Kelly's Truth Paper

[MKFaizi]

How does it affect you, Marsha, if Kelly is an enlightened sage? Will you be inspired, to push yourself even harder than before, now that there is proof that a female sage is a possibility?

It does not effect me at all. Is she an enlightened sage?

No, I will not be inspired to push myself even harder than before. I push myself hard enough presently and have done so for several years. Does Kelly prove that there is the possibility of a female sage? If so, how?

Or do you consider her an interloper, of very small standing, when set beside Kevin, David and Dan. If yes, then is that discrimination based on her work or on her being a woman, or both?

I could not care less that Kelly is a woman. I do think that she should be aware of her femininity; how she is yet subject to men. Since she is yet subject to them, I cannot see how she could be considered a sage. That would be like saying the Buddha is a sage though he yet kowtows to his sexual urges or sits on his mother's lap.

I think her work is very similar to Kevin's work.

Should I not question her BECAUSE she is a woman? Seems like a Catch 22 situation to me. If I question her validity, then, I am a woman because I criticize a woman. If I lap her up indiscriminately because she is a woman, then, I am a woman because I side indiscriminately with a woman.

I would as vigorously question a man. But that is a Catch, too, because it could then be said that, as a woman, I resent a man as a sage. Then, if I praise the man, it would be said that I am sucking up to men.

I mean, damn.

Am I or anyone not supposed to question? Am I -- because I am female --not supposed to question? Are we -- any of us -- supposed to fall down and say, "MY GOD!! SHE IS SO WISE!! FUCKING AMAZING!! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT AND SHE IS A WOMAN!! KEVIN SOLWAY EVEN THINKS SHE IS A SAGE!!"

Kind of a teenage reaction to the coming of the Beatles.

It would take a lot more than getting a pension and writing a paper to cause me to do that. I would if I could. But I am not that impressed. I think she is very intelligent and a good writer. I think that David Quinn and Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway are very intelligent and good writers. I don't consider any of them to be infallible or god-like. I don't consider any of them to be enlightened sages. They are each good thinkers, just as Kelly is a good thinker.

I fail to grasp the big deal of it all.

Is this because the information she writes of, is so important to humanity, that you do not want her to muddy those crystal clear pools of thought, written by the likes of Kevin?

I think Kevin is a good writer and a good thinker. I do not consider his work to be entirely crystal clear pools of thought. I do not consider Kierkegaard's or Nietzsche's work to be entirely crystal clear pools of thought. I do not consider the work of Jesus to be entirely crystal clear pools of thought.

I don't believe in crystal clear pools of thought. I don't believe in philosophical mentorship. I don't believe in philosophical leadership. I don't believe in philosophical prizes.

I don't believe in following. I believe in making my own way, as I -- or anyone -- must. Of course, I -- anyone -- will be inspired by others but never to the degree that I will fall down and call someone else "Sage."

That's bullshit.

I think Kelly is a good thinker and writer. I do not recognize her or anyone as a sage -- female or otherwise.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Prince,

You either make yourself a slave to a system in order to survive, or you end your own life, it's that simple. Every one has the choice, that is the only true free choice a human has.

Killing oneself seems counter-productive unless, of course, you are absolutely convinced that your life is counter-productive. Some people, whether I like the idea or not, are better off killing themselves. They do the world a favor.

Took me a very long time to realize that. I did not come to that realization in one fell swoop.

Faizi

[David Quinn]

Leyla wrote:

Ah, "love."

Just correcting a false assumption.

David Quinn, if I had any regard for your opinion on this issue previously, I certainly have much less for it now.

Okay.

Are they an example of fine reasoning, David Quinn?

I think she's pursuing an interesting line of thought. Let's see how it pans out.

-

[MKFaizi]

Prince:

This is nonsense.

Have you known many people who choose to or who are forced to live on the street or in the woods?

I have.

I knew one woman who slept under a bridge for years. She had a couple of hundred dogs who surrounded her at night to keep her from freezing. During the day, she walked the streets and collected cans to sell for chump change. She did not eat every day. She died a few years back. Good friend of mine.

