N Marion Hage: Love the Superior Way    
 Love the Superior Way17 comments
picture13 Mar 2006 @ 13:58, by N Marion Hage

This article is from a conversation I had with a friend.

The world is filled with "Pre-packaged" thinking. Simply, we are taught what to believe, and are bombarded with a countless stream of messages from the time we are born.

What is an 'Archetype'? Jung used the term to describe a type of "cosmic collective thinking". He used the term in a quasi-spiritual and metaphisical way.

I do not discount the existence of a spiritual world, but
I'm not Jung, and only buy into the fact that there is such a thing as "Group Think"

Archetypes are the strongest forms of pre-packaged thinking. Prejudice is an Archetype. Cultural superiority is generally a powerful Archetype. From the dawn of mankind, we've had one bully or another telling the world how they should hold a fork.

This does not discount there is a better way to hold a fork. But Archetypes are built on faulty arguments, not the truth, and so they must force themselves upon the unwilling. If someone has a truly superior way, then the way itself should speak for itself. And there should be no need for enforcing, "My way of holding a fork" upon another.

Archetypes are not benign. They often leave a trail of victims. In some sense, most Archetypes are strongholds over nations and cities and groups. They are so strong, it takes people of great will and determination to break them. In the United States, slavery ended long before the Archetype of White Supremacy. In fact, this Archetype was diminished, but never slain. It still exists in some places in a smaller form. Or it was replaced with another Archetype: Black Supremacy vs White Supremacy.

The world is filled with Archetypes. There are governmental archetypes and religious archetypes, and countless secular Archetypes.

In a sense, an Archetype is a set of arguments that become universally accepted by a group, to the point where people no longer think of the implications, or where these arguments came from or why they are true. And so, Archetpes and collective thinking take on a mind of their own.

Archetypes are not harmless. They enslave in the long run, which is why great societies wind up sliding into pits.

At any given time, you have a superiority complex demeaning some people group. Archetypes are bullies by nature.

Good things can become "Archetypes" and when they do, people become blinded.

There are many kinds of political systems in the world. And everyone believes one system or another will save the world. Socialists believe in Socialism. Much of the world believes in Democracy. Others believe in Anarchy.

For the world to grow, we have to be able to think freely, and establish priorities. And so, when we look at the world, we have to be able to glean. What are the merrits of a system, vs "What are its Archetypes?"

True love does not want to enslave, because it considers the benefits of others, preferring them. Love wants to know truth. Love wants to show mercy, and forgive. Love is not rude, and does not demand others hold the fork in the same manner.

Democracy or any system is only as good as its people. Some think Democracy or any social structure is a magic bullet solution. It isn't.

I'm not speaking against it, because Democracy has strong merrits as a system. Then again, when you peel back Archetypes from many systems, you will find some merrit. The problem is that when people consider the system, they have often bought into the Archetypes that go with them.

A "system" will not save mankind. The hope for mankind lies in freeing minds, not enslaving them. Only a superior way can impact attitudes, values, and priorities. Love is the superior way. It is the only way to bring the world back from madness.

Societies live and die on character issues, not system issues. Selfless people who believe in sharing can make the worst system work.

On the other hand, a hedonistic soiciety is an accident waiting to happen. "Me! Me! My!" thinking destroys, because it pulls people apart, and polarizes people in a negative way. None of us want to be bullied. It is not the system that bullies, but people within any system who demand their own way.

Democracy cannot stop a self-destructive people from self-destructing. People with evil intentions will look for ways to exploit the system, and make it over into their images. The answer is not in changing systems- though some might work better than others. The answer is in changing the hearts of people within the system.

The world has to be sold on the importance of Character Issues if we hope to survive.

The point of argument is, "What values, attitudes and priorities are superior? Who has a right to say"

Saying and believing nothing are mistakes. Yet, speaking as a bully is also a mistake, and when people think they have a superior way, they tend to grow arrogant, and believe they can enforce their views.

This is where our discussion becomes important.

If I have to railroad a point of view on another, I've already failed, because they don't believe in it. And then some system is imposed and there is friction, and failure. This is how the world has worked for thousands of years. The Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, all thought they had a better way, and enforced them upon the world with cruel barbaricies. The Romans took it a step further. Ideological Superiority was the Archetype that permitted them to butcher in the name of Mother Rome.

