Evolution isn't guided. Even if the universe was created, biological evolution is based on accidents in DNA replication, and therefore is not a conscious process. It is not about moving to increasing complexity either, it's about the accidents that happen to work best for the organism's environment happening to give those individuals a greater chance of surviving to mate and pass on their genes that happen to be favourable.

I thought God was everything, therefore even if something changes God does not, since the change has only made god move what was once true at one point to another point to be also true.

Hi LumbyLad:

If God is the cosmic totality, then God self-evolves. This is not a process of pre-design but of chance. It took the universe trillions of stars and billions of years to evolve life by chance. Then, by constant mutation, and keeping those mutations that suited its purpose, the universe evolved a life form that rationally discerns ITself.

The purpose of the universe is to understand ITself analytically; the universe exists to produce a species of life that allows the universe to comprehend ITself analytically. The original synthetical universe, in ITS original, transcendental spirit that transcends opposites, strove to become ITS opposite: analytical.—And IT succeeded!

I think the original intelligence of the universe was(is) transcendental and holistic. Synthetical intelligence, if you will. We humans, with our analytical intelligence, assume that analytical intelligence is the only kind of intelligence, but it is not so. Synthetical and transcendental intelligence was there first, and, using its transcendental power, it evolved its opposite: analytical intelligence.

Synthetical, transcendental intelligence is both superior and inferior to analytical intelligence. It is the guiding intelligence of the universe, but it can't analyze itself. So, by chance and probability, and by using its transcendental power and hanging on to that which worked best, it evolved its opposite: analytical intelligence.

IT evolved diversity and uniqueness from oneness and sameness; IT evolved analytical intelligence from synthetical intelligenec. And, in the transcendental spirit of ITS original intelligence, which transcends and includes what it is, it remained in its original oneness while IT diversified and uniquefied ITself, and IT remained holistically and synthetically intelligent while it evolved analytical intelligence.

Now it is up to us humans to realize and internalize the innate sameness and oneness that underlies plurality, diversity, and uniqueness; and the innate synthetical and transcendental intelligence that underlies analytical intelligence.

This is the next step in God's self-evolution. In this step, we, Homo sapiens sapiens, have to be God's active co-evolvers, or it won't work. As conceited as this may seem, we humans have to realize our innate oneness with God to take this next, bold step in God's evolution.

"We are as gods, and might as well get good at it."

-Stewart Brand, editor, Whole Earth Catalog

Why are you so sure Lumby?  Is it just a feeling?

There's no proof for any of this.

If one were just to look around outside of thy's elf ...

Habeas Corpus! Then if one cannot see outside the mould? It it a mum Ai, like moot/mute?

Alas not possible for a blind man that sees only inward ... absolute physical vision, that cannot see around the bends of the lens of the soul ... he doesn't have one you say?

Oh he made that claim! No heart of caring (God) no mind to know it ... that's sadeistic! Even the powers above would weep over that one: "Do you see what he did ... turfed ID, denied grace as an outright lie?"

Bring in the real clowns!

Don't worry, Atheisto, it's just a feeling.

We, in the hippyville of Lumby, go by feeling.

We do, however, also go by science.

Yes Sachyriel. I grew up thinking God was everything and ALL and ONE and I AM and this meant also unchangeable. As we seek to stretch our minds to become more open to other views of God that are NOT based on an ancient Middle Eastern religion, and open our Churches to more free thinkers, it is time for us to open our minds up. I am not saying that what I say is THE TRUTH. I am saying, what about this? I makes more "sense" to me than the "Eternal God" that seems to always stay the same, passively "watching" his creation. Perhaps "HE/SHE/IT" is to be found within the creation; then change and evolution of "the Divine" is not only possible but a hopeful possibility.

God may be the ONE and ETERNAL, but none of this implies that this entity never changes. The only source for an unchanging God is the Bible and this has no secondary source. It is a matter of faith. I choose to have the same I AM God who resides within ME (like the "God chip") who also changes with me -as a Spirit, not a Mind or a Body. My job is to capture my spirit and thus connect with my God.

