Yes -  I think so, beautiful analysis by the Salivating Puppy, he is surely
a clinical psychologist and he should work on Barry.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Robin Carlsen <maskedze...@yahoo.com>wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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. Â  Â Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > --- 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...
> > > >
> > > > > PSÂ  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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

Reply via email to