Working with little I's

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Okay, I wanted to share some thoughts/approaches to the Work based on Gurdjieff's concept of "little I's" and my own experiences.

First I'd like to say that I think Gurdjieff's concept of "little I's" governing our thoughts, emotions and actions is very useful - even though we may get a more accurate and "scientific" picture of how our machine works using concepts like Kahnemann's System 1 and System 2 or Wilson's Adaptive Unconscious. To think of our mind as a kingdom of crazy and coward wanna-be dictators constantly battling each other to get to the throne and once there, get nothing done, is just very fruitful and a great analogy I think. That this is the state we live in becomes totally obvious once we start self-observing, and even more so once we start struggling against it, even just by trying to root out a minor habit.

So, here are G's own words describing this whole mess that is our mind:

"Man such as we know him, the 'man-machine,' the man who cannot 'do,' and with whom and through whom everything 'happens,' cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.

But these Ivans, Peters, and Nicholases [little I's] are different. They all call themselves 'I.' That is, they consider themselves masters and none wants to recognize another. Each of them is caliph for an hour, does what he likes regardless of everything, and, later on, the others have to pay for it. And there is no order among them whatever. Whoever gets the upper hand is master. He whips everyone on all sides and takes heed of nothing. But the next moment another seizes the whip and beats him. And so it goes on all one's life. Imagine a country where everyone can be king for five minutes and do during these five minutes just what he likes with the whole kingdom. That is our life."

Indeed. For example, at one point I decide to do something useful, like cleaning up or write on the forum. By the time the computer is on or I'm fetching the vacuum cleaner, there's a different I on the throne who likes to check out something on the internet. The next minute, there's an I on the throne who is lazy and wants to slack. Then I slack, and the next I gets control and hates slacking and makes a scene and starts whipping the whole kingdom, gets angry and irritable. And so on. Or, one "I" gets control which is interested in some topic for a week or two and makes everyone in the kingdom work on this single goal, forgetting everything else. Then, after two weeks, this I gets kicked off from the throne and a different, more balanced I takes control again and has to clean up the mess the other I produced - chores have been left undone, important goals have been forgotten... And on and on it goes.

So far, so bad. But what's really dangerous is that all these little I's are dependent on outside influences, of which we are unconscious. That way, external influences not only form those little I's in the first place (through education, experience, religious/secular beliefs etc.), they also control which little I enters the throne and when. Often, all it needs is a slight stimulus from outside to kick off one little I and have it replaced by another. And I think this is also the way the PTB control us - they know our machine better than we know it ourselves, and play us like a fiddle. They have created many little I's themselves (education, media, social structure etc.) and know how to trigger them.

In G's words:

"The alternation of I's, their continual obvious struggle for supremacy, is controlled by accidental external influences. Warmth, sunshine, fine weather, immediately call up a whole group of I's. Cold, fog, rain, call up another group of I's, other associations, other feelings, other actions. There is nothing in man able to control this change of I's, chiefly because man does not notice, or know of it; he lives always in the last I. Some I's, of course, are stronger than others. But it is not their own conscious strength; they have been created by the strength of accidents or mechanical external stimuli. Education, imitation, reading, the hypnotism of religion, caste, and traditions, or the glamour of new slogans, create very strong I's in man's personality, which dominate whole series of other, weaker, I's. But their strength is the strength of the 'rolls' in the centers. And all I's making up a man's personality have the same origin as these 'rolls'; they are the results of external influences; and both are set in motion and controlled by fresh external influences.

So how to fight this? First, of course, we need to become conscious of the fact that this is indeed the state we live in. Self-observation and setting oneself a very modest aim (like breaking a minor habit) while fully committing to this small aim as if it was the most important thing in one's life can actually show how utterly true G's description is. In fact, in the beginning, we fail to achieve even the most ridiculous goal, like taking 5 seconds to do one little thing every day... So, how can we change? I think G's analogy of the house, servants and master can bring some light into this:

"Thus, in one teaching, man is compared to a house in which there is a multitude of servants but no master and no steward. The servants have all forgotten their duties; no one wants to do what he ought; everyone tries to be master, if only for a moment; and, in this kind of disorder, the house is threatened with grave danger. The only chance of salvation is for a group of the more sensible servants to meet together and elect a temporary steward, that is, a deputy steward. This deputy steward can then put the other servants in their places, and make each do his own work: the cook in the kitchen, the coachman in the stables, the gardener in the garden, and so on. In this way the 'house' can be got ready for the arrival of the real steward who will, in his turn, prepare it for the arrival of the master.

