UNDER HEAVEN LX

“He may be said to have attuned himself to whatever he encountered, thereby arriving up beyond them to the source of things.” (p 124)

When right and wrong are taken as absolutes, we and the world are cast into constant and irrevocable disharmony. But the world is disharmonious, we might reply. Indeed, it is. But is there also a perspective from which we can say it is not? There is. It is, after all, just a question of perspective, is it not?

This simple step—imagining that all is ultimately well—is a step—a leap—that can set us a-wandering in Zhuangzi’s “vast wilds of open nowhere”—which is to say, in the here and now. It sends us into the “up beyond”. We are cosmically recontextualized.

Can we live harmoniously in a disharmonious world? Can we live harmoniously with our disharmonious selves? If we can, can we still escape a- or immorality and indifference? Or are we meant to be disharmonious—obliged to be angry and confrontational?

Zhuangzi answers that we can be both harmonious and disharmonious—which, because they are opposites, amounts to “neither of the two” (Penumbra), but are rather, “united to form a oneness”. This is the “up beyond”.

We can be harmonious even in the midst of pan-disharmony. We can be moral even in our amorality. We can be at rest even in our activity. We can be angry without being angry; hopeful without hope; sad without being sad; happy without being happy; achieve much, while achieving nothing; be consumed by fire, without being burned. It’s just a matter of perspective.

This is our peace. But it is also the peace of the world. It is being something other than the usual. It’s helping to resolve the problem without being part of the problem; resolving conflict without conflict. It is non-being the change.

Nature is a great harmony—everything metaphorically kills and eats everything else. Everything displaces everything else. Everything participates in an endless process of creation and destruction. Or is this a great disharmony? It’s a matter of perspective.

6 thoughts on “UNDER HEAVEN LX”

  1. Perhaps I have misunderstood you but what you (or Zhuangzi) seem to be suggesting is that we are free to imagine any ‘reality’ we want, to suit ourselves. It’s all just a matter of perspective. So because humans typically prefer good news to bad we can simply (you call it a ‘simple step’) imagine that all is ‘ultimately’ well. This will make us feel better and it’s not actually ‘wrong’ because whatever we think is a matter of perspective and one perspective is at least as valid as another. Such a view doesn’t actually displace the recognition that things can also be far from well, but the ‘all is well’ perspective is ‘ultimate’ and therefore ‘higher’ because it represents a view from the ‘vastest arrangement’. This would seem to be Zhuangzi’s get out of jail card and is remarkably similar, if not identical, to Krishnamurti’s ‘secret’ (‘I don’t mind what happens’) and Zen’s Perfect Way (which avoids preferences). I just wonder whether it bears scrutiny.

    Despite all being well, you acknowledge that we still want to change things because… well, I’m not quite sure. Perhaps we don’t really think all is as well as we claim it is, or maybe what is ‘ultimate’ isn’t actually of much relevance to us who find ourselves mired in the excrement of good and bad. After all, if all were really well then why would we want to change it? What good does it do to say all is ultimately well if we spend our time trying to make it better?

    I’m not sure this has anything to do with morality. Isn’t it rather about wanting things one way or another, which seems to me an unavoidable consequence of being sentient? I’ve little doubt that given the choice between breakfast and having a hole drilled in his knee Krishnamurti would have opted for eggs and toast, and I’m sure he’d have squealed as loudly as the rest of us as the drill made its way through bone. He wouldn’t have cared because of ‘right and wrong’ but simply because living flesh doesn’t like that kind of thing and the only way to ‘not mind’ it is to become insentient, either by being dead or in some other way unconscious. Daos that counsel non-reaction to what life throws at us are, it seems to me, not really fit for the living at all. Do they not rather simply reflect our fear of life and our desperation to embrace an escape route, however implausible? And perhaps worse than this do they not require us to stop caring and thereby abandon our very humanity? To care is to pick and choose, to mind what happens. Even if by some miracle we were able to ‘not mind’ what happened from our own side and accepted the drill with equanimity, events still impact others who have not achieved such anesthetic nirvana. What kind of salvation would it be that did not feel their pain too?

