sunday reading: Jung, a case for religion
Author: Carl Gustav Jung
Publication: Man And His Symbols (c. 1960)
Essay: Approaching The Unconscious
Section: The Soul Of Man
What we call civilized consciousness has steadily separated itself from the basic instincts. But these instincts have not disappeared. They have merely lost their contact with our consciousness and are thus forced to assert themselves in an indirect fashion. This may be by means of physical symptoms in the case of a neurosis, or by means of incidents of various kinds, like unaccountable moods, unexpected forgetfulness, or mistakes in speech.
A man likes to believe that he is the master of his soul. But as long as he is unable to control his moods and emotions, or to be conscious of the myriad secret ways in which unconscious factors insinuate themselves into his arrangements and decisions, he is certainly not his own master. These unconscious factors owe their existence to the autonomy of the archetypes (subconscious images or impressions). Modern man protects himself against seeing his own split state by a system of compartments. Certain areas of outer life and of his own behavior are kept, as it were, in seperate drawers and are never confronted with one another.
As an example of this so-called compartment psychology, I remember the case of an alcoholic who had come under the laudable influence of a certain religious movement, and, fascinated by its enthusiasm, had forgotten that he needed a drink. He was obviously and miraculously cured by Jesus, and he was correspondingly displayed as a witness to divine grace or to the efficiency of the said religious organization. But after a few weeks of public confessions, the novelty began to pale and some alcoholic refreshment seemed to be required, and so he drank again. But this time the helpful organization came to the conclusoin that the case was "pathological" and obviously not suitable for an intervention by Jesus, so they put him into a clinic to let the doctor do better than the divine Healer. This is an aspect of the modern "cultural" mind that is worth looking into. It shows an alarming degree of dissociation and psychological confusion.
If, for a moment, we regard mankind as one individual, we see that the human race is like a person carried away by unconscious powers; and the human race also likes to keep certain problems tucked away in seperate drawers. But this is why we should give a great deal of consideration to what we are doing, for mankind is now threatened by self-created and deadly dangers that are growing beyond our control. Our world is, so to speak, dissociated like a neurotic, with the Iron Curtain marking the symbolic line of division. Western man, becoming aware of the aggressive will to power of the East, sees himself forced to take extraordinary measures of defense, at the same time as he prides himself on his virtue and good intentions.
What he fails to see is that it is his own vices, which he has covered up by good international manners, that are thrown back in his face by the communist world, shamelessly and methodically. What the West has tolerated, but secretly and with a slight sense of shame (the diplomatic lie, systematic deception, veiled threats), comes back into the open and in full measure form the East and ties us up in neurotic knots. it is the face of his own evil shadow that grins at Western man from the other side of the Iron Curtain.
It is this state of affairs that explains the peculiar feeling of helplessness of so many people in Western societies. They have begun to realize that the difficulties confronting us are moral problems, and that the attempts to answer them by a policy of piling up nuclear arms or by economic "competition" is acheiving little, for it cuts both ways. Many of us now understand that moral and mental means would be more efficient, since they could provide us with psychic immunity against the ever-increasing infection.
But all such attempots have proved singularly ineffective, and will do so as long as we try to convince ourselves and the world that it is only they (that is, our opponents) who are wrong. It would be much more to the point for us to make a serious attempt to recognize our own shadow and its nefarious doings. If we could se our shadow (the dark side of our nature), we should be immune to any moral and mental infection and insinuation. As matters now stand, we lay ourselves open to every infection, because we are really doing practically the same thing as they. Only we have the additional disadvantage that we neither see nor want to understand what we ourselves are doing, under the cover of good manners.
The communist world, it may be noted, has one big myth (which we call an illusion, in the vain hope that our superior judgement will make it disappear). It is the time-hallowed archetypical dream of a Golden Age (or Paradise), where everything is provided in abundance for everyone, and a great, just, and wise cheif chief rules over a human kindergarten. This powerful archetype in its infantile form has gripped them, but it will never disappear from the world at the mere sight of our superior points of view. We even support it by our own childishness, for our Western civilization is in the grip of the same mythology. Unconsciously, we cherish the same prejudices, hopes, and expectations. We too believe in the welfare state, in universal peace, in the equality of man, in his eternal human rights, in justice, truth, and (do not say it too loudly) in the Kingdom of God on Earth.
