Yes William is correct again with good examples... Joe should take a lesson from him....
Edgar On May 1, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Email wrote: > > 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. >> > >