    To speak of the ‘vastest arrangement’ somehow misses the point, I think. The ‘vastest arrangement’ is not sentient and for this reason cannot represent a perspective. Only limited beings are sentient. To say that ultimately nothing can harm us strikes me as taking refuge in a meaningless abstraction. Matters can only be well or otherwise to individual sentient creatures and applying value judgments like ‘all is well’ to the ‘vastest arrangement’ is necessarily to make a category error. There is no perspective that exists outside of a limited conscious mind, no higher view one can reach outside of a particular bounded existence. That we might imagine we can imagine such a view is really a bit of a con, isn’t it? Even if the ‘vastest arrangement’ did represent a higher view, so what? The drill will still hurt. All is not well as it grinds through the patella however much we might wish it otherwise and I would challenge anyone to ‘harmonize’ themselves in ‘acceptance’ with the ‘rightness of the present this’ as it does so. If we are to say that all is well must we not equally accept that all is not well? Even if all was well for me it doesn’t follow that it is so for you. Indeed, even if there was a God for whom all is well from on high, that ‘higher view’ could not trump my view or yours. In practice it would simply be another view rather than a higher one, one that in asserting all as well simply chooses to disqualify alternative views. If we try to assume a similar perspective are we not similarly guilty of a kind of solipsism?

    1. Thank you for a very cogent and powerful rebuttal! I will try and reply as best I can.

      I might begin by asking if the view presented here on my blog is Zhuangzi’s or only my own bad use of him. I cannot say, though clearly I think it is an accurate representation of his philosophy within the limits of our pan-ambiguity.

      Most of your objections can be answered with an appeal to “walking two roads simultaneously”, I think. We are able to absolutely not-care about any and all outcomes (temporal or “eternal”) and to absolutely care about all outcomes—at the same time. All suffering matters—no suffering ultimately matters. Let’s take a materialistic and scientific perspective: What difference will anything make when this particular universe is no more? Being human, our concerns are not obviated by this “vastest” view. At best they are only recontextualized in such a way as to alleviate some of the suffering within our suffering. Our suffering is real—at least as real as we are—how real we are is debatable.

      There is also the question of the idealistic nature of this appeal to a “higher” point of view and the outcomes it supposedly effects. For my part, I do not believe that any of this can be “realized” in any absolute sense. It’s a work in progress, and always and only that. All life is a process—never arriving, never knowing anywhere to arrive, just a perpetual groping in the dark. Zhuangzi, I would suggest, simply suggests we have fun in our groping.

      I will now try to address some of your specific comments. You seem to suggest that we are not “free to imagine any ‘reality’ we want”. Why are we not? You seem to have moral objections—we can but we shouldn’t. Why shouldn’t we? Because there is good and evil? Was there good and evil in the Jurassic? Were there good dinosaurs and bad? Is there presently good and evil on Pluto? Good and evil are likely just a human consideration. And given our propensity to exercise evil in that context we should indeed concern ourselves with such things. This is being human. The question is whether being informed of the parochial character of our concern can in any way better equip us to in fact deal with that concern. Zhuangzi, I think, says that it can. We can be outraged and at peace at the same time. (Or at least work in that direction). This is the “relevance to us who find ourselves mired in the excrement of good and bad.”

      “Isn’t it rather about wanting things one way or another, which seems to me an unavoidable consequence of being sentient?” Setting aside questions of morality, you ask if it is not an unavoidable fact that we have preferences. It is. I don’t think Zhuangzi advocates for the abandonment of preferences. Rather, he suggests we be free from allowing their fulfilment or lack of fulfilment to disturb our peace. Krishnamurti would rather not have a hole drilled in his knee, but if it happens there would be a (theoretical) acceptance of the fact in the midst of his pain. I would rather not have pancreatic cancer, but if it happens I would want to be able to be at peace in that particular vicissitude. This is “following along with the unavoidable.” I try to avoid death, but will embrace it when it comes. Two roads. “Daos that counsel non-reaction to what life throws at us are, it seems to me, not really fit for the living at all.” I agree. The question is how we react.

      “Fit for the living” is the norm we follow. All this is about how best to live well. Why? Because, as humans, we want to live well. This is the only possible “justification” we have for this, and it is not a “rational” one. We say that life is good, and in that imply that the Totality, the unfathomable context of our being is also good—well. This cannot be “proven”. Nothing can be proven. Embracing this is affirming the human experience, and doing that is affirming the whole enchilada.

