--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
> Yeah, I prefer straightforwardness to coy "helping Judy out." Your preferences are duly noted, and I do apologize: I did not mean to sound coy. I thought since you have so often appeared to use similar methods on others, asking them to reread your posts and figure out for themselves what you meant, that you were a fan of the Socratic method. And most particularly I was thinking that if invited, you might come up with yet another possibility that I hadn't considered. I have a lot of respect for your intelligence, if that is not immediately obvious. R:> > one that didn't automatically cast Vaj as a liar. I am not > > saying he isn't one, you understand; I am just saying he > > might not be. He may just be suffering from unconscious > > blind-spots and shadow-projections, as are we all. > J: He's long ago used up any benefit of the doubt he might be > accorded in that regard. * * How do you know for sure that he is not operating unconsciously, out of blind pain? It seems like the best hypothesis to me. J: > Tell you what, let's see if, after reading your post, he > admits to having misread Tart's meaning. * * But, if he were a liar, couldn't he now just claim that he did misread it, as an easy way to avoid admitting that he consciously intended to deceive? More likely, he will ignore the whole thing, which still doesn't prove anything either way. My point is, we can never really know with full certainty; all we are doing is cooking up stories to try to "explain" Vaj's behavior. Much as Vaj is apparently attempting to do with MMY. J: The two options I suggested, BTW, were "attempting to mislead" and "never practiced the TM-Sidhi program." Only the latter > would involve any actual lying. > * * The subtlety of your distinction is lost on me, I guess; "attempting to mislead" is tantamount to lying in my book.
