--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card" <cardemaister@> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>> I've got nothing much more to say on this topic, but am replying to it >>>> anyway to point out the contrast between what I wrote (below) and the >>>> angry, panicked, out-of-control, gotta-get- Barry reaction to it by >>>> DocDumbass, Judy, Ann, and Ravi. >>>> Pretty interesting, wouldn't you say? :-) >>> No. Or not the way you'd like to think. >>> No panic, nothing out-of-control. That's your fantasy, and also an example >>> of what we've been talking about. >>> The contrast is between what you wrote below and the sick, twisted, >>> dishonest, sadistic crap you usually write, the gotta-get-Judy/Ann/Ravi/ >>> DrD/Robin/whoever hysterical tirades that are your stock in trade, the >>> smarmy "I'm just pushing buttons" garbage, the faux-Tantra nonsense, the >>> utter lack of even the faintest wisp of self-knowledge. >>> You can dish it out, but you can't take it, never have been able to take >>> it, not since I've known you. You think you're entitled to gratuitously >>> shit on anybody you feel like shitting on without ever having to take >>> responsibility for it. You're a coward and a bully and a cheat and a phony >>> and just generally a disgrace as a human being. >>> One pretty little word picture and photo does not erase all that ugliness >>> we're forced to endure from you. If you feel put-upon because you're >>> getting reamed out for your toxic rubbish instead of getting strokes for >>> your "creative" effort, tough. Live with it. We don't like having to live >>> with you either. >> Judy, I must say I just can't understand why and how anybody would be forced >> to read what Barry, or anyone else, for that matter, writes... :o > This is not the right question, Card. If one posts on a forum like this one, > it is *unnatural* not to see what everyone else is saying. Even about > oneself. Is it your inclination *not* to read posts that are addressed > personally to you, and which either challenge your views, or disparage your > person? I think most persons posting on this forum are interested in > expressing their opinions and judgments--that's why they post; that's why > they read what others post. > This response of yours, you think it answers to all the acrimonious debates > that have raged here on FFL? You think it the *solution* to the fierce > contesting of what is true, what is right, what is real? > It is a small-minded idea and it cost you nothing. If people are cruel or > unfair or dishonest--or if they are sincere or fair or honest: this means > something. To propose what you do here, in what way does that possibly > encompass what it means to be a human being with an investment in your > beliefs and feeling for what should count in the universe? > No one is forced even to read anything on FFL--or even post on FFL. Why not, > since there is so much violent argument, just quit reading and writing on > FFL? Why, in view of these intense disagreements, not have everyone just stop > contributing to FFL *so it can just shut down*. > When you make a suggestion like this, the criterion of is validity has to be: > Does my suggestion somehow take in the reality and meaning of what happens on > FFL in the controversy over who is right and who is wrong? It seems like a > perfect solution--what you say here--but does it seem as if that would have > prevented all the tension and disputation that seems so serious here on FFL? > Again, in argument, in life, one wants to bring an idea or proposition that > really gathers as much reality into itself, so that it is a just and sensible > and *meaningful* idea. Yours is the equivalent of saying: Well, if you were > hurt in love, why ever get romantic with someone again? If you don't like the > NRA, why do you read about what they have to say about the massacre in > Newtown? > You would make your proposal something more significant and truthful than > authfriend's sincerely felt analysis of the sweet and disinterested > consciousness in Holland. If I read authfriend's post and then I read yours: > Is is possible to believe that your post essentially makes authfriend's post > (about the Holland guy) superfluous? > Look at the response from Holland (to your post): this is the proof of how > irrelevant and meaningless your admonition was. > Hamlet is a tragedy--it makes people sad. Why not just read comedy? Hamlet did not make me sad. Robin, why must reality be somehow infused, or invested in what a person says? Thoughts come spontaneously. That should say something about whether we can actually control their content. If they come spontaneously, who is the author? People have a perfect freedom to say trivial things if that is what comes out. It is not necessary to stuff one's expressions with some kind of ultimate significance as if one were stuffing a pillow. Thoughts come. They have a certain representational value; they can even in some way point to a more satisfying experience of life than we might currently have, but they are not what is real, they are more like shadows, and if we are lucky we might turn and attempt to see what is casting the shadow.
