Sorry Steve, too much trouble. That's why I am retired - don't have to do the heavy lifting anymore.:-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Robin 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. > > Jim, I find this interesting. I realize it might entail some work on > your part, but could you give an example of this. > > > > > > 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? > > >
