--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > Share Long: > > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you will > not answer my question about the desirability of posting our personal > correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the kind of > interactions which take place here on FFL? > > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or in > exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not let > me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters. > > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was no > insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later that I > had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in all that > you write about me, and I believe that posting that correspondence will allow > everyone to understand what this matter is between you and myself. > > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some valid > reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do this I will > continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a deliberate and > provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at one point I simply > deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share, once I stopped writing to > you, you continued to write to me. > > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table? > > Robin
Here is a letter I wrote to you on September 26, 2012. You might wish to look at your response to that letter. For you have emphatically contradicted yourself in how you acted subsequently to sending that letter to me. Share, I believe that the correspondence between you and myself should be posted on FFL. And I think I will do this. If you have any objections to my doing this, you can state them, and I will consider them carefully before going ahead with this. I feel what passed between us would be of considerable interest to those trying to understanding what is going on right now. Especially after you reposted that post from Steve. That is what motivated me to go ahead and post our correspondence. I have read through that correspondence; I do not believe--taking in all the letters--there is anything of a personal nature at all. So, this is my intention. You can reread the correspondence yourself to see if there are any letters you would omit. I believe, then, Share, that our correspondence could, quite conceivably, taken place on FFL. And unless you give me evidence of a letter which obviously was never intended for anyone but you to see, I will post our correspondence. Robin > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been > > under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical > > hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self > > proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT > > and is not IMO helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the > > present. Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this > > and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think > > it is helpful to do so.    > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of > > CULT > > > > > >  > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > JS, > > > > My name is Judy. > > > > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination > > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to > > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest. > > > > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular) > > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as > > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's > > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted, spiteful > > personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to > > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what, > > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was > > going on.) > > > > > Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very > > > inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them, > > > especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest > > > continues the hallucination in a small but significant > > > amount. Significant because that small amount exists in the > > > very core of the larger matter. Thus is useful IMO to be > > > named. > > > > I would not expect you to see things any differently, Share. > > Your propensity to rewrite reality to suit your own needs > > will not permit you to acquire a more subtle understanding > > of the complex metaphysics of what took place with Robin and > > his group. > > > > > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and > > > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name > > > the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it > > > appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided. > > > > And what is it that will do this "naming" for us, Share? > > > > Careful... > > > > > PS And yes again, I thought I was communicating with you and > > > Ann in my posts about Edwin Coppard's ideas. If you thought > > > I wasn't, how would you change what I wrote to make it fall > > > within your category of communicating? > > > > Not playing that game with you, Share. I asked a question, you > > answered it. I did not express an opinion. > > > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:40 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author > > > of CULT > > > > > > > > > à> > > Couple of comments below, Robin. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bill, > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it > > > > meant that *the context which it gave birth to inside myself*, > > > > that too somewhere, no matter how true the process of > > > > confrontation and individuation appeared to be (and that > > > > process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest > > > > place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. **And > > > > what this meant--in the perspective after The Context was > > > > busted by a greater reality--was that this weakness in each > > > > person was simply what innocently each person had to do in > > > > order to survive as a human being inside the universe given > > > > that they were not perfect--and fallen. In other words, this > > > > salient and ultimate weakness was not to be confronted--not > > > > even to be revealed.** > > > > > > snip > > > > > > JS: I don't think you've ever put it quite this way. > > > > > > I wasn't there, of course, but the more you tell us about > > > all this, the more poignant it seems--the hope, the > > > exhilaration, the absolute best and purest of intentions > > > driving it, the huge effort and energy expended, and then > > > the wrenching agony of confusion when it began to self- > > > destruct. > > > > > >
