you get the boot in stead
Timothy Sutter
T = {T^2 + (G + gi)}
as i wobble, i stay in the plane
my heart maintains it's rhythm...
see, there are possible numbers
in the set of (G + gi) where the
magnitude, or distance from 0, of T
will not diverge to infinity.
'i' = [square root of (-1)]
a so-called 'imaginary number'
at T = 0 , you get;
T(2) = 0^2 + (G + gi)
or T = (G + gi)
plug that into T and
do the operation again;
T(3) = (G + gi)^2 + (G = gi)
where (G + gi) is a constant
number in the complex plane.
which is to say, for each set of
repeated operations, (G + gi) is
constant and T varies.
well, for many numbers, the magnitude
of T soon diverges to infinity.
but there are number sets of (G + gi),
for which, the magnitude of T doesn't diverge.
T just wobbles not too far from zero.
those numbers are called 'the mandelbrot set'
and if you graph this set,
you get the funny picture that
looks sort of like a heart.
a 'cardioid' of sorts.
> but there are number sets of (G + gi),
> for which, the magnitude of T doesn't diverge.
> T just wobbles not too far from zero.
now you can make up a funny story
and say things like;
the 'real' plane represents the dirt
and the air and the sun and the moon
and the stars and candy and pie and
radios and gumdrops,
and the 'imaginary' plane is the realm
of pure consciousness which is -not-
composed of carbon and nitrogen and
hydrogen and oxygen, but yet exists
and is very much 'real' and where our
conscious initiator of genesis
maintains an eternal existance.
-not- 'imaginary' in the sense of
being totally unreal 'imaginary'
in the sense of the plane of conscious
awareness apart from the physical
material manifestation.
one place where the two planes intersect,
is in these living beings which walk the earth.
and so, as we find ourselves in the 'complex plane'
where both dirt and pure consciousness may intersect,
we ...; we say more in a bit...
but if we don't get too carried away,
we -can- make relevant statements
about both without destroying either.
yes, 'it' is 'there'
but where 'there' is
corresponds, for now, with the
points in the complex plane.
and those points converge in us.
just remember, the complex plane already
finds 'real' use in our friend quantum mechanics.
and we do not suggest that all
of quantum mechanics is fiction.
no, we do not.
but it employs 'imaginary' numbers.
real information from a purely 'mathematical' device.
and now again, if we don't get too
carried away, we -can- make relevant
statements about both without
destroying either.
but see, even if some were to get carried away
and make claims that "purple kestrels with dog's
heads" fly about in their imaginary world,
and therefore, Timothy Sutter makes them 'real'
well, first, your inventions will invariably be
cut and paste composites of things that you have
seen and heard and smelled and tasted and felt.
and you may have seen 'purple' and 'kestrels'
and dog's heads' but, you may not have seen
them all in one creature.
so, we we relegate that
sort of thing to composition.
could it be possible?
sure, why not, but right now, we aren't
seeing any thing like this flying around.
as an aside comment to the walls,
for us, these creatures who find
themselves in the complex plane,
the act of creation would be in finding things
that may reside in the purely imaginary plane,
and bringing them to 'life' in the real world,
all without ever being able to relegate
the pure higher consciousness to fiction
but instead, we prove the higher consciousness is real
inasmuch as we can begin to declare things
that be not, as though they be, and watch
them become.
and that is how we begin to describe the
Creation of all things, from the source
of our conscious being initiator of genesis.
our Concious Being, declared that which
was not, as if it was, and made it real.
and the light we see, resembles the
Light of God's own pure consciousness.
a little common sense would assist in focusing
your concentrated attention on things which
are more possible than others.
maybe you just can not have a car that
folds up and can be put away in your wallet.
this can be considered impracticable.
and so, a relationship with our
Conscious Being who precedes All
and is responsible for All's being,
is invaluable in considering what can
be possible for us, and what will
remain out of our grasp.
but, this sort of relationship with God
is -not- out of our grasp.
seek -that- first,
and your heart's desires will follow.
then the question is not;
'is it right to play God?'
but;
'should mankind try to play God without God?'
and we tend to see that mankind,
left to its own device,
squanders its gifts to the considerations
of the temporary dwellings.
as such, it tends to waste its gifts
on what it cannot perpetuate, leaving
no account with the everlasting Deity.
translation;
when mankind adores itself as deity,
he mistakenly tries to elevate the physical creature
into that domain where it can find no place, and
falls back to earth in a crash of flame and ashes.
but -we- as Christians, see Jesus...
Jesus, who tore down the temple of the
temporary dwelling to be, raised up,
-transformed-, and to remain,
forever incorruptible.
this is God with us.
God's own plan for us.
the perfecting of God's Creation.
the clay, fired into eternity.
and then we start to mention
how we may adorn our eternal
existance with fineries from God.
True treasures on account with the everlasting.
> but, this sort of relationship with God
> is -not- out of our grasp.
> seek -that- first,
> and your heart's desires will follow.
Basis Of Issue Narrative Guidance [BOING]
two pairs of sox
no one says;
at five o'clock, [g + di]
is in the mandelbrot set
but at seven o'clock, [g + di]
is not in the mandelbrot set.
is no one right or wrong?
print this out and place it under your pillow,
and when no one gives you an answer,
you get your two pairs of sox.
that should be clear enough for you.
if it is not clear enough for you,
you get the boot in stead