political and or religious solution to restore the world and I see 'transcending ego identification' and 'returning to a state of primal consciousness'.

Heh Heh

Have any of you folks seen the Geiko commercial when the cave man fellow is participating in a news conference and the egghead says something like "We are living in an age where the individual ego is at the forefront."

I like caveman's answer: A simple "WHAT?!"

Perhaps IFeelFree would like to try explaining his byte of erudition to Osama.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Lfeelfree,

What "evidence" do you have that transcendental awareness is on the rise ? Spiritual leaders such as Krishnamurti preached such a message at the UN assembly decades ago yet here we are in the age of the internet which appears to have done more to spread the poison of divergent extremism than it has to assist convergence of "mature thinking".

It depends on where you look. I have been involved with dozens of spiritual organizations (none of them are mainstream religion) over the years that could not have existed 100 year ago. Not only were people not sophisticated enough back then to comprehend the teachings, but the limitations in travel and communications would have made these gatherings a practical impossibility for all except a fortunate few. I can go to local bookstores or libraries or the internet and read the great spiritual writings of humanity. This was not possible until recent history. I have visited and taken instruction from great spiritual teachers from all over the world. Some have visited the U.S., others I have traveled to visit. This is a real possibility for the majority of people in the world. The religious provincialism of the past no longer has any use for us.

These are the practical aspects. What evidence do we have that there is any rise in consciousness in the world? The clash we see between the old ways of thinking and the new consciousness is part of this process. There was a similar clash between religious doctrine and science during the 17th century. At first, the established church authority asserted their power but, ultimately, reason and science won out. Still, it would have been hard to see that if you lived during the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Today, we see a clash between a small group of enlightened voices, such as Krishnamurti and others on one side, and dysfunctional, destructive, ego-based thinking on the other. Its hard to see how the spiritual voices can rise above those filled with hate. However, the rise of popular interest in a more universal spirituality is a sign of things to come. It started in the 60s and 70s with a turning of many young people away from mainstream religion toward Eastern mysticism and New Age thinking. Since then there has been an explosion of interest in many alternative spiritual paths -- Transcendental Meditation, EST, the New Age movement, Buddhism, Meher Baba, Da Free John, Deepak Chopra, the Jesus movement, yoga, Aleister Crowley, Hare Krishna, Sathya Sai Baba, holistic healing, A Course In Miracles, Swami Muktananda, Marrianne Williamson, Ekhart Tolle, Gary Renard, and many others. Over the years, some of these groups have been labeled cults, but yet they offer something to their followers that they cannot find in mainstream religion.

Today we see evidence of rising world consciousness with respect to the environment (prohibitions against pollution, global warming, ozone depletion), energy (alternative energy sources and and resource depletion), race relations (the civil rights movement and laws against discrimination), poverty (free trade and rising living standards in Asia), health (wide acceptance of alternative healing, interest in organic foods, bans on cigarette smoking), education (greater access to higher education), animal rights (PETA, efforts to save endangered species, vegetarianism), and even politics (public disgust with partisan bickering). If we focus too much on violence and terrorism, we miss the bigger picture. It will take time before it is widely recognized that world consciousness is rising and a new earth is emerging, but there are signs already if you look with an open mind.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Setanta wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
The answer is that you are mistaking what is not yourself for your Self.

No, i am not.

It was a rhetorical "you". We are all mistaking our true identity to some degree. It is the human condition. Don't take it personally.

I understood that part, Bubba . . . apparently, you don't do irony. I've noticed, though, that irony usually escapes those with a goofy world view who take themselves entirely too seriously.

Quote:

Quote:
Nor am i willing to accept any of the simple-minded and circular "reasoning" which you are peddling.

That is because you are stuck in the conceptual mind. The discriminating intellect is necessary and useful for operating in the world. It cannot take you very far in the spiritual realm. Your original question was what does consciousness consist of? My answer is that consciousness must be experienced directly, in its pure form, to really understand it. If that answer is unacceptable to you, then you are free to debate about it, or believe what you will.

