BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Humanity's ultimate destiny is to self-destruct

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Brigade du jour
21:52 / 11.02.03
I'm at work so I haven't the time to go into too much detail, but it just struck me in what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity that the overriding drive in human nature, apart from survival, is actually self-destruction (usually in the form of destroying other people).

Whether it's for the sake of preventing overpopulation, or whatever grand plan is behind it is another matter, or maybe another thread. But here I want to list and discuss evidence of this rather commonplace theory. Here's a few off the top of my head to get started (and of course these are as subject to debate and dispute as the theory itself):

1. We are all most addicted to things that are bad for our health.
2. When we get a song stuck in our heads it's usually one we hate.
3. Fear is an easier emotion to feel than love.
4. Sex is the foundation of creating life, yet is regarded with moral
suspicion.

Maybe more later. Peace!
 
 
iconoplast
23:37 / 11.02.03
Spider Robinson brought this up in his novels (published as DeathKiller), and talked a bunch about the way we process sucrose.

The novels turned out sort of twee, but it's a frightening idea. I'm not sure, really, that it's our natural state, or if it's a self-destructive impulse that has another source. I believe, however, it's got something to do with fragmentary consciousness, and the fact that instead of achieving a peace in which both parties win, we look to a cop out solution wherein both parties lose. Thus, the quickest way to resolve the tension within is to destroy both of the constituent elements.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:28 / 12.02.03
I'm afraid I can't see any reason why examples 2-4 should be seen as exemplifying a human trend towards self-destruction, as an individual or a species, except possibly (4), which strikes me as far too complex an issue to be boiled down so simply.

(Also, I'm getting Donnie Darko flashbacks. FEAR! LOVE!)

Anyone willing or able to consider the Freudian death-urge here? Is that a desire for death or annihilation in itself, or simply a revulsion of life? Functionally, does it matter?

Also, it is assumed that self-detruction and destroying other people are one and the same, when destroying other people woudl usually be described as murder rather than self-destruction,. is there a difference to be drawn between delf-destruction and the destruction of others of the same race, or are both part of an ongoing project to destroy *humanity*?
 
 
Funktion
00:51 / 12.02.03
1. We are all most addicted to things that are bad for our health.

I hate to have to play the Sematicist but I would challenge your seeming use of "addicted" in this case....
More exzamples of yours would be necessary for me to continue here...



2. When we get a song stuck in our heads it's usually one we hate.


I would redefine:

2. When we get a song stuck in our heads it's usually one that is simplistically catchy...


3. Fear is an easier emotion to feel than love.

Fear is not an emotion,
Fear is the mindkiller.
Fear is the little death that will bring total oblivion...


4. Sex is the foundation of creating life, yet is regarded with moral
suspicion.


Only by certain people or aspects of society...
 
 
Cloudhands
08:11 / 12.02.03
I agree with Freud that there are two contradictory drives going on inside us, the pleasure principle and the death drive.
I think that laziness is an example of our desire to self-destruct. Laziness is addictive, the more lazy I am the more difficult it is to get out of it.
 
 
Quantum
09:03 / 12.02.03
What appears to be a long term program of self destruction is in fact the result of a lot of short term plans that seem like a good idea at the time. Although we are psychologically twisted creatures, no question, there is no Freudian death wish- that's just another of his mad Austrian fictions. We as a species are stupid rather than evil.
'what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity'- that sounds like Withnail and I, a prime example of self destruction in action
"Self improvement is masturbation. Now self destruction..." (Tyler Durden)
 
 
Cloudhands
09:28 / 12.02.03
But it seems like there is both a desire to live and a desire to die present in us all. Thought the desire to live seems to predominate can the fact that people commit suicicide be viewed as the death drive taking over?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:40 / 12.02.03
Sorry, I meant does anyone who has actually read Freud want to bring it in. Appy olly logies for the misunderstanding.
 
 
Cloudhands
10:22 / 12.02.03
ooh harsh. If there's something wrong with my posts perhaps you'd like to enlighten me?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:23 / 12.02.03
Well, most obviously, Freud's work on the death-urge is, IIRC, cemented in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, which might sugegst that your coupling of the pleasure principle and the death drive is unsafe to start with. The pleasure principle and the reality principle are, to the best of my limited knowledge, both elements that Freud associates to a greater or lesser degree with the instinct to perpetuate and renew life, which stands in contrast to the death-urge, the desire to return things to the state they occupied before being disturbed by life, the relationship of which to pleasure I really couldn't tell you.

So, I suspect that your statement was based on a misunderstanding of Freud, but that's not really The problem. It was also singularly uninformative and unhelpful, and served no better purpose than to communicate how clever you are, before wandering off on a tangent about laziness which again makes no effort to explain, support or generally make worthwhile its existence.

Likewise, Quantum's Although we are psychologically twisted creatures, no question, there is no Freudian death wish- that's just another of his mad Austrian fictions. We as a species are stupid rather than evil leaps rather to the suggestion that the death-instinct is "evil" (as well as fictitious, but that's not really the issue) without really explaining why, or imparting any useful information about it.

Use of any psychoanalytical approach here is only going to be useful if it sheds some light on the question, rather than simply convincing people who know les about Freud than you do that you know more about Freud than you do.

Fortunately, if this thread doesn't buck up it will probably end up in the Conversation, and nobody will mind.
 
 
Cloudhands
13:01 / 12.02.03
sorry perhaps I should have made it clearer. I view laziness as evidence of the death drive because of it’s addictive quality. I find laziness a very unenjoyable experience but once I’m in a lazy state I find it very difficult to get out of it, as if the death instinct is dominating over the pleasure principle.
After reading Quantum’s point What appears to be a long term program of self destruction is in fact the result of a lot of short term plans that seem like a good idea at the time perhaps the addictive quality of laziness is not due to the death drive taking over but because we are thinking about short term pleasures and not long term ones. Maybe it’s not evidence of the death drive after all.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:45 / 12.02.03
What appears to be a long term program of self destruction is in fact the result of a lot of short term plans that seem like a good idea at the time - Quantum

An evolutionary psychologist would half agree with the above. If you take food, for instance, through much of our evolutionary history individuals would have benefited from a strong drive to eat. In times of abundance, this becomes unhealthy. It is destructive since it is an inappropriate drive for specific circumstances. In other circumstances, it is a survival mechanism. You might try to explain lots of addiction in this way and, in fact, lots of destructive human behaviour. For instance War, sex (perhaps infidelity), greed etc.

Whether you believe the explanations is another matter, but its interesting nonetheless.
 
 
Quantum
14:40 / 12.02.03
the overriding drive in human nature, apart from survival, is actually self-destruction (usually in the form of destroying other people)
I was unconsciously equating self-destruction with 'evil'- perhaps the wrong word. I believe that our self destructive behaviour stems from choosing short term gains over long term gains, rather than from a psychological complex driving us towards Death. I believe the majority of our desires stem from biological imperatives to mate, eat, protect territory etc. I admit to a sympathy with evolutionary psychology but more importantly I don't believe Freudian psychoanalytic theory to be a plausible stance. To me he was like Einstein or Newton- a giant to stand on the shoulders of. I respect his work and his almost single handed invention of psychoanalysis, but as a historical figure- his work has been built upon since, and improved. If you accept the validity of Psychology as a discipline then you must also accept it can progress. I graduated in Psychology (+ Philosophy- can you tell?) a few years ago when Cognitive Psychology was the dominant paradigm, but I don't think it always will be- like any discipline the accepted credo will be challenged and overthrown in a few years time. I have read Freud, but disagree with his theories- I don't think we have a Death urge. *re-reading this I realise I might seem like I am being 'clever'- I only mention my degree to show the limits of my expertise, and to make people aware of any bias I have*
 
 
Brigade du jour
21:06 / 12.02.03
Okay okay, so maybe the examples I gave weren't brilliant, but I keep getting struck by these little quandaries and ironies and oxymorons and things every day, and it's nice to give them some sort of context if only to perpetuate the self-aggrandising myth that I'm like really smart 'n' that.

Anyway, what's all this about 'bucking up', Haus? Is there something fundamentally wrong with this thread that I'm blissfully unaware of? If so please un-bliss me, I'd rather know I don't make the same mistakes again.
 
