The hand movements of Taichi, when executed just below the surface of water, demonstrates that this physical exercise is at one with its central philosophy, and perhaps even a way of practice in life.
Try it. If execute a 'pushing' stance, that is, with your palm flat and pushing the water just below the surface, you can see how great the resistance is. Conversely, if you execute a 'pulling' stance, that is, with your palm relaxed and 'pulling' back the water (with your fingers relaxed and following the flow of the water), you would feel a great natural fluidity. Normally Taichi is not practiced in water. But as far as resistance is concerned, water and air are both fluids that can be used to demonstrate these principles here.
A 'pushing' hand stance is also a striking stance. One strikes an opponent with the palm more or less flat. The force that is exerted is countered with an equal reaction force. But a 'pulling' stance is an accepting stance; one accepts the incoming force and works with that. 'Striking' is far removed from the consciousness in the 'pulling' stance.
I am tempted to imagine from this example that even the physics of this world is hinting to show us a way of life: that if one operates daily with the 'pushing' stance, there is going to be great resistance. It may even be 'unnatural'. But the 'pulling' stance involves acceptance and operating fluidly.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The idea of the Guarantor
The idea of the Guarantor
by Jeffrey Chan
For an idea as important as it is prevalent as the guarantor, it has received surprisingly little attention. By guarantor, I do not refer to the individual who serves to guarantee one’s responsible behavior (e.g., for rent payments). By guarantor, I am referring to the idea for a set of conditions that must exist to ensure the results of one’s actions under uncertainty.
Let me provide an example that will render this idea of the guarantor concrete. For those of us who have followed news on the CERN Collider--buried deep somewhere under the French-Swiss Alps--recent news of its first successful ignition ought to come as excitement mixed with sweet relief. After all, we are set to learn more about the basic fabric of our universe in a laboratory. In the meantime, the world has yet to be consumed by a gnawing black-hole predicted by educated opponents of this Collider technology.
So how does the guarantor fits in here? In this case, the guarantor that guarantees the world as we know it--or in fact even the Universe--from vanishing into either a black hole, or a vacuum decay, is merely the statistical improbability of such an event. As for the opponents and the skeptics, the guarantor that guarantees the world and the Universe safety (at least from human action this way) is to turn that darn Collider off.
Given the clarity conferred by the idea of the guarantor on these two radically opposed realities, I leave you to decide where you stand on the CERN debate. Certainly, the argument is much more complicated than an absolute either/or scenario between existential annihilation or business as usual. Yet one thing is clear: there are few concepts today to guide and evaluate uncertain human actions in large scale system designs. The idea of the guarantor, even though it is blunt, is possibly one of the rare, extant few.
* * * * * * * *
The idea of the guarantor is not new, though it may be unfashionable to check its roots today. As far as I can discern, its prominent roots go back to Kant (1). For Immanuel Kant, one of the central questions that he wrestled with was ‘what ought one do?’. Simply, Kant wanted to know what compelled practical action. For example, upon seeing a lost child seeking his mother, what compels me to help the child? Does helping makes me happy, which is why I inadvertently find myself helping the child? Or is it because helping is a moral act, in which I find myself obeying this moral rule--‘help one who is unable to help himself’?
For Kant, neither simple happiness nor obeying the moral rule is sufficient to serve as the reason behind the practical decision to help. Instead, Kant proposed the idea of summum bonum, or the highest good, as the motivating reason for this practical action. In this summum bonum, it is no longer possible to distinguish between simple happiness and obeying the moral rule; rather, acting morally, or virtuously, is also happiness-seeking at the same time.
But Kant realized that for this highest reconciliatory position as the summum bonum to be possible, he also required a guarantor, which he found in God. In the Critique of Pure Reason, he wrote, ‘Thus without a God and a future world invisible to us now but hoped for, the glorious Ideas of morality are indeed objects of approval and admiration but not springs of purpose and of action’ (2). In other words, unless there is a God that guarantees rewards for goodness (i.e., performing moral actions), there is no motivation, according to Kant, for being good.
And so for the next 150 years or so the idea of the guarantor laid dormant until a young philosopher with very Catholic roots combined with a Pragmatic disposition rediscovered this concept. He is C.W. Churchman (1913-2004), who eventually found himself teaching Operations Research and Kantian philosophy in the business school, as well as a host of other unclassifiable and un-pigeon-holeable subjects in his ‘West’s seminars’ at the University of California, Berkeley. Unlike philosophers who were dug deep in trenches between that of analytic philosophy and that of continental philosophy in his time, Churchman found the no-man’s land of applying his philosophical learning to practical human problems to be most rewarding and fascinating. Naturally, Churchman found himself at the forefront of an un-pigeon-holeable domain comprising of applied ethics, systems design and management thinking. There is still no title for this ‘discipline’ today, though there is every need for it.
Of note, Churchman saw that the practical actions of his day--policy-making, city planning, systems design and development, architecture and urban design: actions that bring novelty into existence--were in fact indifferent from the kind of practical actions Kant talked about: what ought I do?. In retrospect, Churchman’s contributions to the study of complex planning and practical decision-making can be said to be his unique inclusion of theology and teleology while other thinkers of his time were busy subtracting both theology and teleology from their ideas. By theology I do not mean theology with a capital ‘T’--the Theology having to do with postulates about God and divinity--though Churchman came close (along with a few other thinkers) to posit a theology of ultimate system (3) that all decision-makers of complex decisions must take into account. To formulate this in another way, Churchman, like Kant, saw the need to include a purpose (i.e., teleology) within a larger worldview of interacting systems (i.e., theology) for practical action without which actions would be deemed arbitrary, or worse, unethical.
For Churchman, the guarantor is the missing bridge between the purpose of the individual (or the organization) to survive, and the actual realities that can delimit, or even nullify this purpose. Consider a hypothetical example. Assuming that there is a global interest to preserve the Bluefin tuna (not just that our great-grandchildren can have tuna sashimi but that they also will see Bluefin tuna swimming in the oceans (4)), a new global regulatory body is created to regulate the fishing and the consumption of Bluefin tuna. For this new regulatory body to exist, it is therefore necessary to consider aspects of realities that can guarantee its continual existence. One of these realities must be an unconditional global agreement to drastically reduce tuna fishing. However, this unconditional global agreement cannot be guaranteed unless there is also public awareness locally, especially in locations where Bluefin tuna is both a desirable luxury and a traditional staple. But public awareness cannot be guaranteed unless there is also the guarantor of an effective institution of public discourse and education. In Churchman’s words, before long, the guarantor of one system would have unfolded into guarantors of other systems--until they form into something akin to the ultimate system, or what Churchman called, ‘G.O.D’--‘guarantor of destiny’ (5). Only with this guarantor of destiny in mind can this new regulatory body possess a grip on its own destiny, that is, its organizational purpose amid the greater environment.
We will never know where Churchman would deem as the appropriate and practical stopping line for this ever expanding schema of vital guarantors. But I suppose one suggestion is clear: given any design intervention (or a practical action that introduces something new into the world), the better one can see this unfolding picture of different guarantors, the better one can anticipate the design’s environmental problems and issues beforehand.
However, this is not the way conventional design envisioning occurs today. In system designs today, a design vision is usually independently proposed without truly defining and interrogating the conditions that must exist to guarantee the survival of this new design proposal. For example, bold visions for the electric car do not truly question how this new design system can be maintained--even when the world’s sources for lithium, the primary driver of this system platform, are unevenly distributed geographically. And on the corollary, what ought we do with all the newly minted, efficient combustion engine cars now displaced by this new system? And how about all those now redundant petrol stations carrying newly designed, high-octane-number petrols? Wouldn’t there be a coalition of resistance towards electric cars from the stakeholders of these combustion engine cars and petrol stations? Hence, Churchman’s guarantor is useful to the extent that it can compel system designers to question what is necessary and what must be put in place in order for their designs to succeed. Whether designers actually find it useful--or impeding--is of course quite another matter.
Churchman’s guarantor is important in another way: it can help designers evaluate the performances of their design. Consider an example from service design. A five star hotel guarantees a certain standard of service. How do we know if the hotel has delivered on its guarantee? A direct way to answer this question is to see what kind of guarantors the hotel management has put in place, and whether the service performance has met the standards imposed by these guarantors. To check the guarantee of complete satisfaction by its guests, start by checking how unreasonable demands by guests are being handled.
* * * * * * * *
On this, it is possible to say that a sizable portion of our everyday lives is devoted to the maintenance of the institution of guarantors, even though we do not explicitly use the word ‘guarantor’. Take the example of making a promise: my promise to you that I shall do such and such is a verbal guarantee that I would do so. Or consider the example of following a cookbook: if I add such and such an ingredient in this amount and order I am more or less guaranteed a dish resembling the one printed on the cookbook. Or take the example from public service: the government guarantees the effectiveness of this service for her citizens. And on this, we tend to devote the first two decades of a new human life to education, so that this process at least guarantees a level of civility and literacy to maintain and to participate in a democracy. We also try to engage as many stakeholders as possible in complex social designs, so that this encompassing strategy at least guarantees some stability for any newly proposed social institution.
Despite the prevalence and the vital importance of guarantors, we have a diametrically different situation in the world today. Many, if not countless, are likely to agree that there is no such thing as a guarantor in the world today. Given the need to constantly adjust one’s skill sets today, it is no longer possible to guarantee that one’s education is ever completed even after twenty years. And given the hastiness in industrial production today, it is no longer possible to guarantee safety and high quality for every unit produced. And especially after the Financial Tsunamis of 2008 and the subsequent collapse of multiple markets and institutions globally, traditional guarantors, such as stable careers, liquid credit markets and stable governmental services have vanished.
Paradoxically, in this world with radically fewer guarantors than before, there is however a rising number of radically new (system) proposals: novel sources of energy and technologies, and new modes of living, working and communicating. But if we consider that all new system proposals demand the simultaneous consideration of their own guarantors (i.e., subsequently unfolding towards Churchman’s ultimate G.O.D.), then how is it possible that a world with increasingly more new proposals can coexist with one where there is also increasingly fewer guarantors? In other words, by Churchman’s guarantor, isn’t there a practical contradiction today where one is acting more and in ever newer ways without a commensurate level of guarantee that this action will turn out to be more likely good and right, rather than bad and evil (6)?
* * * * * * * *
In this paradox, there is only one possible source of solace. In the movie adaptation of the novel, The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, there is a scene in the mines of Moria where Gandalf the wizard and Frodo were talking when Gollum appeared to spy on their conversation. Upon detecting Gollum, Frodo drew his blade and wanted to slay Gollum. But Gandalf intervened by cautioning Frodo not to be so swift in dealing death, for by his intuitions, Gollum still had an unknowable role to play in determining the fate of Middle-earth. To this intuitive insight Gandalf also added that there are forces in existence beyond Good and Evil, such that even the very wise cannot see all ends.
And so in a world where there are increasingly fewer guarantors but more (novel) human actions, the only solace that is left, in the here and now at least, lies in presuming the existence of these ‘forces’ beyond Good and Evil. By these forces, there exists no necessary guarantor that good design intentions will produce good consequences. In fact, most of the time individuals and groups are frustrated even when they try to do ‘good’. Similarly, there exists no necessary guarantor that willful and mischievous design intentions will beget their intended willful and mischievous consequences--frustrations beset the good and evil alike. Unanticipated and undesirable consequences, but also serendipity and pleasant surprises all emerge from efforts to do ‘good’ as well as from attempts to do the ‘mischievous’.
In such a world--if it is in fact that we live in such a world--we can take refuge in the knowledge that the collapse of guarantorship does not imminently signal a collapse of civilization.
Notes:
(1) It is however Descartes who has an earlier account of God as guarantor, where he had to reassure himself that God does not deceive, and hence, his inquiry for truth was guaranteed.
(2) Critique of Pure Reason, B840-841.
(3) In the movie Avatar by James Cameron, Cameron came close to depicting the theology of ultimate system in the flesh. “Ultimate system” is of my own coinage, and this concept describes an all encompassing system made up of different living systems united in one consciousness, and where in Unity it is greater than the sum of its component parts. Cognitively, it is not possible to comprehend the ultimate system, though it is possible to rationally take into account that it exists. For this reason, early thinkers of this theology tend to share similar awe and respect for this picture, which has to be first introduced via rational thoughts but later maintained on faith. Among early thinkers of this theology in the 1960s is Gregory Bateson.
(4) I thank Gerard Yee for his encouragement and his anti-cynical stance on this matter. I suggested that in the failure of CITES, everyone should have their Bluefin tuna fill, to the tragic and absurd consequence made apparent in a world where there will be no more Bluefin tuna for contention. But Gerard suggested otherwise.
(5) Churchman, C.W. (1979). The Systems Approach and its Enemies.
(6) ‘Good’, ‘Right’, ‘Bad’, ‘Evil’, are simply defined as objective deviations (i.e., positive or negative) from the intentions of the designers, whom I presume to have legitimate intentions. Hence ‘good’ means the outcome of the design is aligned with the legitimate intentions of the designer, while ‘bad’ means the outcome is misaligned. ‘Evil’ implies a greater deviation or misalignment.
by Jeffrey Chan
For an idea as important as it is prevalent as the guarantor, it has received surprisingly little attention. By guarantor, I do not refer to the individual who serves to guarantee one’s responsible behavior (e.g., for rent payments). By guarantor, I am referring to the idea for a set of conditions that must exist to ensure the results of one’s actions under uncertainty.
Let me provide an example that will render this idea of the guarantor concrete. For those of us who have followed news on the CERN Collider--buried deep somewhere under the French-Swiss Alps--recent news of its first successful ignition ought to come as excitement mixed with sweet relief. After all, we are set to learn more about the basic fabric of our universe in a laboratory. In the meantime, the world has yet to be consumed by a gnawing black-hole predicted by educated opponents of this Collider technology.
So how does the guarantor fits in here? In this case, the guarantor that guarantees the world as we know it--or in fact even the Universe--from vanishing into either a black hole, or a vacuum decay, is merely the statistical improbability of such an event. As for the opponents and the skeptics, the guarantor that guarantees the world and the Universe safety (at least from human action this way) is to turn that darn Collider off.
Given the clarity conferred by the idea of the guarantor on these two radically opposed realities, I leave you to decide where you stand on the CERN debate. Certainly, the argument is much more complicated than an absolute either/or scenario between existential annihilation or business as usual. Yet one thing is clear: there are few concepts today to guide and evaluate uncertain human actions in large scale system designs. The idea of the guarantor, even though it is blunt, is possibly one of the rare, extant few.
* * * * * * * *
The idea of the guarantor is not new, though it may be unfashionable to check its roots today. As far as I can discern, its prominent roots go back to Kant (1). For Immanuel Kant, one of the central questions that he wrestled with was ‘what ought one do?’. Simply, Kant wanted to know what compelled practical action. For example, upon seeing a lost child seeking his mother, what compels me to help the child? Does helping makes me happy, which is why I inadvertently find myself helping the child? Or is it because helping is a moral act, in which I find myself obeying this moral rule--‘help one who is unable to help himself’?
For Kant, neither simple happiness nor obeying the moral rule is sufficient to serve as the reason behind the practical decision to help. Instead, Kant proposed the idea of summum bonum, or the highest good, as the motivating reason for this practical action. In this summum bonum, it is no longer possible to distinguish between simple happiness and obeying the moral rule; rather, acting morally, or virtuously, is also happiness-seeking at the same time.
But Kant realized that for this highest reconciliatory position as the summum bonum to be possible, he also required a guarantor, which he found in God. In the Critique of Pure Reason, he wrote, ‘Thus without a God and a future world invisible to us now but hoped for, the glorious Ideas of morality are indeed objects of approval and admiration but not springs of purpose and of action’ (2). In other words, unless there is a God that guarantees rewards for goodness (i.e., performing moral actions), there is no motivation, according to Kant, for being good.
And so for the next 150 years or so the idea of the guarantor laid dormant until a young philosopher with very Catholic roots combined with a Pragmatic disposition rediscovered this concept. He is C.W. Churchman (1913-2004), who eventually found himself teaching Operations Research and Kantian philosophy in the business school, as well as a host of other unclassifiable and un-pigeon-holeable subjects in his ‘West’s seminars’ at the University of California, Berkeley. Unlike philosophers who were dug deep in trenches between that of analytic philosophy and that of continental philosophy in his time, Churchman found the no-man’s land of applying his philosophical learning to practical human problems to be most rewarding and fascinating. Naturally, Churchman found himself at the forefront of an un-pigeon-holeable domain comprising of applied ethics, systems design and management thinking. There is still no title for this ‘discipline’ today, though there is every need for it.
