Lies and Truth, Epistemology and Semiotics, to Know Mugi is to know God (Yuri-ka!), The Quixotic Quest of Language; and OH YES Eureka 7

eureka 7 14 stoner typing

[This post is quite indulgent, and contains no spoilers].

I’ve fallen pretty hard for Eureka SeveN, having experienced it so far as a delightful coming-of-age love story and the power of friendship with interesting characters painstakingly fleshed out against a backdrop of fruity science fiction and sky-surfing robots. What I didn’t expect is how a recap episode — a convention in anime that most of the time that is treated as filler, provoked me intellectually more than any other show that I’ve seen in years.

What follows is my exploration of the rhetoric of one Stoner, a member of Gekko State and writing staff of Ray=Out magazine. I did not count on him spouting the kind of goobledygook that ended up being so relevant to my interests.

The recap episode puts us in Stoner’s head, as he types we are presented with the recapitulation of the story up until that pointm, from the perspective of Renton and Gekkostate.

Stoner’s monologue [abridged, and this sequence is delivered as if he is writing an article for Ray=Out]:

People ignore the ture essence of things and merely talk about their outer appearance. What can one possibly gain by simply conforming to this trend and piling up more empty words? If you can’t easily convey it, then you should put effort in it. If you don’t want to put in the effort, you should maintain eternal silence until you take leave of this world.

And that’s what they were proving. To the riders waiting for the big wave, the fact that they exist at that moment is all that there is to express. The only way to expres everything is via personal experiences. Those whose expressive capabilities were limited to such a simple, inherent language, with the help of fundamental reality at the core of that simplicity, were able to express it into words.What do they refer to? Reality. But those are nothing but shallow words. People will just despise them as a simple list of words. But who really understands the truth? Simply explaining what they saw in front of them with sugarcoated words…

It’s that very thing that detracts from the phenomenon. A phenomenon is nothing but a phenomenon. In order to speak of the phenomenon, you must become the phenomenon itself. However, we cannot become the phenomenon itself, because it’s latent at a point we do not occupy… and manifests itself at that point. That’s right. The phenomenon still occurs even if we aren’t there. It just leaves something behind for the ones who have witnessed it. So will that become something that’ll hurt them? And even that has nothing to do with the waves.

Cryptic? To a degree, yes. The first paragraph tells me that Stoner is no existentialist, believing in “the true essence of things,” that if described in “simple, inherent language” is the very thing that “detracts from the phenomenon.” Stoner seems to believe that the truth cannot be arrived at through language. “In order to speak of the phenomenon, you must become the phenomenon itself,” which he admits is something “we cannot become.”

You can never speak the truth, but you can be it.

This is how Stoner occurs to me. I imagine the anguish he must feel (he is no existentialist though!) how his work, his vocation is entirely about representation. He is a writer, a journalist, and a photographer. He is in a Quixotic quest to represent truth with tools that are doomed to falsify it. Dr. lolikit told me that Friedrich Nietzche held that all language, being representative, and nothing but representations of other things, are lies. This is not necessarily a moral issue.

In his essay “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense,” Friedrich Nietzsche sets out to demonstrate that the line between “truth” and “lies” as it is commonly perceived is in fact a line between one set of lies and another. He contests our ability to comprehend the real truth of anything, claiming that by the time an idea or image has reached our brain, it is already nothing more than an interpretation of a nerve stimulus—this transition, according to Nietzsche, is “metaphor.” It is because all language and its derivatives—communication of ideas, scientific knowledge—are couched in metaphor that any attempt to tell a truth is futile. Because all language is metaphorical, it is impossible, Nietzsche says, to tell anything but a lie. For this reason, Nietzsche rejects the common perception of lies as inherently bad. In so doing, he justifies three things: firstly, the act of lying according to his definition; secondly, the act of “lying” according to society; and thirdly, the drive for a sense of truth that leads society to have its fallacious definition of lying […]

[…] Nietzsche claims that it is impossible for us to know, and subsequently tell, truths, effectively illustrating that all language is metaphorical. In showing that truth is unattainable and lies ubiquitous, Nietzsche demonstrates the nonmorality of lying and justifies both it (whether it’s used to deceive or not) and the drive for a sense of truth that bestows upon us our fallacious distinction between “truth” and “lies.” His essay leaves us with a utilitarian sense of truth and the knowledge that a liar is not a criminal for lying alone.

Dr. lolikit “Rhetoric 20 Final” 5/9/09 Wed 2-3 Section UC Berkeley

If Stoner had read this particular Nietzche, I wager he’d feel better about the impossible relationship between representation and truth. He shouldn’t feel too specially ‘victimized’ by being a ‘career liar.’ Everyone fundamentally lies, as long as one uses words, language, and any system of representation.

k-on 06 mugi yui cosplay

In the beginning there was the word, and the word became flesh. I am personally more inclined to follow this claim. All knowledge only exists as language. If you don’t have a word for it, a symbol or sign for it, you don’t know it! Let’s talk K-ON! for a bit (because I’m not above being a whore!tertiary commenter on this trend): If you’re asked, “Why is Mio so special?” and you say “I don’t have the words for it, I just know!” it means that you really don’t know why.  All it says is that you want us to know that Mio is special to you. If you don’t have words for it, you do not know whatever ‘it’ is. Ritsu however, has fans who know what they like and why they like it: invoking the freaking Golden Ratio as a cause/justification for their appreciation. ‘They’ is perhaps hyperbole, only 1 guy likes Ritsu). I’ve had my Yuri-ka moment and found God (or at least deux ex machina), and have picked Mugi as my favorite. Yes I have the words as to why, but I don’t have to say them here.

God and language is a story as old as religion. The multitude of languages is explained by the Tower of Babel legend. The population of the Earth was recovering after the great flood, and they migrated from the East (of Eden?) speaking one language. They had started building a tower erected to celebrate their own glory, so that they may have a place to gather around and be united in language and culture (this is a Protoculture legend too!). However,God, seeing what the people were doing, confounded their languages and scattered the people throughout the earth. It had been God’s original purpose for mankind to grow and fill the earth. God in the OT is bad ass.

eureka 7 14 anemone dream imagery toilet bowl

It has been the project of writers of the likes of James Joyce and Jorge Luis Borges to (re)create this perfect language, even if only for the purpose of art (whatever that is). Italian novelist and semiotician Umberto Eco speaks eloquently of their related but independent projects.

[Talking about Borges who read Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels]

Swift could not avoid producing something very close to the Library of Babel. For in order to name everything in the universe men would need a dictionary made up entirely of things, and the size of this dictionary would match the extent of the entire cosmos. Once more there would be no difference between Library and universe. […]

[Thomas Pavel’s mental experiment]

[…] Let us imagine that  an omniscient being  is capable of writing or reading a Magnum Opus containing all the true statements regarding the real world and all possible worlds. Naturally, since one can speak of the universe in different languages, and each language defines it in a different way, there still must exist a set of all Magna Opera. Now let us suppose that God entrusts some angels to write Daily Books for each man, where they record all the statements (regarding the possible worlds of his desires and hopes and the real world of his actions) that correspond to a true statement in one of the books that make up the set of all Magna Opera. The Daily Book of each individual must be displayed on the Day of Judgment, along with the collection of those Books that evaluate the lives of families, tribes, and nations.

But the angel writing a Daily Book not only writes down true statements: he links them together, evaluates them, constructs them into a system. And since individuals and groups alike will have defending angels on the Day of Judgment, these defenders will rewrite for each of them another, endless series of Daily Books, where the same statements will be connected in a different way, and compared differently with the statements in one of the Magna Opera.

Such infinite alternative worlds are part of every one of the infinite Magna Opera, the angels will write countless Daily Books, in which there will be a jumble of statements that are true in one world and false in another. If we then imagine that some angels are not very skillful, and they mix up statements that a single Magnum Opus records as mutually contradictory, we will end up with a series of Compendia, Miscellanies, and compendia of fragments of miscellanies, which will amalgamate different layers of books of different origin, and at that point it will be very difficult to say which books are true and which are fictitious, and in relation to which original book. We will have an astronomical infinity of books, each of which hovers between different worlds, and the result will be that we regard as fictitious stories that others have considered true.

