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 

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 

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, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In, "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. :-)

Reply via email to