"As an Epicurean, I'd have gladly lived in the Islamic world over Judeo-Christian world."
I thumbs-upped that last post but I should clarify on the last sentence that it would depend a lot on the particular circumstances of the jews/christians/muslims involved ! 
As an Epicurean, I'd have gladly lived in the Islamic world over Judeo-Christian world.
I couldn't disagree more with you on this point, Oscar.
All three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have had to confront the ideas of Ancient Greece. Averroes tried to integrate Aristotle with Islam. Maimonides tried to integrate Aristotle with Judaism. Aquinas tried to integrate Aristotle with Christianity. All necessarily failed. Rationality cannot be integrated with faith; nor reason with anti-reason; nor, in philosophy, fact with fantasy.
In conquering parts of the Byzantine Empire, Arabs encountered Greek thought. Muslim scholars studied and were fascinated by the writings of Aristotle and translated them into Arabic. Avicenna and Averroes were superlative Aristotle scholars. The Arabs learned the method of observation-based rationality and, in a true golden age, made superb contributions to medicine, astronomy, mathematics, literature, and other fields. But it did not last. Due to the influence of Al-Ghazali and other reason-rejecting theologians, as well as a fundamentalism firmly entrenched in Islamic culture from its outset, faith ultimately crushed freedom of thought. Under orthodox Islam, the books of Avicenna, Averroes, and other great thinkers were burned in the 12th century. For eight hundred years since, the Islamic world has wallowed in a dark age.
Renan was the first to establish a connection between religion and ethno-geographical origin. He contrasted a ‘psyche of the desert’ found among Semites—‘the desert is monotheistic’—with a ‘psyche of the forest,’ characteristic of Indo-Europeans whose polytheism appears to be modelled on a changing nature and a diversity of seasons. He observed that the intolerance of Semitic people is an inevitable consequence of their monotheism. Indo-European peoples, before their conversion to Semitic ideas, never regarded their religion as absolute truth. This is why there is found among these peoples ‘a freedom of thought, a spirit of critical inquiry, and individual research.’
But I won't generalize and dehumanize and monstrosize people. I won't. We know where that ends, Epicureans should know better. We are all individuals at the end of the day.
Oscar that sentence strikes me as an interesting one to discuss philosophically. What part of the philosophy would you point to in support of "Epicureans should know better" than to generalize about people? "Dehumanizing" and "monstrosizing" are extremes, but are not many generalizations perfectly appropriate, even (or especially) about the ramifications of religion?
How do you think an Epicurean would approach the question of deciding when to generalize about people, and what types of generalizations are valid and not valid?
Oscar wrote : Can we generalize that human beings wonder about existence, the universe and our place in it? That's how I start my conversations with any person from any religion.
-------------------------------------------
Sorry, but I have the impression that those conversations are done in a laboratory conditions, as well as this laboratory is without windows-glasses to have an idea what happens outside this laboratory. Conversations that are done inside the safety of our home, while we are drinking fine wine and eating appetizers… but when these persons that have examined all these important issues would step outside that laboratory/home they’ll realize that the issues that had examined were existing in the world of ideas by Plato who used dialectics or else a mixture of dialectics with the logic of excluded middle by Aristotle that leads our thoughts and actions to dilemmas i.e. you have two options either black or white and there is no third.
Of course, these questions that set by Oscar are a good start for any generalization that show to us - as the epicureans say - the General picture. But let’s see the nature of the questions if are along with the study of Nature. Let’s see if the issues and all the concepts we had examined, can be applied in the reality of life on the basis of humans' experiences, and not outside the life and the reality of the experiences, because if it would be the latter, we did conversations that were based on the fantastic and the safety of our home and as Plato did to his Symposia. And when he (Plato) stepped outside the safety of his home/country, and went to the court of the king Dionysus in Syrakouses for applying his philosophical ideas, he was caught as a slave facing a real danger to lost his head, like a little mouse that got trapped in his own trap that was his idealistic ideas.
So, when we discuss for generalizations i.e. for the General Picture, we have to synthesize through history, biology, physics, economy and geography, all the parts to see/realize/understand if they are strong enough i.e. if they have many similarities (that is the analogy of the Canon) with the General picture. But in the first place, we have to clean up our minds from manipulation that is done by ideologies and politics that use, as I said above, the dialectics i.e. idealistic and stable images that are connected with a terminology i.e. using words without meaning i.e. abstract words or as we say in greek "wooden words", as well as the mixture of dialectics with the excluded middle by Aristotle.
