Hey Steve, You make me sound like a stick up my ass automaton here -lol. I think it was Byron Katie who said she had no business knowing what other people thought of her. It took me a while to recognize that, and to accept it (for myself, not her - lol).
So I enjoy responding to others here, and in my life, though I am no longer reactive. In order to be so would mean that I am protecting myself against what others think of me. Responding and reacting feel very differently. The first is for clarification, the second, for protection. And please don't let my cursing be mistaken for reacting - I just fucking enjoy it! However, I have been *very* reactive in the past. Insulted people's professions, and just said some plainly shitty things. Waaaay over the top - it was fun at the time, as many shortsighted activities are, but ultimately not who I want myself to be. And to Curtis, earlier I ridiculed your vocation as a musician and performer, and lover of The Blues, and I apologize straight up for that. Shitty thing to do. After the last three years of my life, I *get* the blues.:-) But this isn't about me. Its about criticizing your love and dedication for something that is a wonderful gift from you, to many. Having said that, I really enjoy participating here, with all my quirks. I adopted the name Doctor Dumbass for two reasons: 1. 'Doctor', because I far prefer a scalpel, now, to a grenade. 2. 'Dumbass', because I never stop learning, nor would want to. and on that basis, let's us all *Carpe Fucking Diem*!! Thanks, Steve --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > Hey Jim, > > I take it that your response would not be an example of someone being > "triggered" by something, which would then require the requisite self > reflection, but rather, is an example of a clear eyed knower of reality > "seeing things as they are", with no need to equivicate about it? > > I mean, I know that this is how you see it, but I'd like to hear you say > it. I am not faulting you for it. I'd just like if you could stake out > your position, (or correct me if I am mistaken). > > I noticed that you are now giving out "clean bills of health" > > Care to give me an evaluation? > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > Right on, Wolf-Baiter (though in this case your subject, Curtis, is a > pink little poodle baby, with apologies to poodles everywhere.) - Or, > switching scenes, he reminds me of a guy my first wife told me about > years ago, who was trying to ask the office babe out for lunch. > > > > He starts telling her a saucy little joke, but then inadvertently > sneezed a rather large, um, booger, onto her desk. He blithely flicked > it away with his finger, and continued with his humor. Lunch never, ever > happened, though the story made the rounds. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. > > > > > > > > > >
