The elephant in the room with Barry, and Barry alone, is his time with Freddy Lenz. It colors his approach to life to a far greater degree than TM or Maharishi did. TM and Maharishi and TB's and The Supposed Enlightened, and all of the other labels he hands out so freely on FFL, are just a screen for him to hide behind while trying out all of his Freddy Lenz leftovers.
Its pretty hard to act normal with an elephant in the room, and pretending that there isn't. I couldn't do it, and apparently Barry can't either. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > I take this criticism of a portion my post as valid and > > > > stand corrected. I suppose I have trouble dealing with > > > > the level of detail you always manage to eek out of > > > > material, > > > > > > By "level of detail," you mean the list I made of the > > > accusations in Barry's post? What *did* you deal with > > > in that paragraph from his post when you read it, such > > > that you didn't think it warranted any comment when you > > > expressed your lack of comprehension of my response? > > > > No. I was referring to your manner of precisely expressing > > the way words are used, trying to quote exactly what someone > > said and that sort of thing. Detailed and pointed responses > > of that sort. > > And how exactly did your difficulty dealing with this > result in your failure to quote what I was responding > to? > > > > Did it not occur to you, when you quoted my post, that > > > I *was* responding to something? Did you think it just > > > emerged from a vacuum? > > > > Indeed you were responding to something, but that was not > > my point in quoting you. > > How can you evaluate what I wrote without the context > in which I wrote it? > > > Whatever that argument was, was not what I was responding to. > > You didn't have to respond to the argument, merely take > into account the nature of what I was commenting on. > > > I was responding to the idea Vaj brought up about interfaces > > via which we interact with the world around us, and quoting > > you was, in my mind, an illustration of this. You said: > > > > >Lovely wishful thinking, Barry. You're projecting your > > >own terror that your fellow TM critic may be exposed as > > >a liar regarding his qualifications as a critic. And > > >you're also projecting your own terror at the idea that > > >I'm not the TB you keep trying to portray me as. > > > > Here you say, 'Barry. You're projecting your own terror > > that your...' and in the paragraph below you are saying > > 'Neither Barry nor I was projecting.' You cannot have it > > both ways unless you can convince people that there is a > > rule that says contradictions are true. > > If you wanted to be straightforward, you could just > have left off everything after "ways" above. > > I'll get to the "contradiction" in a moment. > > First allow me to quote again what Barry had said > about me: > > > > W.r.t Vaj, the fact that you are still so terrified of > > > saying something that isn't in the approved catechism of > > > TM dogma *does not mean* that Vaj should be or has to be > > > similarly terrified. He has learned something you have not, > > > the ability to think for himself. You suggesting that this > > > is a sin merely reveals how strongly you believe that > > > thinking for yourself IS a sin. > > You didn't admit to any difficulty in grasping how > Barry interprets what I say to mean that: > > > > --I am terrified of saying something that isn't in > > > the approved catechism of TM dogma > > > --I think this means Vaj should be similarly terrified > > > --I have not learned to think for myself > > > --I suggested that Vaj having learned to think for > > > himself was a sin > > > --I believe that thinking for oneself is a sin > > > Perhaps you were just being dramatic, but I could not > > see that Barry was showing any evidence any kind of terror > > in all my time on this forum. > > Barry takes great care to present himself as invulnerable > (as Robin has pointed out at length). Is it your > experience that people who are genuinely invulnerable > have a tendency to make up nasty stuff about people they > don't like? > > > Thus I used your quotation as an example of projection of > > one's own ideas (your ideas in this case) onto a situation > > to make sense of them. An interface by which one interprets > > and interacts with the world. It is pretty hard to experience > > terror on a forum like this from my point of view. > > I don't even know what "experience terror on a forum like > this" could even mean. One could certainly experience > terror *as a result of what takes place* on a forum like > this, however, if that's what you mean. Presumably the > experience of terror itself occurs wherever one happens > to be when one is viewing or thinking about the forum. > > > The point I was attempting to make was that saying something > > like 'X is projecting Y because Z' is what I would call > > mapping one's own interpretation onto what X said as an > > explanation of what was in X's mind, when one does not know > > really what the internal state of mind of X really is, since > > it is private, known only to X. At least I cannot do this. I > > cannot read minds, I can only experience my own. > > You often draw inferences about people from what they > write. You tend to phrase them delicately, as in: > > > I you are a mind reader and can directly access others' > > unexpressed thoughts, let me know and we can set up an > > experimental test of this ability. > > (You could have left this out too if you were into being > straightforward.) > > I'll just point out that you don't seem to have made > any such mind-reading inferences concerning what Barry > said about me. > > I'll also note that "mind-reading" is a loaded term > for what we all do all the time; we couldn't function > among other people if we didn't. > > (And BTW, it's not just what Barry says about me. He's > particularly vicious where I'm concerned, but he has a > long-standing habit of indulging in what you're calling > "mind-reading" regarding people he doesn't like or > disagrees with, especially his critics.) > > > I quoted Barry because he seems to groove on ordinary people. > > I was attempting to use that as an example of his interface > > with the world, what he projects on this forum sometimes. To > > make a characterisation of this, to project my own thoughts > > on this, I would say Barry has an anti-specialness interface. > > At least in regard to some of his posts. > > I'm sure he'll be pleased with this characterization. > Those who have read his posts on a regular basis for > many years might find it hilarious, however. They > might point out that Barry's "anti-specialness interface" > has a strong tendency to be applied only to people other > than himself and his friends. Look at the quote from his > post again just for one example: Vaj is "special" because, > purportedly in contrast to me, he thinks for himself. > > Barry's posts are all about his own and his friends' > specialness compared to the unspecialness of those he > doesn't like or disagrees with. > > > My quoting him and you had nothing to do with your issues > > with Barry. It was for illustrative purposes only. If you > > have the desire to bring in these other entanglements, > > they are not relevant to what I was trying to say in that > > post. That is another issue. > > They are relevant to how you handled the issue you were > dealing with. > > > > While I'm at it, allow me to clue you in on something. > > > Neither Barry nor I was projecting. Barry was doing his > > > usual demonization routine, and I did the same thing > > > right back at him, tit for tat. That's all there was > > > to it. > > > > As you did say Barry was projecting and then said here he > > was not, this does not clue me into anything, since according > > to the rules I tend to follow, contradictions are not true, > > so the above paragraph by you is not all there is to it. But > > pursuing this particular train of thought will serve no > > purpose. > > Maybe this will clarify things for you: If Barry gets > to make up nasty stuff about me, I get to make up nasty > stuff about him. Same with the others he makes up nasty > stuff about. > > To criticize those who respond to his made-up nasty > stuff about them with their own made-up nasty stuff > about him without also criticizing him strikes me as > something of a double standard. > > > We seem to be using the term projecting in a different sense. > > Yes. I'm using it in the psychological sense, as defined > here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection > > > Everything on this forum that discusses anything therefore, > > in my view, is an example of projection of some sort, > > including what I write. So I seem to be using the term in a > > much more general sense than you are. > > Indeed you are. So general, in fact, that it seems to me > to add nothing to the discussions. Vaj's original point > about one's "user interface" being projected onto "other > neural interfaces," leading folks to think they're > perceiving other beings, was a good one (if not terribly > coherent semantically). It *explained* something that > would otherwise be puzzling. Simply saying that all our > interactions with each other are projections of our user > interfaces doesn't tell us anything interesting. > > <snip> > > > Just how serious do you take your interactions with Barry? > > You get very intense at times, and I am not sure how much > > of a sense of humour you have about the whole thing. > > More than you suspect. I just don't use it as a disguise > or an excuse the way Barry does. >
