tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post3815989506279612329..comments2024-03-27T11:16:36.951-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Fly by Night Theology (12.21.10)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-29477170845112050412007-03-22T10:10:00.000-07:002007-03-22T10:10:00.000-07:00Vanopolis (if I may use the handle) I'm actually w...Vanopolis (if I may use the handle) I'm actually writing this stuff out on my home page, so if you ever feel like dropping a word in here or there, feel free. I have my first post up, and again, 'Ethos' may be a stretch, but until we can come up with a term that describes it (brilliant wordsmiths, come to my aid...!) it may have to do.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-12430242102997540372007-03-22T08:23:00.000-07:002007-03-22T08:23:00.000-07:00River Cocytus said "I think there is a misundersta...River Cocytus said "I think there is a misunderstanding that goes, "Machines dehumanize." My aim is to firstly dispel this as a general principle... My idea is that a machine (or construct) ought to be humanizing"<BR/><BR/>I think you're on to something there.<BR/><BR/>People do tend to scapegoat (oh... there's a bunch a ways that term can take us) machines. They do tend to become something which people use as an excuse for their mistakes and failures. They take out (project?) on machines frustrations and misbehavior as an easy way to avoid resolving their own shortcomings. As a techy, I'm sure you've heard variations of "Stupid computer! Messed up all my work!", when it was their failure to do their work properly that caused their problems. The machine becomes a way to beat up "the cause of" their errors without harming themselves (they think), and that does draw down from their own store of... (crud, gotta run can't find the right word, try this) Verticality.<BR/><BR/>I still think ethics is the wrong term here... it's almost a behavior towards self, while using a convenient defenseless standin for their inadequacies.<BR/><BR/>Hmm.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-41784546036119762002007-03-22T06:54:00.000-07:002007-03-22T06:54:00.000-07:00PS - this would explain why the preponderance (not...PS - this would explain why the preponderance (not ALL) of machines are invented and built by men.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-14645438474994245952007-03-22T06:51:00.000-07:002007-03-22T06:51:00.000-07:00Hmm, well, it is apparent that I will need to secu...Hmm, well, it is apparent that I will need to secure a reasoning for the idea of 'ethics between men and machines'. Or, 'ethics regarding machines'. Typically, I think this is limited to just how your machines interact with other humans, basically meaning its just another way to say regular ethics. <BR/><BR/>By Moral State, one can only mean 'within man', as I see the only philosophical distinction between a tool/construct/machine and an ordinary inanimate object as lying in the mind. In other words, machines are inanimate objects, but what makes them more than that is how we conceive of them - and how that leads us to shape, use and treat them. That's kind of straightforward, I think. <BR/><BR/>However, in my mind, one can't treat a machine (or any other construct) in the same way one treats firstly simple inanimate objects, and secondly, other machines (necessarily.) Or, for that matter, thirdly, as one treats an animal, or another human being. <BR/><BR/>What I'm expressing is not 'ethical treatment' in the sense of say, PETA, (God forbid.) But rather in the sense that we make machines what they are, and what we make them stems from how we conceive of them in our minds. I think there is a misunderstanding that goes, "Machines dehumanize." My aim is to firstly dispel this as a <I>general principle</I>, and secondly to explain or determine when it is true and when it is not.<BR/><BR/>My idea is that a machine (or construct) ought to be humanizing, not human, and ought to be whatever it is supposed to be unapologetically-- for instance I see no need for cars to be tiny econoboxes-- if you want to haul rocks, you need something that can haul rocks. In their misunderstanding, I think, of what machines are, some people strangle them, defame them and in the end cause them to be dehumanizing. Econoboxes <I>are</I> dehumanizing. They're all very similar, standardized, not very fun, mostly ugly, and so on. <BR/><BR/>Computers are the same way. It is only when we impose particular inhuman ideologies on the development and usage of machines that I think, do they serve to dehumanize us. In other words, its not the machines dehumanizing us, but we ourselves. Thus, the ethics with which we regard machines (if one can say such a thing is possible) is ethics in the sense that it determines how our machines effect others. <BR/><BR/>Again, this is just an idea I've been tossing around-- as you are well aware, most of my ideas are a bit out there, and perhaps should never have left my fingers...