Thursday, November 17, 2005

Should not Psychology be renamed Mindology = the logos of the mind?

by Professor H. I. Pilikian

Of all the Social Sciences, Psychology seems to be the one discipline galloping into the practical details of post-modern life, ran over by women-students in the American and British universities.

Most recently, the bastion of British Conservatism, the London Daily Mail newspaper reported with typical rightwing nagging; “A new approach to teaching in which pupils are asked to talk about their feelings is being tested at a cost of £5 million… in the belief it will help tackle disruptive behaviour… Critics have described the scheme as a waste of money and a dangerous fad that will undermine the teaching of English and maths at a time when thousands of pupils leave primary schools unable to read and write properly. The scheme is based on the theories of American psychologist Daniel Goleman who coined the term ‘emotional intelligence’ to describe the ability to recognize and control feelings.” (7)

Gone are the days when Psychology departments were exclusive male clubs, founded by German sounding patriarchal chauvinists, in white overalls, playing at being natural scientists, experimenting with docile monkeys or white rats in Skinnerian boxes (1). Pop-psychology is the staple diet Jerry Springer and Oprah Winfrey addicts are fed on everywhere in America, and in glossy women’s (even in cheap-porno) magazines – Cosmopolitan, Playboy, you name it!

Psychology proper is as old as Philosophy, and an offshoot of it, stretching back to the ancient Greeks and those magnificent two, Plato (c.427-c.347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC), who between them laid the foundations of Western thought, with such mind-power, that no subsequent intellectual earthquakes (from John Locke, Hume, Kant, to Newton, down to Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, or String Theory), seem able to ever budge them, perhaps shake them a little, but never ruin them. Greek Philosophy (in the Western world) became the mother of all knowledge, branching gradually over the centuries into the natural and social sciences.

Aristotle’s book On the Soul is perhaps the first book on psychology (=the logos of the Soul). He formalized it as the study (the logos) of the Soul (psyche). For the Pythagoreans before him, the Soul was an (spiritual) entity ‘imprisoned’ within and by the body, which thus deserved, and needed, to be ‘disciplined’ (almost as a ‘spiritual’ punishment) by external means – specific actions like cleanliness, holding silence (against thoughtless babble), sexual self-restraint, vegetarianism etc. a frugal monastic way of life designed by the saintly Pythagoras (6th c. BC) himself for his disciples. The Pythagorean soul, arguably, cannot exist without the body, but especially vice versa, as the body is an embodied soul (the basic tenet of all later spiritual ‘sciences’).

Plato resolved the Pythagorean dialectical contradiction by splitting them apart – he seems to have adopted the ancient Egyptian concept of the Soul as a separate non-physical entity, able to exist without the body. Plato also adapted the ancient Egyptian concept, this time to resolve the latter’s dialectical contradiction about the Soul’s mortality – although souls (especially those of the Pharaohs) became stars in the sky, and stars were immortal, but ‘ordinary’ souls could be killed individually (by erasing a dead man’s name from documents, for example). Plato made the soul universally and uniquely immortal.

All of the above was too unreal for the practical ‘scientific’ Aristotle. He conceived of Things as intertwined Form (from his teacher, Plato’s notion of the unchanging characteristic element of an object that defines its essence) and Matter (the universal undifferentiated substratum of all things – the Body), always existing together (except in the case of God – in whom Aristotle had scant interest) (2). He then provided a practical common-sense view of the soul defining it (for the first time ever) as the Life-force – the overall ‘supervisor’ of a body that empowers it to “support vital functions”, the vital force in other words that keeps the body alive. Soul seems to be the same as Motion – the dead do not move!

Have you seen a dead body? To appreciate Aristotle’s deep insight, one ought to witness the lifeless body of a live person, or even introspect on organic dead matter, say a piece of wood. It lacks movement-soul, or life force. Moving-things, even dead objects in motion, can seem to be alive…(3).

All agree that Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) founded ‘scientific’ (experimental) psychology as an independent discipline by cutting its umbilical cord from Philosophy. He was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Leipzig (1875-1917), when he initiated the first academic course in psychology (1862), established the world’s first laboratory for experimental psychology (1879), and published the first journal of academic psychology (in 1881) labelling it strangely… Philosophical Studies
(Philosophische Studien). And he would not give up on Philosophy at all – among his massive published works (over 500), he has volumes on Logic (Logik 1880), Ethics (Ethik 1886) and, The Philosophical System (System der Philosophie 1889).

