Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
TheNewIntellectual

Objectivism: "Closed" system

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Sorry, I made a mistake there. She was writing a book on ethics in 1943 ("The Moral Basis of Individualism"), which she abandoned because she thought her drafts were poorly written.

Everyone makes errors, but I really hope that you will cease spreading misinformation (or disinformation?) about Ayn Rand.

I challenge you to show the evidence for saying she abandoned her book on ethics because she thought "her drafts were poorly written." Are you sure it wasn't because she realized that she could not fully write about ethics without establishing the metaphysical and epistemological foundation for ethics first? That is what I would look into. And I would start with her journal writings.

In part, especially note the information that the editor of Journals of Ayn Rand provides in his introduction to Chapter 8, p. 243: "... she had concluded that 'it was useless to present a morality without a metaphysics and epistemology'." Another reason, recorded in her journal for May 4, 1946, was that she realized that fiction writing, at that time, truly was her primary interest and that she was bored with developing The Moral Basis of Individualism.

I dont have a copy of IOE here, so I'm not able to check this. But I do remember interpreting her as saying she was planning future work on epistemology.

Here is what she said: "These articles [in IOE, first edition, but originally appearing in The Objectivist, a periodical] may be regarded as a preview of my future book on Objectivism, and are offered here for the guidance of philosophy students." (p. 1, second edition)

Edited by BurgessLau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone makes errors, but I really hope that you will cease spreading misinformation (or disinformation?) about Ayn Rand.
This statement seems to imply that spreading misformation about Ayn Rand is something which I do often (or at least, is something I have done before). I see no basis for this claim.

I challenge you to show the evidence for saying she abandoned her book on ethics because she thought "her drafts were poorly written." Are you sure it wasn't because she realized that she could not fully write about ethics without establishing the metaphysical and epistemological foundation for ethics first? That is what I would look into. And I would start with her journal writings.

On page 271 of her journals, she described the Moral Basis draft in the following terms: "Bad in language -too journalistic and uncertain. Shaky. No unity of style, because no unity of method and approach". Apparently she planned to rewrite it, but never.

Since The Fountainhead, a heavily ethical work, had been written before 1943, it seems strange to claim she could not 'fully write about ethics' at this time due to not having developed a metaphysic and epistemology. I see no real difference between the ethics present in the Fountainhead, and the ethical theory presented later in essays such as Objectivist Ethics.

Edited by Hal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and this section concludes with AR saying (essentially) that she doesnt have an answer to the problem of induction. And since Peikoff has apparently devoted a significant amount of time to the issue, I think its fair to say that its still open.
The problem of induction is a scientific one, which is why it is outside the scope of ITOE. I don't see anywhere that Rand says that she doesn't have an answer to the "problem of induction". That's not the same as saying that she has given a full exemplification of of how Objectivist epistemology addresses questions about induction. I don't have the Peikoff tapes, but I understand that what he does is take the philosophical principles and apply them concretely. If and when you find a specific quote that indicates that Rand held that she did not have this aspect of philosophy sorted out, you can point to it. Just remember: the "problem of induction" isn't a problem, and an exemplification of its proper use is a historical study, not a philosophical one.
The essence of underdeterminism is the problems which arise when it comes to choosing between 2 theories which have the same observational consequences.
There are two versions of the idea "underdetermination", one where the facts at hand don't distinguish, and the other where no facts could ever distinguish. The latter is just metatheoretical silliness, and it is meaningless to talk about "choosing" between things which are identical in every relevant respect. I didn't assume you were talking about the question "which is the better notation". You do know why Rand had nothing to say about that, I assume.
AR discusses this when she talks about the history of the ether in physics; I dont have her exact words handy, but she says something like "you cannot offer ultimatums to nature. It is wrong to say that if the outcome of this experiment is A, then ether exists, and if the outcome is B, then it doesnt".
Specifically (with some emphasis added): "They predicted something with an artificial absolute or ultimatum delivered to nature—if light bends in a certain way (or something on that order), then it proves that space is a vacuum. It certainly does not, and I am no physicist, I am just an epistemologist. You cannot arbitrarily restrict the facts of nature to your current level of knowledge. In other words, you cannot take the context of your knowledge, as if reality were confined only to that which you know, and deliver ultimatums, saying, 'If my hypothesis predicts correctly, then it is only my hypothesis that can be true.'".
But this provokes the question; how then DOES one decide whether the ether (or anything else) exists, if no single experiment is sufficient to rule one way or the other? And this is essentially the problem of underdeterminism.
Supposing that you don't know how to distinguish between the ether theory and the vacuum theory, the answer is to expand your knowledge until you can find a way to distinguish between the theories. I think you didn't understand Rand's point.
I think we're veering offtopic though, my intention wasnt to discuss specific phil of science issues in this thread, simply to say that some important questions were left open by IOE. And I'm not even sure if the appendix should properly be considered as "Objectivism", since it was edited by others and AR didnt approve the published version.
If you don't feel competent to provide a specific example of how Objectivism is incomplete in the realm of epistemology, then you can withdraw your claim if you now see that it was mistaken. The topic is what is incomplete in Rand's philosophy. Either you meant it, or you didn't. BTW, we've been discussing Rand's words from the appendix, not her interlocutors' questions -- I don't have any idea whether she approved of the questions, or what that would mean. There's no question of approving Rand's own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and this section concludes with AR saying (essentially) that she doesnt have an answer to the problem of induction. And since Peikoff has apparently devoted a significant amount of time to the issue, I think its fair to say that its still open.
What do you mean by saying induction is still "open"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With regard to your first point, I'm definitely on the same page. What always got me was that many of the "miss Rand says" comments seemed to carry a connotation of "this is all the explanation you need."

