--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > RG:> > * * * I am so sorry for the disconnect, Judy! I don't really > > > see where I am asking you to "see" much of anything; I am > > > just trying to point out where our suffering lies... > > > JS: You don't see the disconnect between what comes before > > the semicolon in what you just wrote and what comes after > > it? > > RG: Yes, I was aware you might take it as such, but I thought > I would try again. So let me get this straight; are you saying > that you equate sensitivity to your own bodymind and the > ability to tell how it feels (or how you feel) when you think > a given thought, with being Awake, and that not being Awake > you aren't able -- though you have honestly given it a try -- > to tell when holding a specific thought makes you feel good > or bad?
No, that isn't what I'm saying. Don't know how you came up with that. <snip> > > > However, if there are, say, Jungian personality types that > > > are congenitally unable to do this kind of work, that would > > > be very good to know! > > > JS: Are you aware of how pissed off you are at my responses? And > > are you aware of how much "shoulding" you're doing, even if > > you aren't using the word? > > > * * * Well, I certainly am no stranger to anger or to > shoulds; I have found an astounding abundance of both in > me, and would and will be most happy to find more, as > every one I find untangles into that much more delight! > But no, not right now; I am not aware of any in particular. > I am feeling excited and a bit skeptical, though; I am > trying to understand where you're coming from -- if you > are a whole new kind of being, so to speak! Perhaps in the sense that the kind of being I am is new to your awareness. I do suspect you've encountered others of us before, but perhaps they haven't been insistent enough to make an impression. BTW, that last bit above is hostile. It amounts to saying you think I'm not telling the truth.