So, in the basis of epicurean philosophy and the methodology of the Canon our thought will be without this manipulation that is setting to us limits to our thoughts and actions. The limits of manipulation that also are based on Myths that provoke to us fears.
Epicurean philosophy examines all the issues without setting limits, because its first principles are to overcome all those obstacles that are against to our survival, and thanks to Nature our survival, as it has been proved, it is synonym with the goal of pleasure. Survival without pleasure is not a survival, it's just like that motto "Lathe Viosas", which it is something just to talk about. Everything in the epicurean philosophy has a fixed bond with the pleasure. Lathe Viosas serves the pleasure, and it has the pleasure in its foundation, i.e. inside its core. If you follow the "Lathe Viosas" and you end up compromised and subordinate, then the pleasure is lost and "Lathe Viosas" loses its core and disappears.
Thus, on the basis of our philosophy i.e the Epicurean, we realize that it starts from “apeiria” the general, the undefined (infinity is the indefinite according to Anaximander). Example : Let’s examine the issue "on migration", that we confront here in my little country that is Greece (the bridge as I said it somewhere else) as a part of EU, and be focused on the separation what is fantastic and what is real. Let's examine the phenomena and the causes that caused them, lets examine the details of the causes, let's examine what is akin to them (similarities)... without forgetting what is our goal remembering, as I said, that is synonym with our survival. Because if someone would say to me that the survival is not an issue of importance, I suggest to him to be calm hanging himself on the first tree he'll find.
(to be continued)
The methodology we use is of the Epicurean Canon :
THE MIGRATION ISSUE (In the prism of the epicurean philosophy), by George Kaplanis, founding member of the Garden in Thessaloniki.
“Because, although as the land is divided, one has a homeland and the other has another one, but our whole world is enclosed in a perimeter, and so we all have a homeland, the whole Earth, and the world is our common home”.
("καθ΄ εκάστην μεν γαρ αποτομήν της γής άλλων άλλη πατρις εστίν κατά δε την όλην περιοχήν τούδε του κόσμου μία πάντων πατρίς έστιν η πάσα γη και είς ο κόσμος οίκος"),
Diogenes of Oenoanda. Excerpt 30, column 2 - The precious stones of philosophy, Yannis Avramidis, Thyrathen Publications.
Philosophy is thought without limits. Ideologies and politics always set their own limits.
A. REPELLING THE BARRIERS
That is, to examine the Migration Issue without ideologies and politics harassing us.
That is, using the thinking method, the values and the ethics of our philosophy.
Not only because you lighten the case from a bunch of trash, but also because the manipulation of “mass” or “mob” - that is, all of us - is now done with the use of mathematical models in an extremely scientific way.
And this way includes both ideologies and politics. Thus, a person decides with free will that he will have a specific view on a matter. At the same time, other people also decide - each one individually, always with free will - that they will have the same view on the same matter. These all together are a percentage of the total, which is ultimately the percentage predicted by the manipulation model.
B. BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU STEP ON YOUR FIRST PACE
So, in order to be on the right track, you have to escape the manipulation.
And how does one escape from it? With knowledge. (I stole it from modern analysts who know the manipulation models). And this knowledge will lead you to a truth, that is, to reality.
So you get away with knowing in the first place, of what is true and what is lie, or what is real and what is fantastic.
“Only this is your sure and steady hope for the discovery of the truth, and there is nο other. Your only hope is to judge and distinguish the lie from the truth... And if by chance you acquire such capability and skill, then you proceed to the control of what is being said. Otherwise, you have to know that nothing will prevent you to be dragged from your nose by anyone...” *
So you start, according to the epicurean philosophy.
C. THE FIELD
It will look strange to you, but right now I'm talking about the migration issue. That is also for us. Why the Epicurean method requires that we start from “apeiria”, the general, the undefined (infinity is the indefinite according to Anaximander). And we and the immigrants belong in this general. Immigrants do not just change only their own lives, they change ours too. So we both get into the frame. Diogenes of Oenoanda would mock me here. He has written that “the stranger is not a stranger”. I make this separation just do to determine the position they have in the field. **
Of course, very badly, I used the word “frame”. Because the frame requires an image, that is, something immobile. The best thing would be to use the word “field”, a field that can capture and include within it the events as they evolve, the field of action and the field of praxis. So the field will operate in the dimension of time, so we will move into the time, but it can also be expanded into the space, because from “us and them” I said above, if we take “us” and we continuously add other “us”, will emerge Greece, France, Germany, Europe and the whole Western world, except for Israel and Japan, for the time being.
But we also have those who emigrate. According to the Foreign Minister, on the Egyptian-Somali axis there are 150 million people under the age of twenty-five who live without prospect. He was talking about the near future and the risks of the area’s destabilization because of the islamists. Other date, like the ones we discussed online, report more than five billion people living below the poverty line. And they are candidates for immigration in the next decades.
In this point that they always tell me that I am a racist. Then, of course, I always complain to the UN. Because it never calls me to ask what I am and what I am not, to form the numbers accordingly. Of course, if changing my thoughts will make 2-3 billion people to become economically settled, then “eateon” bid it farewell according to Epicurus, that is to say that I could even become a Buddhist monk.
Quite simply, Epicurean philosophy asks us to count on phenomena, events, reality. And not in empty beliefs, that is, in words of air.
(to be continued)
D. US
This “us” sounds selfish, but it is natural. Personally, on this subject I would not take away something from my personal life to offer it to the migrant issue. Unless this is something superfluous. If I had an excess of potential, as Nietzsche also says. I would definitely offer to my family, my friends, my homeland and of course a weak person who would be in great need. But this alone is a whole debate, and it would be nice for anyone wishing to discuss it to make a suggestion to investigate it.
So let us include to “us” the societies that immigration is directed to. That is to say the agglomerations that human creates in order to be able to meet his necessary and natural desires originating from the instinct of survival and security. As many other animals do. Of course, as soon as people create an agglomeration, they immediately attack their neighbor, but this is another story. Now if agglomeration involves an anarchist society, the muslim society or a nation, that does not matter. I will call it society as of now, because it is simpler.
Compulsory element of society is cohesion. Without it, it dissolves. We have said that when we talked about the Epicurean philosophy that we likened to a coherent system. The society that has little cohesion is an unstable system. It’s like a bottle that you put it standing upright with the spout facing down. It falls with the slightest shake. It’s like the marriage that breaks because the husband forgot to go to the grocery. A society will also pass financial crisis and unemployment and disasters and wars and foreign occupation. What will give it the strength to overcome it all over time so it can continue to protect her members is cohesion. The means to enhance cohesion are usually religion, origin, culture, customs, etc., but all of this is well known.
I do not say randomly all of the above, I follow the methodology that Epicurus teaches us to follow dealing with “the theory of principles”, of course from the Letter to Pythocles. That is to go deep and look at the first principles, which here is the natural law of survival. At the same time, however, we must not forget that Epicurean philosophy is hostile to anything that reduces our resistance for survival.
So, my own conclusion so far is that we will help, as far as we can, without harming our society, that is to say ourselves. That is, without committing suicide.
E. THESE
We said that people who need help are billions. Including Greeks. Let us observe phenomena without fixations, without dramas and without crying. These people move and will move to meet their necessary and natural desires.
So we can answer the question of Epicurean philosophy: To what unshakable laws the power on everything is based, (* 3). Τhe driving force of continuous migration is the coverage of the necessary and natural desires. So it will not stop as long as there are causes that create this potential.
Now you will tell me that we know this, and we do not need a whole Epicurean methodology to find them. Be careful: These belong to the first principles and therefore the Epicurean method of thinking forces us to set them on the basis of our thinking.
F. THE INTERMEDIATES - THE ROUTE
But there is the ideological-political flow that calls for the borders to be left open, for those who want to come and for us to take care of their food, shelter, medical care and work. I don’t have any ideological or political objection to these. I don’t have any ideological - political confrontation with them. I just ask them to set to the foundations of their thinking these, the first principles, the unwavering laws on which the potential of migration is based. And of course their direct effect, that migration will not stop. I understand they will not. Because many years now I make the question: Do you know that migration will not stop? Do you accept this even as a possibility? And all these years I get the same answer: You are a racist. I am almost convinced that racists are some people who constantly reflect on methodological issues.