No, it was not my original question. It is, however, become a theme of the thread. I was already free to believe what i would, before you ever condescended to give me permission; or your idiosyncratic opinion, which constitutes nothing but ex cathedra statements, and for which you don't even provide a plausible basis to agree with you. You just peddle your propagandistic, and religiously founded, point of view, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I can often be convinced by plausible argument marshaled in support of a proposition, but you don't provide even that. On such a basis, i'll "leave it" every time.

0 Replies

I showed FeelFree's recondite rhetoric to my friend Joe Sixpack. After looking at it for a few minutes and turning it sideways and upside down, he said:

"is this what you mean by egocentric, esoteric and enigmatic erudition, neo?"

That Joe; a man of few words. . .

0 Replies

The porpoise of this thread might be floundering awash as it is on the rocks of a certain fishiness.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

The porpoise of this thread might be floundering awash as it is on the rocks of a certain fishiness.

It never did swim in the way I had hoped.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Setanta wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
The answer is that you are mistaking what is not yourself for your Self.

No, i am not.

It was a rhetorical "you". We are all mistaking our true identity to some degree. It is the human condition. Don't take it personally.

I understood that part, Bubba . . . apparently, you don't do irony. I've noticed, though, that irony usually escapes those with a goofy world view who take themselves entirely too seriously.

Quote:
Quote:
Nor am i willing to accept any of the simple-minded and circular "reasoning" which you are peddling.

That is because you are stuck in the conceptual mind. The discriminating intellect is necessary and useful for operating in the world. It cannot take you very far in the spiritual realm. Your original question was what does consciousness consist of? My answer is that consciousness must be experienced directly, in its pure form, to really understand it. If that answer is unacceptable to you, then you are free to debate about it, or believe what you will.

No, it was not my original question. It is, however, become a theme of the thread. I was already free to believe what i would, before you ever condescended to give me permission; or your idiosyncratic opinion, which constitutes nothing but ex cathedra statements, and for which you don't even provide a plausible basis to agree with you. You just peddle your propagandistic, and religiously founded, point of view, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I can often be convinced by plausible argument marshaled in support of a proposition, but you don't provide even that. On such a basis, i'll "leave it" every time.

If you are unwilling or unable to debate what is being said, you criticize the speaker? You are obviously intelligent, and I think you're capable of more than ad hominem attacks. If you believe what I say is propaganda or ego-centric nonsense, why not offer a counter-argument, or a brief explanation of why my comments are absurd?

I claim that my statements are based on my experience and not simply parroting of spiritual or religious dogma. Are you saying that isn't possible? Does it come down to this impasse: I say this is my experience and you say I'm not being honest? Or do you have deeper criticism? If so, I'd like to hear it.

0 Replies

Ifeelfree,

I have a great deal of sympathy for your thesis but we Western intellectuals tend to forget that in world terms transcendental practices are either the province of the (relatively) idle "rich". or of a cloistered group supported by donations from outside (as in the case of Buddhist monks). As you have said, the primary function of "religion" is tribal not "spiritual" even if that is the claim of its intellectual leaders in support of their social hierarchies. Much of humanity simply does not have the intellect or motivation to see through this and will never look beyond their local and parochial concerns for daily existence and traditional social acceptance. I therefore see your ultimate position....the evocation of the "sacred"....as an illusory attempt at closure of "the void", irrespective of the claims which both of us might make for the "quality" of transcendental experiences. Such quality lies in our ability to see the flaws in egotistical thinking and NOT in any alternative claim to "truth".

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

If you are unwilling or unable to debate what is being said, you criticize the speaker? You are obviously intelligent, and I think you're capable of more than ad hominem attacks. If you believe what I say is propaganda or ego-centric nonsense, why not offer a counter-argument, or a brief explanation of why my comments are absurd?

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Criticizing you for not recognizing irony when it is employed does not constitute argumentum ad hominem, because argumentum ad hominem means to dismiss someone's argument because of alleged character flaws or stupidity of the speaker, and not an objection to the argument. My objection to your argument was very clear--you provide no support for any of your claims, and a good deal of the drivel you posted about consciousness was replete with circularity. If you have nothing to offer but vague "touchy-feely" comments about consciousness to suggest that it exists independently of the physical body, for which you provide no substantiation, there is preciously little to debate--one simply need say: "not proven."

