Anyway, sorry about being incognito for awhile. Don't have much time to post right now, but I'll get to it soon (I know you have all being waiting around for a week know hitting the reload buttons on your browser waiting for my posts).
Anyway, thanks for the Mega-Woman link GGB, good stuff. I'd still kick her butt though. I haven't met a woman yet that I couldn't kick her butt. Of course I have never actually kicked a woman's butt before, so I'll have to say that my previous statement is more of a hypothesis than an actual theory or law.
Lots of good posts I need to respond to, just give me some time. T-giving wasn't great in the Glob household, not much EC present. I did have a reasonably good convo with the W last night, for about five minutes before she fell asleep (can't blame her, the newborn keeps us both up all night). Anyway, I did the laundry for her yesterday figuring to get a few AOS points in. Still sex-less since early July, but its not bothering me a whole lot. I'd much rather just have a passionate kiss right now, or a several minutes long hug (you know the one where you just seem to melt together). Sex will come or it won't, but I hope it does.
Which reminds me, I've got some condoms and lube to buy. Thanks NOP, BF, and others for the tips. Gotta run to a dinner for somebody or something. I'll be back later to add my unusual flavor to some of the cool posts I've been seeing here lately. That is, unless I get stuck burping a baby for a couple of hours tonight.
CHROM!!!!!
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Gotcha on the math thing. My W was a math major (actually graduated 4th in her class at a top-25 university), but she leaned more toward the actuarial side. More practical than the theoretical stuff.
As I am in astrophysics, most of my stuff isn't very practical ... today. I like to tell myself that some future traveler between the stars will need some formula that I derived.
A man walks into a theoretical mathematician's office and notices him sitting there in the "thinker's" pose. He starts to speak, but the mathematician interrupts him saying "don't bother me, I'm working." Ummm ... that was a joke ... sort of.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
--------------------------------------------------- If there is NOTHING in the box, you set n to zero.
E=(1/2+0)h_bar w
which gives you: E=(1/2)h_bar w
---------------------------------------------
I think you (or your friend who explained it to you) is confusing the meaning of the variable 'n'. In this case, 'n' is the the energy level for the available quantum states of a particle that finds itself confined to a harmonic oscillator potential (e.g. connected to springs). In other equations, 'n' refers to the number of photons. You have probably seen E = nhw, where n is the number of photons, h is Planck's constant, and w is the photon frequency. In that case, setting n = 0 would imply no photons present. In the equation for the harmonic oscillator, setting n = 0 refers to the "ground state." As this lowest energy state is non-zero, it is referred to often as the zero-point energy. It is from this zero-point energy (and quantum fluctuations a la Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that some models propose the energy for the Big Bang arose. Setting n = 0 does not imply that no particles occupy those states, only that they are in the ground state.
No, he explained all that, just as you've stated here, actually... and I went and read up on all of it... but I didn't go into it because that wasn't my point in BF's post.
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, we were discussing how things 'got started,' and this of course brought up the discussion of the Big Bang... and how QM can only trace back to within a nanosecond (actually a smaller amount, but I forget what that number is...) of the Big Bang actually occuring... at which point, all known laws of physics break down... so the Big Bang remains a theory, rather than a provable thing. Now before you go off discussing all the other theories that have emerged to explain this very small (but very significant) amount of time... that wasn't the gist of the discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say all known laws of physics break down near the Big Bang "singularity", just that there is a higher order model that has yet to be discovered (much like relativity is a higher order model of Newtonian mechanics). You might say our current electoweak, strong, and gravity models are just approximations to the "real" model that only take into account the data we currently can produce in a lab.
Oh, please. That is SUCH a scientist thing to say. Ya can't get the math to work. And each time you do, there will be someone else who comes along with a disputing 'hypothesis' that is just as accurate, but throws a wrench into the former. Or... you get SEVEN accurate but disputable hypothesis and you need someone like Edward Witten to come along and develop an M Theory so that EVERYONE gets to be valid, at least on some level...
I'm just yanking your chain.
Quote: The Big Bang theory is truly a theory. While there are many unexplained parts to it, its core statement that the universe is expanding from a previously very tiny state is sound and backed up by a LOT of evidence. Big Bang is pretty much on equal footing with biological evolution. We have a good handle on the process, just not the starting point.