The sad truth is that man's real life consists of a complex of inexorable opposites- day and night, birth and death, happiness and misery, good and evil. We are not even sure that one will prevail against the other, that good will overcome evil, or joy defeat pain. Life is a battleground. it has always been, and always will be; and if it were not so, existence would come to an end.
It was precisely this conflict within man that led early Christians to expect and hope for an early end to this world, or the Buddhists to reject all earthly desires and aspirations. These basic answers would be frankly suicidal if they were not linked up with peculiar mental and moral ideas and practices that constitute the bulk of both religions and that, to a certain extent, modify their radical denial of the world.
I stress this point because, in our own time, there are millions of people who have lost faith in any kind of religion. Such people do not understnd their religion any longer. While life runs smoothly without religion, the loss remains as good as unnoticed. But when suffering comes, it is another matter. That is whne people begin to seek a way out and reflect about the meaning of life and its bewildering and painful experiences.
it is significant that the psychological doctor (within my experience) is consulted more by Jews and Protestants than by Catholics. This might be expected, for the Catholic Church still feels responsible for the cura animarum (the care of the soul's welfare). But in this scientific age, the psychiatrist is apt to be asked the questions that once belonged in the domain of the theologian. People feel that it makes, or would make, a great difference if only they had a positive belief in a meaningful way of life or in God and immortality. The specter of approaching death often gives a powerful incentive to such thoughts. From time immemorial, men have had ideas about a Supreme Being (one or several) and about the Land of the Hereafter. only today do they think they can do without such ideas.
Because we cannot discover God's throne in the sky with a radiotelescope or establish (for certain) that a beloved father or mother is still about in a more or less corporeal form, peole assume that such ideas are "not true". I would rather say that they are not "true enough", for these are conceptions of a kind that have accompanied human life from prehistoric times, and that still break through into consciousness at any provocation.
Modern man may assert that he can dispense with them, and he may bolster his opinion by insisting that there is no scientific evidence of their truth. Or he may even regret the loss of his convictions. But since we are dealing with invisible and unknowable things (for God is beyond human understanding, and there is no means of proving immortality), why should we bother about evidence? Even if we did not know by reason our need for salt in our food, we should nonetheless profit from its use. We might argue that the use of salt is a mere illusion of taste or a superstition; but it would still contribute to our well-being. Why, then, should we deprive ourselves of views that would prove helpful in crises and would give a meaning to our existence?
And how do we know that such ideas are not true? Many people would agree with me if I stated flatly that such ideas are probably illusions. What they fail to realize is that the denial is as impossible to "prove" as the assertion of religious belief. We are entirely free to choose which point of view to take; it will in any case be an arbitrary decision.
...
Publication: Man And His Symbols (c. 1960)
Essay: Approaching The Unconscious
Section: The Soul Of Man
What we call civilized consciousness has steadily separated itself from the basic instincts. But these instincts have not disappeared. They have merely lost their contact with our consciousness and are thus forced to assert themselves in an indirect fashion. This may be by means of physical symptoms in the case of a neurosis, or by means of incidents of various kinds, like unaccountable moods, unexpected forgetfulness, or mistakes in speech.
A man likes to believe that he is the master of his soul. But as long as he is unable to control his moods and emotions, or to be conscious of the myriad secret ways in which unconscious factors insinuate themselves into his arrangements and decisions, he is certainly not his own master. These unconscious factors owe their existence to the autonomy of the archetypes (subconscious images or impressions). Modern man protects himself against seeing his own split state by a system of compartments. Certain areas of outer life and of his own behavior are kept, as it were, in seperate drawers and are never confronted with one another.
As an example of this so-called compartment psychology, I remember the case of an alcoholic who had come under the laudable influence of a certain religious movement, and, fascinated by its enthusiasm, had forgotten that he needed a drink. He was obviously and miraculously cured by Jesus, and he was correspondingly displayed as a witness to divine grace or to the efficiency of the said religious organization. But after a few weeks of public confessions, the novelty began to pale and some alcoholic refreshment seemed to be required, and so he drank again. But this time the helpful organization came to the conclusoin that the case was "pathological" and obviously not suitable for an intervention by Jesus, so they put him into a clinic to let the doctor do better than the divine Healer. This is an aspect of the modern "cultural" mind that is worth looking into. It shows an alarming degree of dissociation and psychological confusion.