When I refer to living on the street, I am not talking about bathing once a week as you suggest. I am talking about never bathing. In the army, I have gone for three weeks without bathing. Amazing what fungal infections and insect bites can do when you cannot bathe. That is just the effect of three weeks. I only had one fungus on my knee but I saw others with massive chigger infections and poison oak without treatment or cleansing and blister beetle bites and Brown Recluse Spider bites.

During three weeks in the woods, the menstrual period, as you suggest, can be a nuisance. On reconaissance, we did have tampons and pads. We had to bury them.

Not that big a deal.

Plus, when people are together for three or four weeks in the wild, no one smells anything. Everyone stinks. The stench of old menses blends with the stench of old sweat and piss and shit.

Men and women both have to defecate. I do not see that male hygiene needs are less than female. Poop is poop.

But I am not talking about three weeks without bathing. I am talking years.

I have seen enough toothless people to know that dental hygiene is not a sham.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Sue,

Letting your attachments drop away in one fell swoop can be thought of as “love at first sight”. Those attachments that keep your mind racing are stopped with a jolt when the infinite comes into view. Then you and your “love” are one. You want no other and everything is pure bliss.

I do not believe that love at first sight is possible -- either with a man or woman or with philosophy. Love at first sight is delusion. Indeed, love is delusion. I do not believe nor is it in my experience that the infinite can come into view with a jolt. I don't believe that one can be one with love -- whether that one is a man/woman or philosophy.

I do not believe that you can let your attachments drop away in one fell swoop. I do not believe even Jesus was capable of that.

I think the idea that the infinite can come into view with a jolt is delusional.

Magical? – Reality doesn’t sleep with the enemy.

The belief that love with the infinite can happen suddenly or with first sight is delusional. Romantic. Magical thinking. Belief in fairies. Indeed, reality does not sleep with the enemy but delusion does.

Fairy tales? – Giving up all attachments because you want something more fulfilling than happiness; sounds to most people terrifyingly unnatural.

That is a fairy tale; delusional-- the idea that there is something more or less fulfilling than happiness. The very idea of "wanting" denotes romance and delusion.

For the most part, those who come to this forum are not "most people." It is a given that the posters here are interested in something other than the usual hallmarks of happiness -- the big house, the two cute kids, the good job crap.

I don't think anyone here is afraid of the "terrifyingly unnatural." The very idea of wanting something terrifyingly unnatural is a romantic notion. In exactly that way, Kelly seems to be romantic. Several years back, I was romantic in that way.

Kind of a Frankenstein thing. Love of the monster.

Chick Flick entertainment? – Being set afloat, on a cloud of fuzzy emotions, doesn’t quite gel with the idea of attachments being cast aside in favour of absolute certainty.

But I think that it does go with fuzzy emotional casting aside of attachments in the very romantic ideational fulfillment of something terrifyingly unnatural.

I did not say Chick Flick Entertainment. I said Chick Flick Enlightenment.

I think your "terrifyingly unnatural" phrasing is revealing.

It is only “arduous” when you are not ready to give up an attachment. Once you’ve outgrown the attachment, it just drops away. The possibility of outgrowing all attachments, in one feel swoop, increases dramatically when you’ve decided that it is too arduous to keep them alive.

Again, I do not believe that it is possible to outgrow all attachments in one fell swoop. I think that you can delude yourself that such a thing is possible and I think that you can delude yourself into the belief that you have dropped all attachments but I think that, until you have dealt with attachments one by one, you are kidding yourself into enlightenment.

I believe that "enlightenment" is an arduous task because you must deal with attachments one by one.

Otherwise, you could just swallow a Jesus or Buddha or Neitzsche/Kierkegaard or QSR pill and be done with it.

I do not believe in a burning bush. I do not believe in immaculate conception. I do not believe in writing one Truth Paper and having it done.

If philosophical enlightenment did not take years of arduous work, then, why would David Quinn and Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway still be hard at it for the past twelve years or so?

Faizi

[kjones]

I've been away since Thursday. I'll have a look at the forum posts, and reply in the next few days.