And Atheisto: I do not deal with absolute Truths. I try to deal with becoming an "authentic soul". This means that I must try to see what kind of God I can embrace without being a hypocrite. Life is a journey of experiencing. My Blog about seeing myself in the mirror led to this proposition. It was written as such (what do you think?) Certainly it would be nice to have it all together in a package like Arminius, however the danger of this is that is becomes rigid and then must lead to dogma and doctine as it finds the need for expansion. So you might call it a "feeling", but I believe it comes from carefully "listening to one's soul". I have been practicing a different kind of meditation recently, starting with the question of God's "existence". I never really question that there is a Creative Force that started all of this, but the nature of this I AM in relationship to me is important. I want this to be authentic. So I am not after "knowing". I am rather trying to find a belief that has some congruence with how I see myself (inside and outside). I don't much care what people chose to believe. I only expect that they will do the work - make it as authentic as possible, rather than a rote story of supernatural events that happened, allegedly, over 2000 years ago. I don't have a Jesus-chip. He was a great teacher and I glean what I can from a much tampered with Bible. I have a metaphoric God-chip. It is what gives me vision, drive (power), compassion and feeds Love. This I believe.

And I rather like the quote from Arminius, "As conceited as this may seem, we humans have to realize our innate oneness with God to take this next, bold step in God's evolution." Perhaps this is the next step each individual needs to consider if "emerging" is to happen. Certainly the Church is not going to do it as a building; it is the people who need to emerge. They need to find new vision, drive, compassion and a direction for their Love in a new Century.

And Waterbuoy, thanks for the complement. Indeed, bring in the clowns. It is a time for joy and celebration when anyone, at last, discovers their authentic self or soul. I am not yet there, but give me time.....

Hi LumbyLad:

My speculations do not necessarily lead to dogma and doctrine because they are, at all times, speculations, and belong in the realm of speculative philosophy.

Any speculation about the Divine can, of course, be doctrinized and dogmatized. But not mine; not if I have a say in it.

Ah, Arminius:

You may have no say. As a self-declared Prophet, there are those who will distort what you teach (because it hangs together) and do it for you. That is the politics of religion. That is why we "should" never speak dogmatically, even if we are sure that our truth belongs to us and may just go further. Every truth is personal and when it is thrown out as Truth, it is already the first step in forming dogmatic rigidity.

Oh yeah, LumbyLad? Isn't what you just said a statement of dogmatic rigidity? I'm never that certain.

In my imagination, prophets are visionaries. They don't have the truth, they don't foretell the future. They share their vision of the future. And if their vision touches the Divine in us, then we feel moved to carry it out. Then the vision becomes self-fulfilling, and the prophecy comes true.

Isn't that how prophecy works? 

Ah, finally...a vulnerable prophet!  I absolutely agree with your idea of how prophesy works. It's like the economic market. If we're told we are in an economic depression and we should not take risks, we don't spend, which keeps both us and the market depressed. So we have a bunch of depressed people waiting for a prophet. Then along comes Obama. BUT unless people believe in his vision, it cannot work. The Spirit even works in politics...but that's another story.

I'm glad you came clean. I remember the days when you said, "Read this, then discard it...". Recently you have been acting rather like an EGOmaniac and an orator. Having the words is a talent; having them listened to in the way you intended is a gift. I hope you will move toward your gift. As Waterbuoy would want, we must attend to our ID, which is, at the same time what goes into our authentic Identity.

LumbyLad/Arminius

A spark hits the eye, due likely to WaterBuoy's prose.

Doesn't the Kosmic IT sound an awful lot like the Jedi Force?

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

KR_79

If there is no guidance, then matter would never form, as the tendency would be to break down into the simpler, not build up into the more complex.  There is some guiding force, perhaps nothing more than that, that started the process.  And as we evolve, IT evolves.

IT

Russ

Hi Russ. When I said guidance, I meant as in intelligent guidance, meaning that evolution isn't something that is preplanned or that is being consciously driven. It just happens to happen. If enough energy is put into a system, order will happen without any need for guidance.

Russ: May the Force be with you.

KR-79

You may see evolution as "accidental", without intention, but you do go on to say, "it's about the accidents that happen to work best for the organism's environment happening to give those individuals a greater chance of surviving to mate and pass on their genes that happen to be favourable."  I think you are referring to Darwinian survival of the fittest. This seems to me to point in the direction of some intention or system in place that does move towards more complexity. Those organism which survive could be said to hold a more complex system in order to survive. It's all in your perspective. One might say, "things are unfolding as they should....". or NOT.

We may think that the Human is now the organism that has beat this system and is now the most complex, having both emotional and logical talents, having lost much of it intuitive talents. We may think that our 'intention' is now in sinc with the intention of God. I am not at all sure about this. Indeed, I think that the human is the first of God's evolved creations that has the opportunity to have an intention of its own. We may all have the "God chip", but we can refuse to listen to it, having lost much of our intuitive or primative innate understanding of what we are to do. We can disconnect from our "Spirit".

This is why we have to change as an organism to value more the experiential wisdom open to us. We need to evaluate reality with a blending of our reason and our feelings and make decisions based on our connection to each other and the land. Until we see ourselves as part of a divine process (plan?), we will never learn to love each other inspite of our stupid behavior and to forgive each other's stupid behaviors, knowing that we are all really meant to live in harmony in this most complex world. God has evolved to the point of being an accessible Spirit through our intentional efforts to practice prayer, meditation, T'ai chi chuan, Chanting, Healing Hands, Sweat Lodges, etc. etc. No animal prior to humans has been able to interact with its Spirit. Instead it has been only powered by the Spirit. The evolution of God to an interactive Spirit has only been a short time in the history of the cosmos, but it is important. As our cultures have been diverse or changed, the Spirit adapts, for Love, compassion, forgiveness, trust and such are understood by most. If we follow our Spirit, we will survive; if not, we likely will destroy our planet. THAT will be a real shame. This is my opinion.

Lumbylad, your mentioning 'time talk' reminds me of the mystical talk that scientists who study Quantum Mechanics and Physics are using...

Instead of using the terms 'time' and 'space', they are being more agnostic and precise and using the terms 'time-like' and 'space-like'.

And, as for evolving...I guess that would mean which theory of evolution you proscribe to. There is more than one :3 All the way through 'no-intention' neo-Darwinism (which doesn't, btw, mean 'nature, red in tooth and claw', but also means altruism and mutual benefit) to 'Theistic'.

G_d is here and now and never and neither,

Inannawhimsey

Hi lumbylad,

We're dancing around the same thoughts (curtsies prettily) and Klaatu used to be on the cafe with the same questions.  It's an odd thing to find yourself moving into the idea that creative intention is involving, but it does sit right with me.

I don't believe in the UCC trying to fill churches or survive per se, but in remaining valid and able to connect those with a spiritual pursuasion of a particular bent.    

I have shortened your quote to respond to you as a one-on-one thing because I'm up early in the morning. We shall continue by examining why you feel that God changes, however if we take the idea of God he would be the Alpha and the Omega, therefore able to change whilst being unchanged. As an Origami Anarchist I postulate this to you:

The Divine Tangram! (I'll get an angel chorus in my next edit :P)

These seven shapes can be used to make a lot of things. We rearrange them and suddenly they are different:

(It's a bunny rabbit! Oh no! Someone, pass me the Holy Hand Grenade!)

Perhaps God, like the Tangram of Divinity, 'evolves' and changes with his creation. However, there is still only seven peices in the Tangram, so is it can be debated whether or not it is truly changed. The number of peices has not changed, only their relation to each other has; God is still God, however we have changed in relation with one another and might understand God differently than before. If you are talking about the difference between religion now and religion in Bible-writing times then I must tell you that I believe the Bible was not meant to be a millenia-spanning book of laws. It was meant to be a history book about the spiritual beliefs of people in that age, like a religious time capsule. Valuable things can be found in it, however like any other thing in this material world we do not need them.

Anyways, did my Tangram analogy help bring you down to the level at which the Internet flows? I am tired, I have been up all night and am going to get some coffee.

Hi Sachyriel

I do appreciate your perspective and even agree with your analogy of the Tangram as a way to demonstrate the way that God evolves, like a "shape-sifter" (a la Stephen King?). In fact, I suspect you are right about this. It feels right. God is a force that may keep the same voltage but offer various amperage. I am not sure of any of this, but determined to challenge myself with it. I need to think on this more. Thanks for the thoughts. I also agree with your view of the Bible and its value to us. I just don't worship it. Your response was reassuring and helpful!

As I have said in many discussions, I am less interested in the dogma and doctrinal side of Christianity and more interested in what Christians do in their practice of their faith. Social justice is the headstone of the United Church of Canada. This is why I returned to this church. Without this, I would likely not have become active in our little church. At the same time, it has always been an intellectual challenge to try to discern the nature of God and establish my own relationship with It. This later intellectual challenge has actually led to mysticism -very anti-intellectual and more experiential. This opens a whole new world to me. Again, however, thanks for the challenge, eh.

Yes, I am referring to Darwinian evolution, which is the accepted model right now (although it has been highly modified since Darwin's time). It doesn't look like complexity has anything to do with favourability. It's all based on what alleles happen to work best with the environment of the organism. If complexity was the driving force of evolution then why are there still bacteria?

Hahaha, as if. Each human (ideally) has two sets of 23 chromosomes. An amaeba can have as many as 250, so genetically we are not the most complex. Whales and giant squid are huge so we are not physiologically the most complex. Our brains aren't even the biggest, and neanderthals are supposed to have had bigger brains than us based on the size of their skulls. Just because we have civilization doesn't mean we aren't still biologically evolving.

Absolutely untrue. We still get hungry, thursty, sleepy and sexually aroused which means we still have our most primitive instincts intact. We experience emotions all the time and they can be quite overwhelming despite our logical prowess as a species. We are not the only animals with prefrontal cortices either so I would expect most, if not all mammals, and perhaps other animals as well, to have at least some degree of logic skill.

Funny, because I don't think that this is accepted by the scientific community. I haven't heard of any "god chip" or "spirit" being demonstrated to exist ever. I also think it's pretty arrogant to believe that we are beyond all other organisms just because we have civilization.

And what if that "plan" is a delusion? Evolution is driven by accidents made by enzymes. How does that even minutely suggest that there is a plan to it?

This is quite truthful. However, working together in the wilderness means predator-prey relationships and competitions for resources and territory among members of the same species. This is where natural selection comes in, which is driven by mutations (which as I said before are unguided).

How do you know this? Spirituality is an emotional phenominon and since most animals have emotions, we may not be the only ones capable of spirituality. I have heard about a neuroscientist that was able to get pidgeons to worship an idol (I don't have the book with me that I read this in, unfortunately or else I would give you the guy's name)

I'm glad you admit that this is your opinion. I'm not going to challenge that but I would like to know what you consider the spirit to be. Psychology has been able to reduce all of our thought processes, including emotions like spirituality to neurological processes. There is extensive evidence to support this fact. So what would you consider the spirit to be if it has absolutely nothing to do with our thoughts and personalities?

LumbyLad, I appreciate your post and the questions you raise. Having said that I quote a snippet of your article for comment.

a) please address my website which is found at "shekinah-jwh.ca" and see if you are faced with something that looks familiar. I was when I read your post <;-}

b) I can't go along with you on this score for no other reason than that a force cannot be said to care for .... anything! IMO we are dealing here with a "forcefield" that is full of potential. It follows, according to me that humanity (because of their capabilities) can choose one way or another. The "forcefield" doesn't care what we choose as IT didn't create us. Even so we end up living with the consequences of our choices. A prime example is the global warming that continuous to increase as we refuse to do something about it. Worst case scenario? We refuse to tackle the problem and Humanity goes extinct! Depending on our efforts, Humanity survives to one degree or another. Either way, we are talking about Human choices and activities.

Shalom.

The cosmological force that Einstein spoke of ... motivation to do something ... a primal psyche that was blind?

Then there was light, was that buried because the physical man refused to accept balanced light ... shared by all?

Yet there are those that fear to share and those that fear to learn of that dark unknown force. "What teach our children about emotions; that would be dangerous!"

Why, because we don't know enough to teach Mu'les (the light particles) by the means of don ques (deep questions)? Perhaps it is because we don't ask and provide silly questions when we should think about it a while. Is Love patient kind as a primal emotive? Perhaps in time idyll learn? What about the physical side to the equation ... m'n ... is heh too dumbstrick by the primal side of metaphysics ... moot emotion?

Weird!

Pan

"I can't go along with you on this score for no other reason than that a force cannot be said to care for .... anything! IMO we are dealing here with a "forcefield" that is full of potential. It follows, according to me that humanity (because of their capabilities) can choose one way or another. The "forcefield" doesn't care what we choose as IT didn't create us."

I would take a slightly different interpretation, being a padawan of Arminius (even though he doesn't know it).

I think the force collectively may know about us and may be aware of us but care, no, I don't think IT does.  It certainly doesn't control our moves, that I agree with 100%.  And in the end, if humankind shots itself in the foot and dies off, the Kosmic IT will be just as concerned about the next lifeform that forms IT.

Will IT eventually care, I think there is a possibility of that, assuming IT doesn't already.  IT may, like a ghost, simply be unable to cause any interaction on our plain, think Scrouge's ghosts.  Or IT may not be there yet?

Being a fan of SciFi I wait for the day for the Internet to become sentient.  The Forbin Project, for those who remember the old days. 

The IT may be the same thing.  The Kosmic GAIA.  One small planet loses its lifeform, in the grand scheme of thing, not worth a single tear.

IT

Russ

Its impossible for god to ever have a need to evolve in anything. He is all knowing. He sees all, He can't be late, Hes everywhere. God created time for man. mankind needs to evolve to different points of learning and coming to obedience with gods word. this planets is god's house and he gave us his house rules and we ignore and destroy his house. then we curse him and go worship a rat, or dog, cow statue,rock and we wonder why our earth is showing us that he is a bit angry. God does not need to comply with our rules he needs no evolving we do. we must evolve to his truth of love and giving. getting rid of our filthy nature and walk close to him in order to learn his ways, His house rules, his character. We don't like it when someone comes to stay in our house, yet they won't abide by our rules. we want to bask in the sun, enjoy every good thing from his earth then trash it as well and expect that he should love it. its really insane. all we have to do is say. I'm sorry lord. forgive me for my selfish ways, teach me your ways. and we begain to understand that he is the creator and we are the created. How could a small child breast feed the mother

Its impossible for god to ever have a need to evolve in anything. He is all knowing. He sees all, He can't be late, Hes everywhere. God created time for man. mankind needs to evolve to different points of learning and coming to obedience with gods word. this planets is god's house and he gave us his house rules and we ignore and destroy his house. then we curse him and go worship a rat, or dog, cow statue,rock and we wonder why our earth is showing us that he is a bit angry. God does not need to comply with our rules he needs no evolving we do. we must evolve to his truth of love and giving. getting rid of our filthy nature and walk close to him in order to learn his ways, His house rules, his character. We don't like it when someone comes to stay in our house, yet they won't abide by our rules. we want to bask in the sun, enjoy every good thing from his earth then trash it as well and expect that he should love it. its really insane. all we have to do is say. I'm sorry lord. forgive me for my selfish ways, teach me your ways. and we begain to understand that he is the creator and we are the created. How could a small child breast feed the mother

tonton

I wonder if your concept of God isn't close to that of the Kosmic IT. 

God doesn't NEED to evolve, but what if IT choses to?

This planet is not God's, the multiverse is God's. 

Everywhere. The singularity became energy became matter, all that was, is.  Everywhere.

No one expects God to comply with our rules.  We form the rules together, as we go.  How much closer could we get???

IT

Russ

According to some neurologists the mind is "everything" that is outside of us! Now consider us as the condensed version of infinite will .. a packaging or boxing us off ... the daemon ... Pan Dore'? It seems appropriate ... I don't know but it creates a wee spark in me.Collapse of star dust ... nu clear impact ... an incident in space? Nothing would happen here would it in a world full of institutions that can't even think? Ides taboo ... the mind has been banned ... the garden stripped and placed invisibly in space ... we call it mine'd where Sole'Aman went! You have to know the word first ... before understanding falls to yah! M'n of let Eires?

Webster defines intelligence as everything that is outside the divine will. Does that help ... especially if you say there is a small reflection on the broken and distribted pieces? Again such alien thoughts make me giggle ... I was taught by unchanging religion ... "not to think!" Does that make me an apologetic Christian ... a changeling? It is de light fully amour Fuss ... like fuzzy logic!

It has to make the Gods and Muses dans' ... chaotic form in an unchanging cosmos ... go whey wit' yah! Gods hate thinking too ... they think they were here first but how would they think without a devilish mind? Wiz qui ... in B&W spirit of a Celtic story ... just don't consume too much of IT. Some is for Piscine in the winds ... God has always needed very old wee salts, they never loose their bite! They might get diluted by time. Theists and a'theists they just blow right by and will not pay any attention to the core of the ba-salt ... that's hermeunetics for Rhime m'n! oerhaps someday when the old mere in Ur comes homme!

Waterbuoy,

The concept of dualism (separate mind and body) is a paradigm that is losing popular acceptance due to better experimental techniques.

There is dwindling evidence for it. There is much evidence for consciousness and mind being an integral part of the physical brain.

Systematic lesioning and electrical stimulation experiments, the examination of surviving stroke victims, fMRI observations, what more is needed to demonstrate that the mind is directly and physically connected to the brain?

I'd like to hear from some believers on how they substantiate their belief that the mind/soul/spirit/whatever is something that floats about separately from the physical body.

Any table rattlers out there?

Thanks, Folks:

I've been away for a while, so didn't realize this had stirred up some interesting discussion. Thanks for it all. I shall consider each and every bit in time. I must clarify that much of religion and psychology (if sciences at all) propose models for behavior and use constructs to try to construct truth, since it is not as easy to point to a "mind" as it is to point to a "tree". Nevertheless, we try. The "God-chip" idea is such a construct. It has little to do with arrogance, except that I do feel somewhat superior in design only to the frog. It does NOT state that the frog does not have its own God-chip in it as well.

Since I can only see Killer-rabbit 79's response as I 'reply' and notice his neat yin/yang symbol, I can only respond that just as I have felt the "chi" surge through my limbs while in the practice of the dancing meditation of T'ai-chi, I have experienced the mind, body and spirit and different, yet interrelated parts of mySELF. I am not sure what you mean by "believer". I am a believer in a Creative Force that I call "divine" that is at once impersonal and at the same time very personal (through what I call the "god-chip implant"). I don't need the scientist's blessing to define my realities or my truths. I don't need a minister's blessing to define my conception of ultimate Truth (which I don't define, but postulate). We place far too much energy in making our reality what is 'out there' and making decisions based on it for our economy, our families and our selves. We ignore what is 'in here' - our psychology and our experience of our self-truths. THESE should be more important guides to what we do in our lives, with our communities and with our world. That's my opinion. You also have, if I recall, some arguments with the idea of man being more complex than the amoeba. Count chromosomes if you wish to argue, I would say the brain says it all...and not the size of it. Also I did not say man did not HAVE instinct or intuition, but rather has lost touch with it. I wish I could learn to box quotes. It would cut my verbosity it half.

RussP - I do think we very much agree. God (IT) has no need to evolve but rather Its nature is such that It is a creative force. Our involvement in this system of creation is no different than all of the created creatures or multi-universal systems, except that we have introspection and can see ourselves as stewards of our little Earth and discern some moral responsibility. This does make us somewhat unique (if I could be so arrogant). Pan's questioning of a 'caring' Forcefield was a good one and you handled it better than I. I guess I see IT as not completely neutral in the area of values, because IT is by nature creative. It is not simply random but appears to have a kind of 'intention' that creation should proceed to create things of higher and higher complexity (evolution). Although the details of the process may not always appear to be harmonious, I believe that constructive forces work with constructive human minds to create harmony. When there is a short in the circuit it is usually the human who has screwed up.

Body, Mind and Spirit are most definately in an interdependent relationship. The only part we actually SEE is the Body, but we can experience the Mind and Spirit through the practice of logic and imagination. Out of Body experiences and "near death experiences" do challenge us to at least wonder about the ability of the Spirit to separate itself from the Body/Mind. Science says that energy cannot be destroyed in a chemical change (a real law?). My emotions clearly feel like they come from the Body; my behavior is a product of my Mind; and I do believe that my visioning and dreams are from what I choose to call a Spirit. It is as much of a construct as the Mind. So perhaps these are all just an extension of the Body? We are JUST body? We shall never know until we kill the body and see what remains. Those who have been clinically dead and revived often claim to have experienced something else, however, there are chemical explanations for this.

Life is one large miracle and the FACT that I am the center of MY universe at the same time YOU think that You are the center of YOUR universe (and so on, and so on, and so on...) is just incomprehensible to me. "I am" = "I experience". I therefore do not rule out the incomprehensible. Do you?

Now what of imaginative dream space ... or what the Australian native would call dreamtime. Where do you thoughts go when the mind wanders at night or perhaps even in the daytime?

Isn' the mind an imaginative device of literature? You can often find it on a page or travelling across the internet. Has anyone here spoken directly to me? Will you ever? What is the quantum (chance)?

Where does the charge go from a discharged semiconductor, capacitor (tun) or a spent brain? Well! You don't know? Where does a shock wave go on the ocean? How about Light winds from the Sun. If you look up some chilly nights there is evidence ... there are stranger things that men who moel for gold. Would you travel with an alien?

Now isn't that strange question for a person in control to ask? You did say you were in control didn't you ...

The infinite internals are humbling space ... a place to understand the mysteries of motivation! There is no end to Calib Yau space ... all bent to eL by incidents with physical m'n! It makes the potential powers giggle as they are spun in the called ron ... ironic vessel we called indefinable soul. It was once a grand arguement called Nestorianism the divisability and indivisibility of the mind. Perhaps it's main function is just to forgive and forget; the reason we learn nothing from massive historical errors and the fact we never listen to common sense of the paradigm. Destroy it Moose ... and you have nothing to stand upon ... the phall is 'c' of  empires, casts a shadow ... a Palling sort of smudge from Nero (neigh rho is a near penetration of) that difficult spot we call the inhumane mind ... it doesn't like to give a bit!

It is so difficult to separate mind from the essence of the story! Then t' Ruth is just out of the question with m'n, he's so conditionned just not to hear of it! Infinite divine, rapture ... separation of infinite light from the smear campaign of m'n versus caring thought (double Pan balance). Sophie acts as the Jewelled edge!

Did you know that Yin and Yang approximate the image of the brainstorm of Joe BLTZFX ... shadows jolts af light and creatures running every which way. Then of course that is just a story to approximate what a m'n cannot define!