If, for a moment, we regard mankind as one individual, we see that the human race is like a person carried away by unconscious powers; and the human race also likes to keep certain problems tucked away in seperate drawers. But this is why we should give a great deal of consideration to what we are doing, for mankind is now threatened by self-created and deadly dangers that are growing beyond our control. Our world is, so to speak, dissociated like a neurotic, with the Iron Curtain marking the symbolic line of division. Western man, becoming aware of the aggressive will to power of the East, sees himself forced to take extraordinary measures of defense, at the same time as he prides himself on his virtue and good intentions.
What he fails to see is that it is his own vices, which he has covered up by good international manners, that are thrown back in his face by the communist world, shamelessly and methodically. What the West has tolerated, but secretly and with a slight sense of shame (the diplomatic lie, systematic deception, veiled threats), comes back into the open and in full measure form the East and ties us up in neurotic knots. it is the face of his own evil shadow that grins at Western man from the other side of the Iron Curtain.
It is this state of affairs that explains the peculiar feeling of helplessness of so many people in Western societies. They have begun to realize that the difficulties confronting us are moral problems, and that the attempts to answer them by a policy of piling up nuclear arms or by economic "competition" is acheiving little, for it cuts both ways. Many of us now understand that moral and mental means would be more efficient, since they could provide us with psychic immunity against the ever-increasing infection.
But all such attempots have proved singularly ineffective, and will do so as long as we try to convince ourselves and the world that it is only they (that is, our opponents) who are wrong. It would be much more to the point for us to make a serious attempt to recognize our own shadow and its nefarious doings. If we could se our shadow (the dark side of our nature), we should be immune to any moral and mental infection and insinuation. As matters now stand, we lay ourselves open to every infection, because we are really doing practically the same thing as they. Only we have the additional disadvantage that we neither see nor want to understand what we ourselves are doing, under the cover of good manners.
The communist world, it may be noted, has one big myth (which we call an illusion, in the vain hope that our superior judgement will make it disappear). It is the time-hallowed archetypical dream of a Golden Age (or Paradise), where everything is provided in abundance for everyone, and a great, just, and wise cheif chief rules over a human kindergarten. This powerful archetype in its infantile form has gripped them, but it will never disappear from the world at the mere sight of our superior points of view. We even support it by our own childishness, for our Western civilization is in the grip of the same mythology. Unconsciously, we cherish the same prejudices, hopes, and expectations. We too believe in the welfare state, in universal peace, in the equality of man, in his eternal human rights, in justice, truth, and (do not say it too loudly) in the Kingdom of God on Earth.
The sad truth is that man's real life consists of a complex of inexorable opposites- day and night, birth and death, happiness and misery, good and evil. We are not even sure that one will prevail against the other, that good will overcome evil, or joy defeat pain. Life is a battleground. it has always been, and always will be; and if it were not so, existence would come to an end.
It was precisely this conflict within man that led early Christians to expect and hope for an early end to this world, or the Buddhists to reject all earthly desires and aspirations. These basic answers would be frankly suicidal if they were not linked up with peculiar mental and moral ideas and practices that constitute the bulk of both religions and that, to a certain extent, modify their radical denial of the world.
I stress this point because, in our own time, there are millions of people who have lost faith in any kind of religion. Such people do not understnd their religion any longer. While life runs smoothly without religion, the loss remains as good as unnoticed. But when suffering comes, it is another matter. That is whne people begin to seek a way out and reflect about the meaning of life and its bewildering and painful experiences.
it is significant that the psychological doctor (within my experience) is consulted more by Jews and Protestants than by Catholics. This might be expected, for the Catholic Church still feels responsible for the cura animarum (the care of the soul's welfare). But in this scientific age, the psychiatrist is apt to be asked the questions that once belonged in the domain of the theologian. People feel that it makes, or would make, a great difference if only they had a positive belief in a meaningful way of life or in God and immortality. The specter of approaching death often gives a powerful incentive to such thoughts. From time immemorial, men have had ideas about a Supreme Being (one or several) and about the Land of the Hereafter. only today do they think they can do without such ideas.
Because we cannot discover God's throne in the sky with a radiotelescope or establish (for certain) that a beloved father or mother is still about in a more or less corporeal form, peole assume that such ideas are "not true". I would rather say that they are not "true enough", for these are conceptions of a kind that have accompanied human life from prehistoric times, and that still break through into consciousness at any provocation.
Modern man may assert that he can dispense with them, and he may bolster his opinion by insisting that there is no scientific evidence of their truth. Or he may even regret the loss of his convictions. But since we are dealing with invisible and unknowable things (for God is beyond human understanding, and there is no means of proving immortality), why should we bother about evidence? Even if we did not know by reason our need for salt in our food, we should nonetheless profit from its use. We might argue that the use of salt is a mere illusion of taste or a superstition; but it would still contribute to our well-being. Why, then, should we deprive ourselves of views that would prove helpful in crises and would give a meaning to our existence?
And how do we know that such ideas are not true? Many people would agree with me if I stated flatly that such ideas are probably illusions. What they fail to realize is that the denial is as impossible to "prove" as the assertion of religious belief. We are entirely free to choose which point of view to take; it will in any case be an arbitrary decision.
...
0
-
WOW thats a lot of reading!!!!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
And how do we know that such ideas are not true? Many people would agree with me if I stated flatly that such ideas are probably illusions. What they fail to realize is that the denial is as impossible to "prove" as the assertion of religious belief. We are entirely free to choose which point of view to take; it will in any case be an arbitrary decision.
Jung in his usual manner confounds two distinct types of discourse, namely, the language of the laboratory and the language of the salon. When Jung states that the truth of some matter is secondary to its heuristic value or possible benefit derived, he is doing so not as a scientist, but as a lay person; and in this regard he is simply advantaging his repute in one area to weight a personal opinion in another, one for which the rigors of science obviously are not possible, much less relevant.
Fact is, fostering a Santa Claus myth to get children to behave lest they get coal in their stocking is not the same as fostering a theist myth to get people to behave for similar purpose. The truth or lack of it as regards the Santa Claus myth is unimportant because very little hangs in the balance; not so with belief in dieties, which has real world repercussions and in whose belief and non-belief people have slaughtered one another for thousands of years, and this regardless of any personal benefits realized.
That it is impossible to disprove something does not on that account add one iota of weight or truth or meaning to the thing so posited (you can say as much about unicorns and the Easter Bunny), and Jung certainly is not speaking as a scientist in this regard. Fact is, the imponderability of propositions is precisely what distinguishes parlor talk from science, and the text presented here rightfully ranks up there with The Star and People Magazine for information value.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
And how do we know that such ideas are not true? Many people would agree with me if I stated flatly that such ideas are probably illusions. What they fail to realize is that the denial is as impossible to "prove" as the assertion of religious belief. We are entirely free to choose which point of view to take; it will in any case be an arbitrary decision.
Jung in his usual manner confounds two distinct types of discourse, namely, the language of the laboratory and the language of the salon. When Jung states that the truth of some matter is secondary to its heuristic value or possible benefit derived, he is doing so not as a scientist, but as a lay person; and in this regard he is simply advantaging his repute in one area to weight a personal opinion in another, one for which rigors of science pbviously are not relevant, much less possible.
Fact is, fostering a Santa Claus myth to get children to behave lest they get coal in their stocking is not the same as fostering a theist myth to get people to behave for similar purpose. The truth or lack of it as regards the Santa Claus myth is unimportant because very little hangs in the balance; not so with belief in dieties, which has real world repercussions and in whose belief and non-belief people have slaughtered one another for thousands of years, and this regardless of any personal benefits realized.
That it is impossible to disprove something does not on that account add one iota of weight or truth or meaning to the thing so posited (you can say as much about unicorns and the Easter Bunny), and Jung certainly is not speaking as a scientist in this regard. Fact is, the imponderability of propositions is precisely what distinguishes parlor talk from science, and the text presented here rightfully ranks up there with The Star and People Magazine for information value.
But, what about the tooth fairy? Don0 -
But, DWS, when he pointed out that what we feared in the communist threat was exactly what we ourselves espoused here in the West: feed us, care for us, make our decisions and we'll be content and no trouble, I hear a mullah's call to prayer. We face Islam with the same blind eye. History is replete with examples of western barbarism; yet Islamic atrocities are held up as examples for fearing and hating them.
Your dismissal of his essay for the reasons you give is why I feel comfortable with him---he does mix the lab with the salon; most of us do.
Great to see a substantive post.
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
Your dismissal of his essay for the reasons you give is why I feel comfortable with him---he does mix the lab with the salon; most of us do.
That you "feel comfortable" with him is precisely the point. We do not likewise "feel comfortable" with Newton or Einstein because in science uptake of the propositions offered matters not one iota; that you agree with Jung (or Freud before him or Adler or Rogers after) has nothing to do with any actual evidence given in their support, but rather only that they contain apposite and felicitous counterparts to your own experience. And of course this, in turn, begs the question: Who the hell are you to say the way the world IS (not just the way the world IS TO YOU)?
It isn't just that Jung's "analysis" doesn't leave us any more knowledgeable when it leaves us; it's that it doesn't leave us any more knowledgeable than when it found us. It only makes explicit what anyone must already believe in order for his "analysis" to have a point. But from the fact that it has a point, it does not follow that it is true.
Jung is being a poet here. Ergo: zzz-zzz-zzz0 -
read the bible.
proverbs 1,7.
romans 1,18-22.
underline 22.
[;)]
http://www.surprisingdiscoveries.com/main2.htm0 -
quote:Originally posted by bobski
read the bible.
proverbs 1,7.
romans 1,18-22.
underline 22
...or the Quran
...or the Bhagavad Gita
...or...
zzz-zzz-zzz0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
Your dismissal of his essay for the reasons you give is why I feel comfortable with him---he does mix the lab with the salon; most of us do.
That you "feel comfortable" with him is precisely the point. We do not likewise "feel comfortable" with Newton or Einstein because in science uptake of the propositions offered matters not one iota; that you agree with Jung (or Freud before him or Adler or Rogers after) has nothing to do with any actual evidence given in their support, but rather only that they contain apposite and felicitous counterparts to your own experience. And of course this, in turn, begs the question: Who the hell are you to say the way the world IS (not just the way the world IS TO YOU)?
It isn't just that Jung's "analysis" doesn't leave us any more knowledgeable when it leaves us; it's that it doesn't leave us any more knowledgeable than when it found us. It only makes explicit what anyone must already believe in order for his "analysis" to have a point. But from the fact that it has a point, it does not follow that it is true.
Jung is being a poet here. Ergo: zzz-zzz-zzz
I know that was your point. My world is fashioned such that I can devote my time to the fantastic; I do not dwell on the why, but rather on the sense. Your arguments, it seems to me (safe caveat) are always centered in the logical though I know you have a lyrical side as well. I have always found such posts interesting and informative, just a little sophistic sometimes.
So Jung could be a poet, too. I applaud that.
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by bobski
read the bible.
proverbs 1,7.
romans 1,18-22.
underline 22.
[;)]
Read Mad Magazine, 1978/June, page 31.
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
So Jung could be a poet, too. I applaud that.
Unfortunately, the suffering of untold millions from mental disease over the millennia is neither served nor abated by the contemplative excursions of poets posing as scientists. There is as much science in Freud and Jung as there is in Austen and Proust; and Austen and Proust are infinitely better writers, without the pretense of trafficking hypotheses.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
So Jung could be a poet, too. I applaud that.
Unfortunately, the suffering of untold millions from mental disease over the millennia is neither served nor abated by the contemplative excursions of poets posing as scientists. There is as much science in Freud and Jung as there is in Austen and Proust; and Austen and Proust are infinitely better writers, without the pretense of trafficking hypotheses.
Proust understood the value of refection and introspection; his conclusions that were woven into his work could not stand any of your scientific tests. Does that make his hypothetical any less valuable? Austen simply leaves me cold.
Mental illness is best treated as a disease of the brain and left out of the realm of 'soul' healers.
