시적 비전 : 시, 문화, 그리고 사회

[kimy490]

시적 비전: 시, 문화, 그리고 사회|W.TIMOR(김용)

kimy490|등급변경▼|조회 13|추천 0|2016.09.13. 07:18http://cafe.daum.net/kimyong08/RDUo/53 

                        Poetic Identity in Language/Literature/Poetry,

                    Culture, and Society  

                                                       September 09 2016 International Seminar

              the Graduate School of UNDANA—universitas nusa cendana nasioanal—

                     Kupang, NTT, Indonesia

                                                                          by Dr. Yong Kim

I.

This paper aims to elucidate (to make something clear, explain) poetic identity(시적 동일성) which could be found as the greatest common factor in culture, language (literature/poetry), and society. The poetic identity is not only to regain the world of ‘things’ or reality in culture, literature especially poetry, and society, but also to pursue ‘original unity and integrity’ in which human thinking, feeling, sensual object were harmoniously united. This can be phenomena which happen as reaction taking place against humans’ loss of original nature and our running up only to the world of ‘meaning’ out of the world of ‘things’ or reality in terms of culture, language, and all the society.          

The poetic identity is manifested through (현현 顯現) as many aspects as follows: harmony, recovery of the organic whole, integrity and unity, mutual understanding, reconciliation, mutual communication without prejudice and bias by overcoming alienation and estrangement from ‘You, other people’ and ‘I myself’, impartiality, nonpartisanship and fair, freedom, safety, serenity, cooperation, aid, helping others, understanding without prejudice, open heart to the others, utopian vision(democracy, advancement and progress), sincerity, belief and faith)신실, return to original nature, union with the nature, no distance from the nature to ‘I’, etc., which can deserve an equal value of poetic identity.

.Thus, many positive subject materials manifested in the poetic identity prove against negative phenomena revealed in nature, language, and society, that is to say, the negative phenomena we are facing as ‘I’ and ‘You’ and ‘the world.’ Therefore, it can be said that poetic identity is poetic vision in this paper.    

The composition of this paper is as follows: chapter one consists of introduction, chapter two includes culture and time in their relations, definition of culture—Edward B. Tylor’s culture, Matthew Arnold’s culture, T.S. Eliot’s three senses of culture, and culture, art(literature, poetry), society in their relations, chapter three contains language and literature which includes literature and language in their relations, poetic language in its characteristics---modern and contemporary period, language(poetry), culture and nature(the world) in their relations, negative vision of language in indicative function, positive vision of poetic language, literature and culture in their relations, division of modern times in culture and society in industrial civilization, chapter fourcovers such analysis on poetry’s perspective as imitative perspective, expressive one, pragmatic one, ontological (structural) one and the self and the world 자아와 세계, and chapter five’s conclusion follows.   

II.

Culture, language (literature/ poetry) and society in their relations

All the people on the earth or the world exist not as <man > regarded as an abstract and general concept, but as <I> and <we> in group or society which is confined by each specific language, history and culture. It means that we are facing this world in specifically cultural environment and that we are conditioned to draw, in our mother tongue (dalam bahasa ibu), pictures of our own experiences, thought and consciousness, feeling, and the world.

As a society develops towards functional complexity and differentiation, we may expect the emergence of several cultural levels: in short, the culture of the class or group will present itself. In any future society, as in every civilized society of the past, there must be these different levels. When we turn our attention to the arts, new values appear, and thought, sensibility and expression‎ become more elaborate, then some earlier values vanish. So you cannot expect to have all stages of development at once; a civilization cannot simultaneously produce great folk poetry at one cultural level and produce Paradise Lost at another cultural level. Indeed, the one thing that time is ever sure to bring about the loss: gain or compensation is almost always conceivable but never will be certain.

 

2-1. Culture and civilization in their relations

 In the early primitive times 원시 미분화 未分化 primitive culture is

totally indiffrentiated state of culture in the earliest times, but as the society is becoming more and more highly civilized, each constituent of culture can hold its autonomy (dominance). In this viewpoint, Edward B. Tylor’s definition of culture in his bookPrimitive culture is fit for lower civilized society which has totally indifferentiated state of culture. In the lower civilization, culture and religion seem to be different aspects of the same thing, in other words, primitive culture and religion is not differentiated.

  In the early civilized times 개명 시대, 분화 分化 culture and religion

are differentiated in their relations in highly-civilized society.

  In the modern and contemporary times, 근대, 현대 시대, 융합/통합 신미분화 新未分化

culture and religion are becoming newly indifferentiated by converge. Culture is the form of religion and religion is the content of culture.  

2-2. culture in different senses

2-2-1. Edward B.Tylor uses the meaning of “culture” as general, or

anthropological sense, not being divided into three senses of culture like those of T.S. Eliot. That is, “Culture or Civilization,taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that “complex whole” of knowledge, belief, art (*language: Kim’s own), morals, law, custom, any other capabilities and habits acquired all by the men as a member of a society.” [Edward B. Tylor (1958 (1871):1] (Primitive Culture. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. [Originally published 1871.]

But if we are considering highly developed societies and especially our own contemporary society, we have to consider the relationship of the three senses of “culture”, that is, T.S. Eliot’s “three senses of culture”. The three senses of “culture” are the individual, group or class and the whole society. At this point anthropology passes over into sociology.

2-2-2. Matthew Arnold’s culture—Culture and the individual in their relation

Among men of letters and moralists, it has been usual to discuss culture in the first two senses—the individual and group or class—and especially the first sense of culture which is the individual without relation to the third sense, that is the whole society. In Matthew Arnold’s article Culture and Anarchy 교양과 무질서, Arnold is concerned primarily with the individual and the “perfection” at which he should aim. Mathew Arnold (1822-1888) was Professor of Poetry at Oxford university as well as a critic of social life. In his book Culture and Anarchy which was published in 1869, he divides an individual into three classes: (a) Barbarians who are rough, wild, or uncultured person, (b) Philistines who are uncultured person, and (c) Populace who are common people. By culture he means refinement, education, well training and the opposition meaning of culture is ‘being uneducated’, being uncultured, or ignorance, illiteracy, the illiterate. He concerns himself with a critique of classes; but his criticism is confined to an indictment of these classes for their shortcomings. The effect, therefore, is to exhort/urge/advise earnestly and strongly the individual who would attain the peculiar kind of “perfection” which Arnold calls “culture” His recurrent topic  in his poetry and prose was “How is a full and enjoyable life to be lived in a modern industrial society?” Arnold’s concept of “culture” is thin in its meaning, comparing with T.S. Eliot’s three senses of “culture”.

2-2-3. T.S. Eliot’s three senses of culture:

Depending on the individual, group or class, and society in terms of identity   

1)       an individual --- who focuses on the development of an individual

habit, personal emotion,

sensibility, poetic, literature

2)       a group or class-- which focuses on the development of a group or a social class

(ex) minority group

3)       a whole society which focuses on the development of a whole society

tradition, literary narrative

According to T. S. Eliot (1939, 1949. Christianity and Culture. The Idea of a Christian Society AND Notes towards the definition of Culture. New York and London: AHarvest/HBJ Book, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. Chapter I The Three Senses of “Culture” pp.93-106),  the term “culture” has different associations according to whether we have in mind the development of an individual, of a group or class, or of a whole society. The culture of the individual is dependent upon the culture of a group or class, and the culture of the group or class is dependent upon the culture of the whole society to which that group or class belongs.

Therefore the culture of the society is fundamental, and it is the meaning of the term “culture” in relation to the whole society that should be examined first. When the term “culture” is applied to the manipulation of lower organisms—to the work of the bacteriologist or the agriculturist—the meaning is clear enough, for we can have unanimity in respect of the ends (goals) to be attained, and we can agree when we have or have not attained them (ends).

When the term “culture” is applied to the improvement of the human mind and spirit, we are less likely to agree as to what culture is. The term “culture” itself, as signifying something to be consciously aimed at in human affairs, has not a long history. As something to be achieved by deliberate effort, “culture” is relatively intelligible when we are concerned with the self-cultivation of the individual, whose culture is seen against the background of the culture of the group and of the society. The culture of the group also has a definite meaning in contrast to the less developed culture of the mass (*grass root people—Kim’s own) of the society. The difference between the three applications of the term “culture” can be best apprehended by asking how far in relation to the individual, the group, and society as a whole the conscious aim to achieve culture has any meaning.

A good deal of confusion could be avoided, if we refrained from setting before the group, what can be the aim only of the individual; and before society as a whole, what can be the aim only of a group. In other words, the aims of the individual, a group or class, and society have differently developed but as a whole they can be evolved interrelatedly.

