--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > Share, save your fingers. You simply do not have the > mental capacity to understand a reasoned argument. And > I don't have the patience or the stamina to attempt to > clue you in.
Considering the volume of your posts, you probably could clue her in, so your lack of patience and stamina seems a hollow claim. I would agree that Share does not seem to follow a reasoned argument. She seems rather intuitive to me, in spite of her penchant for woo-related understanding. This results in a different kind of argumentation that does not follow logical rules, but can come to a 'correct' conclusion nonetheless. Like the difference between a chess master and a computer like IBM's Deep Blue playing chess. The human player cannot reason all the moves and has to make intuitive leaps based on patterns that cannot be expressed in the mind verbally. You seem to not be able to do this well, while at the same time excel at more linear thinking. One could describe to someone how to assemble a jigsaw puzzle in a logical reasoned way, but to explain how to precisely move the muscles in order to ride a bicycle to someone in the same way simply cannot be done. The mind has many nonverbal functions, a different kind of intelligence than reasoning, and I do not think you take this into account most of the time. The paradoxical nature of enlightenment cannot be expressed verbally in a reasoned argument - and enlightenment is the core value associated with FFL. From a reasoned point of view, enlightenment is an absurdity. We pick up something of the sense of it nonverbally when faced with a teaching as the actual words do not convey any of the real value of it; rather they create an impression in the mind that gives us an image, a surrogate, that entices us to pursue even though in reality, we have no real clue initially, what it is about. I doubt you and Share will, in your current states, ever really connect.
