--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> 
wrote:

Curtis: I was going to second Steve's post but I guess I would rather address 
you
directly Robin since I am so tight with "reality" that if she dies tonight on
the car ride home CSI would convict me on DNA evidence alone.

Robin: I welcome you once again, Curtis. Let us see where this goes. I think 
you act as if you certainly are "tight with 'reality'", Curtis--as much easily 
as I do. We both seemed to be inspired by what is real, I will give you that. I 
am becoming accustomed to the tension between us. It seems it's going to last. 
You are bloody consistent, Curtis--and I respect your ferocious commitment to 
what you have determined must be the case. But you get me wrong every 
time--except maybe about Descartes. More about that at the end of this. By the 
way, Curtis, you get me more wrong than I perhaps have got Descartes wrong 
(although I only was using his idea of there perhaps being a demon behind all 
that we believe--and turning this into a sense of a devil's advocate: who 
allows us to consider we might be absolutely wrong in everything we believe is 
true--I exploited one idea there. Perhaps you can tell me where I 
misrepresented him).

Curtis: From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly.

Robin: A blatant lie. This demonstrates how unconscionable you are when you 
argue, Curtis. You are contradicting the record. Share and I started off very 
much enjoying each other's company and posts. That lasted for quite some time. 
Where did you get the idea that my "mission with Share has been 
unfriendly"--"from the outset". Correct this, Curtis. Even Share will admit you 
have seriously abused the truth here. But your agenda metaphysically and 
psychologically is so powerful and compulsive that you would make this claim as 
if in the face of truth--You can do this better I think than anyone I have 
known. And I respect this. But no, Curtis, I liked Share right from the 
beginning, and I have not given up on the notion of our becoming reconciled at 
the most important level. And I think my posts reflect this. You know: clear 
conscience, loving heart.

 Curtis: and she has done a pretty good job of handling herself considering 
that you are just letting her have it with both barrels about herself, 
uninvited.

Robin: You are imposing a Curtis reality upon reality here, Curtis. As a matter 
of fact, Share has not, in my estimation, "done a pretty good job of handling 
herself"--although I think her intelligent, friendly, and sincere even while 
she is at the mercy of some tremendous need to avoid reality. Curtis, my 
friend, WhyTF do you so craftily, cunningly avoid making contact with facts 
which would create dissonance in your moral and intellectual crusade? You are 
selective and controlling and strategic in all that you write about issues 
which turn on controversy. This post itself is a prime example of this. Curtis, 
what you need to do is actually pinpoint what it is psychologically which 
explains your judgment of me--because my experience of you when you go at me, 
Curtis, is you have no goddam belief in the veracity of what you are saying to 
me, and about me. Not that you miss anything. In a very obvious sense your 
withholding and distorting the truth is done in such a way as to make it clear 
you are acutely aware of everything that is going on. But your presentation of 
the argument, it is always cruelly reactive to the truth every sincere human 
being is seeking. 

You are like some dark angel of judgment, telling wayward souls on this forum 
(who have the temerity to disagree with you) they are consigned to Coventry by 
order of Curtis.
As for "letting her have it with both barrels about herself, uninvited" in my 
own mind, Curtis, in my own heart, I have only sought to defend myself. And I 
have always kept before me the contingent possibility that Share might turn out 
to be more what she seemed to me to be in the beginning. You load up what you 
assert, Curtis, with a kind of assumed authoritativeness (which I experience to 
be metaphysical), and this is always--as I apprehend it, dear Curtis--inversely 
proportional to the extent to which there is an absence of real confidence in 
the truth of what you are saying. You are always scolding people in some way 
which would make it seem as if the judgment you are rendering is outside of 
time and space. People submit to this authority--I have seen it. But it is 
feigned, Curtis. Now will you please shut up, Curtis? We love each other, 
remember? Share can look after herself. If my posts to her are unfair, untrue, 
inappropriate, this will be seen by discriminating readers--they don't have to 
defend Share if this happens. They can issue their challenge to me in a form of 
argument. Right?

Curtis: It reminds me of our conversations which followed the same arc, 
although I at lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the 
assault.

Robin: Yes, I enjoyed our friendship, Curtis, offline as well. I know what it 
is like to love you. But again, I declare that the record at FFL shows that 
Robin and Share got along famously at the beginning. AWB described one postal 
exchange as a Japanese tea ceremony. So you must retract this accusation, 
Curtis. And I know you will.

"You would make Share's post into some devastating counterpunch."

