The matter of a made lunch cannot and should not be reduced to a merely mathematical formula. Despite the best efforts of technology including films such as the matrix a world composed merely of numbers, formulas and mathematical progressions lacks the means to describe the full richness and intensity of the human experience. A world of pure logic lacks joy, love, peace and reality.

I have come to hold in most high esteem the questions raised by Hicken K as to the limited nature of the definitions of lunch proposed thus far. It was indicated, and rightly so, that lunch cannot be limited to a merely physical and logical definition. Truely a working definition of lunch is demonstrated and used readily and haphazardly by persons every day but these mechanics are based upon the far richer understanding of the concepts and ideals of "lunch". The nature of reality is such that lunch cannot be expressed and explained purely mundane, bland as a bread sandwich, definitions.

Indeed, as we trove the depths of human wisdom for insights into the nature of lunch we inevitably are assulted by a barrage of epistimological issues. The nature of lunch challenges us to leave behind the futile mechanistic and deterministic views to which we have previously be enslaved. The power of this inhibiting and destructive paradigm of logical reality may be seen in the complete sincerity and rationality of my most learned, esteemed, honourable and stranded colleagues Choo LJ and Anderson J. Stranded as they are within such a brutal stance one cannot help but pity their attempts to comprehend the rich and vast expanse that is lunch. The struggles of persons so deeply entrenched in the ways of logic pains me to my very soul. Though they may dispute the reality of that soul I will seek to enlighten them against all hope and reason.

I have been the most fortunate recipient of lunch for much of my 19 years of life. When deprived of lunch I have found myself wasting in anguish at this denial. Lunch indeed does more that nourish the body. The communion and enchantment of lunch are infact intensified tenfold as the substance and company increase. Despite attempts of logical definition a lunch will always remain more than the butter on the bread or the juice in the fruit salad.

Lunch may be contained in a box but it will never be shackled in the experience of the consumer.

As I seek to comprehend and understand the fabric of reality and the variety and richness of experinece created for joy and thanksgiving I will no doubt continue to grow in my understanding of lunch. With sorrowful regret I consider the move of Anderson J to exclude God from lunch and cement himself to the pained and unatural ways of logic.

I cannot but hope that lunch may indeed enrich the lives of Anderson J and Choo LJ to the full magnitude of its greatness. Chung J will no doubt continue to push the bounds of logic and struggle to reach the full extent of lunch. I must hope that Hicken K will pursue the relentless bounds of lunch also in the cause questioning ever further the bold and blatant disparaging definitions that logic will continue to present.

Lunch may be objectively stated; lunch may be objectively made; lunch may be objectively eaten; but lunch may never be objectively experienced and understood.

With grave concern I pray that you, rooted and established in irrationality, may have power, together with all the rational, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is lunch, and to know this lunch that surpasses knowledge--that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of reality.

I rest in meditation.