--- In [email protected], doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Wow - I never actually considered that, but it is a cool thing to think > about. I meant that it is through thought, and thinking, that the ability to > communicate becomes possible, through the development and refinement of > communications technology.
Dr. D, Granted, what you say is true. But the development and refinement of communications technology does not necessarily lead to an unconditioned mind or thought. It can only contribute to the inertia of our conditioning. > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > Dr. D, > > > > You appear to be saying that the technology of communication is a necessity > > to have a true culture. Is that correct? > > > > --- In [email protected], doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > David needs to speak for himself. There is not necessarily a "we", in his > > > comment. > > > > > > Thought is the *only* reason Mr. Frawley, and you, John, are able to > > > share this piece of spinach with us. The engineers that developed this > > > technology of communication, needed to think deeply, and continuously, to > > > put this together. > > > > > > If I may hazard a guess, David F. has just discovered that 90% of his > > > thoughts are useless energy and momentum, spent maintaining a story. It > > > is a common, though by no means, universal malady. > > > > > > Once he sees this, perhaps Dave can put his mind into silence, and simply > > > recognize the Divine utility of thought - the other 10%. In the meantime, > > > his projecting isn't helping. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > "Thought, if we learn to observe it, is a reaction-mechanism devoid of > > > > true consciousness. It is the inertia of our conditioning that we fail > > > > to truly question." > > > > > > > > David Frawley > > > > > > > > > >
