HUMANITY: Not Just Singular.

The Human Condition: never so contingent, that we are forever prisoner of it.

Some worry about, others anticipate “the singularity”, when human technology exponentiates for all to see. Many expect that it is coming soon. But “the singularity” has long been around. We have been living through it, ever since human evolved, and they started to think in all-devouring ways, a couple of million years ago. The invention of mass transmissible global culture, hundreds of thousands of years ago, launched us towards the stars.

What’s science for? Aside from keeping our world up in the air? Science is what is known for sure. A (good) mom knows to love for sure. So, alright, there is a science of love. Human beings, as are many animals, all the way down to insects, are naturally equipped not just to know, but to understand what they needed to understand to survive as a species.

Art: Beautiful & Interesting, In Part Because It Reveals Logic Never before Suspected, Or Because It Reminds Us Of Them. When God Is Shows His Consideration For Us, We Are Made Into The Crown Of Creation & The Transmission of Power, Knowledge Are Impressed Upon Us As The Most Important Activities Worthy Of The Gods We Are

Art: Beautiful & Interesting, In Part Because It Reveals Logic Never before Suspected, Or Because It Reminds Us Of Them. When God Is Shows His Consideration For Us, We Are Made Into The Crown Of Creation & The Transmission of Power, Knowledge Are Impressed Upon Us As The Most Important Activities Worthy Of The Gods We Are

Orphaned earwigs, a type of insect, are at a disadvantage and exhibit reduced maternal skills. Beauty and love are everywhere. Transmission of knowledge is what brains do.

Humanity itself is a singularity of mind the evolution of creation  (“life”) has blossomed into. Our technologies (“specialized discourses”) expanded over all of Earth, and expanded what Earth could be for us, as Earth itself became our province. And this physical empire did so because our minds expanded. Earth became an empire of reason (in particular, very hot, crazy reasons). Our minds expanded so much that they not just revealed, but caused, accordingly, new, spectacular problems… which we presently enjoy ever more.

Science is not just a knowledge of facts, but a knowledge of beauty which would not have been otherwise revealed. Science is also the uncovering of logic of previously unsuspected subtlety, for all to see. Thus subjects as esoteric as how exactly supernovae explode can reveal how explanations can go about things.

Beauty itself, is partly a matter of logic: when god touches humanity with its finger in Michelangelo’s famous painting, the beauty depicts a logic, and it is what makes it, in part, beautiful.

On March 21, 2016, NASA and its (crippled, but reconfigured for doing other things) Kepler telescope, revealed the visualization of the explosions of some supernovae.

Knowing about supernovae is not just knowing how the chemistry which made Earth possible was created. It is not just about knowing the size of the universe, and how fast it is changing. It is also knowing about analogies, metaphors, logics and possibilities we never suspected, and also about our naivety, to never have suspected they were.

Our knowledge of facts and logics, and of the beauty and possibilities they entail, are indeed exponentiating (or more). They long have been, it’s our definition.

However, it is now clear that, within a decade or so, most work will be taken over by machines, even work of a creative nature. The human work will have to be the all too human crazy creativity of geniuses, art never thought of before. It is already the case: the economic success of a city such as San Francisco is now mostly from the creation of so-called “apps” which are little computer programs for doing little things one never thought of, or could do, before (or assemblies thereof, such as the notorious “Uber” with its astounding 65 billion dollars market cap).

And we can’t turn back, because it’s what we are: ”Plus Oultre!”. As Charles Quint put it in his native French: Plus Ultra (Motto Of Spain), Plus Meta,

And the biosphere could not handle a U-turn on humanity’s part, weirdly enough. Actually, handling the CO2 crisis will have to be done the old fashion way: through brand new technological means, the exact way in which life already deals with it (after all, plants use CO2 to build themselves with it… although CO2 is notoriously chemically inert, thus nearly useless industrially… so far. But, philosophically speaking, there is no reason why human science can duplicate with CO2 what 4 billion years of molecular biology succeeded to achieve.)

Some may object that the preceding, however alluring, is a sort of sing-song, Patrice perched on a branch, singing to the stars, human, all too human (thus not really marketable).

