--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Last week, I somehow found myself reading about fossils and the best places to find them. Sedimentary rock, that which is formed by compression is the only place they are found, vs. in igneous and metamorphic rocks. > > Robin has the writing ability to work methodically down through the fossil record, to the bedrock, when approaching someone's consciousness. For those who doubt this, diagram out any of his writing, and you will see clear first, second, and third set assumptions, each supported by the previous. Very clean and perfectly constructed.
Jim, I find this interesting. I realize it might entail some work on your part, but could you give an example of this. > > This approach of Robin's, then, can be substantiated as being in the very least, logical. Through the reactions of his targets, including himself, he also (inadvertently?) reveals something about how we see ourselves, often as a shifting mass of emotionally tinged reactions, jellied memories. Not through this verifiable, logical deduction. > > Verifiable, logical deduction works well for external stuff, like determining where to find the fossil record. But most people do not like such dispassionate rigor, applied to their own self-examination. > > So Judy can argue for the validity of Robin's writing, and Steve can argue for its discomfort, and both are correct. > > Which then begs the question, if FFL is all about a search for meaning and personal truth, what are those people doing on here, who continually avoid personal truth, by shifting context? What is the implicit agreement we have all made, to validate the dialogue here, seek personal truth, or be comfortable with each other? Or both? >
