You've modified your original position from a statement of our genetic inheritance to surviving a crisis. That quite a bit different. However from your current position are you saying that the people who died from the bombings in Boston were "burdened and unable to act spontaneously" while those who survived were "acting spontaneously and were unburdened"? Or is there some other type if crisis? If two people, one who was unburdened and acting spontaneously and had never encountered a tiger in the wild and the other who hunted tigers daily, were to suddenly be faced with one, who would survive this crisis?
Sent from my iPhone On May 1, 2013, at 3:29 PM, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote: > William, > > Uh-uh. Figuring out takes time on the spot. You're a dead man in a crisis. > > The one who can act spontaneously and unburdened survives. It's called > intimacy, not thought. > > It's manifestly and demonstrably true in our practice as well. But you must > practice in order to be restored, because there's no reason to believe it > otherwise, especially by those who take an "authority" on a subject to be a > threat. I do not say that you do this, and I say this to emphasize that only > practice is convincing because it is entirely transformative, by simply > restoring the full complement of our human inheritance to currency. I hope > you see, or will see. > > --Joe > > > Email <brintala@...> wrote: > > > > Figured out how to kill the Mammoth without being killed. Figured out what > > was safe to eat without being poisoned. Figured out how to survive. > >