However, not so. The poorly parented earwigs, these modest insects with big pincers for a tail, are themselves poor parents, because they have undergone genetic changes. They are victims, or, more exactly, creations of epigenetics, what controls genetic itself (and which Lamarck had anticipated). We, the genus Homo, have gone through 100,000 generations of intense selection according to our capability to outsmart our opponents (other, less performing humans, mostly). So we are the mental species, in all sense of the term: crazily creative, and creatively crazy.

This is not just a song, it’s a reality. Our reality. Not just our ethics, but our esthetics are dependent upon the sum of all our evolutionary histories, our genetics and epigenetics, and those progress to ever more understanding, and mastery of the universe, therefrom.

Thus, all speed ahead, we are special, we may as well admit that violating old norms and creating new ones is not just what we do, but what we are.

Patrice Ayme’   

Tags: , , , ,


  1. richard reinhofer Says:

    The inevitable crash will be glorious.

  2. brodix Says:


    In hindsight, history does seem a linear sequence of cause and effect, logically leading to the conclusion, but the actual process that occurs is one of expansion and consolidation. Yes, humanity is seemingly marching forward and we have consolidated around the properties of reason, but now we are bursting with our own success. Will the future be a continuation of our most leading edge technologies, or will they prove to be the surface of a bubble and the social and environmental forces supporting and propelling us reach current limits and force us to consolidate back to a more stable level, from which to start the process over again
    I suspect we will retreat to more local, ground level economies and the technologies will be refined for durability, than successfully projecting ever further and faster, to some robot served, technologically enhanced utopia. The depths of nature we have seemingly left behind will prove far more durable and all-encompassing than our religious visions of technological salvation will prove viable.
    Nature evolved levels of biological complexity hundreds of millions of years ago, of which our greatest technologies are little more than a shadow. We have much to learn.

    The singularity will prove to be a horizon line we presume to reach.

    • Kevin Berger Says:

      Yes, this “ebb and web” flow of history seems to be intuitively more fitting than the “from start to end (or Parousia)” model, or the “cyclical” one. Muddling along, forward, backward, high, low, but still going ahead, even if not in an elegant way.
      Btw, if the people pushing the Elliott waves pattern of European/Western history are right, then we are in for a long-lasting down trend.

      • Gmax Says:

        Eliot Wave??? Isn’t that one of these crazy financial crooks ideas, to drag little investors to their gloom and doom?

        • Kevin Berger Says:

          Yes, that basically what it is (though I cannot comment on the Elliott waves concept itself, its application in trading & finances seems to be just what you describe); there’s also been some writings applying the waves to European history patterns, and seeing an ongoing mega downward trend (with cyclical corrective upward trends).

    • Gmax Says:

      I think Patrice’s point was that WE are the singularity. And we are reaching, not just ourseleves, but BEYOND OURSELVES

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        Yes, why long for the transhuman Singularity that will spare us from being humans, while being human is the singularity already? Dreaming about SF is just more pleasing, maybe.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Hi Kevin: was out of my own comments for at least 2 days… I have only very little time to catch up. Yes, that’s my point. It’s actually against the Silly Cone Valley “transhuman” thingie, because, indeed, my entire point: being human, all too human, is being a singularity.

          • brodix Says:


            I think the physical sense of the present creates a singularity of every moment. That is what we really are trying to wrap our minds around.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:


  3. Paul Handover Says:

    Wow, what an essay, and two great comments, to read before 6am Oregon local time! It leaves me thinking, as Patrice has highlighted before, that we are in an era of unprecedented change.

    One of those changes is an enhanced awareness of right and wrong. Just look at way, and the speed, that we assess the big goings on in the world. Assess the correctness of those big goings on. Take the 2016 Presidential campaign as an example. Or the ‘Brexit’ debate in Britain. Or immigration in Europe.

    Yet we surely are also living at a time when almost nothing is beyond our reach. In many ways an incredibly exciting time!

    • Gmax Says:

      Yes. Right and wrong everywhere, all tangled up, on a scale never experienced before.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, all these issues seem to require much bigger minds than those our great leaders can muster… The happenstances with Turkey and the “big boss of bosses from Bossphorus”, Erdogan, are particularly egregious and disturbing… Erdogan has been supporting the Islamist State (be it only by long buying their oil), and is now in full war with the Kurds, inside Turkey. But Merkel rises to shake his hand, every occasion she has…

  4. Kevin Berger Says:

    J’ajouterai que cette idée de la “singularité” est vraiment, vraiment très américaine, et quelque part sans doute, une autre pathologie de niche, illustrant un sérieux problème civilisationnel à la base.
    Pour moi, ce “transhumanisme” et cette volonté d’échapper au biologique (càd à l’humain et aux contingences de sa condition, à commencer par la mort), tout cela découle de cet espèce de messianisme individuel protestant (transhumanistes, sovereign citizens, même combat), assaisonné de ce rapport au corps, au sexe, à l’intimité, qui fait le lit des amusantes bondieuseries successives des anglos… des quakers qui se masturbent en public ou se promènent nus, pour finir par imposer la circoncision pour tous quelques siècles plus tard, afin de tuer le désir sexuel du futur adolescent…
    Tout ça, c’est de la religion pour “nerds”, déguisée en SF appliquée, et enrobant le capitalisme de google et consorts d’une couche de moraline. Pas très sérieux, mais dangereux, sans doute.

    Enfin, avec un peu de chance, nous aurons droit à quelques belles retombées technologiques, sinon et au pire, à la continuation des petits bonheur du passé, façon ère Victorienne à la sauce génétique et cybernétique.
    Au moins, tant que ces Elites se pignolent sur leur “Singularity”, elles ne violent pas d’enfants, toujours ça de gagné.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Right now the singularity thingie is used disgustingly by the pseudo-would-be gods of Silly Cone Valley. However it has a noble pedigree: see Teilhard de Chardin… Or Nietzsche And the good part of the Christian-like mentality which inspired him… I hope Nietzsche is getting a brain attack for me accusing him of being Christian…

  5. Gmax Says:

    The sing-song of humanity, not just Patrice’s…

  6. brodix Says:

    If you happen to be riding the wave, it sucks when it crashes. Yet a wave can also be considered as a vast store of energy, that can be put to useful purposes.

    In political and economic terms, I see various cultural pillars which could be thoroughly examined in such a time of crisis.

    Patrice seems to disprove of plutocracy, yet the logical and moral premise for it is embedded in monotheism. That we are guided by an all-knowing and wise father figure and should bow to his command.

    Logically though, a spiritual absolute would be the raw essence of being, flowing through all of biology, not an ideal of knowledge and wisdom guiding it.

    Remember the two most famous ancient examples of pluralistic government, democracy in Athens and the Roman Republic, originated in pantheistic cultures. If you have a broad and diverse religious model, it would provide a strong foundation for a broad and diverse polity. Just as a singularly focused religious model naturally inspires a singularly focused political model.

    Safe to say, it would take extreme upheaval for society to seriously question its religious beliefs, but that does appear to be the approaching reality.

    We could also restructure the economic circulation system as well, so that wealth does actually circulate and not just gravitate into enormous pools the rest of society is forced to service.

    When one door closes, another opens.

  7. Gloucon X Says:

    All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    -Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776)

    And that is the maxim the drives the plutocratic owned world we have built. Can we rely on these vile masters to save the world they are destroying? It would seem unlikely.

    • brodix Says:

      The forward momentum that naturally coalesces into its own object oriented self expression, as opposed to the balancing of forces that is the basis of judgement. Node versus network.
      Even politics and economics are based on fundamental assumptions and cannot be effectively changed, until those assumptions are brought to light and examined.

  8. brodix Says:


    There is a natural logic behind theism. In that polytheism originated as a platonic idealism, as much or more than just anthropomorphizing everything. That there was some conceptual essence to forms, such as a mountain, a stream, love, honor, the tribe, etc. Then there was pantheism, the realization all these forms are inextricably linked together in some larger network. Which naturally led to monotheism, that this network was itself some larger entity or object. Which is where we are now. Even the Big Bang theory is the same assumption of the singular object as fundamental, shorn of its anthropomorphic agency.
    The reality is the node and the network are opposite sides of a conceptual dichotomy. Networks are comprised of entities and entities are expressions of the network creating them. Cosmology is having to deal with this, as it now projects out to the multiverse, in the simplistic, object based assumption that if it happened once, it would happen again. Rather than seeing the dichotomous relationship between object and context.

    • brodix Says:

      Rather than seeing the dichotomous relationship between object and context.
      In which galaxies are the primary object emerging from a cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass, where the energy expanding between them, is balanced by the structure falling into them.

      Storms across space.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        It’s increasingly clear that galaxies occupy the space around them in many ways unsuspected before. The shock waves from the last core eruption of the Milky Way are propagating through filaments and structures of the Magellan Clouds…l

        • brodix Says:

          I think the model needs serious review, but it’s not like string theory, where there are questions being asked within the field. In cosmology the sheep are off into the multiverse, after blindly accepting the enormous conceptual additions of inflation, dark energy and dark matter to answer previous questions.

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Dark Matter: Experimental, but predicted by Patrice Ayme’s subquantal model
            Dark Energy: Experimental, predicted by nobody. Yet predicting Patrice Ayme’ 100 billion years universe…
            String Theory: Beats me. I understand it perfectly not.
            Supersymmetry: predicted by Patrice Ayme’s number theory, predicted by the mood presiding behind the Standard Model, but experimentally not found. So far. At all.
            Big Bang Cosmology: Used to make Standard Model look relevant to humanity. Simplest explanation for all what was never guessed. Sort of contradicted by Dark Energy.
            Multiverse: Sheer insanity straight out of Einstein 1905 PV paper…

  9. brodix Says:


    I think they should just go back and start over again.

    This first occurred to in the late 80’s, when I came across the idea of Omega=1. That the expansion is in inverse proportion to gravity. According to the math I learned in elementary school, 1+(-1)=0. So if the space expanding between galaxies is balanced by the space contracting into them, there is no overall expansion.

    It has since been proven that space does appear to be flat, according to COBE and WMAP. This is explained away by saying that it expanded so fast and far in the inflationary stage that it only appears flat on the local scale, much as the surface of the earth appears flat locally.

    The evidence for an expanding universe is the redshift of galaxies and the cosmic background radiation.

    Yet it had to be argued that, based on the premise of spacetime, space itself is expanding, because the redshift is proportional in all directions, creating the effect that we appear at the center of this universal expansion. Which completely overlooks the fact that if light is redshifted by taking longer to cross, it is NOT CONSTANT TO THE SPACE!!!!

    Now people argue me on this by saying light is only measured locally, but it is the same light creating the redshift in the first place. So there is one metric based on the redshift of this intergalactic light, compared to a metric based on the speed of the very same light.

    Not only that, but the stable metric is being used as the denominator, otherwise it would be a question of why the light would slow. So in case anyone doesn’t understand, the denominator is the unit in which the equation is denominated in. That means the speed of light is measuring a stable dimension of space and the presumed expansion is an effect being compared to that!!!

    As for the CMBR, being the initial glow of this Big Bang, Inflation had to be added to explain why it is so smooth. Which is a big fudge factor.

    Now if redshift is an optical effect, which makes sense, since we are at the center of our view of the universe and redshift is proportional to distance, then this black body radiation would be the solution to Olber’s paradox; Why we don’t see the light of infinite stars. Because it is redshifted completely off the visible spectrum.

    As for dark energy, it was originally assumed that immediately after the BB, the universe was expanding at close to the speed of light and that it slowed at a constant rate, but when they measured the rate, it appeared to drop off fairly rapidly and then flatten out. So this more stable rate couldn’t be explained as just the residual effect of the BB and so they say space is permeated by this dark energy, continuing to push galaxies apart.

    On the other hand, if redshift is an optical effect, that compounded on itself, it would go parabolic and eventually those most distant galaxies would appear to be receding at the speed of light, which would create a natural horizon line, over which visible light would shift off the scale, but through which the black body radiation of the CMBR would pass. So it would appear to curve upward with distance.

    As for dark matter, if gravity is not so much a property of mass, as it is the vacuum of the wave aspect of energy collapsing into the quantum aspect of mass, there would be this contraction across the entire scale, starting with photons as quanta of light.

    Then we get into the metaphysical relationship between nodes and networks, with galaxies as the primal nodes in the network of the universe.

    Then if we understand time as an effect of action, not a fundamental dimension, with energy being conserved as the present state, the need to explain eternity is moot, as it is the stability of the forms manifested by energy.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “They” have started all over again, since I proposed to do away with the entire Big Bang, by considering only Dark Energy.

      The cosmological redshift looking the same all over means that we are standing still (LOCALLY).
      There is a good reason for that.

      • picard578 Says:

        But even the big bang theory means that we are standing still, locally. Galaxies do not move in space, that much. It is the spacetime continuum itself that expands. And this expansion causes the red shift.

        • Gmax Says:

          At least, that’s the official theory

        • brodix Says:


          If it is the spacetime continuum, why doesn’t the speed of light stay Constant to the space/distance, as the redshift is due to the light taking longer to cross the space?

          • picard578 Says:

            Actually, redshift happens precisely because light does *not* take longer to cross the space. Instead of stretching in time, light stretches in space, increasing its wavelength.

            • brodix Says:


              The presumption is still doppler shift, where the wavelength is stretched because the distance expands. The presumption is the universe is expanding and so light is taking longer to travel from one galaxy to another, which causes the reception of the wave to be stretched.
              If light didn’t take longer to cross between galaxies, than wouldn’t these other galaxies appear just as close as they did at the beginning, since the speed of light would have to speed up in order *not* to take longer? If the universe started out the size of a softball, did it take light billions of years to cross it then, so that it wouldn’t take longer to cross it now???

            • picard578 Says:

              No, light does take longer. What I was going at is that relative speed of light is constant irrespective of how fast an object moves. Consequently, wavelength difference is what changes with shifts in relative speeds of objects.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Brodix: You nestle comments too much, and it takes longer to cross space between comments, stretching out my understanding of what you are trying to say.
              TIME IS LOCAL. Please stop telling me how long time takes to go from an galaxy to another (not, not a typo: light is time…)

            • Patrice Ayme Says:


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Suppose you glue a wave of elastic material on an elastic sheet. Then pull the sheet. What happens? The wave stretches, thus its frequency goes down. It’s in all cosmology textbooks (formulated as fancy equations, but that was the basic idea).

            If all the redshift is due to that the distended light from that fireball at 380,000 years, cosmic BB time, you get a 13.8 billion years universe.

            I beg to disagree. The preceding logic is not false, but that does not mean that it is necessary.

            • brodix Says:

              Yet in Relativity, the distance is compressed by the moving frame, equivalent to the rate the speed of light is reduced. They dilate equally.
              So if we reverse that and say space is stretched, why wouldn’t the speed of light increase, in order to remain constant to the distance.
              Instead the argument is it is taking light longer to cross this increasing distance and so it is redshifted. So what is the basis of the vacuum through which light travels at C, if it is not space? Presumably if the vacuum were stretched like that elastic sheet, the speed of light, as its ruler, would stretch as well.
              Going to that fireball, if it creates space, what is the basis for the light speed by which it expands? There would seem to be a constant rate of expansion in which this fireball happens, so the speed of light, in a vacuum, would be more fundamental than the expanding universe.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          As Gmax said…

  10. Kathleen Hawes Watkins Says:

    ‘Humanity itself is a singularity of mind the evolution of creation (“life”) has blossomed into.’

    Kathleen Hawes Watkins: Agreed. And it’s a very FRAGILE blossom – this form of energy we call “life”.

  11. brodix Says:


    Here is an interesting essay;

    “The present paper deals with the effect of dissipation on the propagation of wave packets governed by a wave equation of Jeffrey type. We show that all packets undergo a shift of the central frequency (the mode with maximal amplitude) towards the lower frequencies (‘‘redshift’’ in theory of light or ‘‘baseshift’’ in acoustics). Packets with Gaussian apodization function do not change their shape and remain Gaussian but undergo redshift and spread. The possible applications of the results are discussed.”

    Given all the factors, Ockham’s Razor leans toward cosmic redshift being optical, not actually recessionary.

    “The cosmological redshift looking the same all over means that we are standing still (LOCALLY).’

    Yet the expansion requires more lightyears, not stretched lightyears to redshift and that means all those local points have to exist in a stable vacuum. Given this, only optics explains why each appears as the center of its own point of expansion.