III.

Language and Literature

3-1. literature and language in relation

Literature, most generally speaking, is language art or the art to create the beauty in language. This is a definition which points outthe inseperability between language and literature. However, literature cannot be defined so that easily and neither literary language can be so simply defined in terms of its characteristics.

Depending upon the difference between literary perspective and language perspective, the attitudes toward literature and language is shown variously. This says that literature itself is always the possibility open to the world of literature and always the freedom as long as literature is the art of language. Even though it is human reality that language is concerned with all scopes of human activity as well as all fields of culture, nothing cannot be more sensitive to language and show the new image of creativity than literature and especially no genre is more crucial than poetry in terms of language.     

3-2. Poetic language in its characteristics---modern period

What is the poetic language which is different from other literary language or ordinary language? If poetic language should follow the indicative function regarded as the essence of language, there is no need for us to raise poetic language up as a unique topic to be discussed. But poetry is a kind of language art and paradoxically poetry rejects language, trying to be free from language, which should be thought as the characteristics of poetry. This perspective is so much significant.   

It does not mean the enmity of poetry against language because this perspective says that language intends to regard the reality of meaning, that is, language itself as things. This point of view elevates poetic language to higher status as if from passive and indicative function up to positive and creative function.

What is called “configuration poetry”형태시 as avant-garde poetry in modern times is the product of an attitude which (1)distrusts language and does no longer rely on language as expressive media. Here it is suggested of deconstructive language perspectivewhich is fundamentally suspicious of the indicative function of language, that is, the ability of language to represent reality.    

Since the mid of 1980s, a trend of modern poetry called as (2)language violence replaces the hate of reality with the hate of language.   

All modern contemporary poetry is placed somewhere between (1)(2) these two extreme forms, that is, between (1)distrusting of language언어를 불신 and (2)language violence 언어의 폭력. In order to find out the characteristics of poetic language, it is necessary for us to rely on the philosophy of language언어철학 which search for the relation of language to consciousness언어와의식 관계. It is silly of you whether thinking comes first, then consciousness comes later, or whether consciousness comes first, then thinking comes later because thinking and language is either side of one coin. What matters depends on the question of what is thinking that is consciousness. [이규호, <<말의 힘>>(정음사, 1975), p. 85.]   

Based on Owen Barfield (1973), Poetic Diction,Wesleyan UP, p.70), language is used as the name for sensitive and physical object, which could be regarded as primitive language. In such a time of ‘metaphorical period’, the name of physical object could be used in metaphorical way. This is Owen Barfield’s research assumption. According to Owen Barfield, the foremost beginning language is metaphor as well as language itself.

  language – reality/things (언어가 곧 실체, 사물)

(ex.) moon (bulan = reality X) = language Y ----X = Y

(It is called as primary or first metaphor일차적 비유.)

  object, consciousness/thinking, language

대상(X), 의식/생각(Z), 언어(Y)

(언어는 의미 기호, 의식과 생각을 동일시한다)

(ex. There is no realityX but object Y (sign for object) through Z(consciousness,thinking)

 ----Y=Z(only used as semantic sign of meaning)—

(It is called as secondary metaphor 이차적 비유.)

Richard Kuhns distinguishes philosophical statement regarded as argument from poetic statement as performance when he explains William Wordsworth’s “Prelude” phenomenally. (Kuhns, Richard (1971). Literature and Philosophy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, p.104). Kuhns says that argument논증 is connected by way of logical necessity and validity, and that performance표현 is linguistic behavior which uses synesthesia and memory as poet’s born sensitivity. What is important here is that argument and performance are set up as two movements of human self-consciousness. Language perspective of modern philosophers and linguists is that all thinking모든 사유 plays along with language even in philosophical thinking or poetic thinking, and any thinking is impossible without language. The three factors of cognition, that is, consciousness, language, and object are inseparable ontologically. Poetic language is through consciousness and thinking to reach object.

3-3.  Language, Culture and Nature/the World in their relations

3-3-1. negative vision of indicative language 

Based on a philosophy of language, in terms of interrelation of language, culture and civilization, and society, there is some explanation about negative effect of language as follows: 언어와 문화(문명), 사회의 관계에서 언어가 끼치는 소극적 부정적 영향에 대해 언어 철학적 접근으로 다음과 같은 해명이 있다. 언어를 창조함으로써 인간이 자연에서 소외疎外된, 즉 自然과 距離를 갖게 되어 구체적인 존재인 자연 속에서가 아니라 추상적 세계인 의미의 세계에 살게 된 사실이 인간의 不安의 근본적인 원인이라면, 인간이 궁극적으로 동경하고 모색하는 湼槃의 極樂世界란 다름 아닌, 언어로부터 해방된, 즉 의미의 세계에서 實體(실체),實在(실재)의 세계로 귀의한 상태를 의미하는 데 지나지 않는다.…(중략)… 언어가 없는 原初的 自然의 상태에 귀의하려는 것이 언어를 가짐으로써 疎外된 모든 인간의 자연스러운/솔직한/꾸밈없는 어쩔 수 없는 本能의 하나가 됨은 당연하다. [박이문,<<詩와 科學>> (일조각, 1975), p.121-122]

Language is the cause which started to alienate ‘human beings’ from the nature, that is, make distance between ‘us’ and the nature. Since then, we (human beings) have come to live in not the nature of real things but the abstract world of meaning, which could be the cause of anxiety. If we accept this supposition, what is called Nirvana (the state of complete absence of sensation in Buddhism) 湼槃 the world of the perfect bliss or Buddhism paradise 極樂世界 which we (human beings) are ultimately yearning for is regarded as the return to the ‘world of reality or things’ liberated from language, that is, the ‘world of meaning.’ It is natural that our yearning for the return to the state of original nature without language becomes one of spontaneous and unavoidable instincts for human beings who are estranged because of language.

Development of human’s consciousness, namely, human language has caused a phenomenon of disunion or disintegration, which our intelligence calls as “culture”. It, however, is not too emphasized that there is a pessimistic cognition in which the development of culture is merely a process of human being’s losing his direct contact to nature and of his being alienated not only from all other living organism and other people but also one’s own self in the end.    

인간의 의식(언어)의 발달로 인한 분열현상을 우리의 지성은 문화라는 미명으로 부른다. 그러나 문화의 발달이란 실상 인간이자연과의 직접적 접촉을 잃고 모든 다른 생명체와 타인들과는 물론이고 마침내 자기 자신과도 소외되는 과정에 지나지않는다는 비관적 인식(Stanley Burnshaw, the Seamless Web. N. Y. Bazlier, 1970. P. 169. 박이문, <詩와 科學> 일조각. 1975, p. 124)은 결코 과장이 아니다.

Futhermore, modern contemporary intelligence of science and technology is more accelerating such disunion and disintegration under the guise of division of labor or specialization. It is fair and proper that modern human beings would destroy the barriers of language and rather be longing for the times of primitive language like nostaligia.      

3-3-2. positive Vision of Poetic Language

Owen Barfield discovered in the whole process of development of consciousness two antagonistic principles of

powers. Firstly, it is power of the inclination성향,경향 in which simple meaning is divided into many concepts

that are isolated or disunited. Secondly, in the total opposition, it is power in which language tries to discover

original unity or integration harmonized between human beings and nature much the same as nature came out in

the beginning. The former is ordinary language and the latter is poetic language. (Barfield, Owen (1973).

Poetic Diction. Wesleyan University Press. p.70)

Variety of culture has incurred human being’s phenomena of alienation, and poetic language of poetry overcomes or solves such estrangement, which is the essential role of poetic language of poetry.

By using poetic language, poetry is trying to be free from language and to liberate from language, but paradoxically poetry takes advantage of poetic language so that poetry can recover the harmony between human being and nature and the world. In the relations between poetry and myth, such paradox of poetic language can be made clear.

3-4. Literature and Culture in their relations

Literature is one of cultural phenomena because literature embodies and vivifies in human language the ways of life and living which a whole society keeps and posseses.

Taking an example of Korean “Myth of Dankun단군 신화(檀君神話) ”, the Myth is not simply a story which has passed on until now from the old times, but the Dankun Myth is a cultural product in the sense of something that was created under national common consent about both the origin of our nation and the ways our nation lives. The king Dankun is believed as the Korean first progenitor who founded the Dankun Dynasty circa the 24^th century Before Christian Era. In addition, literature can be called as literature because literature means an intellectual activity as art. And literature is also an excellent intellectual result and great culture because literature is the linguistic structure which is built in high grade and refinement. Literature belongs to culture as a way of living in the viewpoint that production and demand of literary works has long been established in a means of living for mutual understanding.          