Most often the person pointing you to a quote means "here I'm reminding you of the argument that Ayn Rand used to explain this issue, which, since you're discussing it, I'm assuming you've already read, so we can use it for context." She was a genius, especially at explaining her philosophy, which is the way that pretty much every Objectivist learned it; by reading what she wrote. A lot of us on the forum understand much better than we articulate, so we rely on her to speak for her ideas. There are not that many core books involved, either, so it behooves discussees to educate themselves rather than demanding the forum members exhaust themselves reiterating that which is already presented better elsewhere.

This is also why if you demonstrate that you don't know what Ayn Rand's argument was people will just point you to the books over and over and over again rather than trying to explain it all. Most of us don't even approach Ayn Rand's philosophic capability. (I know I don't.) Not to mention her tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that pretty much word for word what Burgess said? :lol:
Oh, man! I completely misread what Burgess said. I thought he was refering to NewIntellectual. Completely disregard my comment. Normally, I would say it was because I was tired, but it wasn't even late. :huh:

Thanks for clearing that up.

Zak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMeganSnow,

I mean to indicate that one shouldn't adhere exclusively to a closed system. To adhere partially to Objectivism and determine through reason all other truths yourself sounds like a pretty good idea. However, I notice you failed to mention anything about discovering potential falsehoods of Objectivism and dismissing them.

I personally had trouble at first with the "no instincts" thing. I couldn't wrap my head around it and I didn't believe either side until after a lot of reading and talking about it with my friends. I figured out that Ayn Rand/Peikoff (can't remember who said it specifically) was right; men do not have instincts (I hadn't properly defined what instincts were and once I realised what they were it became clear).

I know a lot (if not all) objectivist struggle with many points in the philosophy, but once you've accepted the fundamentals, everything else follows (this is why it is a closed system--any deviation is the philosophy of death). The trick is just understanding how the system works and why higher level concepts do follow from the axioms.

Edited by Michero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I, on the other hand, think that the description "Objectivist" describes a person who accepts the philosophy Objectivism (a similar relationship holds between "communist" and "communism", "realist" and "realism", and so on). Being an Objectivist doesn't mean being infallible, so having a personal weakness that results in you doing something that you should not do does not reduce you to the level of scum. Your philosophy causes your actions, and not the other way around: it is perfectly just to judge a person's philosophy based on their actions, but there is this context problem that occasionally makes such judgements be in error. Consider Francisco d'Anconia, for example.

I figure I left plenty of room for infallibility with "make their most concerted attempt." Simply because we as humans are not perfect does not mean that we ought not try to be. Also, it would sound as though you are suggesting that anyone who is not an Objectivist is equal to scum. I don't recall making any such connections.

I think we are both basically referring to the same idea, that philosophy ought to dictate actions. I'm saying that if you agree with the tenets of Objectivism, but act like a Commie, I doubt it would be accurate to call yourself an Objectivist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a Note: The Wiki system, while normally excellent, is liable to vandalism and misrepresentation.

That last sentence (...does not contain some philosophical truths...) just seems to be a short smear job by some random coward. I would be interested to know what truths or "truths" they are talking about, in the name of constructive debate.

For your information, I was the one who added the following passage to the Wiki. It is not a smear; it is the truth; and I stand by it. And I resent that you called me a coward.

Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter). The statements in this Wiki are not authoritative nor definitional of Objectivism.

There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism. And you should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.

http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.ph..._is_Objectivism

This is in the nature of a disclaimer to clarify the relationship of the Wiki to Objectivism. Now I will explain where I got these parts.

It seems to me that the idea of an Objectivist Wiki is self-contradictory.

People keep telling me that Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter).

But a Wiki is supposed to consist of writings by many people. And clearly, in this case, Ayn Rand is not around to give her approval (or disapproval) of them.

A "Wiki" is a particular means of structuring, posting and updating information. It isn't inherent in the Wiki concept that many people must create it. In addition, your implication that Rand's approval is required is wrong -- if that were so, nobody could legitimately discuss Objectivism because Rand has not approved our discussion. All you need to understand is that the statements in the Wiki are not necessarily authoritative and definitional of Objectivism. Though in fact I don't see anything that's wrong in the Wiki.

The first paragraph of my addition to the Wiki is extracted from these two messages in the other thread.

It is understood that Objectivism is limited to the philosophic principles expounded by Ayn Rand in the writings published during her lifetime plus those articles by other authors that she published in her own periodicals (e.g., The Objectivist) or included in her anthologies. Applications, implications, developments, and extensions of Objectivism--though they are to be encouraged and will be discussed on my list--are not, even if entirely valid, part of Objectivism. (Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications.)

http://hblist.com/policies.htm

My first paragraph and the first sentence of my second paragraph are equivalent to this statement by Harry Binswanger.

My last sentence ("And you should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.") follows from the Objectivist principle that one should not take anything on faith. It would be wrong to make Objectivism into a religion and take those writings as scripture which reveals an intrinsic truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For your information, I was the one who added the following passage to the Wiki.

...

My first paragraph and the first sentence of my second paragraph are equivalent to this statement by Harry Binswanger.

That is a very skillful application of argumentum ad verecundiam. Do you accept the statement "There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism" on faith, or do you adhere to the position "that one should not take anything on faith"? If the former, you should point to the proof that this is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications.

There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism. And you should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.

That is a very skillful application of argumentum ad verecundiam.

I am pleased that you appreciate my skill at committing the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority. Not many authorities are as impressive as the chairman of the Ayn Rand Institutes's board and author of the "Ayn Rand Lexicon".

Do you accept the statement "There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism" on faith, or do you adhere to the position "that one should not take anything on faith"? If the former (sic), you should point to the proof that this is true.
Of course, one should not take anything on faith. Nor should one accept the word of any authority as irrefutable evidence of a fact.

I give a proof in the form of an example of a philosophical truth which is not part of Objectivism. It was discovered by Leonard Peikoff in 1989.

In my judgment, Kelley's paper is a repudiation of the fundamental principles of Objectivism. His statements make clear to me, in purely philosophic terms and for the first time, the root cause of the many schisms that have plagued the Objectivist movement since 1968. The cause goes to the essentials of what Objectivism is.

.....

Up to now, I could explain these attacks only psychologically, in terms of the attackers' cowardice or psychopathology. But now I understand the basic cause; I see the attacks' philosophic meaning. In the minds of the "tolerance"-people, there are only two possibilities in regard to moral judgment: moralizing or emotionalism, dogma or whim, i.e., intrinsicism or subjectivism.

Such people literally have no concept of "objectivity" in regard to values.

.....

THIS, I FINALLY SEE, is the cause of all the schisms which have plagued the Objectivist movement through the years, from the Brandens in 1968 on through David Kelley, and which will continue to do so for many years to come.

.....

The cause is fundamental and philosophical: if you grasp and accept the concept of "objectivity," in all its implications, then you accept Objectivism, you live by it and you revere Ayn Rand for defining it. If you fail fully to grasp and accept the concept, whether your failure is deliberate or otherwise, you eventually drift away from Ayn Rand's orbit, or rewrite her viewpoint or turn openly into her enemy.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...objectivism_f-v

This is a philosophical truth which was not incorporated into Objectivism. If Ayn Rand had incorporated the fact that failing understanding objectivity is cause of the schisms in Objectivism into her philosophical writings, then surely Leonard Peikoff would have already been aware of it and would not have had to discover it for himself after her death.

If you disagree with this, then the burden is on you to disprove one of the following:

1. This idea is philosophical in nature.

2. This idea is true.

3. This idea is not in the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I give a proof in the form of an example of a philosophical truth which is not part of Objectivism. It was discovered by Leonard Peikoff in 1989.

...

This is a philosophical truth which was not incorporated into Objectivism.

