http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=berL-80EPmg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "maskedzebra" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > CURTIS: This exchange made it worth participating on FFL this month! Thanks. > > ROBIN: A wonderfully generous and fair and noble summing up. We are grateful > for this, Curtis. I entirely concur--and not under duress either. I envy your > brotherly love with Barry. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > CURTIS: That was a bit of a revelation and a cogent analysis of why we > > > can't get there from here between some posters. > > ROBIN: Indubitably. The self-objectivity of you and Barry in terms of > appraising your performance on FFL, it is something I strive for, Curtis. > Well, at least you don't have to worry about getting crucified for your > willingness to stand for the truth. Curtis: I am the way, the truth, and the > life. Except you come through me you cannot enter the kingdom of Curtis. I > wish I could enter that kingdom, Curtis. My conscience in this regard is my > enemy. > > > BARRY: Glad you enjoyed it. > > ROBIN: I enjoyed it too, Barry. But my response carries the universality of > my pleasure in it, not the inside fidelity of my friendship with you. "Glad > you enjoyed it"--why even have to say this out loud to each other, Barry? We > all know that you would be glad that Curtis enjoyed it. Stick with the secret > handshake. Don't give away the initiation ceremony with all the skulls. > > > > CURTIS: Since I know the hypothetical guy you were imagining... > > > it also explains why it can be fun to go point by point > > > to stimulate a different part of my brain. That was > > > largely what doing philosophy involved and I enjoy that > > > in a different way from creative writing. > > ROBIN: What a guy we have here who presents himself to us. Inside talk to > Barry: closed off to the rest of us. This quarantined talk between you and > Barry: it is a singular phenomenon on FFL: no one else acts as if their bond > was a Freemasonry; only you and Barry. This is decisive in its sentence of > failure. I don't know any posters on the other side--the hostile alliance > arrayed against you guys--who speak in a kind of intimate sphere of > seclusion. A wonder, this. You have stopped talking to reality; you are only > talking to yourselves. Hope this works when you come to the Big Event that > all of us face, Curtis. But then you are a True Believer. > > CLICK > > > BARRY: Professor Phillips points out that neither of these modes > > of brain functioning are superior, and in fact the real > > benefit is that we can switch between them, to train and > > develop different parts of the brain. In her words, > > "...cognition is shaped not just by what we read, but how > > we read it." Reading rigorously and analyzing the ideas > > presented and even the structure of the language and how > > the ideas are presented exercises one mode of functioning > > in our brains, and cultivates that mode. Reading just for > > the fun of it exercises another mode of functioning, and > > cultivates it. Both are necessary to see the world around > > us clearly, from a balanced point of view. > > ROBIN: You and Curtis: You guys didn't even have to read the theory: it is > already embodied in the performance of each of you. This is just > self-congratulations. You are reading a description of what your brains do > perfectly already. I like this. I am jealous of this. It is an achievement > which we can only lament because it is clear, from the tone of your > conversation with Curtis, that the rest of us have been left out. "Reading > rigorously and analyzing the ideas presented and even the structure of the > language and how the ideas are presented": this is an exercise that is > manifest in every one of your posts, Barry. "Both are necessary to see the > world around us clearly, from a balanced point of view". > > Oops! I get it. This is Monty Python. > > But since I can't quite bring myself to believe that, I am going to take you > and Curtis seriously from here until I get to the end. > > > > CURTIS: Drilling deeper into this thoery I can also see how being > > > attacked here stimulates a pseudo fear mechanism that > > > prompts and urgency of response. Combined with things > > > that a reader feels are inaccurate it creates a sturdy > > > chain to pull and get pulled by. That may be a case for > > > not posting in a place where a lot of that goes on. It > > > is hard to resist getting pulled into that cycle, > > > especially when not much more of that writing is going on. > > ROBIN: For your position to be true, Curtis, it requires that Raunchy's three > satirical pieces didn't make it. Are you prepared to lie through your teeth > and declare that it is your honest experience that Barry's assessment of the > efficacy of Raunchy's dialogues is in agreement with a truth beyond and > outside of your, my, Raunchy's, and Barry's POV? > > Your loyalty to your friend comes ahead of any regard for truth. And the > appalling and ludicrous implication of what you say here is: NO ONE BUT YOU > AND ME, BARRY, ARE WRITING WITH HONESTY, CLARITY, AND SINCERITY. EVERYONE > ELSE IS WRITING OUT OF FEAR AND DEFENSIVENESS AND INSECURITY. This is so > fatuous. You don't believe it for a second--BUT YOU WILL NOW FIGHT TO THE > DEATH TO MAINTAIN THE LIE YOU INSINUATE IS THE TRUTH HERE. This immunizing > yourselves from the critical judgment of anyone who would quarrel with > anything you write here on FFL--how maladaptive is this? This is an > anti-Darwinian principle you are living by, Curtis: survival of those most > willing to cheat their conscience. > > > > CURTIS: I used to think