DIALOGUES page 2
intro. page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 comments
Nick_A 04.29.05 1.8 (2)
Hi Kris and Doug
This may appear now off topic but it really isn't. Trust me. 
Kris, you've described yourself as an artist which is a term that has always confounded me. Doug, if you consider yourself an artist, by all means answer also. What would you say is the difference between "art" and "expression" if indeed you believe there is one?
_______________con'd 1.9
Doug 04.29.06 6.6 (2)
| Kriswest wrote: |
| My thoughts are stuck in multidimensions. flattening those suckers out, is hard. Acorning is darn hard. I respect those that can do the acorn or see one or two and make sense. Cause I in noway can do that easyly.I can be dense as dirt. |
LOL
LOL It is the amount of information that is packed into your memory that is as "dense as dirt". Your mind isn't like fly paper you know. You can adjust the amount that sticks.
Kriswest wrote: |
| Alright Acorn |
Are you calling me a nut?
| Kriswest wrote: |
| That man has not self destructed yet, and is making progress means we are at least moving towards that answer in some degree. |
You talked before about the signs you see of progress toward a better life. I return to my observation that as long as we are alive there will be signs of "reaching out ...to others..." If these signs are all we see then we will conclude we are making progress. I still maintain the threads of self-destruction out weigh the threads of self-realization. Using just conflict as evidence, I suggest that on the continuum that ranges from deadly conflict, through decreasing conflict and diminishing conditional cooperation, to unconditional cooperation that characterizes our existence, humanity is positioned on the conflict side. So as long as this is the case, regardless the signs we see as progress, we will self destruct.
| Kriswest wrote: |
| yet my spiritualness has no religous boundries, no philosophic boundries. |
This is good. Theoretically, the only boundaries in my life are the limits of my capacities. In fact though, I am bound by the limits placed on me by our collective fabric of existence which as I've suggested we can change. I am not religious. I find it impossible "to dissect beliefs". I told one of my believing sisters God gave us pets to show us how enjoyable life can be without complicated belief systems. In your dog you see the possibility of unconditional human love.
You will have to tell me but I will guess you and I have a similar idea about spirit. Body, mind is two dimensional. Spirit is the third dimension. I just cannot "translate" life into two dimensions. I will suggest your daily life is pretty well 2-D until you involve yourself in your art where you sense your third dimension. I believe we are all capable of sensing our spirit but we rarely do again because of the restrictions our fabric of existence places on us due to the choices we have made. Our present existence is so 2 dimensional.
You pick my poem apart anywhere you want. I've waited 6 years for someone to come along and make that request. Don't give another thought about being unworthy of your status.
| Kriswest wrote: |
| In your analogy you reference god and humanity seperate |
Sure, start with the toughest. I think this is one that might require a few exchanges. If my first response doesn't satisfy you then you keep asking the right questions and I will eventually come up with the right answer. If you and I just reach out to the limits of our capacities and to each other, our existence will remain 2 dimensional. When we reach out to God it becomes 3 dimensional. Where you go after that I don't mind. At least believe our lives have a third dimension.
______________con'd @ 6.7
Kriswest 04.29.07 6.7 (2)
Hey Doug,
I am thinking, I will reply when the old brain case is at full boil.
I did not call you a nut LOL I meant Iwas going to try acorn thoughts. sorry for the misunderstanding.
______________con'd @ 6.8
Doug 04.29 04 1.9 (2)
Nick, I'm glad you are back; but please restrain yourself. I can only juggle 1 ball at a time and you've given me 2. I think you are up to 5 posts. After the fourth I was going to say you left the best for the last. Finally, here was Nick unplugged from his role of promoting Simone Weil. I read her bio by the way, so because of you one more person knows of your hero. Now you have a 5th post so maybe your best is yet to come.
I was sitting here wondering whether to go on about Christianity and the other 5 major religious sources of colored thread in the fabric of humanity when I was hit on the head by my own acorn. So now I will say only that if God is, I am betting my life God does not believe in Christianity. If Jesus were to return today, I am betting my life he would say, "Oh my God; all I said was 'do unto others (and God) what you'd have them do unto you'. Look what they've done to my song God, look what they've done to my song". I will conclude with a couple lines from my poem.
