Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Jacob86
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jacob86-- Maybe this will go more smoothly if you explicitly state how you believe the Law of Non-Contradiction is acquired by a person? Since you seem to reject that a person implicitly learns about it by directly perceiving reality as a child and then sometimes understands it more explicitly as he gains more knowledge (of philosophy, etc.) learning how you believe the process develops will help us.

EC, I have stated repeatedly that I in fact AGREE with your above description concerning how a person acquires/ learns LNC, etc...

I don't care about how we as subjects DISCOVER ideas. I am talking about how those ideas are validated- known to be true. There is a huge difference between how one first learns something and how one knows that his ideas represent objective knowledge rather than error/imagination/etc...

Concerning discovery/learning/acquiring, I completely agree that we start with perception.

Concerning validation/truth criteria/distinguishing truth from falsehood, however, we disagree.

One may (and in fact does) discover logic through perception.

However, one cannot validate the universal application of logic (an idea about the unperceived) by perception alone.

I don't know how to make the difference any more clear.

To make it more "explicit" as you requested, I am addressing the following crucial question:

"On what ground/basis does one hold that Logic is universally valid- rather than a mere pragmatic tool/imagined fantasy/ gross error/ etc...?"

My Answer is: "On the ground/basis that it can't not be true. It is a necessary condition in any possible world. It is a necessary condition for anything to be true- and if there is a necessary condition for anything to be true, then that condition is necessarily true." Or, to put it more simply, "It's contrary is impossible".

The Objectivist Answer is: "On the ground/basis that we have perceived no reason to doubt it"

I am taking issue with the Objectivist answer because it does not adequately defend against the objections I have raised in this thread- and therefore does not adequately provide sufficient reason to believe that Logic is universally valid for serious thinkers who will attempt to be consistent with Objectivist Epistemology.

If* the ONLY reason one has to believe that contradiction do not exist is "I've never perceived any", then their belief that contradictions do not exist has no epistemological grounding to support itself- it is nothing more than a subjective belief.

*I did my best to make the "If" stand out so that I could make it abundantly clear that the GREEN is not MY position, but rather the logical conclusion to the position stated in BLUE.

I know that "IF/then" statements can be confusing, so I did some color-coding to help.

Edited by Jacob86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. He said that IF the Oist Doctrine was true, then logic can't be applied to the unperceived.

It's called "Reductio Ad Absurdum". He's assuming the objectivist doctrine that perception is the only source of knowledge and being consistent with it by applying it to something that most Objectivists would never think to apply it to: axioms- particularly Identity or "Logic".

It seems like he made that clear in the original post.

But, why not just ask him directly if you are unsure about what he has meant?

Oh okay sorry then, that argument wouldn't work, or it would have to be modified in order to work. But we do apply it to the axioms and to the laws of logic, as we have been trying to tell you. We even tried to tell you how things unperceived are related back to perceptial-awareness in order to gain knowledge about them. But I do agree with EC earlier on when he said there are only a few ways left in which you can claim to derive the laws of logic, one which would be innate concepts (which Locke disproved) or just mystically. In that case my argument can be reformulated as follows:

I had a mystical revelation that told me that the laws of logic are derived from experience as the whole Aristotelian-Thomist tradition says (it's not just Rand who claims this.) I don't know if you claim that is how your understanding of logic is derived, but if so it presents a problem, as both A and non-A can be claimed to be true if revelation is the standard of judgment.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From OPAR on Page 8!

Being implicit from the beginning, existence, consciousness, and identity are outside the province of proof. Proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge, and nothing is antecedent to axioms. Axioms are the starting points of cognition, on which all proofs depend.

One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception. When one perceives a tomato, for example, there is no evidence that it exists, beyond the fact that one perceives it; and there is no evidence that one is aware, beyond the fact that one is perceiving it. Axioms are perceptual self-evidencies. There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: look at reality.

What is true of tomatoes applies equally to oranges, buildings, people, music, and stars. What philosophy does is to give an abstract statement of such self-evident facts. Philosophy states these facts in universal form. Whatever exists, exists. Whatever exists is what it is. In whatever form one is aware, one is aware.

The above is the validation of the Objectivist axioms. "Validation" I take to be a broader term than "proof," one that subsumes any process of establishing an idea's relationship to reality, whether deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, or perceptual self-evidence. In this sense, one can and must validate every item of knowledge, including axioms. The validation of axioms, however, is the simplest of all: sense perception.

I've argued all of this previously in my own words and was going to just state the last part: The axioms are completely validated by sense perception. But I wanted to make 100% sure that this wouldn't be misconstrued as just my own statement. There is no other validation like what you are searching for and if you understand the above text, it directly states that the axioms hold under all circumstances. You are looking for some other "validation", but it does not exist.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh okay sorry then, that argument wouldn't work, or it would have to be modified in order to work. But we do apply it to the axioms and to the laws of logic, as we have been trying to tell you. We even tried to tell you how things unperceived are related back to perceptial-awareness in order to gain knowledge about them.

Yup, and I have argued that there is no justification (within your epistemological guidelines) to claim to know anything about the unperceived. That's what the discussion is about. Obviously you say you can and I say you can't (again-- WITHIN THE OIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL GUIDELINES), and now we have to back up our claims with discussion and explanation.

My objection against your position is that you can't perceive the universal applicability of the axioms and therefore either A) you can't know that the axioms are true or B) perception is not the only source of knowledge.

Your objection to my position is as follows:

But I do agree with EC earlier on when he said there are only a few ways left in which you can claim to derive the laws of logic, one which would be innate concepts (which Locke disproved) or just mystically. In that case my argument can be reformulated as follows:

I had a mystical revelation that told me that the laws of logic are derived from experience as the whole Aristotelian-Thomist tradition says (it's not just Rand who claims this.) I don't know if you claim that is how your understanding of logic is derived, but if so it presents a problem, as both A and non-A can be claimed to be true if revelation is the standard of judgment.

You think that the only alternative to perception is mysticism/innate ideas. However, I reject both and hold that the other source of knowledge is logical necessity (necessary truths)-- like "A is A", "Existence exists", "There is objective truth", etc...

This is not mysticism. It is also not innate ideas: it can easily be mistaken for innate ideas, though. I agree with Objectivists that we as subjects do not automatically know the axioms (or anything else), but rather we discover/learn via concept formation, etc... But perception only gives us the occasion to contemplate logical connections. Perception does not give us any information about the unperceived. It reveals instances of non-contradiction, but it (alone) does not give us any justified reason to believe that contradictions do not exist among the unperceived. We must appeal to something besides perception in order to know this- and that something besides is logical necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perception does not give us any information about the unperceived. It reveals instances of non-contradiction, but it (alone) does not give us any justified reason to believe that contradictions do not exist among the unperceived. We must appeal to something besides perception in order to know this- and that something besides is logical necessity.

Are you familiar with contextual knowledge in the Objectivist sense? Also, I really don't think you've understood really what is meant by reducing a concept. So of course, it would certainly seem that unless you literally SEE something, we can only use probability and never certainty. Bottom line, if something cannot be perceived (or reduced to something perceptual), then speculating about the unperceived is arbitrary. I am certain that the disagreement/problem comes from precisely refusing to consider that an idea could be arbitrary. There will be a dead end and continue to be a dead end. So unless you can explain, in your own words, how to reduce a concept (even if perhaps you disagree on method), you'll keep going in circles in discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking directly perceived existence as identity, and using consciousness the means of identification, - what facts of reality give rise to the concept of "contradiction"?

Perception does not give us any information about the unperceived. It reveals instances of non-contradiction, but it (alone) does not give us any justified reason to believe that contradictions do not exist among the unperceived. We must appeal to something besides perception in order to know this- and that something besides is logical necessity.

We must appeal to something besides perception in order to know this? Like what? Reason perhaps?

