--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "was in a very, very, *very* low state of attention-" > > That's a new one. Is this like when a chick points to her eyes and > says, "My eyes are up here buster"?
Haven't you read Barry's recent posts about evaluating the level of one's state of attention? Better hop to it. > > The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed > > the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of > > attention. > > Is this the same as having a lower state of consciousness? Or is it > more like slouching? > > Or should I just sod off now? > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I would think the more relevant question to the > > > technique I've been talking about is what did YOU > > > think of seeing your words alongside the others in > > > that post, and presented as if you and your words > > > represented TM and Maharishi? > > > > You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you: I thought > > the person who presented the quotes, shorn of their > > context, as if the posters and their words > > represented TM and Maharishi, was in a very, very, > > *very* low state of attention--far lower than the > > posters themselves when they wrote what he posted, > > and lower even than when he penned the vicious attacks > > that many of the posters were responding to. > > > > The whole project was bottom of the barrel, state- > > of-attention-wise, including his bleating and chest- > > beating about it on FFL, which so clearly revealed > > the real motivation behind it: to intimidate TM > > supporters, especially his critics, into shutting up. > > No, wait, the real motivation wasn't just bottom of > > the barrel, it was way *beneath* the barrel. > > > > The one positive aspect to it was that it exposed > > the ugly depths of this person's habitual state of > > attention. > > >
