The Crystal Spirit

If you have read Iain McGilchrist’s book The Master and his Emissary on the divided brain, you will necessarily come to the conclusion that the brain is not a calculator as much as an organ of perception. This change in understanding is, in itself, quite revolutionary, because it provides a framework for the reconciliation of the two worlds — the “mystical” and the “empirical”, or the sacred and the profane, and perhaps finally lays to rest the Cartesian dualist error.

The brain, in effect, functions much like a prism or a crystal. If the prism could “think” it would also perhaps know itself as two facets or aspects, or as having two different cognitive minds or “personalities”. One side of the prism receives the light whole, as white light, and that’s all it knows. The other side of the prism refracts the light into the distinct spectral bands, as discrete colours — the “details”. A moment’s thought suffices to realise that the prism is the nexus of perception between “the One and the Many”, and the nexus is called “Man”. This metaphor of the brain as prism is perhaps the most appropriate way of “reflecting” on it, as it were. And the idea of the brain as really an organ of perception rather than a calculator is perhaps McGilchrist’s most striking accomplishment.

The metaphor of the brain as prism joins a host of other metaphors that have been used over the centuries to describe the crystalline or prismatic nature of consciousness and perception: “Diamond Mind” (Tolle, Almaas), or “Ruby” (Rumi), or “the Jewel in the Lotus” (Buddha), or “the Pearl of Great Price” (Sufism). Crystals have held a fascination for human beings perhaps because they symbolise an intuition about the brain as a prism, and the mystery of light — of how one light, entering the crystalline matrix, becomes refracted into a mutiplicity of colours. In that sense, and in terms of its multifaceted character, the crystal symbolises the unio mystica and the integral consciousness.

The two facets of the prism thus serve as metaphors for the two “modes of attention” or “modes of being” of the two hemispheres of the divided brain as described by McGilchrist in their ostensible opposition. And if you review Jill Bolte-Taylor’s TED talk about her own experience with the divided brain, you may come to appreciate how appropriate the idea of the brain as “prism” actually is, and as being primarily an organ of perception.

One facet of the prism, which recieves the light whole, is called “the Master” and the other facet of the prism, which differentiates the light into a spectrum, is called “the Emissary”. These are “the we inside of me”, as Bolte-Taylor expressed it, and which is, in effect, a statement about the hieros gamos or “sacred marriage”.

Bolte-Taylor has also given an excellent description of how the one field of energy as received or perceived by the mode of attention of the right-hemisphere of the brain, is then refracted into the elements of sense perception — taste, sight, smell, odour, touch, which is the workings of the other facet of the prism, the left-hemisphere’s mode of attention, which is associated with the analytical function. These form the spectrum of sense perception, and upon these differentiated elements of the one energy the rational consciousness depends for its mode of functioning — discernment, compare and contrast, and so on.

The problem is that this side of the prism (the left-hemisphere mode of attention or “second attention”) doesn’t know about the other facet of the prism, the one that perceives the energy whole and receives the light as one light, which Jill Bolte-Taylor describes as the “Life Force Power of the Universe”. And it is also this that William Blake calls “Imagination” or Vision as contrasted with “Reason”, which he describes as the “outward circumference of Energy” (from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell,

1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that call’d Body is a portion of Soul discern’d by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3 Energy is Eternal Delight

“Energy is Eternal Delight” is quite evidently also Bolte-Taylor’s experience. And here “Reason”, in Blake’s terms contrasted with “Imagination” or “Vision”, is what we call “ratio” — a ratiocination of sense perceptions and their arrangement into a structure or matrix which is the task of perspectivisation, which is the method of this Age. And you will also see from Bolte-Taylor’s experience of her stroke that the incapacitation of the left-hemisphere’s mode of attention also results in a loss of perspectivism — the inability to distinguish “point-of-view” or even foreground and background effects. Her sense perceptions, in the absence of the functions of the left-hemisphere’s mode of attention, were chaotic, had no structure, and simply flooded in upon her in the form of pain. There was no determinate order to her sense perceptions. Whereas, when the locus of her attention drifted into the right-hemisphere’s mode of attention — the “first attention” — there was no pain.