" God is not in religious thread.
When wound up in it, God is dead."
And incidentally, so are we.
| Nick wrote: |
| What would you say is the difference between "art" and "expression" if indeed you believe there is one? |
This is right off the top Nick. I am thinking as I go. Art is expression. Kristy expresses herself through her art. I am a carpenter. Most of what I do requires a great deal of creativity but I've never considered it an expression of myself. I suppose my writing might be considered art but I've never thought of it that way. It is just the consequence of trying to explain life.
In case you have trouble bringing the discussion back on topic I will do it for you. The fabric of existence that we weave would be considered art if we used our unique natural threads to create the weave. When using inherited unnatural threads we are merely technicians making self-destructive reproductions.
Thanks for the question Nick. It was very useful and definitely your best post.
_______________con'd @ 1.10
Kriswest 04.29.06 6.8 (2)
NO, NO, No Doug, I don't express myself through art. I leave that to well trained vocal chords( Dad was a Chief Master Sgt.) He taught me well.
My art is not emotional to me, it is done by sight only, by what clicks as fitting in the right place. It triggers others to express, not me. for me it relaxes and that is it. It is the equivelent of a well drugged birthing.
_______________con'd @ 6.9
Nick_A 04.29.06 1.10 (2)
Hi there Doug
As I said to Kris, when I raise certain unusual questions do not take it as attack or being critical. It is me trying to understand where you are coming from.
| Doug wrote: |
| Now you have a 5th post so maybe your best is yet to come. |
Yes, this is what she said last night though being worn out at the time, it was wishful thinking. But I'd better be good or Ben will kick me outa here.
There is this fashionable current trend to completely secularize Christianity. It is a natural outgrowth of how Christianity has devolved from the religion of slaves into the religion of power. This is why Simone Weil stayed outside of the church. Yet her profound arguments are widely unknown and those in universities don't know to add her valuable insights into their papers in order to better distinguish between Christianity and Christendom (man made Christianity) You can read about it on this link particularly in 5) and 6) if you can stand anymore of Simone.
http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/bauer.htm
But back to the tapestry. I've been leading up to the question if we are able as we are to distinguish between the natural and unnatural. This can be a very objectionable question for some. I believe we assume we do which is one of Man's greatest errors. Consider Socrates" observation:
| Nick wrote: |
| "May the outward and inward man be at one." Socrates |
If this is the case and there is a lack of connection in oneself between the inner man and the external man as parts of our being and this connection exists for us only as potential, what is a natural weave? We are just acting unnaturally without being aware of it. Natural and unnatural IMO are being defined through preconditioning and as such, void of any objective natural reality.
A dog creates a natural weave. It is the same inside and outside. IMO as we are we cannot do this so where the dog is natural we remain unnatural regardless of how we flatter ourselves as superior beings?
_______________con'd @ 1.11
Doug 04.29.06 6.9 (2)
| Kriswest wrote: |
| NO, NO, No Doug, I don't express myself through art. I leave that to well trained vocal chords( Dad was a Chief Master Sgt.) He taught me well. |
Is that singing or shouting?
| Kriswest wrote: |
| My art is not emotional to me, it is done by sight only, by what clicks as fitting in the right place. It triggers others to express, not me. for me it relaxes and that is it. It is the equivelent of a well drugged birthing. |
Let me try again. Your art is an expression of your realized capacities, not your emotions. When you are engrossed in your art it calms your emotions. It puts you in a place it seems you should be. It inflates your fabric of existence with spirit. It lifts you up so that you don't feel you are dragging your life around. Your art I suggest is natural activity. It's expression creates "real life". I think you do not want me to see your art as a substitute for yelling and screaming. 
_______________con'd 6.10
Doug 04.29.06 1.11 (2)
Shame on you Nick.
Nick wrote:
I've been leading up to the question if we are able as we are to distinguish between the natural and unnatural.
and wrote:
"May the outward and inward man be at one." Socrates
Life is so much easier for me to understand than philosophy. I guess that's why I abandoned that part of formal studies, became a carpenter and started studying life without religious/philosophical filters. I define natural activity as activity by which we reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Since we have unique capacities our natural activities are unique so the definition of natural is unique to each of us. There is however, a list of indicators that tell us we are engaging in natural activity, which is common to us all. If you wish to read the complete list click on "poem". Ten minutes later you will have read my 'acorn'.
