Jump to content

Do animals share in this 'more' and 'beyond'?


PaulS

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I know.

But, makes no sense to break down the whole lot or repeat the entire quote. As I said, just respond in full.

Actually, responding to every little bit is awkward for me, as a reader, but, since it is your style..........I went with it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, thormas said:

But, makes no sense to break down the whole lot or repeat the entire quote. As I said, just respond in full.

To whom? 

The request was for you to learn to use the quote function. 

Personally, I dislike a wall of text especially when it is full of complicated and perhaps ill defined terms. 

But good, you seem to have run out of questions thormas.

How do you form your beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, romansh said:

To whom? 

The request was for you to learn to use the quote function. 

Personally, I dislike a wall of text especially when it is full of complicated and perhaps ill defined terms. 

But good, you seem to have run out of questions thormas.

How do you form your beliefs?

We differ: surprise! I like the so called wall of text, especially when it is full of complicated terms and something worth the work. The piecemeal never satisfies: go all in or go home.

As for ill defined, the onus is on the one who presents his case, to carefully present and explain terms so his audience can respond.

And never out of questions or thoughts.

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, romansh said:

 

I think the word illusion is not the best descriptor. Take the chair: what is seen as red is not what is (in itself) rather it is what seems to be (for us). But does the same go for the chair: is what we see and call chair’ not what it seems? However,  by this, do we simply mean we are not always thinking or conscious of what makes up’ the chair,  the arrangements of atoms – or do we simply mean that the chair is seen as object’ and that we name it chair?  Thus it could be said 'chair' is a concept (of ours).

If we accept that the universe is real and that physical reality is made up of fundamental matter (ex. atoms) and arranged in different ways, then the chair’ is a particular arrangement of reality, and, as such, is not an object in itself,’ not a separate thing’ -  however, it is seen as such by us; it seems to be that which it is not. And it is named as such by us so we can navigate the world, so to speak. Therefore, it can be said that such objects or things’ like chairs are simply the way we refer to particular arrangements of matter; they are not independent 'things.' So it could be said things or objects’ are not what they seem, because they only seem a certain way, because of us. Therefore, it can be said the objects (and the naming) are not real’ but are concepts devised by us; therefore, objects are concepts. 

Therefore what is real is the universe, but the 'individual objects' of the universe are not independent existences or parts of the universe. They are our conception (and naming) of the real, physical universe. And this is the resultof how we are built so we can make our way in/though the world. The physical world is indeed real, but “objects” are our conception - that which we regard as things and upon which we place names is real. The universe is real, it is what is (in itself) yet seems to be a particular way because of us and for us.

Therefore, the universe is real and is not illusion. And if we say everything is illusion, it must be qualified: everything that is, is real - however, our conception of it is what it seems - for us and therefore illusion because the universe is not a multiplicity of objects, it is not (in itself) what it seems to us. When the universe, when reality is encountered by (self)conscious beings, then that reality is objectified, conceptualized, named so man might know it. Man encounters reality as it is but to know it, he (must?) encounters it as it seems: as objects to be named so he can make his way (so to speak).

Is this what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, romansh said:

If you mean all four paragraphs? No.

Regardless, and since there is no sincere attempt to respond, I think this is the correct take on what you have been trying to say. 

You are welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, romansh said:

Then which bit or bits is it what I am supposed to mean?

That was my summary understanding of what you were trying to say, albeit contradictory and confusing at times for someone who does not frame things that way.

So, having read it, just give a summary of your understanding.

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summary of my understanding of what I have said?

  1. I assume a universe exists.
  2. I have limited access to that universe in that my senses are limited.
  3. Consequently what I observe directly of the universe is incomplete.
  4. Looking at world more carefully using the scientific method our observations are more complete, but still incomplete.
  5. If we apply logic and science to our incomplete observations and our intuitive perceptions, we find that our intuitions about red kitchen chairs etc are not what they seem.
  6. So using similar processes to everything, we can say the contents of the universe are not what they seem.
  7. But nevertheless our perceptions are a reflection of the universe.
  8. And our new perceptions of the universe are more accurate as we use the scientific method ... but still likely wrong.
Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost.

The universe is real (as you once said, yet now you merely assume its existence), and everything, including the universe, is not illusion (as you once said). Rather, given the way we encounter the world, we perceive and distinguish objects; we name and know about 'our' objectified world. So, the universe 'is what it is' (i.e. real); the universe is not illusion.  The only illusion, i.e. things being not as (what) they seem is from our perspective. The universe/everything 'is not' what it seems to be for us. And this is so, precisely because of the way we know (the world and self). Perhaps, It is more accurate to say that the universe is not exactly how we perceive it: our perception does not reflect the universe, as (it) is; our perception reflects the world as it seems to us. 

When we look in the mirror, we still see objects, we still see the world (and ourselves) as it seems to us; we don't perceive in a new way; what we perceive, in the mirror, is only (and still) a reflection of what we perceive.

Illusion is a descriptor that must be used in small, careful measure, less one assumes that all the universe or the contents of the universe is illusion whereas it is our perception of the universe that is not what it seems to be - for us. 

At another time we will have to revisit 'nothing is the first cause' which appears (poof) as a reliance on magic - a magic more magical than the supposed work of deities or gods.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thormas,

It seems to me, you you make his point in your last post. Since we can only view reality subjectively through our perceptions, (not objectively) we can say that "things are not exactly what they seem". Hence they are illusory in nature even though we might find two or more in agreement otherwise. 

WHEN you woke up this morning, you found the world largely as you left it. You were still you; the room in which you awoke was the same one you went to sleep in. The outside world had not been rearranged. History was unchanged and the future remained unknowable. In other words, you woke up to reality. But what is reality? The more we probe it, the harder it becomes to comprehend. Whatever reality is, it isn't what it seems.

https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/

Here is just one bit from the new scientist

-------------------------------------------------------

WHEN Albert Einstein finally completed his general theory of relativity in 1916, he looked down at the equations and discovered an unexpected message: the universe is expanding.

Einstein didn’t believe the physical universe could shrink or grow, so he ignored what the equations were telling him. Thirteen years later, Edwin Hubble found clear evidence of the universe’s expansion. Einstein had missed the opportunity to make the most dramatic scientific prediction in history.

How did Einstein’s equations “know” that the universe was expanding when he did not? If mathematics is nothing more than a language we use to describe the world, an invention of the human brain, how can it possibly churn out anything beyond what we put in? “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here,” wrote physicist Eugene Wigner in his classic 1960 paper “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” (Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol 13, p 1).

The prescience of mathematics seems no less miraculous today. At the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, near Geneva, Switzerland, physicists recently observed the fingerprints of a particle that was arguably discovered 48 years ago lurking in the equations of particle physics.

How is it possible that mathematics “knows” about Higgs particles or any other feature of physical reality? “Maybe it’s because math is reality,” says physicist Brian Greene of Columbia University, New York

-----------------------------------------------

While we can say the universe is real, science points to present evidence that it is clearly not what it seems. 

Some theories hold that reality and consciousness are one and the same. Is the universe really all inside your head?

Many great minds find it difficult to dispute that consciousness is all there is. While i am agnostic on this subject , from my experience, i also find it difficult to dispute and have found a level of comfort in uncertainty.

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thormas said:

The universe is real (as you once said, yet now you merely assume its existence)

I have mentioned solipsism, have I not? Yes I have faith the universe is real. I have no way that I can certify it is real. There are idealists who claim it is not real. Some claim the moon is only real if it is being observed. Go figure. 

4 hours ago, thormas said:

 the universe is not illusion.

But our perception of it is.

5 hours ago, thormas said:

precisely because of the way we know

Agnosticism?

5 hours ago, thormas said:

Perhaps, It is more accurate to say that the universe is not exactly how we perceive it:

Perhaps it is more accurate to say our  perception of the universe is a reflection and not how we perceive it. Things like free will spring to mind.

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

Some theories hold that reality and consciousness are one and the same. Is the universe really all inside your head? 