    • brodix Says:


      I guess I feel the need to add to this because so many people resist considering such an accepted concept as BBT can have such a basic fallacy built into it, that they refuse to think it through;

      Think of it in terms of suicide bomber. He is at the center of the explosion, in normal space. Everything flies away from him. Now someone else in that space would not be the center. Some objects would come directly at them, some fly by parallel, some at other angles.
      Now say you have some complex mathematical model where both points of view see everything fly away from them such that while they can still see each other, each is the center of this expansion. That would be what the Big Bang model proposes.

      The problem is that the theory being used does already assume a stable dimension of space; The vacuum through which light travels at C, because the redshift is premised on light taking longer to cross.

      This negates all that fancy math. There is only the one space and if there is an explosion in it, then there can only be one center to it.

      Maybe there are multiverses and there is another explosion, another suicide bomber, but it can’t be seen by the one at the center of this explosion and it would have only one center as well.

      • brodix Says:

        So the only way to explain why different points of view can both see each other and be at the center of the redshift, is if the redshift is an optical effect, because we are all at the center of our point of view.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmm…. I am not sure I buy the reasoning. It’s an old controversy, actually, the evolution of wave packets.
      My way of generating redshift is completely different, it rests on a new effect, not observed yet. The argument that something has not been seen inside conventional optics seems more far fetched. Anyway will look at it when I have time.

  12. brodix Says:


    It’s not so much an issue of optics, so much as the flawed reasoning points to an optical solution.

    If it were truly spacetime, then the speed of light/clock rate would have to increase to match the increased distance, in order to remain Constant! Yet the assumption is that the redshift is due to the light taking LONGER to cross.

    As they rejected a “tired light” explanation, that means they use the speed of light, not the distance between galaxies, as the denominator, which makes the expansion the numerator. Obviously the denominator is the baseline, the real measure of space.

  13. brodix Says:


    “No, light does take longer. What I was going at is that relative speed of light is constant irrespective of how fast an object moves.
    Consequently, wavelength difference is what changes with shifts in relative speeds of objects.”

    It is constant to the vacuum. So there is more vacuum between galaxies, not stretched vacuum. So the shifting is in space, not of space.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Brodix: You try to apply the main idea of Poincare’ Relativity, that the “speed of light is constant”, BETWEEN GALAXIES. That theory is also called SPECIAL Relativity. It does NOT apply between galaxies. This is why Einstein called his theory of gravitation “GENERAL Relativity”. In GR, the speed of light is not constant (as Einstein himself recognized).

  14. brodix Says:


    There is a metric of space based on the speed of intergalactic light, versus one based on the spectrum of the exact same intergalactic light.
    Presumably the redshift is due to light taking longer to cross. There are more lightyears between galaxies, not stretched lightyears. So whether it is truly constant is not the issue. The issue is that two distinct metrics are involved. Which is the real measure of space? The one that expands, or the one being used as the standard?

    As Einstein said, “Space is what you measure with a ruler.” If the ruler is the speed of light and there are more lightyears between these galaxies, that is increased distance, not expanding space.

    To use the elastic analogy, the ruler is not being stretched, but is being used to measure how much the elastic is stretched.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Metric of space” is based on Type Ia supernovae. It has nothing to do with a one way speed of light of which we know nought.
      Einstein said stupid things, and that would be an example.

      You actually don’t know differential geometry (Einstein knew it very imperfectly and in great part because he collaborated with top geometers, including David Hilbert, and even the top of tops, Elie Cartan (Who introduced spin in 1913, 17 years before Dirac).) If you knew differential geometry you would know that distance can be integrated along a curve. However, beyond the exponential radius, it’s not unequivocally defined.

      • brodix Says:

        Of course we know absolutely everything about how that light might be redshifted over the course of billions of years, where the light of entire galaxies are reduced to a few photons.
        Such that the entire universe had to have emerged from a single point and expanded, creating virtually everything as it did.
        Then continued to patch this knowledge with enormous invisible forces of nature, that must exist, because our theories are infallible.
        Where have I seen this line of reasoning play out before?

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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

You are commenting using your 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: