Georgetown University School of Continuing Studies

DLS 2, 2024 REFLECTION PAPER

 

Comparing Between Eastern and Western Perspectives of Justice: Zhuangzi V. Rawls

By: Rev. Renaldo C. McKenzie, DLS Candidate

Date: January 31, 2024

 

 

Abstract/Introduction

 

In studying cross-cultural thinking, two persons to compare are John Rawls and Zhuangzi, representing Western and Eastern understanding of knowledge, particularly justice. How do they define, describe, or theorize justice in their works here, and how do they differ? How does John Rawls, A Theory of Justice: “An Overview of Themes,” F. ie Lovett (Rawls’s A Theory of Justice: A Reader’s Guide, 2011) compare with Zhuangzi’s “Discourse on Making Things Equal” (Chapter 2, Zhuangzi).

Reflection Response:

 

Comparing John Rawls and Zhuangzi on justice involves contrasting Western and Eastern perspectives on the nature of justice, societal organization, and individual autonomy. We provide a brief overview in dialogue style of how each thinker approaches the concept of justice:

 

John Rawls:

 

Definition of Justice: in “A Theory of Justice,” Rawls proposes a theory of justice based on the principles of fairness and equality (Jewell et al.. “Autonomy and Liberalism in a Multicultural Society.” 2005, https://core.ac.uk/download/14931339.pdf). He introduces the concept of the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” to argue for a society where justice is achieved through the fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and rights (A critical analysis of John Rawls theory of law | Project store. https://projectstore.com.ng/a-critical-analysis-of-john-rawls-theory-of-law/). Rawls emphasizes the importance of equality, especially in terms of equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity, as fundamental components of justice.

The original position and veil of ignorance are critical concepts in John Rawls’ theory of justice as presented in his work “A Theory of Justice.” These concepts are part of Rawls’ thought experiment aimed at deriving principles of justice that individuals would agree to under fair conditions.

1. Original Position: The original position is a hypothetical scenario in which individuals are placed behind a “veil of ignorance” and asked to choose principles of justice that will govern society. In this scenario, individuals are assumed to be rational and self-interested but unaware of their characteristics, such as gender, race, social status, talents, or abilities. Essentially, individuals are placed in a position of equality, stripped of knowledge about their particular circumstances or societal advantages.

2. Veil of Ignorance: The veil of ignorance refers to unawareness about personal characteristics or circumstances. It prevents individuals from being biased in favor of their interests or advantaged positions when choosing principles of justice. Behind the veil of ignorance, individuals must make decisions about principles of justice without knowing how these principles will affect them personally once the veil is lifted.

 

The original position and veil of ignorance aim to ensure fairness and impartiality in selecting principles of justice. When placed in this hypothetical scenario, Rawls argues that individuals would choose principles that maximize fairness and equality, as they would not know whether they would be born into a privileged or disadvantaged position in society. This thought experiment helps Rawls derive his two principles of justice: the principle of equal fundamental liberties and the difference principle, which addresses economic and social inequalities in society.

Difference: Rawls’ approach is deeply rooted in Western liberal thought, focusing on principles of justice derived from rational deliberation and a hypothetical social contract. His theory prioritizes protecting individual rights and liberties within a framework of distributive justice aimed at reducing societal inequalities.

Zhuangzi:

Definition of Justice: Zhuangzi, a prominent figure in Daoist philosophy, presents a more nuanced and unconventional perspective on justice. In “Discourse on Making Things Equal,” Zhuangzi challenges conventional notions of right and wrong, arguing that pursuing absolute equality and justice can lead to unnatural and harmful outcomes (The Controversial “K4mora Video”: Unveiling Taboos and Ethical Dilemmas – Q Store. https://q-store.vn/the-controversial-k4mora-video-unveiling-taboos-and-ethical-dilemmas/). He advocates for a more fluid and harmonious approach to social organization, where individuals are encouraged to embrace spontaneity and live by the natural order (Dao).

Difference: Zhuangzi’s conception of justice diverges significantly from Rawls’ framework. He rejects imposing rigid moral principles or social structures on individuals, instead promoting a philosophy of non-interference and acceptance of life’s inherent diversity and spontaneity. Zhuangzi’s perspective emphasizes the need to transcend conventional notions of justice and embrace a more holistic understanding of human existence within the broader context of nature. Comparison:

Rawls focuses on establishing a just society through rational deliberation and the establishment of fair principles, while Zhuangzi emphasizes the importance of aligning with the natural order and embracing spontaneity.

Rawls’ theory is grounded in Western liberal tradition. It prioritizes individual rights and equality, whereas Zhuangzi’s philosophy draws from Daoist thought, emphasizing harmony with nature and rejecting rigid moral frameworks.

Both thinkers address the concept of justice in their respective cultural contexts. However, their approaches reflect broader philosophical differences between Western and Eastern thought regarding the nature of justice, societal organization, and the role of the individual within the community.

 

Question:

So Rawls believes in institutionalism to create justice, while Zhuangzi believes in humans with little government interference? Zhuangzi believes that human beings are naturally ordered and that that order may make some human beings better, and therefore, living out this order is fair and what equality is. Both promote capitalism and socialism, whereas Rawls draws on capitalist structures and science. At the same time, Zhuanzi believes in less rigid frameworks that promote human living within his means and abilities. However, these do not mean any order that privileges one ability or position over the other. Zuanzi finds her inspiration from a type of spirituality that the Easterns think is devoid of Rawls or Western philosophy today. While speaking about ethnocentricism, Ian Buruma and Said’s works highlight the value of each system value, which each critiques the other for. This value of ethics is distinguished in Rawls and Zuanzi’s idea of justice.

 

Reflection Response:

That is an interesting analysis, which touches on several key points, but there are some clarifications and nuances to consider:

 

Rawls and Institutionalism:

Rawls advocates for the establishment of just institutions through his theory of justice as fairness. He emphasizes the importance of creating a social contract and institutional structures that ensure society’s fair distribution of resources and opportunities. These institutions are designed to uphold principles of justice, such as equal fundamental liberties and fair equality of opportunity, while also addressing systemic inequalities.

Zhuangzi and Minimal Government Interference:

Zhuangzi’s philosophy leans towards minimal government interference, as he advocates for a more spontaneous and natural way of living, which includes minimal interference in individual lives. However, it is essential to note that Zhuangzi’s perspective is not explicitly about promoting a particular form of governance or economic system like capitalism or socialism. He emphasizes the individual’s alignment with the natural order (Dao) and living in harmony with it rather than on specific political or economic structures.

Rawls and Zhuangzi on Capitalism and Socialism:

While Rawls’ theory of justice is often discussed in the context of liberal democracies and capitalist economies, he does not explicitly endorse any particular economic system. Rawls focuses more on principles of justice within a society, regardless of its economic structure.

Zhuangzi’s philosophy similarly does not align neatly with either capitalism or socialism. His emphasis on living by the natural order transcends specific economic systems and emphasizes individual harmony with nature and spontaneity.

Ethnocentrism and Value of Different Systems:

Correct in highlighting the differences in cultural and philosophical backgrounds between Rawls and Zhuangzi and how these differences shape their ideas of justice. Ian Buruma and Edward Said discuss ethnocentrism’s dangers and the importance of recognizing the value of different cultural and philosophical systems.

Both Rawls and Zhuangzi offer valuable perspectives on justice rooted in their respective cultural and philosophical traditions. Rawls’ focus on fairness, equality, and institutional justice contrasts with Zhuangzi’s emphasis on spontaneity, harmony with nature, and living by the Dao. While they may critique each other’s systems from their cultural perspectives, their ideas contribute to a richer understanding of justice that transcends cultural boundaries.

In summary, while Rawls and Zhuangzi approach the concept of justice from different cultural and philosophical perspectives, their ideas contribute to a nuanced understanding of justice that encompasses principles of fairness, equality, harmony, and individual autonomy.

 

Question:

Understood, but if not economic, is there a type of liberalism in Zuanzi’s work, or did the postmodernists like Foccult draw their insights from the East, such as Zuanzi? Rawls’s theory would facilitate big government, while Zuanzi is limited government. How does the political system of the U.S. align with either of these as against China?

 

Reflection Response:

Zhuangzi’s philosophy does not align neatly with classical liberalism as understood in Western political thought. Classical liberalism emphasizes individual rights, limited government intervention, and free market principles. While Zhuangzi does advocate for minimal government interference and emphasizes individual autonomy, his philosophy is more holistic and rooted in Daoist principles rather than in the individualistic focus of classical liberalism.

