Guest guest Posted May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 No, it's not you, nor is it me, but we >>>are not excluded, no thing is. >>> >>>Pete > XL.E: This is what he says. I am commenting on it as it stands. > I'm going to endeavor to respond a bit more to your messages, Larry. XL.E; No favors needed or wanted Bill. But you will not find any sugar coating! XL.E: Never asked for any. Do you often coat in sugar? > > So regarding your comment above, to me that is absurd beyond words. What > " he " says makes no sense to you. > OK. No problem so far. But then you launch into your > conclusions about *him*. What's the problem with this? > > 1. If what he says makes no sense to you, I suggest that > should be a slow-down, let's reflect/inquire. It *could* > mean that what he is talking about is something that you > have not experienced yet, that goes beyond what you know > at this point. XL.E: Yes, of course this is possible, but that need not inhibit my first response. A possibility? If you are not open to > such a possibility then what is the > point of participating on this list? XL.E: Perhaps what he is saying is pointless, and I find that interesting. > > > 2. But you seem not to consider that possibility here. > Rather you conclude that since what he is saying makes > no sense to you, then *he must be confused*! Specifically > you say: " He just can't accept the he is included perhaps > because of doubt, self-loathing, fear, or whatever. " XL.E: Yes, I wrote that as a possibility for feeling excluded. So what? Why are my speculations your problem? And what do you think about what he said, with no sugar coating please? > Please don't show me that you are one of those for whom > anyone who expresses a different view is regarded as an idiot. XL.E: The negative form and the negative implications are at least disparaging if not insulting. A person who has psychological limitations is not an idiot. He may need to visit a doctor though. Your comments are an objection to my ideas, but you offer no ideas relative to the issue at all. That is, if it is not us and we are outside of the Absolute, how can we be included in it? > > Larry Epston > > > >He thinks we stand outside yet at the same > >time are inside. What a predicament. It will resolve itself > eventually, probably. I don't have this problem. Do you? > XL.E: DO YOU? > >>yes > >>I am That > >>I am > >>I > >>I am That by which I know that I am > > > > > >Yes it is, yes I am, yes we are, > >All of That. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.