3-5. Division of modern times

 --- culture and society in industrial civilization

근대 이후 문명사회, 산업사회 및 현대, 당대

현대 (당대) – 21^st century-- contemporary modern society

근대 이후 문명사회 -- civilized society since the modern times

근대 산업사회 modern industrial society

21^st century 21세기 2001- 2016 :  the 4^th revolution of industry

---- VR, AR, Robot

20^th century 20세기 이후 – modernism in literature :

the 3^rd revolution of industry –IT, ICT,

19^th century 19세기 이후 - Edward Tylor’s Primitive culture -- transportation

18^th century 18세기 이후 - 17세기, 16^th, 15^th century -    

Early European modern times

************************************************  

the 4^th revolution of industry – VR, AR, Robot

the 3^rd revolution of industry –IT, ICT,

the 2^nd revolution of industry – transportation

the 1^st revolution of industry – mass production

  

IV. Analysis based on poetry’s perspective

l  perspectives of poetry

poet 시인(a) ----- poem시 (텍스트) (b)

                  reader 독자 (c)

4-1. Imitativie perspective (mimesis)

       Aristotle’s mimesis (imitatiom) —

시詩는 현실reality의 재현representation 이미지의 형상화

things/material -- to be -- primary metaphor

(cf.) modern poetry —

       object—thinking/consciousness— language   

indicative function,   secondary metaphor

나그네

술 익는 마을마다

타는 저녁놀

구름에 달 가듯이

가는 나그네

                            --박목월, <나그네> 중에서 (1917-1978)

4-2.Expressive perspective--

예전엔 미처 몰랐어요

봄 가을 없이 밤마다 돋는 달도

“예전엔 미처 몰랐어요”

이렇게 사무치게 그리울줄도

“예전엔 미처 몰랐어요”

달이 암만 밝아도 쳐다볼줄을

“예전에 미처 몰랐어요”

이제금 저 달이 설움인줄은

“예전엔 미처 몰랐어요”

                      --김소월, <예전엔 미처 몰랐어요> (1903-1934)

4-3.Pragmatic perspective

시는 감흥을 일으키며 인정을 관찰하게 하며 무리 짓게 할 수

있고 비정을 원망할 수 있다. 가까이는 어버이를 섬기고 멀리는

임금을 섬기게 할 수 있으며 鳥獸草木의 이름을 많이 알게도 한다.

<論語> 陽貨篇 “詩 可以興 可以觀 可以群 可以怨

邇之事父 遠之事君 多識於鳥獸草木之名”

-孔子 <<論語> 陽貨篇

4-4.Ontological perspective (구조론적 시점) -–

花 蛇

麝香 薄菏의 뒤안길이다

아름다운 배암 ------ .

얼마나 커다란 슬픔으로 태어났기에

저리도 징그러운 몸둥아리냐.

                          -서정주 <花 蛇> (1915-2000)

English poem (1) – (ex) Metaphysical poem

A Valediction: Of Weeping (1633)

              By John Donne (1572-1631)

    Let me pur forth

My tears before thy face whist I stay here,

For thy face coins them, and thy stamp they bear,

And by this mintage they are something worth,

       For thus they be

       Pregnant of thee;

Fruits of much grief they are, emblems of more---

When a tear falls, that Thou falls which it bore,

So thou and I are nothing then, when on a diverse shore.

       On a round ball

A workman that hath copies by can lay

An Europe, Afric, and Asia,

And quickly make that, which was nothing, all;

       So doth each tear

       Which thee doth wear,

A globe, yea world, by that impression grow,

Till thy tears mixed with mine do overflow

This world; by waters sent from thee, my heaven dissolved so.

        O more than moon,

Draw not up seas to drown me in thy sphere;

Weep me not dead in thy arms, but forbear

To teach the sea what it may do too soon.

        Let not the wind

        Example find

To do me more harm than it purposeth;

Since thou and I sigh one another’s breath,

Whoe’er sighs most is cruelest, and hastes the other’s death.

