--- 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: <snip> > > > > 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?
The trick is to distinguish between "didn't want to" and "could not." A non sequitur can be playful and Monty Python-esque, or it can be a demonstration of attachment to one's image of oneself as infallible and hence unwilling to admit that one has made an error, or doesn't know quite as much as one would like others to think one does, or that one has emotional or psychological issues around the topic that one wants to avoid dealing with.