When I found the Work, I foolishly thought the goal was to root out all those nasty little I's, but this didn't work out of course, and the analogy of the house and the servants may yield some hints as to why: It just leads to apathy, to a shut-down of the house except for the bare minimum, and achieves nothing. Maybe this is a natural consequence of the shock we go through once realizing what a mess we are, and that this mess leads to constantly hurting other people, even the ones we pretend to care about. But it changes nothing. To begin to change, I think we have to work with what's there, and accept those little I's - study them, get to know them, and start conspiring with the better ones, or the "more sensible servants", in G's analogy. In other words - in our more conscious states, when we see that mess that is our machine clearly, we should try to make use of those little I's, rather than fighting all of them. In more modern terms, maybe this can be called self-accepting - not taking the "all or nothing" approach, but really feeling and accept "what is", and starting to make small changes based on this acceptance.

So for example, there's one servant who likes to read esoteric books, another one is interested in politics. Another one is very empathetic and enjoys being good to other people. So let's notice when they "take the throne" and encourage them. Make each of them get to know the other good servants and form a little group there. Make them oppose the nasty I's - those who dwell on grandiosity, those who are cruel, or those who love suffering for example. That way, even if one of the nasty little I's enters the throne and you loose yourself, the good ones - your little conspiracy - can notice this and fight them. Next time when a good guy takes control, and for example you read an interesting esoteric book or check on world politics, you can remember how you lost yourself and remember the particular feeling associated with it, and can try to stop it next time it happens. That is, the good servants may restrain the power of some of the nastiest servants, and eventually succeed in arresting them. Cut the ties to those psychos and make it common knowledge in your house that they are the bad guys!

But rooting out the most horrible servants/little I's is just the beginning - at this point, we still have no real control. I think what we have to do then is to work with the rest of the servants, who still want all to sit on the throne and fight each other, even though most of them agreed to arrest the psycho-servants. So now, the goal can be to bring in the deputy steward - make those servants do their job. For example, the guy who likes esoteric books should be allowed to read those books, but only at specific times, and he should give a lecture to the whole house when he finds out something. But he's not supposed to interfere with the functioning of the house. That is, the guy who works in the kitchen should be able to do his job, even without forcing his way on the throne. The deputy steward sees to that. In real life, this means for example that you put the right amount of energy into your job and your chores at home, while also allowing time for reading and studying, and finding a good balance. I think this is achieved mainly by making simple, not very demanding plans and sticking to them - which is hard enough.

I guess what I'm getting at is that at one point maybe instead of viewing our little I's as enemies, we should view them as players in an orchestra, or our employees - they are not good or bad per se, but they are controlled by external influences without a conductor or manager. We can practice becoming good conductors/managers by setting ourselves small tasks that we know another little I hates, and force it to do it anyway. For example, if I'm in the "mood" to do some physical exercises, I sometimes don't do it and plan it for a later time in the day. And while I'm looking forward to this at the moment, I know full well that on the later hour, there will be another little I in charge, who probably hates doing exercises. But since I know this, I can withstand this guy and assign him another task for another time, and eventually win - or at least see what's going on. Another example would be that there is a little I "on the throne" which is very enthusiastic about something, even obsessive. So instead of fighting it, I can say "well, here you are, now get something done!", and make the guy use his enthusiasm to actually do something useful. This is what a good manager would do.

Another example: There's one little I in me who is somehow identified with my job. Now, one other little I, the one reading esoteric books, thinks this is totally ridiculous, and the job total BS. Well, he is right with the BS, but he shouldn't keep the other guy from earning my living! So a good manager would tell the esoteric guy to be quiet when there's work to be done, and tells the job-obsessed guy that he should stick to what he's good at and make room for others once the job is done.

It also helps to just self-observe the little I's and their fighting. For example, the other day I drove home and I thought about what to do with 2 hours "free time" I would have in the evening. And I could literally feel two different little I's fighting for that spot! It felt really draining, but I recognized what's going on and so could stop it. In the past, this would have been a moment where I would have been very irritated and would have snapped at other people and become angry at others, all the while inventing a narrative to explain it. Different little I's being at war for the throne are a really draining thing!

So maybe learning to get at least some control over our crazy madhouse is the stage of G's "deputy steward" - we practice getting those I's halfway under control, doing what "it" doesn't like, set ourselves small aims, and then increase the difficulty of those aims. But when does the real master come? I think the arrival of the master could be what the C's described as the "awakening of our conscience". It's really only then that the whole house is transformed into something useful, something with a purpose. In my case, I think I had glimpses of that master, he visits from time to time and makes everyone feel his presence, but these are just glimpses yet. In other words, I feel that sometimes I'm really in touch with my conscience, but oftentimes it is shielded from me with all kinds of buffers. But I'm best when I'm truly feeling for others - then I DO things, not because I press myself using sheer willpower, but because I feel deep down that it's the right thing to do, and there is no other choice, and that's the way it should be.

Anyway, just wanted to share these thoughts, I hope this makes sense. Any feedback welcome.
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
transientP said:
Hi luc,
This is really an excellent post !
The way you've put it together makes it very accessible.

Thank you for sharing this.
I enjoyed reading it !
:rockon:

Ditto! It's one of the best explanations of the Work in practical terms that I've ever read. It was also very entertaining! With all those servants, cooks and characters, it felt like watching the Downtown Abbey series. :P

Thank you very much, Luc. I think that's a good approach, because it's a bit like Lobaczewski described as being important: adding moralizing values (trying to destroy I's because they are "evil" psycho-servants) doesn't allow us to solve the problem. One has to look at the situation, observe it, deal with it, train it like a muscle, and little by little, a real understanding and "chief" will emerge.

And, with doing this long enough, every I can have its place, and actually work with the others in more synchrony. Like the one who likes his job, and the one reading esoteric books, and the cook: the one that got the time to work, brings money home, which then allows for buying books and food, which then allows the cook to make dinner, which then allows the reader to be nourished and read better and share what he's read with the others, and the worker to get up and work tomorrow, and they can all live happily ever after. :P

You are totally right about the draining aspect. Whenever I'm most drained, is really whenever I don't allow myself to express some of those aspects/servants. It was very well put.

So maybe learning to get at least some control over our crazy madhouse is the stage of G's "deputy steward" - we practice getting those I's halfway under control, doing what "it" doesn't like, set ourselves small aims, and then increase the difficulty of those aims. But when does the real master come? I think the arrival of the master could be what the C's described as the "awakening of our conscience". It's really only then that the whole house is transformed into something useful, something with a purpose. In my case, I think I had glimpses of that master, he visits from time to time and makes everyone feel his presence, but these are just glimpses yet. In other words, I feel that sometimes I'm really in touch with my conscience, but oftentimes it is shielded from me with all kinds of buffers. But I'm best when I'm truly feeling for others - then I DO things, not because I press myself using sheer willpower, but because I feel deep down that it's the right thing to do, and there is no other choice, and that's the way it should be.

It couldn't have been said better IMO. That's the key.
 

Ysus

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
I am also impressed with your in-depth description and the "hands-on" examples you provide, luc. Thank you ever so much.

(Attachment: a visual expression of the "frazzled'n'gory" iiiiiii-state of affairs)
 

Attachments

  • fission of I's around the edges, fusion of one I at heart signed ca 2010.jpg
    fission of I's around the edges, fusion of one I at heart signed ca 2010.jpg
    156.7 KB · Views: 542

aluminumfalcon

Jedi
FOTCM Member
Thank you luc. I really liked your interpretation of the "little I's". I am going to try to put this idea to use in my life. Your examples give me clear ananlogies of which I can maintain awareness when in such an actual situation. G's analogy of the mansion run by servants with no steward is very good. In my own case it feels more like a kindergarten classroom filled with a bunch of little brats and no teacher.
 

