-Now, there is a time when I believe that life is going to be good all the time, everything shall be easy and things are going to work. I don't believe in that anymore. Those are superstitions that a boy has during his formative years. A man cannot hold on to such detrimental superstitions. Those unfounded optimistic notions are going to eat him alive, as they fail to realize.
-24 years old and still figuring out what to do with his life, I struggle to understand every single thing I see. I used to think I were a special boy with a mission; that is not true. Not only is it not true, but it is also egoistic in nature. That was me. I didn't know what it feels like to take care of somebody else, what it feels to be an adult. And now I know better. I am not saying I understand it all now; I doubt that anyone understands it all. That is why some questions are best left unanswered, some feelings need to be let go, and some dreams have to die. It is all for the best. But what does the 'best' really means?
-I suspect that the world is as perfect as it can be. It is perfect, with sadness, regret, fear, uncertainty; the negativity, the pain, intertwined arbitrarily with the positive emotions and the desire, form what is to be known as the humanity. Human tries to live up to their desires by facing up to their pain and fear. That is in itself, beyond any human judgment , beautiful. It is beautiful, for it is the reason of everything, and yet, it requires no meaning. It is meaningless, and yet, it is the source for what we see as living.
-But, may be I don't want it to be beautiful. Maybe, I just want to see my utmost desire fulfilled. Maybe I have only one chance at happiness. Maybe I need to make a mistake, maybe I need to go to Hell in order to have that chance fully utilized. Nobody needs it to be beautiful. In the end, it didn't matter; as long as we get to see our love requited, then beauty really doesn't matter. Meaning doesn't matter. Love is all there is to be.
-But, that is a dream that remains unfulfilled. Perhaps it is a superstition that one has to bash like religions, perhaps it is a drug. Things need to be beautiful, and my desires don't have any role, apart from being a part in this beauty, a part that needs to be crushed in order for the beauty to finally blossom and achieve perfection. I need to die to perfect my life. But not now.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Negaraku Nerakaku
-I have returned back from Japan to Malaysia. The weather's still pretty much the same, and so does the appearance. But something here has changed; the atmosphere. It is toxic, full of bigotry and tension, as ideologies clash and personalities fight for air to breathe.
-But it is all not so surprising to me; this is, after all, the long-term results of both the globalization coming from the outside and the conservatism from the inside. What can you expect? It just had to happen. As one of my friends once said, every single hidden thing is coming up. And people find that unpleasant.
-Is it suffice to say that our country has turned a bit Hell-ish? Well, maybe it is not an appropriate term to use here to describe the situation; a revolutionary period would be a better, though still inaccurate, term. This is the time of change.
-We will see massive changes in the society, as tensions go up and hushed up issues got uncovered. Malaysia as we know it is over. But it is not necessarily a bad thing; things change, and change is natural for any single existing being. The problem is whether we have the right attitude and the right reaction to this change. We can choose to adapt or react; but we have to be responsible and respectful of human rights. Think about the future generation. Do we want them burdened with issues regarding human rights, or do we want them free? It is a fairly easy question. Of course, most of the people who are reasonable in their thoughts will want their children free and unburdened with unnecessary issues. That is the struggle we are currently having; seeking freedom not just for ourselves, but for the next generation as well.
-But this struggle means that one has to face a wall that has been there for ages. It is a wall called the insecurity. People are afraid of change. What would change bring; Heaven or Hell? The question is there waiting to be answered. But it is not God who decides the outcome. It is us. We are the ones who have the final decision. Our insecurities, that take the form of institutionalized religion, ideology, racism and conservatism, are going to hold us back from the outcome. But we cannot stay the same. Staying the same would spell the doom for our society. Like it or not, we have to move forward. But some disagree on the direction. That's the reason for so many tensions inside the country.
-Tensions bubble up and might explode if left unchecked and not channeled. We can't expect the government to do this; the government is in itself one of the cause of the tension. The only way is for us to become truly independent of the government and handle this tension in a healthy way, lest our nation becomes a Hell.
-But it is all not so surprising to me; this is, after all, the long-term results of both the globalization coming from the outside and the conservatism from the inside. What can you expect? It just had to happen. As one of my friends once said, every single hidden thing is coming up. And people find that unpleasant.
-Is it suffice to say that our country has turned a bit Hell-ish? Well, maybe it is not an appropriate term to use here to describe the situation; a revolutionary period would be a better, though still inaccurate, term. This is the time of change.
-We will see massive changes in the society, as tensions go up and hushed up issues got uncovered. Malaysia as we know it is over. But it is not necessarily a bad thing; things change, and change is natural for any single existing being. The problem is whether we have the right attitude and the right reaction to this change. We can choose to adapt or react; but we have to be responsible and respectful of human rights. Think about the future generation. Do we want them burdened with issues regarding human rights, or do we want them free? It is a fairly easy question. Of course, most of the people who are reasonable in their thoughts will want their children free and unburdened with unnecessary issues. That is the struggle we are currently having; seeking freedom not just for ourselves, but for the next generation as well.
-But this struggle means that one has to face a wall that has been there for ages. It is a wall called the insecurity. People are afraid of change. What would change bring; Heaven or Hell? The question is there waiting to be answered. But it is not God who decides the outcome. It is us. We are the ones who have the final decision. Our insecurities, that take the form of institutionalized religion, ideology, racism and conservatism, are going to hold us back from the outcome. But we cannot stay the same. Staying the same would spell the doom for our society. Like it or not, we have to move forward. But some disagree on the direction. That's the reason for so many tensions inside the country.
-Tensions bubble up and might explode if left unchecked and not channeled. We can't expect the government to do this; the government is in itself one of the cause of the tension. The only way is for us to become truly independent of the government and handle this tension in a healthy way, lest our nation becomes a Hell.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Rumahku Tempatku Merintih
-2 tahun genap aku duduk di rumah ini. Rumah yang melihat aku merintih, melalak, bercakap dan menggila seorang diri menghibur hati. Sekarang sudah tiba masanya untuk aku ucapkan selamat tinggal kepada rumah ini. Rumah yang busuk dengan bau rokok dan sunyi sepi tatkala aku keseorangan.
-Aku rasa amat pedih hati. Mengapa harus sayang selalu menebal tatkala engkau mahu meninggalkan sesuatu?
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Humanity and Religion (part 7)
-But language is not just meant for cursing. Language is a diverse system for communication, and cursing is just a small part of it. Language is a tool by which we organize our thoughts and feelings and knowledge, so they become something that is coherent and workable to certain extent. But language is limited nevertheless. But this limit is necessary, for in order for something to be coherent, there has to be a rule, a scope by which it works on, and this rule necessarily limits our language.
-The limitations in our language, coming together with our limited capacity of sensing and taking information from the world around us, makes our world nothing more than perception; We do not perceive the real world, what we perceive is just a world built out of language and sense. Thus, science, being reliant on our language and sense to work, is a human undertaking; the laws of physics may not actually be really real; it is just something that has been put in order by our language and sense.
-But to say that the law of physics may not actually be real is a large, almost anti-scientific statement. For it can be used as a negation to scientific progress, and this has happened before in Islamic society; the statement saying that Allah is the mover of the world has stopped many religious person to actually examine how the world works, because the answers are already ready-made in the form of Allah. The fact that Quran mentions the incident where people tried to burn Abraham with fire, but the fire didn't burn him even whilst he was engulfed in it, makes the attitude worse; for there is a subliminal attitude expressed here that Allah bends the laws of physics to His Will, and thereby the laws of physics, being the lesser rule, is not worth researching; thus the religious shifted their focus on God instead, missing a lot of opportunity in the process, the opportunity that was taken instead by the Europeans, thus the Europeans end up surpassing Muslims in a classic 'the turtle beats the rabbit' story.
-The limitations of language also poses a problem to the idea that God gives humans guidance in the form of scriptures. We hear of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis saying that each language is unique and thereby cannot be adequately articulated into another language; if this is indeed true, than Quran in all its glory, must not have been meant for every single human being; "this Quran is in Arabic so that you may understand it." It must have been meant for only the Arab-speaking people, because the only way that a message can be adequately conveyed is by preserving the language that serves as the medium. But that would run in contrary with the insistence that every human is equal in the eyes of God, and the belief that Quran is meant for every human being. Of course this would not be the case if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not true, but if it is not true, then why is it that the Muslims are banned from treating translations of Quran as Quran, if the translation is reliable? The answer; language is limited.