<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it would be better to say, "The Ethics of the effects of Machines on Man, or Ethos Machina." What I'm saying is, machines are an extension of man and only as human and humanizing as their creator(s) and user(s). <BR/><BR/>And important point number two: Machines made by man (which all known machines are) cannot become man. It is inadvisable to make them seem literally human, truly intelligent, having absolute liberty, or other such things which make man, man. In my later musings, I considered that if God's liberty is Absolutely absolute, and man's is relatively absolute, then the machine's is at best relatively relative. <BR/><BR/>Regardless of the rosy pictures painted by many science fiction writers and others, I do not think it possible for a machine to have a soul. <BR/><BR/>Eh, anyway. Thanks for the help, Van.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-11128330424814632172007-03-21T14:49:00.000-07:002007-03-21T14:49:00.000-07:00"referring to the 'moral state' for which I think ..."referring to the 'moral state' for which I think machines ought to occupy"... how can something with no free will be said to occupy any kind of a moral state? Again, as above, an indication of the persons moral/mental state might be surmised from their actions towards any object, animate or inanimate, but the moral state <I>of a machine?</I><BR/>... I'm not getting it.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91460940320896964082007-03-21T14:47:00.000-07:002007-03-21T14:47:00.000-07:00River,A fairly standard definition of Ethics is "T...River,<BR/>A fairly standard definition of Ethics is "The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.", assumed to be applied to conduct between people, or of a person towards their self - which is why I'm not seeing the position of a machine in the equation.<BR/><BR/>You might be able to describe healthy human actions towards machines, reflective of the persons psychology (getting out of my pay-grade here), you know, screaming at the water cooler not being a real healthy indication of the persons mental state; but I don't see ethics coming into the equation between men & machines on its own....Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-89605608383627996682007-03-21T14:01:00.000-07:002007-03-21T14:01:00.000-07:00Yes, I agree Van, I have the concept but I'm havin...Yes, I agree Van, I have the concept but I'm having difficulty putting it into a good, clear, comprehensible form. Alas!<BR/><BR/>PS- to my knowledge, ethics refers to how a moral state ought to be (whereas morality refers to things as they are...) in regards to good/evil.<BR/><BR/>So in this sense, I'm referring to the 'moral state' for which <I>I</I> think machines ought to occupy. Now, I'm trying to apply concepts (hopefully well so) that I have been learning lately.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-5408152080406411172007-03-21T13:12:00.000-07:002007-03-21T13:12:00.000-07:00RC said "ethics in regards to machines",Oh... uhm,...RC said "ethics in regards to machines",<BR/>Oh... uhm, what? Have you looked up the definition of 'Ethics' lately? Been reading 'I, Robot' recently?<BR/><BR/>"Thus we impart a 'partial' intelligence or a drop if you will, upon machines. So as we are 'container' in the spirit and God becomes what fills us, constructs including houses, tools, vehicles, and so on, become 'containers' in the world of the mind, and we become what fills them and gives them purpose."<BR/><BR/>To my mind, Machines, by dint of our <I>internal</I> mental associations, can take on characteristics and become icons or focal points for our projections, but the source and soul substance is within consiousness - not the machine. The machine is but an object, any trancendance occurs within our sphere.<BR/><BR/>I think I see where you're driving at with this, but looks to me like the offramp is full of potholes. Guess I'll have to pass on going further with you on this, still it is a nice day for a drive, enjoy... (the power!)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-38091481214682397102007-03-21T12:33:00.000-07:002007-03-21T12:33:00.000-07:00How about this?If the Human is the transcendent an...How about this?<BR/>If the Human is the transcendent animal, then the Machine is the transcendent object.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-43124185733514998772007-03-21T12:30:00.000-07:002007-03-21T12:30:00.000-07:00Well, again, I'm not suggesting that a machine can...Well, again, I'm not suggesting that a machine can be, 'living'. Nor what we regard as 'animate' or 'intelligent'. <BR/><BR/>But a Machine is a Construct, generally referring to anything from a rake to a Cray supercomputer, and thus we impart on a machine (instead for instance, a pebble.) part of ourselves, an 'image' if you will; this is part of how we are deiform. <BR/><BR/>Constructs are infinitely separated from say, God, in an uncountable order; but they are in no ways the same as a rock, a drop of water, or a body of air. It might be said that because of human limitation, we are limited as to what we can impart on a machine; but they are not inanimate in the same sense 'substance' or 'substance made form' as matter is. <BR/><BR/>Thus people always seek to make machines like humans; they will never succeed in making an actual human machine; if we as souls and spirits are like drops of water from God's ocean; Machines cannot be the same drops as they come from us and not created by God (though in a sense we are still part of him, so in a sense they are, but that is something else entirely.) God imparts soulishness and spirit because he is transcendent, entire and complete as spirit; we are not; but it is said that our intellect is total, which is to say, able to comprehend anything intelligible. Thus we impart a 'partial' intelligence or a drop if you will, upon machines. So as we are 'container' in the spirit and God becomes what fills us, constructs including houses, tools, vehicles, and so on, become 'containers' in the world of the mind, and we become what fills them and gives them purpose. In that sense, the distinction between soulless (closed to or not imaged from God) and soulish (informed or entered of God) holds between inanimate objects and Constructs. The inanimate object becomes a construct perhaps when it becomes a container for an idea or a purpose. In the world of the soul/mind it changes 'infinitely'. Part of what, for instance, a sculptor does is take the stone and transform it in his mind first, or the truly great sculptor lets God do the transforming, and his hands just do the physical work.<BR/><BR/>But again, I guess you disagree on this point, but I see it extremely important to ethics in regards to machines.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-70134859941688665242007-03-21T09:41:00.000-07:002007-03-21T09:41:00.000-07:00RC said "...Well, again, what I simply meant is th...RC said "...Well, again, what I simply meant is that an AI has a 'relatively absolute' freedom within the constraints of what it is programmed to do."<BR/><BR/>I know I'm being picky on this, but I think it's one of those BIG little things that are important to pick to death. <BR/><BR/>Freedom and machine go together as well as freedom and pebble. I wouldn't say that a pebble's freedom was limited within the constraints of the rock it was created from, I'd say it's properties might be essentially those of what it was created from, but in a metaphysical discussion it isn't appropriate for inanimate matter to receive animate properties, and freedom is pretty much exclusive to the animated.<BR/><BR/>You could say that machines are 'limited' to those properties we are able to design and build for them, but they are still only inanimate stuff. If we ever figure out how to make a machine somehow... I don't know, 'hospitable'?... able to 'house' consciousness? The consciousness will not be a product of the machinery or code, and while the consciousness housed within the machine may be limited in the scope of it's actions to those which the code and machinery are designed to perform, they will be separate - and 'freedom' in the metaphysical sense will never apply to the machine 'body'; and the machines body isn't really analagous to our material body, because ours (or cats or racoons, etc) is made of animate, living material - infinitely distant and separated from that of inanimate machinery.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-57148916708023229462007-03-21T08:48:00.000-07:002007-03-21T08:48:00.000-07:00Also, yes-- artificial error. I think it is a key ...Also, yes-- artificial error. I think it is a key to 'artificial creativity', Van, and probably the door to real 'artificial intelligence' as opposed to 'advanced searching and goal-seeking' which is what passes for AI nowadays.<BR/><BR/>Also, this is important; while they say, "RTFM", which is a way of saying, "I'm too lazy to answer your technical question" which is, knowing programmers, perfectly understandable, we also know with perfect certitude that while there is indeed an entry for 'man rock' and possibly 'man "how to rock"' it is never, ever used: Thoroughly proving there exists a clear exception for the rule of 'Read the Freakin' Manual'. Or, rather, I don't need no instructions to know how to rock.<BR/><BR/>Whichever you prefer.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-21193944014669518202007-03-21T08:36:00.000-07:002007-03-21T08:36:00.000-07:00Well, again, what I simply meant is that an AI has...Well, again, what I simply meant is that an AI has a 'relatively absolute' freedom within the constraints of what it is programmed to do. Since we (as humans) are imperfect, our little images (machines) have errors that result in our own imperfect 'logos'. It does 'follow' the physics precisely, but that is like saying we as humans 'follow' the physics precisely: of course we do! When we eat, if there is HCl in our stomachs, it digests in the way it should... etc.<BR/><BR/>The machine's liberty is limited by our liberty; or our ability to confer it; just as our own liberty is limited by God. In this way a truly 'thinking' machine will be 'free' in the same way we are 'free' to God. Which is to say, not really at all. Now, since we are not omniscient or perfect, we cannot foresee all of the potential actions resulting from what we 'programmed'. Whereas it would seem, God (being infinite and whatnot) knows and allows error. <BR/><BR/>The intuition I have on this point is, that the machine can only inhabit a 'dimension' one lower than its creator or maintainer/user. It is in this same way that animals tend to absorb the characteristics of their owners. <BR/><BR/>Which is to say; I don't think machines CAN have (real) intelligence. Because to confer intelligence requires transcending IT entirely; which is not something a human can do. (Rather for humans our intelligence is something we are sealed into like a vessel; it is something that allows us to transcend all else, but we cannot transcend it with breaking ourselves.)<BR/><BR/>Which is to say, in another way, I think Schoun had a bit too much Luddite in him when he describes machines. <BR/><BR/>If we think of Machines instead as 'Constructs', then it generalizes them; then compare 'Constructs' (created by man) to 'Creatures' (created by God). Thus a machine is analogous beneath the man to potentially any created thing beneath God. And in the same fashion, Machines are both outside of us- necessarily having to have emanated (been constructed) and within us (they are also an idea- their function requires us to have something within us that tells us what they do or how to use them.)<BR/><BR/>The highest goal then for a machine is, to be 'maniform', which is to say, as a man will never BECOME a God or God himself, nonetheless he will be drawn up into him; just as the most perfect and well designed machine will not become Human but will be indistiguishable from its user -- in that the machine itself becomes fully 'maniform' -- not taking away from the humanity of its builder but (in the same sense that we cannot take away from God or remove from Him) fulfills his purpose.<BR/><BR/>Thus a good car -- you do not become 'one with it', but rather, it must become 'one with you'. Then, four wheels become like your legs, the engine like an extension of your pulse, and the hull like a new skin. This is the way it is for the most skilled racers. But-- on the same token it cannot become 'personal', because it is a material thing. But then again, it is just like the body which while we value, is material and must pass away.<BR/><BR/>That's my 'ethos machina'.Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-62518614143884828992007-03-21T07:57:00.000-07:002007-03-21T07:57:00.000-07:00River Cocytus,For the illustration you're making, ...River Cocytus,<BR/><BR/>For the illustration you're making, the use of 'thinking machine' is probably fine... (the power!), but keep in mind that the computer makes no mistakes. Nada. None whatsoever. Never ever does a computer make an error.<BR/><BR/>It only and always produces results in accordance with the laws of physics applied to the code and hardware and conditions present. The result may not be what the poor programmer intended, but the only error is between what the programmer intended, and the result that had to occur as determined by the actual laws of physics applied through the code and hardware and conditions present.<BR/><BR/>"thinking machine" is a convenience we use to describe result we interpret as seemingly intuitive & smart, but what we see are only those effects resulting from physics, code and hardware designed and organized by a thinking person (coders perspective, not pointy haired mgr's), to do 'pleasing' things for the user.<BR/>In substance the computer is no more intelligent than a light switch, and no matter how elaborate the programming, fuzzy logic & brilliantly foresightful coding of us coders, it will only ever produce results, not thinking, in just the same way as a light switch being flipped, or a rubber ball being dropped.<BR/><BR/>Those pursuing Aritficial Intelligence with the actual intent of producing not more useful results, but Intelligence, would do far better to pursue artificial error than intelligence, because until a 'creature' can recognize error, whatever it may be doing, it will not be engaging in thought.<BR/><BR/>But again, before error or truth can be used in relation to a 'thinking machine', it first has to have consciousness, and that is not just an elaborate flipping of switches - it is that mysterious non-local something that inhabits the central juncture of all the biological or mechanical switches... and VB, C#, C++, Pascal... whatever, I don't think is ever going to reduce it to a codebase.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-63179128615773150982007-03-21T07:29:00.000-07:002007-03-21T07:29:00.000-07:00Hey Bob, You're 50, aren't you?Hey Bob, <BR/><BR/>You're 50, aren't you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-66906806436363532132007-03-21T04:48:00.000-07:002007-03-21T04:48:00.000-07:00george: Esoterism, properly understood, should ena...george: Esoterism, properly understood, should enable one to do precisely that with full sincerity. The idea being, just the commandment itself in the literal is unfulfillable; there must be something deeper present for us to fulfill it. <BR/><BR/>Oddly, when Schoun describes what he though ideally Christianity may have become, I recognized it as what I had conceived - more or less - earlier.<BR/><BR/>Of course, Schoun is more vertically oriented. I think, and I haven't read him yet, that Auribindo is more horizontally oriented.<BR/><BR/>In this sense anyhow, recall that these three commandments (two or three if you will) 'Love God', 'Love your neighbor as yourself' and 'Love all as I have loved you' are not actually commanments in the sense that God can will them (for by definition of Love he limits himself) to be so. Instead, they represent the ultimate divine plea. Not as though God has to plead with us, but rather (foul limitations of language...) he pleads with us for or own sake and not his. <BR/><BR/>I think this is a misunderstanding, for God wills us to be able to choose to or not to obey; because this liberty itself is of such critical importance. That is, like Bob was saying, our liberty is 'relatively absolute' as the Son, who brings the Law of Liberty, is. Without this we would not be 'deiform' or 'made in God's image' in any reasonable respect. It can be seen to be similar to how a machine is given 'liberty' within the confines of its operations. That is, thinking machines-- pure mechanical machines are like animals (more or less plainly, since they often directly replace labor animals.) Because thinking machines cannot know but what is in their code, they have no concept of being limited - or, at least, no feasible way to transcend their state. Likewise, we humans can grasp that we have limitations to what we can do, but simply by merit of what we are cannot transcend them. <BR/><BR/>For instance, I cannot grow wings and fly. <BR/><BR/>In a rough sense, my computer cannot divide by zero and get a meaningful or useful answer. It gets an answer which is de facto beyond that scope of its existence, that is, an idea.<BR/><BR/>Machines are only as human as their creator, and no more than that.<BR/><BR/>Which would explain all of the bugs in my code...Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-32221253062963321672007-03-21T04:13:00.000-07:002007-03-21T04:13:00.000-07:00... Behold, the Power of Ellipses! (Sorry, just ha...... Behold, the Power of Ellipses! <BR/><BR/>(Sorry, just had to.)Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-2782445718113027022007-03-21T04:11:00.000-07:002007-03-21T04:11:00.000-07:00Hmm, been reading the Islam section in 'In The Fac...Hmm, been reading the Islam section in 'In The Face of The Absolute' by F. Schoun, and it is very enlightening.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the radical, parasitic form of Islam that is spreading like fire these days? Based on what he's saying its better than I had hoped, but also worse than I had imagined...<BR/><BR/>I would say, there is a great potential for a esoteric Islam and intellectuality and real virtue. But also, all of the trouble we are seeing is more or less prefigured into its view of God. To put it this way:<BR/><BR/>Allah -> The Absolute & The Inifnite<BR/>According to Schoun (gonna hafta re-read this part) this dyad of properties leads to the following two things:<BR/><BR/>Absolute certainty and absolute peace (submission of the will, 'Islam'.)<BR/><BR/>Trouble is, as they become more materialistic, these two properties become fanaticism and fatalism in turn.<BR/><BR/>Thus the suicide bombers and emotionally twisted mujahadeen. The jihad is not something that can be done physically without it becoming a force of destruction. One would have thought that the original Salafists would have grasped that, possibly being scholars of their religion. <BR/><BR/>But maybe they grasped it all too clearly...<BR/><BR/>(Schoun says the key flaw in Islam is their insistence on the Absolute Unity of God - thus even though the characteristics (Spirit, Son) may be present in the abstract, they are not realised and moreover sublimated in the willful unification of God.)<BR/><BR/>I would highly recommend In The Face of The Absolute, next to of course, One Cosmos, for any brainy comment-reader who enjoys fruitful mental exercise and thinks they're more clever than most...Ephrem Antony Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00032465992619034619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-30956720238098909812007-03-21T03:07:00.000-07:002007-03-21T03:07:00.000-07:00Walt said... Is it just me, or did this whole blog...Walt said... <BR/>Is it just me, or did this whole blog get turned-up several notches today? <BR/><BR/>It certainly has!USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-52730906898792153182007-03-21T02:17:00.000-07:002007-03-21T02:17:00.000-07:00Facing death, one of the miners left us with these...Facing death, one of the miners left us with these beautiful, haunting words: <BR/><BR/>Tell all --<BR/>I see them on the other side<BR/>It wasn't bad<BR/>I just went to sleep<BR/>I love you<BR/><BR/>It wasn't bad. I just went to sleep.<BR/><BR/>Such a simple declaration of unwavering faith, calm courage, and even elegant beauty in the face of the abrupt end of horizontal existence. I've memorized those words. They are worth thousands, even millions of pages of secular fundamentalist drivel. I hope I can remember them in my final moments:<BR/><BR/>Indeed, so do I. <BR/>Those words were Holy and Eternal.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-26603800602614590272007-03-21T02:14:00.000-07:002007-03-21T02:14:00.000-07:00Bob said: "To understand is to apprehend an intell...Bob said: <BR/>"To understand is to apprehend an intelligible truth, and it is not possible to deeply understand something that isn't true. Thus, 'understanding God' -- or to be perfectly precise, 'being understood' by him, or 'undergoing spiritual truth' -- is the sufficient proof of God's existence. As one undergoes spirituality and this thing called understanding deepens, we move from line to plane and plane to sphere, from seeing to envisioning, from thinking about God to being comprehended by God, to where the interior horizon of the imploding universe flows within itself. The negation of negation!"<BR/><BR/>Wow! That resonates loudly within my spirit.<BR/>An explosive confirmation!<BR/><BR/>Thanks Bob!USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-30844931235393032762007-03-21T02:02:00.000-07:002007-03-21T02:02:00.000-07:00Sex is horizontal?Partially yes. Sex is also verti...Sex is horizontal?<BR/>Partially yes. <BR/>Sex is also vertical.<BR/><BR/>What the? You may say.<BR/><BR/>Yes, sex is vertical and horizontal.<BR/><BR/>Hence the mystery of One Flesh between a married man and woman.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-22679124425307673122007-03-21T01:49:00.000-07:002007-03-21T01:49:00.000-07:00Petey said... Turn off the darkness? 4 words of wi...Petey said... <BR/>Turn off the darkness? <BR/><BR/>4 words of wisdom happiness!USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56559867036729063542007-03-20T22:42:00.000-07:002007-03-20T22:42:00.000-07:00As one well over the bright 50 line, and very happ...As one well over the bright 50 line, and very happily married for nigh 30 of those years, I can say with full certainty that pigeon, you are deceived concerning the making of whoopee with one's beloved. <BR/><BR/>Besides, you picked a bad time to post, as March and April are the peak of raccoon mating season.<BR/><BR/>Come to think of it, that may explain their conspicuous absence for the past couple weeks (yes, we know who you are, nudge nudge wink wink).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-56588173836179504742007-03-20T22:29:00.000-07:002007-03-20T22:29:00.000-07:00Saw Patti Griffin tonight...pretty amazing. Sun.....Saw Patti Griffin tonight...pretty amazing. Sun...sun...sun...sun.<BR/><BR/>Recommended by NoMo.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and JulieC - count me as one of those who "disagree to some extent".<BR/><BR/>wv: hisooye (oh yeah!)NoMohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01100042056270224683noreply@blogger.com