Nobody questioned science ,,, science being observation ... would you question what's right before your eyes or under your nose?

 

Such things are not obvious ... or perhaps autonomously un -sceen by those that don't wish to in denial of the fact its a free world ... and thus the spin goes on ...

 

Imagine the things peole just don't wish to know as it would grate on thei conscious ... what I wa s taught in sunday school just didn't exist ...

 

The solution: just do as the ptriarches ordered ...

 

Can you imagine why devious creation gave us a mind field? It appears to be a flat out Aria ... screaming in soliloquoy ... as a sad song ... just hung there ... in spatial mode ... as anything un-thinking shunned folks wouldn't know! In desirous condition when knowledge is abba'd thing ...

An isolated person as beyond the mob character must keep there ears up ... ETically ... extremely rab'ID ... and loaded with sentience ... sentient ... sapient?

 

To the restful is that drippy or just a whetted soul ... drives even th' krist to drink ... and Dan can you see ...

Taint an Orange mon ...

You got there minutes before I did 

25 people out of a thousand were literate...

And yet, a bunch of people who never met him managed to write a whole bible, and then some, about him, just a generation or three later.

 

And the mental spark that carried thro' ages ... eonic lightning, or just a tree standing in a transposed solar storm ... the shocks that can get mortals to processing ... across that gap residing within ...

- Hi Chansen -- And this from a man who believes . A Woman or a man finds a bone. Then tells us it is 2-3  Hundred Thousand years old . What it ate how it died were it's line of life came from?  Oh yes I can see how Science is so much better. Well I agree that animals lived on earth befor. I do not agree Mankind lived at that time. So if you don't believe a few good men  were able to write about ,that which was told them. How can you believe those men and women who have not knowen  one Man or woman  that was there,  to say it happened the way Science say today?

 

Not a whole Bible, Chansen.  Just the last few books.  The majority of the writings that make up the Bible were written long before Jesus life on earth.

 

Nevertheless - point taken.

duplicate

Then why do some theologians say that Jah Zues appeared in the OT as the Don'n of light?

•                 In the beginning a Dark Formless Void (that which we didn't know) and then there was light (like a bolt/bleu in the dark was nailed down (onyx'd in Hebrew, sometimes a arid or desert ass) and the jawbone thereof is a good place for the myth to pass!  Mankind was numbed by fire appearing a tree as a metaphorical tree of loci ... and still he'd rather not think!             

Even Isaiah as the 23rd book of the bible says this ... even tho' Isaiah means Levite or Light in Hebrew ... which could be just a floating thought ... as some that believe thought is evil would say there is nothing to eM and thus the odd captions in car tunes ... as thoughts burried and OEM' nous ...

 

Such still remains abstract or imaginary as the Romans burned all the older accounts 2000 years ago approximatley (as we're not even shure what calendar the authority on Don've intellect used)! Many find intellect a put-on like Joseph's cloak ... even his breathern said what's wrong with him?

 

Such questions thro' great dins into the fixtures of pious intellect, who say this is the way it is, when it couldn't possibly be ... the Romans wouldn't allow the know-how! You did know according to the Roman induced bible that intellect was evil ... so you're legally bound to innocence and ignorance about things from the past ... except by intuitional redemption of unclear thought as ephraim 'd by the abstraction of mind ... an imaginary thing condemned by Rome as thinking people are dangeous to the wiles ... thus the intellect is the devil as seen by Oz'm ly willful people ... thus the thoughts retire or recess to subtle positions ... catatonic in many people of the modern world that have sucked up to war as salvation of the crowd from thinking! fear'll do it every time and what it doesn't anger will ...

 

Did I say "will" opposed intellect? Allows psyche a will to work on and soften the stance ... on learning improved things that are abstract and ineffable ... keep it to yourself as such things are not to be known unless you carry a piece of will with a bit've Q'lues, or G'lues as a dark force of attraction ... gravid? Purely imaginary intellect as things we're religiously not to know ... saying that property for the gods ... with willies scary as bloody billy goats with RH factors included? They can cause stinks if you've ever dealt with goads and gothIX ...

I love this response. Pleeease keep pitting religious beliefs against demonstrable science. I know it doesn't mean anything to you, but to any young person who is just learning about this world in school, the evidence behind those bones absolutely destroys your biblical interpretation about how life developed.

 

Every time religious beliefs clash with established scientific facts, religion loses.

 

Every. Single. Time.

 

So airclean, if you want to kill your faith, keep it up.

 

 

Although I am a Christian, I have to agree with chansen. But I must say that, in my view, Christianity is, or should be, concerned with moral and ethical teachings and action, and therefore does not clash with science. Only when literalized religious mythology becomes pseudo science is there a clash between religious belief and established scientific fact, a clash which religion inevitably loses.

 

 

Perhaps this is due to scientists without any compassionate degree of will ... and you know where that leads!

 

Alas the medium of balance is driven out like psyche and sophie in a world of extremes and no middle class ... the powers have no use for eM and thus the wee ones arise! Hu said that Marx, or Heigel?

I spent some studying the history and philosophy of science at the U of T.... I can say, it was the case that 'science' has been and is as mythical and illusionay as the other explanations we latch onto to make sense. of existence

Ernst Mach went along way when he suggestion thoeries are only cognitive instruments we use.... with little to with reality in itsef...
so for each side ... 6 of one half-dozen of the other. Question becomes: is it useful? .... then use it and be happy.

This all leads back to the lead-in toone:

What if both sides are wrong and there is a post death psyche?

 

Would that scare the crap out of those that don't believe in minds ... especially the imaginary type like dark spirits ... that's out there beyond eM in a very large tract ... a pile of eternal word? NOSH-ite to be drawn from ...

 

Glad the emotionally and overly intelligent can't read abstract verse as hung up between subjective and objective as aD Vocation (diversive) that was never heard before by non listeners to the radiating ß'ego ... close to the sentient be Conne ... the helmsman known as bo'sun a solar effect of flaring unbelievable pile of useless intelligence to most of the crow'd that would prefer to know nothing ...

 

And thus ID was ... nut'n ... caused a great Din down in GEO Gaia over a squirrely revival ... ruminants in church ...

duplicate

Sceince isn't mythical at all. The answers from religion are mythical. Science works.

 

But, because science doesn't reinforce Christianity, you have to tread carefully. If you do what airclean does and denounce it, you lose. If you give it too much credit, that diminishes religion. So, you're left with "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), or saying it's all mythical.

 

NOMA is a ridiculous attempt to save face for religion by saying religion and science do not overlap. But religion makes claims about the existence of things which, if true, would set science on it's end. If you proved that praying a certain way was actually effective, you might as well take a plane to Oslo and collect your Nobel prize.

 

But going the mythical route is no better. Homeopathy is mythical, sure, but claiming science offers mythical explanations about our world is just as bad as what airclean is trying to sell. You're trying to package it better, but you're not making any more sense than he is.

 

But alas ...

 

I've been told by academics that there is no such thing as the  mind ... it is all conjecture and abstract ... like drifting thoughts in an emotional dimension?

 

Those scientific absolutes said this is the way it is ... thus they were as bad as monotheists .. dedeux with all a dem ... I'll induce what I see phitttzz from the outer EMN fields some of eM inn'ere ... like subtle cognizance! Unconscious aware-Ness as when you're aware of all that is out there Toby learned satyr ihc allah of course?

 

For you wouldn't wish the absolutes to know you're contemplative about abstracts ... and thus mediating in meditation ...

Hi Chansen Science is not my GOD it's yours . I don't really know that much about it. So I was asking you a questin. As a believer in Science . why is it you accept what they say  with out proff of some one that was there?  When in the Bible you have proff of those who were there . Or at least from letters as  proff that came from them that were there. And yet you don't believe them. Kind of strange way for you to look at some think , at least  by my thoughts. airclean33

Not so when Rome fell... science went to pot... and the only thing worth anyone's time was contemplative religion --- for hundreds of years

some brilliant minds have rightly suggested, science is the by-product of people trying to find and relate to God [Newton would fall into this category...as well as Copernicus....]

religious or secular, many think they know what they do not... and are the poorer for it

 

The history or philosophy of science is not established scientific fact but speculation. Also, established scientific fact changes as new scientific insights arise and shed new light on old facts. Established scientific fact is not absolutely true but as true as we can possibly get.

