--- In [email protected], awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote:
I am isolating two paragraphs which illustrate why I am unlikely to feel understood by you. Me:> >I am left with a mysterious natural world and the wonder of my own conscious awareness with no word that pretends, falsely, to explain it all. It is the existential boldness of facing the absurdity of life,and then having faced it, creating my own meaning for my existence rather than putting on one of the mental suits off the rack. My lack of belief is beautiful to me, just as religious people hold their faith. But opposite, like in Superman's reverso world. > > OK. This seems to imply that once you held beliefs very close to your center, > to your heart but you were disappointed, let down, it became apparent it was > all lies and you had to fight hard to come to where you are now but not > without great cost. It appears you have suffered for your beliefs and now you > reject mightily the very things you nurtured at one time. Of course, I could > be completely wrong, I'm just trying to work it out here. Me: My statement was a summation of Camus' Existentialism. It implies none of the the things you internally generated about how I was "let down" or "disappointed". It implies no suffering by having come to this conclusion. But in your filter of seeing me, you believe they are implied or contained. My transition from belief to non belief was the direction of more truth and more joy, insight into life beyond fabricated constructs imposed on it from outside life itself. You are fitting me into your own narrative and I don't see myself in it. I suspect you would not make this assumption if we met personally. Writing is already a skewed perspective. But the spin is consistent and below we will see it again. > > > > Your millage obviously did vary. And I can respect that. As soon as you > > introduced the term "hideously blasphemous" in response to my first piece, > > I knew we were listening to different drummers. There are many ways to get > > to hope. Enjoy yours as I do mine. > Anne> Oh, yes, hope. Well, I haven't lost that yet so I don't have to get to it but I certainly respect those, like yourself, who are seeking it. Me: Do you see it? I never said I had either lost hope or was seeking it. My point was that we come to a perspective of hope in different ways, there was no reason to assume I was lacking in it or had lost it or now was seeking it. But it fit a story you are telling yourself about me, so you assumed it. But it leaves the real me out. I believe you are processing me through a story about me you are creating. So I don't feel it is likely that I will feel understood by you even if your intentions are good and you sincerely want to do so. Just like you don't "get" my humor, you don't "get" me. But I wouldn't try to make a case that you are missing much. > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Thanks for taking the time to express these thoughts. (I think) > > > > It is 55, let's please keep those slippery years from flying by any faster! > > Yes, I just turned 56 so I guess I've been breathing just a little longer > than you have, but not by much. > > > > I wouldn't enjoy any of the feelings you described from reading my writing. > > I can't recommend your reading what I write after this post. Seriously. > > It is certainly not my intention to make anyone feel as you reacted. > > I believe you. But I will keep reading what you write because that is how I > live life. I like to take it all in, within reason. You contain a lot of what > life can dish out, you have walked a lot of miles and done a lot of things. > You seem to be a man of this world, for sure. I love that part. Experiencing, > experimenting, living, sweating, hurting, trying, stumbling - it's all > important, it's all meaningful. The more cuts and scrapes and scars and > detritus the better. Go for it, I do, and I know you have too. And you can't > make me feel anything, that is all up to what I am made of so no sweat there. > It is not your 'problem' if I felt the way I did. > > > > For me, I am as proud of the understanding I have forged through the years > > as Buck is about his dome thing. What I most objected to in both Raunchy > > and Dr. DA's posts was taking something that I value, my seeing myth as > > just that, and trying to turn the greatest intellectual accomplishment of > > my life into a superficial personality affliction. > > Fair enough, but what you say comes from inside of you so if they or I see > your 'myth busting' as a personal fault line then that is another's > perception but not necessarily your concern. However, I speak for myself only > here, the busting of the myth carries with it some sense I have of negativity > on your part and I don't know if it is anger, disappointment bitterness or > none of the above. I suppose it doesn't really matter for me, but it could > for you. But that is for you to deal with, if at all. I think if I was to say > anything about it I would say that there is some element of the tragic there. > You are like the man who has had things of value smashed before his eyes and > there is nothing left of the mysterious, the magical, the unknown. It all > becomes mud or clay. > > >And this is generally the fate of atheists through the lens of "spiritual" > >people, I get that. But I walked a lot of miles to get here and I fly my > >freak flag as high as anyone who is professing the beliefs that they cherish > >concerning God. Any one of them. Even the elephant headed one who rides on > >a rat. Even the rat god with his own temple in South India. Where people > >drink offered milk with rat everything in it that they believe blesses it. > >Everything. > > > > I was expressing my version of hope. > > OK, I definitely didn't get that. > > >The God believers get a lot of air time in society. What I write is my own > personal balance to having to watch my president put his hand on a book I > have read many, many times. And it is absurd to me for it to hold that > cherished place in our society. For most of history, and even now on large > areas of the planet, atheists have been put to death, denied jobs and > persecuted for their lack of beliefs. I think religious people can put up > with a little snark now and then considering what we swallow on a daily > basis. > > You are becoming clearer to me now, I am getting something more of what > motivated you to write that 'Christmas' post by what you just wrote here. You > are the balancer, the guy who does not relate to what all the fuss is about > regarding the belief in Christianity, religion, any of it. I'm not that far > off the mark with you on that one. I am not religious, don't adhere, never > really have, to either Eastern or Western paths of worship or belief, not in > a structured sense. > > > > I am never left in the place you ended up after I am done dismantling what > > I consider to be the presumption of religious beliefs. > > Oh, but the nature of the dismantling was harsh. It didn't debunk religious > beliefs, it shit on them. Maybe it's my feminine sensibility but it was not > great for me. I had to sort of squint my eyes and look through my upheld > hands, my barely separated fingers, just to watch. > > >I am left with a mysterious natural world and the wonder of my own > conscious awareness with no word that pretends, falsely, to explain it all. > It is the existential boldness of facing the absurdity of life,and then > having faced it, creating my own meaning for my existence rather than putting > on one of the mental suits off the rack. My lack of belief is beautiful to > me, just as religious people hold their faith. But opposite, like in > Superman's reverso world. > > OK. This seems to imply that once you held beliefs very close to your center, > to your heart but you were disappointed, let down, it became apparent it was > all lies and you had to fight hard to come to where you are now but not > without great cost. It appears you have suffered for your beliefs and now you > reject mightily the very things you nurtured at one time. Of course, I could > be completely wrong, I'm just trying to work it out here. > > > > Your millage obviously did vary. And I can respect that. As soon as you > > introduced the term "hideously blasphemous" in response to my first piece, > > I knew we were listening to different drummers. There are many ways to get > > to hope. Enjoy yours as I do mine. > > Oh, yes, hope. Well, I haven't lost that yet so I don't have to get to it but > I certainly respect those, like yourself, who are seeking it. > > Now, I actually loved this response of yours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ME: I already responded to Dr Dumb Ass's snipped comments. I will > > > > accept Raunchy's as a writing prompt. > > > > > > > > RD: > > > > > > > > > > > > I like what you say here, Doc. Just to guild your lily a little, > > > > > > I'd say that irreverence is a performance art of disaffected > > > > > > seekers. They indulge in tipping sacred cows hoping people will > > > > > > react in horror. > > > > > > > > ME: Let me stop you there. Can you name a single person who could be > > > > expected to react in horror from a satiric piece on Christianity here? > > > > Name one pearl-clutcher, to use you apt image. A single person whose > > > > identification with the ideas contained in the myths of Christianity, > > > > is so complete that anything I wrote could be expected to react in the > > > > way your are trying to project here. One. > > > > > > Hey Curtis, just some thoughts on your responses/questions here. Upon > > > reading your post of yesterday I was carried along on that magic carpet > > > ride only you here at FFL are capable of providing. Words come out of you > > > as sleek as little seals and they squirm and splash around beautifully, > > > effortlessly. And I find my eyes gliding along with these little > > > creatures frolicking away and before I know it you have transported me > > > someplace. That place includes twists and turns and drops and rolls. But > > > then sometimes the little journey I am on strands me in a kind of > > > bizarre place, an uncomfortable place. Your 'Christmas' spiel did just > > > that. Not because I am religious, not because I am Christian, not because > > > I am conservative or narrow. I think it was because in between all of > > > those really fun little jumps and dives there were these other things too. > > > > > > I re-read your piece a few times to try and understand what I was feeling > > > and why. I am still working it out but I realized, even though those > > > slick, black agile little seals really performed, I was left feeling > > > bereft. For some reason I didn't feel good after the post. I felt yucky > > > in fact. Now I am not saying you are a yucky guy, just that the effect > > > your writing in this instance had on me was to leave me feeling sort of > > > besmirched (great word, "besmirched"). Anyway, I think it was because in > > > what you wrote, what you said was essentially flattened something. > > > Probably not across the board and certainly not in everyone's experience > > > based on the kudos you received, but for me it annihilated something, > > > momentarily. It was sort of like someone telling you Santa Claus never is > > > or never was and anyone who believed differently needed to realize this > > > and realize it but good. > > > > > > You see, there was no redeeming element that allowed for a happy ending, > > > a reprieve, any hope. It was like so many things that I take joy in were > > > smashed open and what was inside was just stuffing and sawdust. The > > > wonder inherent in certain subjects you touched (stomped?) upon > > > disappeared. The things you wrote about became, for me, less rich, less > > > full, meaner. They lost their specialness, things, precious things, > > > became less than ordinary when in fact they are not. > > > > > > I wish I could have enjoyed it like many others here did because, man oh > > > man, can you write. You have experienced so much in your 57 years (or > > > pretty close to that I think?) and there seems to be so much that wants > > > to be expressed within your intelligence. Maybe I'll just wait for your > > > next aquatic seal show and see if I like it any better. But boy those > > > little devils can certainly swim. > > > > > > > > I argue that mine is exactly the opposite motivation than the one you > > > > propose here. I wrote it for people who share my sense of humor, I am > > > > an entertainer. I would never post it on a board of Christians because > > > > I do not have the motivation you ascribe to me. And at this point if > > > > anyone is offended by my perspective on Maharishi, after years of full > > > > disclosure of my POV, shame on them for reading it. They are going way > > > > out of their way for their offended buzz. > > > > > > > > An example of why I wrote it was Emily's response. That made me very > > > > happy and fulfilled my intentions for posting it. > > > > > > > > RD: > > > > It's rather juvenile but they do it just to show how hip, they are and > > > > how hip you're not because they think you haven't rejected the beliefs > > > > that they have. > > > > > > > > ME: Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and that maintaining > > > > this believe will somehow alter your disposition in the afterlife? Can > > > > you name one person who has that belief here that I could impose my > > > > hipness on by making a satire about Christianity? Since we all > > > > dissected Judith's book in detail here I could not reasonably expect my > > > > mention of the reality of Maharishi's hidden life would do more than > > > > elicit a ho hum from this jaded crew. You are imagining something to > > > > shame me for that doesn't even make sense. Name one belief concerning > > > > the Jesus myth that I have rejected and you have not. The unique > > > > divinity of Christ? His role as your personal savior through the > > > > mechanism of belief? His role as the fulfillment of the prophesies of > > > > the Old Testament? That he was required by God to suffer for our sins? > > > > You have to dismiss all the details of Christian theology to get to > > > > something we might disagree on, perhaps your conjectures about his > > > > state of mind. Maybe you think he was an enlightened guy and I don't. > > > > But we agree on a hundred things about the story to find the one we do > > > > not agree on. > > > > > > > > RD: > > > > > > > > > > > > Even today, Barry thought it would be fun to post humorously > > > > > > irreverent