      “Do they [these daos] not rather simply reflect our fear of life and our desperation to embrace an escape route, however implausible?” Yes. Absolutely. Do you have an alternative? It’s all a matter of coping, as I see it. Again, the question is, how best to cope?

      “And perhaps worse than this do they not require us to stop caring and thereby abandon our very humanity?” They can, but need not. If they do then they have abandoned and violated our fundamental premise that the human experience is affirmable as is—that our caring is affirmable, our will to live is affirmable. And, Zhuangzi would argue, that our self-caring, because it has been contextualized in a more universal experience (alas, a mystical existence of the “vastest arrangement”) is more easily extended to our universal-caring (for others and the environment) which is also a human characteristic.

      “The ‘vastest arrangement’ is not sentient and for this reason cannot represent a perspective. Only limited beings are sentient. To say that ultimately nothing can harm us strikes me as taking refuge in a meaningless abstraction.” “There is no perspective that exists outside of a limited conscious mind, no higher view one can reach outside of a particular bounded existence.” All this is semi-true if there is no experience of this vastest arrangement. Ultimately, Zhuangzi is about a mystical experience. He would say that you are taking your mind as your teacher and are thus failing to mystically experience your own experience. Reason can only get us so far—he recommends we take the leap beyond reason. This is not irrationalism—it is most reasonable for reason to recognize its limits. We live this contradiction—that our reason has no reason—the question is how we want to deal with it. The rationalist ignores the groundlessness—limitedness—of his reason. It seems entirely reasonable to me to mystically release into my human experience in affirmation, and to thereby affirm the wellness of everything else—despite my impending death and that of everything else. We are sentient beings, but life has no reason—this is Zhuangzi’s point of departure. He chooses life over addiction to reason.

      “If we are to say that all is well must we not equally accept that all is not well?” It is. Both within the human and cosmic spheres. Which of these perspectives do you choose to prioritize? Neither? Is that possible? It seems to me that you have prioritized the negative. That too is a worthy perspective. That should have you involved in the betterment of the world. And your consequent suffering will likely be no more than anyone else’s. With respect to the cosmic perspective, I choose to say it is Well, because I take my existing as an unavoidable self-affirming. There’s lots of unwellness in me, but all in all, I experience my existence as a wellness. It’s good to be alive; therefore the Totality is also good. Does this not make sense? Let’s turn it around. I and the world are a complete mess; therefore the Totality is a complete mess. Or can they be both? Somehow I think that it is what it is whatever we choose to think, and that our designations have absolutely nothing to do with reality. But again, I affirm Everything because I affirm myself.

      “There is no perspective that exists outside of a limited conscious mind, no higher view one can reach outside of a particular bounded existence. That we might imagine we can imagine such a view is really a bit of a con, isn’t it?” I like this one a lot! How could I disagree? With regards to the first part, I think that this represents Zhuangzi’s “gate” into the mystical. The higher view is to organically (not rationally) live the reality that there is no higher view possible. Also, meditation on something like “limitlessness” does not mean that one comes to understand it, but is rather affected by it. What is that affect? Zhuangzi suggests that it can be mystical—beyond where the reasoning mind can go. Whether that happens or not, we can still be incrementally changed by it. Something can happen.

      With respect to the second part, I think we can imagine pretty much anything we like. It would indeed be a con job to say that what we imagine is “true” or that we thereby “know” something—whatever we imagine. When I say that it’s all a matter of perspective, I mean that it’s all just an imagining. It’s all just a dreaming. The con job is when we interpret the dream within the dream and say it isn’t a dreaming. But is it really just a dreaming? I don’t know. Maybe Jesus is Lord. My perspective is simply one adopted because I can’t believe, and don’t find belief an authentic expression of the human condition—when not self-aware.

      “Even if all was well for me it doesn’t follow that it is so for you. Indeed, even if there was a God for whom all is well from on high, that ‘higher view’ could not trump my view or yours. In practice it would simply be another view rather than a higher one, one that in asserting all as well simply chooses to disqualify alternative views. If we try to assume a similar perspective are we not similarly guilty of a kind of solipsism?” I don’t completely understand this. I agree that every perspective is just another perspective. A “higher view” is just another chosen lower view. Does it disqualify other views? No. For that reason. No truth has been spoken here—it’s all just an imaginative exercise that feels good to explore and feels good to adopt. I think it is likely that we are all solipsists. We are all Everything. Everything is everything else. This is Ziporyn’s (and Tiantai’s and possibly Zhuangzi’s) omnicentrism—everything explains everything else—everything is the center of everything. Now that’s a “higher view”. And also the lowest view possible, solipsism.