What is love? If teaching people to love is the answer,we need to discuss the parameters of love. What does love looks like? How does it act?

Love benefits the world. The goal is to sow seeds. When we demonstrate true love, the sacrificial kind that says, "You have value, and I want to see you blessed," the seeds sown grow naturaly. No one has to twist arms, get a court order, or force another to do something. Love speaks loud when spoken well.

I don't have to browbeat someone into believing in the superiority of love. It speaks for itself to something within us that rings true. If we see someone hurt another, we are conflicted. In most cases we are angered. If we see someone bless and benefit another who is conflicted, and who is angered? Love speaks universally.

It doesn't matter if you are secular/religious, pantheist/monotheist. Whatever our worldview, when we see acts of love, we are stirred in a positive way, "Yes, that's the way it should be!"

So, love is a Universal Language, and has to have adherants who are also willing to speak to this generation, whereever they are, on the superiority of love.

The world puts the cart before they horse. They assume the right economic package and the right government will make the perfect society. They believe, "If everyone has their fill, they will be happy," but the problem is that some people are never content with their fill. Where love is elevated and held in honor, the selfish are convicted of their selfishness, and so they should be.

Archetypical superiority is the basis of ideological warfare. When one Archetype can't change another, fear and frustration rule. You have two people claiming "We have superior mindsets!"

Nations, enslaved by Archetypes are fighting to become king of the hill. There can be only one king, and the means of acquiring and maintaining power is to be selfish and push down the inferior (in their thinking).

King of the hill, as you know, is a game where boys and girls wrestle to get to the top of a narrow hill. When I was a child we played in piles of dirt at excavation sites for a house foundation.

In a world of Archetypical Superiority, nations stand or fall by strength. The object is to get to the top and keep everyone else down. This is how Archetypes work, because thinking you are right, breeds a type of arrogance- "We have the superior way. Why should we let you climb to the top?"

Well, we have a foolish world where this is pretty much destroying nations. The king tries to hold on, knowing everyone wants to knock them off, but the next king is no less of a bully. They just think they are a more justified tyrant than the tyrant before them.

Tyranny is forcing views. Love doesn't need tyranny, because it is respect oriented. It doesn't see a difference of opinion as a sign of an inferior person. In fact, it may disagree with point of view, but never cease to value the person with the view.

People who love can make the most flawed system work, and people who do not love can screw up any system. Love looks for a way to elevate, and bring everyone up. It doesn't demand its own way. Those who would lead must have a mind that would serve. If one nation believes it is their duty to bless and benefit, not dominate- if only- there would be no striving. But the world is nightmare filled with border-wars.

The closest thing a flawed world can get to a perfect society is to have a people with strong character. And this is not based upon a system, but inner qualities of loyalty, strong work ethic, and more than anything- love and respect for others. I don't want to boss around someone I love. In fact, I'll serve them, help them, put their needs before my own. How can a system fail where people have this mindset?

If this motivation is removed, then no system can save a society. If a society is filled with evil minds (in theory) then why would majority vote benefit the world? It is presumed the majority will have character, and consider choices on others. What if the majority are selfish, and could care less about others?

So, societies benefit from those who believe in a superior way (love) in that it is not going counter to any human mindset? Why? It is within all of us to know love's voice when we hear it. And it challenges our cynicism to see love practiced. It convicts us of selfishness.

Love demonstrated is the only power that can change this world.

N Marion

Photo and photo art by N Marion Hage.
Picture is from a hill in Lehman Pennsylvania


[< Back] [N Marion Hage]

Category:  

17 comments

15 Mar 2006 @ 16:01 by rayon : Modern Version
of Platonic (or Plantonic) Love!  

15 Mar 2006 @ 17:13 by poetsong : Very similar
Plato had a similar view of love. His view was much like brotherly love, in that he felt love was reciprocal- going both ways- and in such a relationship, love could make the ultimate sacrifice.

There is a love which is more selfless, but not purposeless, and that is to love by nature, even those who do not love us in return. It has pity on enemies. This love wants fellowship, but reaches out unilaterally. It is not indifferent, and hopes the other will turn, but is willing to love the enemy.

In my mind, Platonic love has no strings, except it infers an already existing relationship. Others might correct me on this, but this is my understanding.  