Umberto Eco “Between La Mancha and Babel” On Literature (2004)

Umberto Eco believes that Pavel suggests that we are already living in such a world, where the angels include the likes of Homer, James Joyce, and Jorge Luis Borges. The latter two notable as heroes of literary experimentalism (which make them my heroes too!). He goes on:

I believe that literary experimentalism works on a space we might call the world of languages. But a language, as lignuists know, has two sides. On one side the signifier, on the other the signified. The signifier organizes sounds, while the signified arranges ideas. And it is not that this organization of ideas, which constitutes the form of a particular culture, is independent from language, because we know a culture only through the way in which language has organized the still-unformed data about our contact with the continuum of the world. Without language there would be no ideas, but a mere stream of experience that has not been processed or thought about.

Working experimentally on language and the culture it conveys means therefore working on two fronts: on the signifier front, playing with words (and through the destruction and re-organization of words ideas are reorganized); and playing with ideas, and therefore pushing words to touch on new and undreamed-of horizons.

So Joyce played with words, Borges with ideas, and Eco is playing Stoner, and Nietzche is calling me a liar, or at least, that’s what Dr. lolikit tells me. So is Stoner’s ‘phenomenon’ but an idea that we lie about in order to signify it? Is the phenomenon even ‘real’? What is real? Real as in the ‘real’ in real robot anime? How real is that?! Is Eureka SeveN a real robot anime? Am I being real about this post? Am I just pretending to intellectualism?

The blog post as an essay presents itself as a method for exposition and explanation, a sincere attempt as it seems, to get closer to the truth. And yet if the bony people behind Eureka SeveN really considered these things, I actually applaud their method: make a robot anime. Joyce wrote Finnegans Wake, Borges did his own thing (whatever that truly is!), Nietzche sprach through Zarathustra, Jesus presented his teachings as parables and poetry. Dr. lolikit lets us appreciate the beauty and the possibility of the lie through his reading of Nietzche. The lies are but the stories we tell each other (sometimes, animated stories… with robots!), and somehow through the interplay of stories — the subject’s and the reader’s truths distinguish themselves.

Don’t ask me how. I’m may be good at starting things, but it takes a bolder brand of blogger to kill authors and end theory.

eureka 7 14 nirvash type zero transformation

Further Reading

The Tower of Babel (wikipedia) [->]
How I started falling in love with Eureka SeveN. [->]
How the show assaulted my preferences (B-PART of linked post). [->]
I talk about keeping it real in real robot anime. [->]
But is Eureka SeveN a real robot show? Use this system to find out! (Vendredi 2009/04/20)
Recap episodes can be made of win sometimes. [->]
Stoner, showing a bit of character. (21stcenturydigitalboy 2008/12/28)
The kind of blog post in Superfanicom that inspired this exploration. (Pontifus 2008/10/23)
What the freaking hell does lolikitean even mean? Does the good doctor even know?
If I had to post all of this on twitter, as some philosophy is done, it would take over 80 tweets to do it.
Someone who knows his Mio. (ETERNAL 2009/05/19)

About ghostlightning

I entered the anime blogging sphere as a lurker around Spring 2008. We Remember Love is my first anime blog. Click here if this is your first time to visit WRL.
This entry was posted in analysis, Eureka SeveN, fanboy, K-ON!!! and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Lies and Truth, Epistemology and Semiotics, to Know Mugi is to know God (Yuri-ka!), The Quixotic Quest of Language; and OH YES Eureka 7

  1. Haha! Did you grade Lolikit’s final paper?

  2. Ryan A says:

    You left out the math and physics club. Some names: Gödel, Frege, Russell, Whitmore, Penrose…. and about truth, there’s this guy.

    • ghostlightning says:

      That says more about my lack of ability to read them (and do math), than a conscious decision to ignore their contribution to the conversation of the real.

      • Ryan A says:

        lol, I was playing around about those names, but I feel it’d be cool to mention mathematics when speaking of languages, since it is something innate to the universe, yet we must find ways to contain it’s meaning within words and symbols. Whether we define it or not, it is still an existing truth. Physics is not necessary… I just wanted to pun Math and Physics Club, the band.

        It’s a solidawesome entry nonetheless! The culture of Gekko State is so rad.

        • ghostlightning says:

          LOL NICE PUN!

          The tricky part is whether there is a meaning by default that we just represent via symbols, or, we manufacture the meanings ourselves? While I don’t think of this as a strict dichotomy, I do think there’s a strong relationship between these ideas.

          Is there a ‘real’ zero? Or do we need zero to exist to make sense of other things. We invent imaginary numbers to fill in the blanks of complex solutions/equations. We invent words for abstractions we want to articulate.

          The essentialist stance that there are absolute essences of ideas, if not matter. “The word became flesh” as a statement suggests that signification created the world. Mathematics itself is a language to represent ideas and abstractions. This much, I can say about it.

          • Ryan A says:

            Mathematics is part language indeed, but it isn’t necessarily something manufactured or defined to exist, it is observed in the universe, especially through physics.

            Whether we put words to it or not, the physical world is modeled in mathematical formulas (curvature of space-time has always existed, but it wasn’t discovered until Einstein’s papers). Physics is an observation of reality in which mathematics makes a meaningful appearance; observation, as opposed to a definition or invention.

            An example one might find is that of Pythagorean theorem. And the question to ask is, did right triangles contain the relation a^2 + b^2 = c^2 before the discovery of said theorem?

            Perhaps words/symbols in language (including math) are inventions needed to standardize meaning, but the semantics of math are on a more fundamental/universal level, as compared to spoken language, representing many fundamental concepts such as fire, water, space, though also represents a set of concepts which aren’t universal, and only apply to our remote existence as humans or life on Earth.

            Perhaps is this where our spoken languages cannot be true (lies), because it is not fully a universal observation. That being said, I believe there are some theories on the existence of remote truths, not sure where…

            If we cannot assess the scope of a lie, we cannot see where it is false. It may, in fact, be remotely true. Dualities in the quantum world seem to enjoy these situations, lol.

            Nietzsche’s stuff sounds similar to the whole YWHW thing in some sense.

          • ghostlightning says:

            I don’t have the chops to talk math, but with regards to the chicken vs. egg nature of signifier and signified, there has to be some observance. The phenomena must be observed. Nietzche argues that since any representation cannot be subject, it is therefore false. He just makes it clear that transmitting this falsification is not morally corrupt.

            There would have to be intention for deceit and defrauding, for such a falsification to be immoral.

            But to take it to the quantum levels of uncertainty just to challenge a person’s claim would be a form of moral falsification (in the form of rhetoric) in my view. We can and do operate on practical ‘truths’ even as anthropomorphic they are (in Nietzche’s view).

          • Ryan A says:

            Ah, last two sentences of the first paragraph are good clarity. ^^ Anthropomorphic.. we humans do like to reside comfortably.

            As much as math can sort of be excluded, it’s metaphysics are quite interesting on the topic of language (vs the principles). The mathematical principles need not be understood. Found this “debate” walk-through interesting [link].

          • ghostlightning says:

            *MIND AXPLODE*

            That was an awesome read, and I wish I could say I get it at the level of being able to replicate it in conversation.

          • animekritik says:

            i was gonna say, some mathematicians don’t believe in the reality of numbers. eg brouwer

  3. Cuchlann says:

    I’ve adored Nietzsche’s “Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense” since I read it my first semester as a grad. student. It’s been through several translations — mine was in the ubiquitous (and enormous) blue book of theory, the Norton collection of theory and criticism. You should definitely read it sometime. I’m sure it’s available online, hold on… here’s a version [->].

    Nietzsche actually claims, in fact, that the first lie is that we can describe things in the first place. The second lie is the language that tries to do so.

    • ghostlightning says:

      Nietzsche actually claims, in fact, that the first lie is that we can describe things in the first place. The second lie is the language that tries to do so.

      FFFFF. Intense. We then live completely in lies – but this is not necessarily a bad thing, because some of the lies come in the form of Eureka SeveN.

      Thanks for the link!

  4. Very excellent post, somehow, even if I feel like I understood it by accident – like, people shouldn’t understand what you’re saying here, but i did. And real quick

    >>Magna Opera

    Best. term. EVER.

    Anyway, I love Stoner and his existentialism, but you REALLY need to see his Crowning Moment of Awesome in the late 30 eps of the show to help you out with theory. Without spoiling anything, you could say he literally ‘becomes the phenomenon’ and changes his mind about some things in a way that really brings his view into clear focus.

