# the fender shows a memory of a collision.
# this is not 'conscious memory' but then again,
# magnetic disk drives are not conscious either.
# muscle cells have a rudimentary form of memory as well.
anyway, skipping the bits about muscle cell memory,
we could say that our much of our conscious memory
is 'imprinted' upon the material in a kaleidascopic
series of indentations placed on our neural circuitry
cells which are brought into close proximity with
external stimuli through our sensory receptors.
x number of tiny dents on neural cells
y number of cooperative neural cells
z percent overlap so as to be
classified as 'cooperative'
meaning, for a given set of neural cells
to be 'cooperative', they must carry a
given percentage of identical indentations
now, with y and z in place,
a vast number of x are brought together
so as to formulate the mental image.
obviously, the more disparate the nature of the x
the clearer the mental image
and so, the most complete image of
a thing comes through the input of
all of the various sensory apparatuses
but here, we still resemble silly putty,
and the world focuses its wax impression
on the material bits and forges an image
of itself which 'we' sometimes mistake for 'us'
now, we claim we can take these wax impressions
and pull aside relatedness and see a 'higher' image
meaning, we claim we can examine how the
wax impressions are held together and 'abstract'
another idea in form which is an implicit
function of of the stuff itself without being
the product of the wax impressions themselves.
we've taken a filtered image
and drawn out a clearer image
of the way things must fall into place.
and we show the clarity when we can
formulate a predictive image which
corresponds more precisely
to future outcomes.
and now we are finger painting.
less passive than being a sheet of silly putty,
but still, mainly, simple manipulations
of things that just happen to present
themselves to us.
just ordering and reordering stuff
that's already there, in any number
of myriads of arrays.
considering that the mind of God
is of a variant formulation than
our own, and that not of a physical
material nature, we shall assume that
no possible 'denting' mechanism can
exist by which God's mind should
operate and function.
and so, for now, we could call any phenomenon
associated with God's comprehension of the
natural physical reality as
and reckon that as the time-less
tangent line to 'right now'
and say that this would be dissimilar to a
series of wax impresions and abstractions
of their relatedness to each other
and more resemble the focus of quantized
images of God in to particular and discrete
aspects of the time bound physical reallity.
and, in likewise manner,
the transmission of quantized images
of God in to the focal range of the
neural circuity is how God accomplishes
a comprehensible communication with
'our' abstractable detection of relatedness.
the the highest version of God's
communicative efforts, God is not
leaving a 'dent' behind, but
a pure form of relatedness.
meaning, God may very well communicate
with the material realm via direct,
conscious manipulation of the
but, God can also 'breath' a direct
mental image of the relatedness of God
in to the neural circuitry which acts
as an elaborate detection device in itself.
the detectabilty of the device is already in place,
it's just that as far as the 'denting' mechanism
and the 'breath of God' the material device is
unable to focus on that which it has
no prior impression, but, God is able
to focus such a direct impression
of relatedness on the material device.
we cannot discover a relatedness in
a thing for which we have no impression,
God can provide a necessary impression
towards the highest registries in our
conscious abstraction mechanism.
we become the focus of the tangent
of the time-less 'state' with the
frame of 'right now'
and, as it might be expected,
the quantized bit images of God's time-less nature
will have a 'fractalized' pattern which remembles
the 'whole picture'
somewhat like, yeah, you guessed,
somewhat like a seed.
the whole tree is in the acorn,
but as that tree takes root and
grows to produce acorns of its own...,
there is -still- more...
more as we can be brought more
fully in to the time-less state
so as the 'image' -becomes- pure communion.
Spirit for Spirit
> and we show the clarity when we can
> formulate a predictive image which
> corresponds more precisely
> to future outcomes.
some of this next little bit may matter
when and if you find that some don't
take the same things for 'granted' that
you take for granted.
when you hold a stone in your hand
you believe that when you release
it from your grasp, that it will
fall to the ground.
you may say to yourself, that
every time you have ever released
a stone from your grasp, it has
always fallen to the ground,
but as long as you hold the stone
in your hand, you have only that
belief that your memories of some
past event are a faithful representation
of the reality which has yet to come forth.
their is no -proof- that the stone will
fall to the ground other than your
confident assurance that some future
event will resemble all past events.
the fact comes into being as you
let go of the stone, and yet, you
feel you know for sure, that the
stone will fall each and every
time you let go of it.
the proof -happens- as you let go, but
you have never been disappointed and so,
you feel that you can never be disappointed.
and this becomes your unquestioned reality.
and that is the nature of the thing itself,
your descriptions of past events become
more precise to the point where you can
make relevant statements about future events.
when and if these future event predictions
are brought in to reality, you can then
maintain that your descriptions of past
events resemble the truth.
but each time, the -proof- is
in the letting go of the stone.
Faith is that confidant assurance that
you are going to be pleased and can be
likened to that certain knowledge you
have that when you release a stone
from your hand it will fall
to the ground.
this begins to describe the
activity of the Spirit
in your life.
and now, we would turn to the Truth of God
and begin to suggest that the good news of
God's own tranquility, resting upon your
shoulders, is a confident haven, in which
you may continually take refuge, and as
you see this blossoming and flourishing
in your own life, is also a realization
of the Truth of God as the description
of past present and future states
of unmeritted blessing.
this confident assurance cannot disappoint
you as each time you step out in faith you
are rewarded with the gladness that
accompanies God's own Presence.
So, your own personal description of
the reality of God becomes more precise
to that point where you can make confident
declarations about things that have not
yet ocurred as though they have
already taken place.
and faith meets Faith
you see peaceful Unity with God
you begin to know Love.
we suggest, without a doubt;
God knows when God sets out to do
a fine work, God will be pleased.
we suggest that God knew that man
would not bring forth a pleasing
scent when left to his own devices,
it becomes important that -we-
see that just as God sees that.
God can only begin that work in
you when you offer up this sort of
conscious understanding of God as
the only real source of
all things good.
God knows full well that you will be
a child of God after God's own heart
in whom God is very well pleased
when God places that heart within you.
and this is the sort of 'prayer' that
rises to God as a "sweet smelling inscence."
not a 'prayer' which would only serve your
covetous desire but a primary acknowledgement
of your desire to see God as God in you.
in this way the pleasant nature
will land on your shoulders and
you will see peace.
it's that simple.
your assurance that you are going
to be pleased is the same as that
certain knowledge you have that
when you release a stone from
your hand it will fall
to the ground.
this begins to describe the
activity of the Spirit
in your life.
> next, maybe, some consideration
> of 'tertiary' forms and their relation
> to God's own mental structure.
> where 'tertiary' forms would be
> the relatedness of various secondary
> abstractions from the wax impressions.
> one might suggest 'quaternary' forms, and
> find them to be of the 'zeroth' order instead.
> whatever that means...
just, before you say out loud;
"God, come out the sky on me
and say "let there be light"
so i can know you're there"
that you'd be looking for the wrong thing
and that this sort of vision/sight may not
necessarily be the 'proof' you want anyway.
yeah, it's the first thing that
going to run through your mind;
"God, show me a sign"
little realizing that your
being there to ask such a thing
is already a remarkable accomplishment.
you just take your own being there for granted.
but you still want God to pop out the sky on you.
but this 'christian' thing brings
'the Presence' =itself= direct
and that's the profound thing about
what God has done in Jesus Christ.
if God were to merely pop out the sky on you,
not to mention, that this would remain as
-just- you looking at something from the
outside and trying to make sense of it,
you'd still be comparing this to
phenomena that you experience everyday,
and, "to what -can- you -truly- 'compare' God?"
sort of like,
the manifold wisdom of God is not
a new 'man' that -you- can wrap
an olde garment of your sensory
like as if -you- would try to put
-your- old clothes on a new image
of God in your life and find that
not only do they not fit properly,
but you can't even find a proper
place to hang them on, and they
keep falling off.
and so, this -is- truly, a 'radical'
renovation of your very being insamuch
as God would bypass all the experiential
baggage and come directly under the soil
of your physical rationality and grab
hold of your unique identity structure
and bring -that- to the surface,
exposing and pruning away the roots
of the iconic portrait the existing conditions
has manufactured over top of 'you'
and -then- you will begin to actually
say that you -do- 'see God' in that you
come to realize... yeah yeah yeah,
you come to realize that God is not -in-
the earthquake or the hurricane or the
dazzling display of lights, but, in that
'still small voice' that presents itself
at your doorway asking you why you're there.
but really, when you ask for 'a sign'
you'd be looking for things that -you-,
under a heap of rubble, would consider
to -be- an image of God, little realizing
that you have =nothing= -to- take for 'granted'
in that you even should or could know what
such a manifestation can encompass.
as they say; 'first things first'
obviously, any 'imposter' could simply
appear to you in some form that -you-
would be 'expecting'
but none of this has ever been -about-
what -you- should expect.
-but- if God -did- surprise you
like some thief in the night,
you may also, -not- be expecting
that 'thief' to =give= you
your brand new heart.
...and then you can shake your head.
and you can -try- to convince yourselves
that the better idea will be exposed thru
the struggles of personalities only to find
that you've left your progeny nothing but
a bloody floor and them to mop up your mess,
and another brawl breaks
out amidst all the blood,
and no good better or best
has come from any of it.
it's not that 'politics' and 'religion' -don't- mix
it's that they -do- mix,
and as you may very well know
it is impossible for the cart -to- pull the horse
which is which?
now we may be approaching some sort of tertiary form.
"but i show you a higher way"