Clouder..
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
Proust understood the value of refection and introspection; his conclusions that were woven into his work could not stand any of your scientific tests. Does that make his hypothetical any less valuable?
I rather thought that was my point. And further to that point, neither Proust nor Austen are part of any curriculum for a Psychology degree. Why not? Because they didn't sport lab coats and clipboards?0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
Proust understood the value of refection and introspection; his conclusions that were woven into his work could not stand any of your scientific tests. Does that make his hypothetical any less valuable?
I rather thought that was my point. And further to that point, neither Proust nor Austen are part of any curriculum for a Psychology degree. Why not? Because they didn't sport lab coats and clipboards?
Yes, it is; I wasn't disagreeing, I was suggesting that Jung, like Proust, accepted there was more to us than can be proven, that science is not the end all, that we are human and must live as such.
Why are Proust and Austen not in the cirriculum? Proust could be, as could Aristotle and Socrates and the program might be richer for it. All rock and no mortar is a rubble pile in waiting.
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
All rock and no mortar is a rubble pile in waiting.
Wally, Wally, Wally: Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next. Reminder that there must be more to us than can be proven is provided every day in belles lettres, and this only as it should be. Science, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter; if you dare to proffer explanations or prophylactic claims for the diagnosis and treatment of mental disease, you better be able to do more than only restate what is illustrated in any good novel; and when those explanations and claims fail to effect even a modicum of remission, do not then stroke your beard and wisely posit that there must be "more to us than can be proven".0 -
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
But, DWS, when he pointed out that what we feared in the communist threat was exactly what we ourselves espoused here in the West: feed us, care for us, make our decisions and we'll be content and no trouble, I hear a mullah's call to prayer. We face Islam with the same blind eye. History is replete with examples of western barbarism; yet Islamic atrocities are held up as examples for fearing and hating them.very observative! what held true then holds true today even with different circumstances. what he said must be right.
DWS, it's not a research paper, it's an essay. you discover your discoveries with research, you present and explain them with an essay, which of course will include opinion and a divergence from strictly scientific terms. so as you have already done your thinking and are presenting your argument in the same mode.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
DWS, it's not a research paper, it's an essay.
It is neither. And neither Freud, Jung, Adler nor Rogers discovered their "discoveries" through research; they invented them.
I suggest that before you presume to instruct on the merits of these poets posing as scientists that you do your own research into the matter; ask why the precepts fostered by each of them are all but wholly abandoned by the community they serve every twenty or thirty years in favor of a new darling with a new paradigm; ask yourself why no more is known about the "unconscious" or "id" or "ego" or "animus" today than was posited over a hundred years ago; and ask yourself why patients who seek psychoanalytic treatment today still have no better symptom remission rate than those who do not. And while your at it, do not further presume that by saying I have already done my thinking on the matter that it in any way equates to wrong thinking, unless, of course, you would care to offer reasoned rejoinder to the contrary.0 -
And to the crux as I see it: can what we are discussing be captured as science? Given all that you suppose: proofs, concrete evidence, empirical evidence, and so forth, can psychology be a science?
I spring for the metaphor because that's the way I think. Are you suggesting that thought without a conclusion is a waste? That moving between metaphors is folly? Offering one as an example of how one sees a subject, shallow? I have no beard and concluded long ago that wise men earned the title: I have not.
You are a sceintist, Rob, I a dreamer.
You gonna be home the last week in September?
Clouder..0 -
quote:Originally posted by whiteclouder
Are you suggesting that thought without a conclusion is a waste? That moving between metaphors is folly? Offering one as an example of how one sees a subject, shallow?
No, I'm suggesting that it isn't science. That, and when it comes to the treatment of human disease metaphors don't get it done (hence the mess in psychology today).
I'll be home the last week of September. I'm having a bunch of Neo-Jedi's over to Simonize my Kubota.0 -
quote:Originally posted by DancesWithSheep
I'll be home the last week of September. I'm having a bunch of Neo-Jedi's over to Simonize my Kubota.
Thats right, Matty only shines the hummer. Don0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
Thats right, Matty only shines the hummer. Don
So true. But never has my Hummer been more tumescent in moonlight.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
20 comments