 

The philosophy of science is speculative, like any other philosophy, except that science seeks to confirm its hypotheses by the scientific method. If a scientific hypothesis cannot be confimed by the scientific method, then it remains speculative.

 

What science-based philosophy has going for it is that it is at least based on established scientific fact, which is as close as we humans have yet come to truth. Other speculative philosophies are based on speculative philosophies which are based on speculative philosophies. Sure, some of these philosophies are rooted in ancient wisdom traditions, and have, at best, a proven track record of having been beneficial to humanity, but what are they based on? Speculative philosophy, and, perhaps, unquestioning belief.

 

and yet the fact of my existence towers above all science... it is prima facia the 1st 'fact'.... from which God emerges as fact, long before the 'fluid' facts of our sciences.... there is merit in what you say, but science and its facts remain useful utilitarian tools that are not fundamentally reflective of the 'facts' of existence....

 

What the hell are you smoking?

 

suppose I should stop using words like prima facia.... perhaps some may find them confusing...

suppose I should stop using words like prima facia.... perhaps some may find them confusing...

Hi Aldo-- Just wondering did you mean. Prima  facie?

 

Sure, there is the body of what is scientifically known, and the body of what is unknown but potentially knowable, and the body that is unknown and unknowable. The latter may be be greater than the former two together, but we'll never know. :-)

 

To me, the ALL encompasses all three bodies of knowledge. And the ALL, being a singularity in unified state of synthesis, is all there is. Although we can't comprehend IT analytically, we are an inseparable part of IT, and do experience IT, in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality. In this experience we experience the ontological reality as it really is, not as we think it is. And the experience of ultimate reality, also known as Gnosis or Grace, is the experience of our true and ultimate self. From then on, we no longer are what we previously thought we were, but begin being our higher or spiritual selves. The interpretation of such experience, however, is not the experience itself but only our personal interpretation, which is coloured by our personal and cultural, interpretational bias.

 

What I just said stems not from a philosophy I have imitated and believe in unquestioningly, but from my own experience of what I call ultimate reality. But it is, of course, and as I said, coloured and flavoured by my own interpretational bias.

 

The science of awareness ... just knowing you exist in an odd state, as an observation (science/séance as peering into occult states ... dark)! In reciprocal can you see yourself in your lover's eyes? If there is a dull glow there use caution ... eyes without light are an omi Nous scion! One needs to see a twinkle in the Shadow!

 

Have those that don't believe in the magic of awareness looked about them selves?

 

It's craszy out there for one to use whats out there for a role model ... regress a bit and ponder the inversion layers ... sort of like an onion ... or perhaps onanism gone wild when the infinite owns us and not the other was around. Those with mortal belief they have God in a box or book, might be mistaken. Wasn't it a Dawg that said that?

 

I really don't know according to religious law ... that is difficult to get it to move even a bit amour*phus*sly asa  kohl sidewinder drifting off the set path as a wave of levite power ... gleaming or glaring in the dark .. like the I'z of night!

 

This is sort of a prescient state as suggested by Matthew 6:8, just in case you have a premonition, or some kind of flashback impulse ... a superior ego or echo? Such is unwritten Canan as those fixed wouldn't learn anything ... that would involve evolution or change ... this they're dead to ... like Libra that thing removed from the essence of God ... leading the poor blind a' mon on ...

 

AC,

Can you explain an ammonite and je wish aversion to eM? You know hardshuol entities ... ruagh bustards ... you know bustards? The myth goes on ...

well put... we do fall back ... as well as come from our own personal experience

hi

will provide elaboration this evening... for now literally its: first face.... initial appearance, what is immediately given before us

So...in case your inqury wanted more than the literal meaning...

