"paradigms"

Discuss the world of the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians.
Post Reply
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1168
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

"paradigms"

Post by StephenGoranson »

As some here propose new "paradigms"--a word often invoked with understanding or misunderstanding of Thomas S. Kuhn's Structures of Scientific Revolutions--a forthcoming book may be worth mentioning.

The Last Writings of Thomas S. Kuhn: Incommensurability in Science, ed. Bojana Mladenovic, Dec. 2022. U. Chicago Press description:

This book contains the text of Thomas S. Kuhn’s unfinished book, The Plurality of Worlds: An Evolutionary Theory of Scientific Development, which Kuhn himself described as a return to the central claims of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the problems that it raised but did not resolve. The Plurality of Worlds is preceded by two related texts that Kuhn publicly delivered but never published in English: his paper “Scientific Knowledge as Historical Product” and his Shearman Memorial Lectures, “The Presence of Past Science.” An introduction by the editor describes the origins and structure of The Plurality of Worlds and sheds light on its central philosophical problems.

Kuhn’s aims in his last writings are bold. He sets out to develop an empirically grounded theory of meaning that would allow him to make sense of both the possibility of historical understanding and the inevitability of incommensurability between past and present science. In his view, incommensurability is fully compatible with a robust notion of the real world that science investigates, the rationality of scientific change, and the idea that scientific development is progressive.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: "Paradigm"

Post by billd89 »

Wiki (just Because) tells me "a typical example or pattern of something; a model." Indeed, that's how I use the word: a paradigm is a logical model or a narrower, specific aspect or even scientistic explanation of a 'world-view'.

This blog post indicates Kuhn's 'paradigm' is a) the scientific consensus and b) accepted scientific exemplars.

Again, Wiki:
The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines it as "a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind.

Kuhn's narrower (re-)definition is not wrong, but it is also not 'correct' in an exclusive sense. "A paradigm is simply an acceptable worldview. (a modern method of understanding)"; see Link.

Weltanschauung knowledge as 'tacit knowledge' is consensus, I think. Again, Wiki: "weltanschauung: particular philosophy or view of life; the worldview of an individual or group." For me: as a logic-based belief-system begets its model(s) of understanding reality, a paradigm is an implicitly epistemological exemplar or model.

So philologist Ludwig Edelstein writes in 1945:
That Plato, in depicting Eryximachus, was guided by his view of the physician's art as a model seems obvious. Eryximachus rules over his patients by virtue of his knowledge, he persuades them so that they obey him voluntarily.
[...]
Of course, I do not mean to claim that all the features of Plato's interpretation of the doctor's relationship to his patients are woven into this dialogue. The representation of Eryximachus is not a paradigm of the medical art. But the essential characteristics of the good doctor are sharply accentuated in his portrait.

Of course, my proto-type the Therapeutae followed paradigms in their own psycho-spiritual healing program. When Philo describes the Therapeuts' four-fold conceptualization of the Deity, he is stating and defining a particular mystical Judeo-Egyptian paradigm - a (Judeo-)Hermetic model which (I've shown) re-appears in other, later and descendant Gnostic 'invocation prayers' (sometimes associated with 'Sethian Gnostics'). I may be the first to identify these specific correspondences in the exemplars directly, but actually I am only following Jung in tracing the anonymous Edelsteins. As an aside, I suppose Jung suggests the Therapeutae were Casdim/Chaldaeans, but in my opinion they were more likely to have been Asaphim.

For my interest -- what I think the Edelsteins honed in on -- Jung's key paradigm (Zosimos-the Hermetic Krater-the Four-fold Adamic Man) was explicated in the New York Lecture of 1937, LINK:
To all appearances, Zosimos’ Son of God is a Gnostic Christ who has more affinity with the Iranian conception of Gayomart than with the Jesus of the Gospels. The author’s connections with Christianity are by no means clear, since he undoubtedly belonged to the Hermetic Poimandres sect, as is evident from the passage about the Krater. As in later Christian alchemy, the Son of God is a sort of paradigm of sublimation, i.e., of the freeing of the soul from the grip of Heimarmene. In both cases he is identical with Adam, who is a quaternity compounded of four different earths. He is the Anthropos, the First Man, symbolized by the four elements, just like the lapis which has the same structure. He is also symbolized by the Cross, whose ends correspond to the four cardinal points. This motif is often replaced by corresponding journeys, such as those of Osiris, the labours of Herakles, the travels of Enoch {etc.} ...

Here is syncretistic Reitzenstein/Bousset and the whole Religionsgeschichtliche Schule in a nutshell. There's too much to unpack in that slim passage... just one example: Herakles (Greek) is Hylic Man, Osiris (Egyptian) is Psychic Man, Enoch (Sethian/ Chaldaean Jewish) is Pneumatic Man -- the Physical, Mental and Spiritual stages of recovery.

I haven't had an opportunity to view Romulus Stefanut's 2017 PhD “The Therapeutae as Philo’s Paradigm for Bios Theoretikos: An Inter-textual Reading of Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa”. But I know Ludwig Edelstein's friend/colleague/classmate in Berlin (under both Eduard Norden & Werner Jaeger), H.Lewy (1929) had already made that specific point, regarding those 'Sober Inebriates' on whom the Edelsteins likewise modeled their A. A.'s "design for living" *; **.
Last edited by billd89 on Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1168
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: "paradigms"

Post by StephenGoranson »

2017 title, more accurately:
THE THERAPEUTAE AS THE BEST PARADIGM FOR THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE: A
CONTEXTUAL READING OF PHILO’S DE VITA CONTEMPLATIVA
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

More Musings: παράδειγμα in Philo Judaeus

Post by billd89 »

Obviously, this is the Classical Text Forum (on a RELIGIOUS website), and Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions was about paradigm shifts in modern science long after Antiquity. We are explicitly backwards looking. So we can take this thread back to Alchemy's origins, or rather Jung on Zosimos and (Hermetic) paradigms of Philo Judaeus. Where does the paradigm concept come from, Plato or Egypt?

In Plato, an extraordinarily high value is set on the archetypes as metaphysical ideas, as “paradigms” or models, while real things are held to be only the copies of these model ideas. -- C. Jung, 1948.

Late Jung, more than a decade after the example(s) given above, and I won't treat this extremely important topic with anything but a passing note. Jung's understanding of the term 'paradigm' came firstly from a medical-scientific standpoint, but he was later (c.1913, Age 36) drawn to Philo Judaeus and the Hermetica through G.R.S. Mead. (Zosimos, the Father of Chemistry, is likewise identified as a Hermeticist.) And so his famous 'Collective Unconscious' (1929, 1936) emerges from a decades-long study of Hermeticism/Gnosticism (i.e. Mead). Right or wrong -- Analytische Psychologie provided a paradigm shift and was undoubtedly hugely influential material in Western psychology of the 20th C. The argument can be made that Analytical Psychology was fundmentally gnostic/hermetic; the renovated paradigm is ancient and occult, even if others might call it psycho-babble. I don't believe a "paradigm" must be either "scientific" or "consensus" - but a systematic model must be coherent, recognizable, widely-employed (i.e. believable) within the framework of literate-intellectual culture. Mere opinion isn't a paradigm, but a popular heretical belief-system might be: Theosophy had emerged as a radical doctrine, then an alternative formalized movement by 1875. G.R.S. Mead was one of its more famous propagandists. Could a Theosophical historian create and popularize a new ("modern") paradigm in the occult sciences? Mead has been ignored by most 20th C. Gnostic scholars; only recently has that begun to change. But the Jungian paradigm was built upon that British (Occult) foundation.

It is therefore especially interesting to see what Mead has to say about The Paradigm, translating Philo Judaeus with an alternative citation ("Quod Deus Im., § 6; M. 1.277, P.298 [Ri. 2.72, 73]") in Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. 1 [1906], pp.229-230:

THE ELDER AND YOUNGER SONS OF GOD

The Cosmic Logos is not the sensible cosmos, but the Mind thereof. This Philo explains at length.

“It is then clear, that He who is the generator of things generated, and the artificer of things fashioned, and the governor of things governed, must needs be absolutely wise. He is in truth the father, and artificer, and governor of all in both the heaven and cosmos.

“Now things to come are hidden in the shade of future time, sometimes at short, and sometimes at long distances. But God is the artificer of time as well. For He is father of its father; and time’s father is the cosmos, which manifests its motion as the genesis of time; so that time holds to God the place of grandson.

“For that this cosmos 2 is the Younger Son of God, in that it is perceptible to sense. The Son who’s older than this one, He hath declared to be no one [perceivable by sense], for that he is conceivable by mind alone. But having judged him worthy of the elder’s rights, He hath determined that he should remain with Him alone.

“This [cosmos], then, the Younger Son, the sensible, being set a-moving, has caused time’s nature to appear and disappear; so that there nothing is which future is with God, who has the very bounds of time subject to Him. For ’tis not time, but time’s archetype and paradigm, Eternity (or Æon), which is His life. But in Eternity naught’s past, and naught is future, but all is present only.”



I'm not sure that translation is sufficient. Here is the Greek, and my own effort at sorting the muddle:
billd89 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 7:58 am Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis
(30) ...ὁ δὲ θεὸς πατὴρ καὶ τεχνίτης καὶ ἐπίτροπος τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ τε καὶ κόσμῳ πρὸς ἀλήθειάν ἐστι. ...(31) δημιουργὸς δὲ καὶ χρόνου θεός· καὶ γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ πατὴρ – πατὴρ δὲ χρόνου κόσμος – τὴν κίνησιν αὐτοῦ γένεσιν ἀποφήνας ἐκείνου· ὥστε υἱωνοῦ τάξιν ἔχειν πρὸς θεὸν τὸν χρόνον. ὁ μὲν γὰρ κόσμος οὗτος νεώτερος υἱὸς θεοῦ, ἅτε αἰσθητὸς ὤν· τὸν γὰρ πρεσβύτερον [οὐδένα εἶπε]– νοητὸς δ’ἐκεῖνος – πρεσβείων ἀξιώσας παρ’ ἑαυτῷ καταμένειν διενοήθη. (32) οὗτος οὖν ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς ὁ αἰσθητὸς κινηθεὶς τὴν χρόνου φύσιν ἀναλάμψαι καὶ ἀνασχεῖν ἐποίησεν· ὥστε οὐδὲν παρὰ θεῷ μέλλον τῷ καὶ τὰ τῶν χρόνων ὑπηγμένῳ πέρατα. καὶ γὰρ οὐ χρόνος, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον τοῦ χρόνου καὶ παράδειγμα αἰὼν ὁ βίος ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ· ἐν αἰῶνι δὲ οὔτε παρελήλυθεν οὐδὲν οὔτε μέλλει, ἀλλὰ μόνον ὑφέστηκεν

...
My working trans.:
(30): “But [0] God is the [1] Father, and [2]Craftsman, and [3]Guardian {ἐπίτροπος} of all in Heaven and the Cosmos, in truth. […] (31) God is the Demiurge {δημιουργὸς} and God of Chronos also, for He is the Father of ‘Time’s father’ — that is, the Cosmos’ Chronos {χρόνου κόσμος} — who made the movements of one the origin of the other. Thus Chronos has this order unto God: for this Cosmos, as perceptible by the outward sense, is the younger Son of God. He {Demiurge-God} assigned the senior rank {i.e. over the congregations} of the Noetic Cosmos and purposed that it should remain in his own {i.e. Chronos’} keeping. (32) This Younger Son makes the Nature of Chronos rise and breathe, so that nothing is too late for the future and the boundaries of Chronos. For God is not Chronos but the 'Archetype of Chronos', and 'God's Life' is a 'Paradigm for Aeon' : He is neither Past nor Future in Aeon, but only present 'Being'.

There are two parts of this paradigm, separately understood.

A. Philo's initial definition of God seems quite deliberate but can be read two ways, numerologically.

As a Hebdomad: "And God (1) is
a) Father of those in Heaven.
b) Father of those in the World.
c) Maker of those in Heaven.
d) Maker of those in the World.
e) Overseer of those in Heaven.
f) Overseer of those in the World." (+6 = 7 Dunamis)

...or an Ogdoad (8) of both Divine and Cosmic Reality:
g) "And God (1) is Father (a), Maker (c), Overseer (e) of those in Heaven." (1+1+1+1= 4)
h) "And God is Father, Maker, Overseer of those in the World." (1+3 = 4)

B. And God is the ultimate Creator of Time (i.e. God is the Demiurge); and God is The Father of his father (i.e. Demiurge +Archetype +Time), where Demiurge (1) is Father of the Archetype (2), of Divine Time (3) and of Cosmic Time (4). A four-fold schema (God -Demiurge -Archetype -Time) might count as a triune God; this bit is murky. Is it Judaized Platonic theory, or Pythagorean?

1) God ....................................... 1) God + 2a)
2a) First Son / Demiurge ......... 2b) Second Son / Guardian
3a) Archetype Divine Time ...... 3b) Archetype Cosmic Time
4a) Divine Time ........................ 4b) Cosmic Time
= 4 ............................................ = 5

1) God ....................................... 1) Father
2) Demiurge .............................. 2) First Son
3) Archetype Chronos .............. 3) God's Life
4) Aeon ..................................... 4) Second Son
5) Time ..................................... 5) Being

Confusing or obscure? This may help. I won't re-hash 4 or 5 prior posts I've made grappling w/ this peculiar Philonic exegesis of some unknown (Proto-Gnostic?) theology. It appears to be a rectification of several existing systems; although I don't think Philo himself 'Platonizes' God, others may disagree. How and what (Greek) Platonic schema it may be derivative from, or if an even older mystical (Judeo-)Egyptian (or Judeo-Phoenician?) formulation is involved remains uncertain in my mind. Some may see evidence of the nascent Xian triune God; I'm doubtful of that. I am convinced, however, that Philo Judaeus has repeatedly revealed the Sons-of-God/A. A. paradigm of divinization (perhaps: the Sethian cult), and again: the four-fold schema is very curious, no coincidence!

Abit further in the same chapter, Mead cites De Mund. Op., §6; M. 1.5, P.5 (Ri. 1.9):
“It is plain, moreover, that the Archetypal Seal, which we call Cosmos which is perceptible only to the intellect, must itself be the Archetypal Pattern, the Idea of ideas {παράδειγμα, ἀρχέτυπος ἰδέα τῶν ἰδεῶν}, the Reason (Logos) of God.”

Archetypal Seal -- Celestial Cross
Noetic Cosmos -- Celestial Universe

Archetypal Pattern -- Celestial Order
Logos of God -- Reason of Man

Intelligible Cosmos (i.e. Noetic Reality) = Paradigm = Archetypal Idea = Logos. As least it's clear that Paradigm=Archetype is the Supracosmic Pattern of Logos (God #2), even if the conflation of the Hermetica and the Philonica proves challenging/problematic.

What's extraordinary here, if not immediately obvious: there are multiple paradigms in the Chronos passage. First, Paradigm is Logos (God). Second, Philo Judaeus is knowingly (re-)presenting a paradigm of the Divine Quaternity. Third, this logically represents an organizational paradigm (Founder-Architect-Administrator-Presbyter: order/roles of descending leadership) passing for the priestly chain-of-command in some cult's belief system. In so many writings, Philo alludes to the cult(s) without really naming them; these mystical Jewish brethren are re-creating the Divine Cosmos in their own paradigm work. (There are at least four 'paradigm' interpretations evident here.) As such, their identity is key.

Jung surely knew; whether he assumed they were Sethians I am unsure. He cited late this exact Philonic passage "the extension of heavenly motion is Time" in CW 855 (1951?), but he certainly processed it much earlier. It is often difficult to see WHEN Jung first employed a borrowed concept. His 1940 Lecture 6 (12/13/1940) connects Zosimos' Alchemy to "real psychology", Theosebia (= Therapeutide) w/ 'the servants of God', the daemonic Collective Unconscious, the Hermetica, the Divine Water which transforms (Sober Inebriety) and the Egyptian Thoth. The Jungian paradigm avails itself of so many intriguing themes and symbols - it may have been merely scientistic, but it came to dominate the field.

Why should it matter what Carl Jung thought? L. Edelstein distained Jung's influence on his intimate friend and roommate of four years, H. Zimmer; that is why "the celebrated physician" is portrayed a failure: "I have never been successful...". For his part, Dr. Jung (in a talk given 4/5/1939) was both aware of and sensitive to this critical case in 1938.
Image
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: "paradigms"

Post by billd89 »

Spatial Thinking is thinking in Paradigms. The importance of Model Theory, or MMT, to learning has been scientifically demonstrated.

https://scitechdaily.com/more-accurate- ... -learning/
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1168
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: "paradigms"

Post by StephenGoranson »

Published last month:
The last writings of Thomas S. Kuhn :
incommensurability in science /
Thomas S Kuhn; Bojana Mladenović [editor]
U. Chicago Press
2022,
English Book xlviii, 302 pages : illustrations (black and white) ; 23 cm
ISBN: 9780226822747 0226822745

Abstract [from the publisher]: "This book contains the text of Thomas Kuhn's unfinished book, The Plurality of Worlds: An Evolutionary Theory of Scientific Development, which Kuhn himself described as "a return to the central claims of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and the problems that it raised but did not resolve." The Plurality of Worlds is preceded by two related texts that Kuhn publicly delivered but never published in English: his paper "Scientific Knowledge as a Historical Product" and his Shearman Memorial Lectures, "The Presence of Past Science." The book opens with an introduction by the editor that describes the origins and structure of The Plurality of Worlds, and sheds light on its central philosophical problems. Kuhn's aims in his last writings are bold. He sets out to develop an empirically grounded theory of meaning that would allow him to make sense of both the possibility of historical understanding and the inevitability of incommensurability between past and present science. Moreover, he intends to show that incommensurability is fully compatible with a robust notion of a real world that science investigates, with the rationality of scientific belief change, and with the idea that scientific development is progressive. This is a must-read follow-up to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the most important books of the twentieth century"
StephenGoranson
Posts: 1168
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: "paradigms"

Post by StephenGoranson »

I commented yesterday about the new, posthumous, Kuhn publication on a relevant threat on NG's blog, but do not see it appear there.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

How many lives did Kuhn's "Paradigm" change?

Post by billd89 »

Kuhn is of little consequence to this site; his 20th C. theory on science is a basically 'off-topic' here. By contrast, Philo Judaeus on the Judeo-Alexandrian Therapeuts' paradigm mentioned above is absolutely fukken epic. A.A. has not only become a household name worldwide, yet also millions of lives have been changed, practically and effectively, by an anonymous interpretation (i.e. research and conclusions) of Philo's metaphysical paradigm describing the Aletheian Anthropoi published in 1939: “A new life has been given us or, if you prefer, a design for living that really works.”

But was that A. A. model merely the result of a random literary assignment, chance request for an Anonymous manuscript issued by the Rockefeller Foundation and ordered via Ludwig's atheist boss, Dr. Henry Sigerist? Of course not: the Edelsteins were already healing-cult specialists, so there's much more to the backstory of this occult meta-paradigm in the archives.

One of the Anonymous Authors herself, Emma Edelstein, had had a "vital spiritual experience" during or following a Near-Death Experience circa 1928-1930. She was "reborn" and thereafter called "Renate" by friends and family (Renate is female personal name of German, Latin origin meaning "to be born again"). Such an odd name, for someone who was Jewish -- but hers wasn't the Christian meaning. Nor indeed was the A.A.s': the paradigm for their 1938 interpretation is a reconstituted Alexandrian Jewish mysticism, 1st C Therapeutic soul-healing envisioned as a relic Rechabite cult completed by Jacob's Ladder. "We were reborn" is a clear-cut and unequivocal statement, followed immediately by instruction for reciting the famous Third Step Prayer (directly derived from and translating all ten elements of the Hermetic 'Prayer of Thanksgiving' at CH 1.32), itself a Judeo-Pythagorean prayer of Sacrifice and Sanctification. None of this is Christian -- it has no connection whatsover to the Oxford Group or Nazi-sympathizer Frank Buchman. And this is anything but accidental, coincidental or trivial. But here is an odd proof it's 'Weimar Jewish' -- Emma's experience probably influenced another period Berlin philosopher as a paradigm for his intellectual transformation also; Martin Heidegger may be wrongly credited.

Obviously, Leo Strauss is known as a Mid-Century American philosopher and the spiritual God-Father of the Neo-Conservative movement. Although previously explored by Strauss scholars, this retroactively described event -- Strauss' own psychic change -- dated 1928-32 must now be re-examined in light of information from the Rockefellers’ project. A number of important reasons may be given why Strauss’ experience should be relevant here. First, a close friend’s 'turning' would not be merely coincidental; Emma Edelstein’s personal connection to the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums is readily apparent through that very colleague. Second, as Emma’s doctoral thesis was known to (and cited by) Strauss, his own later study of Xenophon proves their intellectual intertwining dated to these years, during his employment at the Akademie. Third, this precise period also coincides with Emma’s own ‘psychic change’ reported by her husband Ludwig Edelstein long before Strauss autobiographically described his own profound Socratic turning and his acute focus on transformative revelation.

The Edelsteins were likewise influenced by their close friend Strauss, on a parallel track. Perhaps clarifying the philosophical digression on Reason in "We Agnostics", I will only briefly allude to this, in Martin J. Plax's review of Heinrich Meier's Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem [2007] in History of Political Thought Vol. 28, No. 3 (Autumn 2007), pp. 559-560:
Additionally, {Meier} reveals how Strauss’s studies of the medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophers led him to an epiphany: these philosophers, confronting the political force of theology and divine law, engaged in the art of esoteric writing. It was this discovery that led Strauss to see, in his mind’s eye, the possibility of challenging the historicist claim that one could never understand a philosopher of the past as he understood himself. He discovered that philosophers simultaneously engaged in philosophizing and in providing a political defence of philosophy against believers in the truth of divine revelation and law who held political power.

Meier then demonstrates how Strauss defended philosophy against belief in revelation. He notes that Strauss strengthened philosophy’s claim to being the right way of life by making its opponent as strong as it was philosophically possible, by constructing a genealogy of faith in divine revelation. In doing so, however, Strauss discovered that philosophy cannot refute, on philosophic grounds, the truth-claims of revelation, particularly God’s unfathomability. Unexpectedly, the confrontation led him to the discovery that the moderns had falsely characterized the difference between philosophy and revelation as knowledge v. faith. Philosophy is only a particular interpretation of reason. The true nature of the difference had to be re-examined.

Of course, the Edelsteins (writing esoterically and anonymously in 1938) were not necessarily in full agreement w/ Leo Strauss -- I speak only of the their close friendship circa 1930-1932 and known connections between two correspondent philosopher friends from the same background, schools, social circles, profession, etc. to consider yet unrecognized parallels in their work. So Strauss researched the occult Maimonides; the Edelsteins cryptically re-interpreted the obscure Philo Judaeus -- and we perceive on a much grander scale how the Big Book was actually written. But where Philo 's work indicates the basis for the Therapeuts' healing paradigm (which the Edelsteins cleverly traced in 1938), Emma's own "vital spiritual experience" -- OUR spiritual godmother's own template -- becomes far, far more important than anything digressively ascribed to William James or Carl Jung by a revisionist False Author in later years. In fact, Emma is the True Author and the Archetype of our Program.

E_Edelstein_Marb Fr on Paper-1.jpg
E_Edelstein_Marb Fr on Paper-1.jpg (681.24 KiB) Viewed 274 times
Post Reply