In case you don't, I can tell you one of the indicators of natural activity is unconditional cooperation. An indicator of unnatural activity is conflict. If we engage in natural activity, we get a natural weave characterized by unconditional cooperation. If we replace some natural activity with unnatural activity we get a somewhat less than natural weave characterized by some measure of conflict. For me it is that simple. If I have to talk about inner man and outer man, my inner man would be potential capacities and my outer man would be potential capacities realized through natural activity. At present our inner man and outer man are not one because unnatural activity dominates our weave. Were we all to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God then our inner man and outer man would be one and there is not a philosophical or religious dictation that says this cannot be.
______________con'd 1.12
Kriswest 04.30.06 6.10 (2)
| Doug wrote: |
| Shame on you Nick. Life is so much easier for me to understand than philosophy. I guess that's why I abandoned that part of formal studies, became a carpenter and started studying life without religious/philosophical filters. I define natural activity as activity by which we reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Since we have unique capacities our natural activities are unique so the definition of natural is unique to each of us. There is however, a list of indicators that tell us we are engaging in natural activity, which is common to us all. If you wish to read the complete list click on "poem". Ten minutes later you will have read my 'acorn'. In case you don't, I can tell you one of the indicators of natural activity is unconditional cooperation. An indicator of unnatural activity is conflict. If we engage in natural activity, we get a natural weave characterized by unconditional cooperation. If we replace some natural activity with unnatural activity we get a somewhat less than natural weave characterized by some measure of conflict. For me it is that simple. If I have to talk about inner man and outer man, my inner man would be potential capacities and my outer man would be potential capacities realized through natural activity. At present our inner man and outer man are not one because unnatural activity dominates our weave. Were we all to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God then our inner man and outer man would be one and there is not a philosophical or religious dictation that says this cannot be. |
Doug, what if a person is naturally conflicting? what if a person is and has no other choice but to cause and create conflict? What if a person is born to be a pain in the butt. How would this be unnatural? What if a person is simply a fighting machine not trained, but born that way. How is this unnatural? Fair warning there is another part to this question to be brought forth later.
______________con'd 6.11
Kriswest 05.30.06 6.11 (2)
Kriswest wrote:
NO, NO, No Doug, I don't express myself through art. I leave that to well trained vocal chords( Dad was a Chief Master Sgt.) He taught me well.
Doug wrote:
Is that singing or shouting?
Kriswest wrote:
My art is not emotional to me, it is done by sight only, by what clicks as fitting in the right place. It triggers others to express, not me. for me it relaxes and that is it. It is the equivelent of a well drugged birthing.
Doug wrote:
Let me try again. Your art is an expression of your realized capacities, not your emotions. When you are engrossed in your art it calms your emotions. It puts you in a place it seems you should be. It inflates your fabric of existence with spirit. It lifts you up so that you don't feel you are dragging your life around. Your art I suggest is natural activity. It's expression creates "real life". I think you do not want me to see your art as a substitute for yelling and screaming.
Doug,
LOL If I ever sing my family runs screaming. Yes I shout and yell, I can be quite robust in that area. Only when angry or upset though. I tend to whistle when happy, and that is quite loud I am told. I am not a loud person normally though, most of the time my family wants me to speak louder. I tend to hide in corners when around groups of people, or people that do not know me or I them, so there I am shy and quiet. And as far as your desciption of my art and I , I respectfully can not agree. For most that are in the fields of arts yes, for me no.
Natural activity, yes. I can not help but, to create and think, it is a part of what I am. But it is more like breathing or blinking or birthing then anything else. I express nothing, it is , well it just is. It is done without true thought it just is. I said it relaxes me because that is the closest that may happen. It is really more like reflex or instinct then any other. I really hope this is going to help you and Nick with your fabric and void. Because, I think I might just be muddying the waters here bringing in my perceptions of this. 
______________con'd @ 6.12
Doug 04.30.06 6.12 (2)
| Kriswest wrote: |
| Doug, what if a person is naturally conflicting? what if a person is and has no other choice but to cause and create conflict? What if a person is born to be a pain in the butt. How would this be unnatural? What if a person is simply a fighting machine not trained, but born that way. How is this unnatural? |
It is unnatural by my definition. If you know for a fact that a person is "naturally conflicting" can be "born... to create conflict", then everything I believe is wrong. I believe as I have said in my poem,
"We need each other to survive,
We is the state to feel alive."
I believe the purpose of life is to reach out to the limit of our capacities, to others and to God. We cannot reach out to the limits of our capacities without the benefit of the realized capacities of others. If we reduce the human population to two and one is born to create conflict, then that population will self destruct. If we consider the human population to be divided into groups of two and one in each group is born to create conflict then the entire population will eventually self destruct. I hope no one is born to "create conflict".
______________con'd @ 6.13
Doug 04.30.06 6.13 (2)
| Kriswest wrote: |
| Natural activity, yes. I can not help but, to create and think, it is a part of what I am. But it is more like breathing or blinking or birthing then anything else. I express nothing, it is , well it just is. It is done without true thought it just is. I said it relaxes me because that is the closest that may happen. It is really more like reflex or instinct then any other. |
The only reason I can say it better than this is that I have spent 30 years perfecting my language.
| Kriswest wrote: |
| And as far as your desciption of my art and I , I respectfully can not agree. |
I respectfully disagree with you that you don't agree with me because I agree with you so you have to agree with me. How's that for circular logic. The only reason I can see for you continuing to say we disagree is to be disagreeable. I have not sensed that you are disagreeable just for the sake of winning.
If only we could communicate without words. Sometimes using them is like trying to type while wearing boxing gloves. I was sitting here thinking of what to say next when it occurred to me I'd said something foolish. Of course we can communicate without words. A nod, a sideways glance are both means of communicating. I looked up "express". The definition was "to represent or make known (thoughts, feelings etc.) Clearly express is a synonym of "communicate". I don't think anyone would object if under "etc." I put "talent" and "realized capacities". As we weave our fabrics of existence we "make known" who we are. We "express" ourselves. When I look at your fabric of existence I see a clear thread, a natural artistic activity that helps to "make known", "express" who you are, without emotion.
_______________con'd @ 6.14
Nick_A 04.30.06 1.12 (2)
| Doug wrote: |
| Were we all to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God then our inner man and outer man would be one and there is not a philosophical or religious dictation that says this cannot be. |
I agree with you that it is possible. However, for us to believe that we are anywhere close to this is only wishful thinking.. It is so because we are unable psychologically to accept the human condition of which we are a part. Our egotism denies it with a dominating force.
St.Paul refers to it but it is difficult to speak of these things since it arouses so much righteous indignation. People disregard it and continue with the same platitudes since they allow us to feel better. But anyhow, here is ST. Paul's insulting revelation:
| Quote: |
Romans 7 14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin |
.
Man is a plurality. He is not one but many. This is why acting naturally means being hypocritical. You are assuming choice where it doesn't exist. This is why before thinking "we" in an objective sense, we must first think "I" and why we don't have it as a unity in our being. Otherwise "we" has no meaning but instead follows the normal cultural flow of hypocrisy.
Yes this is offensive. Science is unconcerned with this. contemporary psychology and modern religion are primarily concerned with self esteem and preaching "right" action. The only thing concerned with it is the non secular essence of religion that is underneath the surface and invites us to witness what we are instead of concealing it through wishful thinking. What a demeaning thought! Who needs this? We are in the 21st century and highly educated. Heh, heh, heh. Naturally then it cannot get beyond continuous preaching and the assertion that resistance is the fault of the other guy when in truth it is just the normal manifestation of the human condition, what we ARE, from which we act naturally hypocritical in spite of the finest platitudes.
______________con'd @ 1.13
Kriswest 04.30.06 6.14 (2)
Um, I belatedly ask your permission Doug, to copy your poem to a word document so that I may study with out being online. If you wish I will delete the copy. I did not think about it until afterwards about asking permision, my apologies for having such slovenly manners.
______________con'd @ 6.15
Kriswest 05.01.06 6.15 (2)
Kriswest wrote:
Doug wrote: |
Yes , I believe there are those born to create conflict, history is rife with the more famous ones. Is it bioligic or pyschologic? I think it leans to both. There are many humans that were given good homes and upbringings that create conflict. That, history can prove. For another example look toward the jails. There are many in there that were raised properly yet destroy, fight and conflict. Some may have chemical imbalances, others mental, some both. Why? why if it is unnatural should they be this way? Choice? Some few do it because it is too strong a temptation others it is compulsion. If they are natural then why would they be needed. I believe it is to educate humanity on a whole. They are like the sacrificial goats. they are given their lives in order to teach. How would we know joy if we do not know pain? How would we know right from wrong if not given examples. It is our duty or job to learn. so far learning is slow to us. but, over all we really have not existed for very long. and progress is being made by leaps and bounds. 100 yrs ago things were greatly different. 100 yrs is not that great of a span. My grandmothers both saw over 94 years. They taught me what books do not. from horses to space shuttles is the span of life they lived. Think about it. They both saw progress from different types of lives too. One poor, one wealthy.
So these conflicters are natural the way I see it and they will continue until humanity learns from history. I know that the holocaust has not been learned for there is still genocide throughout the world. I think science and medicine will help but, education and forgotten knowledge will aid too.
_______________con'd 6.16
Kriswest 05.01.06 6.16 (2)
| Doug wrote: |
You will have to tell me but I will guess you and I have a |
| Doug wrote: |
| You pick my poem apart anywhere you want. I've waited 6 years for someone to come along and make that request. Don't give another thought about being unworthy of your status. |
| Kriswest wrote: |
| In your analogy you reference god and humanity seperate |
| Doug wrote: |
| Sure, start with the toughest. I think this is one that might require a few exchanges. If my first response doesn't satisfy you then you keep asking the right questions and I will eventually come up with the right answer. If you and I just reach out to the limits of our capacities and to each other, our existence will remain 2 dimensional. When we reach out to God it becomes 3 dimensional. Where you go after that I don't mind. At lest believe our lives have a third dimension. |
All right your two dimensional and 3 dimensional: As our creator created us are we not then a part of our creator? Built in our creators image does not mean body, it means us ,what our soul is. Created in image also can be interpreted to be opposite of our creator, for that is what an image often is. Or likeness. which is it then? I believe it is likeness. the fabric of man could be equated as sperm or seeds from one plant. With the ultimate goal to return to our orgin meaning: become another plant or creature like the one that donated the sperm and put the sperm on this planet "the egg".
Your 8 ways are lessons that must be achieved to grow.
Lets do this a simple way.
I can see us in a classroom each individual progressing at their own pace. I see our creator as a parental figure, that loves us very much but, is rather busy with a whole bunch of other things. So this parent put us here to grow with little or no input. This parent has thoughtfully put lessons for us. Individual lessons and group lessons. As we progress individually we will be able to pass the group lessons together or mostly together. but, to pass, a group lesson, the majority of us must progress to a certain level. There of course will be the over achievers: Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa, Etc. then we have the underacheivers, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Caligula, Ted Bundy, etc... these are there not to underachieve only, but also to learn from, as is the overachievers. So both are natural, both must be, for all to learn and grow. Our parent figure must use some of us as object lessons. I mean think about it. You may be able to pass the written exam to get your license to drive but, getting behind that wheel is a whole other thing. We need object lessons not just words. There is how I see your fabric. I think. This is not the whole of my beliefs but just kind of like a sample portion.
The void? Well let me think on that one a bit. its forming though.
______________con'd @ 6.17
Nick_A 05.01.06 1.13 (2)
| Doug wrote: |
| Body, mind is two dimensional. Spirit is the third dimension. I just cannot "translate" life into two dimensions. |
At its highest Think triangle. The body (habit) is on the left cornor of the base and the mind (intent) at the other. Mental intents are opposed by bodily habits as in a the attempt to diet. The apex of the triangle is emotion in the pure sense reconciling the two as one and adding this third dimension.
_______________con'd @ 1.14
Doug 05.01.06 1.14 (2)
Nick, I thought you and I agreed you would give me only one ball at a time to juggle. Even though you have given me two I am only going to juggle one, your previous post (1.12). I will come back to the next one (1.13).
Doug wrote:
Were we all to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God then our inner man and outer man would be one and there is not a philosophical or religious dictation that says this cannot be.
| Nick wrote: |
| I agree with you that it is possible. However, for us to believe that we are anywhere close to this is only wishful thinking. |
I never said I thought we were close. In fact my concern is that , to use your analogy, we are so far away from the possibility of the inner man and outer man being one that we are in danger of splitting apart, self-destructing.
The rest of what you write is written in a language I don't understand. In your Romans 7 quote there are phrases I have never understood, like "law is spiritual", "sold as a slave to sin", "sin living in me", "law of sin within my members". Neither do I know what you mean by "Man is plurality". I want to know why you say "(a)choice...doesn't exist". I do not know what this quote means:
| Nick wrote: |
| This is why before thinking "we" in an objective sense, we must first think "I" and why we don't have it as a unity in our being. Otherwise "we" has no meaning but instead follows the normal cultural flow of hypocrisy. |
Are you sure you don't know my older brother lay preacher Bob? How about my older sister or my younger sister and her 2 sons all three pastors. Maybe you are communicating with the spirit of my late grandmother. All kidding aside, I want to tell you a story.
On one of his rare visits my older brother separated our mother from me and tried to "save her soul". My mother cried for about 2 hours after he left. She actually told me to tell him not to come back. I didn't. When she calmed down enough to talk she managed to ask through her tears, "What did he mean I've sinned. I've done nothing wrong." I managed to console Mom by telling her I'd never understood the language of Christianity either. I pretended to for the first 24 years of my life but I couldn't stand the "hypocrisy" so I quit trying.
Now, almost every night for the last 5 years my Mom and I have played scrabble. On average, she wins better than once a week. When she wins she laughs until a tear or two rolls down her check and when she regains control she says, "Incredible". Then still my Mom, she tries to console me the best she can with her tongue in her cheek. About 5 months ago I taught my 90 year old mother to play solitaire on the computer. Since then, every night after scrabble she plays solitaire while I watch. If I'd let her she would play until she got a perfect game. When she does she laughs, gives me a poke and says with great satisfaction "I did it". This is the language my Mom and I speak, Nick. Which do you think is the language of God?
_______________con'd @ 1.15
Kriswest 05.02.06 6.17 (2)
See, Doug you are so much nicer then I am. I would have secured a bible to the end of a stick and chased my brother, thunking him with that bible. Yes, I know his intentions were good, and that in his callous way he was trying to save his mother. But I believe the thunking would have saved him in my own way of thinking of course. 
It is always hard to bring theology and philosophy together. Religous texts are read with faith, and trust, philosophy is read with questioning and thought mingled with disbelief until it resolves itself. So trying to bring the two together in a coherent thought is darn near next to impossible. While both may collide and somewhat mingle it is nearly impossible for someone who is a skeptic of that religous text to grasp what is being said. ie. you and me for two. but, it does in noway invalidate what is put forth. religous texts are historical documents much is based in fact, of beliefs, and actual occurances. What one must do, is speak in modern simple thoughts and words when describing the texts. for us yokels OK?Nick?
_______________con'd @ 6.18
Doug 05.02.06 6.18 (2)
Kriswest, by any chance are there 30 hours in the day where you live? By my count I am 4 very stimulating posts behind. 3 are yours and Nick left the other. I live in the pacific time zone. I just rolled out of bed after the afternoon nap I need because I am up all hours of the night responding to your posts. Tell me what zone you are in so I can keep track of our temporal relationship. I will begin responding to your posts after our solitaire game tonight. God, I am going to need 2 naps tomorrow. Mom and I are going to go for a walk now. I'll talk to you tomorrow, I think. Maybe I am talking to you tomorrow now. I don't know. Temporally I am so confused. Luckily, that is not the case philosophically.
_______________con'd @ 6.19
Email Article