Why does the following passage come to mind here from pg 269 of OPAR: "In regard to motive, intellectual honesty means seeking knowledge because one needs it to act properly. Such a person intends to practice any idea he accepts as true. The alternative is the pretense of a hypocrite, who fakes an interest in ideas as a form of role-playing, usually for the purpose of impressing others."

Even the concept of contradiction requires an understanding of where they arise. A contradiction only exists as a refusal to accept that [O]ur propositions have a relationship between the words used to express them, and the data of sense from which the concepts were derived. A contradiction is admission of an error of knowledge, A contradiction is an indicator that the method used to conceptualize ones grasp of reality has erred. It is an epistemological, not a metaphysical term. If you are wondering how you know that contradictions cannot exist metaphysically, perhaps you are applying the test of validity to the wrong realm.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob said:

"Or, to put it more simply, "It's contrary is impossible"."

I once said to you " because it would make what I have seen impossible to have been seen". (paraphrased) http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20028&view=findpost&p=266485

I know the axioms are valid because of what I have seen and what is implicit in those perceptions. The axioms are implicit in every possible perception.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, and I have argued that there is no justification (within your epistemological guidelines) to claim to know anything about the unperceived. That's what the discussion is about. Obviously you say you can and I say you can't (again-- WITHIN THE OIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL GUIDELINES), and now we have to back up our claims with discussion and explanation.

My objection against your position is that you can't perceive the universal applicability of the axioms and therefore either A) you can't know that the axioms are true or B) perception is not the only source of knowledge.

Your objection to my position is as fo'llows:

You think that the only alternative to perception is mysticism/innate ideas. However, I reject both and hold that the other source of knowledge is logical necessity (necessary truths)-- like "A is A", "Existence exists", "There is objective truth", etc...

This is not mysticism. It is also not innate ideas: it can easily be mistaken for innate ideas, though. I agree with Objectivists that we as subjects do not automatically know the axioms (or anything else), but rather we discover/learn via concept formation, etc... But perception only gives us the occasion to contemplate logical connections. Perception does not give us any information about the unperceived. It reveals instances of non-contradiction, but it (alone) does not give us any justified reason to believe that contradictions do not exist among the unperceived. We must appeal to something besides perception in order to know this- and that something besides is logical necessity.

Jacob what do you mean by "source"? Because for Oist perception is the foundation(source) of knowledge. The reason I posted the paper earlier it to reiterate what Ive been saying from the beginning. Its a relationship between subject AND object,perception as a foundation AND abstraction from perception. Consciousness is an AXIOM for a reason.

Isnt this whole thing a strawman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible for a concept to evolve through the same mechanism that evolves instincts. Non-contradiction could be such a concept. The human mind has the capability, unlearned and innate, to differentiate objects, identify similarities and differences and logically assign existents to higher abstract concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible for a concept to evolve through the same mechanism that evolves instincts. Non-contradiction could be such a concept.

Even if this were the case, as John Locke pointed out, it would not follow that we should believe the law of non-contradiction is true (simply because it was innate or evolved automatically like an instinct) unless and until we validated it volitionally though tying it to sense-perception.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if this were the case, as John Locke pointed out, it would not follow that we should believe the law of non-contradiction is true (simply because it was innate or evolved automatically like an instinct) unless and until we validated it volitionally though tying it to sense-perception.

I agree. The point is that non-contradiction is given to us implicitly by our rational faculty, then recognized and validated by perception and logical integration. That is, by non-contradiction with the perceived facts of reality.

A blank slate is a blank slate, but it is still a slate.

Jacob86 is arguing that we should also validate non-contradiction by the non-perceived facts of reality. But that follows only if the concept is gained entirely from perception, as the premise he is trying to contradict stipulates. I believe he makes a valid case, and it supports the notion that non-contradiction, along with existence and self-awareness (consciousness) are given to us implicitly in our rational faculty. It and they evolved over millions of years through the process of natural selection based on the physical non-contradiction of the behavior of organisms with the facts of reality.

