|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:11 am
To pigeon-hole Marxists as anti-religion would do a tremendous disservice to any large-scale socialist movement.
It's also not possible. People are neurologically incline to have a sense of mysticism, spiritualism, whatever you call it. That sense of a greater interconnectedness to the universe. Some have it to greater degree than others... it's just the way people are; the way we evolved over millions of years.
Religion tends offer the sort of poetry people are seeking when describing these things... and it is largely determined by their culture. Some ultimately describe it as God, some take a more atheist/nontheist/pantheist outlook.
It's the kind of thing that can have a benefit to society, in that it can be the catalysis that allows people to think beyond their own self-interest.
Some of the confusion is due to Marxism developing as a philosophy when the body and mind were treated as separate things. The body associated with the material, the mechanical.... which was associated with the progress of the Industrial Revolution, and progressivism in general. No one really understood how the mind worked or connected to the body, and they tended to allow religion to fill in the blanks where early psychology fell flat.
This is not true so much now. We now live in a world that thinks in neurons and circuits, communicating by invisible electrons, entangled in a complex array of networks. The paradigm is closer to the organic than the mechanic. People are not the clockwork beings we thought they were, after all.
The thing is... there is something kind of religious about that paradigm -- more spiritual than dogma. Because of the degree of intuition required to grasp it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:17 am
I concur with Demon Kagerou. Even I, as a Communist and an atheist, am still spiritual. It's human nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:00 pm
Quote: The only reason why people have faith and dont kill themselves is because most faiths being social/culture apparatus dont allow them too do so or they will be "Punished" by " Lesser caste, Eternal damnation, etc etc" Caste system is arbitrary and useless today. The assumption in Hinduism being that you are reincarnated would mean that you could be born into some civilization on a distant planet in some far away Galaxy where "the force is with you." And if they don't have a caste system ( if you are reincarnated into some perfect communist utopia in the future), you can't be "born into a lower caste." What Hinduism has is Karma, cause and effect, I punch you in the face and I get punched back. When you are reborn, the Karma you accumulated in your past life will continue to be stuck to your soul in your next life. There is no grand punishment. There is no sin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:16 pm
The caste system also requires belief in the atman/soul, too. razz
Some versions of Hinduism, though usually Buddhism, don't believe individual souls; they don't believe in reincarnation or the caste system that goes with it.
Rather, they believe in rebirth, that beings are more like many waves of one ocean. Our fate, for good or ill, is entwined forever. Hence the Mahayana emphasis on compassion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:39 pm
Demon Kagerou The caste system also requires belief in the atman/soul, too. razz No it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:04 pm
AnarchoPhiliac Demon Kagerou The caste system also requires belief in the atman/soul, too. razz No it doesn't. Explain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:02 pm
Demon Kagerou AnarchoPhiliac Demon Kagerou The caste system also requires belief in the atman/soul, too. razz No it doesn't. Explain? Savarkar Chaturvarnya means the four varnas (* the word varna is virtually untranslatable. It denotes the old Hindu idea of a four-tiered society with an intellectual or spiritual class called the Brahmins; the ruling, political or warrior class called the Kshatriyas; the merchant or commercial class called the Vaishyas and the servant or service-oriented class called the Shudras. They represent the four human tendencies of learning, fighting, trading and serving). These four varnas were determined by merit and actions and not by birth… ‘Chaturvarnya mayaa srishtam’ means ‘I have created the chaturvarnya system’. Nowhere in this shloka (by Sri Krishna in the Bhagwad Gita) is any there any suggestion whatsoever, that He gives birth to people on basis of merit and that this perpetuates on basis of birth in a particular family. .. The smritis clearly say, ‘janmanaa jaayate shudraha’ or ‘everyone is a shudra at birth’. It is only after imbibing samskaras that one attains the status of the twice-born (meaning Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya). (1930, Jatyuchchedak nibandha or essays on abolition of caste, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p. 444) The caste system isn't something you "believe in." It was the way Hindu society was organized back then. Also, you can't be born into a "lower caste" according to scripture seeing as how it is explicitly stated in the Gita that people of all castes are seen as equal in God's eyes. But even the idea of God (Brahman) is irrelevant to the caste system. If it has little to do with Brahman, it essentially means that castes have little to do with Atman. Not to mention that caste has little to do with Karma yoga as well, even though Krishna was trying to convince Arjuna that him being of the warrior caste, he must perform his duty of killing his enemies without his petty morals getting in his way. But the fact that Arjuna was labeled as a Kshatriya is irrelevant, since the primarily goal of Karma yoga is to do your duty without expecting reward or punishment for the welfare of the world around you. The point Krishna was making was that of working selflessly in order to attain salvation; whatever job you do. What caste you are in doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:08 am
Demon Kagerou To pigeon-hole Marxists as anti-religion would do a tremendous disservice to any large-scale socialist movement. No, it would be honest. Marxism is thoroughly materialist. *looks at own sig* Demon Kagerou It's also not possible. People are neurologically incline to have a sense of mysticism, spiritualism, whatever you call it. That sense of a greater interconnectedness to the universe. Some have it to greater degree than others... it's just the way people are; the way we evolved over millions of years. Proof cats are spiritual then, if we evolved that way over milions of years... Actually, no. Proof that humans are not only capable of being spiritual, but inherently are spiritual, Miss Blanc. But you won't because you cannot. That people have sense of 'a greater interconnectedness to the universe' it is something they learned. The idea that atheists are inherently abnormal reminds me greatly of Louis Blanc, but I already made that crack. Demon Kagerou Religion tends offer the sort of poetry people are seeking when describing these things... and it is largely determined by their culture. Some ultimately describe it as God, some take a more atheist/nontheist/pantheist outlook. Or you can accept that the poetry is merely how we express wonder and awe, and have that completely severed from the religious understanding of the world. Demon Kagerou It's the kind of thing that can have a benefit to society, in that it can be the catalysis that allows people to think beyond their own self-interest. Bombing abortion clinics? Demon Kagerou Some of the confusion is due to Marxism developing as a philosophy when the body and mind were treated as separate things. The body associated with the material, the mechanical.... which was associated with the progress of the Industrial Revolution, and progressivism in general. No one really understood how the mind worked or connected to the body, and they tended to allow religion to fill in the blanks where early psychology fell flat. Noone understood how the mind worked, that is true, but to straw man that into saying that materialists believed it was 'mechanical' is stupid. You have no understanding of Marxism. You have no understanding of Dialectics. Stop pretending. "Mind is the highest product of matter." No doubt you will try and say that this view costitutes a mechanical understanding, but you would only show your lack of understanding of marxism. Dialectics of Nature And, in fact, with every day that passes we are learning to understand these laws more correctly, andgetting to know both the more immediate and the more remote consequences of our interference with the traditional course of nature. In particular, after the mighty advances of natural science in the present century, we are more and more getting to know, and hence to control, even the more remote natural consequences at least of our more ordinary productive activities. But the more this happens, the more will men not only feel, but also know, their unity with nature, and thus the more impossible will become the senseless and antinatural idea of a contradiction between mind and matter, man and nature, soul and body, such as arose in Europe after the decline of classic antiquity and which obtained its highest elaboration in Christianity. Demon Kagerou This is not true so much now. We now live in a world that thinks in neurons and circuits, communicating by invisible electrons, entangled in a complex array of networks. The paradigm is closer to the organic than the mechanic. People are not the clockwork beings we thought they were, after all. Continuing the straw man. Also, people that use the word 'paradigm' are twats. Demon Kagerou The thing is... there is something kind of religious about that paradigm -- more spiritual than dogma. Because of the degree of intuition required to grasp it. There is nothing religious, nothing spiritual about it at all. Mind is a product of properly organised matter. Your whole post, Kage, is merely apologetics. You ignore the social aspect of religion in order to pose it as individual, and you ignore the negative, in order to glorify some peripheral supposed piece of goodness. A desire for poetry or some s**t. Religion serves to reconcile the mass of the popuation with how things are now by giving them a spiritual out later, and some kind of cosmic revenge mechanic. Because you like the poetry found in the holy book of some backward culture does not mean everyone has a need for 'spiritualism.' And then we have the apologetics for the other religions which I really cannot be ******** dealing with right now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:32 am
Demon Kagerou It's also not possible. People are neurologically incline to have a sense of mysticism, spiritualism, whatever you call it. That sense of a greater interconnectedness to the universe. Some have it to greater degree than others... it's just the way people are; the way we evolved over millions of years. Oooh, Gracchvs has officially beaten me to it now, but: I'd like some proof with my reactionary claims, plz. Demon Kagerou Religion tends offer the sort of poetry people are seeking when describing these things... and it is largely determined by their culture. Some ultimately describe it as God, some take a more atheist/nontheist/pantheist outlook. It's the kind of thing that can have a benefit to society, in that it can be the catalysis that allows people to think beyond their own self-interest. I find it hard to form a coherent response to this because it's very vague... I have no idea what, but something bothers me about this 'culture' statement. It's something to do with taking culture too lightly and as something that just IS as opposed to something that arose for a reason. I'll have to think about this more. = And..atheists are spiritual too... wut? Demon Kagerou Some of the confusion is due to Marxism developing as a philosophy when the body and mind were treated as separate things. The body associated with the material, the mechanical.... which was associated with the progress of the Industrial Revolution, and progressivism in general. No one really understood how the mind worked or connected to the body, and they tended to allow religion to fill in the blanks where early psychology fell flat. This is not true so much now. We now live in a world that thinks in neurons and circuits, communicating by invisible electrons, entangled in a complex array of networks. The paradigm is closer to the organic than the mechanic. People are not the clockwork beings we thought they were, after all. The thing is... there is something kind of religious about that paradigm -- more spiritual than dogma. Because of the degree of intuition required to grasp it. To talk in generalisations... I don't follow your logic beyond the separation of mind and body thing. If anything, to have the brain explained in a wholly mechanical way (yes organic, but it is explained in material, technical terms) is to remove any metaphysics and spirituality from the concept of self. A world where one does not need metaphysics to make sense of consciousness; I would say that is much less spiritual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:49 am
Geisterstadt Why even talk about the founding fathers? Yes, you did mention the Jefferson Bible, but why even mention them in a point? I don't see a connection, unless you are saying that when they founded this country that they should have outright banned the regular bible and worked towards the Jeffersonian bible. Which would have not flied back then, especially since they went ahead with the separation of Church and State. And to respond to your second point, I was responding to the "If Heaven is where we should go, why even bother with this life?" question. I was throwing out a suggestion as to why even bothering. When dealing with hypothetics, we cannot escape some human view. Objectivism my a**; Nothing is truly outside itself. Basing our knowledge solely on past and previous experiences assumes that nothing changes, nothing is outside of the rules of what we know. And Rob, I understand that the principle remains. And I am not about conversion of individuals or the creation and maitenance of religious organizations. Large structures end up ******** up largely and end up about control, which is highly correct that in a sense that religion is a tool. But not all religious people are tools to religion. I don't think we are arguing on the same level. EDIT: FYI, I don't subscribe to Marxist thought, I just have some things to say pertaining to the reason why liberal religious thought isn't bad. I wasn't arguing against it being abolished in the higher phase of communism or being persecuted because often it would seem that communism had not progressed that far in a country yet. Less people went to church less often then today in Jeffersons days. Yes I am saying that Religious Ideology should have NO influence at all in the state. History changes constantly so I really dont know what your talking about at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:11 pm
Comrade Kotka Demon Kagerou It's also not possible. People are neurologically incline to have a sense of mysticism, spiritualism, whatever you call it. That sense of a greater interconnectedness to the universe. Some have it to greater degree than others... it's just the way people are; the way we evolved over millions of years. Oooh, Gracchvs has officially beaten me to it now, but: I'd like some proof with my reactionary claims, plz. Demon Kagerou Religion tends offer the sort of poetry people are seeking when describing these things... and it is largely determined by their culture. Some ultimately describe it as God, some take a more atheist/nontheist/pantheist outlook. It's the kind of thing that can have a benefit to society, in that it can be the catalysis that allows people to think beyond their own self-interest. I find it hard to form a coherent response to this because it's very vague... I have no idea what, but something bothers me about this 'culture' statement. It's something to do with taking culture too lightly and as something that just IS as opposed to something that arose for a reason. I'll have to think about this more. = And..atheists are spiritual too... wut? Demon Kagerou Some of the confusion is due to Marxism developing as a philosophy when the body and mind were treated as separate things. The body associated with the material, the mechanical.... which was associated with the progress of the Industrial Revolution, and progressivism in general. No one really understood how the mind worked or connected to the body, and they tended to allow religion to fill in the blanks where early psychology fell flat. This is not true so much now. We now live in a world that thinks in neurons and circuits, communicating by invisible electrons, entangled in a complex array of networks. The paradigm is closer to the organic than the mechanic. People are not the clockwork beings we thought they were, after all. The thing is... there is something kind of religious about that paradigm -- more spiritual than dogma. Because of the degree of intuition required to grasp it. To talk in generalisations... I don't follow your logic beyond the separation of mind and body thing. If anything, to have the brain explained in a wholly mechanical way (yes organic, but it is explained in material, technical terms) is to remove any metaphysics and spirituality from the concept of self. A world where one does not need metaphysics to make sense of consciousness; I would say that is much less spiritual. The last part sounds like your talking about René Descartes on his paper of reductionism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:34 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre No, it would be honest. Marxism is thoroughly materialist. *looks at own sig* Tell that to these people. Louis-Auguste Robespierre Proof cats are spiritual then, if we evolved that way over milions of years... If you seriously think it only took a few million years for the feline and ape lines to divide, you are nearly as bad as a Creationist in your lack of knowledge about evolution. Our split from all other apes began about five million years ago. Homo sapiens began evolving in earnest about one millions years ago, with the earliest evidence being about 700,000 years old. Louis-Auguste Robespierre Actually, no. Proof that humans are not only capable of being spiritual, but inherently are spiritual, Miss Blanc. But you won't because you cannot. That people have sense of 'a greater interconnectedness to the universe' it is something they learned. The idea that atheists are inherently abnormal reminds me greatly of Louis Blanc, but I already made that crack. Nice strawman you got going there. Particularly, when I AM AN ATHEIST. razz What I was actually talking about, are well-known studies where people under MRI have parts of the brain lighting up when they pray, or have a spiritual/holistic/whatever reaction to information or stimulation. This is s**t we can actually observe. Why we evolved that way, and why some people are more incline to it than others, is open to debate. But the fact is, for whatever reason, humans have a neurological adaption to thinking in a particular way, and it tends to be linked to spirituality. Some religious types will try to run it as proof of God or something... but as far as I'm concerned, it just is what it is. Louis-Auguste Robespierre Demon Kagerou Religion tends offer the sort of poetry people are seeking when describing these things... and it is largely determined by their culture. Some ultimately describe it as God, some take a more atheist/nontheist/pantheist outlook. Or you can accept that the poetry is merely how we express wonder and awe, and have that completely severed from the religious understanding of the world. What is the "religious understanding of the world," exactly? Cultures tended to co-evolved with a religion of some sort. It's in our language, traditions, world-view. Like it or not, it's part of history, and it continues to echo in the present. Accepting that it's there is not the same as endorsing a Biblical version of time. Quote: Bombing abortion clinics? What? I guess. Though, I suspect it's also the same "sensation" people who feel unity with a social class feel. Quote: Noone understood how the mind worked, that is true, but to straw man that into saying that materialists believed it was 'mechanical' is stupid. You have no understanding of Marxism. You have no understanding of Dialectics. Stop pretending. I understand Dialectics just fine. I also know about lots of other s**t, so it's not like I don't combine it with other information. And believed what was mechanical? I don't think you are reading this right. Quote: "Mind is the highest product of matter." No doubt you will try and say that this view costitutes a mechanical understanding, but you would only show your lack of understanding of marxism. I'm not talking about the Marxist understanding, I'm talking about the time period, which fueled a lot of the misleading memes that are still in the lexicon. Quote: Also, people that use the word 'paradigm' are twats. People that don't use the word correctly are twats. It's just another word for grouping societal themes to a period in history. Quote: Your whole post, Kage, is merely apologetics. You ignore the social aspect of religion in order to pose it as individual, and you ignore the negative, in order to glorify some peripheral supposed piece of goodness. A desire for poetry or some s**t. Religion serves to reconcile the mass of the popuation with how things are now by giving them a spiritual out later, and some kind of cosmic revenge mechanic. Because you like the poetry found in the holy book of some backward culture does not mean everyone has a need for 'spiritualism.' And then we have the apologetics for the other religions which I really cannot be ******** dealing with right now... Explaining something is not the same as apologizing for it, or justifying it. It happens to be there, it's there for a reason. There is plenty of materialistic evidence for it being there. And I'm perfectly capable of talking about something without inserting myself personally into the issue. My entire post you quote from was entirely based on observation, which is admittedly subjective, but I attempted objectivity as much as possible. If you can't deal with that, you really need to stop talking to me. Stop attacking me personally, and talk about the issues, for ******** once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:47 pm
Steven... if you happen to have access to the MRI studies I'm talking about, please link them xp Danke. Edit: Ah well, I'll just pile up some neat stuff. razz psychiatryonline.org The Serotonin System and Spiritual ExperiencesOBJECTIVE: The serotonin system has long been of interest in biological models of human personality. The purpose of this positron emission tomography (PET) study was to search for relationships between serotonin 5-HT1A receptor density and personality traits. METHOD: Fifteen normal male subjects, ages 20–45 years, were examined with PET and the radioligand [11C]WAY100635. Personality traits were assessed with the Swedish version of the Temperament and Character Inventory self-report questionnaire. Binding potential, an index for the density of available 5-HT1A receptors, was calculated for the dorsal raphe nuclei, the hippocampal formation, and the neocortex. For each region, correlation coefficients between 5-HT1A receptor binding potential and Temperament and Character Inventory personality dimensions were calculated and analyzed in two-tailed tests for significance. RESULTS: The authors found that the binding potential correlated inversely with scores for self-transcendence, a personality trait covering religious behavior and attitudes. No correlations were found for any of the other six Temperament and Character Inventory dimensions. The self-transcendence dimension consists of three distinct subscales, and further analysis showed that the subscale for spiritual acceptance correlated significantly with binding potential but not with the other two subscales. CONCLUSIONS: This finding in normal male subjects indicated that the serotonin system may serve as a biological basis for spiritual experiences. The authors speculated that the several-fold variability in 5-HT1A receptor density may explain why people vary greatly in spiritual zeal. * medicalnewstoday.com New Study Suggests Spirituality, Not Religious Practices, Determine How Happy Children AreTo make children happier, we may need to encourage them to develop a strong sense of personal worth, according to Dr. Mark Holder from the University of British Columbia in Canada and his colleagues Dr. Ben Coleman and Judi Wallace. Their research1 shows that children who feel that their lives have meaning and value and who develop deep, quality relationships - both measures of spirituality - are happier. It would appear, however, that their religious practices have little effect on their happiness. These findings have been published in the online edition of Springer's Journal of Happiness Studies. * maps.org Tracing the Synapses of Our SpiritualityIn Philadelphia, a researcher discovers areas of the brain that are activated during meditation. At two other universities in San Diego and North Carolina, doctors study how epilepsy and certain hallucinogenic drugs can produce religious epiphanies. And in Canada, a neuroscientist fits people with magnetized helmets that produce "spiritual" experiences for the secular. The work is part of a broad effort by scientists around the world to better understand religious experiences, measure them, and even reproduce them. Using powerful brain imaging technology, researchers are exploring what mystics call nirvana, and what Christians describe as a state of grace. Scientists are asking whether spirituality can be explained in terms of neural networks, neurotransmitters and brain chemistry. * sciencedirect.com The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent AmericansAbstractThe present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking. * softpedia.com Praying Is Similar to Talking to a Good FriendDanish researchers from the University of Aarhus, led by expert Uffe Schjodt, found in a recent study that people praying to their gods actually show no signs of “anything mystical” in their brains while doing so. During the experiments, which involved 20 devout Christian volunteers, the subjects' brain activity was measured using a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine, which allowed the researchers to observe exactly which areas of their brains were activated during prayer. The experiment was divided into two sections, in that the participants were also asked to recite nursery rhymes, in addition to their prayers. Their brain activities were recorded in both circumstances, and the experts learned that the same regions of the brain that were activated when talking to a friend were set off. * atheistnation.net Scientists discover brain area linked to pain resistance during religious experiencesReligious emotions and beliefs have often been linked to a capacity to deal with pain, as those images of Philippine men being willingly crucified during religious festivals so well demonstrates. But although changes in pain sensitivity during a religious experience are well documented, the exact psychological or/and neurological reasons of the phenomenon are unclear and, as such, have now become the aim of an investigation by a group of scientists, philosophers and psychologists from the University of Oxford. The research, to be published in the next edition of the journal Pain, reveals for the first time that religion-associated pain resistance is linked to the activation of the brain right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC), an area associated with both cognitive down-regulation of pain and reassessment of the emotional meaning of an experience â?? for example by giving a neutral or even positive meaning to a noxious experience, and so making it much easier to cope with. * Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:58 pm
Uh-uh, I know half this stuff already, and I know the brain scan s**t.
All this says is religion does things that have a similar/same reaction to other things. What it doesn't say is the weird vague thing you said... that we are evolved to be inclined towards spiritualism.
If it does, explain more clearly please...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:26 pm
Comrade Kotka Uh-uh, I know half this stuff already, and I know the brain scan s**t. All this says is religion does things that have a similar/same reaction to other things. What it doesn't say is the weird vague thing you said... that we are evolved to be inclined towards spiritualism. If it does, explain more clearly please... What I said.... to repeat myself, word-for-word... People are neurologically incline to have a sense of mysticism, spiritualism, whatever you call it. That sense of a greater interconnectedness to the universe. Some have it to greater degree than others... it's just the way people are; the way we evolved over millions of years. Excuse my use of generalities, as I was writing off the top of my head, but I used it all to mean the same thing. Please explain what part you don't understand, as it reads rather like nitpicking, and I would like to think better of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