Thebull

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I've been facing many of my little I's recently and struggling to come to terms with what has been going on in my machine. Your post was like a flash of light illuminating them all. My emotions are up and down and I've been clinging on trying to understand what's going on in my life.

LUC
I guess what I'm getting at is that at one point maybe instead of viewing our little I's as enemies, we should view them as players in an orchestra, or our employees - they are not good or bad per se, but they are controlled by external influences without a conductor or manager.

Identifying them, Learning and practice with managing them will help me to get through this challenging time.

Thank you for your time and sharing this post Luc, I'd asked for help and you sent it.
 

David

Jedi Master
... His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.

Yep more or less... Just not the same ‘I’ that was reading at the beginning, but then I would have to contemplate my navel, to remain a singular I, and how would we learn, no suffering, no mistakes, no forgetting ourselves – no lessons... no point.

...But I'm best when I'm truly feeling for others - then I DO things, not because I press myself using sheer willpower, but because I feel deep down that it's the right thing to do, and there is no other choice, and that's the way it should be.

That might be essence, but then again it could be a program, though it’s a keeper...

To think of our mind as a kingdom of crazy and coward wanna-be dictators constantly battling each other to get to the throne. and once there, get nothing done, is just very fruitful and a great analogy I think. That this is the state we live in becomes totally obvious once we start self-observing, and even more so once we start struggling against it, even just by trying to root out a minor habit.

Though if there is a metaphorical throne it should be for essence, since essence, can not do what persona-lity’s (I’s) can do - a throne sounds like a good place for essence. The Good Master maybe

Though without struggle or effort nothing happens... nothing changes... the status quo remain the same

Might end up without a good master, without any effort, just like a modern democracy LOL
 

obyvatel

The Living Force
Nice post, Luc.

Davida said:
... His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.

Yep more or less... Just not the same ‘I’ that was reading at the beginning, but then I would have to contemplate my navel, to remain a singular I, and how would we learn, no suffering, no mistakes, no forgetting ourselves – no lessons... no point.

Not clear what you are trying to say here Davida.

[quote author=Davida]
...But I'm best when I'm truly feeling for others - then I DO things, not because I press myself using sheer willpower, but because I feel deep down that it's the right thing to do, and there is no other choice, and that's the way it should be.

That might be essence, but then again it could be a program, though it’s a keeper...
[/quote]

More likely it is a flash of conscience - insight coming from the emotional center working with a higher quality of energy.

[quote author=Davida]
To think of our mind as a kingdom of crazy and coward wanna-be dictators constantly battling each other to get to the throne. and once there, get nothing done, is just very fruitful and a great analogy I think. That this is the state we live in becomes totally obvious once we start self-observing, and even more so once we start struggling against it, even just by trying to root out a minor habit.

Though if there is a metaphorical throne it should be for essence, since essence, can not do what persona-lity’s (I’s) can do - a throne sounds like a good place for essence. The Good Master maybe

[/quote]

The essence is not the master. Few Gurdjieff quotes pertaining to this point

[quote author=Views From The Real World]
Body, essence and personality

When a man is born, three separate machines are born with him which continue to form till his death. These machines have nothing in common with one another: they are our body, our essence and our personality. Their formation does not depend on us in any way. Their future development, the development of each one separately, depends on the data a man possesses and the data which surround him, such as environment, circumstances, geographical conditions and so on.

For the body these data are heredity, geographical conditions, food and movement. They do not affect personality.
In the course of a man's life, personality is formed exclusively through what a man hears and through reading.
Essence is purely emotional. It consists of what is received from heredity before the formation of personality, and later, only those sensations and feelings among which a man lives. What comes after merely depends on the transition.
So the body begins to develop in each man subjectively. The development of all three starts from the first days of a man's life. All three develop independently of one another. Thus it may happen, for instance, that the body begins its life in favorable conditions, on healthy soil and, as a result, is brave; but this does not necessarily mean that the man's essence is of a similar character. In the same conditions, essence may be weak and cowardly. A man may have a brave body contrasting with a cowardly essence. Essence does not necessarily develop parallel with the development of the body. A man may be very strong and healthy, yet as timid as a rabbit.

