[1844 Darwin]"forest-trees, raised in nurseries, which vary more... than the same trees... do in their aboriginal forests"
[1831 Patrick Matthew]"NURSERIES... Man’s interference... preventing this natural process of selection among plants... has increased the difference in varieties"

Patrick Matthew, _On Naval Timber and Arboriculture_ (1831)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **

PART III.—MISCELLANEOUS MATTER CONNECTED WITH NAVAL TIMBER.
106 NURSERIES,
ib. Infinite variety existing in what is called species,
...
Page 106 — NURSERIES.
Page 107 — NURSERIES. 107
Page 108 — 108 NURSERIES.
Page 109 — NURSERIES. 109
Page 110 — 110 NURSERIES.
Page 111 — NURSERIES. 111
Page 112 — 112 NURSERIES.
Page 113 — NURSERIES. 113
Page 114 — 114 NURSERIES.

Page 307 — The use of the infinite seedling varieties in the families of plants, even in those in a state of nature, differing in luxuriance of growth and local adaptation, seems to be to give one individual (the strongest best circumstance-suited) superiority over others of its kind around, that it may, by overtopping and smothering them, procure room for full extension, and thus affording, at the same time, a continual selection of the strongest, best circumstance-suited, for reproduction.
Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the difference in varieties, particularly m the more domesticated kinds;
and even in man himself, the greater uniformity, and more general vigour among savage tribes, is referrible to nearly similar selecting law— the weaker individual sinking under the ill treatment of the stronger, or under the common hardship.

Cf.

RECORD: Darwin, C. R. 1844. Sketch of species theory (fair copy). "--" equals strikethrough
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In the case of forest-trees, raised in nurseries, which vary more --, it is probable-- , than the same trees --would in-- do in their aboriginal forests;
the cause would seem simply to lie, in their not having to struggle against other trees & weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence.

Loren Eiseley, _Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X: New Light on the Evolutionists_ (1979)

** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 72 — Darwin's comment, in other words, sounds as though based on Matthew — at least I am unaware of any other convenient source.
So strongly did I feel this to be the case that, upon encountering Matthew's statement, I looked into the _Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication_, curious as to what one might find there.
By 1868 Matthew's book had been publicly called to Darwin's attention.
There was thus no reason why he should not refer to _Naval Timber and Arboriculture_.
In the second volume of Darwin's work one comes immediately upon the following reference under "Matthew":

"Our common forest-trees are very variable, as may be seen in every extensive nursery-ground;
but as they are not valued like fruit-trees, and as they seed late in life, no selection has been applied to them;
consequently, as Mr. Patrick Matthew remarks, they have not yielded different races. . . ."^94

This statement appears to be a shortened version of the 1844 comment placed in a new setting, with some additional comment from another page of Matthew added.^95

The re-emergence of this discussion of the variability of forest trees in nurseries suggests that Darwin _was_ aware of Matthew by 1844.
The fact that Darwin, as has been seen, speaks forcefully of his long and persistent searching of horticultural and agricultural sources, makes it less easy to accept his ingenuous disclaimer that "one may be excused in not having discovered the fact [i.e., natural selection] in a work on Naval Timber."^96

NASA - Planet X
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Compare the video below to NASA's website above.

YouTube channel: Bright Side Global

RECORD: Darwin, C. R. 1844 Essay, Draft A [of species theory]
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), _Zoonomia_ (1794, modern spelling 1818)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 394 — The birds... are armed with spurs for the purpose of fighting for the exclusive possession of the females, as cocks and quails.
It is certain that these weapons are not provided for their defence against other adversaries, because the females of these species are without this armour.
The final cause of this contest amongst the males seems to be, that the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved.

Page 394 — Another great want consists in the means of procuring food, which has diversified the forms of all species of animals.
Thus the nose of the swine has become hard for the purpose of turning up the soil in search of insects and of roots.
The trunk of the elephant is an elongation of the nose for the purpose of pulling down the branches of trees for his food, and for taking up water without bending his knees.
Beasts of prey have acquired strong jaws or talons.
Cattle have acquired a rough tongue and a rough palate to pull off the blades of grass, as cows and sheep.
Some birds have acquired harder beaks to crack nuts, as the parrot.
Others have acquired beaks adapted to break the harder seeds, as sparrows.
Others for the softer seeds of flowers, or the buds of trees, as the finches.
Other birds have acquired long beaks to penetrate the moister soils in search of insects or roots, as woodcocks;
and others broad ones to filtrate the water of lakes, and to retain aquatic insects, as ducks.
All which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with constant improvement of them for the purposes required.

Page 397 — Other changes seem to have arisen in them by their perpetual contest for light and air above ground, and for food or moisture beneath the soil.
As noted in Botanic Garden, Part II.
Note on Cuscuta.
Other changes of vegetables from climate, or other causes, are remarked in the note on Curcuma in the same work.
From these one might be led to imagine, that each plant at first consisted of a single bulb or flower to each root, as the gentianella and daisy;
and that in the contest for air and light new buds grew on the old decaying flower stem, shooting down their elongated roots to the ground, and that in process of ages tall trees were thus formed, and an individual bulb became a swarm of vegetables.
Other plants, which in this contest for light and air were too slender to rise by their own strength, learned by degrees to adhere to their neighbours, either by putting forth roots like the ivy, or by tendrils like the vine, or by spiral contortions like the honey-suckle;
or by growing upon them like the misleto, and taking nourishment from their barks;
or by only lodging or adhering on them, and deriving nourishment from the air, as tillandsia.

Page 397 — If this gradual production of the species and genera of animals be assented to...
Page 398 — This idea of the gradual formation and improvement of the animal world accords with the observations of some modem philosophers...
Page 398 — This idea of the gradual formation and improvement of the animal world seems not to have been unknown to the ancient philosophers. ...

Page 399 — ...the immense beds of limestone, chalk, marble, from the shells of fish; and the extensive provinces of clay, sandstone, ironstone, coals, from decomposed vegetables;
all which have been first produced by generation, or by the secretions of organic life;
he [David Hume] concludes that the world itself might have been generated, rather than created;
that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution of the whole by the Almighy fiat. —
What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of THE GREAT ARCHITECT!
THE CAUSE OF CAUSES!
PARENT OF PARENTS!
ENS ENTIUM! [Being of beings? Entity of entities?]

Page 414 — This idea of the gradual generation of all things seems to have been as familiar to the ancient philosophers as to the modem ones;
and to have given rise to the beautiful hieroglyphic figure of the ... or first great egg, produced by NIGHT, that is, whose origin is involved in obscurity, and animated by ... , that is, by DIVINE LOVE;
from whence proceeded all things which exist.

Page 437 — 6. This perpetual chain of causes and effects, the first link of which is rivetted to the throne of GOD, divides itself into innumerable diverging branches, which, like the nerves arising from the brain, permeate the most minute and most remote extremities of the system, diffusing motion and sensation to the whole.
As every cause is superior in power to the effect, which it has produced, so our idea of the power of the Almighty Creator becomes more elevated and sublime, as we trace the operations of nature from cause to cause, climbing up the links of these chains of being, till we ascend to the Great Source of all things.