As for your haughty dismay at what one might refer to as my tone, i suggest to you that when you didactically dictate to others that they fail to comprehend you because they are blinded by flaws arising from ego, you can expect to get the same back in like kind. Neo's thread was not intended as a venue for your unfounded and rather silly assertions about ego and consciousness. Neither Neo nor i asked you for a definition of consciousness, your claim to that effect notwithstanding. It was your decision to muddy the waters of the thread with your personal, idiosyncratic and unfounded assertions about consciousness and ego, and you hardly have justification to complain if people essentially say: "No, that's crap, stop distracting the topic."

Quote:

I claim that my statements are based on my experience and not simply parroting of spiritual or religious dogma. Are you saying that isn't possible? Does it come down to this impasse: I say this is my experience and you say I'm not being honest? Or do you have deeper criticism? If so, I'd like to hear it.

My criticism is that no one's experiences are a valid basis for global statements--and yours were very sweeping; and even if not intended, had a definite air of condescending to explain weighty matters to the peasants. You did not present your remarks as opinions for discussion, rather you made positive assertions as though speaking from authority. There is no need of "deeper" criticisms: first, your experiences are meaningless as evidence of anything other than your ability to articulate thoughts if they cannot be replicated by others; second, your assertions are evidence not of your experiences, but of how you choose to interpret them and articulate them; third, you needn't be deceitful (although that is always of course possible) in that you might simply be deluded, and that accounts for why i mentioned religious doctrine; finally, as Fresco will be quick to explain, for however relatively "honest" your interpretation and explanation of "consciousness" and "ego" may be, they are conditioned and limited by the language with which you express them.

As for alternatives, nothing obliges me to provide you a working definition of consciousness if, when you spout yours, i say: "No, it's not." One good reason for me not to wish to do so, is that this thread is not about you and your personal, idiosyncratic notion of consciousness and ego--so why should i bother?

0 Replies

Set stole my answer...

"Can we restore the world?" implies that the world was once...umm..store.

0 Replies

A political or religious solution? thats an oxymoron. The problems we face today are a sort of price we pay for our technological and social advances. Nothing is free. That includes information and knowledge, secuirty and technology.

The only way we can evolve now, is individually. The governments and religions of the world must ceast to exist before we can grow politcally or "religously"(read as spiritually)

It will be easier to use a metaphor to explain my point, ill keep it simple.

If crime didnt exist what would cops be getting paid for?
What it means is that war is a way to keep things the way they are, terrorists think they are dying for god, for a "cause" (well im assuming ive never questioned a real one) religions only goal is to perpetuate itself so the people in control of it ,my guess is that osama doesnt even believe in god, but he is good at brainwashing, and he uses religion for political power, which in turn gets him more pleasure out of life at the expense of others, which means hes the "alpha male" so to speak..

The only way for the world to change is to get rid of politics and religion.
I would say thats my opinion, but im pretty sure its a fact, we just arent advanced enough to obtain the proper evidence.

Unless you count the ridiculous us war with middle easterners, or the mass religious killings, nazi death camps , the cambodian torture prisons, the spanish inquisition, the crusades, the american massacre of the native americans,the list goes on.

As long as one human being (no matter what "title" they use) has power over an individual or a group of individuals they will exploit it, if they know they will profit or if it ensures a better chance of survival themselves(i.e. people killing at the order of government, so they arent the ones who get killed , get what im saying) and they will always use some form of you vs me "division" race and religion seem to be the most popular, but financial status is 3rd on the list.

authority will be the demise of humanity, unless we can learn that we are all equal. When one person can force someone else to do something against their will, regardless of what it is, there will be conflict.

If there is conflict, it will either end in the submission of one person, or the domination of a person by another person.(yeah sorta redundant, but i can explain)a person can either surrender, or win by force.

Now when someone controls whether you live or die, you can hope they choose for you to live, or you can die, or you can fight to get control of your own life.

That means that you might have to kill that person to live yourself.

Some people call this "survival of the fittest", just because humans claim they are civilized doesnt mean that they wont redefine it at their convenience. We are still animals in every way we do things, its just we know more languages than other animals ( math, science, etc ..)