 
Char Aina
21:19 / 12.02.03
well, for 3, i would say fear is not just easier to feel, its easier to come by, its easier to define, its even posibly more powerful than love.(i mean, you might be able to beat your fears through love, but i cant be the only one who has through fear destroyed a love)

regarding 4, i would say that as sex is the foundation of life, it has been imbued with some power by almost all human tribes.(if there is one that doesnt, i have never heard of them.) this power is often thought to be 'wasted' if used foolishly or frivolously. i have heard of this mostly in cultures to whom we are beings with 'power', such as the shamanic tibes, and the much more famous use of 'chi' by kung fu masters.
in my opinion, the moral suspicion you speak of is much more commonly directed at those who see sex as enjoyment, or who are perhaps unecessarily sexual.(obviously such necessity is nothing to do with the subjects reality, more the perceptions of the observer)


1 and 2 i am less sure about.



in general, though, and possibly unrelated to your four reasons i think we are doomed. when, i dont know, but i think the human race will eventually make a stupid mistake, the likes of which cannot be erased. if it is possible, it is likely it will occur.
i imagine a scenario like the vision in The Dead Zone, or possibly further in the future, a new nagasaki or hiroshima, but on a far larger scale. a galactic scale, perhaps. some brand new weapon that filters all the carbon out of the universe, perhaps. one that leaves it as diamonds, dumped like morraine at the edges of the galaxy. that would at least be pretty.
 
 
Brigade du jour
21:34 / 12.02.03
And then after this apocalypse, I expect a new universe will evolve, thereby proving the Big Bang Theory in circular, not linear terms.
 
 
Char Aina
21:43 / 12.02.03
"Fortunately, if this thread doesn't buck up it will probably end up in the Conversation, and nobody will mind. "

i agree, that was too much.

all you had already said was making your point, that was just being a nob. but then thats me. you could have dropped everything outside the commas, and it would have been a nicer sentence. and it would also have been even more obvious how unescessary it was.

(if this becomes threadrot and you wish to argue as you have done, please do so privately)




and funktion, new kid.

i think that the most obvious addiction that plagues modern people is our addiction to sugar. we dont need as much as we currently use in the 'western' world, and it is bad for us in the doses we take it.
i do know some people who avoid it, but then they avoid things like caffiene and usually eat a more careful diet than i do, so it is hard to tell the specific benefits.
we are also addicted to television, a slightly more contentious point as TeeVee is not as far as i am aware something that the body ever craves. i first took the metaphor, 'addicted to television', more seriously when i saw Requiem For A Dream. i realised that it fits more snugly than is at first obvious to the definition.
 
 
Creepster
23:12 / 12.02.03
id just like to go back to quantums "just another austrian fiction" to
point out that this is not an agrument but a statement of fact. there
seems to be some confusion. secondly so far as lazyness is
concerned the death drive is probably operative as the sedentry
nature of this behaviour(?) is 'on the way back to the inanimate
(ie precisly the course of the death drive). also freud explicitly say,
and many times too, that the drives are always intertwined.
I admit to being not so sure but doesnt freuds characterize the death
drive as being analogous to the biological principle of homiostasis?
and also describing it as an invocation of the pleasure principle in some
sense as the imperative to relieve ones self of exitation, internal or external.
but so far as humanity's unltimate destiny is concerned, im not sure
you will have noitced but @ least in the west over the last few centuries
life has become increaingly ordered, stable, even complacent with the natural
environment increasingly subject to technological control...im not saying that
i think this is humanities ultimate destiny but.....
are there any hegel heads out there?? hegel would be cool about now.
 
 
Funktion
02:01 / 13.02.03
i think that the most obvious addiction that plagues modern people is our addiction to sugar. we dont need as much as we currently use in the 'western' world, and it is bad for us in the doses we take it.



Well first, it shouldn't surprise that sugar has some form of 'addictive properties' considering that glucose is the fuel our brains run on...
The kinds of sugars wrapped in saturated fats we intake provide the an immediate fix for the depressed and the stressed out. With such a stress inducing societal environment it is all to easy for many to take salvation in the quick fix of a Snickers bar and Starbucks...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:47 / 13.02.03
Anyway, what's all this about 'bucking up', Haus? Is there something fundamentally wrong with this thread that I'm blissfully unaware of? If so please un-bliss me, I'd rather know I don't make the same mistakes again.