So, there appear to be two “centres” to the brain, although we may say rather, two loci or foci — a point of entry and a point of exit. The point of entry, which we call “vital centre”, is this streaming in of “the Life Force Power of the Universe”, and the point of exit of this energy is called “physical reality” — the perception of ourselves and our world as solid being which lends to Seth’s remark that the physical senses are “lovely liars” some meaning. This “other centre”, which is the meaning of the “emissary” and which we call “self-centred” is really on an eccentric, and follows the pathway of the centrifugal. It has mistaken itself as this “centre” whereas Blake insists it occupies the “circumference” and not the Centre.

And if the Self and the Reason lies, rather, on the eccentric and in the circumference, it is following what? A circle, a cycle. It is, in effect, “repeating the same dull round” as Blake described it but thinks it is making “progress”. It has become, in McGilchrist’s terms, self-referential and tautological, the mental-merry-go-round and “windmills of your mind” that Blake, rather, called “the dark Satanic Mill”. The “emissary”, who is the ego-consciousness, has become the dark Satanic Mill, which today is called “end of history”.

This orbit on the eccentric is the theme of Yeats’ poem The Second Coming. The “widening gyre” is the centrifugal. The falcon is the “emissary” and the Falconer is the “Master”, the vital centre

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Basically, this, too, is the theme of McGilchrist’s concerns in writing The Master and his Emissary, and what he sees as the emissary having usurped the throne of the Master — the true “Centre”, or what Jean Gebser also calls “the vital centre”. Blake, for his part, calls this true centre “the Real Man” and the eccentric he calls “the Natural Man” — the man of “natural reason” or “natural religion”, and which he also calls “the Beast”.

So, what the Wisdom Tradition also calls “True Self” and “False Self” are akin to two centres, but only one is real. They may be said to correspond to the two facets of the prism. The False Self is what Blake calls “Satan” or “Urizen” which has mistaken itself for the centre. Buddha called this False Self “Mara”, who is also called “Lord of Illusions” and “Lord of my own Ego”. And it is in respect of McGilchrist’s “divided brain”, and its prismatic character, that the old saying “Satan is but the ape of God” takes its determinate meaning. God and Satan are also “the same but different” in the sense that “God” is a reference to the first attention and its centre and “Satan” a reference to the “emissary” which has now confused itself as being the centre when it is, in fact, on the eccentric. As Jill Bolte-Taylor put it, to say “I am” is to separate oneself from All That Is, and is also what the Buddha called “the I am conceit”. “I am” is the voice of Satan, and this is somewhat akin to what Nietzsche said about the true self. The true self is not the voice that says “I am”, but which does I am.

And that is just another statement about the relationship between the Master and the Emissary.

Now, having presented the issue in this way, I think we are in a very good position now to appreciate the prismatic character, also, of Rosenstock-Huessy’s “cross of reality” as well as the meaning of Gebser’s “ever-present origin” as “vital centre” too. And we might conclude from these things that Blake’s cryptic vision of a “New Age” aborning is truly being realised and advanced in the thinking of Gebser, Rosenstock-Huessy, Thomas Berry and McGilchrist, too, and that McGilchrist has provided an empirical verification of the “metanoia” that is currently underway.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

15 responses to “The Crystal Spirit”

  1. davidm58 says :

    This is interesting. I don’t know if it directly relates to your idea of the brain as a prism or crystal, but “Scientists [Have] Discover[ed] A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics.”

    It does at least relate to some of the ideas expressed above regarding our perception of physical reality and the nature of time and space.

    “PHYSICISTS REPORTED THIS week the discovery of a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality.”

    “The revelation that particle interactions, the most basic events in nature, may be consequences of geometry significantly advances a decades-long effort to reformulate quantum field theory, the body of laws describing elementary particles and their interactions. Interactions that were previously calculated with mathematical formulas thousands of terms long can now be described by computing the volume of the corresponding jewel-like “amplituhedron,” which yields an equivalent one-term expression.”

    “The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity.”