                                                 (1633)

아리랑  Ariragg

(same lyric, different melody)

아리랑 아리랑 아라리오

아리랑 고개를 넘어간다

나를 버리고 가시는 님은

십리도 못가서 발병난다

아리랑  Arirang

(same lyric, different melody)

(refrain)

아리 아리랑 스리 스리랑

아라리가 낳네

아리랑 으으으응

아라리가 낳네

(1)

무정 세월 아

오고가지를 마라

아까운 내 청춘 다지나간다

(2)

청천 하늘에 별들이 많고

요 내 가슴에 수심도 많다

=========================

영,미시  한국시  인도네시아시

고전시   고전시

중세시   고전시    자바시

근대시   근대시    NTT시

현대시   현대시    NTT시

4-5.the Self and the World in terms of Korean literature

All the people on the earth or the world exist not as <man> regarded as an abstract and general concept, but as <I> and <we> in group or society which is confined by each specified language, history, culture. It means that we are facing this world in specifically cultural environment and that we are conditioned to draw, in our mother tongue (dalam bahasa ibu), pictures of our own experiences, thought/consciousness, feeling, and the world.

But, a question is raised that “Reading and discussing of literature is equal to the study of history, ideology, and thought as ‘reality’?”, which reminds me of a skepticism that the rational and pragmatical perspectives such as Plato’s poet-expelling viewand 墨子’s 非樂論 have against literature.

In Yum Sangsup’s novel “MANSJEON—original titled as TOMB, written in 1922)-- we can find a main character “Lee In Hwa” and his family who were not the same as the members of some family in our society at the end of the year 1910, and they reveal the gloomy/harsh reality and inner agony more vividly than any paper reports or historical data by resenting the way of a conflict structure closely united with the various aspects of the contemporary life. It can both make the bulky size of life fully alive, which is not possible to grasp in logical thinking and concept, and shows the way toward the recognition of truth which is not generalized.

------------------------------------------------------------

-At the end of 7^th century, “慕竹旨朗歌”

-In 15^th century, “金鰲神話”

-In later 17^th century, “春香傳”,  “靑邱野談”

-------------------------------------------------------------

Literature, through the totality of imaginative experience, goes forward to the scope of objective experience and the searching questions for human being’s existence in this world.

Reading literature and discussing it is not only (1) a way to pursue positive understanding of the past living life and today’s living life, but also (2) worth of its share in the action for raising practical questions toward this world.  

This is the reason why understanding of Korean <literature> and other national literature including Indonesian literature, English literature, American, Korean literature, and so on, is a task given to us along with the study in other fields of humanities and sociology.

V.

Conclusion

I would suggest Indonesian men of letters as follows can be studied later.

1.       Chairil Anwar  2. Taufik Ismail  3. W.S. Rendra 

4. Pramoedya Ananta Tur 5. Amir Hamzah 6. Suradi Djoko Darmono

7. Asrul Sani 8. Umbu Landu Paranggi 9. Gerson Poyk 10. J.S. Bandudu

Works cited

-Aristotle, Poetics. trans. and introduction by Malcolm Heath. London: Penguin Books, 1996.

-Arnold, Mathew (1869). “Culture and Anarchy”. Macmillan and Co.1882.

-Barfield, Owen (1973). Poetic Diction. Wesleyan University Press. p.70

-Burnshaw, Stanley (1970). the Seamless Web. N. Y. Bazlier, 1970. P. 169. -Eliot, T. S. (1939, 1949). Christianity and Culture. The Idea of a Christian Society AND Notes towards the definition of Culture. New York and London: AHarvest/HBJ Book, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers. Chapter I The Three Senses of “Culture” pp.93-106).

-Moor, Jerry D. (1997). Visions of Culture—An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. London: ALTAMIRA press.

-Tylor, Edward B. (1958 (1871):1] Primitive Culture. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Originally published 1871.

-박이문, <詩와 科學> 일조각. 1975.

-이규호, <<말의 힘>> 정음사, 1975.

댓글 1

 0

카카오스토리트위터페이스북

스크랩0카페블로그메일

인쇄|신고

전체선택|댓글삭제댓글 스팸처리

 

kimy490 21:07 

KTCC 총재님, 수석부총재님, 운영위원회장님, 운영위원님들, 그리고
전체 회원님들께 고국을 떠난지 21년째 되는 西티모르 쿠팡에서
추석 한가위 큰 인사드립니다. KTCC 티모르 간사 김용 拜

답글 | 수정 | 삭제