Wundt’s case illustrates how people find it difficult to change mindsets and consequent attitudes, methodologies or definitions. Wundt could transform psychology radically, revolutionize it, and yet he found it impossible to give up its philosophical non-scientific (because non-experimental) progeny.

Similarly, a plethora of psychologists since Wundt, who have been desperately trying to ‘scientify’ the discipline, have neglected to transform its definitional name (names define natures and essences), still calling it psychology, even though mind and soul are no more congruous (they never were, merely some lazy scholars perpetuated the mistranslation of the soul into mind during German Romanticism).

Science refutes and rejects the very notion of the Soul, be it purely spiritual as in Plato, or mildly scientific as in Aristotle. Science simply could not define the soul, the un-observable. This (the denial of the soul) denotes in fact the beginnings of all modern science. Yet, psychological ‘scientists’ (and/or ‘scientific’ psychologists) still persist in calling themselves students of the psyche=the Soul.

And Aristotle is not finished either. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle laid a huge emphasis on the significance of actions people take, viz. people’s behaviour. Action creates the individual – according to Aristotle, a person’s very character is defined by and evolves through the actions he takes.

John Watson (1878-1958) founded Behaviourism in psychology on similar lines – he was convinced that by changing behaviour, he could reshape character. John Dewey (1859-1952) who transformed American education (with his fellow Pragmatists), was totally practical-obsessed and action-orientated. For him, thinking as a process is a means for planning practical action. Truth is not a Platonic abstract ideal, but a practical (I would say ‘Aristotelian’ action-orientated) idea that has worked in the past, emerges out of past practical experience.

Why then do all psychologists still hang onto the soul=psyche while babbling of the Mind?

Social Psychologists are the most condemned lot among the Experimental pseudo-psycho-scientists for pursuing non-scientific methods – producing data that cannot be tested, replicated, or publicly checked (as in the case of confidential psychoanalytic case studies).

Yet even the social psychologists that are happy to battle against laboratory dehumanisation of subjects they insist on calling “participants” and rightly so, take pride in being open and humane and democratic, yet do their damnedest to ‘prove’ that their methods of cultural and social studies are entirely unambiguously… scientific, and they join forces with their ‘dehumanised’ experimental colleagues to snigger and scapegoat poor old Freud for huffing and puffing and producing hot air and no recognizable testable science! The irony is that Freud himself considered himself as none other than a neuroscientist, albeit accepting of the soul=psyche in psychology, in the classical Greek sense of it.

Social Psychologists should have the courage to declare all Psychology to be Social Psychology… Social mores are culture-specific, very often even time-specific trends and fads. Any psychology experiment delivers up results valid only and only for that particular time (of the experiment) in a specific culture – it should never be generalized and universalized as a fixture of human cognition.

Social psychologists should resist any temptation ‘to be scientific’, integrating with their deluded nitpicking pretentious Cognitive brethren (and sisters) sniggering at them, wasting precious research time and resources – millions of dollars are squandered annually, in American universities, creating cognitive psychological … fog, publishing massive tomes of hot air – frequently sheer risible nonsense.

As deluded ‘scientists’, Cognitive psychologists talk non-stop of the mind, yet they lack absolutely any definition, let alone any theory, of the Mind (of which their hated Philosophers have god’s plenty!). They think ‘thinking’ is no more than a function of the brain, in exclusion of all emotion and the five senses – their millions of dollars of wasteful research are obsessed with visual, and rarely with audio experiments, in total ignorance of the olfactory and haptic senses, when in fact it is the ‘chemical’ (to use hard-core scientific terms!) compoundation of all the five ‘elements’ of the senses (or the lack of some in an individual due to physical damage) that ‘yield’ the emotions, that trigger the hormones and the enzymes, that dictate and carry the thoughts at synaptic junctions in the brain, and along the neural pathways of the nervous system, covering the whole body!

But what is Science, so beloved of social scientists? Can anything other than the natural sciences (chemistry, biology, physics etc.) be regarded as scientific?

