--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > 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." > > > > 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.
Are you still talking? Sorry...guy thing. I finished, and assumed you had, too. I shot my wad. I've got nothing more to say on this subject. If you want to continue until it's more satisfying for you, might I suggest Burt Reynolds the vibrator?
