Dear Lord Nose - please don't answer this, don't even read it. Especially if you believe in the dignity, freedom, independence of all idiots like you to be free from being so brazenly, cruelly, ruthlessly assaulted by the complexities, subtleties brought forth by this brilliant, insightful analysis of Robin. My dear Aunt Share, you, Bill, Curtis are right - Robin is a sick, twisted individual, all he needs is a complete healing. Let us instead organize a grand yagna composed of all healers, light workers, saints and holy men of integrity and wisdom - I will be glad to contribute $1008 for this worthy, noble endeavor.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Robin Carlsen <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > > > > > --- In [email protected], "lordknows888" <lordknows888@...> > wrote: > > > Robin, > > LORD KNOWS: I made in my post one simple solitary point, which was that > Ann found the book "Cult" essentially truthful in its portrayal of you and > the cult experience when she read it a few years ago. > > ROBIN: We will hear from AWB soon enough, Lord Knows. Ann was once deemed > an "evil being"--more than a few years ago. Ann was determined not to > succumb to what she felt were my false blandishments and proffers of sorrow > for those Ten Years. It is possible that within the subjective experience > of herself at the time she read the book, she pronounced the book truthful. > If she reads the book now, she may recognize the truth of her original > experience of the book--and thus not contradict herself; and yet she may > realize, given the maturation (existentially) that has taken place in her > since then, that the book leaves something to be desired. If the book were > true--as you insist it is, Lord Knows--why did you not use the book to > confront the absurdity of her avowedly positive response to me before now? > > The problem or challenge exists for AWB--and it is not for us to presume > how she reconciles her experience now with her experience a few years ago. > One way to look at it, Lord Knows. is this: Had Ann not read the book until > now, what would be her response to that book? This it seems goes to the > reality which you are so keen to focus on. You are only interested in > getting a conviction here, Lord Knows, but neither you nor Bill Howell have > some direct and honest way of getting Ann out of the way so you can drive > your truck through the complexity of all this and announce: That Robin > Carlsen, we nailed him in that book--God himself would find perfect > agreement with everything we said. Why that is how the whole thing appeared > under the aspect of eternity. > > For some reason Ann has grown into a larger experience of both those three > years and her understanding of myself--Does that mean she says Bill's book > is blatantly false? She will not say this, Lord Knows. The real point here > is: does Ann Woelfle Bater's apprehension of me, and perspective on those > three years, make her likely to be dishonest in her judgment of that book, > and thus make her into a liar? This she will never do. She will acknowledge > the truth that is there inside the book. But surely we must, Lord Knows, > let her resolve for herself (if she even experiences any kind of conflict > at all) this matter of the implication of her more recent experience of > Robin Carlsen and her experiences being inside the cult (from her present > perspective) with the remembrance of what she avowedly claimed was her > experience when first reading Bill's book. > > You would simply conclude: Ann Woelfle said the book was "essentially > truthful in its portrayal and the cult experience when she read it a few > years ago". If she deviates from this in the very slightest now, when > rereading the book, it will mean she is a liar. Does it mean this, Lord > Knows? Will it mean this, Lord Knows? I think it is reasonable to assume > there is a chance that, if she really has changed her perspective on those > years (and you know she has) and has a different experience of me (and you > know she does) then it seems probable she might have a different experience > of Bill's book now. > > I have said that the book does not in some very significant sense convey > the reality of what those Ten Years really were-and you and Bill missed the > first seven years--when there were no drop-outs at all. And I certainly do > not recognize myself in the book. Will Ann find that the Robin that is > depicted in the book is the same Robin she experiences now? We shall have > to let her make her own determination about this, right? > > Look, Lord Knows: Ann will find her way to being honest about this whole > matter--honest to the point that neither one of the three of us will be > able to doubt the authenticity of whatever she says about that book--should > she choose to even reread it. Whether what she says corresponds with what > we believe or whether it does not. > > These events happened over a quarter of a century ago. Some of us have > changed, Lord Knows. You and Bill Howell would make nothing of that quarter > of a century. For you, for Bill--and I know for others: Robin Carlsen must > be the person described in that book. I am not that person. And I never was > the person who appears in that book--although I am talking about my own > portraiture here and not the facts and incidents that are part of the story > that Bill tells. > > LORD KNOWS: I did not make any comment about how she would > > characterize you today, you have purposefully conflated these two things in > order to confuse and misdirect the readers attention away from my one > simple > point. The question I have for Ann is simple and straightforward did she > or did > she not find the book an essentially accurate portrayal of Robin and the > cult > experience when she read the book a few years ago. > > ROBIN: No, but for you, for Bill, what Ann said several years ago must > count against whatever she has said since then--and this is your whole > point: Ann pronounced a verdict on the book some years ago. You would hold > that as sacrosant. Which is to say: You may be spinning a different story > now about Robin and those three years, Ann, but we have it on the record > what you said about Bill's book, and what you said about that book defines > what the truth must be for you. > > What you say these days about Robin and the meaning of those three years, > that does not concern us. We remember what you said about Bill's book: we > are going to hold you to that, because in what you said when you first read > it, that cannot be altered by any subsequent change in how you view the > three years, how you view Robin Carlsen. Is this not the moral predicament > you believe Ann faces, Lord Knows? Her judgment of the book--given what the > book is--is a more significant determinant of the truth than whatever Ann > professes to believe these days. The book (and AWB's verdict on the book at > the time) trumps her contemporaneous feelings about those three years and > Robin Carlsen. > > When Ann went to the newspaper and slammed me and the cult, when Ann > bitterly rebuked me for the falseness of those letters of apology two > decades ago, she had a certain subjective--and sincere--point of view about > the three years, and about me. No one knows, least of all me, what has > happened to Ann in the intervening years. But one thing is for sure: she > has changed in her attitude towards her past with me, and in her experience > and judgment of me. If this change has any validity then it could still > mean that Ann could conceivably say: "No, I stick with my original > judgment: CULT was an accurate portrayal of Robin and the cult > experience"--and yet this would not vitiate her claim to feel very > differently about Robin now--although she would then have to face the > testimony and truthfulness of the book since to judge the book as she > initially did would, at least if we are to believe your line of argument, > bring seriously into question the reliability of her having modified her > view of those three years since then, and altered her understanding and > experience of Robin. > > In this sense what you are saying, Lord Knows is: Either the book is > right, Ann, or your present position is right. You once said the book was > the truth, that the portrayal of Robin was true: are you going to say you > were deceived when you made that initial judgment of Bill's book, or are > you going to disavow--at least implicitly--the truth of what you profess to > believe now about those three years, and how you feel about Robin Carlsen? > Which is it going to be, Ann? We want to know. > > You are determined to enact your agenda of truth-telling no matter what, > Lord Knows. You have no idea--and you would be silenced if you knew about > this--what I have passed through in these twenty-five and a half years > since I renounced by enlightenment and my cult leader status. Bill's book > does not get at some necessary truth about those Ten Years--and this is > certainly something more than the matter of the deeds that were done. If > Bill's book is as true and good and right as you believe it to be, then > surely there will be some kind of grace working on behalf of the book which > will vindicate its significance as the only veracious account of what > actually happened in those Ten Years. > > I am saying the story is something else than what appears in Bill's book. > And I am saying that I have radically and profoundly changed in almost > every conceivable way as a person, in my understanding of myself, in my > understanding of reality, and in my understanding of the 'secret > infirmities' which made me on some level a succumb completely to the > mystical hallucination of my enlightenment. > > But things are very very different now, Lord Knows. They are for me. I > believe most certainly they are for Ann. They are not, they are decidedly > not, for you, for Bill, and for others. We just just have to see what point > of view prevails here, and the means employed to represent and argue for > that point of view. If Bill Howell's book CULT truthfully represents--in > the main--the reality of what happened, why it happened, and who I really > was, I feel sure it is inevitable this will become the conventional wisdom > about those Ten Years. And if Bill's book is missing something profound in > its depiction of the reality of those Ten Years (in his case three years) > and if I was something other than the way I am portrayed in his book--and > am utterly different now from the person I was then--then that too will > eventually begin to make itself felt. > > The truth lies somewhere, Lord Knows. Ann is not capable of violating her > own conscience. She will either remain silent about this whole matter, of > she will speak out. One thing I know: she will say what she really > believes, and all of us who read what she writes will know she is sincere, > and more than this: she has as much reality inside of her as either you or > Bill Howell have in your unqualified condemnation and judgment of me. And > who knows? she may in rereading the book be reminded of the truth as she > held it then--and she will return to that truth renouncing what she said, > for example, in her first post on FFL (which was appeared in another post > tonight). > > LORD KNOWS: PS. I think it is quite significant that you reveal for the > first time that you > > have had private correspondence with Ann going back to January 2012 shortly > after Ann first posted on FFL. Many people, Curtis being one, have been > puzzled, how it was Ann became so sympathetic to her former abusive cult > leader. > This private correspondence suggests an answer to this puzzle. > > ROBIN: You would make this fact something which constitutes some > dishonouring of Ann's soul? that the revelation of this fact is tantamount > to an admission of some kind of relapse on Ann's part? that we wrote > letters means she compromised the truth of her conscience? that this > correspondence was underhanded and corrupting in some way? What are you > saying, Lord Knows? That I and/or Ann had some obligation to confess to > Curtis: Oh, the reason Ann Woelfle posts in the way she does is because she > has come under thraldom to Robin Carlsen again. She was never under > thraldom in the first place, Lord Knows. She knows the tragic side of those > years only too well. She went through hell and agony like so many persons > did. She was denounced as an evil being. It seems the only way you will be > satisfied, Lord Knows if you can somehow wrest from her a confession that > she betrayed her trust with Bill and yourself (and others) by not sticking > to the party line: Robin was a source only of destruction and suffering and > confusion--and everyone who has anything to do with him, now, after a > quarter of a century, should be reminded of what their life is all about by > rereading Bill's book. > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > wrote: > > > > > > Ann went to the newspaper to expose me as a cult leader. She wrote a > stinging letter to me after I had attempted (1991) to apologize for my > behaviour--I wrote to each person within the cult (as Bill Howell comments > upon in his book). She thought me to be lying in my sincerity. > > > > > > She has said things to you personally, and on this website which would > indicate her perspective on Robin Carlsen has altered over time. She has > even commented on the book before deciding to reread it. > > > > > > The point is not what you would have it, Lord Knows: the point is: is > Ann Woelfle Bater's point of view on Robin Carlsen at this time valid, > existentially honest, true--and at least as meaningful to her as the point > of view she had when she was exiled as an "evil being" and spilled her > story to the newspaper in Victoria? > > > > > > She opposed me, despised me as much as anyone has--at a particular > point in her life; and she sent that personal letter to me (which I still > have somewhere) dismissing my sincerity in those letters--she was adamant > about refusing to grant me any good faith in my actions at that time. > > > > > > She learned during a funeral in Victoria that I was posting on FFL. > She posted. I wrote her a personal letter of thanks, since what she said > there, although not contradicting in the main any of her actions against me > in the past, exhibited a kind of sophistication and mercifulness that had > allowed her to view me with more of a mixture of feelings. > > > > > > In our correspondence she proved to me that she knew me as the person > Robin quite independently of the mask of the enlightened man--and she made > comments to this effect, proving, to my surprise, that she had not entirely > lost sight of something about me which remained true for her despite the > grave actions she had taken in her attempt to shut down the cult. > > > > > > It is not a question of simple moral calculus here, Lord Knows. What > you and Bill Howell have to take on is the person Anne Woelfe Bater as she > lives her life at this time--and to determine whether in modifying her > position regarding Robin Carlsen she has in effect betrayed a level of > truthfulness for which she felt accountable when she endorsed Bill's book. > > > > > > The point, Lord Knows, is that you have already learned of Ann's > position vis-a-vis Robin Carlsen. Bill making this book available does not > change anything on the ground in your relationship with her. If in > principle she was expressing sentiments which you deemed morally and > psychologically inconsistent with her testimony in the past, you surely > would have raised this with her in your many conversations with her before > now. > > > > > > The availability of Bill's book does not alter things simply on the > basis of what it says about me, nor that Ann in the past actually > contributed to and concurred with what was said in that book. > > > > > > If you truly sense that Ann has traduced herself--or that she is > somehow being deceitful or hypocritical in what she has already said about > that book, or what she may say about that book, then it is your own > responsibility to raise this matter with her. > > > > > > You would make Ann a liar then with the dissemination of this book? > > > > > > Ann is fearless and honest and she will tell the truth. As she > experiences it as deeply as she can at this point in her life. She will not > flinch in her remembrance of all that was so terribly wrong in the > past--nor the wounds that remain. But for you to make her behaviour in the > past (and what it implied about her judgment of me) invalidate the veracity > of her present judgment of Robin Carlsen--that is something which can't > work here, Lord Knows. > > > > > > I have not attempted to challenge the facts or incidents Bill Howell > describes in his book--not that my memory agrees with his narration; I > doubt Ann will do this either. But the whole point here, Lord Knows is: > Does Bill's book capture the person Robin Carlsen in some definitive way > that would make his portrait there an objective judgment of the person he > is now--or even the person he was then. > > > > > > I am confident that Ann, should she read the book, will come to her > own autonomous conclusions in regard to both of these questions. I am not > expecting her to adhere to my own point of view as she once adhered to > Bill's point of view. But I think she must be given the freedom to express > her judgment of the book's relevance to 1. the truth of what actually was > going on in those three years in some fundamental sense, and 2.the truth of > Bill's portrayal of the cult leader as he existed 26 years ago, and as he > exists now in November of 2012. > > > > > > Ii do not fear her judgment of those years, nor her judgment of me. > She is extremely thoughtful and even profound in her judgments about > people, about is true for her, about what life means for her. I am sure she > will make an honest and searching judgment of the book as she finds its > application to both her experience at that time, her experience now, and > her perspective on her experiences then--from the vantage point of the > person she presently is. > > > > > > She has already done this numerous times on FFL. > > > > > > Her judgment will not affect my own judgment of the book, however. > > > > > > Let us just see what she does, and then you can determine whether she > is being true to her conscience, her past history, and her sense of what > counts for her now. > > > > > > I don't think Ann could countenance any falsification of either her > experience or her beliefs. > > > > > > Are you warning her that she faces some kind of tribunal of justice > here? > > > > > > She can say and write whatever she wants to say or write. You will > know that in the example of her you have something which does not go to > proving the case that Bill Howell has made in his book--Else you must call > her a liar--and her characterization of her past with me during the time > described in that book (as viewed in the present) a deliberate and culpable > act of treason--to herself, to Bill, to all of her friends whom she loves > so deeply. > > > > > > You want a public lynching, Lord Knows. But what is at stake here is > something much more important: What is the final truth of those Ten > Years--and what is the way that time should be viewed in the present? And > is Robin Carlsen who Bill Howell would say he always will be even in this > moment? Let's just see what Ann ways--if indeed she says anything beyond > what she has already said here on FFL. Where it is apparent she looks upon > me in quite a different light than Bill Howell does, than you do, and than > the book CULT would have me be. > > > > > > I am not, by the way, the person depicted in that book. > > > > > > Ann will do what she does heedless of anything but her own conscience, > Lord Knows. > > > > > > And you already know this. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "lordknows888" <lordknows888@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Robin, > > > > You have put Ann in a very difficult position; she can not possibly > > > > truthfully agree with your judgement on the book "Cult" as being > > > > essentially false. She read the book years ago and added whatever > > > > comments and/or corrections to William at that time. She did not > object > > > > to his essential portrayal of the cult experience in the book at that > > > > time,and she can not very well go back on what she stated then and > now > > > > state, so many years later, that the book is essentially false. Even > > > > more personally, I can not imagine that Ann could look William or > myself > > > > in the eye and tell us that this book is a lie, that it does not > > > > represent our very real essential experience of the cult. > > > > Lord Knows > > > > > > > > > > > >