The verbal root of science derives from the Latin scire (4) = to know. Speaking etymologically, science denotes all the fields of human knowledge. It took very many centuries of human thought to finally arrive at the refinements of constructed meaning, to invent a web of cognate meanings and definitions, to render it a special kind of knowledge with its own (scientific) methodology. As Devalle (1996/2001, p. 119) confirms – “the word ‘scientist’ was only invented by William Whewell in 1840”.

Francis Bacon in the 16th c. Britain laid first the foundations of the scientific methodology by defining the deductive Aristotelian method of fact-observation. Karl Popper, only in the 20th c. could define the falsifiability-principle of a scientific theory. Kuhn in the USA carved in stone the concept of the scientific paradigm, and how it shifts as a result of Popperian falsifiability. All had in mind the complexities presented by the Realism of the natural sciences – that physical objective reality has an existence independent of the perceiving mind. It signified a fight to the death against the ultra solipsism/relativism of the Irish Platonist Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753), who had insisted that all was in the mind, and in God’s mind at that – esse est percipi = to exist is to be perceived [by the Christian God especially].

At the root of Psychology on the other hand lies the classical Greek noun psukhe forming a cluster of complex cognate meanings beginning with the oldest one wind, evolving into breath, then life, life-force, and finally soul. It was also personified in Greek mythology as the passionately monogamous lover of Eros (she died for him! Something no modern feminist could do…), himself the illegitimate son of Aphrodite (the most beautiful of the goddesses) married to lame Hephaistos (the ugliest of the gods though the most artistic, and the only one living – not in Olympus – but under the earth, being responsible for the volcanic eruptions).

Aphrodite was the whore of Aries, the god of Warmongering, and the father of Eros (the lover of Psyche), all of which Freud knew well and absorbed into his analytical theorizing. Freud was a true psychologist in the correct (‘scientific’) meaning of the word, being keen on the etymological concept of the word psycho-logy as the logos of the Soul linked deeply with Eros (thence Freud’s overall concept of the Unconscious being the product of the sexual instinct warring its way through the Ego etc).

It is the first British translators who got it wrong in English by translating Freud’s use of the soul (same word in German as in Greek and pronounced exactly the same) as mind in an insidious fraudulent attempt to give Freud’s concepts a ‘scientific’ shine, and Freud incomprehensibly did not bother to correct them, perhaps because he himself was keen on being acknowledged as a serious scientist (5). Bruno Bettelheim’s (1982/2001) revelation of these facts fell on deaf ears and seem still stuck there!

Miller (1962/1991) provided by now a universally accepted definition of psychology as “the science of mental life” (as much the subtitle of his classic treatise on the subject), but lacking the courage it seems to go further and re-label psychology (the very name of the discipline itself) in a scientific mode.

The synonymous coupling of soul and mind still current in dictionaries and non-scientific literature sounds very primitive and needs desperately scientific updating if one aught to propagate Psychology as a scientific discipline, taking into account the evolutionary socio-linguistic strides in meaning achieved since the 18th c. Rationalism that necessitates the belated de-coupling of the two concepts. Mind as the function of the Brain (mathematically speaking), must have no more congress with the Soul (in psychology), the existence and location of which is still a great mystery even in Religion!

Perhaps time is finally ripe that Psychology is renamed Mindology, to give it the scientific accolade its practitioners have been so desperate striving to achieve. Let’s have Social Mindology (instead of social psychology), child mindology, cognitive mindology, clinical mindology, experimental mindology etc.

Social constructionists (and possibly experientialists) won’t mind one way or the other as long as meanings are clarified and socially embedded. Psychodynamicists alone may regret the day, unless they too wished to dump their Freudian progeny for scientific respectability.

But why should science be respectable let alone desirable?

Because, it aims to discover the truth irrespective of all the hindrances obfuscating its revelation. In theology, truth is a definition of the godhead. It is therefore the more surprising that Christian dogma opposed science to its religion – an error Islam did not commit, considering science to be the revelation of the divine mind as the truth itself.

Ironically then, Western science replaced the Christian religion, simply to usurp its place. Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the French founder of positivism (and Sociology – he invented the word in 1830), did not hesitate to go the extra mile and wear the priestly vestments of a science-man!

We are frequently amazed by the rich diversity of human ontology – response, intentions and behaviour, especially if one aims at an integrative critical analysis of a predicament (like issues of health or disability – alcoholism, anorexia, autism, Down syndrome etc.) Still, compared to overall biological diversity in Nature, human ontology is predictably limited (taken singly, all species are ‘limited’).

