What if we're not correct in our closely-held precepts?

Dubiously so, to aim the narrative is to invite the spectacular possibility, that in all the probabilities, millions of consequences, outcomes, happenings and such forth, we have to have believed with something other than our own discursive squeamish hearts that we have indeed chosen, correctly.

And how often are we otherwise, correct, in our heart of hearts?  We have only the certitude, the moral imperative that others are wrong, evil, while we ourselves have the very purest motives.

It was said of Cambodia, "dey no dey bad people", and I responded oh really?  There was a probability that in my counter-reasoning, there may have been something of a snick-snock video being shot of me from an obtuse angle; and I observe, straight-on the front is obtuse enough, even moreso when in view of the rank and file.

The very few people who believe themselves truly bad, are the broken in spirit, who mistrust even that, having felt even morese that they had lost touch with their trueselves.  The deluded self-justified have only to hide their misdeeds, I suppose, maybe some empty file folders or something.

They post online, you know; they flee the platform when people disagree with them in open conversations, spreading the fear, uncertainty and doubt that Twitter is "the Wild West".  Meanwhile the others have miles and miles of justifications and half-truths with which to bolster their whims, books by Ayn Rand, the owing of things, redressing balances and so forth.

But few in the boardroom world that have anything but a cock-eyed angle for increasing revenues.

Ford suddenly had the most popular truck, and they thus began to put the technology from their horridly unpopular cars into those before so beloved trucks.

"Oh, we can make a higher profit by selling the company every few years, of course, us taking a cut of that income as the executives."

Are we correct in our precepts?

Did I not, as I read on my website, I attached extraordinary value to people from the past that seemed to barely tolerate me, and indeed, I add to that plate of whores d'ovaries that it seems quite logical, like a nice plaid pattern as such, that a man living in the past, has perhaps abandoned his enjoyment of any possible future.

And I was reading Koine Greek, that typeset into modern English, and I was looking at it, seeing the patterns of the old, the old archetypal elements of a tongue alien, just as the Hebrew word pictures went by their own peculiar logic; I was taught a bit differently.

I saw that Pamala and Lisa Ling were talking about sperm donors.

I'm not making that up.  6pm hour yesterday.

Talk about your "FDIC insured."

But anyway, I was doing the equation that God is Light, God is Truth, God is Love, and all those things in effect equate with each other thanks to the Associative Property of essential math.  I was wondering how much of that was truly metaphorical, as God was somehow present BEFORE light, before anything else, in fact, but I assumed it was simply a reference to some man made conception/perception of light.

I consider too, they left town to find something, those of "extraordinary value", dubiously, I would say, to make a life or find a life, to live a life, as if their were no life prior?  I left town for a free house on the homestead, which was another matter; partly indigent, and so forth.