sensible senses of sense
scientists say we stand on a small solid spheroid spinning in space and circling the sun. some say we stand on its surface of stone, soil and sand (sial) or, sailing at sea, skim its silvery surface, seeming so shiny from space. still, simple sense says that the skin of the sea and the soil are somewhat submerged in a spongy or soupy, supportive yet soft silvery sea of subtle but still solid substance, stratospheric, sub-stratospheric and super-stratospheric, sloppily surrounding the centre as sloes surround seeds, sustained by scientifically statable systems of suck, surge and slump. sadly some still see it simply as a stone-dead sphere saved from sterility by a steamy, seething centre, and slick slime of sludge – the squillions of seeable species seething and suppurating on its sensible surfaces, its satellite sister a silvery sphere several sizes smaller surfaced with sea-less stretches of sand and stark, silent, stone and so certainly sterile. satisfyingly, some seem to see the smallness of scope of our species’ sensoria, conceding the severality of sense styles from society to society, and species to species, and so say that scientists, and similarly the several sorts of seekers of scientific sanity, should seek a seriously solid and sound sense of sense, space, and sequence, so that seizing the space-sweeping scope of our several species specific selections of sensorially sampled scenarios and so, suddenly seeing superbly (since synchronistically), see some of the scintillating swathes of substance and sequence that sadly seem to some speciesist separatists such serenely stupid, selectively simplistic, stupendously silly, stultifyingly simple, stunningly senseless stuff, so sending our scruffy old scientific sillinesses scuttling and supplying our sadly sensorially-strictured species-specific speculations with sensible senses of sense?