15 Mar 2006 @ 18:46 by jobrown : Very well
said; your thoughts about-n'round the Archetype's impact on all it touches!
Archepyte to me is also a question of a given Behaviour & Action (-Package); that is -after all- what makes one Archetype to what it is, doesn't it? HOW do you know a Bully from a Hero or Saint? Sure; they also emanate very diffrent vibrations -coz they ARE of different frequency!
Love is the HIGHEST frequency in all of Universe and it is ALL Encompassing -as in ACCEPTING the DIVINITY of ALL of ITS own Creation -whether some Archetypes like it -or not!
The LOWER frequency /vibrations one is in and hence comes from, the more NON-accepting of the Divinity of anything that is not "me" , or at least as close as possible: ie one's own family, peer-group; these are close enough to accpeted!... and as this Archetype "matures" it (the people in it) start to accept their "Ethnic" brothers,their own 'religous' group, their OWN Nation, their own IDEOLOGY, which is as far as Archetype can be taken. After that it starts collapsing/ IMPLODING into Itself! This is exactly where our Society at large is today; these Archetype Ideologies are imploding into themselves from Within and being exposed as fallacies by people from Without; ie: The ARCHETYPE of Fundamentalism -regardless "what" Fundamentalism we look at, IS falling apart from Within today, because by the very nature of f-m they are based on errouneous Life concepts and also on sheeer lies and BULLY GAMES of intimidation, supremacy-ideas etc, etc.  

15 Mar 2006 @ 20:51 by poetsong : Behavior and actions
There is a profound correlation between belief, behavior and actions. Archetypes impact beliefs.

I coined a phrase, "Micro-beliefs". People think "religion" when they talk about beliefs, but we are actually a walking series of beliefs.

Example: I believe it is safe to touch the hot stove- not a particulary good belief. However, beliefs impact everything we do. If we believe in futility, what's the use of trying? If we believe that we have no control, and fate takes control, then why fight against fate?

Archetypes are intertwined with our beliefs, and in fact, are somewhat of a belief cluster. Are people valuable? Are they of equal value? A slight shade of difference in these questions has caused tyrants to oppress and torment. As soon as someone devalues any human, they give themselves a license to do evil.

So, beliefs and Archetypes control lives, and set people on a course to actions.

I don't pretend to have the ability to convince everyone to follow a course, or belief. At best I might influence them if I have a correct belief. The great challenge then is to make people think, rather than embrace a system without thought. If in fact, a belief does not hold up to scrutiny, then sticking our heads in the sand only cements an error.

Again, my point is not to say "Beliefs" are wrong, or that all beliefs are equal. Hate is not equal to love as you point out. Justice is good, and mercy is better. But if we start with love, it is a solid foundation to work from. If I see everyone as having an instrinsic value (meaning they don't have to earn value, it's in their nature) I will act a certain way. I'll be more likely to act with respect.

When people do not believe in intrinsic value, they justify holding others to whatever standard they profess. And generally they hold people to a higher standard than they are willing to follow. It's the way to hypocracy.

Therefore, we have to press the value of love and respect as a starting place. We have to understand people have value, and even the free will to screw up their lives if they choose that. We can disagree on points, but we should never have contempt for another as an outcome.

The Antidote to Archetypes is humility, and the realization that at best we only see part of the big picture. In a sense, we crave security. We want to think we know all the answers. We may have some answers, but our pride will cause us to boast far beyond what we do and can know.

Pride is the fuel that empowers Archetypes. Take slavery for example. It is built on multiple Archetypes, but primarily a belief that one race or gender, or group is inferior. It can have countless shades. Someone might be convinced they love their slave, and in fact, might be a generous master. But they have to question their core belief. "Why are they a master and not a slave?" Is their belief system based on a false presumption, that had they been born to a different mother, without one iota of change in their substance, they would be the slave and not the master? And if they realize the Archetype, regardless of their position, they will begin to see there is no difference between slave and free, or black or white, or male or female. Each has value, intrinsic value, and that changes how we treat each other.  