Kelly Jones

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla Shen wrote:

Well, let’s have a look, here:
Quote:
sue: What has the survival of the species got to do with women?
[insert edit] sue: Women are prepared to suffer and toil for their loved ones. They work hard to maintain stability for themselves and others, by helping to foster the morals and mores of their societies.
sue: Luckily humanity is still hanging on by a thread due to the efforts of the few humans left.
sue: Being a woman, I’m not sure I want to get into philosophy.
sue: People are of little consequence, being human is all that matters.
Leyla: So, by your definition, does that make you a people or a human?
sue: A person who thinks, that by becoming human, I might be given the opportunity to enter onto the path of wisdom.
Leyla: Then, I can safely dismiss anything you say as unwise.
sue: Is that because "I think"…

(Leyla):
Well, no. What you said was, you are "a person who thinks that by becoming human…"

I don’t think you think at all. You appear to be a very good parrot, though.
Quote:
Sue: …, or because "I'm consciously considering becoming human", or is it because "one day I may be able to take up a philosophic life"?

(Leyla):
Really, I don’t think it’s that hard to see if you pay attention to your own speak.

All my quotes above, are perfectly reasonable, if your mind is dedicated to understanding the infinite. Understanding the infinite requires the relinquishing of false beliefs. Understanding Woman is an important step in unravelling false beliefs, since she is the embodiment of all falsehoods.

My aim is to strip her bare, leaving no doubt as to her real nature. To do this, I have thus far employed a variety of tactics. My main tactic is to show the power of woman through those that would come to her defense.

It’s so rare for anyone to speak against woman, that most readers will be confused. This confusion can’t be helped. Only those with strong stomachs and brave hearts, can turn their minds to face woman square on - because in her, they see all their delusions.

what type of woman are you, sue hindmarsh?

I must be one of those brave hearts, that can bear the strain of looking into woman. I must also be very generous and kind, in the most pure sense, by sharing that understanding.

Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

David wrote:

It’s funny how women are the always the first to accuse other women of not having a mind of their own. There is a saying, "A misogynist is someone who hates women as much as women do". So true.

It only goes to show that women, in an intuitive way, understand their own sex better than most men.

Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

I wrote to Marsha:

How does it affect you, Marsha, if Kelly is an enlightened sage? Will you be inspired, to push yourself even harder than before, now that there is proof that a female sage is a possibility?

Marsha wrote:

It does not effect me at all.

Does that mean your interest in the Genius Forum hasn’t anything to do with your wanting to develop as a thinker?

No, I will not be inspired to push myself even harder than before. I push myself hard enough presently and have done so for several years.

What goal are you pushing yourself hard toward?

Does Kelly prove that there is the possibility of a female sage? If so, how?

No. The idea of a female sage is an absurdity.

Also - Kelly can’t be a female sage, because in her work she has shown that she has some understanding of reality, and no woman has ever done that.

I could not care less that Kelly is a woman. I do think that she should be aware of her femininity; how she is yet subject to men. Since she is yet subject to them, I cannot see how she could be considered a sage. That would be like saying the Buddha is a sage though he yet kowtows to his sexual urges or sits on his mother's lap.

Do you advise Kelly to, “be aware of her femininity” because you are concerned that Kevin, David and Dan may use her femininity against her? You know – build her up – then pull the rug from under her.

I think her work is very similar to Kevin's work.

Yes, but then Kevin’s work reminds me of Hakuin’s.

Should I not question her BECAUSE she is a woman? Seems like a Catch 22 situation to me. If I question her validity, then, I am a woman because I criticize a woman. If I lap her up indiscriminately because she is a woman, then, I am a woman because I side indiscriminately with a woman.

Yes, it is a difficult situation.

I would as vigorously question a man. But that is a Catch, too, because it could then be said that, as a woman, I resent a man as a sage. Then, if I praise the man, it would be said that I am sucking up to men.

There seems to be no solution to this predicament.

I mean, damn.

Am I or anyone not supposed to question? Am I -- because I am female --not supposed to question? Are we -- any of us -- supposed to fall down and say, "MY GOD!! SHE IS SO WISE!! FUCKING AMAZING!! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT AND SHE IS A WOMAN!! KEVIN SOLWAY EVEN THINKS SHE IS A SAGE!!"

Kind of a teenage reaction to the coming of the Beatles.

Questioning, as you have so passionately done above, should help bring some sort of solution.

It would take a lot more than getting a pension and writing a paper to cause me to do that.

What would it take?

I would if I could.

Would you?

But I am not that impressed.

I can see that.

I think she is very intelligent and a good writer. I think that David Quinn and Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway are very intelligent and good writers. I don't consider any of them to be infallible or god-like. I don't consider any of them to be enlightened sages. They are each good thinkers, just as Kelly is a good thinker.

Hanging out with "intelligent, good writer(s)” - is that your only reason for interacting with Dan, Kevin and David?

I fail to grasp the big deal of it all.

Those three, and now Kelly, are always going on about the value of truth. So I suppose there really isn’t any “big deal”, unless you also value truth.

I think Kevin is a good writer and a good thinker. I do not consider his work to be entirely crystal clear pools of thought. I do not consider Kierkegaard's or Nietzsche's work to be entirely crystal clear pools of thought. I do not consider the work of Jesus to be entirely crystal clear pools of thought.

I don't believe in crystal clear pools of thought. I don't believe in philosophical mentorship. I don't believe in philosophical leadership. I don't believe in philosophical prizes.

Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Jesus: all solitary figures, that where hated during their lifetimes, died without any worldly status, then used mercilessly by the mob, to create mind destroying religions and movements in their names. From this analysis, these guys aren’t very good adverts for getting into the philosophy business. Kelly must see something else in them that she finds inspiring.

I don't believe in following. I believe in making my own way, as I -- or anyone -- must. Of course, I -- anyone -- will be inspired by others but never to the degree that I will fall down and call someone else "Sage."

I agree whole heartedly - especially when most people’s opinions come from; their family, their neighbour, their culture, their religion, their husband or wife, the TV, or their daily newspaper.

Sue

[Leyla Shen]

Excerpt: Woman; and Exposition for the Advanced Mind - David Quinn

WOMAN is a cultural fiction to which all females are drawn, yet it is difficult to state exactly what it is. It appears intangible and out of this world, yet everybody knows its existence and feels its power. It fuses together into one seamless package the elements of purity, authority, otherworldliness, innocence, delicacy, erotica, playfulness, mystery, excitement, and power - and yet it transcends all these elements to form a vague yet potent something-or-other. Its effect is to transfix men and women alike, causing them to believe it the very heart and soul of life itself.
WOMAN is what humanity values most, for in it lie the greatest emotional happiness and comfort. It provides the irresistible illusion of purity and rock-like security. Above all, it promises, or seems to promise, refuge in which humans can attain what they believe to be the highest good - the freedom from all conscience. It is no wonder then that all human purpose, though it be multifarious in appearance, is constantly directed towards it...

Women, to the degree they conform to WOMAN, need not do anything at all. They are secure and passive. They need not think, struggle, strive, and despair after this profound psychological peace. But for men it is a matter of life or death! It is for this reason that the woman's mind is highly undeveloped compared with the man's. For no matter where she is or what she is doing in the world, a woman knows first and foremost that she is in fact - a woman. She lives and breathes in the knowledge that her prime asset in life lies precisely in her being this magical creature. Anything else is almost superfluous, a luxury, an added bonus to an otherwise perfect state of affairs.

I am a woman. Thanks to my mother, any drawing toward this universal egoid -- “Woman” -- was shattered for me fairly early on in life. “She” messed me up a bit. But, I personally feel no need to renounce my apparent biological attributes for the sake of some mass delusion -- whichever side of the fence it’s being fortified by.

I hope you fulfill your wish to become human, sue hindmarsh.

[sevens]

But Sue,

You have yet to fully decipher, yourself. Careful. What 'infinite' do you seek to reach with this understanding of a woman's smoke, amphedimine, and pearl? The unraveling of 'all false beliefs'? Truly, this is no infinite. You still long for recognition - and falsely mask it in humility.

You're over-simplifying the issue, and at the same time - not quite.

Unconsciousness is universal.

-

Woman and Men, both, are in love with their own reflection. Even those that would hate it - and all the more for it! Vice is what separates, Truth from illusion - not blaming your gender, in order to ascend to your own personal heights. Careful how you present your arguments, Sue. Learn your own mind, and you'll get a load of everyone - and everything.

And, why do women hate women?

Most - still trapped in bottles, and mirrors.

X that F word.

[sevens]

There have been female geniuses - female sages.

Funny how you never hear about em, yeah?

Look back to Greece.

Look to Japan.

India.

Look to Emily Dickinson.

[sue hindmarsh]

Dear Sevens,

Your words of encouragement and kindness are what I'd expect from a lovely woman such as yourself.

There have been female geniuses - female sages.

You are correct - all women are sages; and you must be one of their leading lights.


Sue

[sevens]

Sue,

Sorry.

Thought you could take it.

Maybe there in lies the root of your problem.

Kind enough?

- Dark Lord 'Sevens'

[sue hindmarsh]

Sevens,

Stop fluttering your eyelashes at me.

Sue

[sue hindmarsh]

Marsha wrote:

That is a fairy tale; delusional-- the idea that there is something more or less fulfilling than happiness. The very idea of "wanting" denotes romance and delusion.

To understand “more than happiness”, it may be useful to understand how happiness operates.

When we are happy, we have pushed away unhappiness for a short time. When we are sad, we are restless for happiness to return to us. It is the same for any emotion you can think of; pleasure and pain, excited and dull, love and hate.

The idea that this play of the emotions is not really necessary, comes out of a rational assessment of them. For example: Since happiness is the flipside of sadness, you can’t have one without the other. Moulded together, it is impossible to eradicate one without eradicating the other.

We live in a world that values happiness to the point of madness. We’re running amok all over the place, trying to procure and secure our happiness. And yet, no matter how hard we try, bad things keep happening to us, and our happiness disappears. Poof! We cry when someone dies, we fall ill when our loved one leaves us, we are crestfallen when our favourite TV program is taken off air, or we howl when our chosen candidate comes last at the polls. Racked by pain and suffering – but no! – here comes happiness toddling towards us in the shape of a new love, or a new car, or world peace, or a new drug that states “Take me and Happiness will be yours forever”. Up, up we go into its loving arms, but wait – here comes the postman with the electricity bill - bugger.

This ordinary emotional play is madness, and we often say to ourselves or to others, “there must be something better than this”. We go along, because we can’t begin to see how this rollercoaster ride can be stopped.

But what if you just stopped? What would happen, if you no longer allowed your emotions to rule you? Your mind would swell up a bubble of emotion and instead of trying to catch it, or burst it; you’d just let it drift away. Then another bubble and another…

What would happen then?

The emotions will of course scream and shout, kick and scratch; demanding your attention like a naughty child. Ignoring them, they settle down, and then go off and leave you alone.

Seeing their power defused, allows your mind to settle down to the business of discovering true happiness.

Sue

[kjones]

A few responses:

To say things do not have inherent attributes is an abuse of A=A. Without inherency how could one differentiate between one object and another?

Your argument basically means the absolute cause of all things is inherency. But if inherency is in all things, it cannot also be in itself. So inherency cannot be a sole cause, but only equivalent to Nature itself. What an excellent koan! What exactly could its meaning be?



Sue:

Yes, I did mean that feminine traits continue largely because those with just enough masculine qualities, ie. the imagination to see that change is required, are afraid of losing their security blanket, ie. feminine belief that one inherently deserves to be comfortable.

And, no, I'm not advising men-worship, just to use whatever improves one's understanding of Nature.

Incidentally, that I could never be a female sage is interesting. I rarely think of myself as female until some person treats me as a woman, in the same way that being called "ching-chong" reminds me I look Chinese. I can select how to appear.



Leyla:

You pounced on the essence of my Sexuality Vs Individuality article, by contrasting spiritual masochism with sexual masochism. I'm glad you've pointed it out, that attachment to an ideal is as delusional as sexual desire. There's an obvious difference between feeling incomplete and understanding that nothing is lacking. Yet the understanding often comes about through feeling incomplete, in order to remember it's a delusion.

How is it wise when the very wisdom you promote will be the undoing of itself?

By this, do you mean that wisdom will be destroyed with the elimination of sexuality? Or that promoting reason may cause a form of rationality to survive that virtually no one living today could recognise as human?

I personally feel no need to renounce my apparent biological attributes for the sake of some mass delusion -- whichever side of the fence it’s being fortified by.

Do you mean breasts, ovaries and so on, or feminine-mindedness?



Marsha:

A few things:

- Do you think that in a society that doesn't value philosophy, one should not take money to support one's existence as a philosopher? Do you think a philosopher who goes above people's heads to achieve one's philosophical goals, when it's obvious that people don't and can't understand those goals, is deceiving them?

- On giving up things, I asked merely to point out you could spend more time on philosphy and less at your job, if you had less bills. How do the things you can't give up, directly help you to achieve your philosophical goals?

- I have a hunch the psychologist who granted my pension made up the report diagnosis because he saw the worth of what I was doing. If so, who was he deceiving?

- Maybe I do over-credit Rhett, Kevin, David, Dan, Hakuin, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc. for my understanding. They're puppets of Nature. They are useful images in my mind to stimulate thought on how Reality is unchanging and already perfect.


-------

Kelly

[MKFaizi]

Please, let us not look at Emily Dickinson. We've been down that road and roads like it more times than I care to repeat.

Faizi

[sevens]

Your right.

(gives Sue a wink)

[Blair]

Sue, you were making a modicum of sense in your last post until this

Seeing their power defused, allows your mind to settle down to the business of discovering true happiness.

True happiness? Doesn't exist. You seem to be replacing one set of delusion for another.

[MKFaizi]

Sue,

I came home late so cannot enter into the full discussion but I did pick this one out:

Do you advise Kelly to, “be aware of her femininity” because you are concerned that Kevin, David and Dan may use her femininity against her? You know – build her up – then pull the rug from under her.

That sounds like a Leo Bartolli line of reasoning.

No, nothing of the sort ever entered my mind. Why would QSR do anything that stupid or meaningless or petty? No one ever pulled a rug out from under me. I have been hanging around here for eight years. In that time, I have pulled several rugs out from under myself and hit the floor rather hard.

No, what I meant is that one's own femininity is tricky and something to consider. No matter that she is a masculine woman, she is still biologically a woman and was raised as a woman. You cannot simply put on a masculine costume -- a philosophical costume -- and write like Kevin Solway and think that you've got it sussed. Deciding to go on the dole does not necessarily get rid of your femininity. Writing a truth paper does not get rid of your femininity.

Nothing gets rid of the femininity -- not just in a woman but in a man -- even in David Quinn or Kevin Solway or Dan Rowden or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard or the rest -- Jesus and so on. Weininger was very feminine.

Like a dyed carnation on a funeral pyre, the bitch is always there and she will follow you to the grave and beyond. The desire for something terrifyingly unusual reeks of the feminine -- a gaudy blue/purple carnation worn on the lapel of a corpse.

I think that it is important to explore and welcome one's masculinity as well as to not deny one's femininity. I think it is the particular plague of the masculine woman to over-compensate. It is also wise to be mindful of using one's masculinity as a sexual attraction.

Faizi

[sue hindmarsh]

Prince wrote:

Sue, you were making a modicum of sense in your last post …

Firstly, Prince – if you would - I’d be interested to read your thoughts on my last post, and how it made “a modicum of sense”.

Sue

[MKFaizi]

Sue,

I wrote to Marsha:

How does it affect you, Marsha, if Kelly is an enlightened sage? Will you be inspired, to push yourself even harder than before, now that there is proof that a female sage is a possibility?

Marsha wrote:
It does not effect me at all.

Does that mean your interest in the Genius Forum hasn’t anything to do with your wanting to develop as a thinker?

It means that whether or not Kelly is an enlightened sage has no effect on my own development as a thinker. Neither David Quinn nor Dan Rowden nor Kevin Solway nor Kelly Jones has any effect on my desire to develop as a thinker.

I am not interested in writing to Genius Forum merely because any one writer here is an enlightened sage.

I was initially attracted here when I accidently found the Minefield page eight years ago. I was interested in masculine thought.

It means that I will not swallow what I am told that I should swallow. It means that I will not discount what I have worked on for several years when Genius was very raw.

Your initial question was how I might be effected if Kelly is considered a sage. I will not be effected at all.

My interest in Genius is not to be led.

I won't be led.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

Is my desire to develop as a thinker contingent on accepting Kelly Jones as an enlightened sage?

Faizi

[kjones]

I won't be led.

And yet everything you do is led around by Nature. You don't do a thing by your own will.

How do you get a child to eat fresh fruit and vegetables, when it hates them? You can try reasoning, and suggestions, to lead the child to think about eating them. When someone has a particular barrier in their reasoning, then how do you get them to think about that blockage......?



Kelly