The Moonlight Argument

In astronomy there's a semantics argument that there's no such thing as moonlight and that it's ontologically just sunlight. But I believe that there actually is moonlight, and thus moonlight is even semantically correct. For though the Moon is 'merely' reflecting light from the Sun this is not to say that the lunar midwife does not through this process become the bottommost substance behind the phenomenon of earthbound moonlight. Were there no Moon to catch it, sunlight would dissipate into the intercosmic void. Each wave of light thus derives its new form from its transformative infusion with the Moon. Brought to bear on a different object in orbit around the Sun, the light would produce its own phenomenological nexus. In such a way Pluto light also derives itself from the Sun's rays, but by the means of reflection there is something doing a reincarnating of the original substance of sunlight, while the sunlight simultaneously fertilizes the body in its darkness and gives full birth to it, in a way resurrecting it through light. Visible light is a particular substance which interacts with another substance within the space continuum— on an atomic level the electrons belonging to their respective coagulated forms, where light is the most purified matter-form. The result is a dual substance because without this second substance the light would dissipate in empty space— indeed light has little meaning if there's nothing to digest it and make it meaningful. 

Even the image of the moon brought to life through the sunlight is itself the particularity of 'moonlight.' The image and the light are one and the same.

Postulations about the Alienoid Structure

 Many a thought abrewing in my caccoon brain.... I have conducted several exercises in logic and I have come to a more or less reliable conclusion on the metaphysics of the universe. If you want you can trust me to have performed my logick soundly, or if not then you can write me and call me a dummy. Whatever suits you... since after all my conclusion is about the existence of God... and how God caused everything... and how you are an atheist dilettante and surely have two bricks short of a tabernacle... if ever I saw one...

Now as for the atomic imprint, every atom is touched through total cosmic communion by every other atom by virtue of the singularity of the Primal Goo (which is God's baby bath). I just want to get it out of the way that the galactic body is an organism which commutes matter eternally into itself on a transcendent unfathomable time scale and thus our minds are not meant to be upon equal experience in truly 'knowing' it as the firefly caught in the dark sees only the ocean of light inside itself and the ocean of the dark abyss. All grasshoppers eyes bounce beyond a softly flowering firmament in some sort of twilight. However, it must be noted that some projections of the universe posit an eternal entropy and thus eventual withering away of matter as anything but a mote of dust structure nothingness.

Anyways when Frankenstein incubated his stupid monster, he incubated a new humanity. And Mary Shelly noticed that, the machine-made Man being the one who would serve as fodder for the factory of the nascent bourgeois..... and when was the Supernova to look after this mess? Blossomed in dead sky of ancient lights and ocean graveyard beasts, neither serpent nor fish, just goo, old, old goo, dead old goo!

Concerning the primordial ooze.... if every biological beings all belong to a single tree, as most evolutionists believe though I believe it could also have developed in several independent locations: there is no proof for the claim that life is rare, for every specific location where it happens is in fact a massive explosion of the universe, a fullness and plethora concerned not with our thoughts . .  . 

Now concerning the humanoid evolutionary tendency, wherein certain evolutionary features of life on earth are a manifestation of a transsolar systematics of development, in terms of a cross-cosmic morphological tendency. The sensory appendages of the biological being have certain tendencies to organize their sense apparatuses into similar forms while clearly specializing in certain functions rather than others. Worms, who are not very mammalian, lack eyes, yet are capable of detecting light and dark, which amounts to the same thing. That is the rub: the elemental fact of light breeds a tendency toward vision, which develops out of eyes, on earth (there must be many exceptions to this thought, since I am not a biologist). However, plants do not have eyes, nor is it necessarily logical to say that they "see" despite the fact that they respond to light. However, if we consider a well-developed alien world we will find that definite sensory structures will have formed along the delineated structure of cosmic phenomena: the elements, solar fusion, light, and the requirements of life. Thus it is not too hard to imagine aliens having similar features to us - for that cosmic spacetime is technically separated by space, a universal sub-structure persists through the metaphysical fabric which precedes spacetime.

Now concerning the , in my ear... er, germs .....