Curtis: You have used similar metaphors of competition in our conversations and 
I am
seeing a pattern.

Robin: This "pattern" metaphorically, then, Curtis, it is evidence that my 
motive is pugilistic and not purely intellectual. Your choosing to seize upon 
my metaphorical inclinations is tantamount to extorting from me an admission of 
wanting to overpower and conquer and beat up my opponent, Curtis? How about our 
hundred thousand words we exchanged when we began to talk together on FFL--and 
even offline: Was I aggressive and bloodthirsty then? When did this "pattern" 
begin? This is absurd, Curtis: reread my posts to Share and my two posts to 
Steve (who you deem incapable of answering me, so you would fight in his 
stead)--not to say the entirety of my posts on FFL. I reject any possibility of 
your being able to sustain the idea that I am at the mercy of some "pattern" of 
metaphor which would reveal my hostility and need to win at all costs. Stupid, 
Curtis. Stop it, buddy.

Curtis: The issue is that you seem to believe, perhaps sincerely, that you have 
a better insight into some posters here than they do of themselves.

Robin: Well, it is often the case that others can see us better than we can see 
ourselves. Now that's an original. But I reaffirm it here, Curtis, because I 
know of two persons in my life who have eviscerated me with their insights 
about me--doing a Robin on Robin. It can be, and usually is, pretty 
devastating; but in their case they were a lot more serious in their efforts to 
make me see myself as I really am than I have ever been on FFL. Believe me when 
I tell you this, Curtis.

I appreciate your inserting the word "sincerely" there. If I am sincere, then 
it stands to reason that I perhaps would be insincere were I to hold back my 
insights when I (or truth itself) is victim of a person's blindness or 
dishonesty or flight from reality. No? 

Curtis: And when they reject this assumption, (as any adult would), you act as 
if you
are in a fight to make them see themselves through your unflattering lens.

Robin: This is absurd, Curtis. I don't make any assumptions about people at 
all--neither here on FFL nor elsewhere. I adduce my evidence, I provide a 
context of understanding; I do not just call people names. What I experience 
("sincerely") is contact with something which makes it seem that not to say 
what I feel is the truth will be to defraud me and the person of the knowledge 
of what is really going on.

There is one fatal weakness in all that you say against me, Curtis: I analyze 
people to some degree here on FFL--that is, how their own subjectivity is 
interfering with the truth (as I see it). My doing this LEAVES ME OPEN TO BEING 
ANALYZED MYSELF--not just to get back at me; but in terms of WHAT MAKES ROBIN 
DO THIS. For why I do this, Curtis, it must be there, transparent--indeed my 
way of going about arguing with someone (which "any adult would reject") 
itself, for there to be any truth in what you say here (and elsewhere), must 
reflect more obviously upon some weakness in myself than the weakness or flaw 
that I seek to expose in the subjective determinations in another person--like 
yourself, like Share, and now like Steve. Goddam it, Curtis, I feel you know 
what's going on here better than I do. You know Share's flaws better than I 
do--Barry's for sure. I think you deem me naive about Barry. Get it, Curtis? 
This is the key to understanding you. But again, I return to the self-evident 
principle of how we set up automatically a judgement of ourselves when we judge 
other persons. In my case it should be clinically obvious what I am about 
here--but you have not yet identified the problem I have--or even tried to do 
this. Why, I wonder?

Curtis: Why would we?

Robin: Well, if what I say --usually (as far as I am concerned at least) on 
behalf of truth or the principle of fairness in argument and disputation--has a 
deleterious effect on the person--or can never do any good; that the 
justification for it is not there, then this should be pointed out--and the WHY 
of this, Curtis. This "why would we"? reminds me of your challenge to Emily 
when she questioned whether you had read the Eben Alexander book: "Why would I 
lie about that?" Because you didn't read the book, Curtis; that's one reason. 
And you wanted to dismiss it out of hand. Not a book I would have thought you 
would read--that's like me wanting to reread Crest Jewel of Discrimination . 
Look, Curtis, if what I say about a person is true, this will have one kind of 
effect--on the person, on the readers of FFL, on reality itself. If what I say 
is not true, this will have quite another kind of effect. I am a gracious and 
shrewd person: let me just confess one thing, Curtis: I do not like analyzing 
people in some way which would demonstrate their motive to argue the way they 
are is not sincere--but the perception of what they are doing, *it is just 
there*. And it imposes itself upon me--that is, often the need to speak up. 
Else, for example, Curtis will get away with pulling the wool over everyone's 
eyes--which you are wont to do, dear Curtis.