    “The amplituhedron is not built out of space-time and probabilities; these properties merely arise as consequences of the jewel’s geometry. The usual picture of space and time, and particles moving around in them, is a construct.”
    http://www.wired.com/2013/12/amplituhedron-jewel-quantum-physics/

    • Scott Preston says :

      “The usual picture of space and time, and particles moving around in them, is a construct.”

      Indeed. It’s a work of art, albeit also a useful one.

      The original article in Quanta comes with an illustration of the crystaline structure of the amplituhedron, and the prismatic character of it is quite pronounced. There are other renditions of it. But I wouldn’t be too surprised if this, or something like it, were also to describe the “geometry of consciousness”, if we might put it that way. Some are already calling it “sacred geometry”, although I’m not sure why — perhaps because it’s so unexpected, so anomalous. In any case, I think the crystalline approach is the right one — whether the amplituhedron is it’s shape or structure, I don’t know.

      • davidm58 says :

        On related notes (i.e. space and time as a construct), some good quotes I came across in my reading yesterday:

        “The theory which I am urging admits a greater ultimate mystery and a deeper ignorance. The past and the future meet and mingle in the ill-defined present. The passage of nature which is only another name for the creative force of existence has no narrow ledge of definite instantaneous present within which to operate. Its operative presence which is now urging nature forward must be sought for throughout the whole, in the remotest past as well as in the narrowest breadth of any present duration. Perhaps also in the unrealised future. Perhaps also in the future which might be as well as the actual future which will be. It is impossible to meditate on time and the mystery of the creative passage of nature without an overwhelming emotion at the limitations of human intelligence.”

        – A.N. Whitehead, The Concept of Nature (1920, p. 73)

        “This scientifically constructed world in which we live, scientifically controlled, defined and predictable, carved out of the chaos and massiveness of experience and made to stand forth like a hard little jewel from the mists and shadows and streaming mysteries of immediate experience, is not an unreal world. If we say it is constructed, if we call it artificial, we do not mean to imply that it is fictitious in the ordinary sense of fiction as being a construction of fancy. This hard and definite little world of science and common sense is just as much fact, as far as it goes, as the total fact from which it is distinguished by means of concepts specially constructed for this purpose. This world of practice and theory stands in the midst of total fact somewhat as a cubic foot of air stands in the midst of an open space of streaming winds and mists. …My attitude and concepts may imply that these cubic feet are the sole and total fact; but of course they are not. Furthermore we cannot say that nature has set apart these cubic feet as of peculiar significance; she has not enclosed with natural partitions nor in any wise given them prominence. It is scientific method that gives them unique significance and makes them shine forth with unnatural light. Only in this sense is the world that concerns science artificial…

        …it is but a part, and a very small part at that, of the total fact of experience…We must see that over and above these conceptually defined molecules and atoms and vibrations, and round them and through them, there flows that total event of nature which enters awareness in the form of the concrete fullness of experience. We must see that this streaming flood of fact is not of necessity any less significant or worthy than those features selected for scientific treatment.

        But the worst evil arises when we separate these two parts of total fact…It is this opposition between values and the realm of facts that we wish to designate by the two metaphysical demands. Our conviction is that there are no two such realms or worlds outside our own fancies. the two are one. If the humpty dumpty of total fact were indeed broken in two we could never get him together again. But the great fall and break has never occurred except in the form of a nightmare which we have dreamed, and are now unable to put out of our minds.”

        – Henry Nelson Wieman, Religious Experience and Scientific Method (1926, p. 146-148)

        • davidm58 says :

          Even more interesting, is that when reading Wieman’s 1926 book, I can see retrospectively – in light of McGilchrists explanation of the two hemisphere’s as articulated on this blog – that Wieman is often talking essentially about the same thing, though never relating it to brain hemispheres.

          When Wieman talks about science, it lines up with the discussion here about left hemisphere, and when he talks about religious experience, it lines up with discussion here on right hemisphere.

          Mysticism is right brain, and cognition is left brain, and “contemplation” is the ideal mediating factor between the two.

          He compares knowledge by description (“all geometrical, mathematical and purely logical entities”) with knowledge by acquaintance: “the state of diffusive awareness, where habitual systems of response are resolved into an undirected, unselective aliveness of the total organism to the total event then ensuing…”

          He writes,

          “That kind of thinking which is most receptive to what mysticism has to offer is the contemplative. If mysticism ends with itself it amounts to little. Its value is that it opens up new undefined reaches of experienced reality. But if these new regions are not entered and possessed by thought, human life is not greatly enriched. Contemplation is best fitted to enter in and possess the land. The swing of the pendulum of interest from mysticism back to scientific method and from scientific method to mysticism, is of value only as it serves in each swing to build up a little more the breadth and fullness of that which we contemplate. And contemplation culminates in the discernment of God. Worship at its best is that contemplation which is finely balanced between thinking and mysticism, and fulfills itself in action.” (p. 84, Religious Experience and Scientific Method).

          And this [my comments in brackets]:
          “Recent reconstruction of the basic concepts of science have served not to reveal the nature of this total fact [the whole that the right hemisphere perceives] but to mark out the limits of scientific knowledge and to remove certain old metaphysical assumptions inherited from the Greeks, which have hindered the assimilation of the scientific to the religious view of the world. What we do know is: 1) that certain finely devised experiments yield certain results with a very high degree of uniformity [perspectival left hemisphere], and 2) that a certain awareness of the concrete fullness of experience [the right brain perception of the whole] yields values indespensible to human living. With these two legs to our ladder we can climb. Without both we are undone. The metaphysician is free to climb to the top of this ladder and find what is there to be seen. But let him not kick the ladder from beneath his feet. Let him not think he can dispense with either leg. Experimental verification on the one hand, and the values of immediate experience on the other, are the only supports he has, and the only supports the human race can have. These are two sides of life which we have been portraying. We must never allow our inordinate interest in the one to destroy concern for the other. For the one without the other comes to nought.”
          (p. 158-159, ibid).

          In essence, he is making a similar argument as McGilchrist, and foresaw the mounting danger even before Gebser:
          “It is neglect of religious experience as such which is our chief danger in this age of scientific method. The more rigorous the scientific method, the more need have we of religious experience and the more need has science of this experience to keep it ever youthful and growing. But when the unique character of religious experience is not clearly discerned and its indispensable value recognized, there is danger that religious experience will be ignored and neglected in the wave of enthusiasm for scientific method which is now rising among us.
          …The danger is not that we shall cease to be religious, but that the quality of our religion will decline.” (p. 41-42)

          • Scott Preston says :

            That accord’s with McGilchrist’s description of the divided brain very well, as well as with his prognosis for this bias, lop-sidedness or deficit of right-hemispheric attentiveness.

            Blake is really a wealth of material on this, and thanks to Steve Lavendusky’s recommendation to read Bernard Nesfield-Cookson’s William Blake: Prophet of Universal Brotherhood I’m find my reading of this also a wealth of insights into the functions of the two modes of attention. Some things that appeared highly cryptic in Blake become quite transparent in light of McGilchrist’s description of neurodynamics. For Blake is certainly one who lived almost constantly in the “realms of Vision” — the right-hemisphere’s mode of attention, and this gave him unique insights into the functioning of the left-mode.

            Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to work in reverse. Blake refers to this as Opacity (Satanic) and Tranlucency (Christic). To the left mode, the right hemisphere’s mode of attention to opaque (occult, irrational, etc), while to the right-brain, the left is completely translucent or transparent. This latter is of course Gebser’s “translucence”, while “deficient perspectivisation” is this Opacity, the Opocity of “cavern’d man”. Clearly, Gebser was also one who, as befits McGilchrist, was right-hemisphere oriented.

            I think we will make big strides once we stop thinking of the brain generally as a calculator and more as an organ of perception, and that this perception is prismatic. McGilchrist was definitely what I was waiting for to tie everything together.

          • Scott Preston says :

            McGilchrist has provided a very useful framework for understanding the deficiencies of the contemporary intellect, and one that can be used to counter the inertia of its momentum, which is towards self-destruction.

            The old saw that we only use 10% or less of our brain’s potential is clear only as a confession of that deficit of right-hemispheric attention (and not as expanding the empire of the left-hemisphere’s mode of attention, which is probably the intent of that). In fact, less is more here.