      I am unlikely to have convinced you with my arguments, just as you have not convinced me with yours. Does it matter? Not much, if at all. Zhuangzi would have us agree to disagree, I think. And more than that, to agree that we are both right and both wrong—and especially wrong to the extent that we think we alone are right. Admittedly, saying so is just reiterating my position that it’s all a just a matter of perspective, but I can’t help myself it seems.

      Thanks again for some very good arguments. Feel free (of course) to share more.

      Scott

  2. Thank you for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful and comprehensive response to my comments. It’s much appreciated. My intentions were not so much to rebut your understanding of Zhuangzi as to make sense of it. I’d not taken the ‘all is well’ message from my own reading of Ziporyn’s translation, but then I’m very much a beginner compared with you and will readily admit to finding the old sage a little slippery at times. Without your excellent book I’d probably have given up by now, so thank you for that too.

    I’ve given your latest comments a great deal of thought but I have to say they leave me baffled. I won’t go through all your points individually and explain why I can’t make sense of them. It would take too long and the ensuing to and fro between us could potentially be endless, perhaps with nothing but mutual incomprehension at the end of it. It’s clearly important to you to believe that ‘all is well’, apparently as a coping mechanism. Since you also evidently believe that all is not well this looks as though you are holding two mutually exclusive views simultaneously. You claim that it’s possible both to care about something and not care about it at the same time, something I would dispute. The mind is capable of all sorts of peculiar gymnastics but I don’t think this one is logically possible. It’s a bit like the question of whether an omnipotent God could walk forwards and backwards at the same time! I suspect that what is happening is that your mind is switching between two opposing views and is capable of rationalizing both, but I won’t press the point.

    What isn’t clear to me is what you actually mean by ‘all is well’ when it so very obviously (by your own admission) isn’t. It brings to mind the ‘problem of evil’ and the idea that what it might mean for God to be good is rather different from what it means for us to be good. We confuse ourselves by using the same word to mean two different things, one of which is actually beyond our comprehension. Thus ‘well’ might mean one thing when applied in an everyday sense but something else entirely from a ‘cosmic’ perspective (or God’s eye view, if you like). I would suggest that from our mundane point of view things are not ‘all well’ for as long as there remains a single sentient being in existence, because all sentient beings are prone to existential distress and it only takes one such being to exclude the possibility of all being well. I might also add that neither would all be well when eventually the universe becomes cold and lifeless, since without a sentient being around value judgments become inapplicable. In other words, there can never be a situation in which ‘all is well’, in that sense at least. However, we might have the thought that despite the obvious un-wellness of things from our perspective there could be some sense in which a grander view cast a different light on matters. Perhaps there is a God who can see the ‘meaning’ of it all, even if we can’t. We might then imagine that ‘all is well’ in that (ultimate?) sense, and maybe that comforts us. But I think we would have to concede that this latter meaning of ‘well’ is different from the more usual one and that actually we don’t understand it because we aren’t God and can’t take ‘his’ point of view. It briefly occurred to me that you might be using the word ‘well’ to mean different things, but as you haven’t said so I suspect this isn’t the case.

    So I ask myself, are you using the phrases ‘all is well’ and ‘great mess’ as code for ‘not caring’ and ‘caring’ about the state of the word? When you don’t care you feel OK and when you do care you struggle to cope. Might this be why believing ‘all is well’ functions as a coping mechanism for you? Feeling OK (‘life is good’) would thus become associated with the ‘all is well’ perspective and since we all prefer to feel OK this would explain why you prioritize this view. This is the only way in which I’m able to make any sense of your argument that feeling that life is good leads to the conclusion that the Totality must also be good. I often feel good but it’s never occurred to me that how I feel has the slightest impact on the word’s suffering in general! Wouldn’t it be nice to alleviate all the misery in Aleppo just by ‘imagining’ that ‘all is well’ there!

    People commonly use imaginary scenarios to cope. We call it denial. Thus climate change deniers can simply make the whole environmental problem disappear by ‘dreaming’ it away. I suppose in a similar way one might dream away all the world’s problems by ignoring them and it might help one to cope but it wouldn’t actually work (other than as a means of coping) any more than imagining that the world is flat would make it so. I don’t actually think you are doing this because you freely acknowledge that the world is a mess, though I suppose if you are really able to hold two opposing views simultaneously then maybe it lightens the burden.

    That’s about as far as I’ve been able to get in trying to make sense of your ‘all is well’ perspective. I’d like to have ‘tried it on for size’ just to get the feel of it, but that would have required me to understand it rather better than I evidently do. I don’t suppose this matters in the slightest, except for the possibility that such a view might be integral to Zhuangzi’s way, which I am currently struggling to get to grips with. It would surprise me if Zhuangzi did hold such a view himself because it strikes me that to do so would be to depend on a story (for ones own comfort) and the sage clearly advocates not depending on anything at all. To say ‘all is well’ is to assert a fixed idea and then demand that life conforms to it, even when it manifestly doesn’t. It ‘adds to the process of life’ and mediates direct experience through the prism of belief. It also, to the extent that it focuses on ‘me’ and what’s good for ‘my’ peace of mind, helps to reify me as a ‘someone’ whose identity is tied to a certain narrative; in other words, it helps to fix my identity. Would Zhuangzi approve, I wonder? Didn’t he say, ‘Just be empty. Nothing more?’

    Probably I’m way off the mark with all of this but I did feel you deserved something of a response to your comments on my original rant. I expect you will have found my analysis dreadfully lacking in mystical style but one can’t really present a mystical argument, can one? I’m not even convinced that Zhuangzi was himself mystically inclined. He strikes me as more of a thinker who loved to play around with radical ideas. Time for me to go now, before I make any more gaffes!

  3. I agree that we can easily go round and round in this and such discussions need to be able to let things rest will they will. Thus, I’ll try to brief in my replies and maybe a bit less “rebutive’. I’ll just make comments in the order of their appearance in your comment.

    “I’d not taken the ‘all is well’ message from my own reading of Ziporyn’s translation.” It might not be there; it is my following through of his message.” // I’d say that saying “my life is good means my death is good” moves us in that direction. If all is not well then nothing is well.

    “It’s clearly important to you to believe that ‘all is well’, apparently as a coping mechanism.” // I “believe” all is well because I experience my life as well—if I consider my life is good, then so too do I consider all well. And yes, it is a coping mechanism—there are no other possibilities—mine is a philosophy of cope.

    “. . .you are holding two mutually exclusive views simultaneously.” // Yes. Walking Two Roads at Once is what this all comes down to. It is not logically possible, though it can be seen as one view (all is well) informing another view (all is not well). One is from a cosmic perspective; the other is a parochial human point of view. As a human, I am necessarily walking the human view, but am informed of the cosmic view. This allows me to walk both.

    “You claim that it’s possible both to care about something and not care about it at the same time.” // I care for my life, but let go of it when it leaves. I care for the sick, but know they must die. I care for the world, but know that it won’t survive, and thus don’t care as if its loss meant that I shouldn’t bother caring now.
    None of this makes sense. I agree. God doesn’t make sense. Life doesn’t make sense. Eternity, infinity, limitlessness don’t make sense.

    “I would suggest that from our mundane point of view things are not ‘all well’ for as long as there remains a single sentient being in existence, because all sentient beings are prone to existential distress and it only takes one such being to exclude the possibility of all being well.” // This is the Buddhist view, I think. Existence is suffering. It looks to “solve” this by releasing ourselves from the belief that we or anything else “exists”. Daoism “solves” it by living the contradiction—and it remains a contradiction. Zhuangzi solves nothing. He lives the contradiction—in ambiguity.

    “I might also add that neither would all be well when eventually the universe becomes cold and lifeless, since without a sentient being around value judgments become inapplicable.” // This one is great. How can I disagree? I must say, then, that to say “all is well” is to remain within the human sphere—but then I never left it. You are right that there is “well” and then there is “well”—different meanings. It is well that there is no wellness in a dead Universe. Whatever this Mess “is” or resolves to is “well” because it is. This is much like Zz’s “rightness of the present ‘This’”. The rightness has nothing to do with the rightness of right and wrong. It is the rightness that pertains to the fact of its existence.

