Dear Feste, I realize this issue has been discussed in greater detail since you wrote this; however I would just like to give you my impressions as they formed inside of me when first reading your post.
We have to think of James Holmes, himself: If there is a conscience there, if he is capable of remorse, if he is not insane, then what is significant is the experience he has of himself and the act he performed *now*. What did he anticipate would be his sensation and experience once he killed all those human beings? How did he *actually* feel during the act and immediately afterwards? These are important questions. Questions, then, to ask him. How does he view himself now that he has become a mass murderer? Is he only thinking of *how can I get out of this with my life*? To what extent does he now think that, above all: "I must create some ambiguity about myself, how sane I am, what I am all about"? because, Feste, if there is anything vulnerable or real inside of him as a human being, the most important consideration has to be: Can this human being realize the enormity of what he has done? can he experience some revulsion and horror inside himself which even in some minimal way is proportionate to what he has done? What kind of approach to him would permit him the maximum objective experience of himself in the realization of the unspeakable suffering he has inflicted on so many other human beings who did nothing to deserve their terrible fate at his hands? Although I recognize that Share can in some sense make her 'unconditional love' the primary focus of her attention, that is not something I can do. Not at this stage of the story at least. As you say, "Only God can love unconditionally". For me, the substance of this ideal"Forgive James Holmes but lock him up"must have something more than mere intention behind it. It must be a biochemical reality inside the person who aspires to these feelings for James Holmes; which is to say, that this "unconditional love" must be an element in the equation which can rise in some sense to the level of intrinsic significance of the trauma and shock and agony of those who have been directly affected by this event. If Share's unconditional love, as measured and experienced in juxtaposition to the other feelings engendered in this tragedy: anger, horror, shock, grief, trauma, pain,*makes itself felt inside the universe*, even inside the subconscious of some of us, then perhaps that indeed is a very profound thing. But we don't *ask* the victims (those who lived, and the loved ones of those who died) to experience agony and sorrowthe event produces these feelings. So, if God deems unconditional love a worthy, even a desirable feeling to be expressedby someone like Share at least,then we should be able to sense its potential potency and relevance to this situation. I do believe, Festeunlike you or methat Share, were she to be alone with James Holmes, just might cause him some form of compunction and contrition simply by his realizing that someone is responding to him in a way which entirely goes against everything he would expect, and that therefore this has the effect of shocking him into some more innocent awareness of just what he has done. But for this to happen *he would have to experience how real this feeling is that is being directed at him by the heart of Share*. Feste:Very nice piece of writing, Robin. I share your deep reservations about Share's apparent intention/instruction to love this man James Holmes unconditionally, as well as her earlier comment that she forgives him. For a start, I don't see how you can love unconditionally someone you have never met. It is something that is too easy to say, and it sounds glib. I would have more respect for it if it came from someone who has been directly affected by this man's rampage. Otherwise, it is meaningless, just a piece of New Age fakery. Only God can love unconditionally. If I think about this individual, this James Holmes, I feel more as you do. I am puzzled. I cannot comprehend what is in this man's mind. There is a great divide that I cannot cross over in trying to understand why someone would do this. It is unfathomable. My attitude is: first must come understanding, then perhaps, at a later time, forgiveness and love. Perhaps. Or perhaps never, who knows? I would sooner be honest about it than hide behind idealistic platitudes that have no real meaning. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > Dear Share, > > While you are negotiating a modus vivendi with other posters here at FFL I feel that the intimacy of what we are enjoying in our extended conversation will somehow be compromised if I should return to that post right away. So I am leaving it until you ask me to answer you as "Robin6". :-) > > I think what everyone senses on FFL, Share, is that you are unwilling to contradict your philosophy by finding yourself dealing out the hard stuff with those who would attempt, perhaps unknowingly, to provoke you (with their condescension, their assumption of your naivete, their belief that they can make themselves sympathetic to you�and I should say, right away: you are forcing them to be nicer�nicer than they are wont to be). It is quite the show watching you manoeuvre your way through all the difficult passes�but somewhat miraculously you always emerge with your positivity and your love intact. That takes something pretty real inside you to do that. It's hard even faking it (The: I will always be positive and uplifting); but to actually do it *with your very being*, well that might be a first around here. > > I had assumed that at various points even in our own discussion you would go unconscious to the challenge of what I said; but without stepping outside of your philosophy you have maintained the same tone of lovingness, playfulness, and generosity throughout. I think that some posters (me included) figured you would sell out at some point; which means that you would, while *thinking* you were being faithful to your philosophy, in fact traduce it and become a victim of your more primitive and ungovernable feelings. No, not with Share Long. She keeps it going. :-) > > So, while I might have wished for a more hard-hitting and intellectually robust exchange with you, what I have been given instead, seems to me, after thinking about it for awhile, something perhaps even better: a human being while being intelligent and sweetly ironic who nevertheless will only speak (write) what seems to be consistent with attempting to give out the good vibration. Many attempt this; many are convinced they are succeeding in this; but I just have never found anyone who can keep it up through the exigent demands when the ante of truth gets raised. You are making it, Share; so I think to myself: Hey, Robin, baby: this is quite the phenomenon you are a witness to: a human being navigating through these shark-invested waters of FFL, where much blood has flowed, where there has been much gnashing of teeth, and much wounding of smaller selves. > > As I say, Share: it is one thing to aspire to never be negative. But it is quite another thing to stay in the game and hold your own and answer to all the tensions (and Marek's sense of the violence), all the while making your lovingness of intention the standard by which and the context within which you choose to perform. I am a believer. I could never achieve a sense of metaphysical coherence inside such an eclectic and ad hoc form of spirituality as you obviously hold together in your subjective sense of yourself�and even in your moment-to-moment reading off of reality; but no matter: you continue to survive as you scale some pretty steep cliffs, even making me see that your philosophy somehow saves you�for there is enough content to match the will to be loving. Something I doubt I have ever witnessed. Everyone who decides: Ah, this is the truth! I shall live and act by this truth and only this truth�life always subverts this truth and then they have to retreat into a defensiveness and fantasy and self-righteousness which enables them to survive subjectively, but meanwhile they are being hopelessly defeated by reality. Not so with yourself. You are making it so far, and the challenges you have decided to go up against, well, I would have thought they would conquer your philosophy�*in this sense*: you would have had to fudge on the philosophy, fudge on the love, or lose contact with yourself and reality. Not so. I believe you. > > Will you continue to rise to the occasion? Well, it seems so if I am to judge by the adversity you have already faced. I don't adhere to your philosophy, Share�nor even the determination to always be loving [for instance your advocacy of unconditionally loving James Holmes, the mass murderer: I can't do this, because for me there is always the question: Who is this guy? How disturbed is he? How sincere is he? How much evil might there actually be inside there? And I interrogate myself, Share, with these questions�Whereas you, without examining the particulars of this human being, implore us to love him], I nevertheless recognize that some kind of grace is supporting you in how you live out your philosophy�which can only mean one thing to me: It is considered, this philosophy, to be *for you*�(by reality)�existentially legitimate. > > Whereas in my case such a philosophy could never be real�*for me*. Which just goes to prove the metaphysic of postmodernism: Reality is not so much interested in the content of the truth you believe in; what reality wants to see is whether you can make that truth *live* for you, so it is a creative force of intelligence and meaning in the world. Share's philosophy *as understood and exemplified in herself* works. And I honour you for this. > > Now if you want "Robin6" to get back in there, explain how it will make the world better for me to do this. :-) > > Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > > > Very nice piece of writing, Robin. I share your deep reservations about > Share's apparent intention/instruction to love this man James Holmes > unconditionally, as well as her earlier comment that she forgives him. For a > start, I don't see how you can love unconditionally someone you have never > met. It is something that is too easy to say, and it sounds glib. I would > have more respect for it if it came from someone who has been directly > affected by this man's rampage. Otherwise, it is meaningless, just a piece of > New Age fakery. Only God can love unconditionally. If I think about this > individual, this James Holmes, I feel more as you do. I am puzzled. I cannot > comprehend what is in this man's mind. There is a great divide that I cannot > cross over in trying to understand why someone would do this. It is > unfathomable. My attitude is: first must come understanding, then perhaps, at > a later time, forgiveness and love. Perhaps. Or perhaps never, who knows? I > would sooner be honest about it than hide behind idealistic platitudes that > have no real meaning. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > Dear Share, > > > > While you are negotiating a modus vivendi with other posters here at FFL I > > feel that the intimacy of what we are enjoying in our extended conversation > > will somehow be compromised if I should return to that post right away. So > > I am leaving it until you ask me to answer you as "Robin6". :-) > > > > I think what everyone senses on FFL, Share, is that you are unwilling to > > contradict your philosophy by finding yourself dealing out the hard stuff > > with those who would attempt, perhaps unknowingly, to provoke you (with > > their condescension, their assumption of your naivete, their belief that > > they can make themselves sympathetic to you�and I should say, right away: > > you are forcing them to be nicer�nicer than they are wont to be). It is > > quite the show watching you manoeuvre your way through all the difficult > > passes�but somewhat miraculously you always emerge with your positivity > > and your love intact. That takes something pretty real inside you to do > > that. It's hard even faking it (The: I will always be positive and > > uplifting); but to actually do it *with your very being*, well that might > > be a first around here. > > > > I had assumed that at various points even in our own discussion you would > > go unconscious to the challenge of what I said; but without stepping > > outside of your philosophy you have maintained the same tone of lovingness, > > playfulness, and generosity throughout. I think that some posters (me > > included) figured you would sell out at some point; which means that you > > would, while *thinking* you were being faithful to your philosophy, in fact > > traduce it and become a victim of your more primitive and ungovernable > > feelings. No, not with Share Long. She keeps it going. :-) > > > > So, while I might have wished for a more hard-hitting and intellectually > > robust exchange with you, what I have been given instead, seems to me, > > after thinking about it for awhile, something perhaps even better: a human > > being while being intelligent and sweetly ironic who nevertheless will only > > speak (write) what seems to be consistent with attempting to give out the > > good vibration. Many attempt this; many are convinced they are succeeding > > in this; but I just have never found anyone who can keep it up through the > > exigent demands when the ante of truth gets raised. You are making it, > > Share; so I think to myself: Hey, Robin, baby: this is quite the phenomenon > > you are a witness to: a human being navigating through these shark-invested > > waters of FFL, where much blood has flowed, where there has been much > > gnashing of teeth, and much wounding of smaller selves. > > > > As I say, Share: it is one thing to aspire to never be negative. But it is > > quite another thing to stay in the game and hold your own and answer to all > > the tensions (and Marek's sense of the violence), all the while making your > > lovingness of intention the standard by which and the context within which > > you choose to perform. I am a believer. I could never achieve a sense of > > metaphysical coherence inside such an eclectic and ad hoc form of > > spirituality as you obviously hold together in your subjective sense of > > yourself�and even in your moment-to-moment reading off of reality; but no > > matter: you continue to survive as you scale some pretty steep cliffs, even > > making me see that your philosophy somehow saves you�for there is enough > > content to match the will to be loving. Something I doubt I have ever > > witnessed. Everyone who decides: Ah, this is the truth! I shall live and > > act by this truth and only this truth�life always subverts this truth and > > then they have to retreat into a defensiveness and fantasy and > > self-righteousness which enables them to survive subjectively, but > > meanwhile they are being hopelessly defeated by reality. Not so with > > yourself. You are making it so far, and the challenges you have decided to > > go up against, well, I would have thought they would conquer your > > philosophy�*in this sense*: you would have had to fudge on the > > philosophy, fudge on the love, or lose contact with yourself and reality. > > Not so. I believe you. > > > > Will you continue to rise to the occasion? Well, it seems so if I am to > > judge by the adversity you have already faced. I don't adhere to your > > philosophy, Share�nor even the determination to always be loving [for > > instance your advocacy of unconditionally loving James Holmes, the mass > > murderer: I can't do this, because for me there is always the question: Who > > is this guy? How disturbed is he? How sincere is he? How much evil might > > there actually be inside there? And I interrogate myself, Share, with these > > questions�Whereas you, without examining the particulars of this human > > being, implore us to love him], I nevertheless recognize that some kind of > > grace is supporting you in how you live out your philosophy�which can > > only mean one thing to me: It is considered, this philosophy, to be *for > > you*�(by reality)�existentially legitimate. > > > > Whereas in my case such a philosophy could never be real�*for me*. Which > > just goes to prove the metaphysic of postmodernism: Reality is not so much > > interested in the content of the truth you believe in; what reality wants > > to see is whether you can make that truth *live* for you, so it is a > > creative force of intelligence and meaning in the world. Share's philosophy > > *as understood and exemplified in herself* works. And I honour you for this. > > > > Now if you want "Robin6" to get back in there, explain how it will make the > > world better for me to do this. :-) > > > > Robin
