--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "geezerfreak" > > <geezerfreak@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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." > > No, actually, I am not. I am saying that > there are cause and effect relationships > in the world of enlightenment that have > nothing to do with either logic or reason. > And those relationships can be prevented > from forming by clinging to logic and > reason.
Which is, of course, a consequence of 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. > > No such hierarchy is stated or implied. > You imagined it. To quote you, go back > and read what I wrote. "...an attempt by the limited self to convince itself that it has things all figured out." > > Perhaps that wasn't quite what you meant > > to say, though, so I'll give you a chance to > > rethink and rephrase it. > > No need. You imagined any suggestion of either > superiority or hierarchy. No, I caught you in an inconsistency. And now you've rethought and rephrased: Logic has its place > when in a state of attention in which it is > relevant, and has no place (or at best a > ludicrous or obstructionist place) in a state > of attention in which it is irrelevant. But you're still, as I said, trying to drive a wedge between the constructs and the system that "has no need of such constructs" by means of the very logic you scorn. The system doesn't need the construct you just articulated that distinguishes the two, either. > > > 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. > > We must agree to disagree on this point. Well, certainly *you* may find them comforting. > > 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. > > We must agree to disagree on this point as well. No Unity consciousness for you, then. Too bad.