Postmodernist thinkers, including those within cultural studies and philosophy, have drawn insights from Eastern philosophies such as Daoism, including Zhuangzi’s writings. However, it is essential to note that postmodernism is a complex and diverse intellectual movement encompassing various philosophical perspectives and cannot be solely attributed to Eastern influences.

 

In the context of contemporary political systems like those of the United States and China:

United States:

The United States political system is often associated with liberal democracy and a mixed economy that combines elements of capitalism and social welfare. While the U.S. does have a tradition of liberal thought that emphasizes individual rights and limited government intervention in certain areas, the actual practice of governance involves a complex interplay between governmental regulation, social programs, and private enterprise. Rawls’ theory of justice, emphasizing fairness and equality within a framework of democratic institutions, aligns with certain aspects of liberal democracy practiced in the U.S.

China:

China’s political system is characterized by single-party rule under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and a state-directed economy with elements of state capitalism. The Chinese government exercises significant control over economic and social affairs, and the emphasis is often on collective goals and social stability rather than individual rights and liberties. Zhuangzi’s philosophy, emphasizing spontaneity, harmony with nature, and minimal government interference, contrasts with contemporary China’s centralized control and state-directed economic policies.

While both Rawls and Zhuangzi offer perspectives on justice and governance that resonate with certain aspects of political systems, like those in the United States and China, their ideas are nuanced and complex and cannot be neatly mapped onto contemporary political realities. The practice of governance in any country involves various factors beyond philosophical theory, including historical context, cultural values, and institutional structures.

 

Question:

You say that Zhuanzi’s philosophy is more holistic and rooted in Daoist principles rather than in the individualistic focus of classical liberalism. How so?

 

Reflection Response:

Zhuangzi’s philosophy, rooted in Daoist principles, differs from classical liberalism in several key ways:

 

Holistic View of the Self: Zhuangzi’s philosophy emphasizes a holistic understanding of the self and the world. He views individuals as interconnected with the natural world and each other rather than as autonomous agents separate from their surroundings. This holistic perspective contrasts with the individualistic focus of classical liberalism, which places greater emphasis on the rights and autonomy of the individual.

Emphasis on Harmony and Spontaneity: Zhuangzi advocates living in harmony with the natural order (Dao) and embracing spontaneity rather than imposing rigid moral or social structures. His philosophy emphasizes the importance of aligning with the flow of nature and allowing events to unfold naturally, which contrasts with the emphasis on individual rights and rational deliberation in classical liberalism.

Minimal Government Interference: While classical liberalism often advocates for limited government intervention in individual affairs, Zhuangzi’s philosophy goes further by advocating for minimal interference in all aspects of life. He promotes a laissez-faire approach to governance, where individuals are left to govern themselves and live by their nature rather than being subject to external rules or regulations.

Transcendence of Dichotomies: Zhuangzi’s philosophy challenges dichotomous thinking and fixed moral categories. He explores themes of relativity, transformation, and the unity of opposites, contrasting with the more dualistic and categorical thinking often found in classical liberalism.

Overall, Zhuangzi’s philosophy offers a more holistic and fluid perspective on the self, society, and governance compared to the individualistic focus and emphasis on limited government intervention in classical liberalism.

 

Question:

What is the main difference between Rawls and Zhuanzi

 

Reflection Response:

The main difference between John Rawls and Zhuangzi lies in their philosophical frameworks, cultural backgrounds, and approaches to justice:

 

Cultural Backgrounds and Philosophical Frameworks:

 

John Rawls: Rawls is a figure in Western political philosophy, particularly associated with liberal democratic thought. His ideas are deeply rooted in Western philosophical traditions, including social contract theory and Kantian ethics. Rawls’ approach to justice is characterized by rational deliberation, the veil of ignorance, and the establishment of fair principles through a hypothetical social contract.

Zhuangzi: Zhuangzi, on the other hand, is a figure in Eastern philosophy, specifically Daoism. His ideas are grounded in Daoist principles, including the idea of the Dao (the Way) and the importance of living in harmony with nature. Zhuangzi’s approach to justice is more holistic and emphasizes spontaneity, relativity, and the transcendence of fixed moral categories.

 

Approach to Justice:

 

John Rawls: Rawls’ theory of justice, as outlined in “A Theory of Justice,” focuses on principles of fairness, equality, and individual rights within a framework of liberal democracy. He emphasizes the importance of ensuring equal fundamental liberties and fair equality of opportunity while addressing systemic inequalities through redistributive measures.

Zhuangzi: Zhuangzi’s conception of justice is less concerned with establishing fixed principles or institutional structures and more focused on living by the natural order (Dao). He advocates for a laissez-faire approach to governance and emphasizes the importance of spontaneity and non-interference in individual lives.

 

Individual Autonomy vs. Harmony with Nature:

 

John Rawls: Rawls prioritizes individual autonomy and rights within a just society. His theory of justice aims to protect individual liberties and ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue their conception of the good life (Cochrane et al.. “Moral Obligations to Non-humans.” 2007, https://core.ac.uk/download/46519461.pdf).

Zhuangzi: Zhuangzi’s philosophy emphasizes harmony with nature and living by the spontaneous flow of life. While he values individual autonomy to some extent, his emphasis is more on aligning with the natural order and transcending individual desires and fixed notions of justice.

While both Rawls and Zhuangzi address the concept of justice in their respective works, they approach it from different cultural, philosophical, and methodological perspectives, resulting in distinct theories of justice.

 

Question:

For example, would the idea of the “survival of the fittest” align with Zhuanzi’s philosophy?

 

Reflection Response:

The concept of “survival of the fittest” is often associated with Darwinian evolution and the idea that organisms best adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce (Uncovering Natural Selection: A Closer Look at Genetic Influences – Green Mountain Center. https://greenmountaincenter.org/uncovering-natural-selection-a-closer-look-at-genetic-influences/). While this concept is commonly used in biology and evolutionary theory, it can also be applied metaphorically to social, economic, or political contexts.

In the context of Zhuangzi’s philosophy, “survival of the fittest” may align with his emphasis on spontaneity, naturalness, and living by the Dao (the Way). Zhuangzi’s philosophy advocates for individuals to embrace their natural inclinations and talents, allowing them to flourish in their unique ways without excessive interference or constraint from external forces.

In this interpretation, “survival of the fittest” can be understood as individuals thriving and finding their place within the natural order, not through aggressive competition or domination, but by aligning with the natural flow of life and expressing their inherent abilities and talents. It is important to note that Zhuangzi’s philosophy emphasizes harmony with nature rather than ruthless competition or the domination of one individual or group over another.

So, while the concept of “survival of the fittest” may resonate with certain aspects of Zhuangzi’s philosophy, it should be understood within the broader context of his emphasis on spontaneity, naturalness, and harmony with the Dao.

 

Question:

However, if we are to act according to nature, those with that kind of ruthless inclination may be driven to do so if we are to align with nature. Is that not the case?

 

Reflection Response:

Zhuangzi’s philosophy emphasizes aligning with the natural order (Dao). However, it is essential to understand that his conception of “acting according to nature” is not about unthinkingly following one’s immediate inclinations or desires, especially if they lead to harm or conflict.

In Zhuangzi’s philosophy, “acting according to nature” involves aligning with the spontaneous flow of life, embracing naturalness, and living in harmony with the Dao. This does not mean indulging in ruthless behavior or aggressive competition. Instead, it involves finding balance, spontaneity, and non-interference in one’s actions, allowing events to unfold naturally without excessive effort or manipulation.

While individuals may have inclinations or desires that seem competitive or ruthless, Zhuangzi’s philosophy encourages transcending these impulses and embracing a more holistic and harmonious way of living. It is not about suppressing natural inclinations entirely but rather about recognizing and transcending them in favor of a broader perspective encompassing harmony with nature and the well-being of all beings.

So, while individuals may have diverse inclinations, Zhuangzi’s philosophy advocates for cultivating a mindset of spontaneity, non-interference, and harmony with the natural order rather than indulging in ruthless behavior driven solely by immediate inclinations or desires.

 

Question:

Then, wouldn’t Cultivating a mind lead to creating something that may not be natural, which contradicts the philosophy?

 

Reflection Response:

In Zhuangzi’s philosophy, “cultivating a mindset” does not necessarily contradict the concept of aligning with nature. Instead, it involves aligning one’s understanding and perspective with the natural order (Dao) rather than imposing artificial constructs or rigid mental frameworks.

When Zhuangzi speaks of “cultivating the mind,” he does not advocate creating something artificial or unnatural. Instead, he suggests refining one’s awareness, understanding, and perspective to align more closely with the spontaneity and naturalness of the Dao. This process involves letting go of rigid mental constructs, biases, and attachments that distort our perception of reality and inhibit our ability to flow with the natural order.

In Zhuangzi’s philosophy, “cultivating the mind” involves mindfulness, self-awareness, and letting go of attachments to ego and desire. These practices are aimed at attuning oneself to the spontaneous flow of life and the natural rhythms of the Dao rather than imposing artificial constructs or ideas onto reality.

So, while the language of “cultivating the mind” may imply a deliberate effort, the goal in Zhuangzi’s philosophy is not to create something artificial or unnatural but rather to refine and align one’s understanding and perspective with the inherent spontaneity and naturalness of the Dao.

 

Question:

However, to do so involves being creative. It is easy to say it, but then when you start to think in practical terms, Zhuanzi’s theory contradicts itself on the practical levels.

 

Reflection Response:

Understandably, applying philosophical principles to practical situations can sometimes present challenges or apparent contradictions. In the case of Zhuangzi’s philosophy, which emphasizes spontaneity, naturalness, and aligning with the Dao, there are complexities regarding practical application.

 

Here are a few points to consider regarding the practical aspects of Zhuangzi’s philosophy:

 

Interpretive Flexibility: Zhuangzi’s writings are often poetic and metaphorical, leaving room for interpretation and adaptation to various contexts. This flexibility allows individuals to apply his philosophical principles in ways that resonate with their experiences and understanding.

Balance and Harmony: While Zhuangzi advocates for spontaneity and naturalness, he also emphasizes the importance of balance and harmony. This suggests that practical application involves finding a balance between spontaneity and mindful awareness, allowing for creative expression while recognizing all things’ interconnectedness.

Contextual Considerations: The practical application of Zhuangzi’s philosophy may vary depending on the context and circumstances (Wang, Jaesun, et al. “The Paradox of Conspiracy Theory: The Positive Impact of Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories on Preventive Actions and Vaccination Intentions during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 22, 2021, p. 11825). What is considered spontaneous and natural in one situation may not be appropriate in another. Therefore, practical application requires careful consideration of the context and the potential consequences of one’s actions.

Personal Transformation: Zhuangzi’s philosophy involves a process of personal transformation and self-cultivation. Practical application may involve ongoing self-reflection, mindfulness practices, and the cultivation of virtues such as compassion, humility, and non-attachment (Sant Dnyaneshwar 10 Lines In English. https://studyhelpinghand.com/sant-dnyaneshwar-10-lines-in-english/).

While it is true that applying Zhuangzi’s philosophy to practical situations may present challenges and complexities, it is also essential to recognize that philosophical principles are often meant to inspire contemplation, reflection, and ongoing exploration rather than providing rigid rules or prescriptions. Ultimately, the practical application of Zhuangzi’s philosophy requires a nuanced understanding of his teachings, mindful consideration of context, and a willingness to engage in ongoing self-reflection and personal growth.

 

Wrap Up:

The points were spot on and directly related to our discussion in the Doctor of liberal studies 2 group at Georgetown University School of Continuing Studies. Very well done.

 

Summary:

 

Q: Hello, Renaldo. I have some questions about John Rawls and Zhuangzi’s philosophies on justice.

R: Of course; what precisely would you like to know?

Q: I am interested in comparing Rawls and Zhuangzi’s perspectives on justice. Could you explain their ideas in more detail?

R: Certainly, let us start with John Rawls. His theory of justice, outlined in “A Theory of Justice,” is based on principles of fairness and equality. Rawls introduces the concept of the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” to argue for a society where justice is achieved through the fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and rights (Summary of the book A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. https://www.modernlife-tech.com/2023/06/summary-of-the-book-a-theory-of-justice-by-john-rawls.html).