Edited by agrippa1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I think I get you now. Yeah but no one ever said that any concepts are gained entirely by perception alone, even though I think he even tried to make an equation to the effect of "Perception+Nothing=Concepts" (that this is somehow what Rand believes) and we've been through this point already, that the account Rand presents is a psychological abstractionist account, that the nature of consciousness functions as a kind of "integrating mechanism" in organizing perceptual awareness into concepts. I am still confused as to what he is actually saying is wrong with this, other than he keeps saying that this means you can't know anything about the unperceived, even though we went through that too like in page 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think that the only alternative to perception is mysticism/innate ideas. However, I reject both and hold that the other source of knowledge is logical necessity (necessary truths)-- like "A is A", "Existence exists", "There is objective truth", etc...

Hmm. Maybe I misjudged you at first. This makes me think that you simply hold the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

Take two statements.

A: Ice is solid water.

B: Ice floats on water.

Do you believe that A is a necessary truth, and that B is only a coincidentally true observation? In other words: Do you believe that A will always be true universally? Can you never be sure that unobserved instances of B will be true?

If so, you have accepted the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. You're working with a theory of concepts where the meaning of a concept is its definition. You think A is universally true because it's true by definition, and B is always uncertain because it only happens to be true by the observation of the moment. The reason A is certain is because being solid water is in the definition of "ice". The reason B is uncertain is because floating on water isn't in the definition of "ice".

If so, the cure is Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, where the meaning of a concept is its referents. When the meaning of a concept is what it refers to, then being solid water and floating on water are both necessary properties of "ice", and you can be absolutely certain that all instances of "ice" will both be solid water and will float on water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we do apply it to the axioms and to the laws of logic, as we have been trying to tell you. We even tried to tell you how things unperceived are related back to perceptial-awareness in order to gain knowledge about them.

I know. And my response has been to argue that you "cheating" (not that you are meaning to, but you are). The "cheat" is that you are not sticking strictly to what you have gotten from perception. If you stick only to what you have perceived, then you cannot know anything which you have not perceived. If you know something that you have not perceived, then there is at least one more way to know something then perception alone.

But I do agree with EC earlier on when he said there are only a few ways left in which you can claim to derive the laws of logic, one which would be innate concepts (which Locke disproved) or just mystically. In that case my argument can be reformulated as follows:

I had a mystical revelation that told me that the laws of logic are derived from experience as the whole Aristotelian-Thomist tradition says (it's not just Rand who claims this.) I don't know if you claim that is how your understanding of logic is derived, but if so it presents a problem, as both A and non-A can be claimed to be true if revelation is the standard of judgment.

I understand that the only 2 alternatives that YOU can conceive of are "innate ideas & mysticism", but I am suggesting a third-- and rejecting both of the former along with you.

The one I am suggesting is simply "reason" or "logic". I don't know that "A is A" universally by perception alone. I don't know it by some innate ideas or by some mystical revelation. I know that "A is A" universally because the contrary is impossible- I have reasoned and realized that it is impossible and that therefore the contrary is necessarily true.

I know the reason that Objectivists have somewhat of an allergic reaction to this type of thinking is because it reminds them of rationalism-- but I would encourage Objectivists to not be distracted so easily. The sin of rationalism was that they tried to say that ALL knowledge was SOLELY in "reason"/"logic"- which is vastly different from what I have said above. I am saying that SOME knowledge is solely in "reason"/"logic" (namely "A is A", etc...) and that the rest is the product of combining reason/logic with perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but we never said that we "stick exactly to what we get from perception," or never said "perception alone" gives us knowledge in the sense that nothing else is inolved in the process. We also pointed out already a few times that perceptual data is used in the very act of disovering an error like "the contrary is impossible" when the discovery of logic is made, and that such data is omitted during the abstraction process. I mean, I just don't know what you're really saying, and it's become to convoluted that it's really easy to just glaze over the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the reason that Objectivists have somewhat of an allergic reaction to this type of thinking is because it reminds them of rationalism-- but I would encourage Objectivists to not be distracted so easily. The sin of rationalism was that they tried to say that ALL knowledge was SOLELY in "reason"/"logic"- which is vastly different from what I have said above. I am saying that SOME knowledge is solely in "reason"/"logic" (namely "A is A", etc...) and that the rest is the product of combining reason/logic with perception.

I'm not sure anyone is understanding how you justify a need for logical consistency, or how you can even know what logical consistency even is so that you can even say "logic demands it". I know A is A is valid because the contrary is impossible, an abstraction made possible by at least perceiving things. I've tried before to ask you to at least explain what you understand about concept formation from an Objectivist angle. I mean, it sounds like you think people are suggesting "I know A is A is true because I opened my eyes". That would be a kind of empiricism, assuming that ALL knowledge rests SOLELY in perception or concretes, and if you think anyone is suggesting that, those people are wrong.

If you can know something about the things you can't perceive (like justice), it is indeed true perception is not sufficient. All people have said is that perception is necessary, but not always sufficient. You want to know how "A is A" could POSSIBLY be figured out in the first place; how could I possibly say it's based on perception? Philosophy couldn't really answer that precisely (same with free will), but as was mentioned earlier, there are automatic and non-conceptual processes in developing some sense of identity in objects in the visual system. Cognitive science shows that. How is that then abstracted to apply across ALL time, you ask? I already mentioned the arbitrary a while ago, but I could in a sense say "logical consistency", in a similar way you describe. Reality can't BE any other way other than how it is, and it is valid to make this conceptual claim because there is a connection to the perceptual level.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From OPAR on Page 8!

I've argued all of this previously in my own words and was going to just state the last part: The axioms are completely validated by sense perception. But I wanted to make 100% sure that this wouldn't be misconstrued as just my own statement. There is no other validation like what you are searching for and if you understand the above text, it directly states that the axioms hold under all circumstances. You are looking for some other "validation", but it does not exist.

I have read and am very familiar with that passage and the reasoning behind it. I will ask you to re-read and think through it a bit more carefully-- which is what I think I am doing. Try and follow the line of reasoning and be consistent with it. Don't just blindly give Rand the benefit of the doubt (though it's tempting- I understand), but question whether the conclusions can follow soundly from the premise.

One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception. When one perceives a tomato, for example, there is no evidence that it exists, beyond the fact that one perceives it; and there is no evidence that one is aware, beyond the fact that one is perceiving it. Axioms are perceptual self-evidencies. There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: look at reality.

Ok. This works for the specific case of looking at the tomato in front of me (or for that which is being directly perceived). I am directly perceiving something which means that this something exists AND I am perceiving it which means that I am aware of it in some way. Therefore the existence of this particular something and of my consciousness of it are validated in my sensory perception at this moment.

BUT, how in the world does my sensory perception of this particular thing validate any knowledge about everything else in the universe that I have not yet perceived? You wouldn't say that you can know the color, shape, size, chemical properties, etc... about that which you have not yet perceived-- so why would you say that you can know that there are no contradictions among that which you have not perceived??

Rand makes a huge assumptive jump here and generalizes that which is "evident" in the directly perceived (the axioms) and applies it to that which has not been perceived. Where is the ground for such a generalization? On what ground does the Objectivist know anything at all about the unperceived (i.e. the "universal")??

*By the way, I DON'T think that Rand was "trying to pull a fast one" here or that she was even aware of the assumptive jump. What she says after about the axioms being universally valid is and must be true-- it's the only way that humans can think rationally. But her conclusion that the universal applicability of the axioms is validated by sense perception simply does not follow and would render it impossible to know if the axioms were valid among the unperceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand makes a huge assumptive jump here and generalizes that which is "evident" in the directly perceived (the axioms) and applies it to that which has not been perceived.

She doesn't do that, where are you getting that? You seem to think that she is deducing a generalization here out of nowhere, but such a move has not occured, and never has been claimed. There is a difference between the implicit formulation of concepts given in perceptual awareness during normal child development, and the normative use of concepts of method arrived at in the development of logic. As we already tried to tell you earlier:

You don't reach the laws of logic by perception alone, I don't know where you're even getting this from. Go back and read page 262 "The Explicit Formulation of Axiomatic Concepts" for instance.