Well, vague speculation followed by unsupported assertions, with a healthy smattering of supporting material drawn from science fiction novels and movies, coupled with constant threadrot. Which is fine, it's just not an argument for having it in the Head Shop; more people who would be interested in participating in a thread based on these priniciples frequent the Conversation, and as such the Conversation would see more people able and willing to contribute to it. Is all.

Honestly, you kids treat the Conversation like it's a terrible thing...think how its poor hard-working moderators must feel.
 
 
Quantum
07:54 / 13.02.03
this is not an agrument but a statement of fact. there
seems to be some confusion. yes, I am confused. What is a fact? the Death urge? When was it proven as fact? HOW can it be proven as fact? In my experience paradigms compete to explain the facts using theories- people's behaviour and experiences are facts, the 'Death urge' is an hypothesis used to explain that behaviour. It is not a psychological fact in the same way as somebody often being late is, it is a fact in the same way 'Pi is a great film' is a fact- ie. subjective. I think Pi IS a great film but I wouldn't say it was a statement of objective truth that nobody could disagree with.
"over the last few centuries life has become increasingly ordered, stable, even complacent with the natural environment increasingly subject to technological control...I'm not saying that I think this is humanities ultimate destiny but..." I think you are completely right- those with the technology want to control everybody and decide humanity's destiny. The Technocracy, as some conspiracy theorists call them, or Technopoly (a book by Neil Postman I think). Perhaps they feel that Humanity's innate tendency toward self destruction (what you call the death urge) needs to be controlled to save us all from ourselves- an insidious idea.
Laziness is self destructive in the long term but enjoyable in the short term- it's nice to sit down and drink sugary glucose drinks and watch TV, even though I know I have things to do. Trapped by procrastination, I always think 'Just a few more minutes...'
Paper-Scissors-Stone is easy, just always go rock. Good old, dependable Rock.
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:12 / 13.02.03
we are also addicted to television, a slightly more contentious point as TeeVee is not as far as i am aware something that the body ever craves - toksik

However, the body does have lots of pleasure mechanisms that are, well, pleasurable. They are meant to encourage you to act in particular ways with the right stimuli. Sex, for instance. But you can trick the body into giving you the pleasure without the appropriate act - like having sex while practising birth control. (Clearly, I mean appropriate from a biological rather than moral point of view.) TV may fall into the same category, I don't know.
 
 
Cloudhands
10:16 / 13.02.03
Do you mean that in watching TV we can decieve our body into thinking that it is satisfying our biological deisres? Most T.V programmes don’t give us any long term pleasures. The half hour length of many t.v programmes seems purposely designed to leave us craving for more. If I watch a film I feel a lot more satisfied, for longer afterwards.
Biological desires tend to be satisfied by short term pleasures e.g eating, sex, the majority of the pleasure we gain from them is short term. So maybe when short term pleasures can decieve the body into believing we are satisfying biological desires?
 
 
ephemerat
12:14 / 13.02.03
While TV will often use biological imperatives such as sex and (perhaps) the need for company as a selling tool, much of TV seems more predisposed towards catering for our social or aspirational desires (although it is possible that even these could, arguably, be reduced in some way to biological desires): It often focuses on the lives of those who are depicted as having one or more qualities that most of aspire to; the ability to travel, physical beauty, wit, exciting and challenging trials, intelligence, professional success in high status careers, extended groups of friends and family etc. Moreover it is often predictable, or at least the main themes are predictable (e.g. the main character is always going to be alright in the end no matter how bad things seem at any particular time, love is likely to triumph over all, good people are generally rewarded, bad people are usually revealed and punished); even with reality TV which seems to satisfy our craving for social company (without having to actually meet any one else) there is no danger to the viewer: it provides an escape from the mutinously chaotic vicissitudes of our everyday life. In this way it could, I suppose, be considered to be self-destructive in the way that we surrender our own self or life (even temporarily) to a life by proxy.

Perhaps it is also self-destructive in the way in which it influences us to focus on issues which are of no actual threat to us thereby ignoring (or de-emphasising) real and present dangers in the outside world - especially political or economic ones. But then the same criticism could and has been levelled at all escapes into fiction be it watching, reading, playing or even writing the stuff.

And I'm not sure how relevant this is to the thread's objectives...
 
 
ephemerat
13:09 / 13.02.03
Some thoughts on the thread so far:

Re: We're all doomed.

Some people on this thread seem to be assuming that humanity is doomed by its own head, heart and hand. I just can't accept that. It seems like outright hubris to assume a fixed destiny for humanity capable of being perceived by an individual human who is by definition a part of said humanity. So far us monkeys have done a pretty reasonable job of survival in the face of, for example; fire, floods, droughts, disease and the preponderence of far (physically) superior predators: for many thousands of years we did this without the help of the tools and weapons we have since come to rely on. Certainly self-destruction (perhaps because of pursuit of short-term, tribe-focused, resource-orientated goals over longer-term, species- and ecology-orientated goals) is one of a number of possibilities. Perhaps, it is even, the strongest possibility. But it is by no means inevitable.

Re: Psychoanalysing humanity.

Sorry, Haus (I know you were only throwing ideas into the ring) but I think this Freudian 'death-urge' could be something of a red herring - especially as (again) some people seem to be assuming it as TRUTH without any reflection. Psychoanalysing the behaviour of humans as a generalised mass is aesthetically pleasing (because it seems simple) but let's face it, it's ludicrously reductive - what we are seeing is the product of billions of individuals making little decisions that combine to produce huge results. An assumption that the combined behaviour represents some kind of collective 'death-urge' (FWIR, I believe Freud used the term 'Death Instinct', or Thanatos, or some such) seems like a fairly hideous splicing of psychoanalysis and species watching - it's like anthropomorphising the entire human race as a whole species in action and then trying to psychiatrically evaluate it as if it were an individual. Freudian psychoanalysis was never designed as a tool for revealing hidden or sublimated desires in the behaviour of populations as a whole - it's messy and I don't think it's particularly useful.

However, there is stuff that is geared toward analysis of populations. I'm thinking statistical analysis of behavioural trends; or Durkheim's (ick) 19th Century treatise on Suicide; or Douglas and Atkinson's 1960s treatment of the same subject. Hm... I'll be back with more...
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:31 / 13.02.03
Do you mean that in watching TV we can decieve our body into thinking that it is satisfying our biological deisres? Most T.V programmes don’t give us any long term pleasures

Actually, I was thinking of something more direct than that. Watching TV causes changes in brain patterns akin to a light hypnotic state - it could be making or tricking the body and brain into doing something that was meant for something else. I'm on shaky ground here, perhaps, but I'm likening it to the way in which morphine is supposed to make you feel calm and relaxed in a (more or less) healthy way. Manufacture it, of course, and you get problems.
 
 
Cloudhands
13:40 / 13.02.03
Manufacture it, of course, and you get problems.
Oh right, I’ve got you. But then it sounds like sex with contraception is ‘manufactured’ because it doesn’t fufill the biological need for getting pregnant. That makes it sound like eventually women are going to have problems if they don’t have babies!
 
 
ephemerat
13:45 / 13.02.03
Actually, I was thinking of something more direct than that. Watching TV causes changes in brain patterns akin to a light hypnotic state - it could be making or tricking the body and brain into doing something that was meant for something else.

Ayuh, I'm sure I remember reading that watching TV stimulates the brain to begin producing alpha waves (as opposed to normal waking state which is beta waves, or reading print which produces fast beta waves). Isn't supposed to tune out the left hemisphere (logic and analysis) while leaving the non-critical and emotional right hemisphere receptive?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:56 / 13.02.03
(Offtopic - *did* Freud use the term "Thanatos" himself, though? I have a feelign that the eros/thantos antithesis was created in commentaries about Beyond the Pleasure Principle, rather than in the text itself. coudl be very wrong indeed, though. Also offtopic, I think that people are getting a bit confused over refutations here. I think Creepster was not saying that the death urge was a fact, rather that Quantum had failed to argue against it, merely stating its invalidity as if that invalidity were a fact. While we're here, I think toksie has got his, or rather my, punctuation confused rather. I was of course saying not that it woudl be fortunate and nobody would mind if this thread ended up in the Conversation, but rather that if this thread ended up in the Conversation it would be fortunate because nobody would mind the levels and methods of discussion. Obviously.)