Why do not they deal with the question?
According to the Epicurean method of thought, everything is explained “steadfastly”, that is, without being shaken - stable, if they are based on multiple causes. It is the “manifold way”, which is referred to the Epicurus’ Epistle to Herodotus, and has been analyzed by our friend Demetris Altas in one of his propositions. And of course, easily, “simply”, the individual are explained, if we first investigate the general and undefined and look into the first principles. (This is from the Letter to Pythoklis). And in order to achieve this, we must stand firm on the purpose– “for which we reason out these”, also from the Letter to Pythoklis.
And what is the goal: Reduce human pain until extinction. This is from the Letter to Meneoceus. And the pain starts from the immigrant’s home, before he starts.
I will mention some causes. I recall the question: Why it is not considered as a possibility that migration will not stop?
(to be continued)
1) The “Transfer” and the “Solidary».
Once, the slaves did not go to their bosses’ country alone, as they do today, but they were transferred by the bosses themselves. They had free transfer. Of course, the business required great funding, because it needed a fleet for transport, a private army, etc. We are talking about the 19th century in the US. What we call Hot Spot today, then it was called Slave Market. It was like the Super Market, but it did not sell spaghetti and such, it sold people. Founder of such a market was George Peabody, who deployed it with his company called Georgetown Slave Market. Banker Rothschild, in the position of a spokesman for his interests in London, appointed his servant George Soros... sorry, I meant George Peabody. Today, there is the Open Society Slave Super Market, run by Soros or Peabody... I don’t remember, however, his first name is George and he is an employee. This institution pays its employees to its branches called NGOs, who take care of the merchandise’s maintenance.
And all this of course must be supported by some ideology, for manipulation reasons, as we said. This ideology is obviously offhand made and it is based on the logical sensationalism that first defines the concept of antiracism and on this basis constructs the concept of racism. The field of thought that this ideology permits, starts locally from our borders with “get in” and ends to our borders with “get out”. Chronically it deals with today.
That’s why they are not in a position to think about whether other immigrants will continue to come in the future. That’s why when you tell them that the immigrant’s pain starts from his home, their feelings get frozen, the matter does not interest them. Because that pain is beyond their local authority. And when they shake their hand on the opposite shore and tell them to come, and the others drown, they feel no remorse.
Finally, I would like to note that the parallelism of Sorros and Peabody is based on the “things akin” also from the letter to Pythoklis.
2) Another cause is very simple: They don’t answer the question, why they don’t get paid for that.
3) Another cause is idealism.
A devotee of the above ideological flow has become addicted to the sense of immobility. He focuses on a wretched immigrant’s photograph, and considers that this is the whole reality. If I help him, then all right. It is enough to find the concept, a stable, immobile, eternal and unalterable idea that will solve the issue. And here it was found: “solidarity”. Therefore, the “solidary”. Then they leave the ideal world, they come to the sensible world and say to you: Since there is the concept of solidarity that solves the problems, why do you ask? You just want to create obstacles because you are a racist.
Surely some people will consider as excessive that I refer to modern slavery. I suggest using the phenomena as Epicurus wants.
There was and maybe there is an import model of foreign fishermen to the fishing boats of Michaniona. For example, we asked for 300 fishermen, and through the Egyptian Consulate 300 Egyptians came, who were working under a contract.
This, of course, is a practice that applies in many countries for a long time. This practice maintains a balance, because it also benefits the people who pay salaries and the people who receive the salary. With open borders, this balance is lost due to the law of labor offer and demand. So the person who pays salary benefits and hurts the person who gets paid for his work, who is harmed in many ways. According to the values of our philosophy, this is unacceptable. Our philosophy forbids us damaging and getting damaged. It is now known that in Europe there are companies that hire workers hourly. People of pain are constantly growing in our societies.
In other words, while controlled immigration can improve both our lives and their life, and reduces pain, uncontrolled one creates this modern form of slavery for all of us.
(to be continued)
G. THE ISSUE OF MUSLIMS
That is, the issue that they call me Islamophobic.
The matter is enormous. It would need a separate proposition. I will confine myself to the “beginnings” in general:
There is a core in there. This core constantly produces a question: If the Koran is the truth, why do we need the others? Every time they decide and act accordingly. In Spain, then, which was theirs, they had developed a great literature and culture. Until they decided that the Koran was right and burned their libraries and books.
This question is repeated every now and then, and we will have to wait to see how they will answer, these or their children, or their grandchildren, or the great-grandchildren etc. to see if we are going to get caught up in this nonsense, we or our children, or our grandchildren, etc.
But this nonsense eventually emerged.
Protagonists of this tragic farce, is a muslim heresy, the Wahhabists (if I write it correctly).
This heresy has been around for almost three centuries. They have no priests, because they do not accept the interpretation of the Koran, they believe in it and apply it verbatim - that is, literally, they consider Sunnis as heretics, the Shiites as infidels, they destroy and disappear anything different. For example, in Saudi Arabia, where they dominate, there is no longer a building older than 500 years. They demolished even the mosques. The Buddha figures that were carved in the Mountain in Afghanistan were not destroyed by the Taliban, but by them.
It's not like Al-Qaida, which was applying “you hit me - I hit you”, they only apply “I hit you”. They have declared the “djih d”, that is the sacred war, to defend “the supreme interest of human”, which is of course “the true faith”. So the struggle to conquer the infidels’ countries is a struggle for the prevailing of the Sacred Law. These are not idealists!
It is, however, for laughter and crying. Here applies what someone said, that history is repeated only as a farce. The Turks had begun the same “djih d” in the very same area to give battle to Manzikert in 1071 and to reach the Aegean immediately afterwards. In this way, the Turks conquered the primary position into the muslim society. And the map of the new caliphate includes all the lands of the Ottoman Empire and even further to the borders of their hearts.
In Europe the signs were obvious for years. Of course, the Europeans did not understand anything. They implement the strategy of Lernaen Hydra. For every idiot of theirs who kills and being killed, must happen a fermentation and other, new ones of their jump out. That's why, after the strike in Nice, the appearances with burqas and such multiplied in this area. That is why the French Authorities reacted immediately. To burn the point they cut. The aim of their strategy is to accumulate hatred from the Westerns against the Muslims, to enhance hatred and end up in conflicts, etc. They become giants through blood. The funny thing is that in another such crime earlier, a French scientist psychologist appeared on television and said that the slaughterer Jihadist did it because of the unemployment in his neighborhood. I did not stand it, I ended up looking for tranquillizers.
As you have understood, all of this is about relaxing the society’s cohesion in order to turn into an unstable system. Like that bottle we said before, standing upright with the spout down.
H. CASES OF INTERVENTION
The solutions that are being heard today are basically: 1) Open the border and whoever wants can pass through, and 2) Stand at the border with a machine gun and do not let anyone pass. From a strategic point of view, both are naive, to speak politely. They are not even strategic, they are tactical without strategy. You have to be very looser to think so. With the blinkers of ideology they can’t see in time and space, and therefore can’t evaluate the potential that, anyway, will bring the problem inside the borders in many ways.
As for my own views, I will bring three examples:
1) Once, in order for China to export products, it had to fall under the international trade treaties. It was blocked by United States. They sign a contract between each other (less than a page) that says: United States’ financial capital does whatever it wants in China and in return China enters international trade. China applies dumping (subsidizes its products) and sells half-price. It attacks India and Pakistan. India endures, but Pakistan’s industry is being destroyed. Waves of Pakistani immigrants are being created. The financial capital gives money to the ideology of “solidarity” to take care of them and “integrate” them. For humanitarian reasons, of course.
Who is the enemy? The Pakistani immigrant? China? The financial capital? Other; I don’t know - I don’t answer? If you find it, you also locate the goal. And only then you look for the solution. If you don’t find it, go for a coffee.
Because there is no strategy without goal. And without strategy you are always defeated.
2) Norway has some oil. They live like kings because of this income.
3) Algeria is the world’s third-largest producer of natural gas. Exports immigrants. New Guinea produces more oil than Norway. 70% of its population live below the poverty line.
What needs to be done: First of all, in the mental field, we must understand that we should intervene because it will be useful for our societies, that they should not be dissolved. That is, from all the scenarios, let’s investigate the “probable”, that is the most probable – this is from Letter to Herodotus - that is: either we will intervene or dissolve. That is, to understand the benefit. Because there is a huge problem for a human to understand what benefits him (Hermarchus, Philodemos, Diogenes of Oenoanda). The intervention should be political, economic, cultural, the possible combinations among them or anything else. However, all these will be the means to attain the goal, and not an end in itself. The intervention should be done where the pain is born.
The respect for the human personality that Epicurean philosophy teaches, does not allow us to leave these people helpless.
------------------------
* “Και μόνη σοι αύτη πιστή και βέβαιος ελπίς επί την αλήθειάν τε και εύρεσιν αυτής, άλλη δε ουδ ητισούν ή το κρίνειν δύνασθαι και χωρίζειν από των αληθών τα ψευδή . . . . .Και εί ποτε τοιαύτην τινά δύναμιν και τέχνην πορισάμενος ήεις επί την εξέτασιν των λεγομένων. εί δέ μη, εύ ίσθι ως ουδέν κωλύσει σε της ρινός έλκεσθαι υφ΄ εκάστων . . . .”. Lucian “About Heresies”, 810, "Epicurus, Texts, Sources of the Epicurean Philosophy and Art of Living", G. Avramidis, THYRATHEN Publications.
** Side by side. (benefactors and beneficiaries are not next to each other, not even Islamists with Christians and others).
Aside: I am not sure that "Welcome Daniel" is an adequate reflection of the subject matter anymore. At some point I'll find a way to split off the thread to a new heading.
"and, besides, love of humanity prompts us to aid also the foreigners who come here."
We presuppose, of course, that when Diogenis of Oinoanda wrote that he did not know where the stones of his wall will be gone and lost, and how they will be found again.
Yes, that is true, Diogenis of Oinoanda did a good job, but in now days he would probably say : in the basis of my love of humanity, I gave a fortune of money to build this huge wall with stones that were beneficial to the locals or to the foreigners who came, just for the purpose to build their homes or to build sheepfold for placing inside them their sheep and goats. Humans and sheep and goats all united as one for living inside homes and sheepfolds ...chewing the "grass of ignorance and nonsense" without examine and the issue that there is also a butcher that one day will visit them all. 
Today there are two prevalent ways of studying moral values. One posits that these can be rationally verified and established: values will be universally valid, and once errors are cleared away it will be a matter merely of distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil. The alternative way considers that since all values are relative and therefore equivalent, nothing sensible or interesting may be said about them.
There is, however, a third approach. This is genealogical and shows the human, social, philosophical, and religious breeding ground of a certain doctrine: inquires as to the origin of certain ideas; of which type of man they are expression; what it is they reflect—and to where they lead. Any world view is inescapably linked to a particular outlook on man, the world, and history; and, in its turn, it depends on the mental constitution—itself anchored at a biological level—of the particular people by whom it was created.
This third approach, I claim, is more congruent with Epicurean epistemology, based on the very best evidence one can find, even while admitting that this evidence may be limited and incomplete and subject to revision.
And, of course, it inevitably involves generalizations. Generalization allows humans and animals to recognize the similarities in knowledge acquired in one circumstance, allowing for transfer of knowledge onto new situations. Anecdotal evidence, that is, evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony ( “I have a friend who is X”) has very limited value.
So, coming back to our original point of disputation, pray tell me, Oscar, 1/in which Islamic society you think you would gladly live as an Epicurean; and 2/why you have not moved there yet.
By the way, someone who used to idealize the Islamic world over the Judeo-Christian one was Uncle Adolf and it didn't work out so well for anybody. I can also use the Reductio ad Hitlerum, you see
I’m not partial to any of the Abrahamic cults. “The Darkening Age” by Catherine Nixey is a good place to start if one wants to understand what a clash of civilizations the encounter of Athens and Jerusalem ignited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darkening_Age
And I don’t need to remind you what happened to Spinoza when he started reading Epicurean philosophy…
Judeo-Christianity, the West, has spent the last 500 years trying to become Epicurean or ‘modern’ (remember “The Swerve”?). Islam has not, and that is the difference.
Sorry, I forgot to say : Daniel , WELCOME, and I am so glad you are here with us ! 
Oscar, I see lots of strawmanning and moralizing in your comments, and you still haven't answered my question:
-In which Islamic society do you think an Epicurean could gladly live?