Devalle’s (1996-2001, p. 124) notion that “Much of science is ‘uncommon’ sense and ‘counter-intuitive’” is nonsense – some of science, yes, perhaps, but very little of it – most of science in fact is common sense, most scientific truisms are practically tautological (under which Functional explanations, and socio-biology specifically, suffer).

Post-modern Gay and Lesbian theorizing (some would argue post-modernism is homosexual Theory) finally established the cubist multiplicity of most things, especially the Self and its sex – there are now many selves in a self, and many genders, resulting in a whole gamut of many sciences and many social sciences – Newtonian and Quantum Physics co-exist, many sociologies and feminisms, and several social psychologies like psp=psychological social psychology, and ssp=sociological social psychology, and five more (if the 5 perspectives of Britain’s Open University D317 course would be separately categorized…)

Let us focus for a moment on the 3 kinds of sciences in the social psychology (=mindology) paradigm created at the Open University (OU) (8) by the above mentioned D 317 module ; traditional/natural, ‘moral’ and, critical/political.

Being an ultra-inclusivist, I consider those to be complimentary. I am not at all persuaded by the “non-negotiables” of Stevens and Wetherell (1996/2002 pp. 364-7). The power of the human mind is such that, wherever it be located, whether in the individual’s head (biological/cognitive-experimental, frequently experiential, and occasionally psychodynamic perspectives) or in society and culture at large (the social constructionist view), all can be eventually perfectly negotiated and beautifully integrated (as in mathematical theories), if wished and determined to do so.

It is only the hierarchical power-obsession in people that excludes and disrupts and destroys the Mead-ian other (6), to self-destruct eventually – the case of all male tyrants (Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, etc.) There may be a gender difference in this – grounds for a biological/cognitive mindological research – as female Tyrants (Boudiccea, Catherine the Great, and Mrs Thatcher) survive intact, never suicidal!

Other contradictory concepts can also be converted to harmonious dialectical Hegelian syntheses. For example, Realism – belief in an external objective reality existing independently of a perceiving mind, which is universally regarded as a defining non-negotiable of the scientific method – hard as a rock and absolutely opposed to Relativism (considered as the defining principle of social constructionism), would instantly melt away if understood as yet another relativist conception in the scientific mindset.

What is regarded as an example of another dialectical opposition in the social sciences – the Quantitative methodology usually ‘violently’ contradicted to the Qualitative method of data gathering, I say is merely complimentary, especially if one subscribes to Pythagoras’ 2,500 years old notion that the whole universe (and not only our world) and all the objects in it could be mathematized – represented as numbers, literally (which is the basis of all modern computer science).

Of course the experimental method is, and must be reductionist – as perfectly defined in Descarte’s classic 17th c. treatise On Method – controlled, unnatural and in-the-laboratory. But it better be, to produce valid, replicable, testable scientific data. It is not in opposition to the immeasurably rich and ecologically valid, naturally observed though interpretative data of the psychodynamic researchers, and the hidden meanings revealed via content analyses by discursive psychologists=mindologists.

The nomothetic approach of the traditional science attempting to discover general laws and define norms ought not to be construed as contradictory to the hermeneutic discipline of the critical/political sciences that challenge norms, with the intention of transforming society and empowering the individual – one needs norms to challenge them, rebel against to change them!

A bone of contention could be picked in the mislabelling of social psychology in the OU paradigm as a moral science. Moral is one of the few English words with enormous narratives and historical baggage loaded onto it, rendering it misleading for the simpler connotation of empowering the individual to reflexivity, and Hegelian freedom of choice and autonomous action.

Nothing in the definitional concepts propagated by the OU paradigm of social psychology (=mindology) would contradict labelling it ethical, which seems even a more apposite description of the meanings desired and intended by the writers of the course material. It is likely that the course team (of D 317) did not wish to be lumbered with the already well-established discipline of Ethics in Philosophy, only to end up with their own clanger…

A happier solution could have emerged from the observation that the philosophical category ends in s – Ethics – Baruch Spinoza (1632-77), the Jewish-Dutch philosopher sadly ex-communicated by the ignorant and superstitious members of his Jewish Orthodox community, had tried to create at least the mathematics if not the science of ethics. Thence, the D 317 OU course team could decide on the congruent expression of ethical science – there could be no mindological confusion, as there is an exciting world of difference, between the science of ethics, and an ethical science!

