--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Geeez, this is so so funny. Â I am laughing so hard. Â Off to the beach - > I'll look for a job in September. Â > > > ________________________________ > From: Robin Carlsen <maskedzebra@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:58 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dear Diary > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > Iranitea1: Barry, excellent writing! Good parody, and spot on, it gave me the > first laugh of the day... > > Robin1: And tell Buck too, iranitea, since you have made explicit your > sympathy and support him in all that he is doing, that he should not be > discouraged in his laudable moral crusade here on FFL. > > Your "first laugh of the day"? M-m-m: for me, laughter is an opinion-free > zone. You should have had some laughs before this, iranitea. If you become > pre-selective in your laughter (which jokes are said by the right person with > the right party affiliation) I assure you, your soul will start to rust. > > This response to Barry was first-aid, comfort, compensation. It lacked the > confidence of a response driven by pure appreciation. > > And therefore it is an insult to the writer. > > Iranitea2: Nope. It was totally genuine, innocent. You are just constructing > all this. Btw. > I live in a different time zone, and my laugh was in the morning, when I > checked > it on my phone. I laugh also about you, but you said I shouldn't pick fights > with you. And, you demonstrate once more, that you don't really know me at > all, > your psychic powers are just bluff. > > Robin2: I ain't got none of dem dere "psychic powers"â"me stay away from all > dat. > > On the other hand I talk to the Personal God about how to tune into his > omnisubjectivityâ"and you won't believe this, iranitea, but when I consulted > him about this attribute, he said:" STFU, Robin! There ain't no first-person > ontologyâ"*I, myself*, have trying to get enlightenedâ"I want that > Impersonal God in me to manifest. So I don't have to be eternal and the > source of everyone's existence from the point of view of a Subjectivity which > is the enemy of the Unified Fieldâ"although I did plant some nice roses > thereâ"No one noticed them, however; they just kinda saw a creative > nothingness." > > I saidâ"you still there, iranitea?â"to God (now somewhat nonplussed by the > fact that even *he* is following the gods of Fairfieldâ"I am sure it was > Share who seduced him away from being just the Holy Trinityâ"it was so much > simpler then): "I am sorry to hear this, Big Guy: Here I was defending you > and you are joining the enemy camp". > > I then continued (making sure he couldn't speak before I got my next question > out): "What about iranitea's latest post to me? Is he right that I never look > seriously at all the metaphysical systems that I seem to represent, that I > don't understand what I read, that I need to pontificate, that I want to be > the centre of attention all the time?" > > And God looked at me very severely (lots of darshan coming at me) and > declared: "He's dead right, Robbie Boy. And I ain't going to say another word > to youâ"because you will turn it into one of your 'extraordinary > experiences' [SL]â"You know: you talked to the Personal God and all that, > and you are going to make a big deal of this at FFL. I just tell you, Robin, > once again: You are headed for a greater fall than even when you found out > you didn't like Unity Consciousness. Get it, Rob Baby? Now you apologize to > iranitea, and I'll see you in the Dome." > > Robin to God: "In the DOME? WTF, God? Oh, I see, you mean that > metaphorically. OK, then. I will endeavour in the rest of this post to do > what I can to win over iranitea and at the same time begin to be coherent, > sincere, and consistent in all that I do and say and write from here on in. > Thanks for the counselling session, Godâ"It's just that I thought that > omnisubjectivity, that that was something you were really into. Well, I guess > I don't know anything about this first-person ontological stuff after all. > F***me: I guess iranitea was right about *that* too. OK, then. By the way, > Sir: good luck with the Atman trip." > > There was a silence, and then I couldn't help but blurt out: "What if you > don't like it, God? Will you be willing to return to your First Person > Ontology?" > > God to Robin: "Look, Robbie Bobbie: I have read your goddamn posts at FFLâ"I > am not going to get sucked into your game, OK?" > > And that was it. I pretended to leave God's presenceâ"and He acted as if he > was not still infinitely intimate to me as the level of my existenceâ"He > being his own existence. > > Back to your post, iranitea: > > Robin1: Your only concern was Barry's self-esteem. Methinks the lady doth > protest too > much. > > This isn't the Special Olympics, iranitea. Watch it. We are all big boysâ"and > Barry can look after himself just fine without your mealy-mouthed > blandishments. > > If your real experience of Barry's post had resembled what you say here, you > would have joined in, and made us feel your participation in the reality he > created by his post. > > Come into my sandbox, iranitea, I have a big dump-truck you can play with. > > You are going to get back to me, right? > > Iranitea2: Nope, you are not making any sense. > > Robin2: I get it now, iranitea. Nope, I'm not. > > Iranitea2: I tell you what I really like about Barry, do you want to know? He > doesn't have > a need to be liked or adored by anyone. He doesn't try to pull you to his > side. > He does his thing, and that's it. > > Robin2: A most ridiculous justification and rationalization for your party > affiliation. Barry feels nothing for you but gratitude that you are a goddamn > Marxistâ"if you get what I mean. Is this the criterion you used for love > too? She "just does her thing". Romantic, that. What takes the place of > intimacy, then? Have any friends who don't exhibit this virtue that > characterizes Barry? I like those stepsisters of Cinderella tooâ"They were > never sentimental with herâ"not like her fairy godmother. And they made her > realize the value of hard work. I think I am getting it now, iranitea. Your > defence of Barry here in a psychological absurdity. > > On the other hand, God probably agrees with you, so I reserve final judgment > here. Yeah, I think this is a beautiful quality in Barryâ"and I just began > to love him for it. > > Thanks, iranitea. (Robin only motivated to avoid the wrath of god,) > > Iranitea2: You are somewhere in your own constructed metaphysical > smorgasbord, you are all about words and words and words, you are trying to > pull, manipulate, partonize, > living in your fantasy world, where your metaphysical system changes on the > fly, > according to your spiritual moods. > > Robin2: How about now? I am confused, OK? I am striking out like a blind man. > Just improvising out of my memory of being in Unity. If you could advise me > which "metaphysical system" I should stick with, and just be an obedient > exponent of that system, I would like that. Please select one of these dishes > from the "metaphysical smorgasbord". And those "spiritual moods"â"something > chameleon there. Have a prescription for that by any chance? It's hard > controlling, battening down those moods, iranitea. Like what mood am I in > right now? Not sure, but at least I have had my comeuppance from the > *necessary* being, who "contains the reason for His own existence", "whose > existence is logically impossible"â"not, then, iranitea, contingent, like > you and me. > > His vibe, let me tell you, Maharishi had nothing on him. It was a very big > deal to get a dressing down from Him! And I'll never forget it, iranitea. > More than this: *he actually took your side*. I wasn't expecting *that*. > Meanwhile I am turned towards a fresh form of self-rehabilitationâ"mainly > because of this post of yours, iraniteaâ"I felt immediately after reading it > how you had attempted to take the measure of me based upon all of my > postsâ"not just those where I controverted with you and your friends. And I > think that was important: that your assessment contained in its articulation > the entirety of my output on FFL. That, by the way, is the right approach to > doing something like you attempted here, iranitea. Look for the strongest > point in your opponent's position and then get inspired by the tension > created by engagement with that most challenging aspect of his or her point > of view. > > I wonder what happened. I was doing so well thereâ"at least I thought I > was.â"I mean until you and God took me to the proverbial woodshed. > > Iranitea1: You are never able to look into this seriously. Why this constant > need to be in > the center of everything? Why this constant need to pontificate your absurd > theories you picked up in some book, not even understanding what they say. > (You > are using 1st person ontology in a completely wrong way) > > Robin2: Look, I don't care what God has told me, iranitea; I am dying to > understand the meaning of my "not even understanding what they [the books I > have read] say"â""You are using 1st person ontology in a completely wrong > way"â"Now THAT gets my attention, iranitea. That would be like telling Missy > Franklin she actually comes off as a regular sourpuss. Deliver me from my > ignorance, iraniteaâ"I sure have studied this issue of first-person > ontologyâ"and from the guy who's best at talking about it: David Chalmers. > And then doing a lot of field work! It's the only thing I feel I am as > knowledgeable about as anyoneâ"certainly anyone here at FFL. But you must > understand, iranitea, I look at it from an empirical *and* a theoretical > perspective. I know what first-personl ontology is. You don't. > > Ok, Ok, Ok, God! [He just jolted me, iranitea]. Nah, I intuitively recognize > you are right in this judgment of me, iranitea. I humbly ask you to educate > me in this area of philosophy and theology and psychology. I don't know > nothing. God [Hi], it feels good to unburden myself like this before you, > iranitea. > > Iranitea2: Emptybill is totally spot on, you are playing on the stage again, > can't let go > of this. And what do you care about how I relate to Buck or Barry? I know > exactly how I relate to them, and so do they. > > Robin2: I sense nothing real, deep, or believable in your friendship with > Barry. He could care a less about you. He likes Curtis and Marek on the other > hand; but you, you are just a tool for him. Ask him. With Curtis it is > something realâ"the only person I have ever sensed that Barry is moved > byâ"but poor Curtis isn't interested in making Barry wise-up. And I should > shut up about Curtisâ"still the guy who provided me with the most fun and > satisfaction and exhilaration posting on FFL. > > I don't know about Buck, but I hope you saved him from that last video I > posted in response to the one Barry posted (sent to him by his friendâ"I > have a hunch I might know who that might beâ"but I will resist the > temptation to give a shout-out here). > > Iranitea1: Robin, do what you want, but don't have any illusions about some > people here, > that you could somehow suck them into your game. > > Robin2: You know, by the time I get here in answering your post, I figure > *God was wrong about you, iranitea*. For what you say here to be true must > mean that you have exercised a power of discrimination and judgment superior > to those persons who have been unable to remain objective about meâ"this > would include (along with yourself) Barry, Vaj, Emptybill, and maybe a few > others. But what you say here is a kind of atrocity, since I have no interest > in trying to "suck" anyone "into [my] game". Nope. That's where you give > yourself away, iranitea: I am a sincere, conscientious, honest personâ"and I > have remained true to my integrity in every post on FFL. Trying to suck > persons into my gameâ"Is that what I did when I wrote to Emily, iranitea. > You are a liar if you say so. I felt a deep caring and respect for her, and I > expressed this in two posts. Was I trying to "suck her into my game"?
Yes, also, but it doesn't mean you couldn't be caring as well. Unlike you, I am not commenting on your relationship with others. > > No, I have to play with guys like you, No you don't. > because you have fixed and inflexible agendas, In your eyes that is. I haven't known anything about you until last December. When I first saw people referring to you as Robin, I didn't know you where Robin Carlson. And I didn't know who that was, and what he did. My first reaction to you was then through the posts I read, and it is the same I am having now. So I guess that couldn't be called agenda. > and are unable to manoeuvre yourself sufficiently in the act of debate such > to adjudicate, moment to moment, your own performance. If I would want to learn from you about debate, I would ask you. Since I don't ask you, I am not interested to learn from you about debate. > Maharishi taught me many things; but one thing that stands out in my memory > of him: He never set himself up to look stupidâ"he was keen on staying deep > enough in every second so that none of the irony of life could turn him into > a victim. I observed this, and made a vow I would do the same. But that didn't really help you. Your tactics towards me and others here whom you regard as enimies is always the same, it is always the same style of seeming and played self irony, but then towards the end you are the same stern and judgemental partonizing. While it may be amusing, it just doesn't bring anything. You are just in love with your own talk. You are too much just about yourself. I me mine. > Sorry, God.
