Ortega's Doctrine of the Point of View

@longknowledge,

I am very familiar with that idea, which is fundamental to Indian philosophy, but I don't think it has been very much appreciated by Western philosophy until the likes of Ortega.

In Indian philosophy (and I suppose in common sense) the idea you form of yourself (i.e., the ego) is naturally illusory for the very reason that you cannot be an object of perception (so what you think you're seeing is by definition unreal). So whatever you think you are, you are not. This is a difficult principle to grasp though.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;111392 wrote:

The alternative to perspectivism is really some kind of latent absolutism. Because it is a very short step from asserting the 'observer-independent reality' of whatever you're looking at, to believing that there is 'one right view'. The notion of there being an 'independent' reality is really a wish for an absolute is it not? It is an attempt to secure our perceptions to 'what is really there', as distinct from what I might project or imagine? So your 'right-thinking person' will have a better grasp of 'what is really there'?

Objectivity seems to function as a pseudo-religion, as well as being useful for science. It's usefulness I don't deride. What bothers me is humanity's making a petty-god of it. This is where motive meets epistemology and Jung meets Kant. Relativism is a boogey man for some. Objectivity is a petty-religion for others. Is democracy founded on an objective absolute? I really don't think so. Is relativism really so bad? I suggest that we are all relativists to the extent that we generously judge others by their own lights, rather than ours. How else can we enjoy historical movies, where characters fight and die for values that are not our own? We find a universal passion in idiosyncratic ideals.

@longknowledge,

I think the only reason objectivity has been put in that role is that without the traditional ethical standards associated with the spiritual tradition, what else do you have? As science deals with 'objective phenomena', then it is always seeking some ultimate reference point in the objective realm. But this seems to culminate in a state which moderns are very familiar with, but maybe without knowing exactly what it is:

Quote:

Bernstein Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis, 1983

This is where Ortega's critique and that of phenomenology generally (starting with Jaspers) is so important. Because it is seeking to really understand experience from the viewpoint of experience, not from the viewpoint of a subject in a world of objective entities....

@jeeprs,

well i don't see many raising objectivity to a petty god. More like a dismissal of the need for a god. There is faith in that of course, but faith is not restricted to beliefs in gods or even disbelief in gods. Faith comes from making a decision in the face of uncertainty alongside many kinds of evidence. But i do agree with the unforseen consequences of not only rejecting consciously other faiths out of hand but also the drip drip effect of being taken by a prevailing cultural perspective, such as that which has occured with cartesian anxiety.

I also think we should recognise that rationality though essential to objectivity, is not restricted to it either. There are consequences, especially for those of us who philosophise, of being too sucked in by rationality. eg we tend to reject narratives with contradictions in them, and in doing so chuck out the baby with the bath water. We often demand rational consistency as a kind of purity. We keep starting the search all over again. But how would such a demand be supposed to help us say bring up children?

Experience counts for a great deal, and would it not be daft to not recognise the value of a narrative with that in mind, despite its imperfections? eg father christmas.

It seems to me that celebrity through the media (which draws upon the disconnection with the real and amplifies it to environmental proportions using our techno culture) is more akin to the raising of petty gods. It is still real of course, but reality at a distance. But its a different kind of distance to our celebrities than it is to our traditional mythical characters. Father Yule can be whispered into our ears....... he is diminished if he is restricted to being on the box.

Longknowledge. How do you see ortega with respect to this phenomenon? To place more trust in the direct experience?

@longknowledge,

The alternative to perspectivism is really some kind of latent absolutism.

So, Jeepers,

if, from my perspective at a distance looking down the railroad tracks, the tracks seem to converge, would it be "latent absolutism" to think that was only an illusion, and that the tracks are not converging? Or, should I make an emergency call to the railroad people to stop the trains because there is going to be a terrible accident?

@longknowledge,

Well, no, because experience will suggest that the tracks are converging from one perspective, but are parallel from another.

I am interested in this idea of the 'observer-independent reality'. I think this is the subject of the OP. We assume that it exists and is kind of a touchstone for veridical judgement. We want to assume that the criteria for a veridical judgement is the degree to which our judgemet corresponds with what is actually there. Pragmatically it is a sure bet, but philosophically, there is still no way to show that the thing seen and the act of seeing it are ultimately distinguishable. Of course this argument has been underway since philosophy began so there will never be a slam-dunk answer to it.

Normally this line of thinking seems to point to solipsism - that 'the railway tracks are just a visual construction in my mind'.

But in addition to solipsism - everything I see is just an image generated in my mind- and realism - everything I see is an image of an objective reality - there is also the possibility that reality is the nexus of an indefinite number of individual perspectives. So in this sense 'mind' is not being depicted as 'my mind' but as a collective - 'the mind' or perhaps just 'mind'. So it is not as if I am saying 'this view exists in my mind' because the extent to which I consider the mind to be 'mine' indicates that at that moment, I am no longer considering the perspective, but the nature of 'my mind' in which it occurs. So at that instant, I am considering the thought of the perspective, not the perspective itself. So already the subject of the discussion has actually changed, if you see what I mean. But normally all of this happens - this change of focus - so quickly that we haven't noticed that the subject has changed.

(I am labouring through Merleau Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception at the moment. It is basically about this very question - all 530 pages of it. Still working on it...views subject to revision....)

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;111586 wrote:

Well, no, because experience will suggest that the tracks are converging from one perspective, but are parallel from another.

And, if you come up close and still see the convergence, then why would you then call the railroad people? It is just another perspective. Right?
What if, from another angle, you don't see the convergence? You don't really believe this stuff, do you? You don't think the argument from conflicting views, to the conclusion that there is no correct view is sound, do you?

Why do you think that what you see is "an image generated in your mind" and not, say, a cow? I don't believe I have ever seen an image generated in my mind. If it is possible, I would need a very special instrument to do that. The only way I can normally see anything is with my eyes, and my eyes are not looking at my mind. My eyes are not turned inward.

@longknowledge,

But reality is inextricably a matter of perception. Kant showed this once for all. It is unarguable. The question is, what does it mean? The immediate reaction, understandable, but I think incorrect, is that the argument is saying 'everything exists in your mind'. Recall Samuel Johnston's 'refutation' of Berkeley - kicking a stone across the courtyard and saying 'I refute it thus'. This is exactly the conversation we are having right now.

The cow, the landscape, and everything else - you and I both have a mind which organises and names all these diverse perceptions and stimuli and calls it cow, land, whatever. It doesn't mean that the cow in the paddock is make believe or fantasy. But the modern man, who is almost always a naive realist, must assume that this aspect of perception - the so-called 'empirical realm' - is 'the real', the touchstone against which every proposition is judged. This is the whole basis of positivism, and so on. Whereas the phenomenological approach actually considers the experience of perception and pays very close attention to every aspect of it, knowing, as you say, that we cannot directly make our perception of it, a further object of perception, as we are then caught in a recursion.

There is no conclusion to be had here. We cannot conclude that the cow in the paddock is completely objective, utterly (udderly?) real, except for in a pragmatic sense (i.e. we need to go and milk it.) But it is possible that to some extent, or senses deceive us, so at this moment we are with Descartes in his great doubt. So in that respect, and I think as Pagan said earlier, this is a radical argument, which is not so much seeking to prove a conclusion by a logical argument (so possibly your contention has been correct all along in that respect) but to 'make us wonder at what we think ordinary'. It is calling out to us to question the sense of solidity and reality that we attribute to 'the world'. And in this, doing what philosophy has always done.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;111586 wrote:

I am interested in this idea of the 'observer-independent reality'. I think this is the subject of the OP. We assume that it exists and is kind of a touchstone for veridical judgement. We want to assume that the criteria for a veridical judgement is the degree to which our judgemet corresponds with what is actually there. Pragmatically it is a sure bet, but philosophically, there is still no way to show that the thing seen and the act of seeing it are ultimately distinguishable. Of course this argument has been underway since philosophy began so there will never be a slam-dunk answer to it.

Well, this is the issue for me. If the Ortega is attempting to cast doubt on the observer-independent existence of whatever is perceived, it would simply be another in a long line. The presentation of the conclusion, though, suggests a reason to believe there is no observer-independent existence, that reality is the sum of perceptions. And yet not only is this a poor conclusion, since the assumption (as opposed to proof) of objective existence would explain phenomena Ortega cannot, but it is not by any stretch actually shown so far as I can see.

But reading other texts on Ortega, the shift from proof of no 'authentic view' to proof of no unperceived existence seems omnipresent, seems unjustified and seems mistaken for the same proof.

Bones

@Bones-O,

i still think we should recognise the important difference in stating that a grand narrative is incorrect because it is incomplete or self contradictory(rationally incomplete) ........ as compared to stating that although incomplete a narrative can be very powerful indeed and even reveal uniquely useful truth.

Objectivity is incomplete. I agree with ortega if he is saying that. But it doesn't follow from that that objectivity cannot bring meaning where other narratives, including ortegas are incorrect or silent. If ortega is dismissing objectivity and idealism out of hand, then i disagree with him.

Common sense tells us that we see the world. Science and objectivity say that we cannot see the real world because perception is at least in part within the brain and medium dependent. Which one is true? Well if you stick with guns blazing to common sense then dreams are real and outside the brain, which to many contradicts common sense!

If however you pull up your draw bridge and defend the 'real world' of fort objectivity, you are open to subsequent scientific measurement and theory disagreeing more radically with your fundamental perception of the world even further. eg newer study of the medium of light says 'illusion' to absolute time seperate from space, and 'illusion' to observer and observed independence. Now suddenly the enemy appears from within and has breached the walls through the use of the very weapon of defense. The objective narrative has turned in upon the defender of faith and cried 'classical logic as a foundation for reality is illusion'.

So why not use both ...... when it is appropriate to do so. I am driving to the science lab, i will use the 'i see the world directly' narrative. When i switch on the accelerator and look at the results. i use the 'objective view of reality' narrative, with whichever logic system gives the most powerful interpretation. And on getting home to see my new girlfriend ........ Smile

Looked at this way it matters not what ortega's response to objectivity and idealism is, the test is in the living value of adopting his narrative of perception and the world. Just as it is with naive realism, idealism, objectivity or any other narrative.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O!;111599 wrote:

Well, this is the issue for me. If the Ortega is attempting to cast doubt on the observer-independent existence of whatever is perceived, it would simply be another in a long line. The presentation of the conclusion, though, suggests a reason to believe there is no observer-independent existence, that reality is the sum of perceptions. And yet not only is this a poor conclusion, since the assumption (as opposed to proof) of objective existence would explain phenomena Ortega cannot, but it is not by any stretch actually shown so far as I can see.

But reading other texts on Ortega, the shift from proof of no 'authentic view' to proof of no unperceived existence seems omnipresent, seems unjustified and seems mistaken for the same proof.

Bones

Yes. And that is why his argument is as shoddy as it is. Of course, whether he has any reason for saying there is no "authentic" view, is another issue. I don't know what his argument is for that either.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O!;111599 wrote:

Well, this is the issue for me. If the Ortega is attempting to cast doubt on the observer-independent existence of whatever is perceived, it would simply be another in a long line. The presentation of the conclusion, though, suggests a reason to believe there is no observer-independent existence, that reality is the sum of perceptions. And yet not only is this a poor conclusion, since the assumption (as opposed to proof) of objective existence would explain phenomena Ortega cannot, but it is not by any stretch actually shown so far as I can see.

But Ortega is not in the business of explaining phenomena. That is what you do. Ortega, being a philosopher, is a critic of experience. Not of phenomena. If he wanted to explain phenomena, he would sign up with the CERN team.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;111655 wrote:

But Ortega is not in the business of explaining phenomena. That is what you do. Ortega, being a philosopher, is a critic of experience. Not of phenomena. If he wanted to explain phenomena, he would sign up with the CERN team.

If Ortega's view concerns experience, but is unable to say from where the experience comes, or what causes it, I would say he leaves a gaping hole. It is the same hole that Berkeley tried to plug with his God hypotheses. Ortega really ought to give me some idea of how it happens that people have generally the same view of an object from the same point of view. Why don't people have wildly different views of the object if there is no object there? It really will not do to dismiss this objection with a flippant "CERN" quip.

@longknowledge,

But again, I don't think any of this asserts that there is 'no object there'. This is what you keep coming back to. But the assertion is not made in the first place. "All knowledge is knowledge from a definite point of view". Whether we know the landscape, the cow in the paddock, or the railway tracks, we know it from a unique perspective, or from divergent views. But 'the divergence is not a contradiction, but a complement.'

longknowledge;110444 wrote:

The persistent error that has hitherto been made is the supposition that reality possesses in itself, independently of the point of view from which it is observed, a physiognomy (1) of its own. Such a theory clearly implies that no view of reality relative to any one particular standpoint would coincide with its absolute aspect, and consequently all such views would be false. But reality happens to be, like a landscape, possessed of an infinite number of perspectives, all equally veracious and authentic. The sole false perspective is that which claims to be the only one there is. In other words, that which is false is utopia, non-localised truth, which "cannot be seen from any particular place." The utopian (and such is essentially the character of the rationalist) goes further astray than anyone, since he is the spectator who loses confidence in his own point of view and deserts his post (2)

Question - are we, in this discussion, equating the 'observer independent reality' of the landscape with what Ortega is describing as 'the absolute view'. Do we think that 'what is really there' equates to the 'observer indendent reality' and that this is what Ortega is saying is a false view, or rather, a utopian view, or a view that doesn't actually exist.

Think again about the landscape. How big is this vista, exactly? Well, it has rather an indefinite size. You can't say exactly where it ends as the horizon will shift as you move around it. Does it include that tree there? Depends on whether you can see it from where you're standing. How many leaves are on that tree? Wait, some have fallen. Wait, a branch has fallen. Hang on, the tree has been chopped down. Is it 'the same' landscape now?

This is no more just a question about whether the landscape is 'really there' or not. It is also a question about what it comprises.

---------------------------------------------------
(1). Physiognomy - definition -

1. the face or countenance, esp. when considered as an index to the character: a fierce physiognomy.
2. Also called anthroposcopy. the art of determining character or personal characteristics from the form or features of the body, esp. of the face.
3. the outward appearance of anything, taken as offering some insight into its character: the physiognomy of a nation.

(2) I think this is actually very similar to the Buddhist analysis. This says that no specific thing is possessed of 'own-being' - it does not have an essential existence or reality. It does not 'exist from its own side' is one way they put it. This is the basis of the analysis of 'sunyata' or the relativity or inter-dependence of particulars (otherwise known as the doctrine of emptiness). Things don't exist 'in their own right'. But it is not nihilism - phenomena are not illusory in the sense of the horns of a rabbit or the child of a barren woman (to use the traditional illustration). It is more like they are misleading in the sense of 'mistaking a rope for a snake'. We take them the wrong way, or misinterpret their import, by ascribing to them a type of reality they don't really have. See T.R.V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.)

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;111655 wrote:

But Ortega is not in the business of explaining phenomena. That is what you do. Ortega, being a philosopher, is a critic of experience. Not of phenomena. If he wanted to explain phenomena, he would sign up with the CERN team.

You miss my point. Ortega is claiming to invalidate a philosophical idea that does explain phenomena (that is its purpose). So he started it. And in fact he is not invalidating the notion of observer-independent existence at all, merely talking about things for which it is unnecessary.

Bones

@Bones-O,

jeeprs;111586 wrote:

Well, no, because experience will suggest that the tracks are converging from one perspective, but are parallel from another.

These are two different types of perspective. One occurs when you are "seeing." The other occurs when you are "imagining," i.e., creating an image in your mind. How "imagining" is possible has not yet been explained by science, nor has "seeing" for that matter. Scientists are still "looking" into that matter and all they are finding is energy.

Quote:

I am interested in this idea of the 'observer-independent reality'. I think this is the subject of the OP. We assume that it exists and is kind of a touchstone for veridical judgment. We want to assume that the criteria for a veridical judgment is the degree to which our judgment corresponds with what is actually there.

The problem with "what is actually there" is, where is "there"? Ortega says that "there" can only be in "My Life," if by "actually" you mean "really," since for Ortega "My Life" is the "Radical Reality" in the sense that all other realities appear or are "rooted" in "My Life." So when I am "seeing," one image of the tracks is "occurring" in "My Life." When I am "imagining," I am experiencing another image of the tracks "occurring" in "My Life." Both images are "real" because they are both "occurring" in "My Life."

According to Ortega, "My Life" consists of "occurrings" (to make it active) or "happenings." Furthermore, since "My Life" consists of the interrelationships between "My I," the perceiving, thinking, deciding, acting person that "I" am, and "My Circumstance," anything Other than the "I;" more specifically, "My Life" consists of "what I do" that is "happening" or "occurring" to "My Circumstance" and "what happens to me," i.e., what is "happening" or "occurring" to "My I" from "My Circumstance."

So when I am "looking" at the railroad tracks, "I" am "doing" something with respect to "My Circumstance" and "My Circumstance" responds by "doing" something to "Me." As I have explained in another post, through the research of scientists we know that light energy that comes from the sun is absorbed by the atoms on the surface of the tracks and some of that energy is reradiated by those atoms and transmitted to the eye. The lens in the eye "inverts" the light waves and it is transmitted through the rest of the eye until it is projected on the retina at the back of the eye as an inverted image. The light energy is absorbed by the neural cells in the retina, which results in a signal being transmitted through the axons of the cells to the brain. Then, through a process that has not as yet been explained by science, the "image" of the tracks is experienced by the "I" that I am, and we experience "I am seeing the railroad tracks."

What is often neglected is that "seeing," according to physical theory[!], involves a continuous absorption of light by the atoms of the object, and a continuing reradiating some of that energy by those atoms, and a continuing transmission of the energy in inverted form by the lens and body of the eye to the retina of the eye, where it continually activates the nerve cells, and impulses are continually sent via the axons of those cells to the brain, where continually we don't know exactly what happens, but we continually experience an image in our mind.

In the case of "imagining" the "parallel" railroad tracks, we somehow decide to use our "imagination," which is like saying "give me an image that I can use to make sense out of what the image I'm experiencing in my seeing," and our "imagination" then generates a memory of having seen a similar image in the past, even if only from a drawing, and we have learned to call an image of that kind a "railroad track."

Now a scientist will insist that what "really" exists is a physical track where the different rails of the track are "parallel," which is a description of what is only approximately true for any given stretch of track, since variations in the placement of the track, however small, may occur during the installation of the track, due to the use of the track, and also due to movement of the earth (small "e") below the track. So the so-called "real" or "actual" railroad tracks are only "approximately parallel." (Are lines that curve and still remain the same distance apart considered to be "parallel" even in geometry?")

Quote:

Pragmatically it is a sure bet, but philosophically, there is still no way to show that the thing seen and the act of seeing it are ultimately distinguishable. Of course this argument has been underway since philosophy began so there will never be a slam-dunk answer to it.

Until phenomenology got a hold of it. See Phenomenology of Perception, by Merleau-Ponty. Oh, I see you're already reading it. Good!

From the above analysis, theoretically , in "perceiving" the "thing seen" there is a continuing flow of energy that is generated by the light being absorbed by the atoms, etc., and continually "reflecting" off of the "thing," and the energy being continually "transmitted" as above, resulting in, somehow, an image "occurring" to "My I" or "Me." In "thinking" or "conceiving," the "image" of previous "viewings" of railroad tracks from various perspectives, if only from pictures, may "occur to" or "be recalled by" "Me," and "I" may "do" what is called "thinking" of it by continually "holding it in mind," or "I" may "conceive" an "image" of an "ideal railroad track" where the tracks are absolutely parallel, whatever the scientific explanation for how either of those "happenings" "occur." However, both the "perceiving" and the "conceiving" are "real" in that occur in the "Radical Reality" that is "My Life."

Quote:

Normally this line of thinking seems to point to solipsism - that 'the railway tracks are just a visual construction in my mind'.

The "images" of both tracks are "occurring" in "My Life," and so they are a part of "My Reality." How they occur or whether the occur in "my mind," is still a question. Ortega's metaphysics lead to a form of "solipsism" in that each person is an "I" that is part of the "Radical Reality" that is "My Life," and they eventually learn that there are other "persons" who appear to be having the same experience as I am in "Their Life." So Ortega's philosophy can be described as a "unitary" ("My Life"), "dualism" ("My Life" consists of "I" and "My Circumstance"), as well as a "pluralism" (there are other "I"s who are experiencing the same type of "unitary dualism" that "I" am).

Quote:

But in addition to solipsism - everything I see is just an image generated in my mind- and realism - everything I see is an image of an objective reality - there is also the possibility that reality is the nexus of an indefinite number of individual perspectives. So in this sense 'mind' is not being depicted as 'my mind' but as a collective - 'the mind' or perhaps just 'mind'. So it is not as if I am saying 'this view exists in my mind' because the extent to which I consider the mind to be 'mine' indicates that at that moment, I am no longer considering the perspective, but the nature of 'my mind' in which it occurs. So at that instant, I am considering the thought of the perspective, not the perspective itself. So already the subject of the discussion has actually changed, if you see what I mean. But normally all of this happens - this change of focus - so quickly that we haven't noticed that the subject has changed.

When you are "reflecting" on your experience, you are "thinking" about an "idea" of the phenomenon of "My I seeing a railroad track," and part of that thinking may include an "image" of "My I seeing an image of a railroad track" that "occurs" to you and you continue "holding" it in your "mind." The "thinking" of "My I seeing an image of a railroad track" is different from either "My I" "seeing" an "image of the railroad track, and "My I" "imagining" other railroad tracks, either by "My I" "remembering" other images of railroad tracks or "conceiving" an image of an "ideal" railroad track.

Quote:

(I am labouring through Merleau Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception at the moment. It is basically about this very question - all 530 pages of it. Still working on it...views subject to revision....)

You mean "views" subject to "re-vision"!
You'll find the answer to the question on page "531," which is like the "nineteenth" hole on a golf course, i.e., when you have "digested" what you have read. Bon appetit!

See my next post: Ortega's Idea of Perspective - II

@longknowledge,

The advantage of idealism, that the world we perceive is created by us, implies that if we can find facts about the world that do not depend upon 'us' then we can find the true objective reality...... while simultaneously we should be suspicious of truth that is tied to ourselves. Thus superstitious and supernatural belief is suspicious because it depends upon us to validate it. The promise is a view of reality open to all and unprejudiced because it is not dependant upon any special individual or group to validate it.

The problem with this, as recognised by many, is that cold rationally mechanically discovered facts give us nothing on how to live. (Contrary to descartes.) Moreover, it reduces our view of ourselves necessarily to facts that do not depend upon us. (imagine stipulating an understanding of football without any reference to a person! It can be done, but what worth would it have? Where could the history of a particular game and the history of the sport itself ever be expressible under such ridiculous restrictions? )

Perspectivism is an attempt to overcome this trap of limitation by recognising that objectivity as a method is useful only up to a point. It follows from this for ortega that a reality independent of us therefore cannot exist.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O!;111329 wrote:

:bigsmile: The last sentence being probably the one thing Kenneth and I agree on disagreeing with.

Do you agree, then with Ortega that the truth and reality of each inidivudal point of view is enough to show that there is no objective, observer-independent existence/truth?

While any vista is, in itself, complete, I doubt most people would disagree with the statement that that complete view is of only a part of reality, i.e. it is a complete survey of an incomplete entity.

It seems to me that if you recognise this, then there is scope for an objective complete reality. e.g. I see one side of a cube, you see another, if we both agree there are at least as many facets as there perspectives of the object being viewed then we have to conclude there is an objective reality containing all facets of all possible perspectives.

There is an objective complete reality, and Ortega would definitely agree, but what he is saying is that there is no way that anyone can observe this. Every perspective makes up this complete reality, but none can fully explain it considering its limitations.

Sorry it took me a while to comment, I am stuck in finals season.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;112027 wrote:

There is an objective complete reality, and Ortega would definitely agree, but what he is saying is that there is no way that anyone can observe this. Every perspective makes up this complete reality, but none can fully explain it considering its limitations.

Sorry it took me a while to comment, I am stuck in finals season.

Cheers. So this is basically saying that there is no objective subjective perspective.

He seems to say more than this. That perspective integrates reality, which seems to follow the old 'reality is what we experience' line of reasoning.

Bones

@longknowledge,

But I think it sells him short to say it is the 'old reality is what we experience' as if this is something that has already been considered and scrapped. I don't think we have understood it, and it has been dismissed for the wrong reasons. There is a new way of looking at it, in this observation of Ortega's.

Philosophy Forum

Ortega's Doctrine of the Point of View

Quick Links

My Account

able2know