road signs by MUM to see who smiled and see who didn't > > > > > > smile. I suspect he's more interested in pissing people off than in > > > > > > delighting them. I go for the latter. > > > > > > > > ME: I draw your attention to this post as counter evidence for that > > > > claim. > > > > > > > > RD: > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny thing is, after awhile all the TMO, TM and Maharishi bashing, > > > > > > pissing on baby Jesus and exhibitionistic waggling of dicks gets to > > > > > > be so ho-hum that one hardly notices cries for attention fading > > > > > > into the distance. Sadly, when irreverent performance artists, > > > > > > shock jocks, don't get the negative reaction they hoped, they're > > > > > > just as happy to get applause for taking a public dump from people > > > > > > who don't know the difference between art and schlock. > > > > > > > > ME: I saw a great Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David was being > > > > subjected to his wife's family Christmas traditions. Alone in the > > > > kitchen Larry passes the time eating a cookie he found in a manger > > > > scene. To his chagrin and the horror of his in-laws, it turned out > > > > that he had eaten the baby Jesus cookie in an all cookie manger scene. > > > > Opening his mouth only to switch feet, he tried to pacify them all as > > > > they flocked around to shame him by saying "I thought it was a monkey > > > > cookie." They were not pacified. > > > > > > > > I share my sense of irreverent humor with Larry, and I wonder if you > > > > would project all these negative qualities on his intentions as you > > > > have on mine. A more broad minded perspective might allow that when it > > > > comes to humor, it is a personal thing and not feel the need to > > > > demonize someone making different choices than you. > > > > > > > > RD > > > > > > > > > > > > Irreverent art is really old school. Back in the day of the > > > > > > Dadaists: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Marcel Duchamp penciled a mustache and goatee on a print of > > > > > > Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa and inscribed the work "L.H.O.O.Q." > > > > > > Spelled out in French these letters form a risqué pun: Elle a chaud > > > > > > au cul, or "She has hot pants."... > > > > > > > > > > > > Francis Picabia, once tacked a stuffed monkey to a board and called > > > > > > it a portrait of Cézanne... > > > > > > > > > > > > Schoenberg's music was atonal, Mal-larmé's poems scrambled syntax > > > > > > and scattered words across the page and Picasso's Cubism made a > > > > > > hash of human anatomy... > > > > > > > > > > > > But, for all its zaniness, the Dada movement would prove to be one > > > > > > of the most influential in modern art, foreshadowing abstract and > > > > > > conceptual art, performance art, op, pop and installation art." > > > > > > http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/dada.html > > > > > > > > ME: I appreciated your references and I think you are supporting a > > > > case more for its value. For me I believe it has tremendous > > > > philosophical value to examine myths in an original way. I am not only > > > > trying to entertain those who share my sense of humor, I am mapping out > > > > my perspective by sharing a unique approach to these myths. And > > > > finally I am sharing my actual throught process as I contemplate the > > > > images of my own nativity dredged up from my youth. > > > > > > > > For those who are friendly toward me here, it is sharing who I am my > > > > perspective. For those who feel the need to use this as proof of a > > > > personality or spiritual defect, they are welcome to that but I can't > > > > respect that POV. It seems unnecessarily uncharitable considering the > > > > fact that their own beliefs are not being called into question. > > > > > > > > RD: > > > > > > > > > > > > When all is said and done and irreverent spiritual performance > > > > > > artists have met the "Maker of Us All" that they poopoo, > > > > > > > > ME: So you are really that sure of yourself about this? I would like > > > > you to make a case to support such a belief, show us what you are > > > > basing it on as I have shared why I reject it. > > > > > > > > RD: > > > > generations of unschooled idiots will pay homage to them by scouring > > > > the archives of FFLife for instructions on how to be an asshole while > > > > tipping sacred cows. > > > > > > > > ME: When I try to conjure up the reasons and motivations for your > > > > writing this insult, I can't come up with a single on that I respect. > > > > > > > > Robin > > > > > > > > > > I loved this, raunchy. You have the right credentials--all the way > > > > > down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ME: That strikes me as a bit disappointing to hear you say that. > > > > > > > > > >