Curtis: You may be thinking that your "insight" is more valuable than it is. 

Robin: I judge the so-called "insight" according to a rigorous criterion, 
Curtis: Is reality agreeing with me? If it is not, then I leave myself 
wide-open to a counterattack far more negatively consequential to me than 
anything unflattering (to use your word) I have said about another person. 
Beside, Curtis, you are ignoring the reams and reams of writing on FFL where I 
have taken on this argument and answered you. Yo pretend as if you are laying 
out this charge for the first time. You have made no headway here, Curtis. And 
you don't expect to. You are addressing your followers; you are always doing 
this--I stipulate: *in the context of intense disagreement about what is true*.

Curtis: And having been the focus of your unasked for improvement sessions 
myself,
I have to say that you aren't that perceptive Robin.

Robin: No, Curtis, when it comes to yourself, I have nailed you pretty good. At 
least you have not ever tried to argue against anything I have said about you. 
You have just said: This is not allowed, Robin.

Curtis: And perhaps you are in person, so you have developed an unnaturally 
high self-regard about this ability, but it isn't cutting it here. 

Robin: I feel it cutting every time, Curtis. And if "it isn't cutting it here" 
then your having proven this will cut much deeper than my not-cutting. Right? I 
am cutting it to the extent to which you have utterly failed to catch me in the 
act of not cutting it.

Curtis: You have been running a formula and  it is increasingly obvious.

Robin: TELL ME WHAT THAT FORMULA IS, CURTIS, because, at least for me, it is 
not "increasingly obvious". If you can describe my formula, Curtis--and I or 
anyone else recognizes it is accurate and objectively true--I promise you I 
will apologize to Share, to Barry, to Steve, but most especially to yourself. 
My experience when I do this, Curtis, it is too profound to be subject to a 
formula. But again: let me examine what that formula is. I really want you to 
set it out for the record. You need to do this, Curtis. What is Robin's 
Formula? Because if indeed it is a formula, then it can't align itself with the 
stringent demands of truth--especially when it comes to something as complex as 
the human soul. More needed here, Curtis.
 
Curtis: So that is my opinion and I don't need to word flood you about it or 
repeat it a
million times. I've made my point and as a fellow adult I suspect you will just
blow it all off as me being me.

Robin: Now why would I "just blow it all off as being me"? I have my innately 
combative instincts, Curtis--thus the metaphorical pattern. I need to defend 
myself. My pride is at stake. Truth? I never bother about that. I am only 
interested in scoring points. You know that. You have laid bare the the 
weakness in me which causes me to do this. It all seems rather pitiable to me, 
Curtis--if I assume you are right here.

But I don't. And there's the rub. Let's try to be friends again, Curtis. It 
seems we are starting things up again. And it ain't never going to cease.

Curtis: Just as Share did with you. I think she did pretty well considering 
that you
were quite invested in going after her with an unfriendly agenda. 

Robin: Show me where "she did pretty well", Curtis. My agenda is essentially 
always friendly. It is even here. I am just defending my own integrity and the 
motives for my acting as I do. You have just been blustering away. I don't 
believe you have ever prevailed in one of these conversations, Curtis. That 
said, I am always respectful of you and what you are, lest I should miss the 
opportunity to be edified by a very gifted and interesting human being--which 
you are.

Curtis: She responded to your charges as best she could just as I tried to do. 
She engaged and stood up for herself.

Robin: I don't think any person willing to be objective here, Curtis, believes 
Share achieved what she set out to achieve. But certainly I believe she 
"responded to [my] charges as best she could"--She was remarkably different, I 
thought, in her approach to me this time. She certainly tried harder, and I did 
not sense anything negative there at all. But I have explained my response. 
God, you fascinate me, Curtis, with your hyper-sensitivity to reality. Mustn't 
let too much reality in here folks. I am charged with the task of keeping it 
out. And on my terms. So sayeth Curtis. And good afternoon to you, sir.

Curtis: And no I don't want to know why you don't approve of my post to Emily. 
I'll let
her speak for herself.

Robin: Oh, I won't try to defend Emily Baby. I am anxious always to stay on her 
good side, as I would dread that circumstance where she began to go after me. 
She can cut it, as they say. We'll see how she does up against the Curtis guy. 
I predict she will hold her own.

Curtis: One more thing. Crack a book on Descartes, you have him all wrong.