When it comes to 'facts' there are all kinds of notions about what these are and how they are demonstrated. Personallt, when it comes to facts, I speak to what I know... not to what other people might know.

The first 'thing' I am sure about is existing... just that, not more simply: awareness of existence. The problem is that there is no 'I' in the awareness. Once I determine that it is an I who is aware, two things are established: there is exdistence and I experience the existing.

If I did not experieince, I woul have no knolwegdge of existence. My knowledge and understanding come from the fact that I exist.

This does not mean that I know reality, or that I know God, or that existence depends on me. It simply means that I exist and that my existence is a fact. [When I very young, it dawned on my that having once existed, I woulkd always exist, at least in God. I thought if God destroyed everything and recreated it without me, God would still know I once existed.}

Without the fact of my personal existence, all else that I might know is meaningless, because I would not know anything.

Besides my self, there is existence which I experience. Without going into detail, God is in all existence, including my own existence. Given that God is in my existence, my most immediate contact with God, is with that of God which is in me (see so many places in Gospels, especially in John's Gospel). As sure as I know I exist, I know God exists because God is in me and I experience God. Here is our inner Light. This Light can guide us.

Any thing else that I put forward as fact, rests on the prima facia fact of my existing...

In regards to science as a reality, one can use that description, instrument, etc. I presume many scientists do not consider their science as reality, but as a means of accessing reality. But, I think many people people confuse technology with science, and that things 'work' with the belief that they really know how it works, because some science, has said so... but, in the end there is no more ground supporting science than various other kinds of reality that 'work'.

I start with myself and with God in me, as my ultimate existential significance (meaning, purpose and truth). Other things are just a side show to spiritual life --- including science, and politics, and economics, and etc.

I think we people fall short when we get ahead of our selves, and we presume too much. Such presumption is well shared by many different folks with diverse axes to grind.

So, not sure that your modest question wanted a short and obvious response, or this more meandering tale...

... oops... must not have had my glasses on!

 yes it may be prima facie.... I wonder if facia is in the latin in some form or other...

I intially read your question as asking about my use of prima facia ... my apologies ... (must stop using my phone with its tiny screen, as my computer

Aldo,

 

your words are very tasty indeed :3

 

every worldview/weltanschauung/reality tunnel/BS has its axioms that it considers true because they are...and from those simple axioms can come a world :3

 

(for a fun investigation into some fundamental axiom investigations and where they lead, check out Howard Bloom's book The God Problem...)

 

then we get a kind of landscape of hills and valleys, a kind of 'moral landscape', with whatever mechanisms we make to harness our various behaviours and beliefs (like laws...) trying to account (please? benefit?) for others...the 'tragedy of the commons' just being a natural consequence and not ultimately a tragedy...

 

like income tax; there is no 1 way that is fair to all...

 

but some things, like rule of law, is beneficial to most...

 

and so it goes...

 

 

I find the that Christ never asking people to get into such things is telling... What Christ did do is tell, if not ask, people to follow him... and what is that they should do? serve one another... to me that Gospel says that God serves people and expects people be Godly and serve people in turn...

When I do a good turn, nothing else much matters...

I try to satisfy my own want to understand and finding some understanding serves me well... even if what I share is itself confusing...

I also find that what Christ does ask for; all can do...

One might question whether theology and theological questions have any place in being Christian... one of my favourite expressions is: do it, then discuss it... Perhaps "What is the most important theological act or action...."

I just assume that if one tries out a gestalt and it works, then that in itself says something (and with the gestalt the worldview/weltanschauung/reality). We can try them out and choose which to pursue... We can choose which life to live...

Gestalt ... that's the mental processing of occult; dark nothings .. like the Shadowy case of mind that some experts claim to be purely absract or imaginary ... like an eclectic ole phi-rt on the þ'reins ... kohls the heat of pure passions in a land devoid of understanding of icons symbols and the many faces of god that can be so much fertile for thought, or not ... depending on which side of never-neverland the sparks fly ...

