As promised -- or threatened -- more fragments of unfinished and abandoned posts:
There exists no scientific theory -- nor can there exist any such theory -- capable of explaining the presence of free will. Which is not really surprising, since one can say the same of subjectivity itself. The famous "hard problem of consciousness" is only hard from the perspective of materialism, in which case it is quite literally impossible.
However, consciousness isn't contingent, rather, necessary. Once that little metamuddle is unmuddled, the hard problem is, What motivates a person to use consciousness in order to deny consciousness? That's more than a waste of time, for it is a waste of timelessness.
I remember back in the day reading book called The Taboo of Subjectivity by Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace, which cites the truism that, "strictly speaking," "there is no scientific evidence even for the existence of consciousness." That's what you call soph-evident, for reasons we needn't re-re-re-peat. What's more important are the cosmic implications, which are not only many, but ultimately even One.
More self-evident truth:
All the direct evidence we have consists of nonscientific, first-person accounts of being conscious.
He cites the International Dictionary of Psychology, where it says of consciousness that (as of 2000)
it is impossible specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it.
For example, that sentence. But in reality, many things worth reading have been written about it, for example, this post.
I don't remember much else about the book except that it confirmed what was already obvious to me: that consciousness is one of those things that cannot be explained by reducing it to something less. Rather, it can only be understood on its own terms -- or, to be perfectly accurate, by seeing it as an entailment of its own sufficient reason. Put conversely, the material world is entirely insufficient to even begin to account for it. There can be no greater category error than pretending otherwise.
For me the matter was settled after going through the works of Alfred North Whitehead. But guess what?, Bob whispered creepily. I was only attracted to Whitehead because I already believed what he had to say about the matter. I just needed some big-name philosophical back-up, being that I was just a retail clerk at the time, and not yet a properly credentialed idiot.
***
Once free will is denied, one is no longer free to accept or reject the very theory that would deny it: it is neither falsifiable nor truifiable. In short, the denial of free will is not even unscientific.
This goes to the necessary metacosmic relationship between Truth and Freedom, in that if we aren't free to know truth, then neither one -- truth nor freedom -- can exist. If truth is determined, then there is no exit from the closed circle of causation.
The upshot is that the existence of freedom is one of the air holes in the Matrix. But it's more than that, for it is also a lifeline from and to God, possibly the most consequential ontological spiral of them all.
As such, freedom is the sufficient cause of the left, albeit in an assbackward and reactionary manner, for each of their policies exists to thwart and vitiate freedom, whether freedom of speech, freedom to be born, freedom of self-defense, freedom of assembly, freedom of exchange, freedom from state indoctrination, etc.
****
You've heard of micro- and macroeconomics. But these are situated below cosmo- or meta-economics, for it turns out that economics is grounded in a priori principles, meaning that on Mount Sinai they were handed down directly from God to Mises.
But let's begin at the Beginning, AKA Genesis.
Now, in "paradise" -- in the Garden of Eden -- there is no economics and no possibility of economics. This isn't just because paradise is fun and economics dismal; rather, it is because the basis of economics is scarcity, and there's no scarcity in paradise. Simple as. If there's scarcity, you know you're not in heaven -- or that Pete Buttigieg is away on pretendity leave.
And what is scarcity? The moment you think about it, you realize there's no such thing until human beings arrive on the scene, for scarcity is a function of desire. Animals have drives but they obviously don't have conscious desires.
For example, when our Great Dane wakes up in the morning she likes to bask in the sun. She prefers to do so on her comfy pad, but she can't form a connection between the sun over here and the pad over there in the shade. She'll stand in the sun until I drag the pad over, at which point she'll plop onto it.
There's probably a dog somewhere who has sense enough to drag a pad into the sun, but you get the point: dogs don't sit around wishing things were otherwise. Only human beings do that, nor do they ever stop doing it, and this is both a gift and a curse. We are always wishing things were different, which is the motive power for getting anything done. But even when things are perfect, we want more.
The other night I watched a Larry David episode in which he's in a waiting room with a beautiful view of the city. He asks the receptionist how long it took for her to take it for granted: "About a day and a half."
Me? I don't accomplish much because I'm pretty content the way things are. That makes me unusual, I guess, but it's the end result of a lot of wishing I didn't have to waste so much time wishing things were different.
Rather, long ago I decided to conduct an experiment: why not be the guy who's content with the way things are, rather than exerting so much time and energy wishing they were otherwise? In other words, focus on the end rather than the means. In fact, just skip the latter altogether and get to the point. Just Be, and be done with it.
I know what you're thinkingt: Bob, you're just turning a defect into a virtue. You have no real skills or abilities, but you're just intelligent enough to realize that if you exerted more effort to be successful, you'd be revealed as the failure you are.
Perhaps, but one must nevertheless try! Now that I'm reflecting on this subject, I'm recalling those 12 years I spent working in a supermarket between 1976 and 1988, more often than not on the graveyard shift, which suited me perfectly because of the absence of authority. Every night was like having a substitute teacher in charge of the classroom.
Anyway, during my ten minute breaks I'd spend 45 minutes or so flipping through magazines. I was especially influenced by People magazine, because it always featured stories about this or that famous and wealthy celebrity who was miserable: either their lives were caught up in addiction and scandal, or they were just out of rehab and rebuilding their lives and careers.
In short, People was full of people who had gotten what they wanted -- fame, success, money -- but it had backfired; or, they were trying to do it all over again, but this time get it right by focusing on the things they should have valued all along, such as children, home, God, etc.
Anyway, Mises, according to Prof. Wiki, conceived economic laws "as akin to geometric or mathematical axioms: fixed, unchanging, objective and discernible through logical reasoning without the use of any empirical evidence."
Every science has an object to which it is ordered, for example, physics to the material world, biology to the living organism, psychology to the human mind, etc. Religion is in one sense ordered to God or the Absolute, but that's really another way of saying it's ordered to "everything," since everything is God and God is everything -- and more.
This "science of Ultimate Reality," writes Nasr, is
attainable through intellect and not reason, of an essentially suprahuman character and including in its fullness the whole of man's being.
Bob, we know you are a mighty, mighty man, but suprahuman? Really? Sure, so long as everyone else is too:
to be human is to seek to be suprahuman. Man can in fact be defined as the being created to transcend himself and to seek the Transcendent as such.
Circling back to where we started, if certain fundamental realities cannot be reduced to anything less, it is because their principle must be at the other end, i.e., "above." These things can never be defined from below, nor can they be contained by language, although, at the same time, language can nevertheless communicate directly some of their essence. This is an aspect of grace, which isn't God, but neither is it not God -- as the light streaming in my window isn't the sun, but not not the sun either.
Along these lines, there exist forms that communicate the formless, and exist to do so. Nevertheless, many folks misunderstand their function and reduce them to their form. Which is idolatry.
Well, now that we are caught up with these old bastards, we can move on to the next subject, which will involve examining the foundation of the cosmos in order to better understand why the superstructure of Western Civilization is sliding off of it.
34 comments:
to be human is to seek to be suprahuman. Man can in fact be defined as the being created to transcend himself and to seek the Transcendent as such.
As our previous priest was known to say, "everyone should be striving to be a saint."
What's with all the celebrities who have "transgender" children -- now Jamie Lee Curtis, in addition to Penn, Cher, Warren Beatty, Cynthia Nixon, Charlize Theron and more, not to mention all the homos & drug addicts. Can't be a coincidence that an illness so rare strikes the children of numbskulls who pretend for a living.
Lord only knows what's really going on with these families, but whatever it is there's something deeply wrong. My first guess would be a combo of attention whoring by the offspring because otherwise they'll never be as famous as their parents, or trans-by-proxy in the case of the young kids because the celebrity parents just aren't getting enough attention anymore?
Those are the most innocuous explanations I can think of.
The prevailing view for quite some time (millenia) had been that consciousness comes before energy and matter, and that the latter two are folded into the former. That makes consciousness the basis for the cosmos. God was thought to be an intensely concentrated consciousness, forming what amounted to God's flesh, bones, and sinews.
This sentiment was echoed in your post where you surmised that consciousness was not contingent on anything and provided reason enough for its own existence.
When we speak of transcendence it can also be said we speak of becoming more conscious and this implies when it comes to consciousness, the sky is the limit. It was thought there was plenty of room to soar upward to enter the inner empyrean and there meet the Creator in His own courtyard.
Therefore the human urge for transcendence requires no external raison de etre, but instead is folded into the primary basis, consciousness, which is to say, God.
I do not see why we should doubt the established beliefs of those who went before us. I buy this totally.