    Which is why I said you should finish the show……… *cooking for the debate*

    • ghostlightning says:

      Magna Opera = plural of Magnum Opus (latin for Great Work)

      While I don’t think Stoner is existentialist based on his belief in absolute essences of things, but I may be putting too much in the dichotomy of existence vs. essence.

      I don’t think it is necessary to complete the show to be able to discuss it. Especially since I don’t aspire to conclusions, merely explorations.

      He’d be great to revisit once I’ve seen the end. This post also serves as a note of how he occurs to me or a viewer at this point of the narrative that can serve as a baseline comparison should a holistic profiling be the end objective.

      • I know what it means, I use the term ‘magnum opus’ like constantly, but this is my first encounter with magna opera.

        I’d certainly consider Stoner existentialist, but then I don’t know if I’m well enough researched to use the term properly.

        For similar reasons, I won’t reply to the rest of this comment since I don’t know what ‘baseline comparison’ or ‘holistic profiling’ means. Sometimes you really loose me with your $10 words. I take a very Ernest Hemmingway approach to writing >.>

        • ghostlightning says:

          I apologize. Allow me to explain. A baseline is kind of like the ‘before’ picture in a weight-loss advertisement. You compare the results from/with it.

          Holistic is from the word ‘whole,’ so I used it in the context of writing a complete profile. I’m afraid I haven’t read any of Hemingway’s non-fiction works, but I doubt that he’d like to write about subjects like this in a non-fiction format. He’d probably write a story where characters have curt dialogue and the events/setting serve as a metaphor for communicating abstractions.

          When I read blog posts I have trouble following the ideas, I let google and wikipedia assist me. Try it.

          • My Ernest Hemmingway comparison comes from –

            ‘William Faulkner once ragged on Ernest Hemingway, saying of his writing style that Hemingway “had never been known to use a word that might send the reader to the dictionary.” Hemingway replied, “Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.” Though I am sure I am not the first to say it: fucking owned.’

          • ghostlightning says:

            Now all you need to do is to understand are all the USD 10.00 words that you promise never to use, so people never have to learn any new words from you while you pwn Faulkner.

          • animekritik says:

            May I just add that both Hemingway and Faulkner are awesome, but that IMO Faulkner is superior (which come to think of it, might say loads about my own writing style).

          • ghostlightning says:

            I personally don’t read a lot of both, but instead introduce a different binary:

            Milan Kundera vs. Umberto Eco

            Kundera is economical with his prose, while Eco is a maximalist through and through. However, both use huge words. Both are favorite authors of mine.

            I think that it’s important that neither Faulkner (IIRC) and Hemingway are much of literary experimentalists, while Kundera and Eco both are, as far as I’m concerned. One can’t experiment much if one is limited to the words that won’t send a reader to the dictionary. Part of experimentation is even creating new words even for old abstractions.

          • animekritik says:

            never read eco or kundera. too darn recent for my taste.

          • ghostlightning says:

            ohohohohohohHOHOHOHOHOHOhoohohohoho

            Read “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” it’s right up your alley. It’s verily how I want my blog posts to read.

            Any of Eco’s novels will be a delight for you, and you can’t go wrong with any of the ff.

            “In the Name of the Rose” –most widely acclaimed.
            “Focault’s Pendulum” –craziest influence and my favorite.
            “Baudolino” –wild wild wildest trip in the middle ages. I can’t imagine how any of these will fail to DELIGHT you.

          • I’ve honestly not read any of either, save ‘old man and the sea’ when I was in 8th grade :p

          • ghostlightning says:

            That is one awesome story. Best OLD MAN GAR EVAR. Seriously great stuff.

  5. Damn you’re good…..

  6. sadakups says:

    I’ve seen the show twice, and I have NEVER thought of anything like this.

  7. ghostlightning says:

    I’ll take some credit, thanks. But don’t underestimate luck. It just so happened that I watched ep 14 just before lolikit showed me his paper, so I had Nietzche to work with (I would’ve gone the way of Kant who I dislike reading). Coincidentally I was reading that particular essay of Eco’s, which I wanted to work into a post somehow.

    But I want to quote Isamu Dyson from Macross Plus:

    “Luck is one of my skills.”

  8. lolikitsune says:

    lolikitean is a word YOU invented, ghosty.

  9. gloval says:

    Ahhh.. If only I could recall more of my philosophy lessons, somewhere about existentialism and phenomenology. Oh well, can’t contribute to the discussion right now. Maybe, with the math and physics discussion above, I’ll just share this saying: “Math is the language of Science, and Physics is its poetry.”

    The K-On! discussion in Animekritik makes me want to spin on my head, and I mean that in a good way.

    • ghostlightning says:

      Excellent quote.

      I am animekritik’s biggest fanboy, and I think I’m pretty good at fanboying. His work is just delightful isn’t it? I’m trying very hard to duplicate his light-hearted but heady romps into blogging shows that seem to be begging to be intellectually dismissed. But he’s proving to be quite inimitable.

      • animekritik says:

        If my posts have motivated you to indulge yourself more in your own posts, then I’m very proud of the fact. I think bloggers shouldn’t be afraid of “letting it all hang out”, both in choice of shows to blog and their ways to express themselves on them (including the holy amalgam style you’ve used in this post).

        There are so many interesting points on this post. God is definitely bad ass in the OT. He’d be so taken to juvenile court if he were a student in the schools of today! Total menace.

        Stoner’s phenomenon discussion smells a bit of Derridean Differance [sign = signifier + signified. The signifier is not the signified (duh). But by the time the sign comes along, the signified isn’t there. Therefore signifier = not that, signified = not there. The sign evaporates. And because everything is semiotic chains, we are left with NIHILISM.

        Nietzsche’s Lie text is indeed awesome. I think it’s in the Portable Nietzsche too!

        On K-On!, this is a good a place as any to explain that the last two episodes have left me indifferent and that as Wittgenstein said, “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”

        • ghostlightning says:

          Yes thank you. Blogging is fun, isn’t it? [“X is fun isn’t, it?” is an anime meme I’m quite fond of; commonly found in competitive (sports) anime]

          Nietzche’s fondness of the OT allowed me to appreciate it the way I do. Very Dionysian and epic compared to the Apollonian (and slave moralizing) NT.

          The thing about Stoner is that he doesn’t want to be nihilist, he wants us to be the phenomenon for what it’s worth, to strive and to do effort as Quixotic/Godotic/Sisyphean as that seems.

          The phenomenon still occurs even if we aren’t there. It just leaves something behind for the ones who have witnessed it. So will that become something that’ll hurt them? And even that has nothing to do with the waves.

          Creative reading/signification will transform the experience of the afterimage of the phenomenon. It will not hurt those who witness and choose to remember love. And by choosing to do so one can make it have everything to do with the waves.

          Nietzche will not condemn us for this lie, Pavel will read this as mere angelic errors in documentation, and Eco will just read this as literature. (early Sartre will accuse him of bad faith though; good thing I didn’t invite him to this party)

          So Stoner will be fine without having to accept nihilism.

          I would think that the Christ-less Christmas is notable in K-ON! not in that Christ is common in media portrayals of Christmas (he is in fact quite rare) in that God’s birth vis-a-vis Yui’s parents’ abandonment which results in their creation of their own divine order among the light music club.

      • >>I am animekritik’s biggest fanboy

        oh really. I’m afraid this just became a contest for ‘who’s the bigger AK fanboy’. Though you win automatically if you’ve actually read all of his Leijiverse posts.

        • ghostlightning says:

          I can’t say I’ve read all of it, but I do say that I get most of what he writes, having read some of the stuff he references and having the interest in reading those that I haven’t yet.

          I still say I win.

          • You’ll note that while I said I didn’t get bloggers like Omo and Lelangir, I never mentioned AK. I actually understand all of his posts very easily. Even though he writes about crazy shit, he writes it in very simple language and in a style that kind of feels like the Boogiepop novels, which I love. That’s why, unlike with Lelangir, I actually read his posts, lol.

  10. Pingback: Holland Novak Shows Bits of Characters: Remembering Love for Awesomeness « We Remember Love

  11. Pingback: An Overarching Methodology Behind Anime and Manga Appreciation: a Reflection « We Remember Love

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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