A claim of ethical (instead of the moral) science would flow (in Csikszentmihalyi’s Californian New-Ageist technical sense of ‘flow of consciousness’ plagiarized from Hegel) in a seamless way into the claims for the critical/political science of the Open University paradigm – to transform society for the better, by revealing the hidden, iniquitous, ideologically perverted power relations of a capitalist society needing lies, and a continuum of deception, to thrive. In this very important sense at the least, social mindology (=psychology) becomes science in the traditional belief of the notion – the revelation of the truth (of things).


(1) Skinner, with the strange first name of Burrhus, was a power-obsessed Harvard-educated American psychologist (1904-1990), who infested psychology departments first with pigeons, then with white rats… in boxes he designed, forcing the poor animals to press levers endlessly mindlessly for bits of food! Nothing was original in his work, based on a rehash of the Russian Physiologist, Ivan Pavlov’s (1849-1936) work (on conditioning salivating dogs). Lionized by the powers that be in the US, Skinner developed megalomaniac fascist fantasies of social control via mass conditioning – an extension of his work with rats! This great world-famous American, must have been mentally ill to pen the following drivel as evidence of his theories, in his much-acclaimed and badly punctuated autobiography, pioneering the modern days of Jerry Springer shows;

“ I learned the technique of masturbation quite by accident, when I was perhaps eleven. Up to that point sexual play had consisted of undirected handling of genitalia. One day another boy and I had gone out of town on our bicycles and walked up a creek, beside which we were later to build a shack. We were sitting in the sun engaged in rather idle sex play when I made several rhythmic strokes which had a highly reinforcing effect. I immediately repeated them with even more reinforcing results.”

{Particulars of my Life, Jonathan Cape publisher, London 1976, cited without a page number by Frederick Toates and Ingrid Slack in ‘Behaviourism and its consequences’, Ch. 6, Introduction to Psychology, edited by Ilona Roth, vol. 1, p. 276, published by Psychology Press in association with The Open University.}

(2) Aristotle seems to have nurtured a kind of monotheism hitherto unnoticed by historians of philosophy, which came to him from the knowledge of ancient sun-cults.

One of the great errors in history has been the crediting of the Hebrews with monotheism – the concept of God is polytheistic in both the Old and the New Testaments – Jehovah, frequently referred to as elohim in plural is not a deferential form, as misinterpreted by scholars, but a symbolic sign signifying the god of gods. As for the Christian God, it is a… Trinity after all – the cause of endless infantile Byzantine feuds splitting churches on doctrinal grounds, whether the Three are attributes of the One, and if so, at what ontological point or split second of becoming etc.

Mankind’s first religion in pre-history globally was the sun-cult, which by definition is monotheistic in nature, and the first of its kind, something hitherto unobserved by historians of religion. Mankind in other words began its religion at the dawn of history with monotheism, and stayed so for millennia. It then re-surfaced in Akhenaten’s Egypt brought over by his wife Nefertiti – a Hittite princess from the Armenian heartland around the mountains of Ararat, the sun-cult object… Monotheism was finally fixated in ‘modern’ times by Islam, with the only truly monotheistic concept of a single God, jumping the polytheistic absurdities of the Holy Bible.

(3) Great art was defined as the life-force, captured by the creative artist in and through his work. A heavily carved and ornamented medieval wooden chair looks livelier than a plain modern plastic seat. During the High Renaissance in Italy, the great artist (like a mini-god) was thought of as the life-giver to a lifeless object – the mover of the dead object. Modern art, for the same reasons, seems lifeless, soul-less, and hence dead. According to Aristotle, only through the life of the Soul – its proper functioning – can the moral and intellectual abilities of a human being be developed – the lively arts therefore have a vital contribution to make to the development of individual personality. Imagine therefore the immeasurable damage Bad art – the coprophiliac death-obsessed modern art beloved by the New York Metropolitan Museum and the London Tate Modern elites can cause.

(4) Incredibly, misprinted as scrire in no less than The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1984, p. 939, col. 1).