BUT, how in the world does my sensory perception of this particular thing validate any knowledge about everything else in the universe that I have not yet perceived?
Your sense-perception alone does not do it, and we are not claiming that it does.

Where is the ground for such a generalization? On what ground does the Objectivist know anything at all about the unperceived (i.e. the "universal")??
Inductive reasoning is the process of generalization that yields knowledge that goes beyond the directly perceived.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob said: "Or, to put it more simply, "It's contrary is impossible"." I once said to you " because it would make what I have seen impossible to have been seen". (paraphrased) http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20028&view=findpost&p=266485 I know the axioms are valid because of what I have seen and what is implicit in those perceptions. The axioms are implicit in every possible perception.

But you do not perceive that which is implicit in the perception-- and it takes much more than perception to realize that the axioms must be universally true in order for what you have perceived to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacob what do you mean by "source"? Because for Oist perception is the foundation(source) of knowledge. The reason I posted the paper earlier it to reiterate what Ive been saying from the beginning. Its a relationship between subject AND object,perception as a foundation AND abstraction from perception. Consciousness is an AXIOM for a reason.

Isnt this whole thing a strawman?

I'm not sure if I entirely understand your meaning here (and which paper are you referring to)?

Yes, perception a relationship between one subject and particular object(s)-- but it is not a relationship between subject and all objects. So how, through perception, can a subject grasp anything about objects which one has not yet perceived?

I understand that one ABSTRACTS from what one has perceived- but what is that rational justification for doing so? There is no justification for abstracting "cat" and applying it to all living things or to all existents in general. Where is the justification for abstracting "identity" and applying it to all existents in general? Such a justification can not come through perception.

I certainly don't intend for it to be a strawman- and I don't think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that we need perception and logic is imply that we as a species always knew how to do both, which is impossible. We use booth now because we have the privilege of knowing it and can do so to save (a lot) of time, but it was not always so. It seems to me that your answer is really a struggle to find the missing link in human cognitive evolution. It is the point that we as a species went from perception and reaction to perception and integration. The point we stopped acting like an animal and the point we took the first steps in becoming humans.

Everything starts with perception since that is our method of perceiving reality. As the earliest human brain continued to learn it started, through trial and error, to form concepts on a primitive level. The first hunter/gatherers couldn’t separate concepts because they hadn’t discovered logic. Life was the immediate perceptual experience. Logic at first entailed the concept of man as something simple, like when we first separated men from women: “Ugh, me man and you man, but you man not-man because you have little man and look better…” or some such thing. It was primitive but slowly man built upon his perception through trial and error to build concepts, including logic. He noticed his world and started to build upon it.

This would have taken centuries for early man to sort out as he built the most primitive forms of thinking. It took millennia to go from primitive hunting tools to agriculture. Today we went from telephone wires and party lines to synchronized satellites and instant portable communication world wide in the span of decades. Today the work is done and we build knowledge automatically with the privilege of everything that was learned by our ancestors before us, including the logic we use to learn so fast.

The speed our minds can process information is instantaneous since our minds automate it, as we should since concepts are supposed to save time, but it doesn’t change the fact it took a long time to build that knowledge in the first place. The struggle of early man to go from animal perception to the most basic building blocks of learning must have been painfully slow. It would have been measured in generations if not ages.

Early man did it and he HAD to do it through the trial and error of sense perception. He had to learn how to learn by trial and error of his senses. To say otherwise is to assume he awakened one day with full logic faculties and started to use it with perception instantly out of the gate. He didn’t have logic implanted in him by revelations, God, his tribe, and he certainly wasn’t born with it. He had to learn it one step at a time and pass it to the next generation - he had to earn it the hard way. To assume less is to ignore the one outstanding achievement of early man – The epoch to learn how to learn and discover logic one direct experience at a time, so we could go from animal to rational animal.

Does that help you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...