So, we think our level of technology is such that we are generating things designed to mimic states we might normally experience sparingly, but can now experience for more of the time than is healthy, possibly?

Creepster - how would you bring Hegel into this one?
 
 
Cloudhands
14:16 / 13.02.03
our level of technology is such that we are generating things designed to mimic states we might normally experience sparingly, but can now experience for more of the time than is healthy, possibly?
To apply Freud's model again, (his drives may not exist literally but they are at least a good metaphor) We may be satisfying the pleasure principle more often than is healthy, according to Freud the reality principle is the drive that tells us to work, rather than constantly satisfying our pleasures and it is able to dominate over the pleasure principle. In the modern age, food, warmth are a lot easier to access so the reality principle doesn't need to 'kick in' as often as prehistoric times, so we can spend more time satisfying the pleasure principle which may not be what our bodies were designed for.
 
 
ephemerat
14:29 / 13.02.03
(Offtopic - *did* Freud use the term "Thanatos" himself, though? I have a feelign that the eros/thantos antithesis was created in commentaries about Beyond the Pleasure Principle, rather than in the text itself. coudl be very wrong indeed, though...

Arr... bugger. Ye be right, never trust a scurvy Soton Poly lecturer, arr...

Or my own decade-old recollection, perhaps.).

(Also re: the alpha wave effect - I seem to remember one of the first Yogis who made it over to the States and was tested using ECG to see if he could produce certain waves said, after much testing, something like: 'I know what the alpha waves that you are so obsessed with are. They are nothing.' Will try to find a link to a reasonably informative source document but predictably there seems to be a profusion of extremely dodgy pseudo-science articles written about the subject.)
 
 
Brigade du jour
20:14 / 13.02.03
I've got nothing against the Conversation bit, lord up on high knows I visit it enough. I just didn't know there was some kind of stigma attached to any of these different areas.

And yes, maybe this thread was entirely off the top of my head, but hey I'm a creature of impulse. If you don't want to take any of it seriously that's your privilege, but lots of people have made some interesting points and brought in various cultural, scientific and literary references which shame my own poor show in that department. For that alone I think this thread deserves a bit of respect.
 
 
Creepster
00:59 / 14.02.03
I think Creepster was not saying that the death urge was a fact, rather
that Quantum had failed to argue against it, merely stating its invalidity
as if that invalidity were a fact.

indeed. and he simply repeated the error in reply.

Creepster - how would you bring Hegel into this one?

i was hoping someone else could say. but in terms of his theory regarding
our historical destiny or the end of history. something to do with his
catogories. (incidently how do you highlight sections of copied text? )
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:32 / 14.02.03
Simplified HTML, basically. Check out the FAQ. Will have a think about Hegel when I get a moment. Anyone else?
 
 
agapanthus
07:48 / 15.02.03
In general terms Hegel saw hunamity as being propelled by the contest and subsequent resolution of competing manifested spirit or ideas. For Hegel, humans are socially made; historically determined (I don't think individualism/free will is an option for Hegel) by the governing ideas in which we exist - the zeitgeist.
Like Plato, Hegel saw ideas/forms as constituting the ultimate reality, the absolute, which lay at the end of human history in a vast rationalist whole, intricate and interelated, finally clear and transparent. The revelation of this mystical wholeness occurs through the dialectic : a thesis is manifest and contested by its antithesis, the resolution of which (synthesis), leads to a new thesis and so on.

For example- Thesis: the divine right of monarchical rule. Antithesis: Government by the popular (however limited) consent of an enfranchised class/gender. Synthesis: Constitutional/parliamentary Monarchy.

The dialectic of history moves ultimately toward its final purpose (teleology)of absolute reason and absolute rational knowledge. At the end of history, humanity is free and no longer alienated from itself, from spirit. In finally coming to total knowledge of all the minutae of the things of the world, and in finally coming to the ultimate rational pattern of the interlocking of these constituent parts, the dialectic reaches its telos and Absolute spirit is manifest.

I don't know how well I've put this, but for Hegel, humanity's ultimate destiny is a paradise of rationalist complete knowledge and mystical union with complete and absolute spirit. Know thyself. Fully.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply