Happyness. If you want to live in a world where you end up insane go ahead. The rest of us know life is short so we are out to have a dam good time while it lasts.

Hi bruddah, I see,

I think cause it feels good,.

Why do you think you act Moral?

Love Omnaka

Ps I use this as my justification for doing Lots of stuff. O-

I hope that such people do and that this spurs them to action. But people like Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong-il just seem to not care.

It goes for about 45 mins but it is about how hundreds of thousands if not millions of children and people die from starvation in North Korea.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=ch...mp;sitesearch=#

It is so worth the watch. If people are too humane to each other it is considered 'unorthodox' and one is liable to be under suspicion. I find it hard to believe that some leaders out there do have a conscience. And ultimately from a spiritual less perspective (as stated in my original post) would find it hard to justify why such leader ought to be moved to compassion. However in saying this I do strongly have faith that is all people have the light of conscience within them and can be reached only by love.





And I myself though being religious am very philosophically minded. Hence why I enjoy trying to look down other perspectives. My father is a full blown atheist and has been his whole life. My mother is an agnostic. Both are beautiful parents and have always allowed me to believe whatever I wanted and likewise I am the same with them. They are both good hard working (both work at a market garden, hard labourous stuff!) and moral people.

The sad thing is, is that they arnt very philosophically inclined at all and so I wouldnt be able to raise these questions much with them. Hence why I brought it up here on unexplained mysteries. In my view one doesnt need a religious view (in the conventional sense) to be moral. My dad and my mum dont even have any views about the universe in general really and are great. I am curious to dig deeper into our beliefs whether conscious or unconscious, to find out why does one be moral and how can one truly justify it when their view of the world has nothing of a metaphysical, spiritual or religious element.

However one doesnt have to be moral to be happy. Hence back to square one. Why be moral?

I behave morally because I believe that our true nature isnt one of survival (though that is hard wired into us) but because we are spiritual beings and because of this that it is our nature to be moral. Not moral to please a God but simply because our inherent nature is love on a deep metaphysical level.

Cause it feels good. To spiriit. (inherant Nature) ((Love))

Thats is pretty deep, but sounds simple.

Love Omnaka

Having friends usually makes you feel better. Unless you are a sociopath or mentally disturbed, I think.

Following the law keeps you out of prison. Being locked up sucks.

Simple things like that should answer your question. I guess I should say that I am just a pragmatic person. I do what benefits me while following whatever laws or codes of behavior that my environment and society deems fit.

I guess when you start to talk about things such as responsibility, I will tell you that in most cases it is more beneficial to be responsible for your actions. You earn the trust of more people that way, and if you are a nice, punctual, responsible, and helpful individual (whether you do so purely to create an image or not doesn't matter; the end result is the same), more people are usually going to like you. Speaking in generalities, you can further your position in life, get a better job, meet a hotter girlfriend, etc. Who knows, the possibilities are endless.

Sorry if this sounds a bit cold and heartless to you. I'm largely amoral and an atheist (but please don't think all other atheists are as bad as I am). Just giving my honest opinion. As a human being I am constantly driven by material objects, physical gratification, and small pleasures. I guess I just don't have the mental resolve for things like faith and selflessness . . .

Amoral isnt moral. I like your pragmatism however you give nil philosophical scope and depth as to why to be moral but amoral. One doesnt have to be moral to experience what you have outlined. One can greedy and immoral i.e corporate executive. Therefore again we are back to square one:

Where is the incentive to be moral i.e selfess.

There is none?

You tell me. If there is none then that doesnt mean I want or consider that people should stop doing so. It is just that ultimately it isnt a bad thing to be immoral because morality cannot be truly justified.

Here's an idea: moral behaviour has evolutionary benefits (ie, it's ultimately beneficial to human survival to be moral). Seems like a pretty good reason IMO.

But evolution is just an accident of the Big Bang. Why should I care whether we survive such an accident or not? What difference to the universe will it make whether we continue on as a species or not? Also morality then loses its meaning because it isnt morality as much as an evolutionary function. I wont be good to my neighbour because it is the right thing to do but only because it has survival value.

Many people don't care about future generations, but others do. I suspect many start to care more after they have their own children.




Survival value seems like a pretty good reason to me. I mean, you're good to your neighbor, your neighbor is good to you....the harshness of life becomes less harsh...you have more time to ponder things like philosophy!

IMO:
Given the values stated in the "If", there is no incentive or purpose, only survival instinct that later gets rationalized and built on. After survival, the next seemingly instinctive act is for status/comfort which also gets rationalized and built on. The rationalizations can go both ways also, against "instinct" for survival and status.

It's simple and have said it a few times in different ways, in the absence of an absolute, morality is simply mislabeled survival. ppl don't like to think of themselves or the universe this way, so it gets dishonestly rationalized into many different forms.

I believe in an absolute so none of this is a problem for me, but that's not what your thread's about.

Sorry for being late on this thread, brave, and I haven't read the entire thing so I might be repeating what others have said/asked, but isn't expecting the universe to have some personal moral meaning a little arrogant?

I think if it helps one to better his spirit while incarnate , ther's nothing arrogant about it, Just a choice.

Love Omnaka

So, BNW, you agree with me (see post #149), that life itself is moral? If so, in my understanding, then there need not be an incentive. I don't think it has anything to do with spirituality, although that may be the case for many, but everything to do with our inherent nature to reconcile that which is pleasurable with that which is not-so-pleasurable (painful). This might seem a matter of personal preference because we all differ in our defining what is pleasurable and what is painful, however, at the instinctual level, we all comprehend and experience the same "pleasurable" and "painful." In sum, you don't need incentive because you already have it.

Yes and no. I believe that life is a manifestation of something spiritual that is within life and transcends it. That life and death and different aspects of one consciousness which exists the same whether alive in one dimension or dead (expressed as alive in another dimension). In this sense life itself is spiritual. However I am going by the hypothesis that life isnt spiritual but a by accident of the big bang.




See in my view there can be a need for an incentive. If life is viewed as a short-lived wonder with no true meaning then there is no incentive to live that life morally. If life itself were in itself moral then all of us would be moral all the time. Life itself isnt moral and hence why life often gets used so immorally by the live person using it. If life itself was moral then surely it would always express moral actions.

And even then true morality isnt demonstrated. One can be good to their own children while disregarding other peoples children. In my view this isnt moral. A man may immorally cheat another persons family to feed (or not feed but merely provide great artificial entertainment or power even) his own family. One could even teach their children to be immoral because there is no true incentive to be moral. 'This is a dog eat dog world son' or 'Son, it is a survival of the fittest'!





And while pondering one realizes that if we are all an accident of the big bang then not only is there no real purpose to pondering philosophy but no reason as to live by a moral one.

Ya.

Being arrogant in my view is immoral. Where is my incentive not to be immoral here?

Why should arrogance or self-centredness be immoral? Morality is relative therefore a self-centred/arrogant individual cannot be 'immoral' to him/her self. If you are suggesting some common moral meaning for all life then I'm afraid you'll find that extremely difficult to isolate.

Is this whole thread really just you questioning why some people arrogantly pursue their own goals/ambition, and you are puzzled why these people cannot/will not live by your philosophy?

In the sense of Hubris I do believe arrogance is immoral. Also self-centredness often results in the suffering of others and oneself. Therefore it can be immoral.



I am just interested in asking deep questions.

Also I am not forcing you to come in to this thread. You are free to think what you wish and not bother with it.

I'll say it again, morality is relative. You cannot state self-centredness is immoral unless you first deny the relativity of morality. You might think it immoral of one person to be arrogant, but their moral code may dictate otherwise.

The assumption, perhaps inherent in your perennial philosophy, that there is some absolute moral code is flawed - as evidenced by the actions of people throughout history. Thus the questions you are asking are relevant to yourself only and perhaps you should be asking instead why you believe as you do, not why others believe as they do.

If the answer to your question is that you 'feel' the way you believe (about morality and some moral meaning to life) is right for you then the next question is "Were you led to feel this way by the actions of others?"

If this answer is affirmative then perhaps you have not found your moral code, but are simply living anothers'?

If you feel the way you live your life is right regardless of other's povs then I would say the moral code you live by is yours.

Having found your moral code, then suddenly the universe has a moral meaning to you. In the larger picture I believe there is no 'cosmic moral meaningfulness' to the universe, but we create our own meaning by living life the way we feel is right.

Agreed. Morality is relative. I absolutely agree. Hence why many have said in this thread that there isnt any incentive to be moral as they see it.



Getting a little personal with me Leo? Why not just try and stick with the topic?

What is inherently wrong with my thread question/dilemma? I am not trying to justify God or the perennial philosophy. I have deliberately kept these things out of the thread. I am only asking what is the incentive to be moral if the universe is objectively morally meaningless and merely an accident of a big bang?

Also leo, what makes you think that this thread is leading to justification of the perennial philosophy or my personal view of morality and meaning? I have only ever mentioned my spiritual personal views on the matter when specifically asked.

Not getting personal without arguing that the 'moral meaning' you have questioned is nothing more than your own. If you read the last part of my previous post you will see my argument put into context of the questions you asked.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the questions you asked, except you seem to be asking in the context of the universe having some inherent (and common) moral value. This appears to be the gist of the perennial philosophy you adhere to (and promote shamelessly at every opportunity ) so it was natural to assume that was the general (if undisclosed) direction of your enquiry.

Morality is not a set of concrete rules made for everyone.

You make the meaning of morality. most adapt the 2nd hand knowledge [learn from others] to decide what is and isn't acceptable. The fact is morality is a choice that you make. Immorality is going against your own beleifs.

ex. i beleive in excellence. one should "fall short of the glory of god" [do his best]. if i choose to do slack i am being Immoral because i am going against the standards from which I judge others.

If you wanna be this technical ok then. What is the incentive to be moral according to the golden rule which everyone I have met believes in religious or not? In an objective and meaningless universe?




You ought not to assume. Assumption is fertile ground for misunderstandings. I am not trying to promote it here or discuss the philosophy. I have made it clear over and over again that I am not trying to justify spirituality.

Firstly, understand this 'golden rule' is something we made up ourselves. It is not some inherent property of 'goodness' in the universe.

Now, the incentive to be 'moral', as social morality goes, is that we tend to be treated better as a result. There is a very personal reward in moral behaviour.

This good treatment is not only good for our potential survival (although that is an argument with very archaic roots and may not be so relevant today), but also promotes the release of neurochemicals that give us physical pleasure. The 'feel good' factor is a biological reward holdover from our evolution as social animals.

You might view this as rather cold and selfish, but this incentive is what is behind all (well most of) our 'moral' behaviour.

So is your opinion.

And for the sake of this thread in case you havnt noticed I have outlined that from the beginning. Hence why the thread is called 'is the universe morally meaningless'




The feel good factor can be had while being completely and utterly immoral. What if one gets off on beating others weaker than oneself up? In fact one can find especially in today's dog eat dog world that by being immoral one can achieve easier a 'good time' which helps those neurochemicals be released. So this seems to be a weak argument in favour for being moral.

Also if I am moral for the sake of a reward then I am not being moral as much as seeking selfish gain. Seeking selfish gain promotes behaviour often at odds with the golden rule.

What is the incentive to forgo this selfish behaviour and be moral?

The question is, what is the incentive to do so if the universe is morally meaningless?

Describe immoral and how it pertains to any individual, from that individual's pov?

We can behave immorally from a societal pov, or from the pov of another. I would suggest we cannot behave immorally as an individual because whatever we do is either neutral with respect to facilitating our survival and ability to procreate, or positive - in intent (if not outcome).

You are again making the 'unrelative morality' mistake and viewing another's behaviour from your (or someone other than that person's) moral perspective.

As an individual myself I do something to another that I wouldnt like done to myself, I am being immoral to myself because I am doing something I wouldnt advocate because I percieve it to be morally wrong.

Immoral to one's self can be to not be true to one's own morals.




A self can only exist in relativity to another. Also one can facilitate our survival quite easily without being moral according to the golden rule.

I find it a valid justification that if one only wants to perpetuate their own survival and their genes then there is no incentive to apply the golden rule but only when it suits them and therefore not truly apply it and therefore there is no incentive to keep to it.

Survival is determined by nature.
Morality is a survival technique.
a form of look before you leap.

ex sharing: often animals fight over food and more often than not as they fight a third party steals that very food [if you shared there would be no theft]. the fact that you engage in such behaviour is what makes you a target [people notice who wrongs them].

lets extend the example a bit shall we. without food the two fighting may die or they may beat the thief and he may die due to this weakened state.

its all your choice in the end.
just remember those who push are quite often pushed back.

Morality as a social device id merely used to judge who gets priveledge. Priveledge is the key to survival.

However morality has often put what is right before survival. Take Gandhi and his non-violent campaign against the british empire.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how you are being immoral in and of yourself.

The other person might see you as being immoral, and if this thing was done to you, you might consider the doer immoral, but how are you being immoral in your own actions?

What I am attempting, in a ham-fisted way, is to show you how personal 'morality' doesn't really exist. Morality is only applicable in a societal (group of two or more) situation. Given your original premise and question about 'the universes moral meaning and why it behooves you to be moral if there is none', on the purely personal level you have no incentive to be moral - if you take yourself as an individual outside of concern for anyone or anything else. Of course "No Man is an Island" (except the Isle of Man) so this is totally irrelevant from a practical pov. Given that we have a society, your incentive to be moral is dictated by the morality of that society.

Because I am cheating myself. It is called self-criticism of one's morality.



One doesnt have to be moral within that society though. Dictators for an example are not moral and get what they want in this social world. On a lower level a corrupt police man or drug traffickers also can be immoral without consequence. What is the incentive for them to change their ways?

Still not immorality, but we'll leave this as you and I will probably never agree on this.



One could say people of this ilk are part of their own, very separate, society and not therefore beholden to the morality of the society within which they seemingly operate. I would have thought this fairly self-evident from the way they have either opted out of the society they perhaps belonged to, or co-opted a society for their own aggrandisement/benefit.

Dictators probably are moral from the perspective of 'Dictator society', and the criminal from 'criminal society' (although that might be overlapping with what we might term 'normal' society.)

I'd also like to address something from one of your earlier posts.



How is the anticipation of a reward not selfish gain? If you think of gaining a reward for another, you are still rewarded (in effect) by the 'feeling of goodness' (the neurochemical high) your actions promote. At its basic level, everything we do is reward based.

Now, this does not mean we have to consider this in a bleak manner. Knowing why something is and knowing what can be done with it are two very different things. I might know that being nice to Inner Space brings rewards, but that doesn't stop me from wanting IS to feel happy and loved. IS knowing what I do is driven by this reward chemistry doesn't have to think any less of me for making her feel happy and loved. Knowledge doesn't have to change behaviour.

If you believe that the universe is morally meaningless, then spirituality is non-existent. If you believe otherwise, then the incentive (as previously stated, but now reworded) is, in the words of Albert Camus, "just to see what happens next." Seems almost too simplistic, doesn't it? But, consider the sublime nature of human psychology; isn't it at it most instinctual level 'just to see what happens next'?

Morality, like everything else in the universe, is in a constant state of flux. That being said, doesn't logic dictate that this incessant flow of change affects All Things from the personal to the societal to the global to the universal?

When we argue that personal, societal, and global morality is a sham; are we not confusing morality with ethics?

Ok I see where you are coming from and on this point and I agree.

Your loop to loop of morals exist in society only, well I took that as a self-evident. I implied all along about being moral to other people from the beginning. One can only be moral in relativity to something else. I take that as a given. We only know individual self because of 'others' that help define our individuality.

Society is a group of individuals and many of those individuals have morals, different morals. What is the incentive for an individual (which can only exist with knowledge of 'others') then to be moral.

I didnt realize you meant 'self' in the sense of absence of absolutely everything except a sense of self.

So you are right that no personal morality exists in the sense that the personal exists only in absence of everything else.

This still doesnt justify why a person should take up morals.



My point hasnt been addressed. What would be their incentive to change their ways? If the universe is morally meaningless then what is the incentive in the first place to stick to the norms of morality let alone change from immoral behaviour?






No. Because whether this feeling comes or not a moral person will still do it because 'it is the right thing to do'.

Nell for an example doesnt buy chocolate chip cookies anymore from M&S because she conscientiously objects to certain aspects of their business. She gets no physical or mental gratification whatsoever that we can think of for doing so, but continues anyway because of her sense of what is right.

Being moral is more or less putting others before yourself whether you gain or not.



Because of rewards? Therefore one could say that you want something yourself and would stop complying if the rewards fell short.

Your point and question has been answered, both by myself and others in the thread. Our society is not the universe. It matters not if 'the universe' is morally meaningless because we operate (at the moral level) within our society. Although you have denied it, your insistence on making this moral question pertinent to the entire universe still inclines me to think it is based on your perennial philosophy.



Does Nell (Hi Nell!!) get any satisfaction from her objection to buying these choc chip cookies? You say a sense of 'doing something right'. How is that not mental gratification? Rather than blindly follow your beliefs and philosophy, investigate yourselves and the real motivations behind your actions. I'm not suggesting that our conscious motivations are not valid - they most certainly are. But those conscious motivations are reinforced by the unconscious, chemical motivators in our brains.



Why do people fall out of love? Not saying it happens to everyone, but sometimes the rewards do diminish. It's a sad fact of our biology.

How is our society separate from the universe?

If the universe is morally meaningless then why bother being moral within the society? Again you have not addressed as to why someone like Hitler should have changed his ways. What is the incentive to be moral within the 'societal universe' if you wanna be technical when there is none?

You still not giving an incentive on why someone should do the right thing.






Nell did point this out to me while writing this. She says Hi too. My bad.


There are others who give love without wanting anything in return because then it wouldnt be selfless. They do it simply because it is the right thing to do.





People fall out of love because it was probably lust and not love that ruled them in the first place. Someone can fall out of lust easily because they are not getting it in return. However I can hardly see why this should stop someone loving them.

I find this a common theme among believers of a religion (not suggesting you are, just a comment) but isn't this view completely reward based, and based on a limited condition for that reward?

The implication being that there is some afterlife reward (hence the reference to spirituality) for being moral in life. What of a divinity that loves unconditionally? It matters not how you behave in this life, what sort of person you are. There is no incentive in this scenario to behave morally, yet the reward exists - as does spirituality.

Hitler would be sitting next to Gandhi swapping anecdotes in whatever afterlife paradise you conceive. Perhaps Jeffrey Dahmer could whip up some canapes?

I agree with the 'complex simplicity' of the human psyche. Often our motivations are amazingly simple, yet we wrap them up in layers of complex reasoning. The curse of higher intelligence, perhaps, is to divorce itself from the reality of action.



In the first point you make here are you referring, perhaps, to chaos theory and the butterfly effect? Looking at this from a universal perspective, the butterfly effect as it pertains to chaos theory is an attempt to explain how small variations in initial conditions can cause large (but not necessarily identical) variations in later conditions. Can we honestly say that our behaviour now could be determined to be part of the universe's initial conditions?

While we do not know the fate of the universe, and thus how much time it has left to continue, I would say this question is unanswerable and the point you are trying to make, moot - certainly not logical (or perhaps 'not reasonable' is a better description).

As for the second point, I would never argue that morality in any of it's environments is a sham (although I would perhaps argue such things as 'global morality' do not exist), but that morality is relative and dependent on many factors. I would certainly argue any attempt to define some absolute morality is a sham.

Can we be ethical without making moral judgements? You say we may be confusing morality and ethics, but I'd hesitate to describe a situation which could not be defined as either, or both.

No you would be surprised how many people operate within normal society but dont opt out, instead many exploit it without forming their own society, call them hypocrites . Corrupt politicians, Corrupt policemen, Corrupt corporate executives etc Especially politicians who with bias media can lie and get away with it. Take Stalin for an example. He may have been moral from a dictator society (if such a thing exists) but not moral in the sense I mentioned earlier of the golden rule.

Now someone like him had all the power to get what he wanted and be happy. He was even the focus of massive adoration and even worship. If morals are purely man made and from a Darwinist point of view (which I am happy to go along with in this thread for this dilemma), the golden rule was in the end made for survival (coincidently is the back bone moral of more or less all religious ethics) then what would have been the incentive for Joseph Stalin to have stopped his ways and take up such a moral code when he was surviving and surviving with indulgence and getting away with it?

I agree with you that all that we do at its basic level is reward based. The mystics who seek enlightenment (reward) must undergo practices which are always ethical to attain a state of complete lack of self-interest to achieve it. Hence the paradox you must abandon happiness to be happy, they must do the right thing even if they arnt getting any form of gratification, they just have to do it. One can go through an entire life of doing the right thing without getting any immediate spiritual gratification (eastern mystics say it can take many life times) and experience bleak periods of depression and despair i.e Sri RamaKrishna. However their faith drives them on regardless which shows the depth of their morality because personal contentment or not they continue on with it. The golden rule is carried out to proportions even if survival and life are in immediate threat.Non-violence is carried to death. If the oneness experience happens it does if not it doesnt. To get this a state of selfless detachment is necessary, a state in which no sense of individual self exists. We could from one angle argue and go it is still reward based but if you had to ask a mystic why he practices what he practices and he told you why then he wouldnt be detached would he? The starting point before such practice is a belief in something divine or metaphysical and the end result (if detached enough) is a state of mind that goes beyond all concept whether of morality and/or divinity, such people are noted in history for their natural piety and goodness which exudes from their presence as both vibe and action.

When a man practises charity in order to be reborn in heaven, or for fame, or reward, or from fear, such charity can obtain no pure effect. ---Sutra on the Distinction and Protection of the Dharma

When Prince Wen Wang was on a tour of inspection in Tsang, he saw an old man fishing. But his fishing was not real fishing, for he did not fish in order to catch fish, but to amuse himself. So Wen Wang wished to employ him in the administration of government, but feared lest his own ministers, uncles and brothers might object. On the other hand, if he let the old man go, he could not bear to think of the people being deprived of such an influence. --Chuang Tzu


God, if I worship Thee in fear of hell, burn me in hell.
And if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise; but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, without not Thine everlasting beauty. --Rab'a


Survival cant be said to be the root of such behaviour (though an added bonus nevertheless in the sense that man exists so that souls can inherit such bodies and be better equipped to learn ultimate truths) because this behaviour and the attitude that goes with it to have any effect must ultimately be indifferent to one's own death and state of living. As to why only compassionate behavior can help to lead to such selfless states of mind or why such states of mind naturally expresses good moral behaviour, the reason is I dont know. Just a spiritual fact we have to accept like we do the existence of gravity. Yes you are correct it is reward based however if you seek it as a reward then there is no obtaining it. If you think that such a selfless/moral state of mind cant be had and that these explanations are all rubbish then that is your choice.

-----

As for where is the incentive to be moral with an unconditional divinity is easy. All spiritual directors I have ever read up on say that the divinity can only be experienced by being ethical and being ethical in the here and now. Never have I read of a true mystic that advocates violence or not following the golden rule as a means. One must be even more ethical than this. As Christ put it, one must be more righteous than the scribes and pharisees.

As Aldous Huxley explains:

The will is free and we are at liberty to identify our being either exclusively with our selfness and its interests, regarded as independent of indwelling Spirit and transcendent God head(in which case we shall be passively damned or actively fiendish), or exlcusively with the divine within us and without (in which case we shall be saints), or finally with self at one moment or in one context and with spiritual not-self at other moments and in other contexts (in which case we shall be average citizens, too theocentric to be wholly lost, and too egocentric to achieve enlightenment and a total deliverance).

The reason why (according to these spiritual masters) we seek the divinity in the first place is because according to them unless we do we will always be in a perpetual state of suffering. Buddhists say that our ego separates us from nirvana and causes perpetual sorrow, Christians say that we are in a state of sin. Whatever the belief involved it usually symbolizes a state to explain our suffering.

The incentive to be moral with an unconditional divinity is reward based. Because if we dont be moral and good then we will always be in a state of suffering of selfness. Even though Hitler will be forgiven (to use such terms) he will still suffer (though never eternally) for the consequences for his actions. However he can always choose to change his ways whatever dimension or heaven he is in (they too are states of suffering no matter how pleasant if there is any sense of ego).

With eastern mystics especially, the only time to achieve salvation is here and now. If not then the consequences of karma will continue in this life and the next until one strives in whatever here and now they are experiencing. However all just mentioned now is done with the belief that there is a moral metaphysical purpose in the universe beyond mere survival and physical being.

All this however has little to do with the thread at hand. I just thought to answer your question since it was a religious one with my opinion. This thread is about if there is no moral purpose and just a mere accident. Sure knowledge doesnt have to change behaviour but what is the incentive to maintain a certain kind of good conduct if one is in a position to survive and gratify themselves by not doing so?

I think you just answered it. That was great, Loved the Quotes.

Thank you for sharing Bro.

Love Omnaka

Great thread. Really enjoyed reading everything, so far. Thanks BNW and Leonardo for your fabulous, insightful, challenging, and engaging posts.

- Michael