Many great minds find it difficult to dispute that consciousness is all there is. While i am agnostic on this subject , from my experience, i also find it difficult to dispute and have found a level of comfort in uncertainty.

I must admit I find these theories hard to believe. It is easier to accept that consciousness is also illusionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JosephM said:

 

Joseph, 

Welcome back. I found your earlier comment helpful but when I responded, nothing. And here you are again. Thanks.

First, as you must know, this understanding of illusion v reality is not mine, not one I spend much time on. However, I tried to get Rom's take on things and kept asking questions to get that understanding. The problem, from my perspective, was twofold: first, I believed I was getting different and contradictory answers and I was asking, "what is real or reality" and we never got there (unless it was lost in the back and forth). Finally, reviewing the posts and doing additional reading, I summarized my understanding of this issue. 

And I believe the word illusion is not helpful, given its definition is, wrongly perceived or false idea. Rather 'not as it seems - for me' suggest that human perception is limited or incomplete or 'human.'  Since we, seemingly, have no idea if it is wrong or false, this allows for a more nuanced understanding. Regardless, as summarized, human beings do 'know' in a particular way and it can be said that our perception is what reality 'seems to be - to/for us.'  However, as you added, "things are not exactly what they seem:" reality is -  however, we perceive reality, not exactly as it is, but rather as it seems to us.

It is also not helpful to say that our perceptions are i'llusory in nature:' simply, this can be is an impediment to hearing and understanding this idea (simply not the most effective way to explain it for others). It is intriguing (but for a later post) that we find not just two or more but the vast majority (effectively all) human beings who either think otherwise or don't even consider whether our perception of reality is what it seems to be for us but might not match what is. There seems to be a sense that, regardless of how we know and what we perceive, it is sufficient, we are sufficient to what is necessary or important to life - especially when we admit we don't know what reality is. Actually, this sounds very much like how people have talked about their 'knowledge of God:' they recognize they are human, limited and can never know it all - yet they live, move and have being.

Good presentation about waking up in the morning and exactly, what is reality - a question I have posed repeatedly. However one wonders how 'off target' (for lack of a better description) what seems is from what is. I've always thought if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, not only is there no noise, there is no tree, no forest, no-thing. Because it is man whose perceptions (must) differentiate in order to move in the world and name the differentiation in order to know the world and self. "Whatever reality is, it isn't what it seems." Conversely, it might be close to what it seems - we simply don't know. However, reality is what is 'met' when we perceive, name and know -  as we are able. 

Interesting, 'math is reality.' But whether Einstein saw it or not, it was his math (a means of perception) that 'saw' something of reality or, to remain consistent, math perceived 'what seems to be' from the perspective of man. For, isn't 'expanding' a concept and concepts objects and objects illusion? Math is not reality, it sees reality or what seems to be!

"While we can say the universe is real, science points to present evidence that it is clearly not what it seems." I agree with the first part of this statement but it is interesting that we are saying science, which is a human tool for perceiving reality (viewing objects as does man), is cited to present evidence that what seems to be is not what it seems.

If I understand Rom, he is a physicalist and, as such believes that reality is (only that which is) physical. So I'm not sure if he would consider a theory that argues that reality is consciousness. And if we are talking one consciousness that is reality, does this theory trip over to the more than physical or that which transcends the physical - which is also called super-natural? For consciousness seems to be other or more than the physical - unless we conceive of a universe size physical brain. Furthermore, I don't think the universe is inside my head because neither my ego or my head is that big and I am not "God." 

Many great minds also find it impossible to know if consciousness is all there is. There is uncertainty for us all and one lives with it (a comfort of sorts) but, human beings also need to know: there is sense of the transcendent in man, simply that 'there is more' and s/he reaches beyond self to become Self; reaches beyond consciousness to become Consciousness.  But this too, if for another thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with using consciousness (should it exist) to determine what is real, is that we have put the fox in charge of the hen house. For example were you aware that you are effectively blind for approximately two hours a day during our waking hours. Yet consciousness presents a continuous stream. Obviously this is for very short bursts and I am not referring to blinking either.  There are no end of experiments to suggest we should be very wary of our consciousness. Human being are confabulators extraordinaire. 

When you present evidence for the non-physical I will consider it. The problem here is of course, if the non-physical interacts reliably with the physical it is immediately subsumed in the physical. But as yet we have no evidence for the non-physical. Waiting with baited breath.

While using the word illusion might be scary to some, and in that sense not helpful; but it might be eye opening and helpful in that sense. That you don't spend much time on examining reality and its illusory nature is fair enough. But the word makes one think. 

Noise is like colour ... an illusion. For example I have tinnitus ... is that noise? Noise itself is a product of the brain. Evolution has given an exquisite mechanism to sense rapidly changing pressures in the air. Just think rapidly changing air pressure, is converted to mechanical movement in the middle ear and which is converted to electrical stimuli in the inner ear. And converted to what we call sound in the brain. I am sure there will be other creatures in the forest that are sensitive to rapidly changing air pressure. 

We do have a sense of what is false. If you are agnostic about the world being flat, more power to you; but if you are, you are, I see little point in discussing science with you. If you think I have said we cannot determine falseness, then you have not understood what I have been trying to say. Came across this today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Joseph, 

Welcome back. I found your earlier comment helpful but when I responded, nothing. And here you are again. Thanks.

First, as you must know, this understanding of illusion v reality is not mine, not one I spend much time on. However, I tried to get Rom's take on things and kept asking questions to get that understanding. The problem, from my perspective, was twofold: first, I believed I was getting different and contradictory answers and I was asking, "what is real or reality" and we never got there (unless it was lost in the back and forth). Finally, reviewing the posts and doing additional reading, I summarized my understanding of this issue. 

 

Sorry Thormas. I didn't mean to be rude by not responding to your comments to my first post. I didn't have any response to it or require any clarification to your comments. it was fine.  My 2 nd post was in response to your post directly above it referenced  (your last post - it was to Rom) in my first sentence. I have been reading all the posts with interest.

To me, i find the illusory nature of our perceptions (even though it may not be shared by many others here except perhaps Rom) a very important piece of understanding to a spiritual walk. To me it seems that perception is an impersonal quality of consciousness or one might say an impersonal quality of Divinity expressed as awareness and is nondualistic and nonlinear. Form to me is an expression of the potentiality of that consciousness as it evolved as an aspect of Creation. In my experience to see reality one must transcend (or see the collapse of the illusions of duality). Duality in my experience is created by perceptions, To me, they (perceptions) obscure Divinity and make things appear separate when in truth, they are not. But all that may require much  explaining and may be better left to another thread if there is interest since this one is in regard to animals sharing in the more and beyond. ?

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, romansh said:

 

I'll let you and Joseph lead any discussion (for now) on consciousness and the non-physical. But your take on consciousness is of course opinion (dare I say belief?). 

Just one note: to allow that the non-physical 'interacts' with the physical, suggests the non-physical has 'thingness' (with which to interact) and that it must be a lesser reality because it is subsumed or absorbed. Another option is that 'it' is not a thing, as such does not 'interact' and is not absorbed but can still impact/influence the physical, or more properly speaking, the physical that is self-conscious. A symbol comes to mind:  a symbol 'points' to that which is not physically present, or that which is not even physical, and 'makes' it 'present.'  That which the symbol points to has a presence (i.e. impact or influence) greater than mere physicalness or nearness. Think of a country's flag which 'stands for' or points to 'patriotism' and that patriotism is/can be(come) present in one who recognizes the symbol. Patriotism does not interact, it is not absorbed: for one for whom the symbol is important, patriotism is embodied, made physically present in him/her and influences who they are, how they act. The non-physical is present and brings change (if acknowledged and accepted by the human being) and it has greater 'presence' (influence not proximity) than, for example, the T-shirt worn that day by the one for whom the symbol points. Schillebeeckx, when speaking about the Eucharist (which works the same way). called this transignification. 

You miss the point about the word illusion. It is not scary: watch: ILLUSION! See all is still okay. It was from a teaching perspective: the word is too easily defined in a way that does not make your case and as such is easily dismissed. Further, as indicated, it's different definitions can take the place of your preferred definition and (see previous sentence). I know some people use certain words for their possible jarring impact (such as atheist Christian) but, I find, if the effort is put forth, there is no need to jar people. And, to clarify, I spend a great deal of time on reality, what is known, how we know just not specifically on the word illusion which I find illusory (misleading). However, it has been a fun conversation.

I get what you're saying about color and now noise - my point remains this is simply the way we have evolved to encounter and 'know' reality - as it seems to us.

Not sure what you are talking about with the whole thing about falseness??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, thormas said:

your take on consciousness is of course opinion (dare I say belief?).

Perhaps it should be  written ...  of course opinion (dare I say belief?) based on evidence.

And that brings us back to ... how do you form your beliefs thormas? You have had plenty of time to think about it.

Patriotism is writ large in a substrate ... like all other concepts! You won't find it outside of the substrate.

 ... the way we have evolved to encounter and experience reality - as it seems to us ... I think would be more accurate. 

12 hours ago, thormas said:

Not sure what you are talking about with the whole thing about falseness??

This of course is the disadvantage of not referencing the bit of text that is being discussed. I am sure you can find where you have discussed false in your recent posts.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Patriotism is writ large in a substrate ... like all other concepts! You won't find it outside of the substrate.

This of course is the disadvantage of not referencing the bit of text that is being discussed. I am sure you can find where you have discussed false in your recent posts.

No, my particular presentation of what I wanted to contribute to the dialogue is more than fine and on point. 

The question is what is the substrate or ground of being and that goes to (encompasses) all that is: all is of and is sustained by the ground/substrate* of being; there is nothing 'outside' of the substrate, outside of being. So to say patriotism is writ large in (the) substrate is to state the obvious: all is in the substrate, some more obvious than others.  You say that the ground of all is the merely physical; others do not. Regardless, patriotism is non-physical and, as shown, it is embodied by and in physical, (self)conscious beings. 

Concerning your game of fetch: if one is unsure of their argument and seeks to obfuscate the dialogue, an effective way to do it would be to lift sentences from past posts and try to send another on the proverbial goose chase - but this only works if another wants to play games. Of course, if one is confident in their argument, there is no need or desire to chase geese or past posts.

*Note: I never liked the idea/word, ground or substrate, in the context above, but because it has been used in this thread, there is basic agreement on what is meant by the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JosephM said:

 

Not a problem Joseph, I assumed as much.

I agree that perception is (can be) 'an impersonal quality of consciousness' and an impersonal engagement with Reality. It is a knowing of or about reality; the knowing of objects among other objects. Perception, our usual mode of knowing aboutdiffers, in kind, from knowingReality as  (it) Is. I had a professor who said: the infant 'wakes' to Life proper in the (immediate) knowing of Being. When the mother, holds a (toy) rhino or a rattle to the baby, it matters not what individual thing it is, because the preeminent in this moment of human intuition is Being/Reality. However, as is necessary, as is proper, this immediate intuition of Being 'takes a back seat' as the child learns to identify different objects, learns language, names her world and, thereby, 'forgets' Being as Is.  

I actually don't believe this is a bad thing: we perceive and distinguish among the 'things' in our world, holding them as objects to be known and we also learn to know about ourselves (we too are objects - yet more). This is a knowing that is suited to our existence and necessary for our survival as finite beings. 

I think, in life, for some, there are moments when wonder 'breaks through' or, conversely, we see Being, we intuit ‘More’ in and through our encounters with and in the world. I also think that there are moments when another pulls back the curtain and says, now 'see.'  A professor of mine was one who did this: a slight, blading man with a monk like beard, stood in front of a class of guys and said, "nothing, nothing, nothing" then ever so slowly brought his hands from behind his back, in which he held a rock and said, 'being!' Or he rolled a ball across the floor and when someone picked it up, he said simply, "what is?" Or he told us the Pope came into a room, stood up on a table and danced: he, then, asked, "what is: the Pope or the running; is the Pope the one who runs or is there just the running?" So began our introduction to being, the greatest re-learning we have ever experienced to that time and to this day. 

So I agree, if I correctly understand you (in the short time it took to read and respond). However, I think the mystics, the one who tries to open himself to this awareness and encounter with Being - even the mystic must come back to his world, avoid objects, distinguish among deadly snakes, and think on (as object) what they encountered in their mediation or on their walk. Even the Eckharts of the world, think and write about what they 'experience, what they knowand give us this insight, this information, these 'things' to think about and in thinking, in contemplation, perhaps realize the possibility of 'wonder, of insight' and, thereby, draw us to walk also.   

I can see where duality is created by perception, created by our way of knowing and that Divinity/Being is (also) obscured by this knowing. However, I am thankful that any immediate knowing of Being is a walk, a journey, yet to be. To live constantly in the immediacy of the Beatific Vision (so called by Catholics) would be overwhelming and remove choice (and we will leave freedom of choice to another thread also) to 'discover' (and live in) Being. I believe Life Proper/Being/Divinity presents Self to being(s) and the possibilities are before us: to wonder, to know, to walk into the fullness of Being. Obviously this is not a luxury for all human beings, which, for me, is a realization that I (we) must embody Divinity/Being and, once lived in finite human beings, can, more easily, be seen and made present in the lives of others. 

I have never been able to get my head around the idea that Being must throw itself out into creation in order to know itself. On a philosophical level it makes no sense (another later discussion) but it just seems like a selfishact; it is all, we are all about Being knowing itself. There is One but knowing itself is the reason to be for all that is – and the good news is the one finds its way back to itself - after discovering itself. 

I always thought there was graciousness in Life and a giftedness to creation, thus Eckharts prayer of thank you.And a gift is alwaysfor the other.Plus, although there is One, there is multiplicity in the One: not a multiplicity of being(s) but a multiplicity of persons in being. There are, paradoxically, others in the One. Finally, I was impressed with Whiteheads notion of  Beauty: that there is a higher beauty in the many becoming one (diversity in unity) than there is in the unity of the same or the one. Another way of putting this is that, even in my moments of wonder, insight, having the curtain pulled back, I never thought I was (or we collectively were) God or the One; actually it was enough to be a child of Being, the One, Divinity and grow into the fullness of Life.

I know much is here and much might need elaboration but I felt your post required a thoughtful, if hurried, response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thormas said:

No, my particular presentation of what I wanted to contribute to the dialogue is more than fine and on point. 

This as you would say is your opinion ... ?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

The question is what is the substrate or ground of being and that goes to (encompasses) all that is: all is of and is sustained by the ground/substrate* of being; there is nothing 'outside' of the substrate, outside of being.

What? 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

So to say patriotism is writ large in (the) substrate is to state the obvious: all is in the substrate, some more obvious than others.  You say that the ground of all is the merely physical; others do not. Regardless, patriotism is non-physical and, as shown, it is embodied by and in physical, (self)conscious beings. 

Well I am glad it is obvious. Yet when I ask for what is immaterial, we end up pointing to the material. What evidence do these others bring to bear that there is an immaterial. Because things like patriotism are very material.  Saying patriotism is non-physical is to me a nonsense. The evidence points away from this assertion.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Concerning your game of fetch: if one is unsure of their argument and seeks to obfuscate the dialogue, an effective way to do it would be to lift sentences from past posts and try to send another on the proverbial goose chase - but this only works if another wants to play games. Of course, if one is confident in their argument, there is no need or desire to chase geese or past posts.

You don't seem to mind throwing sticks for me. If one is confident in one's arguments then one does not mind chasing the odd goose.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

*Note: I never liked the idea/word, ground or substrate, in the context above, but because it has been used in this thread, there is basic agreement on what is meant by the term

Well there are words like Being, Love, and One which  I don't like mainly because they are poorly defined. Plus when I read your sentence I can't quite make sense of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service