The second sentence is very true & honest. (b) "I presume anything I might say would be superfluous. You get involved here & there and of course you feel it & you say, very naturally, "What the hell!!" But here are cases where you try to go further as in (a) above & investigate my technique: Your whole letter, as I said, is really excellent. In rare cases it might! But, oh boy, what a mess - what a fight! However there are quite a number of people who do habitually act this way in a mild degree Groucho Marx, Alexander King, Alexander Woollcott, - in fact most intellectuals, especially those just emerged from the egg - & even you with your "dialectical attack" & "analytical affront" on the fairer & pleasanter sex. But, physician heal thyself!! It might not work. (not "Alfred Pulyan" but "awakened person"!) and have an orgy of destruction, name-calling, epithet-inventing, & so forth, while looking hopefully to CURING his dupes. Hence the "analysis" like (a) above (knocking down all statements).īut IF WHAT YOU SAY WERE TRUE then any Tom, Dick or Harry - & in particular the "Dick" that is you, could set up in business as an A.P. knows that one too," but IN DETAIL you are (probably of necessity, my poor friend!!) forced to act against your own words because you are so trying to watch the process of your own deliverance! You make the widest (& truest!!) generalization: "The M. And you "thank me for my efforts." And you say that prior to my last letter you "made statements" & my treatment consisted in saying "you are full of bologna." (a) I am the doctor and have cured cases before. You have this disease & I see you have it. We have given a name to our problem - egocentricity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |