Science Does Not Know How To Explain “You.”

Science can explain you and me from a biological point of view but it does not know what to make of first-person, phenomenal experience. In other words, that which is most intimately real and present to us – our consciousness and personhood—cannot be confirmed through scientific methodology.

This is called the “hard problem” in neuroscience. Brain scientists do not understand the relationship between our individual thoughts and feelings and brain activity. And many reject the idea of mental causation—that a non-material human mind activates the brain—and prefer the idea that the physical brain produces thought from numerous microscopic electro-chemical processes.

The problem with that theory is that if you cut up a brain into ever-smaller parts and bits, you still can’t get to the “you” or “me.” A purely materialistic ideology offers no help in this legitimate and important area of research.

We do not possess a science of the person. So scientifically speaking, we do not exist (which is laughable).

Theology, however, offers us the closest thing to the science of the person. God understands who we are and offers guidance for helping us to become a better person in both heart and mind. Unfortunately, theology and religion does not put its model of personhood within a scientifically plausible theory.

Enter scientist/theologian Emanuel Swedenborg.

Through his vast array of scientific and theological publications, he formulated a comprehensive model of the human cognitive architecture that included the broader person-level framework and the human soul. Swedenborg was not only the father of the neuron theory (brain cell and its connective processes) he also anticipated deeper structures within the brain cell responsible for the higher cognitive functions of human reasoning and abstract thought. Modern science is only beginning to look at such a possibility of a hierarchical design within neural structure.

These deeper layers of neural structure take on non-classical forms by the lawful removal of geometrical constraints until mental activity ultimately abstracted itself from its usual relationships with time and space. The deepest cognitive substrate of the human mind has its form and existence in the spiritual world.

In fact, Swedenborg claimed that God’s Holy Word is similarly structured—whereby as human cognition ascended to the deeper operations of its inner structures, it could distill deeper levels of meaning within the sacred narratives!

I explore Swedenborg’s unique holistic science and theology in my new book Proving God and translate it within a plausible scientific theory. The book offers new insights to understanding both the laws of the universe and the laws of salvation.


About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at
This entry was posted in god, metaphysics, Reality, religion, science, symbolism, unity and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Science Does Not Know How To Explain “You.”

  1. Thought it might be fun to share an excerpt from the paper I wrote a few years ago to finally finish my BA at Bryn Athyn College. Is any of it “provable”? Nope. I can only prove something to me. I can’t prove it to you. So I don’t try – but I enjoy the topic. I’ve included the non-Swedenborg references at the end. I trust any reader hear will know what the Borg references mean – and if not, oh well. Here it is.

    “Human Consciousness
    Let us begin with a discussion of what a working definition of “human consciousness” might look like. Human beings, and everything that has been created, are “so formed that the Divine can be in them” (Swedenborg, 1969, DLW 4). Elsewhere in the Writings, this idea is stated even more clearly: “Every created thing is in itself inanimate and dead, but it is animated and given life by this: the Divine is in it, and it is in the Divine” (Swedenborg, 1969, DLW 53). In addition: “In things first and last, and in things greatest and least, He is the same… the [Lord’s] Human is the inmost in every created thing, though apart from space” (Swedenborg, 1969, DLW 285).
    Our personal experience of life is made possible by Life itself and, as Swedenborg wrote: “love is the life of man” (Swedenborg, 1969, DLW 1). Divine Love flows continuously into human beings (and other created things) and animates them giving them life such as their particular created form is capable of receiving. This is one of the main points of DLW 1 in Swedenborg’s description of human beings’ relationship with the Lord. The other equally important point of the same passage is that human beings DO NOT KNOW what love actually is or that love flowing in from the Lord is their “very life”. The truth that human beings do not know this is acknowledged by one of the most contemplative and penetrating minds of our time, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. In his book The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, he writes: “the conceptual and philosophical question of what life is remains open” (Gyatso, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, 2005, p. 160). To repeat, Swedenborg answers this question, “love is the life of man” (Swedenborg, 1969, DLW 1, emphasis added).
    Knowledge of the true nature of the substance of life is a revelation from the Lord put to paper by means of Swedenborg’s quill. There is no other way to know it because of the strong appearance to the contrary – the appearance that life is from ourselves. This truth that love from the Lord is our very life cannot be shown using the objective scientific method.
    Not only is life given to us moment to moment by the Lord, but our very ability to experience life is similarly provided by the Lord. One aspect of human consciousness, the ability to gather sensory impressions, is an example of this.

