--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
Dear Xeno, Are you sad you didn't find a Christmas present under the Tree? Perhaps BP (our Santa) will land on your roof after this. I hope he does. Should I treat THIS thought of yours as you would have all thoughts treated? My dear friend Xeno, you have a built-in phobia designed to insulate you from any change in your determined (and settled) metaphysical perception of reality and yourself. When someone *identifies* themselves personally with their thoughts, those thoughts, inscribed in words on a page, they become the signature of who we are. There are certainly random, uncaused thoughts--like incoherent dreams; I make a distinction here: I am interested in thoughts by which we live our lives. Is this thought you put before me here, is it a thought I should take seriously? I think I must, Xeno, because it represents the unexamined craving you have for secret ontologies to remain static and not ecstatic. You would be the Self as a cadaver, shutting down the violent innocence of the hunger in the human soul. It is a tragedy of the imagination: that you would, with some ponderous thinking, seek to make what I said to Card something which was inessential, something insignificant, something melodramatic. What motivated you to say what you say here is the silent impoverishment of a heart which does not, will not, live with the passion that is equal to the fact that we must die. Oh, Xeno, if you could even *conceive* of a model of existential meaning, where--remember: we are just imagining here--our actions--and yes, our thoughts (like the one you express her), were subject to the feedback of the reality out of which we were created. You write--much of the time--here on FFL as if we must suppose *you created yourself*. Every moment can hurt, can exalt, can teach: to accept some idea that we are in a state of consciousness where the deliverances of reality cannot shock or change us, this is the saddest of states. We all appreciate your intelligence and your knowledge. But for me, you are reacting (unbeknownst to yourself) to the very notion that life can break in upon you and demand that you live a moment in terror, in beauty, in humility, in grief, in wonder, in confusion. Would you have allowed God to create Blake's Tyger Tyger Burning Bright? You would sterilize what meaning there is in the fact that you began to exist where just before your conception there never was a Xeno. You are completely mistaken in your judgment of my post to Card. But then again, in order to preserve the status quo of your apprehension of the universe and yourself, you have no choice but to go after me for having said that the snowflakes come out of a fire of lovingness. Let some reality in, Xeno. Stop the fight. You have been cast in the play. Study the video of Christopher Walken from SNL: Did you get that? And then the discussion with Peter O'Toole and Orson Welles. You act as if Bob Price had not posted those. Did you know the stars will be in the sky tonight. Everyone is supposed to be a lover, Xeno.