Q: That is interesting. How does Zhuangzi’s philosophy differ from Rawls’?

R: Zhuangzi, a figure in Daoist philosophy, presents a more holistic perspective on justice. He emphasizes harmony with nature and living by the Dao. Zhuangzi’s philosophy challenges conventional notions of right and wrong, advocating for a more fluid and harmonious approach to social organization.

Q: So, Rawls believes in institutionalism to create justice, while Zhuangzi believes in minimal government interference. Is that correct?

R: That is a succinct way to put it. Rawls’ theory prioritizes the establishment of just institutions through principles of fairness and equality, whereas Zhuangzi’s philosophy emphasizes minimal government interference and aligning with the natural order.

Q: How do their political views align with the systems in the U.S. and China?

R: In the United States, Rawls’ emphasis on liberal democracy and principles of justice aligns with certain aspects of the political system, whereas in China, Zhuangzi’s philosophy of minimal government interference contrasts with the centralized control of the Chinese Communist Party.

Q: That makes sense. So, do you think Zhuangzi’s philosophy promotes a form of capitalism or socialism?

R: While Zhuangzi’s philosophy does not explicitly align with capitalism or socialism, his emphasis on individual autonomy and non-interference can be interpreted as compatible with certain aspects of both systems.

Q: I see. Thank you for clarifying that. Could you explain how the idea of “survival of the fittest” aligns with Zhuangzi’s philosophy?

R: In Zhuangzi’s philosophy, “survival of the fittest” may be understood as individuals thriving and finding their place within the natural order, aligning with the spontaneous flow of life rather than engaging in ruthless competition or domination.

Q: But would not aligning with nature mean that those with ruthless inclinations also act according to Zhuangzi’s philosophy?

R: While individuals may have competitive inclinations, Zhuangzi’s philosophy encourages transcending these impulses and embracing a more holistic and harmonious way of living.

Q: I understand. However, would not cultivating a mindset contradict Zhuangzi’s philosophy?

R: Cultivating a mindset in Zhuangzi’s philosophy involves aligning one’s understanding and perspective with the natural order rather than creating something artificial or unnatural.

 

• The End is just the beginning.

 

References List

 

1. Jewell, Paul Damian. “Autonomy and Liberalism in a Multicultural Society.” 2005, https://philpapers.org/rec/JEWAAL. Accessed 31 January 2024.

 

2. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.

 

3. Rawls, John. “An Overview of Themes.” A Theory of Justice: A Reader’s Guide, edited by Frank Lovett, Continuum, 2011, pp. 1–23.

 

4. “The Controversial “K4mora Video”: Unveiling Taboos and Ethical Dilemmas.” Q Store, https://www.qscience.com/content/papers/10.5339/qproc.2016.qgbc.22. Accessed 29 January 2024.

 

4. “Zhuangzi.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/zhuangzi/. Accessed 30 January 2024.

 

6. “A critical analysis of John Rawls theory of law.” Project store, https://projectstore.com.ng/a-critical-analysis-of-john-rawls-theory-of-law/. It was accessed on 29 January 2024.

 

About the Author:

Rev. Renaldo McKenzie is a Professor at Jamaica Theological Seminary, President of The NeoLiberal Corporation, and Author of Neoliberalism, Globalization, Income Inequality, Poverty and Resistance and the upcoming book, Neoliberal Globalization Reconsidered, Neo-Capitalism and the Death of Nations, coming out in February 2024. Renaldo is a Doctoral candidate at Georgetown University and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania. Renaldo also studied Philosophy at The University of West Indies, Mona.

Support us

 

Follow Renaldo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/renaldomckenzie or via Facebook: https://facebook.com/renaldo.mckenzie.

 

The NeoLiberal Journals is a publication of The NeoLiberal Corporation. Serving the world today to solve tomorrow's challenges by making popular what was the monopoly. Subscribe, share and support us.

 

Announcing: Visit our new store, https://store.theneoliberal.com/html, which is under construction, and tell us what you think and how we can improve it. You can advertise, sell, or promote your solutions and services on our store page. email is at [email protected] or [email protected].The page will be launched in a few weeks. Stay tuned! 

Note: We are currently not receiving emails from google accounts or those administered by google. We are aware of the problem and are trying to resolve this issue.