--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote:

Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  He is not open to being 
vulnerable to people who he does not like.  Sometimes this is people who attack 
him, but not always.  He didn't like you right off.  So you only see the 
version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect.


> BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
> derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
> slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> missed) argues for his position.>

The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any reason to 
share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he 
sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are 
just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation.

If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often 
have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or 
liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your 
perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict 
with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  It was easy to predict that 
you were not gunna be friends. 

So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the ability to 
see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.  Do you see Judy as 
any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she 
is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that matter?  Once we size someone 
up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, 
we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no 
intention to be open to that person. 

I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other 
space to express our opinions even if we differ.  So we get along based on 
liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some 
version of what you just wrote.  I've received enough of them myself from you 
to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond 
your reflexive attack mode.

Or you can prove me wrong. 









>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > 
> > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > 
> > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > 
> > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > 
> > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > Just sayin'...
> > 
> > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> 
> Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the 
> reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
> mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, 
> how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he 
> envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against 
> all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on 
> this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on 
> stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a 
> victim of this singular method of provocation.
> 
> BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
> derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
> slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any 
> investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And 
> why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing 
> any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and 
> the consciousness of other persons.
> 
> If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
> posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest 
> response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and 
> intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your 
> experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of 
> this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to 
> truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes 
> the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in 
> the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the 
> very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing 
> anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero.
> 
> What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that 
> BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely 
> interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how 
> much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, 
> BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality 
> (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality 
> being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some 
> controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what 
> he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not 
> predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of 
> BW's systematic and controlled mind game.
> 
> BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his 
> subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his 
> posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of 
> producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows 
> are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have 
> stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but 
> BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. 
> Not only does he vaccinate himself against any feedback from others, but he 
> vaccinates himself against any feedback from himself. This means the FFL 
> reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a 
> strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what 
> his own experience is of himself when he does this.
> 
> Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what someone 
> writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there.
> 
> It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the 
> quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to remain 
> inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and he has been 
> posting only to himself.  As if this were the case, since he has removed 
> himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the experience of 
> the reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to reality and what 
> abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter about which he is 
> writing.
> 
> BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or 
> scornful or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in attempting 
> to challenge what BW has written, to the extent to which this represents a 
> real intention inside the other person, is the extent to which that 
> intention--and the writing of a counter-post--will end up in empty space--No 
> one is there.
> 
> BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to his own subjectivity. His 
> pleasure comes from the ineluctable consequence of this as it affects other 
> human beings.
> 
> 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" 
> > > > > <seekliberation@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 
> > > > > > 90's.  I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I 
> > > > > > ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the 
> > > > > > whole group.  It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a 
> > > > > > modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition 
> > > > > > from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole weekend is about a lot 
> > > > > > of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak 
> > > > > > and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America.  It 
> > > > > > was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for 
> > > > > > it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a 
> > > > > > lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is 
> > > > > > often justified by modern American males to avoid altogether.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within 
> > > > > > a cult'.  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, 
> > > > > > but now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I 
> > > > > > found that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of 
> > > > > > superficial things that were just NOT a part of their character.  
> > > > > > It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness.  There 
> > > > > > were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, 
> > > > > > though they never were tough their entire life.  The intensity of 
> > > > > > their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly 
> > > > > > believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without 
> > > > > > any serious conflict with others.  Many men who were part of it 
> > > > > > eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of 
> > > > > > it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our 
> > > > > > lives for the better.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > > > > > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive 
> > > > > > decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official 
> > > > > > representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, 
> > > > > > but I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something 
> > > > > > was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in 
> > > > > > comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was 
> > > > > > probably right.  A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some 
> > > > > > other form of spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone 
> > > > > > like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the 
> > > > > > fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some 
> > > > > > people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group 
> > > > > > activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It 
> > > > > > was a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I 
> > > > > > didn't want anything to do with them anymore.  It's worse than 
> > > > > > trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your 
> > > > > > mind�..literally.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > seekliberation
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" 
> > > > > > <steve.sundur@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement 
> > > > > > > thing
> > > > > > > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I 
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my 
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > > > > > > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was 
> > > > > > > awkward
> > > > > > > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure 
> > > > > > > tactics
> > > > > > > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and 
> > > > > > > the FF
> > > > > > > guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't 
> > > > > > > care
> > > > > > > to get recruited to a new group.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his 
> > > > > > > blatant
> > > > > > > manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to