about some of the back and forth stuff > > > about Maharishi's philosophy here as more of the first > > > thing, the stimulation of the close attention part of my > > > brain. As it has drifted further and further from any > > > content, it has become less and less satisfying in that > > > regard, so I switch to the creative but negative angle > > > creating images of trollish scenes to keep me interested > > > in writing. > > ROBIN: Some of the posters here on FFL have attempted to take your measure, > Curtis--and they have written with conviction and honesty and force. You have > never once addressed them in a way which would convince any honest witness > that you were willing to contemplate the possible truth of what they said > such that you could demonstrate in your rebuttal that you had experienced why > and how these criticisms did not apply to you--COULD not apply to you. (Or > your expatriate buddy.) > > You must, to be honest to your past, remember our friendly and complexly > reasoned dialogues before we fell out with each other. There has been so much > going on here on FFL, Curtis, and when you make smug and indulgent > generalizations like you are making here you utterly betray the truth of > history, your own conscience, and the experience of every honest reader on > FFL. This is a disgrace. I never knew you could be so craven. I cannot > believe the experience inside you, inside Barry, which permits you this > license with the truth. If it served your amour propre, you would, in coming > back from the front in World War I, describe the fighting as a mere skirmish. > You have been wounded here on FFL, Curtis. And the matters at stake have been > serious indeed. > > > > CURTIS: This really gives me a lot to think about, thanks for > > > that Barry. I would like to become a bit more conscious > > > of my outcomes here and ultimately if being here is where > > > my real outcomes are likely to get met in becoming the > > > kind of writer I want to be. > > ROBIN: I don't know if FFL will serve "the real outcomes" you are seeking as > a writer, Curtis, but for sure you will get a dose of a form of reality which > challenges your cherished and FANATICALLY HELD assumptions about yourself, > about truth, and about reality. So being on FFL was all about improving your > writing, then? No, Curtis, you have been drawn into battle, and you have > fought for your goddamn life. You have not emerged triumphant. Live with it, > Curtis. > > > BARRY: Much more research is being done by this same team, > > including fMRI scans of readers to determine how the > > two different modes of reading affect such things as > > how they experience emotion arising from what they're > > reading. Will those emotions be stronger and affect > > the person more when reading for pleasure, or for > > analysis? > > ROBIN: Well, Barry, when it comes to disputation, argument, debate, your > brain is not getting ANY exercise or stimulation at all--but you know this. > Your heart is dead. Raunchy has hit you hard in three instances--and has > beautifully and incontestably succeeded, as eventually your silence will > tacitly give proof of. You never analyze the argument of your critic, Barry. > Once more: You never analyze the argument of your critic, Barry. Everything > anyone needs to know about Barry Wright is found in Raunchy's three > dialogues. Everything you need to know about yourself. What a terrible > sentence: never to know what that minimal state of internal grace is whereby > ONE KNOWS ONESELF AND HOW ONE APPEARS TO OTHERS. And Christ wept, Susan. > > > BARRY: But one of the valuable things learned even so far > > from this projects is that each of us has the ability > > to *change the way that our own brains work*. We can > > shift them from one mode of operation to another, > > just by the *intent* we bring to our reading. This > > is a discovery that I cannot help but relate to work > > on mindfulness meditation and fMRI, which has also > > shown that we can control which areas of our brains > > "light up" and are used or not used, depending on > > whether or not they are appropriate for the > > circumstances. > > ROBIN: This must be the most ironic paragraph ever on FFL (as uttered by the > author): "Each of us has the ability to *change the way that our own brains > work*." Not yours, Barry baby. PAY ATTENTION, BARRY. I am calling you on your > disgraceful trip here. Reality may have given up on you, Barry. Seems that > very well may be the case. There is no shift of modes with you, Barry; you > are one algorithm--I have not felt you experience the impact upon you of > anything written in response to anything you have written. You have made > yourself invulnerable to reality. When your brain "lights up", Barry, I'll > tell you. > > > > BARRY: On the literature side of the equation, these > > experiments may help us to understand the impact > > that great writing has on us. As Natalie Phillips > > says, "...give us a bigger, richer picture of how > > our minds engage with art or, in our case, of the > > complex experience we know as literary reading." > > ROBIN: You seem incapable of having a "complex experience we know as literary > reading", Barry: you are sealed up in your world, and this spectacle of you > posting--in polemical fashion--is one of the most extraordinary experiences > of my life: because you are so unwilling (I suppose unable) to receive into > yourself the tremendous intention of reality to break into you and knock some > sense into you. Too many honest and sincere critics coming at you, Barry. You > judge your critics and make an even more severe judgment fall upon your head. > Raunchy has spoken the last word with her third dialogue, Barry Baby. >