    That this is also from the Lord is explained by Swedenborg. He states:
    … it is [man’s] spirit that sees, not his eye: the spirit sees through the eye… The case is the very same in regard to this interior sight, or that of the spirit; this again does not see from itself, but from a still more interior sight, or that of man’s rational… neither does this see of itself, but does so from a still more internal sight, which is that of the internal man… And even this does not see of itself, for it is the Lord who sees through the internal man, and He is the Only One who sees because He is the Only One who lives, and He it is who gives man the ability to see, and this in such a manner that it appears to [the man] as if he saw of himself. Such is the case with influx. (Swedenborg, 1965, AC 1954)

    The ‘appearance’ we have that our life and our consciousness is from ourselves, rather than from the Lord (which is the actual truth), is an essential aspect in our ability to change and grow through spiritual practice. I will refer to the ‘as if of self’ appearance in later sections of this paper.
    No wonder modern science (in spite of its ever-increasing levels of advancement) has such difficulty discovering the true nature of human consciousness which, in its origin, is spiritual. And yet the sciences, especially psychology, neurology and modern physics, appear to have a growing interest in exploring the nature of this mystery.
    For example, in a recent issue of Time magazine about 46% of its pages were devoted to articles on the brain and its relationship to consciousness and consciousness-related topics (Time, January 29, 2007). This growing interest together with major technological advances in neuroscience will doubtless go a long way in describing and defining human consciousness. In one of the Time magazine articles, a Harvard psychology professor (and dedicated atheist) discusses the two “problems” in consciousness studies known as the “Easy Problem” and the “Hard Problem” (Pinker, 2007). The Easy Problem, he says: “is to distinguish conscious from unconscious mental computation, identify its correlates in the brain and explain why it evolved” (Pinker, 2007, p. 61). The Hard Problem is how to explain: “how subjective experience arises from neural computation” and “why it feels like something to have a conscious experience going on in one’s head – why there is first-person, subjective experience” (Pinker, 2007, p. 61).
    This is an especially hard problem since most of the neuroscientists studying human consciousness are doing so with a view to confirm what they already believe philosophically – that, as Pinker says: “Consciousness does not reside in an ethereal soul that uses the brain like a PDA; consciousness is the activity of the brain” (Pinker, 2007, p. 62). While acknowledging the experience we all have that there really is a subjectively distinguishable “I” or a separate self that chooses and thinks and decides, Pinker concludes his description of human consciousness with the unsatisfying, and simultaneously intriguing, idea that the self is an illusion created by the brain. He writes:
    Consciousness turns out to consist of a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain. These events compete for attention, and as one process outshouts the others, the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along. (Pinker, 2007, p. 62)

    In Pinker’s view, human beings are merely a collection of fleshy structures walking around concocting an illusion of a self that does not really exist. The idea that neural events are competing for attention implies the existence of a self for whose attention they are competing rather than an after-the-fact concocted self. The self as a brain-concocted illusion also flies in the face of Swedenborg’s teaching cited above that: “Every created thing, and especially man, and the love and wisdom in him, have reality and are not merely ideas of being” (Swedenborg, 1949, DP 46).
    I propose that we think of human consciousness as having, in general, three levels. The first is Basic Consciousness. This would be simple awareness of one’s own personal existence as contrasted with ‘unconsciousness’ or the lack of awareness of one’s own personal existence. If Basic Consciousness could speak (which it can’t), it would only be able to say, “I am”. The formation of Basic Consciousness, or of the anatomical structures associated with Basic Consciousness, begins at conception and is made functional by the infant’s first breath. One study concludes (tentatively) that: “a fetus becomes conscious at about 30 to 35 weeks after conception” (Burgess, 1996). However, this finding appears to be inconsistent with Swedenborg’s teachings regarding embryonic development and consciousness. He writes:
    In the embryo before birth there is life, but the embryo has no consciousness of it… the life from which the embryo lives in the womb is not life of its own, but of the Lord only, Who alone is life. (Swedenborg, 1942, DW 3:e, emphasis added)

    Swedenborg clarifies that: “sense-life and… motor-life… cannot exist from the beating of the heart alone; it exists from the conjunction of this with the respiration of the lungs” (Swedenborg, 1942, DW 3:82). Basic Consciousness could therefore be called “the Observer” only after the first breath is taken – it has no conscious observational power prior to the first breath. Basic Consciousness contains both natural and spiritual consciousness “in potentia” and is necessary to the development of the other levels of human consciousness.
    I propose that the next level of human consciousness is Natural Consciousness. This level of consciousness includes literally everything that can possibly be observed in nature and/or talked about in natural language. It is at once the product of learning and the realm of illusion. It could be called “the Observed”. The formation of Natural Consciousness begins with the infant’s first breath, ends with the natural heart’s last beat, and contains spiritual consciousness within it – either realized or unrealized.
    Finally, I call the third level Spiritual Consciousness. While only fully actuated after the death of the body, it begins to be formed, and more or less realized, during the life of the body. The development of Spiritual Consciousness is a life-time process that includes the formation of natural consciousness (as its containant) as well as the development of Spiritual Consciousness itself. The development of Spiritual Consciousness is referred to in the Writings of Swedenborg as “reformation and regeneration” (Swedenborg, 1988, TCR 572-620). Reformation is analogous to spiritual conception and regeneration to spiritual gestation.
    So I will posit that all levels of human consciousness are derived from conjunction with Consciousness Itself (i.e. the Lord). Human consciousness is developed and enhanced through reciprocal conjunction from love in personal freedom. Since the Lord is infinite and humans are gifted with the ability to reciprocate spiritually, human consciousness is eternally enhanceable. If, as I assert, the Lord is Consciousness Itself and all created things are from the Lord, the idea that non-human forms in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms are possessed of some form of non-human consciousness does not seem too far-fetched. This seems especially possible since, as I noted above, Swedenborg wrote that, “the [Lord’s] Human is the inmost in every created thing, though apart from space” (Swedenborg, 1969, DLW 285). I do not intend to pursue this line of thinking in this paper since it seems to be more of a topic for the science of physics than psychology. I only offer it as food for thought and possible further research in the light of Swedenborg’s revelation.
    For the purpose of this paper, human consciousness is more than mere awareness, sensory/motor function, and cognition. It is an evolutionary product of cooperative interaction between the Lord and an individual human being effecting a mutual, love-based conjunction between the two. The purpose of this paper is to explore the enhancement of personal consciousness through conjunction with the Lord by means of the spiritual practices of introspection, meditation, and prayer.”


    Burgess, J. A. & Tawia, S. A. (January, 1996). When did you first begin to feel it?: Locating the beginning of human consciousness (Abstract). Bioethics 10 (1). 1-26. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from the internet.

    Gyatso, T., His Holiness the Dalai Lama. (2005). The universe in a single atom: The convergence of science and spirituality (T. Jinpa Trans.). New York, NY: Morgan Road Books.

    Pinker, S. (2007, January 29). The mystery of consciousness. Time, 169 (5), 59-70.

  2. thegodguy says:

    Dear Jeremy,

    Thanks for contributing to this most important topic. It is well researched! My book “Proving God” addresses the different active (and potential) “observers” within the human psyche. Consciousness in humans is multiplexed! I also cover Swedenborg’s physiological structures in the brain responsible for these levels of consciousness. What this all means is that evolution is spiritually driven and it is the duty of humankind to continue the trajectory of evolution by becoming angels of heaven!

    Spiritually yours,

    • GodGuy:
      Thank you for your kind words. I’m not sure why you would say that human consciousness is “multiplexed”. I understand that Borg says we have numerous spiritual entities associated with us but I believe he also says that they are unaware of being so associated. It seems that, at all levels including the Divine, the associated entities believe themselves to be the ones doing the “seeing” but that at only the Divine level is that actually true (see AC 1954). Is it the Hindus who say that “the God in me sees the God in you”? Consciousness is nothing if it’s not experience. In Borg’s model the human mind is certainly structurally “multiplexed” and interdependent but is it multiplexed experientially? Can I consciously differentiate with certainty and specificity one thought or feeling source from another? It actually seems to me that all my thoughts are mine and from me. I believe the Lord has a reason for causing it so to appear – and that reason is the blessing of being free to experience love as one’s own (a fundamental basis for the development of angelic character). Gotta run – let me know what you think.

  3. thegodguy says:

    Dear Jeremy,

    Simply put, consciousness is multiplexed because it can partake of one, two or three levels (observers) simultaneously. Using your own three examples of consciousness, moving from basic consciousness (corporeal) to natural consciousness (rational) to spiritual consciousness (angelic) does not erase the prior levels but enhances them. We can observe the world, observe ourselves and our ideas and observe the Lord’s teachings (which is multiplexed). When one state of consciousness blocks out the others we have a disconnected state called SLEEP, TRANCE, FANTASY or even ECSTASY. During our proper and lawful spiritual evolution (from free will) lower cognitive centers become harmoniously reconnected to higher cognitive centers (and ultimately reconnected to God). My book “Proving God” spends a whole chapter on the topic of hypnosis. What is a whole new area of revelation (even for Swedenborgians) is that spiritual regeneration involves people becoming de-hypnotized!

    Spiritually yours,

  4. thegodguy says:

    Dear Jeremy,

    Feel free to make comments to your heart’s content!

    Spiritually yours,

  5. Glenn says:


    …scientifically speaking, we do not exist (which is laughable).

    Why is this deemed to be laughable? This is one of the clearest points on which Swedenborg and science are wholly in agreement.

    Yes, Swedenborg does have much to say about ‘self’, and how people can and should ‘manage’ it. He is, however, addressing the ‘as-if’ appearance–which belies the underlying reality he also addresses, namely, the fact that the self is an illusion, i.e., does not really exist (except as an illusion).

    There isn’t anything laughable about science claiming what Swedenborg himself asserts.

    What is laughable is that someone claiming to be able to show how Swedenborg and science are compatible, laughs at, mocks and derides science’s acknowledgement of a most fundamental reality pointed to and commented upon by Swedenborg.

    Rather than being ‘laughable’, that ‘scientifically speaking we do not exist’ is, in fact, laudable.

    o No on understands by proprium anything else than that he lives of himself and consequently thinks and wills of himself; but that there is no such proprium–and indeed cannot be with anyone–follow from what was said above. DP 308

    o Evil would not be appropriated to man, if he believed, as is really the case, that all evil is from hell, and all good from the Lord (AC 4151, 6206, 6324, 6325). NJHD 170

    Man does not believe ‘as is really the case’ because he’s too busy clinging to the illusion of the reality of his self.


    • Hi Glenn:

      I agree with you that self is an illusion or as Swedenborg would say an appearance. I also agree that people are busy clinging to the illusion of self as you say above. It seems from the following citations to be part of the Divine plan that we be (at least in part) in the illusion of a separate self to eternity. I am curious how you see the following from Swedenborg:

      “The more closely one is conjoined to the Lord the more distinctly does he seem to himself to be his own, and the more plainly does he recognize that he is the Lord’s.” (Divine Providence 42)

      “… freedom is from the Lord, who insinuates it into the man’s conscience, and by means of it causes him to overcome the evil as from what is his own. Through this freedom man acquires an Own in which the Lord can work what is good. Without an Own acquired, that is, given, through freedom, no man can possibly be reformed, because he cannot receive the new will, which is conscience….” (AC 1937:4-5)

      “… in this freedom, when the man is compelling himself to resist what is evil and false, and to do what is good, there is heavenly love, which the Lord then insinuates, and through which He creates the man’s Own; and therefore the Lord wills that it should appear to the man as his, although it is not his. This Own which man during his bodily life thus receives through what is apparently compulsory, is filled by the Lord in the other life with illimitable delights and happinesses. Such persons are also by degrees enlightened to see and even to be confirmed in the truth, that of themselves they have not compelled themselves one atom, but that all things of the effort of their will, even the smallest, had been from the Lord; and that the reason why it had appeared as if it was of themselves was in order that a new will might be given them by the Lord as their own, … The angels are in such an Own; and in proportion as they are in the truth that all good and truth are from the Lord, they are in the delight and happiness of this Own.” ” (AC 1937:6)

      “As regards the Own that is heavenly, this comes forth from the new will that is given by the Lord, and differs from the man’s own in the fact that they who have it no longer regard themselves in each and all things they do, and in each and all things they learn or teach; but they then have regard to the neighbor, the public, the church, the Lord’s kingdom, and thereby to the Lord Himself…. He who is gifted with an own that is heavenly is also in quietude and in peace; for he trusts in the Lord, and believes that nothing of evil will reach him… And besides, they who are in the heavenly own are in freedom itself; for to be led by the Lord is freedom, because they are led in good, by good, to good…. there is nothing that disturbs them, nothing of… enmity, hatred, and revenge; nor is there anything of the love of the world, consequently nothing of fraud, of fear, [or] unrest.” (AC 5660:3)

      “Angels from their wisdom go still further. They say that not only everything good and true is from the Lord, but everything of life as well. They confirm it by this, that nothing can spring from itself, but only from something prior to itself; therefore all things spring from a First, which they call the very Being [Esse] of the life of all things…. They say also that there is but One Fountain of life, and that man’s life is a rivulet therefrom, which if it did not unceasingly continue from its fountain would immediately flow away…. This being the belief of the angels they refuse all thanks for the good they do, and are displeased and withdraw if any one attributes good to them. They wonder how any one can believe that he is wise from himself or does anything good from himself….” (HH 9)



      • Glenn says:

        Hi Jeremy,

        I love passages such as these. Such pristine articulations of the truth as it truly is.

        The DP 42 quote is one of my favorites (as are the ones from AC 1937). And it comes in handy when coping with individuals who are willful to the point of exasperation. Such individuals often are a repository of complaints, which complaints these individuals feel duty bound to give frequent voice too. “If you were able to get closer to God, others wouldn’t have the power or ability to upset and annoy you as much. You’d feel more like yourself–your unruffled and imperturbable self.” “I don’t need God. I’m fine just the way I am.” “Then why all the complaints? You enjoy being unhappy? You enjoy being constantly displeased with others?” Puts ’em between a rock and hard place it does. Even if they’re not interested in God, they may come around to taking an interest in exploring ways in which they can be more content without having to depend on others abiding by their demands or conforming to their expectations, which makes for a good start).

        Anyway, insofar as those quotes bear relation to the subject of the ‘illusion (appearance) of self’, they come under the general umbrella of what was in mind when it was said in a subsequent comment (see the 11:17pm comment below) that Swedenborg quite specifically states…that this illusion is necessary (and gives reasons why it is necessary).

        Some general comments:

        Without the appearance of self, nothing would stick. This certainly is good with respect to ‘evil’. But since nothing would stick without the appearance, ‘good’ also would not stick. This certainly is not good. Therefore, the appearance is necessary in order that the ‘good’ may stick.

        But this seems to raise a problem. For if neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ stick without the appearance, and ‘good’ sticks with the appearance, why wouldn’t ‘evil’ also stick? It may. It may not. It depends.

        To the extent that the appearance is taken as the reality, the ‘evil’ sticks. To the extent, however, that the reality behind the appearance is recognized, only the ‘good’ sticks.

        Why is this? Because to the extent that the reality behind the appearance is recognized, to that extent is influx from the Lord more effective at warding off ‘evil’. Warded off by the Lord, the ‘evil’ does not stick.

        But why can’t the Lord ward off the ‘evil’ even if the person does not recognize the reality behind the appearance? In fact, the Lord’s effort does continue even then, though it is less effective.

        Why is it less effective?

        Because in not recognizing the reality behind the appearance, the person is operating with the presumption that everything originates from his self. In operating with this presumption, the person rejects what does not originate from his self. Since the person rejects what does not originate from his self, and since influx from the Lord does not originate from his self, influx from the Lord is–however unknowingly, unwittingly and unintentionally–rejected by default.

        Metaphorically speaking, recognizing the reality behind the appearance turns off the ‘static electricity’ which attracts the dust motes and fuzz of ‘evil’.

        Again, these are general comments (and most certainly not ‘gospel truth’).

        o The Lord from His Divine Essence, which is goodness, love, and mercy, is unable to deal in the same way with every man, because evils and their falsities prevent, and not only quench His Divine influx but even reject it. Evils and their falsities are like black clouds which interpose between the sun and the eye, and take away the sunshine and the serenity of its light; although the unceasing endeavor of the sun to dissipate the opposing clouds continues, for it is operating behind them; and in the meantime transmits something of obscure light into the eye of man by various roundabout ways… From this comparison it can be seen that the Lord is unceasingly present with everyone, but that He is variously received. HH 549


        (Yes, these are wonderful passages! That is why I am always bewildered when Swedenborgians seek either validation or a restoration of their self-esteem from the church. Regeneration is not meant to be flattering!)


  6. thegodguy says:

    Dear Glenn,

    We live because God lives. That does not rule out the reality of our existence. The Lord’s influx does not terminate into thin air but into the real organic structures of the human heart and mind. The Lord God wants to share eternal happiness with the human race – not with puppets. True selfhood is Infinite and belongs to God. But we exist nevertheless and in ways that are subjectively different from other individuals.

    If we were mere automatons we’d all be identical. Swedenborg insists we have free will.

    Once again you focus on a particular statement out of context with the main point. I am challenging the materialistic philosophy of science – which does not believe that human cognition has its source in spiritual (non-material) substances.

    Spiritually yours,

  7. Glenn says:


    Yes, we do have free will. And this free will includes the freedom to choose to believe in the illusion of a ‘self’. Swendenborg quite specifically states not only that this illusion is necessary (and gives reasons why it is necessary), he also states equally specifically that one’s spiritual development is severely curtailed to the extent that one fails to recognize the illusory nature of “self.”

    I don’t believe I have taken anything out of context–unless it happens that a point on which both science and Swedenborg agree is not at all germane to your interests.

    While “materialistic philosophy of science…does not [yet] believe that human cognition has its source in spiritual (non-material) substances”, it does acknowledge that the brain plays a vital role in that cognition. Swedenborg identifies the brain as where the mind in its first principles has its seat.

    If points of commonaltiy cannot be built upon, if they are dismissed as being “out of context” and immaterial (pardon the pun), how can points of dissension ever be resolved?


  8. thegodguy says:

    Dear Glenn,

    I am in agreement with your above statements.

    I am not challenging the notion that human cognition has its seat (termination) in the human brain but that the process is top-down (from spiritual origins) rather than bottom-up (from physical origins and inert matter). The natural sciences would be dumfounded by the notion that affection (love) operates in the cockpit of the human intellect. Physical science would have a hard time believing that love provides the principle of agency in the universe.

    Part of the problem is tackling complex topics in a 500-word blog. But I want to stimulate conversation and stretch my readers neurons!

    Spiritually yours,

  9. Glenn:
    Thanks for the great explanation of the process. “The reality behind the appearance” is just a useful rendition and gets us looking within instead of without. Also thanks for HH 549 – will add it to my collection.

  10. thegodguy says:

    Dear Jeremy and Glenn,

    Since many of my readers are not Swedenborgian they do not know what books you both are referring to when you use initials. Just offering a “heads-up.”

    Spiritually yours,

  11. Hey GodGuy! I finally got a copy of your book “Proving God” from the Cathedral Bookroom. Nicely Done! Am enjoying it.

  12. thegodguy says:

    Dear Jeremy,

    I appreciate your purchase. You will find it to be a different kind of Swedenborgian writing (and thinking)!

    Spiritually yours,

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s