            In fact Blake’s statement that “More! More! is the cry of the mistaken Soul, less than All cannot satisfy Man” is probably a statement of that very thing McGilchrist refers to — the “more” being the predilection of the second attention, and the “All” the predilection of the first attention. The first attention already perceives this “All”, only it is inhibited or censored by the second attention.

            “Without contraries there is no progression” says Blake. McGilchrist uses that to describe the two cognitive minds or attentions. It is, in fact, the fundamental contrary, for Blake’s statement about the “more” and the “all” is just another way of talking about the paradox of the Many and the One. This has to do with neurodynamics.

            So, the paradox is not a wispy mysticism. It’s right there, in the nature of the divided brain. Science will simply have to face it. McGilchrist has made that unavoidable in terms of the divided brain. This is a sea change because it means now that science can make no real further progress in knowledge without addressing it. The rational intellect could ignore Gebser, perhaps. It could ignore Wieman as being only “religious”. But it can’t ignore McGilchrist.

        • Scott Preston says :

          C.P. Snow wrote a book called The Two Cultures. Islam also speaks of “the two worlds”, and it is very much also in the sense Wieman speaks of them. And thanks to McGilchrist, we see these are also very much connected to neurodynamics, as well as what we mean when we speak of “spirit” and of “nature”, these being correlated with the two modes of attention, or the “two cognitive brains” in Jill Bolte-Taylor’s experience.

          This (that our ordinary spacetime reality is a construct or description of the left-hemispheric mode) bears equally on something don Juan told Castaneda, and it’s quite eloquently put. It’s very “Blake”.

          “For a sorcerer, reality, or the world we all know, is only a description that has been pounded into you from the moment you were born. The reality of our day-to-day life, then, consists of an endless flow of perceptual interpretations which we have learned to make in common. I am teaching you how to see as opposed to merely looking, and stopping the world is the first step to seeing.
          The sorcerer’s description of the world is perceivable. But our insistence on holding on to our standard version of reality renders us almost deaf and blind to it. When you begin this teaching, there is another reality, that is to say, there is a sorcery description of the world, which you do not know. As a sorcerer and a teacher, I am teaching you that description. What I am doing with you consists, therefore, in setting up that unknown reality by unfolding its description, adding increasingly more complex parts as you go along.
          In order to arrive at seeing one first has to stop the world. Stopping the world is indeed an appropriate rendition of certain states of awareness in which the reality of everyday life is altered because the flow of interpretation, which ordinarily runs uninterruptedly, has been stopped by a set of circumstances alien to that flow. In this case the set of circumstances alien to our normal flow of interpretations is the sorcery description of the world. The precondition for stopping the world is that one has to be convinced; in other words, one has to learn the new description in a total sense, for the purpose of pitting it against the old one, and in that way break the dogmatic certainty, which we all share, that the validity of our perceptions, or our reality of the world, is not to be questioned.
          After stopping the world the next step is seeing. By that I mean what could be categorized as responding to the perceptual solicitations of a world outside the description we have learned to call reality.”

          “Stopping the world” (or “letting go” as the aim of meditative practice) is short-circuiting the flow of descriptions of the left-hemisphere mode of attention, which Buddhism calls “Monkey Mind” or Jill Bolte-Taylor’s “internal chatter”. Seeing culminates in then seeing energy as it flows in the universe, as Jill Bolte-Taylor also did. This is the description of the right-hemisphere mode of attention — the flux.

          To put this in other terms, don Juan’s perception is “Heraclitean”, while that of Castaneda originally was Parmenidean, or what we call “Becoming” and “Being” orientations, and clearly these are associated with the two hemispheres of the brain and their distinct modes of attention. Parmenides and Heraclitus represent the brain at war with itself, and so they were philosophical foes. But it is the description of reality articulated by Parmenides that has ruled the mind for two millenia. And it was Parmenides who first said “thinking and being are the same”, not Descartes with his “I think therefore I am” (or, put optionally, “thinking, I become”).