    “. . . and since we all prefer to feel OK this would explain why you prioritize this view. This is the only way in which I’m able to make any sense of your argument that feeling that life is good leads to the conclusion that the Totality must also be good.” // Yes, this is a psychological coping mechanism. (What’s yours?) I guess my bottom line is that life affirms and I think it both feels good and makes “sense” to say yes to life.

    “People commonly use imaginary scenarios to cope. We call it denial.” // It is denial only when both roads are not walked simultaneously. If we allow the “heavenly” to trump the human, that’s denial. If we allow the human to trump the heavenly, is that also denial? If I allow the jaundiced view of the human condition to trump the affirming that is also human, then that too is denial. Camus’ position is one of denial—the denial of life, because it doesn’t make sense to his rational mind.

    “I suppose if you are really able to hold two opposing views simultaneously then maybe it lightens the burden.” // Not fair! You mean I have to really live this? But yes, that’s the point.
    “It would surprise me if Zhuangzi did hold such a view himself because it strikes me that to do so would be to depend on a story (for one’s own comfort) and the sage clearly advocates not depending on anything at all.” // This is an excellent point, and one I struggle with. Still, isn’t it equivalent to saying death is good if life is good—a view that Zz espoused? Perhaps this is somewhat resolved in your observation that “well” and “right” mean different things cosmically. They are not “coupled with an opposite”. All is well not because it isn’t not-well, but because it “is”. The idea that we should be non-dependent does set us up for dependence on non-dependence. Yet somewhere in here is non-dependence. Non-dependence is non-dependence on non-dependence. It is an non-logical, dialectical movement.
    “To say ‘all is well’ is to assert a fixed idea and then demand that life conforms to it, even when it manifestly doesn’t.” // Life doesn’t conform to wellness, true—but life affirms itself nonetheless. So to live is to walk two roads whether we acknowledge it or not. The world is in misery and still thinks living is good.

    “It ‘adds to the process of life’ and mediates direct experience through the prism of belief. It also, to the extent that it focuses on ‘me’ and what’s good for ‘my’ peace of mind, helps to reify me as a ‘someone’ whose identity is tied to a certain narrative; in other words, it helps to fix my identity. Would Zhuangzi approve, I wonder? Didn’t he say, ‘Just be empty. Nothing more?’” // Good points. The process of life is an affirming (=wellness) (not an idea). To affirm it is to trust in it—agree with it—not to believe something about it. Being empty, as I understand it, does not eliminate the self-experience, but rather makes it open and permeable. And it remains the interface with all “others” (me, you, the world, Openness). When Yan says, “I have not yet begun to exist” and Ziqi says, “I have lost my ‘me’”—who’s speaking, why are they speaking, why does it matter? They are speaking, and they are doing so because they continue to have the self-experience (I-me-other), though it is now also transcended and because they think we might profit from the same. We wish to make it a reifying, identity enhancing experience, of course—but it doesn’t have to be.

    “I’m not even convinced that Zhuangzi was himself mystically inclined. He strikes me as more of a thinker who loved to play around with radical ideas.” // You would like Chad Hansen’s “A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought” where he basically makes this argument. I disagree, but make the point that his mysticism isn’t traditional.

    Thanks for some really good discussion. There’s a sense in which this feels like I’m correcting you—that I have the high ground—that I’m the authority—but this would be mistaken.
    Since you are evolving a different view of Zz, I’d love to see it laid out.

    Perhaps we could do some dialogues-as-posts? You make a point/I counter/you counter. We’d do this offline, and then I’d post it. Just an idea.

    Thanks again. Scott

  4. Thanks for those comments and your offer of further dialogue. It could be fun but I’m not sure I have sufficient knowledge of Zz to provide you with a useful sparring partner. I also don’t think I would want to continue having to challenge what I see as essentially ‘faith’ positions that remain resolutely unavailable to rational interrogation. But thanks again for your time and engagement. It’s been interesting.

    David

  5. Thanks for you input, David. I sense your wish to move on. However, should you ever wish to further discuss what you see as “faith positions” I’d be game. I see them as “trust positions” since they make no claims to knowledge. And the point of departure is that “rational interrogation” is similarly a matter of trust–unless one actually believes it has a firm foundation (which Zz does not). That is a faith position.

    Cheers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *