PART IV --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
Curtis1: And having been the focus of your unasked for improvement sessions myself, I have to say that you aren't that perceptive Robin. Robin2: I am the second or third most perceptive person I have known, Curtis. Again--I have said this repeatedly--you have the unique distinction of uttering a judgment like this: "I have to say that you aren't that perceptive, Robin"--ENTIRELY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION TO THIS EFFECT THAT HAS MADE ITS WAY INTO YOUR MEMORY THROUGH YOUR EXPERIENCE. Who knows? I may be exactly what you say I am, Curtis: not that perceptive--but I will never know this from you, because your conclusion does not represent the assimilation of any data which would allow you to feel when you said this, THAT IT IS TRUE. This is an absolute belief/perception of mine about you, Curtis. And anyone who does not grasp what I am saying about you, and its ramifications when it comes to arguing with you, is at a serious disadvantage. It has taken me sometime to understand this Curtis Principle, but now that I have formulated (guess how? from observing and registering what you do: *data*) this principle your exemplification of said principle is unfailing. And all of those who find comfort and succorance in reading your posts, they need to examine my ascertainment--to see if it conforms to their experience. But this, 'you' (whoever you are who needs to continue to get that good feeling off of Curtis--I know what it's like; I once had it too) will not examine this principle. And that's fine. It is just that it's true. And Curtis is about to admit it too. Right, Curtis? What about you, Barry? You realize the irony potential in any denial of this. That in order for this to be disproven you will have to summon up the data which contradicts my conclusion. And it just isn't there. Careful, Robin. You could be on the edge of a great fall here. What if you're wrong? Well, if I am, I will know it. How's that? Robin1 : 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. Curtis1: 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. Robin1: 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. Curtis1: You have been running a formula and it is increasingly obvious. Robin1: TELL ME WHAT THAT FORMULA IS, CURTIS, because, at least for me, it is not "increasingly obvious". If you can describe my formula . . . Curtis2: I have numerous times, but as I said, you are immune to such feedback. Robin2: Whoa, Curtis: I want you to remind me of the outlines of that formula, a formula which explains convincingly, persuasively what I am all about here on FFL when I try to get reality (through me) to beat people up and tell them: You are wrong. I am right. Out with it, Curtis. I tell you, I am praying for this disclosure, even though, according to you, it will be merely a reiteration of what you have said "numerous times". I wait for it--again, Curtis--since in my denial I have forgotten the terrible power and truth of your revelation about me. A formula. Robin uses a formula. Well, all that I can say, Curtis, is THAT GODDAM FORMULA BETTER BE BASED UPON YOUR EXPERIENCE--and as well, a sense of its [my formula's] unnaturalness and violative properties. Just make sure, for Christ's sake, that it is REAL. I am praying for you, Curtis. That you can access your experience and your intelligence when you reformulate it for me. I need this reminder, Curtis. Do not torture me while I wait for this shock to the system. Thanks for the Hi, Share. A warm and friendly Hi to you, too. Again. Robin1: [If you can describe me 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. Curtis2: Bullshit. Been there, done that. In fact I am doing it here and your response is as predicted. Robin2: No, I don't see a 'formula' as such which would explain and account for and invalidate the truthfulness of what I am doing, Curtis. You have never hit upon any formula whatsoever. For such a formula would have to intellectually, conceptually get around what I do, contextualize it, refute it, and prove that it (the formula) holds more truth than my seeking to understand how first person ontologies can really fuck up any discussion of what is real and what is true and what is actually going on when people begin to argue seriously about any issue. Argument from authority--the weakest argument there is--except in the case of CurtisDeltaBlues. Then you get to really experience the power of it--and even the slight euphoria and relief of submitting to it. Curtis1: 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. Robin1: 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. Curtis1: 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. Robin1: 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. Curtis2: Double bullshit. Robin2: Ah, Curtis, here you go really astray. Please tell me: ROBIN, WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN HERE IS DOUBLE BULLSHIT--AND YOU KNOW IT. When I say "my agenda is *essentially* always friendly" I mean that I do not have any disposition to attack or criticize or hurt or offend; I merely wish to follow the truth where it takes me. Friendly "essentially" means the very essence of my motives on FFL--and in my life, Curtis--are to track the love. The loving intelligence which is what is behind reality and providence and the existence of the universe and you and me. [And all its terrible suffering and evil] "Double bullshit": you are saying that I am harbouring unfriendly feelings towards those whom I challenge on FFL; you are saying that I do not believe you are a "very gifted and interesting human being"? Well, you would be wrong on both counts, Curtis. Is this Triple Bullshit? Curtis1: She responded to your charges as best she could just as I tried to do. She engaged and stood up for herself. Robin1: 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. Curtis2: Yeah, we have different opinions. Robin2: I am trying to get beyond mere opinions (absence of knowledge). I live my live according to perception, Curtis--although if you perceive my ideas are objectively false, I am sure you will tell me. But first check to see whether the kangaroos are extinct. Your opinions are sacred, Curtis, and you certainly do not hold them as opinions. They are as implacable and fiercely defended as the beliefs of any religious zealot. This exhibits itself whenever the idea of 'God' come in. [Let us make God a metaphor here.] No, when it comes to the real infighting, Curtis--metaphysical infighting--you have in effect crystallized and even immortalized your core beliefs. But we might "have different opinions" about *that*. Oh, we do? Just so you know: reality has freed me from a multitude of opinions. :-) Are you sure you need the smiley face, Robin? I prefer Emily's: "Smile". I must move on. I appreciate finding you reading this, Curtis. Thanks. Let's keep the love going. Curtis1: 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. Robin1: 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. Curtis1: One more thing. Crack a book on Descartes, you have him all wrong. Robin1: 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 didnot give that impression. Although I think I do understand him. Curtis2: The quote, so often used, is in the context of his whole philosophy and represents his starting point, like Socrates' "all I know is that I know nothing at all", for rationalist inductions. But if you read him, then you understand why I would object to using his starting point as if it was a continual process of skepticism that he was advocating. He was not. Robin2: Oh, that I knew, Curtis. I was just saying that contrary to Descartes's resolution of doubt: I think, therefore I am, I keep up the demon of doubt and never get so sure of anything such that I cannot anticipate the possibility that in the movement and momentum of life, I might be proved wrong. Again, this is exploitation of an idea taken from Descartes. I always sense 'the demon of doubt'. I was always compelled by Socrates adage, because--you know this--the epistemology of this declaration means that *Socrates has been shown by reality that he knows nothing*. So in effect (I am sure I have said this before--and I think to you) his epistemic certainty comes from what is higher than he is, and which he trusts as infallible--It is a form of supernatural revelation surely: to KNOW that he knows nothing at all. Very different from believing he knows nothing at all. You catch the anti-Curtis implication of this epistemology, right? Actually I think you once responded to this idea of mine--substantively. Robin1: 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. Curtis2: This claim makes you look very weird to me. What an odd way to frame a discussion. A bit condescending, and very, very fey. Robin2: It is certainly something I intuit, Curtis, but it is something that just comes at me--and I am powerless to resist the truth of it. Why? Because it is the only explanation for your hatred of what is real enough to create some challenge to your omnipotent sense of what you will tolerate as real. I will cop to the charge of it seeming condescending, however--but that is just Robin feeling very un-fey after an encounter with the CurtisDeltaBlues guy. You are predictable here, Curtis: You will not tolerate any deviations from your faithful and internally consistent epistemology. You don't like reality to be dangerous to your core metaphysical assumptions about yourself, the universe, and the matter of the existence of a Creator. I think you are *created*, Curtis. And you somehow intuit this better than the rest of us. I would be fey if I sought refuge in some fantastical experience whereby I claimed that an angel told me how to understand you. As it is, it is very much a gut-level experience which drives me to say what you object to here. Like someone running right at me on the rugby pitch. Robin1: 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. Curtis2: It is also wrong. I was affected by my 15 years with Maharishi in many, many ways. Mostly good, and some bad ways. But by now I mostly focus on the good,even if he was completely wrong about almost everything. Robin2: You give yourself away here, Curtis. I am not speaking about your existentially assumed notions of how TM, teaching TM, and Maharishi affected you. I am talking about something that has influenced every TM teacher I have ever known--For me, Curtis, it is a kind of wound. Something happened to all of us when we surrendered to TM and later Maharishi, then Guru Dev when we did the Puja and whispered the mantra to someone as an initiator. I sense zero effect on you in these terms, which are the only terms that count. There is such tremendous self-will and structural invulnerability in you, Curtis, that you could objectively banish all effects from having sacrificed the self through Maharishi's techniques--and by teaching in the name of his Master. This is perhaps the most extraordinary thing about you, Curtis. Admittedly it is a private obsession of mine--but I think it explains a lot. Hell, if I could imitate you in this, I would. Because I believe I still have those wounds, and they run very deep--But then I lost my mind on a mountain and thought I had found the Impersonal God--No, that I had *become* the Impersonal God. But teaching someone to meditate, that is an experience which cannot be effaced from one's person, from one's physiology. This is one of the purest perceptions I have ever had, Curtis. Although I hasten to say: thousands will deny it. In any event, I find traces of the influence of TM, Maharishi, teaching TM, Guru Dev, in the consciousness of every teacher I have come across--whether in person, or just, as here, in their writing. You somehow, even at the height of your enthusiasm, bliss, devotion, retained some distance from this reality--and that is a spectacular feat indeed. And it most certainly gives you an advantage over every TM teacher who posts here. Robin1: And the subject perhaps of a most interesting post. It's always good talking to you, Curtis. As you would say: Good rap, Curtis. Curtis2: I really enjoyed it too Robin. But damn it takes some serious time. I wish we could condense this, but then I guess that wouldn't be rapping with Robin. Robin2: Fucking surprising and discomfiting (to my theory about you) ending. Thanks for the thought. Jesus. Let the love begin, Curtis. This really was great for me. Writing out all this (four parts). It always is.