/endrantlollerblades

0 Replies

OGIONIK wrote:

. . . The governments and religions of the world must ceast to exist before we can grow politcally or "religously"(read as spiritually) . . .

Agreed.

But why? . . . How?

0 Replies

all we can do is adapt to our environment. as evolution has always done for us.

Basically, we can only do what we can as individuals and not rely on other people for moral guidance until the rest of the world catches up until we have evolved enough to escape our natural instincts.

Maybe some dramatic "enivironment" change could lead to a world where peace was superior to success thean violence and war.

what i mean by environment is sort of happening already, the internet is one of these environments. an environment of free knowledge exchange.

I doubt the internet will exist in its current state for long though, its to risky to let common people have uncommon knowledge.(thats what they say anyway

0 Replies

Interesting thoughts, OGIO. Are you postulating that, as a group, we should act as individuals? :wink:

I believe you are correct when you eschew religions and national borders. And I long for our individual freedoms.

I wonder if you could articulate more clearly what you believe should/would be involved in the change?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Set stole my answer...

"Can we restore the world?" implies that the world was once...umm..store.

I'm not sure i want to buy what that store is selling, either.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Ifeelfree,

I have a great deal of sympathy for your thesis but we Western intellectuals tend to forget that in world terms transcendental practices are either the province of the (relatively) idle "rich". or of a cloistered group supported by donations from outside (as in the case of Buddhist monks).

Nonsense. I've know many people such as myself who've lived in the world and held positions of responsibility, and yet, find the time to engage in self-transcending spiritual practice.

Quote:

As you have said, the primary function of "religion" is tribal not "spiritual" even if that is the claim of its intellectual leaders in support of their social hierarchies. Much of humanity simply does not have the intellect or motivation to see through this and will never look beyond their local and parochial concerns for daily existence and traditional social acceptance.

Unfortunately, that is largely true. To a large extent, mainstream religions offer belief systems which substitute for truth and only reinforce a sense of identity, or ego.

Quote:

I therefore see your ultimate position....the evocation of the "sacred"....as an illusory attempt at closure of "the void", irrespective of the claims which both of us might make for the "quality" of transcendental experiences. Such quality lies in our ability to see the flaws in egotistical thinking and NOT in any alternative claim to "truth".

"Seeing the flaws in egotistical thinking" is the beginning of spiritual understanding. You have to first see what is false. Once you see the ego, or your tendency to identify with form, it is begins to undermine the ego. For some people, the unwinding of the ego is a spontaneous process that results in the ego being dissolved -- a state of liberation. For most people, some type of spiritual practice is required in order get in touch with the inner Self, the state of pure consciousness that arises when thought subsides. This facilitates the undoing of the ego structure.

0 Replies

Ifeelfree,

I perhaps should have qualified the tern "idle rich" with the point that we Westerners per capita consume on average more than twenty five times the world's resources than the poorest nations and most of our citizens have the luxury of leisure time free from the worries of making ends meet.

We agree on the topic of "flaws" but there is a great gulf between what we can reject and what we can accept. This indeed is the essence of the "falsifiability principle" in science. Okay, we are beyond "science" here, but you are claiming that transcendental practices can have empirical social benefits. There is simply no evidence for this...in fact it could and has been argued that such practices have a negative effect on traditional social relationships like families because practitioners distance themselves from family attachments. And at the macro level, the "green lobby" may turn out to be an irrelevance in the scale of geophysical changes which this planet has undergone in the eons before humanity became a recent and perhaps short-lived resident.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...My objection to your argument was very clear--you provide no support for any of your claims, and a good deal of the drivel you posted about consciousness was replete with circularity. If you have nothing to offer but vague "touchy-feely" comments about consciousness to suggest that it exists independently of the physical body, for which you provide no substantiation, there is preciously little to debate--one simply need say: "not proven."

Nor am I trying to prove anything. I am simply trying to find the words to express my experience in the hopes that it might resonate with others, or that others may have had similar experiences. I do think that some of the ideas I express (and which I cannot claim authorship for) should be intellectually obvious -- the idea that the ego is the tendency to identify with form. It is a mis-perception of who you are. The ego is the tendency to identify with gender, possessions, the body, nationality, religion, profession, etc. That should be self-evident.