16 Mar 2006 @ 16:35 by rayon : Another Platonic
is one that understands the connectedness in nature and all things, such as is in ayurveda, and which I believe was with Plato's peers too, there are huge passages talking its philo (love): understanding and knowing the connectedness gives a certain amount of power back to the individual for himself within the natural system (that his body is subject to, like all organics): when given just a little of this power/knowledge there is a phenomenal spilling over of LOVE for THINGS with the initial amazing awareness that comes with the seeing when in the correct environment, say a group of people all completely agreeing and seeing themselves within this. It shows how exceptional life actually is, it only requires a small real sampling to experience for oneself. This knowledge is free, so to is the associated mini power and the love it engenders free, and the faith having seen results, and the wishing to share it for others to have the same.

So sorry NATE, to take on this stance after your above; PRIDE catches the eye, there is no pride in my above because it is obvious this natural existence is outside the individual, so there is natural humilty, a willing one, because the body can only live within the greater observed existence, as a smaller limited entity within the vastness of outside, but knowing that all that is needed is already there, if looking in the right way, from the body human view not the body corporation/shareholder/dividend/ruler view.

Does this make any sense? 'cos this drum has got much drrr left in it yet!

The only slave in this view just here, is the one to his own thoughts. His own desires (over and above those of natural circs), these are silent slaves and slaves drivers, and this is to do with education to allow people self learning or LIMITED learning, so they stay stuck in desire led, short termism, self slavery. With more apologies.  

16 Mar 2006 @ 19:08 by poetsong : Love is complex
Some might think love is simple. Love as a feeling is rather simple, because it is a reaction rather than a cause. Love as a cause is rather complex, because it weighs what action to take, and may go counter to the feeling.

These are two different types of love.

What do I mean? If we like someone and they touch us emotionally, we may have strong feelings, a connection to them. We are responding to empathy, or fondness. This kind of love is easier because we don't have to fight to kindle it.

The second kind of love is hard. It is the act of our will. The only way we can love difficult people is to sometimes overcome our feelings. In these circumstances we are deciding, "What does love look like? What would love do here?" because there are no natural feelings, or at least not warm feelings.

For me to forgive a hurt, my feelings might not catch up with my head for days, weeks, even months. But I can still will to show affection to someone before my feelings catch on that I am determined to forgive this person.

The fact that there are different definitions of the term "love" confuses the issue. This is why to be a lover in the highest sense, we have to define what love likes like, rather than what love feels like.

I wish my feelings were always on the right page. They aren't. Sometimes I might feel like telling someone off, when I know I should encourage them instead. And often times, after the fact, I find my feelings were wrong. But it took time to learn this.

As a lover (the highest love) I realize more and more I have to make decisions that don't make me feel good in the short run. But this is universally true if we think about it. Anyone who had infants with chronic ear infections that would wake you them at 3 in the morning and scream until 5 the next morning, may not feel like singing and cuddling. Both my sons had chronic ear infections, and they would recur several times a week. They'd get tubes, the tubes wouldn't stay in. And so, it was a nightmare of chronic sleep deprivation. Try bathing a child in cold water to break high fevers. It's heart wrenching.

If you are frazzled by sleeplessness, you don't feel like being nice to anyone, or anything. And so, at points you tell yourself to do what love does, not what you feel like doing. And you say what love would say, not lash out in anger.

There are times and places where love is far easier than others.  

18 Mar 2006 @ 14:16 by swan : Love isn't conditional,
when we intellectualize it, it becomes conditional and complex.  

18 Mar 2006 @ 17:39 by poetsong : Unconditional love is a kind of love.
Someone can love unconditionally. The question is whether the highest love, love's others without any expectations or any consequences to actions?

The reason we need to sort this out is because relationships can become lopsided. If I love someone, can I place boundaries? Yes. I can say, "Thou shalt not stick your finger up my nose." I'm just teasing. But in a practical sense, if we have children, and love someone who is harming the child, we definitely need to lay down a boundary. "If you cross this line, we can't have fellowship..."

So love is still their, but it sets a condition- "If you threaten or violate those I love, you will have a consequence." I'd throw pointing guns at my head...etc.

This doesn't mean we don't love- Setting conditions is merely the boundaries of the relationship-

I can love someone, wish the best for them, but have no interaction with them. I'm not saying, "I will only love you if you do what I want...".
Rather, I'm saying love can have very real expectations, and then I react to the other's actions. "I love you, but you've threatened my family..." and then respond in whatever way is needed.

In the spiritual sense, all religions believe in a variation of Sowing and Reaping. Karma is essentially a philosophy that believes you can reap something from other lives, but that is only because the term is only used in that context. Karma simply means "Works", that you have to pay for your actions in some way. Monotheism teaches sowing and reaping, and that God keeps account of our actions and words. So, either way people turn, the lesson is reinforced that actions reap consequences, good and bad. Even atheists believe in what goes around comes around, based on mere observation of the world, apart from a religious philosophy.

Since this board is filled with people of all opinions, lets stick to what happens in this life. If sowing and reaping is built into nature, which it is, then reaping is not evil. It's simply a byproduct. We reap whatever we sow. And the point here is it is wise to sow good seed, seeking a harvest of good.

If the very laws of the Universe and World tell us there are consequenses to our actions, then we are not unreasonable to say, "If you do this...then this..." "If you do not do this...then this."

Placing a boundary is not saying, "I don't care...I don't love..." It's establishing parameters for love to florish. Someone needs to know they can't take advantage of me.

I'm a generous person by nature. If someone hits me up for money for heroin, I don't give it. That isn't lack of love. In fact, they may hit me up for money for a burger, and if I think they might spend it on Crack, I might not give them money, and for their own welfare.

I'm not saying love itself is conditional. However, love without expectations may not be the best condition. And love may not look as generous and tender when love sets limits. But people need limits, otherwise they will exploit and use and take advantage, and be worse people. Limits help people grow, in my opinion.

What do you think?
 

19 Mar 2006 @ 01:08 by swan : Exactly...love is not conditional
but that doesn't mean we have to support behavior that is inappropriate, that isn't what I am saying. Boundaries and limits are just that boundaries and limits and like you said "I can love someone, wish the best for them, but have no interaction with them" I personally don't believe there are different kinds of love. Love is Love.  

19 Mar 2006 @ 18:16 by poetsong : That's okay.
I understand your point, "Love is love," Some people have a rather excellent definition of love that works for them, and unconditional love is a high form of love, especially as you explain it. Most of my points are for those who are confused about what love looks like, and that is why I make distinctions.  

20 Mar 2006 @ 13:34 by poetsong : Addition to the above.
Generally, when people have a definition of "Love", they are referring to what I'm calling, "High Love". That's legitamate to do.

However, the word love is used to mean so many things, "Brotherly affection," to "Sexual Chemistry", that I have clarified "What Love" I'm talking about.

The Greeks had eight words that the English translate as "Love", and perhaps that is sloppy thinking on our part. We use one word in a generic way because it is too much trouble to make up different words for each situation.

We have to draw distinctions between "feelings" and "acts of the will".

I'm going to draw on an ancient story to illustrate this. There was a woman that came to Jesus at the house of a Pharisee. Jesus was invited there to eat dinner. The woman was formerly caught in adultery, and Jesus loved her and rescued her from an angry crowd.

This woman pours costly perfume on Jesus' head, her life's savings. And then she bathed him in tears. For the record, there are four similar accounts of this same story.

Everyone was offended at her. The Pharisees, and Jesus disciples both had nasty things to say. The Pharisees were saying things like, "If he (Jesus)was really a prophet he would know what kind of woman this is..." - and in their minds he wouldn't touch her and would tell her to get lost. But he doesn't do that. He commends her, and honors her.

And the disciples were saying, "This perfume could have been sold, and the money given to the poor.

To the Pharisees, Jesus said, "When I came...you did not wash my feet (a local custom done to valued guests), and she has not ceased to wash my feet with her tears...you gave me no kiss (another local custom between friends), and she has not ceased from giving me kisses..."

Now, here's the point, he asks a question then gives an answer. "Whomever is forgiven much...loves much..." There are a number of things implied here. One is that people who have a real appreciation for their faults appreciate when someone forgives them. However, in relation to the topic of love, everyone doesn't love equally. Some people love a little, and others love a lot. Those that love a little give a little. Those that love a lot give all.

And so, when we talk about Greater Love or Higher Love, it can also mean quantitively "Loving More" by comparrison to those that love little.

Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?"- referring to the other disciples. Jesus question actually translates "Do you "Agape" me more than these" - Using the Greek word for the highest love- sacrificial love.

Some people don't realize what is being said, because Peter answers, "You know I love you..." But in reality Peter isn't answering Jesus question in the affirmative. He is using an inferior word for love, "You know I Phileo you..."