-The limitations in our language, coming together with our limited capacity of sensing and taking information from the world around us, makes our world nothing more than perception; We do not perceive the real world, what we perceive is just a world built out of language and sense. Thus, science, being reliant on our language and sense to work, is a human undertaking; the laws of physics may not actually be really real; it is just something that has been put in order by our language and sense.
-But to say that the law of physics may not actually be real is a large, almost anti-scientific statement. For it can be used as a negation to scientific progress, and this has happened before in Islamic society; the statement saying that Allah is the mover of the world has stopped many religious person to actually examine how the world works, because the answers are already ready-made in the form of Allah. The fact that Quran mentions the incident where people tried to burn Abraham with fire, but the fire didn't burn him even whilst he was engulfed in it, makes the attitude worse; for there is a subliminal attitude expressed here that Allah bends the laws of physics to His Will, and thereby the laws of physics, being the lesser rule, is not worth researching; thus the religious shifted their focus on God instead, missing a lot of opportunity in the process, the opportunity that was taken instead by the Europeans, thus the Europeans end up surpassing Muslims in a classic 'the turtle beats the rabbit' story.
-The limitations of language also poses a problem to the idea that God gives humans guidance in the form of scriptures. We hear of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis saying that each language is unique and thereby cannot be adequately articulated into another language; if this is indeed true, than Quran in all its glory, must not have been meant for every single human being; "this Quran is in Arabic so that you may understand it." It must have been meant for only the Arab-speaking people, because the only way that a message can be adequately conveyed is by preserving the language that serves as the medium. But that would run in contrary with the insistence that every human is equal in the eyes of God, and the belief that Quran is meant for every human being. Of course this would not be the case if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not true, but if it is not true, then why is it that the Muslims are banned from treating translations of Quran as Quran, if the translation is reliable? The answer; language is limited.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Humanity and Religion (part 6)
-But cursing requires hate, and furthermore, it increases hatred. Sooner or later, we have a population of people who are both violent and hateful. Most animals are violent, but it is doubtful that they are hateful animals; Lions don't kill deer out of hate, they kill out of a need to consume food. Violence and hatred are actually separate from each other; violence may and has existed independently of hatred; but why are then they interlinked? Because hatred may spark violence, and with a population of humans cursing the nature for not bending down to their will, sooner or later, these humans started doing what Quran termed as 'fasad fil ardh': damaging on earth. And these damages are done out of hate; hate for the nature.
-When one starts hating the nature, it becomes an endless expansion; nature is after all an all-encompassing term, and hating the nature easily leads to hating other things, as all is nature and nature is all. Hatred drives humanity; it spurs the desire to fight, the desire to struggle; struggling against nature requires a certain disdain of nature. One hates the fact that the rivers floods every now and then, so he builds an irrigation system to control the floods; one hates the fact that plants usually flower and bear fruits once a year, so he genetically enhances them so they can yield more flowers and fruits. Hatred becomes a force by which human eliminates things considered as undesirable to human convenience; it is both selfish and self-rewarding at the same time.
-But is cursing the impetus for hate? No; cursing is just an expression of hate. But by expressing hate through cursing, the hatred is defined more properly; no longer is hatred a purely abstract concept that lies at the subconscious, a concept that has no form; it is now a directed form of sentiment that begets force and action. It is no more a mere agitation; it is now a usable tool that can cause and puts things into motion. Cursing is a part of language, and language gives form to hatred through cursing.
-When one starts hating the nature, it becomes an endless expansion; nature is after all an all-encompassing term, and hating the nature easily leads to hating other things, as all is nature and nature is all. Hatred drives humanity; it spurs the desire to fight, the desire to struggle; struggling against nature requires a certain disdain of nature. One hates the fact that the rivers floods every now and then, so he builds an irrigation system to control the floods; one hates the fact that plants usually flower and bear fruits once a year, so he genetically enhances them so they can yield more flowers and fruits. Hatred becomes a force by which human eliminates things considered as undesirable to human convenience; it is both selfish and self-rewarding at the same time.
-But is cursing the impetus for hate? No; cursing is just an expression of hate. But by expressing hate through cursing, the hatred is defined more properly; no longer is hatred a purely abstract concept that lies at the subconscious, a concept that has no form; it is now a directed form of sentiment that begets force and action. It is no more a mere agitation; it is now a usable tool that can cause and puts things into motion. Cursing is a part of language, and language gives form to hatred through cursing.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Humanity and Religion (part 5)
-But why people began farming? One of the great mysteries concerning human evolution is the impetus for farming; hunting and gathering food is a much simpler (albeit riskier, considering the fact that humans compete with other strong animals for food, and may run the risk of being preyed upon themselves) task than farming; Farming requires an understanding of how plants grow, an understanding of how time flows, the ability to control water flow etc...why is then the massive-scale change to farming?
-Perhaps it was the climate change; if one read the Bible and the Quran in an allegorical way, the Garden of Eden might be interpreted as a time when people finds it easier to hunt and gather food. Adam and Eve were forced out of Heaven because they ate the forbidden fruit; was it because the humans ate way too much that species went extinct, burnt too much that the Sahara became a desert? No one knows for sure; except for the fact that there was a climate change occurring thousands of years ago that forced the ancestors of the humans into the savannah out of the tropical rainforests; or rather, the rainforest became dry due to lack of rain, and became savannahs. Ancestors of humans, deprived of trees, had to stand upright, and due to the warm climate had to shed their furs. (At least that's how the theory went) But that occurred way far back before farming began.
-Perhaps it would be useful to trace the farming back to where it began. Farming developed in different parts of the world; it had not one source of beginning; one began in China, one in India, one in the Nile Delta, one in the Mesoamerica. But all these had one thing in common; they have a seasonal water flow; one season is dry and one wet. Another thing to ponder is the fact that these places are relatively dry; dry climates mean less varied ecosystem, and that means it is harder to find food. So farming should hypothetically began as a way humans tried to survive a harsher and less bountiful ecosystem. In that sense, Bible can be true; Adam (Hebrew for 'man') was condemned to hard labor of farming, instead of the leisure of picking food from any tree in the Garden of Eden. But that doesn't mean Bible is truly the Inspired Word of God; just because something is true doesn't mean it came from God.
-But why then would farming start the cult of worshiping God? Farmers are meant to be observant of nature; they need to know when to begin farming. Hence farmers would have to organize the world around them in a way that simple hunter-gatherers simply don't have to do; (I would include husbandry within the context of farming) farmers need to know when is the rainy season, farmers need to know how many times they have before the dry season begin, farmers need to plan for the summer and the winter, farmers need to accomplish their tasks within a set period of time. Thus the concept of 'time' becomes more important than ever; instead of just organizing time based on the time the sun rises and sets, humans plan their lives much further; days become weeks, weeks become months, months become years. A week is defined as a period of 7 days; Aztecs organize it into 20-day units; see the difference? Both Bible and Quran didn't think about the Aztecs; they insist that weeks have to be organized into 7 days--a total rejection of a whole civilization. No wonder the Catholics persecuted the Aztecs as if they were worse than animals. Heathens--they are lesser humans!
-But then, it remains a challenge to truly predict the temperament of nature. Droughts happen; floods happen; back then humans are totally at the mercy of the temperament of nature. Hence the God as ar-Rahman and ar-Rahim; what can one do? If it's going to be a drought, nothing (yet) can be done about it. We just have to die along with it. But no! We have been spending all our time organizing, planning, farming; is it all going to waste? Who is the first one to have come up with the idea that 'it is all going to waste?' That might be the first philosopher, the first prophet, the first sage ever; some one who can see that his or her efforts are going to waste; instead of just going along with the nature, he cursed it! He cursed the nature for going against his will! Cursing the nature; that is a religious act!
-Perhaps it was the climate change; if one read the Bible and the Quran in an allegorical way, the Garden of Eden might be interpreted as a time when people finds it easier to hunt and gather food. Adam and Eve were forced out of Heaven because they ate the forbidden fruit; was it because the humans ate way too much that species went extinct, burnt too much that the Sahara became a desert? No one knows for sure; except for the fact that there was a climate change occurring thousands of years ago that forced the ancestors of the humans into the savannah out of the tropical rainforests; or rather, the rainforest became dry due to lack of rain, and became savannahs. Ancestors of humans, deprived of trees, had to stand upright, and due to the warm climate had to shed their furs. (At least that's how the theory went) But that occurred way far back before farming began.
-Perhaps it would be useful to trace the farming back to where it began. Farming developed in different parts of the world; it had not one source of beginning; one began in China, one in India, one in the Nile Delta, one in the Mesoamerica. But all these had one thing in common; they have a seasonal water flow; one season is dry and one wet. Another thing to ponder is the fact that these places are relatively dry; dry climates mean less varied ecosystem, and that means it is harder to find food. So farming should hypothetically began as a way humans tried to survive a harsher and less bountiful ecosystem. In that sense, Bible can be true; Adam (Hebrew for 'man') was condemned to hard labor of farming, instead of the leisure of picking food from any tree in the Garden of Eden. But that doesn't mean Bible is truly the Inspired Word of God; just because something is true doesn't mean it came from God.
-But why then would farming start the cult of worshiping God? Farmers are meant to be observant of nature; they need to know when to begin farming. Hence farmers would have to organize the world around them in a way that simple hunter-gatherers simply don't have to do; (I would include husbandry within the context of farming) farmers need to know when is the rainy season, farmers need to know how many times they have before the dry season begin, farmers need to plan for the summer and the winter, farmers need to accomplish their tasks within a set period of time. Thus the concept of 'time' becomes more important than ever; instead of just organizing time based on the time the sun rises and sets, humans plan their lives much further; days become weeks, weeks become months, months become years. A week is defined as a period of 7 days; Aztecs organize it into 20-day units; see the difference? Both Bible and Quran didn't think about the Aztecs; they insist that weeks have to be organized into 7 days--a total rejection of a whole civilization. No wonder the Catholics persecuted the Aztecs as if they were worse than animals. Heathens--they are lesser humans!
-But then, it remains a challenge to truly predict the temperament of nature. Droughts happen; floods happen; back then humans are totally at the mercy of the temperament of nature. Hence the God as ar-Rahman and ar-Rahim; what can one do? If it's going to be a drought, nothing (yet) can be done about it. We just have to die along with it. But no! We have been spending all our time organizing, planning, farming; is it all going to waste? Who is the first one to have come up with the idea that 'it is all going to waste?' That might be the first philosopher, the first prophet, the first sage ever; some one who can see that his or her efforts are going to waste; instead of just going along with the nature, he cursed it! He cursed the nature for going against his will! Cursing the nature; that is a religious act!
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Humanity and Religion (part 4)
-But ask yourself again whether human really needs God to live. How about the Penans and the Papuans who live as hunter-gatherers in the jungle? Do they know God? Notice that not every single language has a word that refers to what can be understood as being equal to Allah, being equal to YHWH, being equal to the Turkish Tanri, to Aryan Brahma...there are many languages in which the concept of the unseen things are confined to worldly and little beings, beings that can actually be perceived by the speakers of the language, but would remain invisible to non-speakers...Speech is belief; Islam's definition of Iman involves three aspects of 'heart', 'mouth' and 'action', all of which are language-based. Language is the only possible way to Iman. So how can one say that the whole world believes in God? Many people would argue that even the seas do praise the Creator; even Quran said so...it is just that the praises are not coherent to human. But something that is incoherent to human, can we call it 'praise'? Calling it a 'praise' is an anthropocentric act; we, by the act of saying that 'even the seas praise the God' makes the whole phenomenon an anthropomorphized one, which is ridiculous; Seas are seas, not humans. They don't speak; they don't possess language, at least not a humanly language; so how can one say they praise the Lord? I suspect that the statement is made in order to make a religion superior from other religions, but does not take into account about the nature of language enough. Will God in his omniscience make such a statement? Language is a barrier.
-God as we often understand would then be reconstructed as being products of language; Muslims, Christians, Jews...whenever they invoke the name of the God, really only invokes the concept created through their utterance of the name God. Their efforts, their prayers, their beliefs; none of these reaches God, none of these have anything to do with the REAL GOD. The REAL GOD is something that I can't say anything about; I can at least say that it is not a coherent being, but think; literally there are millions who pray to God, who reports that they do feel God. It is not coherent through language, but people make do anyway. With what? With feelings.
-Thus talking about God would bring us to the realm of the emotional. The turmoil of the human emotion that seeks both the fulfillment and the emptying of their existence; "I want to erase all my sins." Erasing my sins; what exactly is that? We hurt people as soon as we were conceived; think about how our mothers deliver us from the state of being nothing to the state of being something. Pregnancy is a terrible predicament. But why mothers endure the pain of pregnancy? What is the thing that drives us humans to keep on procreating; keep on surviving? Aren't we all going to die? Thus some might say that life in itself is a sin, which is inferred from the fact that living and dying is actually the same thing. You lie when you say you are living; you lie when you say you are dying. You are both living and dying; you cannot claim to be one without claiming to be the other. Living is dying and dying is living. Why these two antithetical states coexist arbitrarily with the other?
-That would pose no problem to the earlier humans who hunt on a daily basis for food. They observe that both are no different; they are not antithetical; they are not separate. Lions consume other animals so they themselves can live. Female spiders devour their mate after procreating. Salmons die soon after laying eggs. The early people see these and do not see any conflict. But why do we perceive the conflict between living and dying?
-The answer; we begin to farm. Why did we begin to farm? The whole idea of farming is not exactly what I would call a brilliant idea. It is easier to hunt, easier to gather food, than actually taking care of them, nurturing them until they got mature enough to be eaten. Taking care of things; that action involves emotion. Emotion spoils everything up. All because we wanted to take care of something. If one were to believe in Torah, one of the very first things that God ordered (or rather, condemned) Adam to do was to farm. All of a sudden, Adam knows how to farm. There is no mentioning of the learning process. Adam just began farming.
-Perhaps that is the reason why the more sedentary population hated the nomads. Those who don't farm and those who do farm; there seems to be a totally fundamental difference in the ethics. Farming begins the history. Religion sprang up together with farming. People didn't believe in God before they began farming. They don't even know God to begin with; the whole idea is not even started yet.
-God as we often understand would then be reconstructed as being products of language; Muslims, Christians, Jews...whenever they invoke the name of the God, really only invokes the concept created through their utterance of the name God. Their efforts, their prayers, their beliefs; none of these reaches God, none of these have anything to do with the REAL GOD. The REAL GOD is something that I can't say anything about; I can at least say that it is not a coherent being, but think; literally there are millions who pray to God, who reports that they do feel God. It is not coherent through language, but people make do anyway. With what? With feelings.
-Thus talking about God would bring us to the realm of the emotional. The turmoil of the human emotion that seeks both the fulfillment and the emptying of their existence; "I want to erase all my sins." Erasing my sins; what exactly is that? We hurt people as soon as we were conceived; think about how our mothers deliver us from the state of being nothing to the state of being something. Pregnancy is a terrible predicament. But why mothers endure the pain of pregnancy? What is the thing that drives us humans to keep on procreating; keep on surviving? Aren't we all going to die? Thus some might say that life in itself is a sin, which is inferred from the fact that living and dying is actually the same thing. You lie when you say you are living; you lie when you say you are dying. You are both living and dying; you cannot claim to be one without claiming to be the other. Living is dying and dying is living. Why these two antithetical states coexist arbitrarily with the other?
-That would pose no problem to the earlier humans who hunt on a daily basis for food. They observe that both are no different; they are not antithetical; they are not separate. Lions consume other animals so they themselves can live. Female spiders devour their mate after procreating. Salmons die soon after laying eggs. The early people see these and do not see any conflict. But why do we perceive the conflict between living and dying?
-The answer; we begin to farm. Why did we begin to farm? The whole idea of farming is not exactly what I would call a brilliant idea. It is easier to hunt, easier to gather food, than actually taking care of them, nurturing them until they got mature enough to be eaten. Taking care of things; that action involves emotion. Emotion spoils everything up. All because we wanted to take care of something. If one were to believe in Torah, one of the very first things that God ordered (or rather, condemned) Adam to do was to farm. All of a sudden, Adam knows how to farm. There is no mentioning of the learning process. Adam just began farming.
-Perhaps that is the reason why the more sedentary population hated the nomads. Those who don't farm and those who do farm; there seems to be a totally fundamental difference in the ethics. Farming begins the history. Religion sprang up together with farming. People didn't believe in God before they began farming. They don't even know God to begin with; the whole idea is not even started yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)