          So, the Great Unravelling (or “havoc”) of the present is really the deconstruction of the Parmenidean universe — no small thing either. What ties together McGilchrist, Nietzsche, Castaneda, Blake, Rosenstock-Huessy, Thomas Berry, quantum mechanics and much else is Heraclitean perception, and this belongs to McGilchrist’s “brain lateralisation” — the paradigm shift is a literal shift towards the mode of perception described by don Juan as seeing rather than looking, and for similar reasons Rosenstock is enjoining true listening rather than merely hearing, and that’s what he emphasises in his new formula for social science respondeo, etsi mutabor or audi ne moriamur — “I respond although I will be changed? or “listen lest we die”.

          So, Gebser’s right — big changes are afoot, and McGilchrist’s brain lateralisation is iimplicated, and we may say that in general, it is the unravelling of the Parmenidean description of reality that Blake called “the mind-forg’d manacles” or the Rosenstock called “the Greek Mind”, and that the Age of Heraclitus is about to begin as we become more attuned to the perceptions of the right-hemisphere of the divided brain. This is what Blake means by the turn from Opacity to Translucence, and away from “the dark Satanic Mill” that was the mental-merry-go-round and “windmills of your mind” of the Parmenidean description of reality given by the left hemisphere of the brain.

    • Dwig says :

      This reminds me strongly of a site I stumbled on, called “Cosmometry” (http://cosmometry.net/landing?tags=explore-cosmometry).

      “Cosmometry is the study of the fundamental patterns, structures, processes and principles underlying all manifestation, micro to macro, physical and metaphysical. This “cosmic geometry” exists in everything as a fractal-holographic presence that in itself is always whole and complete, yet most often is discerned in nature through perceiving only the “parts” of this wholeness, of which it is comprised. There are three fundamental aspects that make up the core of what is in actuality a unified model.”

  2. dadaharm says :

    Hi,

    It occurred to me that the two types of attention can also be related to Owen Barfield’s ideas. His description of original participation is not to different from McGilchrist’s first mode of attention. And what Barfield calls idolatry is clearly the second mode of attention, where all meaning is removed from perception.

    Of course, Barfield has a very linear idea of history, where humans slowly went from a stage of original participation to a stage of idolatry. Moreover, in his view humanity cannot go back to original participation. His history has a direction in time (with final participation as the next stage).

    • Scott Preston says :

      Is that in his Saving the Appearances or in some other work?

      • dadaharm says :

        Yes that is in Saving the Appearances.
        (Most of his other work that I know of are more or less footnotes to it.)

      • Steve Lavendusky says :

        Man is dualistically inclined: the earthly man is linked with the heavenly man, with the one “from above”-the lower trinity with the higher trinity. Where they overlap there arises the formation of the “I.” Dualism-apparent in all human activities, capacities, achievements-is present only to be overcome. Overcoming it does not mean denying or dismissing one pole. Man breathes more or less rhythmically, always between two poles: in memory and forgetting between formation and dissolution; between past consciousness and present conscious ness; between waking and sleeping; between being-in-oneself and being surrendered to another; between intuition and becoming conscious of intuition. This rhythmic nature gives him the possibility of notic ing both poles and knowing them, becoming con scious of both of them. This is why he can conceive of past and present, determinism and freedom: be cause he belongs neither wholly to one nor wholly to the other pole; he takes part in both. The Manvantaras and Pralayas of his remembering and forgetting gradually educate him into a true I-being, in whose contemplation duality is not experienced as eliminated but rather surpassed, transcended; identity and at the same time experience of identity.

        Georg Kuhlewind

  3. abdulmonem says :

    Thank all. It is no small matter that god message to humanity is to start with the realization of oneness, the unity of existence to avoid all this division and separation. As if the source of scientific knowledge and the source of religious knowledge are different and are not coming from the same source. This is the problem of those who refused that there is god, the source of everything and those, like all those people who have been cited and who have emphasized the oneness and the return to the oneness. It is a question of faith and it seems that the arrogant scientific mentality(it is a kind of faith) refuses to respect the wonders they are coming across in this elegant cosmos. Over the course of the known history humanity had never learned that disaster strikes when humanity replaces the code of moral value by the code of utility that is of price and that the purpose of knowledge is to serve the code of the one who originated knowledge and to reside the relation of everything on the basis of truth, justice and honesty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: