Mid-morning. When you turned on your iPad this morning to add your daily blood sugar result you found ‘transubstantiation’ still up your Wikipedia Off Line, and it reminded you of your readings last night. – Amorella
It did, but I think my rebellious nature popped out. I need to shut off my thoughts Amorella It is not good for me to be so critical so quickly. I am afraid it comes with age and with not giving much of a damn about my thoughts. I can be polite, but being polite with thoughts not so easy, mainly because no one needs to know them.
You have no idea why I brought this ‘transubstantiation’ up. – Amorella
No, I guess not. I thought it was about my being critical of the concept because why does ‘transubstantiation’ have to stop with wine and bread becoming the blood and body of Christ? It reminded me of the spiritually romantic concept of the ‘Great Spirit’ being in everything living or otherwise. So, I thought you were calling me on it. – You have no comment, so perhaps I should erase this. – I do not have a good feeling about this.
Why don’t you erase it then? – Amorella
Arrogance slows me down. What else.
Now you can post. – Amorella
Why?
You wrote the paragraph for the wrong reason. You were actually rather delighted with your thought when it popped in last night. – Amorella
Okay, yes; I thought, ‘hey, that’s pretty good; I’d probably be in trouble for thinking something like this’. I know, it sounds like something I might say to a friend when I was in junior high school not as a late sixty-nine year old.
Does it? – Amorella
I sound like an angry and rebellious sixty-nine year old.
Early afternoon. You ran a couple of errands as well as had an ‘everything’ cookie from the bakery on Lee and drinks from McD’s. Brennan was quite cooperative along the way and a stop on a quiet street with brick lined two story homes right out of the late thirties one block east of Kim and Paul’s in University Heights.
1401 hours. I covered 1, Dance; 2, Being and Non-being; as well as 3, On and Off; and 4, Full and Empty. I cannot help but think of Anaximander and logic. One can make observations and deductions, be seemingly logically correct at the time, only to later find the argument is not solid. That’s how I feel with Being and Non-being/On and Off and Full and Empty. In one of the Merlyn books it is suggested through a character (I don’t remember which) that time is as a droplet of water. Everything within the droplet appears to be flowing; time is as river water running one direction forward rather than downstream. However, as each droplet appeared to fall, the brain/mind picks up that time ‘trickles’ as it were, when it’s a continual drip. That’s the gist of the concept. I assume it is somewhere in “Pouch Text” because it sounds like something the marsupial-humanoids conjured up as an early story or myth. I was writing as fiction, but some of the ideas were plausible, or so it seemed to me at the time. As ‘editor in chief’ of Amorella’s work I insisted on plausibility as much as possible. Even in fiction such as Amorella’s it has to have an air of authenticity to it.
Number five to mull over is “Full of Spirit, not Life”. In my mind (in context) Spirit and Life are not the same thing.
** **
Spirit: 1 the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul: we seek a harmony between body and spirit.
• such a part regarded as a person's true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation: a year after he left, his spirit is still present.
• such a part manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
Life: 1 the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death: the origins of life.
• living things and their activity:
Edited from Oxford-American software
** **
If a ‘person’ is full of spirit and not of life, then sheorhe is physically dead. Now, what if a person is partially full of spirit; that is sheorhe has an immortal soul. Immortal might not be the correct word here as forever appears to be an unknown as far as human can know or even imagine. It is a long, long time; that’s what some people may mean when they think or say forever. I cannot imagine being in an immortal’s vocabulary, if an immortal has the rudiments of a vocabulary as physical beings might work up over the centuries. I am often confused when I read of ‘projections’ of what an immortal would even be. This reminds me of those seventeenth century arguments on “How would one know if an Angel were in the room?” (Let alone if there were more than one. It is ridiculous.)
When you danced with me, orndorff, you honestly and sincerely felt/feel there was a Presence in the room with you. You even capitalized Presence. How did/do you know this if it is so ridiculous? – Amorella
This is a really good question Amorella. I wasn’t expecting this interruption. I was/am attempting to make a point.
So I am, boy. Answer the question. – Amorella
I will have to think on this.
Thus the conclusion of Lesson Seven – B. We move on to Lesson Seven – C. – Post. - Amorella
As this begins Lesson Seven – C I am wondering when we get back to the original question: How does the soul exist? And the sub-question: How does the attendant enter the soul? But first, the immediate question: How did I know a Presence was in the room before the dance with the Amorella began?
If you were going to dance how did you come to realize a Presence was in the room? – Amorella
I don’t know. I’m going to bed. (2039)
Post. - Amorella
No comments:
Post a Comment