Before I proceed, would you care to identify the philosophical truth which you are referring to? Please don't just regurgitate Fact and Value -- summarize the philosophical truth that you're referring to (you may quote or paraphrase, as you chose) in one sentence. For example, it is not a "philosophical truth" that Leonard Peikoff could previously "explain these attacks only psychologically". It is no doubt true, but it is simply a statement of epiphany, his realising what causes a particular corruption. Many people read Rand's writings and find a significant statement that is already there, which they either had forgotten or did not fully understand the significance of. I had one of those epiphanies about a month ago, regarding philosophical vs. scientific statements (referring to the appendix in ITOE). While I certainly don't expect Leonard Peikoff to have such epiphanies on a regular basis, I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow him to grasp a nuance of Objectivism or to find a specific application of Objectivism to a particular problem.

In fact, the crux of F&V is that David Kelley has rejected Objectivism, which is not a philosophical truth, it is a historical fact. Peikoff's statement that 'In the minds of the "tolerance"-people, there are only two possibilities in regard to moral judgment: moralizing or emotionalism, dogma or whim, i.e., intrinsicism or subjectivism.' refers to the perversion of Objectivism perpetrated by Kelley and his ilk, which obviously is not a general philosophical matter, it is the application of a philosophical matter to a specific case. The underlying philosophical issues are well identified by Rand: see "The Conflicts of Men's Interests", "The Cult of Moral Grayness" and "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society". It is true that "Objectivism holds that value is objective" and "value is based on and derives from the facts of reality"; are you purporting that this fact was unknown or unmentioned by Ayn Rand? I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'd prefer that you carefully select the words that you may have to eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is The Ayn Rand Institute justified in their opposititon toward David Kelley and The Atlas Society, or is toleration and openess to other ideas and philosophies, which is what The Atlas Society advocates, the proper and correct way to go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is The Ayn Rand Institute justified in their opposititon toward David Kelley and The Atlas Society, or is toleration and openess to other ideas and philosophies, which is what The Atlas Society advocates, the proper and correct way to go?

Let's just set it out in clear terms:

1> Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She already created it. She's dead. So, in that sense Objectivism is a "closed system".

2> Don't get confused with what Objectivism is versus the way you should think. As a thinker you should always be fact oriented and when you find better ideas, or ideas that will add to your philosophy, you should of course add them. However, any new addition to Objectivism would not be Ayn Rand's work, it would be yours and thus it would not be part of Objectivism, even if it logically integrated with it. This is also true for Aristotelianism, or any system.

3> Regarding "toleration and openness" to other ideas and philosophies, "toleration" is a non-essential. There are ideas which one should be tolerant of, those grounded in reason, and there are ideas one should be intolerant of, those grounded in faith or subjectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is The Ayn Rand Institute justified in their opposititon toward David Kelley and The Atlas Society, or is toleration and openess to other ideas and philosophies, which is what The Atlas Society advocates, the proper and correct way to go?

Your sentence structure confuses me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is The Ayn Rand Institute justified in their opposititon toward David Kelley and The Atlas Society, or is toleration and openess to other ideas and philosophies, which is what The Atlas Society advocates, the proper and correct way to go?
It is false to misrepresent Objectivism, claiming that it's something that it isn't. Similarly, it's wrong to represent an elephant as a scaly green reptile with a pointy snout and dangerous teeth -- that's an alligator, not an elephant. In addition, it is immoral and improper to tolerate or be open to an idea which you know to be false.

One point that does confuse many people is the nature of toleration versus opposition. I oppose Platonism, but I have to deal with a large number of Platonists in my line of work. I could then spend all of my time screaming irrationally at the Platonists, but that would be silly. That doesn't mean that I tolerate the Platonists, it just means that I have to measure my opposition to Platonism so that I can achieve my long-term goals which are not primarily the obliteration of Platonism.

The idea of being "open" to an idea is also based on an epistemological error. The foundation of "openness" is granting the arbitrary the provisional status of "proven", but that is not how man gains knowledge. Man gains knowledge by integration of the perceptually axiomatic; so what fact is it that makes this new idea something worth considering? I would say that if you are aware of some fact that justifies giving consideration to an idea, and you aren't also aware of a conrary indication that the idea is plainly false, then it's reasonable to continue to consider the idea. That I think is the proper degree of "openness" that a person should have. You must have a prior reason to pay attention to the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's helpful to remember that Objectivism is the intellectual property of a small group of people centered around its originator, Ayn Rand. Compare it to the different branches of communism: Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism and so on. While one can certainly disagree with parts of a philosophy and start a new branch, one cannot hold that Mao was wrong about central points of his philosophy and still be a Maoist. Objectivism, too, is proprietary and fixed, and is, with the exception that certain people have been authorised to clarify it, an immutable value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example--the pro-abortion Catholics. How can they be Catholics if they don't agree with the pope? There's a definition problem here. Of course there's going through the rituals every Sunday and getting the free snack as opposed to agreeing with the dogma so I suppose I can understand this one if I try hard enough.

I think a lot of this stems from the fact that there are people who are either *almost* in agreement with Objectivism, or have consciously decided to either exend or amend it to come up with a new philosophy. Stricly speaking, of course, none of this is Objectivist. Some of it might be Objectivish, some of it may be really, fatally flawed. But what we don't have is a term, a bucket, for these variations--so people try to use "Objectivist" to mean "any philosophy with a resemblance to, or derived from, or a perversion of, the philosophy of Ayn Rand"

Adding to the mix is making sure that it's clear you do not have to adopt Rand's optional values, or agree with her errors of knowlege, to be an Objectivst. (That requires discriminating between an error on a principle and an error of knowlege.)

We need new terms for some of these categories, frankly. I've occasionally seen "Randian" used for those somewhat close to Objectivism but that to me seems an inversion. Surely "Randian" sounds *more*, not less, specific than "Objectivist". Since we can't swap the two terms, I would say not to use "Randian". I tend to use "Objectivish" (small differences, correctable with some thought) and "pseudo-Objectivist" (for Brandenism/Kelleyism and the like--fraudulent mis-interpretations posing as Objectivism). If someone is not an Objectivist, makes major deviations from it, *but is honest about it not being Objectivist*, that's another category (no name yet). And anyone who makes a consistent *extension* of Objectivism (e.g., the DIM hypothesis, broken units)--that's something else too, and I don't have a name for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need new terms for some of these categories, frankly.
Depending on the person's beliefs, a lot of such terms already exist -- "libertarian", "conservative", "hedonist". People who don't accept Objectivism can fall into a really wide range of camps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because those terms also subsume philosophies (or "philosophies") which did not derive from Objectivism in some form or another.

You categories are analogous to Linnaean classification in biology, but I am thinking cladistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, because those terms also subsume philosophies (or "philosophies") which did not derive from Objectivism in some form or another.
True, but should we care? If one were doing a history of philosophy type of study, where recapitulation of history is the purpose, then of course we would want to distinguish libertarians drifted from Objectivist versus libertarians who drifted from socialism. As a way of identifying a person's ideas, I don't see that it matters how they got there, just what they actually are. The question then is, what do we need these new terms for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the libertarian drifted from Objectivist (LDFO) is going to hold the same philosophy as the drifted socialist (LDFS). It makes a difference how they "got there", because they are not at the same "there." LIbertarianism is a grab bag, which is the problem with it.

The LDFO is a very different libertarian from the LDFS. I used to be an LDFO, and the damned LDFSs with their wide anti-American streak and more-than-occasional lack of a clue about laissez faire economics and rights drove me up a tree. I eventually figured out what the problem was. Since an LDFO does have a lot in common with an Objectivist, you *may* be able to convince him of the error of his ways *by reference to Objectivism* (although as often as not it will also take a specific concrete occurence to truly make it clear to him)--with the LDFS you have to dig deeper, he does not share *any* of your premises.

We are perfectly willing to identify "rationalists" as almost-Objectivists with a specific malfunction. Likewise I see people refer to "Kelleyites", etc. Why not come up with a term that encompasses all of these variations so we don't have to talk around it all the time and come up with laundry lists? And I am suggesting multiple terms if only because the *degree* and *type* of deviation matters. It makes a big difference whether someone *added* something *consistent with Objectivism* to their philosophy versus adding something *inconsistent* with Objectivism, versus deciding that wholesale, parts could be eliminated. (Are you listening David Kelley?) That latter becomes particularly odious when the practitioner decides that what he has left is nevertheless still Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New member here. Just read the long and interesting exchange on the original question. It seems that Megan answered it succinctly and accurately first shot into the barrel.

The body of work that might be called Randian Objectivism is indeed closed because of the death of Ayn Rand. Whether additions to this body by contributors approved by her before her death can be considered Randian Objectivism is, I suppose, a fit subject for scholastic debate.

I have always considered Objectivism a thought process rather than a body of work. As such, it may be applied to any and all situations in the course of one's life. Most decisions do not require a sorting through one's mental catalog for validation. Some might require a pause for reflection. Occasionally, a moral or ethical dilemma might send one to the books for review and reflection.

My introduction to Objectivism was over 45 years ago. I was an intense student for about 20 years. I haven't studied the works of Ayn Rand much since then until recently. I consider myself an Objectivist without any concern whether I'm Randian, Brandenian, Orthodox, or Reform.

It's the thought that counts. ES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need new terms for some of these categories, frankly.

I sometimes describe myself simply as a "rational egoist". Certainly, it's a somewhat general term, but if a more specific explanation is needed, I can give one anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×