--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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.
I hear a buzzing sound. Is that you repeating yourself or "Burt?"