The center of gravity of the body, its soul, is the moving center. The center of gravity of the essence is the emotional center, and the center of gravity of the personality is the thinking center. The soul of the essence is the emotional center. Just as a man may have a healthy body and a cowardly essence, so personality may be bold and essence timid. Take for instance a man of common sense; he has studied and knows that hallucinations can occur; he knows that they cannot be real. So in his personality he does not fear them, but his essence is afraid. If his essence sees a phenomenon of this kind it cannot help being afraid. Development of one center does not depend on the development of another, and one center cannot transfer its results to another.

It is impossible to say positively that a man is such or such. One of his centers may be brave, another cowardly; one good, another wicked; one may be sensitive, another very coarse; one gives readily, another is slow in giving or quite incapable of giving. So it is impossible to say: good, brave, strong or wicked.
[/quote]

[quote author=ISOTM]
As a rule a man's essence is either primitive, savage, and childish, or else simply stupid. The development of essence depends on work on oneself.
...............................
As has been said earlier, in the case of less cultured people essence is often more highly developed than it is in cultured man. It would seem that they ought to be nearer the possibility of growth, but in reality it is not so because their personality proves to be insufficiently developed. For inner growth, for work on oneself, a certain development of personality as well as a certain strength of essence are necessary. Personality consists of 'rolls,' and of 'buffers' resulting from a certain work of the centers. An insufficiently developed personality means a lack of 'rolls,' that is, a lack of knowledge, a lack of information, a lack of the material upon which work on oneself must be based. Without some store of knowledge, without a certain amount of material 'not his own,' a man cannot begin to work on himself, he cannot begin to study himself, he cannot begin to struggle with his mechanical habits, simply because there will be no reason or motive for undertaking such work.

"It does not mean that all the ways are closed to him. The way of the fakir and the way of the monk, which do not require any intellectual development, remain open to him. But the methods and the means which are possible for a man of a developed intellect are impossible for him. Thus evolution is equally difficult for a cultured or an uncultured man. A cultured man lives far from nature, far from natural conditions of existence, in artificial conditions of life, developing his personality at the expense of his essence. A less cultured man, living in more normal and more natural conditions, develops his essence at the expense of his personality. A successful beginning of work on oneself requires the happy occurrence of an equal development of personality and essence. Such an occurrence will give the greatest assurance of success.
[/quote]
 

Mikey

The Living Force
Thanks luc, this was a good summary! To create a strong enough incentive to get the many 'I's' under control, aside from an Aim that should become one's personal 'God', once can also try to keep the following advice of G in mind:

Gurdjieff said:
The sole means now of saving the beings of the planet Earth would be to implant in their presence a new organ, an organ like kundabuffer, but this time having such properties that every one of these unfortunates, during the process of his existence, should constantly sense and be aware of the inevitability of his own death, as well as of the death of everyone upon whom his eyes, or attention, rest.

Only such a sensation and such an awareness could destroy the egoism now so completely crystallized in them that it has swallowed up the whole of their essence, and at the same time uproot that tendency to hate others which flows from it—the tendency that engenders those mutual relationships which are the chief cause of all their abnormalities, unbecoming to three-brained beings and maleficent for them and for the whole of the Universe.

This advice seems to relate more to reducing egotism and increased compassion, but I think it can create a strong enough shock for other uses of development too.
 

placematt

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
hey Luc,

I really enjoyed reading your post. I too have been very interested in my own I's for some time trying to understand their workings. For me though what I'm finding most interesting and difficult, is that When i personally choose to go away from a specific "I" , somehow that "I" finds a way back into that moment via a different/ external source.

but i really enjoyed your post and appreciate you sharing
 
Thank you luc for sharing.

The way you explained your method to this fundamental aspect of The Work is inspiring. Hours earlier I was observing my own internal 'fight for the throne' at a computer programming Meetup, so reading your thread was quite serendipitous.
 

Breton

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks Luc for sharing your thoughts. I think that was a useful way to look at this, and the way you expressed it, I may be able to use myself.

I was pleased to see your take right at this particular time as I have been feeling a bit despairing of my own I's lately, especially when it seemed those negative ones, or less useful ones, take over for too long: those ones that simply want comfort or to "feel good" but do nothing towards useful aims and goals. So I have been kind of considering what more I could do than just observe these I's.
 

