Salyavin: Are you by any chance a clinical psychologist? You conduct psychotherapy? The only reason i ask is because of the thoughtful and complex reflections you share with us here on FFL--I am referring especially to your remarks about people. They are certainly sensitive and wise.
Like this one. She said I mentally raped her. Her letters absolutely contradict this. She continues to discuss and describe me in psychopathological terms--as if I have been rendered speechless and helpless--that I cannot answer her. You were dead wrong about AWB--as your subsequently communication with her proved. (Although you would never acknowledge this.) This is classic Salyavin--and it is one of those impulses of yours which did not travel through the more subtle parts of your brain. I knew you would like that. Life will never ask you to bear anymore reality than you can, Salyavin. But this, this was a beaut. Thanks. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > --- 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? > > Maybe she's realised no-one gives a shit. > > > > 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? > > Please don't. > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > >
