--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "geezerfreak" <geezerfreak@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: <snip> > > > > > Speaking of which, if you're in Unity, is *anything* > > > > > a non-sequitur? > > > > > > > > Non sequitur. > > > > > > Do non-sequiturs seem like wild animals to you? > > > > Yes, like rhinoceroses trampling the delicate > > butterflies of logic and reason. > > > > Why do you ask? > > I don't know why he asked, but I posed the > question because it seems to me that 'logic' > and 'reason' are limited, human-invented, hypo- > thethical constructs superimposed on a system > that has no need of such constructs, as an > attempt by the limited self to convince itself > that it has things all figured out. Therefore > they are the 'non-sequiturs,' technically > speaking.
<duh> No sh*t. Sorta the point of enlightenment. You're describing what MMY calls "the mistake of the intellect." But once again you've fallen into an infinite regress, one of the hallmarks of the mistake of the intellect. By means of the very logic you scorn, you're trying to drive a wedge between the constructs and the system you claim "has no need of such constructs," to make them different from each other--and not only that, to make them hierarchical quality-wise: the system that needs no constructs is *superior to* the system that does, at least as you've described it. Perhaps that wasn't quite what you meant to say, though, so I'll give you a chance to rethink and rephrase it. > But if your self finds them comforting, it can > continue to think of them as butterflies. That > way it can perpetuate itself forever. > > [ The previous message was brought to you by > one state of attention, from which it is true. > From others, it may not be. If that gets your > self uptight, it's been stuck in one state of > attention for far too long. ] It's not a matter of finding logic and reason "comforting," of course. There's a state of attention in which the constructs don't somehow cancel out or deny access to the system that doesn't "need" them, a state of attention that participates in both without conflict, without finding the constructs wanting. You might say it's a meta-state of attention that encompasses all possible states of attention.