In other words, Jesus is saying, "Do you love me sacrificially?" And Peter is actually saying, "No!"(Paraphrased) "I have brotherly affection for you, but not what you are asking from me..."

Peter had recently denied Jesus, just before the crucifixion. During the Last Supper Peter boasted, "I fight and die for you..." Afterwards Peter denied Jesus three times.

Now Peter was filled with self-doubt, and his pride was sapped. He was probably answering as honestly as he could. "I can't even live for you Jesus, let alone die for you."

My reasons for distinguishing between Phileo and Agape here is that society- as a whole- not individuals- has lost sight of the nature of the highest love, and relationships throughout the world suffer. Relationships between individuals suffer, and between nations suffer.

If our world shoots for a "Low" definition of Love, then who will fight for what is important? And I mean fighting in love to hold relationships together, restore relationships between ethnic groups and nations? Are we willing to sacrifice for these things, or do we delude ourselves into thinking we are a loving people in a loving world, but deny this by our actions?

What does love look like? Is it tender or vendictive? Is it merciful, or demanding? Is it seeking "My will be done?" or seeking to bless others to see that they can reach their dreams?

Sure, it is okay to have one definition of love, especially when it is well thought out. But I think so many people are confused. They don't see that love is "Other-centered" and have a self-centered way of seeing all relationships. I won't tell them they don't love, but want to raise the bar so that they percieve "true love" or highest love, is sacrificial in nature, giving in nature, doesn't demand it's own way by nature.

"What do I get out of this?" is a mantra of the young. However, Love doesn't ask this. "Me"-happy 24/7 is not the primary motivation in my life. It asks, "What good comes out of this sacrifice" -Good for whom? Good for the object of our love.

If people are unwilling to raise the bar, what hope is there? It will take sacrificial love to change the world in a positive way. Someone has to be willing to give up something.  

21 Mar 2006 @ 14:52 by nraye @80.176.105.234 : Giving all
Yes, That had been my intention with my particular interests.  

21 Mar 2006 @ 15:25 by poetsong : Nraye, you have been gifted
You've seen other parts of the world, and what happens there. People who are willing to go where needs are great are truly great people in my opinion.  

22 Mar 2006 @ 11:07 by nraye @80.176.105.234 : Thankyou
you are always kind! - Nate, you have a poetry site, I checked it once and wish to check again but have lost link, could you help again?  

22 Mar 2006 @ 13:16 by poetsong : Poetry Side
The poetry side is all over the place, even here on the Poetry Tree. LOL
Here Here are two links. If you'd like I could send you a magazine feature to your email?

[link]

http://www.kritya.in/10/En/poetry_at_our_time10.html

Here's a link to a magazine article- click on "Perspectives on Peace" [link]
 

22 Mar 2006 @ 16:54 by nraye @80.176.105.234 : Poetry Side
Poetry Tree is not available to me anymore: the site was the Argo boat, it was with blue pics, and neat titles down right side. It had recognisable contributors from recent past here. NCN has been bril, doing stuff, really for the first time with others, broke a barrier akin to writers block I guess. Getting reaction is new and places within context, the angst of NCN seemed right for mine and felt comfortable here. However, have since given to others too with good feedback, these have been important.

Yes no prob with sending article to my email. Your supportive words are much appreciated, but my goodness your poems on Poetree were lovely.  

22 Mar 2006 @ 17:27 by poetsong : Thanks
Thank you so much for your encouragement. A magazine Editor asked me to contribute on a regular basis just today, and I'm like a kid at Christmas. I'll send you a copy of A Poetry Feature. Thanks again for taking interest.

Nate  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
1 Dec 2008 @ 17:59: Update
1 Apr 2008 @ 15:00: Movie/Books status
1 Dec 2007 @ 18:22: Hi everyone. Updates
1 May 2007 @ 16:21: Updates
31 Oct 2006 @ 13:19: The beauty of Middle Earth
29 Oct 2006 @ 23:06: Perspective
20 Oct 2006 @ 01:24: Sojourner finds a friendly tree
20 Oct 2006 @ 01:06: Some forests are angry
8 Oct 2006 @ 23:10: Cartemay on the Shore
8 Oct 2006 @ 23:01: The Invisible Seer


[< Back] [N Marion Hage] [PermaLink]?  [TrackBack]?