(5) If Karl Marx (1818-1883) was the greatest single influence on the Socialist half of the world, Freud (1856-1939) was his equal on the other Capitalist half, merely because of Freud’s massive influence on American life. Unfortunately, some of the fundamental concepts Freud grappled with are grotesque (Oedipus Complex, women’s penis envy etc.), and certain indication of mental illness he undoubtedly suffered for many reasons – in his relative youth, he was under the homoerotic influence of a lunatic colleague by the name of Fliess, who persuaded him that the human sexual urge is controllable being linked to the… nose! Freud, incredibly, allowed Fliess to mutilate his nose in a botched up surgery, and had to take cocaine for pain relief for the rest of his famous life… undoubtedly causing all the ridiculous sexual hallucinations Freud dreamt up as theoretical insights, and the Victorian world gobbled up from him as respectable, publicly permitted pornography! The tragedy is that millions of Americans still live by Freudian fantasies.

Take pornographic fantasy out of Freudian theories, very little would be left worth any serious consideration – one of them, that Dreams (for example) are a re-enactment of one’s subconscious social relations is an idea as old as the Sumerians and the Assyrians who had Dream-interpreters amongst their ruling-class elites.

(6) George Mead (1863-1931) was an American social psychologist who had studied also in Europe. Under Marxist influence (unacknowledged), he emphasized the massive importance of the social context in the development of the individual. Even the Mind, he defined it as a social product! – Mind, self, and Society, published in 1934 posthumously, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

(7) ‘£5m price of putting youngsters in touch with their emotions’, by Laura Clark, Education Reporter, Daily Mail, December 27, 2003, p.39.

(8) The massive importance of this paradigm for future life in Britain can only be gauged by the formal launch recently (on 14 April 2005) at the Royal Society of Arts in London, of a British Government initiative, subsidized to the tune of 4 million English pounds, to research Identity issues – 25 research projects across universities in the whole of the United Kingdom. The directorship of the overall programme is under Professor Margie Wetherell, a leading light of the course team at the OU that created the D317 Social Psychology paradigm.

One such project directed by Prof. Wetherell herself at the OU is titled very strangely to say the least – Identities in Process: becoming Bangladeshi, African-Caribbean and White Mothers in Tower Hamlets (Society Matters, The Newspaper of the Social Sciences Faculty at the OU, edited by Richard Skellington, No. 8, Autumn/Winter 2005-2006, p.14) – it strides from the very specific well-defined – Bangladeshi, to the vague – Africans, and Caribbeans lumped together, to the impossible, almost racist nonsense – the White mothers – who are they? The Welsh? The Scots? The English? The Bangladeshi and the endlessly multi-ethnic Afro-Caribbean Blacks may not belong to a class-structured society as the White Brits, but the latter are riddled with it – thence added incongruities in a research with scientific pretensions…


Bettelheim, B. (1982/2001) Freud and Man’s Soul, London, Pimlico.

Devalle, D. (1996/2001) ‘Da Capo: science and social psychology’ in Sapsford, R. (ed) Issues For Social Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Miller, G. A. (1962/1991) Psychology, the Science of Mental Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.

Stevens, R. and Wetherell, M. (1996/2002) ‘The self in the modern world: drawing together the threads’ in Stevens, R. (ed) Understanding The Self, London and Milton Keynes, Sage Publications in association with The Open University.

Wetherell, M. and Still, A. (1996/2001) ‘Realism and relativism’ in Sapsford, R. (ed) Issues For Social Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.


At 10:09 AM, Blogger adam said...

Dear Prof. Pilikian,

I could read only some paragraphs of your very interestig publication, but I can say: I agree with you entirely! I think the palestine-izrael question became to much difficult, and the worst is, the whole world is suffering from this problem. Without this I think we wouldn`t have many graves in (e.g.) New York, Afganistan, Irak, Madrid, London...
This theme is one of my favourite. When I have time, I will read the whole philosophy, and I will send it to my brother to LaCoruna -where he is living now- because he writes his thesis from this conflict.

Thanks for all, and I`m waiting for you at the stir-fry tomorrow. :)


At 5:58 AM, Blogger answer-man said...

Just dropped in to read your blog. We are reading what others have to say and are introducing ourselves as well. We are intoducing The new Holy Bibles King James Versions and New Living Translations and especially The New Children's Bibles on DVD and invite you to stop by and visit us at: **BibleMediaDvd.Com**

We hope you don't mind our comment on your site and do so repectfully.
Thank you and God Bless.


Post a Comment

<< Home