Kisito

Jedi Council Member
With all of "these little me," it made me think of the last book of Castaneda's "The Active Side of Infinity". Castaneda said that there are two kinds of wizards: Trackers and stabilizers. Stalkers can hunt and see the infinite, but they can not stabilize the realities of the infinite. While the stabilizers can not drive forever, but can stabilize. Also what Castaneda suggests is that sorcerers to face infinity, they work in pairs (a tracker and stabilizer). Is that why Gurdjieff said that we could not wake up alone? Perhaps he knew that the man is either tracker or stabilizer. Castaneda demonstrates in "The Art of Dreaming" that there are difficulties in stabilizing the reality of the dream. He gives as an exercise the concentration of the hands, but it can be a another act of concentration.
 

patty2292

Jedi Master
Really well written and dissected, allowing for a very simplistic approach to the whole servant/master idea. Ive seen this many times, but never fully been able to view it objectively or to analyse whats going on. Even though ive read about it somewhat. But your description and examples shown me a whole array of internal fights to the throne that have been happening!

Its very easy to forget that we are trying to be in control, in some respect. At times i come home, or before work, with afew hours of free time that can be used very productively for reading, cleaning, or simply relaxing if the body is tired. And half the time i sit and try to 'kill' the time, doing little petty things that accumulate to nothing. All 'I's' want the lime light while there is some spare time. Resulting in relieving no stress, and accumulating to nothing of productive value etc.

Recently i have had that, as you described, 'enthusiastic' reading guy for about 2 weeks. And he just doesn't want to stop. The black and white that's seen is that this is good and only good; for I SHOULD be reading. But that is just what this single enthusiasm would like. It doesn't include the day to day chores, spending quality time with my partner and planning for the remainder of the day. So when this I is in charge, it creates tension and stress in a whole bunch of situations. It gets frustrated and irritable that it cannot read when it wants, and that it doesnt have the time. With an accompanying narrative of ''Reading is productive, i should be reading''.

When in reality, I - the growing power of the stewerd - should be designating it time, and not letting it rule the house. As it cannot function when all else is ignored.

It makes it alot simpler for me to see them as characters, or names; The Reader, Cook, Cleaner, Working man, Friend etc. For each situation, we can address what character is needed. WHO will be best fitted to the task at hand. Even writing that to me sounds abit crazy, having to select an internal state of mind to groove with the external. But atleast it gives control, and gives way for doing what IT doesnt want.
With intent, effort and habbit, i can see this leading to less effort on our part to enforce these little men, and they will soon groove to where they are meant to be at each place and time.
 

David

Jedi Master
obyvatel said:
Nice post, Luc.

Davida said:
... His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.

Yep more or less... Just not the same ‘I’ that was reading at the beginning, but then I would have to contemplate my navel, to remain a singular I, and how would we learn, no suffering, no mistakes, no forgetting ourselves – no lessons... no point.

Not clear what you are trying to say here Davida.

Well without change, nothing happens, and when something happens, that an opportunity when self observing, to catch some automatic impulse (that just happens). And what one dose is entirely up to the individual, if that impulse is maintained, or eventually relegated to a foot note, in the narrative of ones life - if I do nothing, nothing happens, and no struggle, no change, no eventual acceptance. Osit

I see no difference between thoughts and I’s, in as much as the environment is thought to enable an expression of some part of ones DNA, life of the personality seems exactly the same, from the DID to the more subtle changes, as even a smell can bring about memories, and ones thoughts, turn to daydreams, and one no longer paying attention to reality, one has forgotten ones self.

If I was the same man from one minute to the next, my thoughts would reflect that, my deeds would reflect that, my awareness would reflect that, ultimately I would be paying strict attention to reality, inside and out. Osit though at the end of the day, were all quiet mechanical, some have better machinery than others. mine not so great...


Thanks for posting excerpts from Views from the real world...

I have difficult time associating personality with thinking centre, more like the looker, personality seems like, what most people give the world, just a lie, wrapped around the emotional centre, to protect it. osit

Will have to think about it, maybe I mix up higher emotions, with the usual horses. mistakes.
 
Top Bottom