Notes - I, Amorella, am not a machine / room for consideration

        Mid-morning. You have exercises then the front lawn to mow as you and Carol did the sides and back last night at dusk. The reason you have no questions to ask is that you don’t want to shoot a writer’s gift horse in the head, as it would not be polite as well as self-destructive. – Amorella

         I did think about this [why I have no questions for Amorella] overnight and while those aren’t my words you are correct. I don’t like the term “gift horse” as there is an ancient Greek connotation connected. You did say once that you were the gift, not the giver of the gift.

         Mid-afternoon. You and Carol are down at the low north end of Pine Hill Lakes Park checking out the hill. Carol is reading a new Better Homes and Gardens after a quick lunch at Five Guys and Fries (no fries), a Graeter’s for dessert, and a stop at Pet Smart for a new laser light toy for Jadah. WGUC classics are on the car radio – a pleasant relaxing afternoon after working and mowing the yard in the morning. You received a note from Laney and will meet her (and possibly Jay) tomorrow evening at Panera to discuss London as they are planning on hitting the city after the Olympics.

         Carol told me to not wait until tomorrow to gather up the London travel material for Laney and Jay and to not be late. I wouldn’t think I would forget but one never knows.         

         That’s because you become preoccupied with whatever happens to be your focus at the moment. One of the reasons Carol made two separate comments while you were driving to the park as different drivers hit the brakes in front of you and so did you with a second or so delay. – Amorella

         Yes. I was angry at myself for the first error as I was caught unaware, and the second time was too much, not more than five minutes later. Carol verbally grumbled on that one and I didn’t have any excuse – but I did successfully stop both times without slamming on the brakes and skidding to a stop. Neither were that close – I still had at least a second more to react both times. %

         The percentage notation is valid here, orndorff. Why don’t you ask me what ‘consciousness’ is composed of? – Amorella

         I don’t know what it is composed of myself, Amorella. I wouldn’t know if you were correct or not. It seems immaterial anyway.

         It is immaterial, but it does have composition. – Amorella

         [I’ll guess.] It is a form of ‘light’ without the physics.

         No, it isn’t. – Amorella

         Yesterday you said you thought I, Amorella, was oriented towards the forest rather than the trees in the forest. This is an accurate observation from your personal [human] perspective.

         The problem with a personal perspective is that it is somewhat slanted, somewhat subjective, no matter what is being observed. Are you ‘quantumly’ changed by my ‘shadowlike’ observations of you?

         No. You are the one changed. – Amorella

         Do you have the characteristics of a Platonic ‘Form’?

         No. I [like human consciousness] have [as I said earlier] composition. - Amorella

         Why am I using brackets above rather than commas?

         Brackets are a better grammatical composition to use when I speak clearly in sentences.

         You have not used them before as far as I can remember.

         I am showing you English grammar as I would use it – thinking continually without hesitation – from a variety of [dimensional] perspectives [being (here), [there] and {elsewhere} at once for instance]. - Amorella

         Do you have the characteristics of a ‘soul’ as humans think of a soul?

         This is too broad of a question, boy. – Amorella

         Do you, from your perspective, have form? I say this because from my perspective you have function.

         First, you are my function[ing agent] not me; second, your species has biochemical-physical form with a consciousness. A ‘sensory’ of my consciousness is close by your physical self.

         Is a ‘sensory component’ like fingertips, eyes and ears?

         I am not a machine any more than you are; in fact I am less so. – Amorella

         Are your responses from your perspective, factual.

         Yes, in the same way your objective is to be writing the Merlyn stories as if an Angel were reading them in front of you while you stand spiritually naked. [My responses will remain consistent relative to your immediate question because you cause the change in context if there is one and I do not.] – Amorella

         That is fair enough, and also consistent even within the framework of the books and this blog.

         All  for now. Post when you are home. – Amorella

         This serendipitous-like dialogue setup is interesting to me.

         As well it should be, orndorff. I am not here to cause you mental chaos. - Amorella

         Evening. About time for the Sunday national news. We still did not finish the discussion on what the consciousness is composed of.

          2050 hours. First, several readers were reading my 5 January 12 posting “Setting up the Blog ADM” and I am reminded that I have not done anything about that blog. This present course of dialogue is more interesting to me as it is more open-minded than pure fiction, more hypothetical.

         Let the ADM blog set for the time being. – Amorella

         I feel I should re-read Wikipedia on ‘consciousness’ before we continue first.

         You are looking for security in present and past knowledge gained on “Consciousness” but that is not the point here. – Amorella

         Amorella, this is making me uncomfortable. I like to place you in the fictional or near fictional category – even as I see this as a hypothetical conversation I am anxious not to do anything that would jeopardize our ‘relationship’. I think this is what I am trying to say but I may be confused by my present awkwardness.

         This is an honest reaction, and expected, orndorff. Let’s put a different dimension of this for some further understanding. If I were an Angel, as most humans think of an Angel (and I am not an Angel by the way), people have a misguided sense of what such a confrontation would be like. This is because if you were to meet an Angel the instant confrontation would come from yourself not the Angel. Religious people, spiritual people, materialists, non-traditional believers of any religion or cult or whatever or atheists – it would make no difference, a self-imposed psychological confrontation would happen, and it would become an unforgettable subjective personal event.

         I, Amorella, in a lesser sense, a lower dimensional level if you will, test you this same way because I am an ‘unknown’, an ‘unclassified being of consciousness’. An analogy: you are physically dead and realize you have a consciousness without a body, how would the Living react to you as an entity once they realized you were not a ‘traditionally expected ghost’? On a human on human level the inner confrontation would make itself known. Think of Hamlet meeting his dead father. There’s a little drama for you. A dead family member and there would be past knowledge and thus certain human expectations from a close family member. With an unknown disembodied consciousness a person would become unsettled and unsure how to proceed. Let’s continue this tomorrow as I have given you something to consider. Post.