… when something goes BUMP in the Night

But I Believe in..

DEATH and The Tooth Fairy as limned by T. Pratchett
(who describes these more vividly than the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Such manage their menageries and demonologies.)
Was ecstatic to discover on the Tube, some years back (strange station between here and San Jose) a movie of a Pratchett plot!
It was beautifully done, especially DEATH and his granddaughter … and I realize I haven't searched for the particulars -- or for some other TP visual spectacular.
(Afraid I'll find ~~ there was only this One, I guess :-/)

You can have your Seventh Seal dour Swedish chess-playing 'Death'.. [bore, that one.]
DEATH (who always speaks IN CAPS) is the kinda alien creature it's almost worth the obligatory-dying … to get to Meet!

Besides, strictly interpreted, "a-Theism" IS merely the converse of Theism; there is the implication of faith-in-non-Being as your standard 'World-of-Opposites' corollary to all those other One-True-Faiths™-in-(a)-Being.

Agnosticism is the choice for those who acknowledge the difficulty ever of Proving (to whatever metaphysical standards) -- a Negative. Besides, all these cognomens beg the omissions of all small imaginations, that general tendency to Miss Seeing the real Mystery:

..that there is *Anything* at all,
let alone.. a 'being' (us) capable of Noticing,
let alone.. some emotionally needy Top-Geezer who likes being adored and threatens to make you listen to country music for several eons … if you fall short.

All Hail St. Pratchett!

(Has anyone heard how he's doing with the creeping Alzheimers?)
Bummer, that.. it's just the sort of punishment some vengeful Standard God >would< exact, for daring to be a whistle-blower even livelier than J. Swift.
May TP get outta this chicken outfit with his usual panache, I say.



Sick transit, Gloria: (SF) Muni

(And the 'instinctive brain' quite faster than that, it is said. And demonstrated.)

Try not to completely-miss the ineffable, y'know?
Bipeds' application of scientific principles is desultory, at Best.
And there is little 'scientific thought' (or even 'thought') requisite in being profoundly moved by an aria (or even an Oratorio.)

We still don't know much beyond Shite about the multiple-dimensions (8, 11 or __?) and their rules and interactions, even within our unimaginably teensy %Total of that 'finite-but-unbounded' Universe.
As to the subtle interactions of the Whole Enchilada and our so-called consciousness: we're still toddlers.

(Besides, we homo-saps made-up all those words about worlds; some creatures might do tensor analysis via a mixture of trills and smells. Personally I find more that is Thoughtful in Pratchett's description of a foremost mathematician on his World (a camel it was) -- than anything from super-string theory, thus far.

Einstein's metaphysical quips indicate that his 'lab' was not constrained to just those "pretty pebbles found on a beach" ... and what their elastic coefficients might be. In a statistical universe, Certainty is a drug. I wot.
So if you're all-that-Sure ... all you have to do is stay Natural, right?

When you preemptively foreclose all possible experiences of … that which you cannot analyze? Doesn't that just leave intellect, its fav acquired logical processes (and one's own guesstimates about Reason) even, say: to 'define' beauty?

Where does the ineffable / inexplicable demand corporate versions of the god-word? You presume, then imagine. As to a one believing that she 'understands the universe':
Why would anyone who fosters such a belief want to lop off all those other sensors and their respective … CPU's? (Ya think??) Sounds like voluntary amputation to me, unless you also think it's just 'the mind' which recognizes Jeremy Brett as The Sherlock Holmes. All by itself.

Difficult as it is to prove a negative, I can't imagine making a decision, say -- after asking the mind, ~ Are you all I Am?. I mean, whichever way the answer (and whence it arrives) -- isn't that a lot like someone saying to another, Look, I'm honest!

And we know why that's an impermissible statement. So why isn't the other?
(And as for the ineffable explaining itself.. and if it Can't: it Ain't.)
Oh, whence cometh this Sweet Reason which is elected the arbiter of the inexplicable? And how does one 'prove' (to self or other) that One Has this Sweet Reason, running on all 16 cylinders and explaining all that is Known and all that is Unknown?)

Wouldn't recursion be even more fun to parody?)

Clearly, YMDV