I sense, Gagdad, you buy it too but have to say it in your own way for it to feel real to you. I invite you to bend yourself to this task.
A grand post, there are none better to be found on the entirety of the internet. One Cosmos is non-pareil.
For celebrity children, to identify as transgendered positions the child for later success in the world in which they will need to put down roots.
Transgendered folks are seen as "one-up" and advantaged. These children will get their pick of private schools, summer camps, music lessons, etc. Once they come of age they are groomed for positions of wealth and influence, such as Directors of non-profits, tenured professors, Deans, lawyers, and politicians. These are the "power elite."
That should address your curiosity about the crop of trans-gendered children which you noted.
"Homos and drug-addicted" which you mentioned, generally have their children removed from their custody by CPS. If these children luck out, they get fostered by solid leftist folk who will get the child a foot in the door to be middle class or up.
The down-trodden serve as brood stock. No child is refused.
I’m pretty content with the way I am and the way my things are. Sadly, it’s often other people who have problems with the way I am and the way my things are.
For just one example, I too worked the night shift at a grocery store in the 80’s, burning the candle at both ends trying to pay for school. There was this coworker who was like Eddie Haskell, times seven. Imagine the classic kiss up kick down asshole, except one who's really good at it.
I noticed a pattern. He’d screw over every guy on the promotional ladder rung ahead of him by using varying strategies. He screwed over the guy behind me by convincing others that the guy was a pathological liar. He screwed me over by persuading the boss that I was on drugs (guys burning the candle at both ends only seem like they’re on drugs). He screwed over the receiving clerk above me by stealing invoices and other important paperwork to make him look incompetent. And so on up the ladder.
One day I approached “Eddie” and in private, told him that I knew what he was doing and asked him how he thought he could get away with it. He condescendingly told me that it’s the system, the way everything works. Everybody who gets ahead does the same and that everybody who plays fair usually winds up the loser. Then he smirked and walked away, mumbling “Loser.”
He wound up being the first manager of two superstores in our region simultaneously, making well into six figures.
Years later I learned what psychopathy was, and he fit the description perfectly. I'd run into others, watching them carve their way through honest hardworking people to get their material rewards which they did not deserve. I've even seen some ruin organizations and even whole companies. Without the slightest regrets no doubt.
Maybe this is why I’m here. I’m not unhappy about how I turned out. I’m unhappy about how they turned out. And increasingly even more so, all the enablers who watched and did nothing, or the many more who were utterly and incorrigibly oblivious. I believe there’s something about our current system which rewards socialized sociopathy, because I suspect, that it was crafted by socialized sociopaths.
My kingdom is not of this world. Stop worrying about what those others have; they have their reward. They live in a hell of their own making, and it will only get worse in eternity.
Great message 10/20/2021 10:45:00 PM. Now if only Christians would also quit enabling the bad people.
If old Mises was still around, I wouldn’t ask him any highfalutin social economics questions regarding checks and balances against sociopathic and/or predatory corporate cultures which buy government officials and organizations, theorized to be self-checking and self-balancing.
I’d ask him the simple stuff. Like why does my 35 year old washer, my 25 year old fridge, my 22 year old truck… keep on keepin on? Whenever I google how long these things should normally last the answer returned is usually “less than half that long”. I know an honest appliance repairman who can tell you exactly why new appliances look so appealing but are engineered to break, with most being so broken they’re considered totaled.
I’d ask old Mises about why in a land of planned obsolescence, doesn’t any competition to planned obsolescence arise? You’d think that simple, practical, functional, long-lasting fridges, washers, and trucks would have a large market niche dying to be profitably filled. Whenever I ask conservatives that question the answer is always the same: “So why don’t you start a company that does that?” ...as if they’ve just had an epiphany which nobody else is capable of.
I get the feeling that old Mises would just pat me on the head and tell me that people don’t want practicality. They don’t want things that last. And that his theories cannot ever fail, only be failed. And that I should revel in my search for the rare doctor or mechanic with integrity, who doesn’t believe that their only function should be to exchange max profit for min return, or even anything at all. Then I'd get the feeling that old Mises was in somebody's back pocket. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You are asking the wrong questions anon. Considering who the current prince of this world really is, the real question is why there is ever anything good at all?
Yeah Julie, my father used to say stuff like that. In a sinful world the true reward awaits true believers in heaven. But that was before he embraced the prosperity gospel. Now he brags about his inheritance and spending as a blessing from Jesus. Kinda dampens the message a bit, doncha think?
No; if he really embraces the prosperity gospel, it just makes your father look foolish.
I've been richer, and I've been poorer. Shit happens. The one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that even though I don't deserve it, God keeps taking care of me and my family, and when we place ourselves in His hands, we are exactly where we belong at this moment. I may not always be thrilled about the place, but it is enough. It is more than enough, in fact, our cup overflows.
Sitting around pissing and moaning about the success of others does absolutely nothing for me, especially having seen just what kind of people the really wealthy usually are. There's nothing quite like watching millionaires die abandoned, hated and alone in a hospital because they've alienated literally everyone who ever cared about them to make one appreciate that there is nothing of greater worth than having a loving family who would rather risk their own health than let one of their own die alone.
The presumptuousness of aninnymous is really quite galling.
Hi Anonymous:
You wrote at one point "Maybe this is why I’m here. I’m not unhappy about how I turned out. I’m unhappy about how they turned out."
Your entrenched unhappiness with sociopaths and sociopathy closely mirrors Gagdad's unhappiness with Democrats and progressive though-policing.
You and Gagdad have become a matching set of malcontents on parallel tracks which on which the twain shall never meet.
And yet you have both said you are content with the way things are. I find that hard to believe. There is a lack of insight on display in the both of you.
I made this observation, but what did that serve? Why should I care if you both have persons and/or an in-group you loathe? Is it not gratifying to loathe something or someone? I've heard that it is.
The question back to me being why don't I have a focused loathing to play around with like you do? Am I bland? Where is is the fire down below?
But seriously, you both are not connecting. Gagdad could care less about sociopaths or sociopathy. He must have met some in his former line of work. But he has expressed zero interest in discussing the sociopathy you have repeatedly brought up.
Then, Gagdad posts a perfect storm of invective against the Democrat, and you don't seem to give a fig about all that basket of anxiety. You never take aim at a progressive (unless of course they were a sociopath). Then you'd perk up and take interest.
Is there any way to get you two on the same page, and then add myself as the female energy in the circuit? Or is Julie the female energy?
I don't loathe; because it is One Cosmos unter Gott. How do we know what is really Gott and what is not Gott, and also say it is all Gott? How then shall you fear? Or loathe?
Julie says the Prince of the World is a bad person and she oughta know. So where does it leave me. Perplexed.
"Well, now that we are caught up with these old bastards, we can move on to the next subject, which will involve examining the foundation of the cosmos in order to better understand why the superstructure of Western Civilization is sliding off of it."
If only we had enough velcro.
Anon @10/21/2021 07:24:00 PM,
What separates me from Bob, is the knowledge that Mises failed for the very same reason that Marx failed. Every system fails, to then be reflexively replaced by a supposed opposite because that thing which is vaguely referred to as “anacyclosis” is never accounted for, let alone understood. I’ve seen it in brave new startups. You can see it yourself by comparing the once mighty Boeing with the upstart SpaceX. It’s not that hard. When the wrong people gain power everything underneath them turns to shit.
--------------
What conservative Christianity is all about.
We'll ignore the Powers That Be who dominate our lives and culture because they’ll be dying lonely, but we'll loudly piss and moan about “the left” because of their CRT, their crossdressing, their ragtag antifa army, and their lame BLM. Think that’ll end well?
Anonymous 9:23, I hear you about anacyclosis and history corroborates anacyclosis as a thing.
Much of the controversy on this blog revolves around mixing oil and water, so to speak.
There are two spheres in which people operate, the inner and the outer.
The outer sphere involves politics, commerce, corporate entities such as Boeing and SpaceX, sex, marriage, parenting, and relationships with people, the arts, music, food, entertainment, movies, Netflix, and on and on and on.
The inner sphere involves your thoughts, feelings, attitudes, impressions, and such states as dreaming, sleep, and reverie.
The reason why the sociopath who uses evil to gain advantage makes gains in the outer sphere, but these are counterbalanced by supposed losses in the inner sphere.
Now, unless you are a sociopath you won't be able to verify this, but it is said the inner state of the psychopath is impoverished and unpleasant.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Evil that despairs of its own ugliness?" That sums up the theoretical trade off made by the person who knowingly does wrong.
It is also said that crimes "gnaw away at the innards" of the perpetrator, eventually leading them to turn themselves in and confess to get relief.
These are real things.
The difference between the outer and inner spheres is this: the outer sphere can be endured up to the point where food, water, shelter, or oxygen are cut off. Anything short of that, is "doable." One can escape into the inner sphere and float inside one's mind.
However, the inner sphere is well-nigh inescapable. It is always there. When you close your eyes, it is printed on the back of the eyelids. For one with a turbid and troubled inner sphere, the discomfort is arguable way worse than pain in the outer sphere.
This is why the sociopath does not really "win" the game, and the down-trodden exploited person does not really "lose" the game.
Or as the Bible says equivalently, "lay your treasures up in Heaven."
Well, as I've said before, I'm happy with myself and what I've created for myself. I'm hoping that if I lay low that nobody will come along to snatch that away from me.
Speaking of which... Holy Crap!
So I was just out chopping kindling in front of my forest home woodshed. I was all Zen, God and the art of woodstove maintenance.
A young chipmunk lives inside the center part of the shed, which is usually locked up with all my wood tools. That chipmunk came home (his home) and saw me with his home’s door wide open and the shed lights on. It climbed a tree to bark out its displeasure. I got busy splitting and quickly forgot that it was sitting there the whole time watching me, waiting for me to leave.
Suddenly an owl swooped in behind it and knocked it from the tree and immediately dropped down to grab the poor chipmunk. Then the owl flew it away to a distant tree with the chipmunk squeaking in terror. The ground grab happened literally three feet away from me.
Now I know that this is the natural way of things. Looking on the bright side, it’s a good reminder for me to never let my spoiled indoor cats outside, no matter how much they pee on the couch in angsty frustration. Plus I’ll be living without chipmunk pee on my wood tools, boards and drywall scraps I've stored in there, for at least a couple months until the next chipmunk moves in.
But I really don’t think that modern Christians should be putting all their energy into either supporting or ignoring human predatory systems (how's that for a segue?) in favor of targeting victimless culture crimes.
Because I think that's going to end well, for them. Because as some say, the owl of unchecked freedom may someday swoop down on their own ass to carry it away to the killing tree.
Sorry, I meant "not well for them". I wish them the best, even EbonyRaptor, who continues to harbor his deepseated need to out us three "leftist" anons and the one conservative anon as a single entity.
I always knew Alec Baldwin would someday kill someone. I just never dreamed it would be accidental.
HA!
I can imagine Baldwin feels pretty low right now.
No amount of money can take the sting out of a guilty conscience.
It just sucks to be him, and there is nothing he can do about it. And that will last for some time.
The movie he was making, Rust, may never come out.
I guess if you didn't like the man, go ahead and gloat over the cup from which he drank. He is in hell.
Hi Anonymous:
I sure did like your story about the chipmunk, the shed, and the owl. Well done.
It resonated with me because I've acquired some chipmunk friends which worry me. I took to eating a daily repast on some rip-rap lining a drainage channel near a park. It is a place people do not frequent, and where I can amuse myself plinking at cans and other detritus with a slingshot. All manner of goods wash out from the tunnels under the freeway and you can find just about anything in this channel.
After a time I saw a chipmunk come out of the rocks and scavenge crumbs I'd left behind. Over time I took to leaving more crumbs. And over time I began to see more and more chipmunks, until there were about a dozen, some just babies. I did not make the connection between myself and this increase until I read up on chipmunks in my area. "Do not feed chipmunks as it will cause them to breed rapidly and they will become dependent on humans for sustenance. If withheld they will starve."
Ulp. What have I done? I thought I was being kind. Now I had better keep slinging the crumb stash or "my" chipmunks would starve.
The chipmunks became daring and now sat very close to me while munching my provender, and it was only a matter of time until I was startled by a chipmunk apparently about to come up my pant leg. Eep. I was told they do bite.
I saw a black cat moving around in the shrubs by the watch, checking out the chipmunks. It was only a matter of time before predators came calling. So be it but the chipmunks were quick, good luck catching them.
So I don't know what to do. I enjoy the chipmunks, but I recognize I have set them up for a fall. Suppose I go on vacation for two weeks? What would they eat?
Anyhoo this relates to what I had posted about the inner sphere. As Brit rocker Graham Parker sang "Nobody hurts you/ harder than yourself."
Yeah, I sure hope that owl feels guilt for the rest of his life. I suppose I could always build little armor suits for my cats. My attic stunk for a couple weeks meaning that something died up there, so that particular chipmunk moved out. But now that the smell has dissipated it (or another one), is back. Or maybe that was the one that was moving out of the woodshed, I dunno. But I do hear an awful lot of territorial squeaking going on, so I bet it's just another new one. That owl's got a good thing going on. At least until the crows decide they like my yard and mob the owl away. Seems around here it's always something.
An interesting natures fun fact, is that if you see a mindlessly panicked bird flapping around in your shed, it's probably a fledgling. Too inexperienced to know better. I later learned that robins will reuse their nests for other future litters and I found the one from where my mindlessly flapping around shed bird likely came from. When that next litter fledged I made sure to play White Zombie in that shed really loud so they'd stay out. Then I learned that robins will stay together as a family for weeks afterwards, with fledglings learning from their parents on their daily travels. That's what some of those little bird flocks you see hopping around the yard sometimes are.
Speaking of Alec Baldwin, I bet that just when he's gotten over the worst of it, Family Guy or South Park will do a few character spots about that incident and Alec will see and he'll drop right back into a guilty depression again. I wish Bob would do an episode about Alec Baldwin, full of mirthful insultainment.
So I looked up the Alec Baldwin incident. Apparently it was the classic “loaded prop gun” prank. That’s where the help swaps out a harmless prop gun with a real loaded one and watches the hilarity ensue. I sure hope they reprimand the prankster.
In other news, I suspect that Brian Laundries death is likely found to be suicide by alcohol poisoning, after his parents pulled the classic “unloaded prop gun” prank on him.
Remember folks, guns aren't dangerous. People pulling gun pranks are.
The anon posse of one has decided to infect the OneCosmos comment section which begs the question - why? It obviously doesn't appreciate Bob's exegesis, viewpoints, humor or anything else Bob writes and yet it keeps coming back to offer unsolicited criticism and correction as if it thinks others are interested in what it has to say. A non-troll would simply move on when it was apparent this wasn't the place for them. Parasitic, but this host is strong and will overcome.
I'm a little surprised they appreciate Dylan in Japan, since the lyrics are so central. Nevertheless:
The Basement Thapes Row: Bootleg Series 11th Collection. If you're a fan, you'll be overwhelmed by a huge amount of sound sources, and you just have to come and hang your neck. Still, if I will tell you what you heard to the middle school. Your big, it is more and more bloody. You are no longer reaching the realm of the hermit.
EbonyRapter, I’m one of the anons who’s chosen now to respond using my real name.
My parents gave me that name, and P is my entire middle name. I don’t like my parents very much, them having made me go through a life of torment because of that name. So I hope you can understand why I prefer to use the anon moniker. Please don’t mistunderstand, but Bob has been helpful with my overcoming these issues, and I do appreciate Bob’s exegesis, viewpoints, humor or anything else Bob writes. But I don’t always agree with them all.
As far as I’ve known, whenever I comment as anon I often receive responses from other anons. Now I do drink, sometimes quite heavily, and I’ve been known to have blackouts. So it is possible that I’m simply responding to myself during one of my blackout phases. But I don’t think so, because I’m learning new things from these other “anons”. And I’d like to learn from you too, if you’ll just give yourself the chance.
That last line sounds like a warning.
Meant for Bob’s comment, but pertains to the one after it as well.
Dear Droopy, I can empathize with you because I too hate my parents for naming me EbonyRaptor, but here's the thing - I don't believe that gives me the right to hijack a blog comment section for my cathartic amusement.
I may be very slow, even witdimmed, but I don't understand why disagreement should be forbidden. It seems like at the end of the day you'll just wind up with a hive mind of roaming mobs. And roaming mobs of hive minders. Roaming hives which mind mobs?
But seriously folk, the other anon is far better at sticking to the subject. And the other other anons commentary is short but not sweet. And the still other anon skewers us right where it should hurt. Why don't you attack our ideas, such as they are? They're here for your amusement.
This is Bob's blog - he spends his time doing research and providing thought provoking information in an entertaining way that many of us appreciate so we continue to make OneCosmos a must read in our lives. This is not an anonymous anonymous meeting for healing the troubled soul or to sate the appetite of the soulless troll.
Well, as the old adage goes, I'd rather be a soulless troll than a trolless soul. One grows just a bit more that way. Since you're clearly untroubled yet must read this blog, why the need to contradict Matthew 6:24? Or am I getting that one wrong?
Post a Comment