 

In some places they are just a bag of whines, or à saac 've hoots to ponder ... like hoo deires ... smacked in de face to shut up de howl ... potential place to put wisdom in the future ... we'll have to wait and see how it is cultivated ... like "be'ns" one has to wait to see how they grow ... lentles then? Just as cede 've emotion ... when people are full of bens ... Hebrew seed of tho'T? This is a far out complication to those permanently condensed, rendered into non-redaction ... of what previously flowed freely ... giggling daemons thus left the church, for the more peculiar state of mortal life ... a love to deis fore? Why alternate awareness left eM!

 

You can't explain this to those that declare they don't like abstraction ... too occult is my geist ... why god lentle then bits of thought that in some reflections would bounce of the hard mire ... a word to research as sometimes fertile and often ar'ID!

That ar-ID'oz thing ... is what Ozes out of an overheated bodean form of phlogestion causing no ends ... as a poke in the Reuben ... a san witch of another order of consumption or the consumed? As a feast of ax ... and thus the upright was split with humours ... and delight erupted ... like Pompee and ever since a volcanic action when dealing with roaming gods ... you never know what kind of mire comes out of alien ... you should ge to know eM first ...

 

It is a hump that many cannot get over like Sisyphus ... war like men hate women they can scro' up the best of conflicts ... depending on what Tue "M"! And Gabriel wandered on dhe phar side of de shadow ... might be just a calm elle in dissonance ... muðð'r in to Erse Elf ...

 

The things you could encounter when getting beyond 'ere ... idée þ'idea things ...

Gestalt may be about nothing, then again, it may be about every thing. The folks involved in developing Gestalt were very much in the thick of research on sensory perception. They were focussed on the formation of perceptions and conceptions both the sensory kind and the cognitive kind. The gestalt is formed out of the person's interaction with reality and presented to the person as a thing. In being formed, the thing presented includes creative ingredients not found in or amongst the parts. This affected art (impressionists) and science (paradigm shifting). In psychology and perceptions, what impressed was that same set of data could be formed into different images, so were the data real, or one image or both? I think the answer is that the data are real, but together do not add up to any image. Each of the formed images are real, and while each use the same data in their formulation, they each form separately and differently into two separate gestalt wholes. The whole gestalt is a real as the data used in the formation, but is itself a real thing separate from the data.The most interesting finding is that using the same data people can shift from one gestalt to another through focus, intention and 'choice'.

Is truth in the formations or in the data from which things are formed?

Gestalt theory sets down that what is formed is greater than the sum of the parts and essentially or existentially different than all the parts together. Its not about addition.

From experience, we can form into real spiritual life and exist as forming spiritually.

The question of reality and what is real may get replaced by what is significant, meaningful or purposeful.

Sort of what phitttzzz in with an expression in one field of chemistry (extracted from alchemii and other related concerns; worries?) that came across as the word syncreatic ... or in biology as symbiotic; when two associated things are more than their sum ... leads to creative imagination ...

 

Many people wouldn't wish to know these things ... thoughts really bother some stoic romantics ... like: thinking mortals are dan gerous (anachronism for sam Mac khe)? Do you know the mis sing khe? It'll make you 'owlish ... and you'll rail with humour!

 

This the instituted are fixated upon ... gives a sense to an alternate up/down or quantum dimensions as passion fu'de down your neck as a ruagh wind ... and sensations along your spine when having an odd perspective of a buttei in the pond or bathsheba in de process of Catharsis ... met-aphorism, or things muchly overlooked ... could be smelly essence of phish ... an icon displayed without adequate understanding of flaky minds an fille ET'n ... the sides into 2 ha'ves ... one without fixations ... thus the ave maria-h'm ... proper OEM'r ... calling you back ... like Gabriel as the unseen cause ... even gave Jaqob struggles with the occult from which alien things are drawn , or druid as met a'physical form or not physical is you've ever encountered the disembodied light as indicative of Jains ... that's Eire! Once known as psychic or a strange medium ... where thought is allowed in the stirring, aur's crewing about in clusters!

 

It may not be as it appears ... defining anachronism !

Hi Aldo-- It is ok many myslf included do not always get it right. I believe there is always a reason for thinks that happen. And I will always look for them as some of what you said in your post.

YOURPOST-

If I did not experieince, I woul have no knolwegdge of existence. My knowledge and understanding come from the fact that I exist.

______________________________

Airclean-- Do I take it you mean here. You do not believe you were befor. Something you were  than you are now?

_______________________________

This does not mean that I know reality, or that I know God, or that existence depends on me. It simply means that I exist and that my existence is a fact. [When I very young, it dawned on my that having once existed, I woulkd always exist, at least in God. I thought if God destroyed everything and recreated it without me, God would still know I once existed.}

______________________________

Airclean-- I agree were I inboldend and underline.But am not sure you understand what you wrote?

Where I underlined .I do not agree with . As GOD has power to forgive an forget. The Bible says GOD will not only forgive your sinns  He will forget  them.  God Bless-- airclean33

 

 

 

 

Well let me try it this way...

In the mind of God, I have always existed before I was born, while I live and after I die. Some suggest, that in so far as God knows me, I am eternal.

In my actual personal existence, I begin to personally exist when I experience existence ... my existence. The first awareness is of existing --- my existing. In my existing I come to know God and come to know the mind of God, and that God knew me before I temporally existed, while I temporally exist , and after I temporally exist.

The first fact I experience is me. The second is God in me.... and so on.

There is a problem with illustrations... for example, the mind God knows the present and future, then are things predestined? We run into problems when we suggest an illustration to make one point, but then use it to argue about something else.

Some might suggest that God knows all and to say God forgets, does not make sense in the eternal. In the eternal there is no memory to forget is there? Memory, remembering and forgetting all temporal notions. There is truth in what you say, but it lies inside the meaning not in the literalism of the words... I think.

As God exists so you and I exist ... which is a cause for joy.

What of non-existence ... is that another reality or just altered?

 

This may be explained as God partially pure love in which case heh/chi/IT couldn't retain anything and thus would need underlying forces as described by aD'm-ism ... and in some scriptures it say the monster of mystery will be bought to heis knees and thus be known ...

 

Maybe this explains all the women of mystery the patriatchs of the OT began to know as stray ephraim genre ... spectres like Jain ... the merry Buddha of Krist? Is that as close to occult as you could know as a mortal ... or otherwise limited in knowledge cause your not ripe enought to be part of whiz dumb ... knowing autonomously without thinking? It happens or so it appears like when Jain's Eire ... that a disembodied spirit ... fallout on Night Airs? Aurora Bore Allice ... allah calm to me and sleep progressed as a mystery to those previously sentient ... Y's a mystery!

 

Could it be because God's Children didn't wish too know? Sound's reasonably odd ... don't yah consider?

my little sequence stays... non-existence emerges and might be experienced after experience of being and self...

And thus the myth goes on ... like eternally ... it is just imaginary ... like stuff of the mind (according to experts on the non-existence of mind). One has to know in that case: how would the subject be cognizant? Make us out-of'ere folks giggle ... at the inside maas ... that may not be what they belive it is!

 

Heiseinberg-Pauling Cojecture requiring that one must exceed theirself to understand the internal doings ... is that like taking a stroll outside de bochs? One would stop carrying and making people beir with the singular book! Rye humis ... fertile thoughts ... flying conjectures that are dark and occult leading to occipital lobes and lobotomies as authorities demand on rendering down outside mentalities ... odder than fiction!

Hi Aldo-- You posted--

There is a problem with illustrations... for example, the mind God knows the present and future, then are things predestined?

_________________________________

Airclean--I have no problem with GOD seeing the now, and the future. My belief being GOD don't change the future , He uses it and works it into His Plan.  We are the ones who deside the future . GOD has said I offer you life or death . Chose one it is our choice. Many even unknowen to themselfs have chosen death.I believe as long as you live in flesh . You can make or change that choice to Life. I also believe GOD will try and give you every chance He can to help you. Once lost we have no power to save ourselfs. So Christ Jesus was sent for us to have power of life to return. Through Him and by HIM for He is LIFE  now is how Mankind comes back to GOD. . FROM WHERE WE CAME. For I believe truly we are The Sons of GOD.  God Bless ---airclean33

As God exists so you and I exist ... which is a cause for joy.

Aldo-- your post ending---

_________________________________

Airclean-- I agree hole heartly. I would but ad , Great Joy

 

Hole Heartedly?

 

Sounds like a St Valentines Dais Maas Achre to me ...

 

Then many excessive lovers would like a blow a hole in the other's heart ... leaves more for eM! Not necessarily a H'm ... but don't tell AC ... too deep by far ...

 

D'eres daimons down there you know ... foundationally they think, process thoughts and all that dangerous stuff like subtle big words ... in Hebrew that's the whole thing in a nut's hell something to be cracked ... like the dark mystery of ladies in de night ... gotta L'uv eM ... but many Christians degrade eM! So much for the e'Quine nature, or is it the E'queen ... the real motive mover as a psychic pushover?

 

I do see ripples in the horse hair fabric covering the following end ... where bubbles of insubstantial gravid material comes from ... when mortals start telling other mortals how much they know about the eternal and that it is irrelevant to the lesser mortal. This is all opinion based on limited perspectives ... when I see mu mere dere as Black Beuty ... John Nash thought it a Beautiful Mind ... as yet un-encountered by many who are still in nerr and haven't discovered the differences of integral matter that must be gathered like sphinc-terres ... loads a dirt on the outer situation ... as that beyond mortal authorities ... some just never get IT!

 

Black Hole?

 

I know someone with a hole in his heart. He is a kind and considerate person.

Likes plae' pin the tail tho' ... allows for turning somnolence into sentience ... sort of like Lot's Wife pillar of auld salts ... like pickled herring?

 

Mole Uch Entires Rant about the fissure lady? Watch where you step on the side walk or any deviation from normal varience/variants ... a lot of smelly stuff out d'ere my good friend! Some of those things could be flipped over ... often some tasty specimins under eM ... truffles vs triffles ... small tastees! Go god with beef Borge-nons ...

[quote=WaterBuoy]

And thus the myth goes on ... like eternally ... it is just imaginary ... like stuff of the mind (according to experts on the non-existence of mind). One has to know in that case: how would the subject be cognizant? Make us out-of'ere folks giggle ... at the inside maas ... that may not be what they belive it is!

 

Heiseinberg-Pauling Cojecture requiring that one must exceed theirself to understand the internal doings ... is that like taking a stroll outside de bochs? One would stop carrying and making people beir with the singular book! Rye humis ... fertile thoughts ... flying conjectures that are dark and occult leading to occipital lobes and lobotomies as authorities demand on rendering down outside mentalities ... odder than fiction!

[/quoteP]

 

That is the thing... the fact of existence speaks for itself... to use a phrase of Spnioza's ... The Light lights itself and the dark (being reveals itself and non-bening...). Cogito ergo sum..  I think (am aware) therefore I exist.

People are not confused about existing... its everything else that follows.

What is most delightful is that this knowing or awareness of existence has little to do with learning or knowledge; it has nothing to do with words...

So I find the the most and basic of people grasp existence just as well as the most learned and sophisticated... The quiet hermit mediates but has no advantage in the regard over the busy, preoccupied cosmopolitan.

In that grasping, people grasp them selves and grasp the most fundamental of existence --- God. Always, always the recasting is inhuman terms out of which comes knowledge and understanding: mind, spirit and heart.

These things are not the outcome of any kind of process. They precede process and outcomes. They are possessed by anyone who grasps existing... that is most every person I have met.

Well that is my take on it all...

The most important theological question: who or what am I? In the answer, is the most immediate and direct communion with God... or so am am led to belive.