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, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > 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. > > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first > 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty > writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm > the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not > and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to > waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) > > > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to > > you, a person he does not respect. > > This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would > say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-) > > BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. > The combination of you being present and his primary > devotee and groupie not being present this week was > too tempting for him to resist. :-) >