Backed up by a lot of evidence. Yeah. Well. There have been a number of innocent people put to death based upon a lot of evidence. Then that one little fact emerges that changes everything. Oops. Well. They did the best they could with what they had at the time, huh?
Quote: Another important point, there is no such thing as a provable theory in science. Theories are all human-invented models to explain events. They either do a good job explaining the observations to within the experimental error, or they don't. If they do a good job, they are accepted, until new data comes along that requires a revision or a rejection.
LOL!!! Great way of saying 'it's an educated guess,' or 'we're hedging our bets.' And that is my point exactly when scientists look with disdain upon "philosophical" points.
For example... do I love my kids? Yep. Without a doubt. I love them. Do you love your kids? I will assume, for agrument's sake, an affirmative answser. Do you know you love your kids? Yes. Great.
Prove it. Theorize it. Mathematically represent it. But until you can do that... does it change the fact that you love your kids?
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------- "There is NO starting point, for time and space did NOT exist until ROOM was created for it to exist." -------------------------------------------------------
An interesting hypothesis, and one put forth by several leading cosmologists. The Big Bang event could be said to have created by time and space. One way of thinking about it was that the universe had no dimensionality, and the Big Bang was simply the event that gave it its current dimensionality (3 spatial + 1 time). Of course, if you follow along with string theory, there may be many more dimensions "wrapped up" so they look like less. But as I stated earlier, that is really only a very preliminary hypothesis.
And absolutely no way to prove it. Well. At least not yet.
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------- "Meaning... I don't think the miracle of the universe is all the 'stuff' in it... the galaxies, the gases, the stars, the super novas, etc., etc... the miracle of the universe to me... what was created... was the 'space' for it to be. --------------------------------------------------------
I think most cosmologists would agree with you. Space itself, irrespective of the "stuff" in it is very interesting. The expansion of the universe is expansion of space, NOT galaxies flying apart from one another. There is also a theoretical time in the universe's history in which space expanded at speeds much faster than the speed of light. It is the space itself that is warped by gravity according to General Relativity.
Hm. Well, everything I've read so far says that there is NOTHING that moves faster than the speed of light. Oh. But wait. In order for light to move, it must have SPACE... and unhindered space at that (NOTHING) in which to do it, or it is forced into a perpetual ground state.... darn, I hate when that happens...
Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------- Meaning... if you were God... and you were the ALL OF EVERYTHING, everything that IS... and you know that... how then do you experience that? Well... at this very simple point, the only way for you to experience that which you are... is to become that which you are not. Some people call that 'division.' But how can you divide if all there is... is SOMETHING? How does one gain perspective between here and there, this and that? ---------------------------------------------------------
I see, this is a twist on the whole "what is good if there is no evil" or "what is God without the devil" philosophical argument. An interesting way of phrasing it Corri.
No. Not really. I'm not talking polarity here, but the creation of polarity. Consider this. Let's say that all which exists is 1. That's it. That's all you've got. Actually, you don't even have perspective, so it's just 1. You can't add to it, you can't take away from it, you can't multiply it or divide it, for there is no 'you' and nothing else to consider.
Now what?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------- Dam straight. That's my point exactly. He tells me I can't prove my points, and I tell him... welp, neither can you. ----------------------------------------------------------
Here is one point where I will disagree a bit with you Corri. What you are talking about, something needing nothing to define itself, is truly a philosophical point.
Really? When did polarity come into being?
Quote: There is no laboratory experiment that can ever be devised to show that your statement is "true." However, QM, Big Bang, and other scientific models make predictions that can be tested. Unfortunately, our theory has gotten ahead of experiment. We don't have the equipment to adequately test many of the predictions of these theories ... yet. However, at some point they will be either validated or falsified, so they are truly scientific in nature, and not philosophical.
They are theoretical in nature. From where do you think theory emerges? A philosophical mind. That which is able to consider itself. And how does that happen?
Quote: Do you see the difference?
No. It all begins with a question. Otherwise, all is as it is.
Quote: It is like the current Intelligent Design debate. Sure, many people BELIEVE that a higher power created the universe and made it so orderly and complex, but that belief can never be "proven" in a lab,
Well, no, not yet but there are some pretty good theories out there that have stood the test of time which many believe and will stick with until something comes along to prove otherwise.
Quote: so such discussion has no place in a science class (but does have a very appropriate place in philosophy and theology).
Gotta disagree with you there. I think it has every place in science class. I personally believe science is suffering from its unwillingness to explore philosophy and theology, just as they can suffer without science.
------------------- Oh, please. That is SUCH a scientist thing to say. Ya can't get the math to work. And each time you do, there will be someone else who comes along with a disputing 'hypothesis' that is just as accurate, but throws a wrench into the former. Or... you get SEVEN accurate but disputable hypothesis and you need someone like Edward Witten to come along and develop an M Theory so that EVERYONE gets to be valid, at least on some level... -------------------------
I realize that you are yanking my chain, but the situation we are in right now with BB, M theory, etc. is commonplace in the history of science. Take for example the "ultraviolet catastrophe." Using classical wave theory of light, the observed blackbody spectrum could not be replicated. Fortunately, about the same time this problem was being scrutinized, people were beginning to have equipment sophisticated enough to show quantization of light (e.g. photoelectric effect). The problem with the Big Bang is that we have gotten WAY ahead with the hypotheses. Its not that we don't necessarily know how to set up the experiments to test Quantum Gravity, its just that the lab equipment is too darn expensive. Remember the super-conducting super-collider that was canned about a decade ago. That would have been able to replicate the environment in the universe at the end of GUT time (when the strong and electroweak forces were combined). It is estimated to replicate the environment of Planck time would require a particle accelerator big enough to encircle the Earth. Such equipment is simply not feasible at this time, so the theorists are left wallowing in "seven different hypothesis" which cannot be discriminated because the differences in their predictions are within the experimental error of current equipment.
And I do not see new hypotheses coming in and forcing science to alter its models as a weakness of science. In fact it is a strength.
--------------------------- Backed up by a lot of evidence. Yeah. Well. There have been a number of innocent people put to death based upon a lot of evidence. Then that one little fact emerges that changes everything. Oops. Well. They did the best they could with what they had at the time, huh? -------------------------------------
Well, if you will notice, the instances in which you speak were based mostly on non-scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence by biased witness, scheming prosecutors, dogmatic judges, and tampered evidence are not scientific in nature. I will admit that some scientists do approach there science with too much bias, but that is what the process of peer review is all about. If bias is tainting the result, it will be weeded out.
And yes, science does the best job it can with the evidence at hand. As I stated earlier, science is only a model to explain observations, with a goal of perhaps being able to manipulate those phenomena (i.e. the engineering side of science). Any scientist (and unfortunately there are more than a few) who pretends that science seeks truth is deluding themselves. Actually, at its core, science seeks falsehood. Science will never be able to prove something TRUE, there could always be new data. But it can show what is false.
----------------------------------- LOL!!! Great way of saying 'it's an educated guess,' or 'we're hedging our bets.' And that is my point exactly when scientists look with disdain upon "philosophical" points.
For example... do I love my kids? Yep. Without a doubt. I love them. Do you love your kids? I will assume, for agrument's sake, an affirmative answser. Do you know you love your kids? Yes. Great.
Prove it. Theorize it. Mathematically represent it. But until you can do that... does it change the fact that you love your kids? ----------------------------------
Well, there are some scientists who like to sit in their ivory towers and disdain philosophy ... and vice versa. I can assure you that I and most of my close colleagues are not in that company. I have nothing but respect for philosophy, theology, religion, social science, etc. I do have a measure of disdain for some practicers of philosophy, religion, etc., especially those that use it to inflict emotional or physical harm on people.
I think you misunderstand my point a bit though. I do not seek to diminish philosophy by excluding philosophical points from scientific inquiry. I only assert that to attempt to insert philosophical arguments in science is fraught with peril, as these arguments can oftentimes not be tested by the scientific method, thus their veracity is suspect. If you do not have observational data to support your hypothesis, if your assertion is based on belief or that the argument sounds right or is just logical, then you are not doing science. Does that make the argument less vaild or sound or useful, no. It is just not science.
But you see, your query about loving your kids could be tested. We could set up a number of agreed-upon parameters that define love and then check to see if some or all of those parameters are verified. Granted, this is social science, which relies a little more on subjective assertions (again not implying disdain here, just categorizing). But there is no fundamental difference here between what you suggest, and defining momentum to be mass times velocity and then doing a bunch of experiments to see if it is conserved. Yes, it is possible that an experiment could come along and show violation of momentum conservation. And yes, we could show that I love my children based on our definitions, only to find out later that there was another factor left-out that showed that I really don't. But that is how science progresses. Constantly questioning the results and either modifying if the theory has flexibility or rejecting if it doesn't.
------------------------------------- Hm. Well, everything I've read so far says that there is NOTHING that moves faster than the speed of light. Oh. But wait. In order for light to move, it must have SPACE... and unhindered space at that (NOTHING) in which to do it, or it is forced into a perpetual ground state.... darn, I hate when that happens... ---------------------------------------------
But that is the point. Nothing (space) was moving faster than the speed of light during that time. Space itself is not bound by the speed of light restriction. The inflationary epoch, as it is called, was a sort of phase change in the universe (much like solid to liquid).
I am not sure what you mean by light being forced into a perpetual ground state. Are you confusing it with electrons in atomic energy levels?
And if you think about it, your statement that light needs space to move is really a tautology. To move requires a change in coordinates by definition.
-----------------------------------------------No. Not really. I'm not talking polarity here, but the creation of polarity. Consider this. Let's say that all which exists is 1. That's it. That's all you've got. Actually, you don't even have perspective, so it's just 1. You can't add to it, you can't take away from it, you can't multiply it or divide it, for there is no 'you' and nothing else to consider.
Now what? -------------------------------------------------
OK, I see where you are going with this. If I am not mistaken you are referring to the primordial singularity that preceeded the Big Bang. Granted, we do not know the mechanism by which this singularity took the step to universe with space and time dimensions anymore than we know how the spark of life began. But unexplained does not imply inexplicable. I think the fact that we have such a conundrum is GREAT for science. If and when we figure out that particular problem, I hope there is another bigger one beyond it, or else a lot of scientists will be out of jobs.
The way you phrase your statements is in a philosophical way. But the fact of the matter is something happened to bring the universe to its current state. It is the job of science to determine how that occured, not why or by whom.
--------------------------------------- "Really? When did polarity come into being?" -------------------------------------------
I don't know, but that is not the same question or statment you made earlier. When or how polarity came into being is something that ultimately should be answerable. It will take a great deal more sophistication in experimental methods and mathematics than we currently have, but I have hope that humanity will not destroy itself before that occurs.
-------------------------------------------- They are theoretical in nature. From where do you think theory emerges? A philosophical mind. That which is able to consider itself. And how does that happen? ---------------------------------------------
Again, we have to go back to how we define theory. In science a theory is NOT a hypothesis, something that is just dreamed up. It is something that has been verified by testing and data. String theory should NOT be called a theory. Big Bang does stretch the word a bit, but it does have evidence to back it up (I'll get back to you later Z-bube ).
Agreed, many scientific discoveries ultimately emerged from wild guesses, eureka moments, etc. But to become scientific THEORIES, the scientific community must go back and trace through the steps of the scientific method. So yes, many theories originated as hunches based on how a scientist thought the world SHOULD work. But if that scientist cannot go back and show that is how the world DOES work, the hypothesis never becomes a theory.
As far as your other statement, the origin of "sentience" is another unanswered question in science. But again, unexplained does not mean inexplicable.
-------------------------------------- No. It all begins with a question. Otherwise, all is as it is. --------------------------------------
Ahhh, but all questions are not created equal. A truly scientific question must make testable predictions. A philosophical question is not bound by such strictures. It is for that reason that philosophy does a better job searching for TRUTH. Unfortunately, the instrument of philosophy (the human mind) is very fickle so that ultimate truth is elusive.
---------------------------------------------- "Well, no, not yet but there are some pretty good theories out there that have stood the test of time which many believe and will stick with until something comes along to prove otherwise." -------------------------------
Please elaborate. Are you saying there are theories out there that can demonstrate scientifically that God exists? What are they and what specific testable predictions do they make? I know of none that have stood the test of time as you say. I agree with you completely that many believe in them (I personally believe that God created the universe), but belief is not scientific. And I know of no creationist theories that have been proven to be true.
------------------------------------------------ Gotta disagree with you there. I think it has every place in science class. I personally believe science is suffering from its unwillingness to explore philosophy and theology, just as they can suffer without science. -------------------------------------------------------
Point conceded. In an ideal world, all disciplines would overlap to some degree and we would take a more "holistic" approach to science, philosophy, etc. Unfortunately, most people (teachers, professors, myself included) have great difficulty mixing philosophy and theology with science. Because the tools of philosophy and theology are not well designed to answer scientific questions and vice versa. For example, in the creation science circles, the inherent bias that the literal (well, their literal) version of the Bible is infallibly correct causes them selectively pick out only data that fit with their hypotheses and reject the overwhelming data against it. On the other hand, many of the so-called "philosophical materialist" scientists are IMHO doing a disservce to science by attempting to use it to disprove the existence of a Creator, to fit their atheistic beliefs. While the tenants of philosophy and science can be mixed to some degree, GREAT care must be taken or misuse will lead to false conclusions.
Let me just say in conclusion that I really hope I am not coming across as preachy or snooty here. I really do appreciate the discussion and have great respect for your point of view. If I ever do start sounding snooty, please let me know.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Let me state that I have the utmost respect for the accepted rules of scientific experiment... it keeps me buying all kinds of consummer goods without question, and allows me to enter an operating room on good faith that I will again wake up. Ah, the faith of fools.
Quote: And I do not see new hypotheses coming in and forcing science to alter its models as a weakness of science. In fact it is a strength.
I don't, either, but to claim complete emotional objectivity within science, to me, is folly. It is impossible to remove human perspective from the mix, yet science claims in many instances to be just that.
Quote: Well, if you will notice, the instances in which you speak were based mostly on non-scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence by biased witness, scheming prosecutors, dogmatic judges, and tampered evidence are not scientific in nature. I will admit that some scientists do approach there science with too much bias, but that is what the process of peer review is all about. If bias is tainting the result, it will be weeded out.
O.J. Simpson.
Quote: And yes, science does the best job it can with the evidence at hand. As I stated earlier, science is only a model to explain observations, with a goal of perhaps being able to manipulate those phenomena (i.e. the engineering side of science). Any scientist (and unfortunately there are more than a few) who pretends that science seeks truth is deluding themselves. Actually, at its core, science seeks falsehood. Science will never be able to prove something TRUE, there could always be new data. But it can show what is false.
Hm. Sounds to me like we are now discussing the philosophy of science.
Quote: If you do not have observational data to support your hypothesis, if your assertion is based on belief or that the argument sounds right or is just logical, then you are not doing science. Does that make the argument less vaild or sound or useful, no. It is just not science.
Uhm.... most, if not all of QM hypotheses and theories lack observational data. I realize you say... 'yet'... but my point is... 'yet' isn't here yet... so you say, well, it's based on solid scientific history (and the math works in most instances)... but really, this is just a good ole leap of faith. You'll dispute that, I know... but right now, QM, just like any social science, is based on 'aggregate' behavior. Law(?) of averages. And that just makes me chuckle, I'm sorry.
Your love argument is a bust and it's reaching. The one place hard science is a bust is with human emotion and the notion of free will... though QM is beginning to run into that, and some suppositions now coming forward are very philosophical because there is no other way, currently, to explain the results they are seeing.
Quote: But that is the point. Nothing (space) was moving faster than the speed of light during that time. Space itself is not bound by the speed of light restriction. The inflationary epoch, as it is called, was a sort of phase change in the universe (much like solid to liquid).
I've read about the inflationary models and I didn't come away with this same type of understanding. Let me go back and read it again before I comment.
Quote: I am not sure what you mean by light being forced into a perpetual ground state. Are you confusing it with electrons in atomic energy levels?
No. I was talking about the fluctuations of a vaccum. I may not be saying this correctly... but if there is no vaccum, how can it fluctuate?
Quote: And if you think about it, your statement that light needs space to move is really a tautology. To move requires a change in coordinates by definition.
You lost me here. If there is no 'room' in which to move, how then do changes in coordinates take place?
Quote:
Quote: No. Not really. I'm not talking polarity here, but the creation of polarity. Consider this. Let's say that all which exists is 1. That's it. That's all you've got. Actually, you don't even have perspective, so it's just 1. You can't add to it, you can't take away from it, you can't multiply it or divide it, for there is no 'you' and nothing else to consider.
Now what?
OK, I see where you are going with this. If I am not mistaken you are referring to the primordial singularity that preceeded the Big Bang. Granted, we do not know the mechanism by which this singularity took the step to universe with space and time dimensions anymore than we know how the spark of life began. But unexplained does not imply inexplicable. I think the fact that we have such a conundrum is GREAT for science. If and when we figure out that particular problem, I hope there is another bigger one beyond it, or else a lot of scientists will be out of jobs.
I appreciate your view... but you didn't answer my question. And I realize you probably can't... except at a philosophical level And that is my point entirely. To me, THIS is where creative thought enters the picture because you never know from what corner of the scientific/philosophical/theological realm inspiration will strike. In short, everybody is interested, at least from their perspective, in this question. It's the Big Kahona.
It is just my opinion, but to me, Eastern Mysticism has so far been the most consistent with cosmological research. Like I said earlier, the parallels are amazing. To me, it is worth exploration, that is all I am saying. To dismiss it out of hand I think is irresponsible.
And FYI, many are taught Buddhism and reach the levels of mastery by grasping not 'what is,' but 'what is not.'
"Truth cannot be communicated; it can only be laid bare." - Wei Wu Wei
Meaning, one does not discover truth by proof of what is; one discovers truth through the understanding of what isn't.
Sounds pretty scientific to me...
Quote: Please elaborate. Are you saying there are theories out there that can demonstrate scientifically that God exists? What are they and what specific testable predictions do they make? I know of none that have stood the test of time as you say. I agree with you completely that many believe in them (I personally believe that God created the universe), but belief is not scientific. And I know of no creationist theories that have been proven to be true.
No. But there are some amazing experiments that have been done on the power of prayer, the power of faith and the power of belief. This also runs parallel with some QM findings that the presence of an observer affects quantum behavior. And I am sure you are well aware of the Anthropic Principle.
Well after much typing about issues unrelated to SSM (maybe that is why I'm in an SSM ) I thought it might be good to post something related to my self-esteem work. My coach gave me 10 points about improving self esteem. I thought I might present each point in turn for discussion. Maybe some (or all ) of you could chip in with your thoughts about how this applies to you, what you could to do improve on this facet of your life, and any suggestions you might give to me or one another. I hope discussion such as this will be helpful to all of us out there who have low self-esteem and realize the best way to gain respect from our S, build attraction, and ultimately get what we want in an R is to first improve ourselves.
Point 1
Set yourself to accept everything that you feel. Take the attitude that there is no such thing as what you "should feel" You simply feel what you feel. The next thing is to use your judgement about what to do about any feelings you have. It is best to pass over some feelings without doing anything about them, while others need to be expressed in some way. Some feelings also help you to know what is going on in a situation. For example, if you feel strong trust for someone right away, it could tell you that you are dealing with a con artist, because they are good at getting people to feel trust too soon.
My first thoughts on how to react to this step would be to list those emotions that I am having trouble with and think of what my response should be.
1. Gloom: The instant I get home, and don't get a welcome-home hug and kiss, and don't see a look of loving adoration on my wife's face, or a look of lust, all my marital problems sort of settle over me like a thick blanket and I get a feeling of gloom. Like things will never be better, I will never have what I want in a relationship. My response to that emotion is try to ignore it, distract myself from it. It is a completely non-productive emotion. I can use my wonderful children, housework, phone calls to friends, and even light-hearted convos with my W to distract me from the gloom. The hope is that eventually the gloom will disappear if I ignore it long enough.
2. Desire: Every time I see my wife I am filled with sexual desire. The problem is my hunger for it can lead me to become to needy, gropey, supplicating, etc. My planned response is to in a very determined manner control how I express my desire. This is not one I want to ignore, as it could be a positive thing if channeled correctly. I will find small ways to express my desire to my wife, that are non-threatening but assertive. I will dole out these expressions of desire in a manner similar to gifts. I will treat them as something my wife wants to have, no matter what her response is. I will not place any expectations on the giving of the gift, i.e. a response. These are my feelings of desire and can exist independantly of her feelings. The hope is that through persisitance, my W will gain a truer understanding of my desires, and thus know how to give back to me in a way that fullfills my desires.
There are other emotions, but I'll stop here for now.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Oh. for the love of God, don't get boring on me now!!! I AM IN THE ZONE!!! Jesus! You've gotten me into a heightened state of awareness, and you are going 'man' on me. Jesus!!!!!