Robin: Well, I read him pretty carefully once; but you must understand, Curtis, 
I used his Demon idea merely for purposes of making a point about how much we 
can trust in how we know something to be true. The Descartes principle was 
seized upon in order to explain what happens to me when I find myself certain 
that I know something: I make certain I subject that belief to immediate 
radical doubt: this might not be true, Robin. It is what I take away from 
Descartes; I never attempted to present his philosophy--at least I hope I did 
not give that impression. Although I think I do understand him.

It is damage control once again, Curtis. It is as if you experience something 
getting inside reality which you are determined to block, to drive away. Your 
motive in argument is intriguing to me. And there is one more mysterious and 
perhaps even heroic quality about you: You are the only TM initiator I have 
ever encountered who is perfectly unaffected by their experience of TM or 
teaching TM. That is remarkable. And the subject perhaps of a most interesting 
post. It's always good talking to you, Curtis.

As you would say: Good rap, Curtis.
  
 
 > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote:
> >
> > Your subjective delight overwhelms any chance of the impartiality of truth 
> > getting to have any say in this, Steve. And therefore, all we get is your 
> > emotion. If you were really making contact with what was true, the truth 
> > would do the work for you that, in the absence of this objectifying 
> > element, you must do all on your own. If your initial experience of reading 
> > Share's response to my Hitler's Valentine post originated in reality, this 
> > would be present in your post. The desperate chivalry and eruption of 
> > unfortunate relief is all that came through, Steve. If there was any 
> > validity in your judgment of Share's post, it would make itself known 
> > independent of your own feelings. And it did not.
> > 
> > See what a sore loser I am?
> > 
> > You would make Share's post into some devastating counterpunch.
> > 
> > Share actually just went into her corner and handed out flowers.
> > 
> > Did you actually smell those flowers, Steve?
> > 
> > And your post ignored how much I wanted her to best me. (Read my post 
> > again, Steve; the first Hitler's Valentine.)
> > 
> > You must remember, Steve:  The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > This is what they call in the trade............................. A
> > > Perfect Response!!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > dear Dolphie, I love you.  Please be my valentine forever.  If
> > > you build me a house I will happily live in it with you and our little
> > > Dolphies and Dolphinas.  And every time you build another building
> > > you will bring me yellow roses and white chocolate and we will drink
> > > dark red wine with our vegetarian dinner.  We will send the children
> > > off to bed early and then we will giggle a lot on the front sofa just
> > > like my Mommy and Daddy do when he has sold another VW.  Ooops, here
> > > comes teacher Old  Scowly Face.  I'll give this to you at
> > > recess.  Your friend, Theodora  Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:24 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Robin:I think you would like to send Hitler a Valentine's Card and
> > > make everything all
> > > > right again.
> > > >
> > > > Share: Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he would have
> > > become a happy architect.
> > > >
> > > > Robin: If you said this ironically then you have essentially defied my
> > > analysis of you--or at least in coming up with this response (assuming,
> > > again, that it is ironic) you have proven to me you can resist your
> > > primary tendency (sentimentality = a failure of real feeling). If,
> > > however--you must tell me which it is, dear Share,--you meant this
> > > non-ironically, then you have demonstrated just how true my essential
> > > idea of you is, dear Share.
> > > >
> > > > So, either way I win. Because if you meant it in a deliberately ironic
> > > way, then you have jumped out of your mould and have said something
> > > easily as good as anything I could have said. And if you meant it
> > > sincerely (really believing in the truth of what you say here; namely,
> > > that the course of history could have been changed by one valentine)
> > > then you have rendered my last three posts to you superfluous.
> > > >
> > > > I won't ask you to clarify whether you were being ironic or not,
> > > Share; I will just pray that if you were serious you will see that what
> > > you have said means you have knocked yourself out with one roundhouse to
> > > the brain. And I wonder whether you will ever get up off the canvas.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I have to contemplate that the joke is on me; and in that
> > > case I declare you the victor here. It is that good, your
> > > self-mockery--and in a way you are making fun of me brilliantly.
> > > >
> > > > Roger I believe had less of a problem in facing what is there (as he
> > > had to today) than did Adolph--but then, if all it would have taken was
> > > one valentine, then perhaps God thought Hitler was just one valentine
> > > short of going to heaven.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for writing with the intention to do your best, Share. It
> > > was pretty good, all things considered.
> > > >
> > > > But the motive for Hitler's valentine: on that hangs a fearful
> > > judgment!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to