Where I think we may differ is whether it is possible to transcend ego identification. I'm not sure an intellectual argument would be of much value here. I can simply say that, in my experience and the experience of many others, it is possible to witness the breakdown of the ego structure (either in part, or completely) in which one's sense of identity shifts from identification with form to identification with an inner "wakefulness" or "spaciousness" or a blissful sense of freedom. It is difficult to find words here, so I am struggling a bit. The thinking process relaxes more. There is silence or space between thoughts. There is something indefinable and vast that forms the backdrop to experience.

Quote:

As for your haughty dismay at what one might refer to as my tone, i suggest to you that when you didactically dictate to others that they fail to comprehend you because they are blinded by flaws arising from ego, you can expect to get the same back in like kind. Neo's thread was not intended as a venue for your unfounded and rather silly assertions about ego and consciousness. Neither Neo nor i asked you for a definition of consciousness, your claim to that effect notwithstanding. It was your decision to muddy the waters of the thread with your personal, idiosyncratic and unfounded assertions about consciousness and ego, and you hardly have justification to complain if people essentially say: "No, that's crap, stop distracting the topic."

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some people think that I'm mad. Nevertheless, I'm using this forum as an opportunity to try to express my views in hopes that others may have had similar experiences. I also view it as an opportunity to try to develop my writing skills with respect to the subject of spirituality. (I don't often get a chance to write on it.) However, I do have to defend my choice of writing about consciousness on this thread since the topic is "Working Together: Can We Restore the World?". In order to restore the world, we have to restore ourselves, and that leads to the present discussion about the primordial error of ego. Until we can see our basic mis-perception of who we are, we cannot restore the world.

Quote:

My criticism is that no one's experiences are a valid basis for global statements--and yours were very sweeping; and even if not intended, had a definite air of condescending to explain weighty matters to the peasants.

To the contrary, experience and reason are the only basis we have for making any statements whatsoever. I didn't intend my statements to be condescending, but if they came across that way, I apologize.

Quote:

You did not present your remarks as opinions for discussion, rather you made positive assertions as though speaking from authority. There is no need of "deeper" criticisms: first, your experiences are meaningless as evidence of anything other than your ability to articulate thoughts if they cannot be replicated by others;

They can and have been replicated by others. What I am describing is the same spiritual awakening that has been experienced by countless others throughout history and is being experienced by many people today. All that is required is an openness to engage in self-transcending spiritual practice. For most people, meditation is a good start.

Quote:

second, your assertions are evidence not of your experiences, but of how you choose to interpret them and articulate them;

There is the limitation of language. We have to express our experiences and ideas as best we can. We are also limited by our own understanding.

Quote:

third, you needn't be deceitful (although that is always of course possible) in that you might simply be deluded, and that accounts for why i mentioned religious doctrine;

It is possible that I am deluded. However, I have found confirmation of my experiences in the spiritual literature. One reason for taking up a public discussion of this is to see if others have had comparable experiences or have a similar understanding.

Quote:

finally, as Fresco will be quick to explain, for however relatively "honest" your interpretation and explanation of "consciousness" and "ego" may be, they are conditioned and limited by the language with which you express them.

Language has its limitations. It is possible that I am not expressing this well, or that my words are being misunderstood.

Quote:

As for alternatives, nothing obliges me to provide you a working definition of consciousness if, when you spout yours, i say: "No, it's not." One good reason for me not to wish to do so, is that this thread is not about you and your personal, idiosyncratic notion of consciousness and ego--so why should i bother?

No, but this thread is about restoring the world. How do we restore the world without first restoring ourselves? How do we restore ourselves? In order to restore ourselves we must first consider who we are. It seems likely that the concepts or consciousness and ego are relevant. If my "notions" are wrong, please clarify.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

. . . I'm using this forum as an opportunity to try to express my views in hopes that others may have had similar experiences. I also view it as an opportunity to try to develop my writing skills with respect to the subject of spirituality. (I don't often get a chance to write on it.) However, I do have to defend my choice of writing about consciousness on this thread since the topic is "Working Together: Can We Restore the World?". In order to restore the world, we have to restore ourselves, and that leads to the present discussion about the primordial error of ego. Until we can see our basic mis-perception of who we are, we cannot restore the world.

In fact, there are already several threads on the subject of consciousness which you could have burdened with your mind-numbing assertions on that topic. There was one recently started, i believe on the same date that this thread was started. Now you assert "Until we can see our basic mis-perceptions about ourselves, we cannot restore the world."

What mis-perceptions? Upon what basis, other than an overweening ego on your part, do you assert that "we" misperceive ourselves? How do you assert that this would prevent us from ameliorating the living conditions on this planet? "Restore" the world to what? Do you assert that the world was once a haven of peace and plenty, but now no longer is? If so, upon what basis do you make such an assertion?

That's very sloppy work on your part, and almost all of it rests upon vaguely defined or undefined terms which you fling about (such as attempting to claim there is a distinction between self and Self) from which you have woven a set of unfounded assertions, as though from whole cloth.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Ifeelfree,

I perhaps should have qualified the tern "idle rich" with the point that we Westerners per capita consume on average more than twenty five times the world's resources than the poorest nations and most of our citizens have the luxury of leisure time free from the worries of making ends meet.

Thank you for your interesting post. You are quite correct about the relative consumption between developed and developing countries. However, to some extent that problem is being remedied by the tremendous wave of economic growth we are witnessing in Asia in recent years. Africa is still quite a problem, but I suspect that they will be the next recipients of the benefits of free trade and technology. It is true that some baseline economic standard of living must be achieved before one has the luxury of giving significant time and attention to spiritual matters. That is why we must strive for economic parity in the world. At present, we in the West are still benefiting from cheap goods made available by slave labor in the East. However, the rising middle class in China and India will ensure that wages and prices will tend to equalize over time. This does not bode well for Western standards of living in the short term, but that is another discussion.

Quote:

We agree on the topic of "flaws" but there is a great gulf between what we can reject and what we can accept. This indeed is the essence of the "falsifiability principle" in science. Okay, we are beyond "science" here, but you are claiming that transcendental practices can have empirical social benefits. There is simply no evidence for this...in fact it could and has been argued that such practices have a negative effect on traditional social relationships like families because practitioners distance themselves from family attachments. And at the macro level, the "green lobby" may turn out to be an irrelevance in the scale of geophysical changes which this planet has undergone in the eons before humanity became a recent and perhaps short-lived resident.

Some good points here. As Sam Harris points out in "The End of Faith", there are some very dire social consequences to blind religious faith. The question here is whether personal self-transcending practice, and spiritual awakening, have any positive psychological or social consequences. I think the claim to social benefits must rest on whether there are positive benefits to the individual. There has been some scientific research on the positive medical and psychological effects of meditation. Also, there is the claim by many individuals that their life has been improved by engaging in regular spiritual practice, or by the spontaneous awakening of a new state of awareness. As you point out, there is the possibility that a person engaged in spiritual practice may neglect their responsibilities, such as "distanc[ing] themselves from family attachments", but that has to be weighted against the alternative that a person may feel depressed and empty if they find that their worldly life is not fulfilling. (I assume that we are not talking here about an attachment to a cult in which a person abdicates their responsibilities in order to submit to exploitation by others.) In the end we have to assume that opening to spiritual truth is of benefit to the individual and society. We can see the obvious detriment to humanity when people live at the mercy of egoic mind patterns -- religious extremism, terrorism, intolerance, indifference to suffering, etc. - so that we have to find a better way to live. It could even be said that the developments of technology and weaponry threaten humanity's survival if a way is not found to live in a more harmonious fashion, based on a new consciousness. As for your comment about the "green lobby", I would argue that this is a sign of the arising new consciousness. Significant numbers of individuals are thinking in global terms, as opposed to just their immediate personal living concerns. As for geophysical changes, there is growing awareness of humanity's role in effecting on the environment, such as global warming, ozone depletion, natural resource depletion, etc., and a growing concern that we may be approaching the limits of population growth as evidenced by rising commodity prices, pollution, and resource scarcity. Peak oil production may limit economic expansion in the future. There is also the possibility that geophysical and climatic upheavals will be triggered as the old egoic patterns of humanity dissolve and we evolve toward a new consciousness.

0 Replies

Working Together: Can We Restore the World?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know