Patrick Matthew, _On Naval Timber and Arboriculture_ (1831)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **

PART III.—MISCELLANEOUS MATTER CONNECTED WITH NAVAL TIMBER.
106 NURSERIES,
ib. Infinite variety existing in what is called species,
107 Injurious effect from selecting the seed of the inferior varieties for sowing,
...
108 A principle of selection existing in nature of the strongest varieties for reproduction, ...
...
APPENDIX.
381 Accommodation of organized life to circumstance, by diverging ramifications,
...
The use of the infinite seedling varieties in the families of plants, even in those in a state of nature, differing in luxuriance of growth and local adaptation, {308}
seems to be to give one individual (the strongest best circumstance-suited) superiority over others of its kind around, that it may, by overtopping and smothering them, procure room for full extension, and thus affording, at the same time, a continual selection of the strongest, best circumstance-suited, for reproduction.
Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the difference in varieties, particularly in the more domesticated kinds;
and even in man himself, the greater uniformity, and more general vigour among savage tribes, is referrible to nearly similar selecting law—the weaker individual sinking under the ill treatment of the stronger, or under the common hardship.
...
Is the inference then unphilosophic, that living things which are proved to have a circumstance-suiting power—
a very slight change of circumstance by culture inducing a corresponding change of character—
may have gradually accommodated themselves to the variations of the elements containing them, and, without new creation, have presented the diverging changeable phenomena of past and present organized existence.

The destructive liquid currents, before which the hardest mountains have been swept and comminuted into gravel, sand, and mud, which intervened between and divided these epochs, probably extending over the whole surface of the globe, and destroying nearly all living {383} things, must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life, which, from the connected sexual system of vegetables, and the natural instincts of animals to herd and combine with their own kind, would fall into specific groups, these remnants, in the course of time, moulding and accommodating their being anew to the change of circumstances, and to every possible means of subsistence, and the millions of ages of regularity which appear to have followed between the epochs, probably after this accommodation was completed, affording fossil deposit of regular specific character.

There are only two probable ways of change—the above, and the still wider deviation from present occurrence,—of indestructible or molecular life (which seems to resolve itself into powers of attraction and repulsion under mathematical figure and regulation, bearing a slight systematic similitude to the great aggregations of matter), gradually uniting and developing itself into new circumstance-suited living aggregates, without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates, but this scarcely differs from new creation, only it forms a portion of a continued scheme or system.

In endeavouring to trace, in the former way, the principle of these changes of fashion which have taken place in the domiciles of life, the following questions occur:
Do they arise from admixture of species nearly allied producing intermediate species?
Are they _the diverging ramifications_ of the living principle under modification of {384} circumstance?
Or have they resulted from the combined agency of both?
Is there only one living principle?
Does organized existence, and perhaps all material existence, consist of one Proteus principle of life capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations, without bound under the solvent or motion-giving principle, heat or light?
There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation.
It is improbable that much of this diversification is owing to commixture of species nearly allied, all change by this appears very limited, and confined within the bounds of what is called Species;
the progeny of the same parents, under great difference of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.

The self-regulating adaptive disposition of organized life may, in part, be traced to the extreme fecundity of Nature, who, as before stated, has, in all the varieties of her offspring, a prolific power much beyond (in many cases a thousandfold) what is necessary to fill up the vacancies caused by senile decay.
As the field of existence is limited and pre-occupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind; the weaker, less circumstance-suited, being {385} prematurely destroyed.
This principle is in constant action, it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals of each species, whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from vicissitude and inclemencies of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support; whose capacities and instincts can best regulate the physical energies to self-advantage according to circumstances—in such immense waste of primary and youthful life, those only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.

From the unremitting operation of this law acting in concert with the tendency which the progeny have to take the more particular qualities of the parents, together with the connected sexual system in vegetables, and instinctive limitation to its own kind in animals, a considerable uniformity of figure, colour, and character, is induced, constituting species;
the breed gradually acquiring the very best possible adaptation of these to its condition which it is susceptible of, and when alteration of circumstance occurs, thus changing in character to suit these as far as its nature is susceptible of change.

This circumstance-adaptive law, operating upon the slight but continued natural disposition to sport in the progeny (seedling variety), does not preclude the supposed influence which volition or sensation may have over the configuration of the body.
To examine into the {386} disposition to sport in the progeny, even when there is only one parent, as in many vegetables, and to investigate how much variation is modified by the mind or nervous sensation of the parents, or of the living thing itself during its progress to maturity;
how far it depends upon external circumstance, and how far on the will, irritability and muscular exertion, is open to examination and experiment.
In the first place, we ought to investigate its dependency upon the preceding links of the particular chain of life, variety being often merely types or approximations of former parentage; thence the variation of the family, as well as of the individual, must be embraced by our experiments.

Robert, Stephen, I read back over what passed here, and it moved me. I will leave it with you, that is possibly best, although I cannot easily step past what you wrote. Peace to you both, and until next time.

Roy Davies, _The Darwin Conspiracy_ (2008), 204pp., on xi, 161-162

PDF:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
During the 1980s, as editor of the BBC history series _Timewatch_, I commissioned a documentary idea about Charles Darwin...
In 1996, having left the BBC, I was approached by an independent television producer who was convinced that I had told the wrong story:
that there was a story not even hinted at in the _Timewatch_ program.
Today, having researched the Darwin record for myself and having been utterly convinced by what I have learned, I believe that she was absolutely right...

The television producer Elin Rhys suggested to me in 1996 that I should examine whether Charles Darwin had acted improperly in order to establish his priority.
I felt that she had to be wrong and scoured my mind for what I knew about Darwin...
Armed with this limited number of 'facts', I defended Darwin's reputation, only to find that Elin was not convinced.
What, she wanted to know, did I know of Alfred Russell Wallace? ...
Did I know that Darwin and two of his friends [Lyell and Hooker] had cheated Wallace out of his rightful inheritance?
Did I know that it was Wallace and not Darwin who had first written out the complete theory?
Two days later, she referred me to Brackman's book _A Delicate Arrangement_, and so began my research into the contentious world of Darwin and Wallace.
Now, I am convinced that Charles Darwin-- British national hero, hailed as the greatest naturalist the world has ever known, the originator of one of the greatest ideas of the nineteenth century-- lied, cheated and plagiarized in order to be recognized as the man who discovered the theory of evolution.

transcript of Roy Davies on _The Darwin Conspiracy_ - October 4, 2014
** you do not have permission to see this link **

I usually see this ehrmanblog.org’s Recent Posts on Facebook, now I see something else, for example, Bart Ehrman asks on Facebook, Have You Seen “Disclosure Day?”

Are you putting the Hebrew God, the God of Israel, the God of the Bible not only above
Ancient Egypt and Ancient Sumer but above
who aliens recognize as Supreme?

We cannot prove what Hebrews call God/Elohim didn’t come from their Babylonian Exile
and what Hebrews learned of Apsu, Tiamat, Marduk, Anu, Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag, Inanna–

Ancient Sumer’s “Seven Gods Who Decree Fate”

An (Sky)
Enlil (Wind/Storms)
Enki (Water/Wisdom)
Ninhursag (Earth/Motherhood)
Nanna (Moon)
Utu (Sun)
Inanna (Venus/War/Love).

In the book UFO of God, Chris Bledsoe and his associates at NASA say there are intelligent non-humans who travel/commute in orbs. The Bible’s God the Father or a god council did not inform us humans were genetically engineeried by Enki and Ninhursag as in Atrahasis. It did not tell us of the Younger Dryas (12,000 years ago) but the local Hebrew theology with its failed apocalypse (tribulation > judgement > Kingdom ruled by the Son of Man on earth) and a local god who could not defend his son or temple is to be magnified?

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Ancient Sumer's the "Seven Gods Who Decree Fate"

• An (Sky)
• Enlil (Wind/Storms)
• Enki (Water/Wisdom)
• Ninhursag (Earth/Motherhood)
• Nanna (Moon)
• Utu (Sun)
• Inanna (Venus/War/Love) [** you do not have permission to see this link **]

_Landmarks in the Life of Stalin_ (1942), on 2
** you do not have permission to see this link **
on 5
** you do not have permission to see this link **
At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, he [Stalin] developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments ;
he began to read Darwin and became an atheist.

G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates :
“ I began to speak of God.
Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence said :
“ ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God.’

I was astonished at these words.
I had never heard anything like it before.
“ ‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed.

“ ‘ I’ll lend you a book to read ;
it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’
Joseph said.

“ ‘What book is that?’ I enquired.

“ ‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”
...
Very interesting reminiscences of this period are given by Comrade G. Parkadze, who draws a vivid picture of the intellectual pursuits of Stalin and his fellow-students :

“We youngsters had a passionate thirst for knowledge.
Thus, in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument ;
we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin’s teachings.
We were aided in this by books on Galileo and Copernicus and by the fascinating works of Camille Flammarion.
I recall that we read Lyell’s “Antiquity of Man” and Darwin’s “Descent of Man,” the latter in a translation edited by Sechenov.
Comrade Stalin read Sechenov’s scientific works with great interest.

“We gradually proceeded to a study of the development of class society, which led us to the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
In those days the reading of Marxist literature was punishable as revolutionary activity.
The effect of this was particularly felt in the seminary, where even the name of Darwin was always mentioned with scurrilous abuse.

“While acquainting ourselves with social and economic literature, we young people continued to be interested in astronomy, physics and chemistry.
We derived great benefit from Ludwig Feuerbach’s “Essence of Christianity.”

“Comrade Stalin brought these books to our notice.
The first thing we had to do, he would say, was to become atheists.
Many of us began to acquire a materialist outlook and to ignore theological subjects. ...”

Well all but the most hardheaded Protestants are going to admit you folks have the best writers and artists.  But I was certainly not "dismissing" the apophatic god.  I was simply pointing out that "transcendence" is part of a wider job description and not limited to the apophatic deity. 

What "delegitimized" things for me was the encounter with a larger world than the one I had been prepared for. I was trained to live in a box and my first step outside of it was both frightening and exhilarating.  I really had no choice but to go on because there was really no way to squeeze myself back into that box.  I had the awful experience of watching a few people try. 

Our respective journeys were on paths provided to us by our faith traditions. Your trajectory was simply unavailable to me.  Mine unnecessary for you.   

** you do not have permission to see this link ** 

by George T. Montague, S.M., formerly Professor of Scripture at the University of St. Michael's College, Toronto, Ontario.

This book is a commentary on all the major biblical texts dealing with the Holy Spirit, from Genesis to Revelation.  It also includes chapters on the HS and apocalyptic, the apocrypha and Qumran!   Reviewers are scandalized by its lack of an index which does increase an academic's time in Purgatory I'm afraid. 

If you were raised as a hayseed Protestant like Your Humble Correspondent you might wonder what the designation, S.M., fully entails so I did some research.  It turns out the designation refers to the Society of Mary.  Interestingly it turns out there are two such societies, the Marianists (which includes Father Montague) and the Marists, both founded in post-Revolutionary France, both evincing a Marian spirituality, and both having a massive footprint in Catholic education and missionary work.  (And, I suspect, absolutely detest being confused for one another.)

Of course Protestants are the Masters of Sectarianism so I assumed these two bodies probably differed in both ecclesiastical polity and approach to spirituality and danged if I wasn't correct. Generally the Marianists are more egalitarian; brothers and priests have entirely equal status, rights, and voting privileges. Priesthood is viewed strictly as a sacramental ministry, not hierarchical.  Their spiritual focus is on the love of Jesus for Mary.  The Marists began as a group of seminarians. They do admit religious brothers, but the clerics hold the central governing authority.  Once again perhaps to oversimplify, their spiritual focus is on the love of Mary for Jesus. 

Current or former RCs fell free to expand - or correct. 

I discovered this book's existence while reading a book on the Trinity.  The web expands. 

ps While this will certainly be a valued resource this is not precisely the sort of book I would want to write.  

For me it was like being hit in the head by a two-by-four, it delegitimized anything I had ever heard before. It began a liberating freedom of the mind that would know no bounds ever again. There was no further need of science fiction (in truth I laready owed this to Kilgore Trout), no reason not to consider vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to join St Franicis and the original apostles of Jesus. Who else but an infinite God could descend far enough to liberate us from our paltry little minds and hearts of petty jealousies?

When I first learned of the Medieval concept of Being, I thought the word should only be sung. Litterally, I walked around as a postulant plucking the "b" note on a guitar and singing the word, "Being!" That's how drunk I was on Jacques and Raïssa Maritain. I've never felt a loss for Jesus. He will always be a brother for me. What more could he ever be for me than my brother, the Son of God? I lost respect for the church and the community of Franciscan brothers long before I stopped stubbornly clinging to a lonely life without any real intimacy.

I think we've looked at the apophatic cloud of unknowing from both sides now.

Moons and Junes and Ferris wheels
The dizzy dancing way you feel
As every fairy tale comes real
I've looked at love that way

But now, it's just another show
You leave 'em laughing when you go
And if you care, don't let them know
Don't give yourself away

When you say ...the unknowable God is not completely unknowable. It is known to be good, but in a superlative way that shares something in common with what we know about goodness but also beyond our ability to describe or quantify or fully comprehend...  I think this is going to be true of any notion of a transcendent God.  Not just an apophatic deity. By definition any transcendent God will have aspects that are beyond comprehension on the part of the devotee.  Historically Christianity acknowledges this by it's very concept of revelation.  God must condescend to humanity otherwise we will have no hope. From our vantage point we are simply unable to "get it" without God's self-revealing.   I guess I've always considered the apophatic God to be the One Who Will Not Condescend.   

God is not personal, but a Person. Not loving, but Love. Exists, Interpersonal, Just, etc.

Ok now this is closer to Hart's conception of God.  Of course he approaches it ontologically.  God is not a "being".  He is "being itself".   My problem with this is that I don't really know what it means.   I suppose I've read too much Wittgenstein. What can "love" mean apart from acts of love.   And what is "being itself"?  What we have access to are beings that resemble each other.   These abstractions rest on a long intellectual tradition and on assumptions that some philosophers (and yes, some theologians) have been critiquing for the last century. (Perhaps in the end it's better to talk not of the "death of God" but the "death of Plato".) 

And what really surprises me about this approach is how often it comes from the mouths of Christians like Hart.   My claim is that it is incoherent to claim to "believe" in the God that is Being Itself.   

Once you’ve had a loving relationship with someone, someone for whom you’ve easily and happily sacrificed so much, it’s hard to imagine no longer having a loving relationship with that person, harder still to imagine that person as never having existed at all. I don’t know much sense that makes, but it feels real. It’s as if God has left a God-size hole in your heart that can never be forgotten.

Yes, it makes perfect sense.  There are some bonds that cannot be completely broken.  For my people Jesus was the center. Not so much God the Father. The Holy Spirit somewhat although we were extremely leery of what we called "emotionalism".   I was taught to talk to Jesus the way you talk to a constant companion, the deepest friend, with you always.  I felt the loss of that.  The sudden loneliness. What assuaged for me the loss of the Jesus of Faith though was the discovery of the Jesus of History.  I remain absorbed and fascinated.  That's what Prof Ehrman's first book, Apocalyptic Prophet, did for me.  It gave me back a connection I had lost.  Now I have something infinitely more profound than a personal savior. 

What had a much more lasting effect on me was the loss of an intimate community.   I spent a lot of time looking for a substitute.  Eventually I realized that you're either born into that or not at all.  There is always going to be some sadness there.  I'm one of those folks whose life was bifurcated.  For my first two decades I lived on a different planet.  My third decade was a voyage through space. Since then I have lived on this planet, wherever this is.