doctordumbass: > Last week, I somehow found myself reading about fossils > and the best places to find them. Sedimentary rock, that > which is formed by compression is the only place they > are found, vs. in igneous and metamorphic rocks. > Thanks for changing the subject. LoL! > Robin...
Oh shit, forget it!!! > has the writing ability to work methodically down through > the fossil record, to the bedrock, when approaching someone's > consciousness. For those who doubt this, diagram out any of > his writing, and you will see clear first, second, and third > set assumptions, each supported by the previous. Very clean > and perfectly constructed. > > This approach of Robin's, then, can be substantiated as > being in the very least, logical. Through the reactions of > his targets, including himself, he also (inadvertently?) > reveals something about how we see ourselves, often as a > shifting mass of emotionally tinged reactions, jellied > memories. Not through this verifiable, logical deduction. > > Verifiable, logical deduction works well for external stuff, > like determining where to find the fossil record. But most > people do not like such dispassionate rigor, applied to > their own self-examination. > > So Judy can argue for the validity of Robin's writing, and > Steve can argue for its discomfort, and both are correct. > > Which then begs the question, if FFL is all about a search > for meaning and personal truth, what are those people doing > on here, who continually avoid personal truth, by shifting > context? What is the implicit agreement we have all made, > to validate the dialogue here, seek personal truth, or > be comfortable with each other? Or both? >
