--- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > If the personal correspondence between me and Share Long (a > > > > correspondence which, in the form it took, could easily be assumed to > > > > be an exchange of posts on Fairfield Life) disproved in any significant > > > > sense the speculations, opinions and judgments of various persons who > > > > have weighed in on this matter of the dispute between me and Share > > > > Long--expressing views which are unfavourable to Share--Share quite > > > > possibly would have made the same request to me as I have made this > > > > morning to her. > > > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my interpretation of the > > > above: Share is obviously aware of the content of private correspondence > > > between herself and Robin, therefore if she feels that revealing this > > > correspondence could help to counter the insinuations leveled at her, why > > > isn't she asking Robin's permission that they be revealed rather than the > > > other way around. I can think of several reasons but I won't presume to > > > know Share's thoughts or motives. > > > > > > > Why would I, knowing what we said to each other, estimating the > > > > implication of that correspondence, allow anyone to dishonour or > > > > violate the integrity of another human being, someone whom I knew was > > > > entirely undeserving of these critical remarks? I don't choose to > > > > characterize Share's motives or intentions--I have never, quite > > > > frankly, understood what they were, what they are; I do know, however, > > > > that the letters Share and I exchanged about our disagreement are > > > > charged with a meaning which will, at the very least, take this matter > > > > to a whole other level. And that persons who have written in support of > > > > Share will have a source of information which it is painfully obvious > > > > they currently lack. > > > > > > OK, I tried (really I did) but I think in the above, you are asking us > > > why you would allow anyone to be dishonoured or violated on a public > > > forum with said insinuations *unless* you know something hidden that > > > would clearly prove these insinuations to be false? Then you go on to > > > hint that if revealed, they would elevate this game to a whole 'nother > > > level? Good question Robin and one that only you can answer truthfully. > > > Barring any private information known only to you and Share, why would > > > you let that happen to *anyone* on this forum, particularly since you are > > > a major player in the conflict? > > > > The correspondence represents the attempt by each of us (in our very > > different ways) to come to terms with what caused this disagreement in the > > first place. In what we say to each other, everything comes out; every > > detail of the controversy, and our explanations for why we acted the way we > > did. I do not wish to get into an argument with Share Long now, many months > > after this correspondence took place. It is a matter of my knowing that > > what we said to each other there represents a reality and context of > > 'truth' which belies what is being said in the present. So much deeper, so > > much more revealing: by contrast the present posts Share writes trivializes > > and in my opinion misrepresents what was said in those original letters. > > Share spoke to me in those letters not in some confidential way; but she > > spoke to me in a way which would challenge how faithful she is being to > > what she is saying now. I will not argue with Share Long about anything at > > this point; but in those letters to her--and her letters to me--an entirely > > different significance is forced upon an impartial reader--from the one > > which is the determined view of various posters here who have come to > > Share's defence. > > > > Thank you Robin for your response. I'm not sure that posting the letters > would even shed any new light on this whole thing and would merely serve > keeping the attentions of those who are interested firmly fixed on the two > parties involved...you and Share. For example, if your and Curtis's exchanges > were private and then made public, I don't know if I *could* come to any > different conclusions regarding who is right or wrong, who started the > disagreement, who threw the first stone, etc. etc. Why? Because most times I > don't understand what you write when I decide to make the effort nor did I > understand some of the responses from Curtis until things started to go sour. > Then a lot of others starting offering their spins on the situation and > before I knew it, the whole thing was one big mess impossible to figure out > in my mind. I didn't trust either side's interpretation of how it all went > down but I would have to say that I tend to gravitate towards an > interpretation that is simple and straightforward (Occum's Razor). I fear the > same would happen in this situation and we couldn't possibly come to any > greater understanding. So, in simple terms, will this ever go away, and, if > so, what would be required?
We disagree, laughinggull: I have evidence that my subjective perspective on reality can be altered by that same reality--the intelligence which actually created my first person sense of myself--that is, for me, what is behind 'reality'. And what I have learned from this is to not isolate myself from the reality out of which my first person perspective began to exist in the first place. Moreover I observe and confirm that the very design of my life--the providential way events happen, the particular dramatic meaning of so much of what impinges upon me--is there to influence, shape and even recreate my first person experience. For me the truth is always out there to find--however this process entails *having one's first person perspective altered by reality*, and then reality is able to empirically demonstrate the validity of what a truth is by how one experiences that truth inside of one's first person perspective. I do not argue against anyone, adopt a fixed position, express a conventional point of view. Not for me. What I try to do is elicit some sense of support from reality in my way of going about my life, so at every instant--however fallible I obviously am as a person--I will not allow myself to be locked down by a certain inflexible and predictable set of subjective reflexes--to anything that reality is dishing up to me. I have thought and felt deeply about this whole matter which is being discussed here, and I have sacrificed all convenient or comfortable notions of what and who is right, and instead attempted to get reality to show itself. I believe I am essentially in contact with what the truth here is--or at least what the truth is not; but this has come through the particular transactions with reality that I am trying to describe here. Transcending through TM was supposed to expand consciousness. I have found that a certain creative humility within one's first person ontology--in its attitude towards what is real, what is true--can make it more likely reality can influence what one apprehends as the truth-- and take one to where there is the most amount of reality. For Ten Years I thought my enlightenment was the source of what was true and what was real. Not true. I have--with help--destroyed the structure of my Unity Consciousness--and I have been thrown down on my knees, realizing how helpless and impotent I am to be able to claim any authority for what is the truth. However, over the course of 25 years and 6 months I have found a process by which I am able to, within my own subjective perspective, relearn all over again how to find the truth. And for me, laughinggull, the truth makes itself known through the very opposite of belligerence, certainty, egotism (and yes, *confrontation*: that's out too). Truth comes in through something very innocent: and this has everything to do with how vulnerable one can make oneself to reality itself--in the immediacy, as it were, of each ontological moment. All this will seem mystical and occult and (of course) presumptuous. But it has altered me radically and made me a very different person from what I was during those Ten Years when I was enlightened As for the issue before us (which we are discussing here) the criteria for determining where the truth is can only be taught to one by reality. I have travelled far enough into what that truth might be to know, contrary to what you insist is so, that there is an essential truth here, and something that is essentially not true. And you will just have to accept that what makes me draw this conclusion is profound--and it is the result of contacting a certain grace which makes the very greatest demand upon someone, but which, within the creative humility which is the sin qua non for the influx of that grace, gives one a sense of innocence and sincerity and strength--even if one should seem arrogant, ironic, and insolent.