Of note, Churchman saw that the practical actions of his day--policy-making, city planning, systems design and development, architecture and urban design: actions that bring novelty into existence--were in fact indifferent from the kind of practical actions Kant talked about: what ought I do?. In retrospect, Churchman’s contributions to the study of complex planning and practical decision-making can be said to be his unique inclusion of theology and teleology while other thinkers of his time were busy subtracting both theology and teleology from their ideas. By theology I do not mean theology with a capital ‘T’--the Theology having to do with postulates about God and divinity--though Churchman came close (along with a few other thinkers) to posit a theology of ultimate system (3) that all decision-makers of complex decisions must take into account. To formulate this in another way, Churchman, like Kant, saw the need to include a purpose (i.e., teleology) within a larger worldview of interacting systems (i.e., theology) for practical action without which actions would be deemed arbitrary, or worse, unethical.
For Churchman, the guarantor is the missing bridge between the purpose of the individual (or the organization) to survive, and the actual realities that can delimit, or even nullify this purpose. Consider a hypothetical example. Assuming that there is a global interest to preserve the Bluefin tuna (not just that our great-grandchildren can have tuna sashimi but that they also will see Bluefin tuna swimming in the oceans (4)), a new global regulatory body is created to regulate the fishing and the consumption of Bluefin tuna. For this new regulatory body to exist, it is therefore necessary to consider aspects of realities that can guarantee its continual existence. One of these realities must be an unconditional global agreement to drastically reduce tuna fishing. However, this unconditional global agreement cannot be guaranteed unless there is also public awareness locally, especially in locations where Bluefin tuna is both a desirable luxury and a traditional staple. But public awareness cannot be guaranteed unless there is also the guarantor of an effective institution of public discourse and education. In Churchman’s words, before long, the guarantor of one system would have unfolded into guarantors of other systems--until they form into something akin to the ultimate system, or what Churchman called, ‘G.O.D’--‘guarantor of destiny’ (5). Only with this guarantor of destiny in mind can this new regulatory body possess a grip on its own destiny, that is, its organizational purpose amid the greater environment.
We will never know where Churchman would deem as the appropriate and practical stopping line for this ever expanding schema of vital guarantors. But I suppose one suggestion is clear: given any design intervention (or a practical action that introduces something new into the world), the better one can see this unfolding picture of different guarantors, the better one can anticipate the design’s environmental problems and issues beforehand.
However, this is not the way conventional design envisioning occurs today. In system designs today, a design vision is usually independently proposed without truly defining and interrogating the conditions that must exist to guarantee the survival of this new design proposal. For example, bold visions for the electric car do not truly question how this new design system can be maintained--even when the world’s sources for lithium, the primary driver of this system platform, are unevenly distributed geographically. And on the corollary, what ought we do with all the newly minted, efficient combustion engine cars now displaced by this new system? And how about all those now redundant petrol stations carrying newly designed, high-octane-number petrols? Wouldn’t there be a coalition of resistance towards electric cars from the stakeholders of these combustion engine cars and petrol stations? Hence, Churchman’s guarantor is useful to the extent that it can compel system designers to question what is necessary and what must be put in place in order for their designs to succeed. Whether designers actually find it useful--or impeding--is of course quite another matter.
Churchman’s guarantor is important in another way: it can help designers evaluate the performances of their design. Consider an example from service design. A five star hotel guarantees a certain standard of service. How do we know if the hotel has delivered on its guarantee? A direct way to answer this question is to see what kind of guarantors the hotel management has put in place, and whether the service performance has met the standards imposed by these guarantors. To check the guarantee of complete satisfaction by its guests, start by checking how unreasonable demands by guests are being handled.
* * * * * * * *
On this, it is possible to say that a sizable portion of our everyday lives is devoted to the maintenance of the institution of guarantors, even though we do not explicitly use the word ‘guarantor’. Take the example of making a promise: my promise to you that I shall do such and such is a verbal guarantee that I would do so. Or consider the example of following a cookbook: if I add such and such an ingredient in this amount and order I am more or less guaranteed a dish resembling the one printed on the cookbook. Or take the example from public service: the government guarantees the effectiveness of this service for her citizens. And on this, we tend to devote the first two decades of a new human life to education, so that this process at least guarantees a level of civility and literacy to maintain and to participate in a democracy. We also try to engage as many stakeholders as possible in complex social designs, so that this encompassing strategy at least guarantees some stability for any newly proposed social institution.
Despite the prevalence and the vital importance of guarantors, we have a diametrically different situation in the world today. Many, if not countless, are likely to agree that there is no such thing as a guarantor in the world today. Given the need to constantly adjust one’s skill sets today, it is no longer possible to guarantee that one’s education is ever completed even after twenty years. And given the hastiness in industrial production today, it is no longer possible to guarantee safety and high quality for every unit produced. And especially after the Financial Tsunamis of 2008 and the subsequent collapse of multiple markets and institutions globally, traditional guarantors, such as stable careers, liquid credit markets and stable governmental services have vanished.
Paradoxically, in this world with radically fewer guarantors than before, there is however a rising number of radically new (system) proposals: novel sources of energy and technologies, and new modes of living, working and communicating. But if we consider that all new system proposals demand the simultaneous consideration of their own guarantors (i.e., subsequently unfolding towards Churchman’s ultimate G.O.D.), then how is it possible that a world with increasingly more new proposals can coexist with one where there is also increasingly fewer guarantors? In other words, by Churchman’s guarantor, isn’t there a practical contradiction today where one is acting more and in ever newer ways without a commensurate level of guarantee that this action will turn out to be more likely good and right, rather than bad and evil (6)?
* * * * * * * *
In this paradox, there is only one possible source of solace. In the movie adaptation of the novel, The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, there is a scene in the mines of Moria where Gandalf the wizard and Frodo were talking when Gollum appeared to spy on their conversation. Upon detecting Gollum, Frodo drew his blade and wanted to slay Gollum. But Gandalf intervened by cautioning Frodo not to be so swift in dealing death, for by his intuitions, Gollum still had an unknowable role to play in determining the fate of Middle-earth. To this intuitive insight Gandalf also added that there are forces in existence beyond Good and Evil, such that even the very wise cannot see all ends.
And so in a world where there are increasingly fewer guarantors but more (novel) human actions, the only solace that is left, in the here and now at least, lies in presuming the existence of these ‘forces’ beyond Good and Evil. By these forces, there exists no necessary guarantor that good design intentions will produce good consequences. In fact, most of the time individuals and groups are frustrated even when they try to do ‘good’. Similarly, there exists no necessary guarantor that willful and mischievous design intentions will beget their intended willful and mischievous consequences--frustrations beset the good and evil alike. Unanticipated and undesirable consequences, but also serendipity and pleasant surprises all emerge from efforts to do ‘good’ as well as from attempts to do the ‘mischievous’.
In such a world--if it is in fact that we live in such a world--we can take refuge in the knowledge that the collapse of guarantorship does not imminently signal a collapse of civilization.
Notes:
(1) It is however Descartes who has an earlier account of God as guarantor, where he had to reassure himself that God does not deceive, and hence, his inquiry for truth was guaranteed.
(2) Critique of Pure Reason, B840-841.
(3) In the movie Avatar by James Cameron, Cameron came close to depicting the theology of ultimate system in the flesh. “Ultimate system” is of my own coinage, and this concept describes an all encompassing system made up of different living systems united in one consciousness, and where in Unity it is greater than the sum of its component parts. Cognitively, it is not possible to comprehend the ultimate system, though it is possible to rationally take into account that it exists. For this reason, early thinkers of this theology tend to share similar awe and respect for this picture, which has to be first introduced via rational thoughts but later maintained on faith. Among early thinkers of this theology in the 1960s is Gregory Bateson.
(4) I thank Gerard Yee for his encouragement and his anti-cynical stance on this matter. I suggested that in the failure of CITES, everyone should have their Bluefin tuna fill, to the tragic and absurd consequence made apparent in a world where there will be no more Bluefin tuna for contention. But Gerard suggested otherwise.
(5) Churchman, C.W. (1979). The Systems Approach and its Enemies.
(6) ‘Good’, ‘Right’, ‘Bad’, ‘Evil’, are simply defined as objective deviations (i.e., positive or negative) from the intentions of the designers, whom I presume to have legitimate intentions. Hence ‘good’ means the outcome of the design is aligned with the legitimate intentions of the designer, while ‘bad’ means the outcome is misaligned. ‘Evil’ implies a greater deviation or misalignment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
