--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Translation of Barry's post: > > > > > > > > > > "I'm too intellectually lazy to bother not to > > > > > contradict myself, so when I get caught at it, > > > > > I'll just declare that consistency is an > > > > > intellectual limitation." > > > > > > > > > > Barry, nobody is fooled by this. *You* wouldn't > > > > > be fooled by it if somebody else tried to use > > > > > it as an excuse for sloppy thinking. You would > > > > > point out (and have pointed out) that the > > > > > contradictions simply meant the person hadn't > > > > > thought things through, or was trying to play > > > > > both ends against the middle. > > > > > > > > That's your whole problem in a nutshell, Judy. > > > > > > > > You honestly believe that you can think this > > > > stuff through. > > > > > > Think through *what you're saying about* this > > > stuff (whatever it may be), dickhead. > > > > Ah...when in doubt, revert to the old maid > > repressed sexuality fantasies again. > > Translation: "Gee, I really thought I'd be able > to sneak through my deliberate misreading of what > she said, but she caught me *again*. What to do? > I know, I'll reiterate my sexual fantasies about > her. That always makes me look brave and macho."
Judy, Judy, Judy... I understand that older women sometimes have fantasies about men still finding them attractive, but the phenomenon itself really *isn't* very attractive. The 'dickhead' riff was in fact suggested by my much younger companion, who had just shown up at the cafe and was reading what I was writing. Her English is not all that good, and she was the one who tripped on the literal meaning of 'dickhead.' I passed it along, between laughs. :-) As for you, and our exchange, what it was in my view was you and your *seriously* tiny and limited mind coming into contact with one that is not so limited. You tried to play your "I set the rules and you have to play by them" game, and I refused. OF COURSE randomness can coexist with patterning; randomness fully *supports* patterns, or the illusion of them. OF COURSE enlightenment involves both things that are within one's control and things that are not, and OF COURSE it is fully available to all beings at all times. It (enlight- enment) is what all beings ARE. You just cannot *comprehend* the beauty of how these things work, that's all. You want to squish it into neat little boxes so that you can tell your self that it "understands" enlightenment. No self does. And the longer yours tries, the further away enlight- enment itself will seem to you. Even though it is present at every moment, if you just LET GO. As I said before, perfectly seriously, the whole thing is really kinda funny once you get past self and learn to laugh at it. Good luck with that, y'hear.
