--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > I'm sure at the time you "answered" it exhaustively and > exhaustingly. I should have included the post number but > I had already cut and pasted and I couldn't backtrack. > It has Summa Wrestling in the title.
No, it doesn't. It was headed "How to Know Reality's Point of View," and it was the first post in the thread. You even included the heading in your quote of your response to it (see below). "Summa Wrestling" was a much earlier exchange between you and Robin (back in July 2011, for pete's sake). Here's Robin's original post to which you were replying: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321523 Here's Robin's response to your reply: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290 And your response to him: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321932 Then came his three-part series in reply to your response: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322287 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322288 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290 You never responded to any of these. > > At the time I asked if any of your defenders would like to take a crack at > explaining your POV and Ravi did the best. Unfortunately he had to neuter > your actual points to make it all sound very reasonable, but he did put in > the effort on your behalf. And if his presentation was actually what you did > mean, it would have taken all the power out of accusations that you were > coming from an odd place. A place where you could claim to transcend the > limits of your own subjectivity and serve up a truth that was aligned with > "reality". > > So glad you enjoyed the writing prompts. I'll see if I can hang but you > might just wear me down again. I did read your posts today despite my > protests. Not much to say except you seem to be having a good time so that > is really all a performer like me can hope for. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > I WILL ANSWER THIS, CURTIS--IF I DIDN'T AT THE TIME. > > > > Seems pretty meaty. > > > > But make sure you read my four posts from today--just in preparation for > > what will be coming towards you when I answer THIS. > > > > It might turn out, once I read through this, that I decide it was most > > appropriate for you to answer me in this way. We shall see. > > > > So, I suspend any judgment about the fittingness of your having reposted > > something from our past, Curtis. At least until I have read through this > > with the care I always give your posts. > > > > But I must say: regardless of what I have said in the past, today, I really > > did get out so much that I believe I have never got out before. > > > > So, I am hoping you allow yourself to see if I may have said something that > > goes to what really interests you. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Robin > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare > > > > this on point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections > > > > you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me > > > > the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. > > > > I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN. > > > > > > > > There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something > > > > about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I > > > > suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just > > > > give reality a chance, Curtis. > > > > > > > > > Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck. You get to decide what I > > > believe. Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you? > > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all > > > > delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of > > > > your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in > > > > the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am > > > > concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which > > > > fulfil your claim that you having "spent a lot of time examining your > > > > articulation of your epistemology"--and so I can't "know of [your] view > > > > of this claim". > > > > > > > Right, I can see how you missed this one for example: > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > How to Know Reality's Point of View > > > > > > > > There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never > > > > considered once > > > they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that > > > notion of > > > life? > > > > > > M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got. > > > > > > > > > > > Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: > > > > truth is > > > an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in > > > dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity > > > and > > > intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL > > > being > > > C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: > > > there is a > > > single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least > > > consciously. > > > > > > M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the > > > idea of > > > "truth" as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion > > > examples > > > that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of > > > objective truth. But he will try... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came, > > > exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct > > > persons > > > utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience > > > that no > > > one will have ever except us--I contend that since that reality was smart > > > enough > > > to bring us into existence with this complex thing called free will, that > > > THIS > > > REALITY, IN ANY DISPUTE ON FFL, HAS A POINT OF VIEW. Now since this > > > reality is > > > more powerful and necessary than any of us are, it must mean that the > > > point of > > > view of reality is where the truth lies. > > > > > > M: Again the collage. He is mixing up the definition of a God here with > > > our > > > personal existence by his oblique reference to something smart enough to > > > "bring > > > us into existence with this complex thing called free will." Leaving for > > > now > > > the neurological data that seems to say that free will is an illusion, I > > > will > > > focus on his personification of the concept of a "reality" that can be > > > personified to having a POV. Even if this assumption were true, it would > > > not > > > preclude the necessity for one of us to claim to know what that was. > > > Anyone? > > > Only Robin? OK let's see if he can make his case. > > > > > > > > > > > The unconscious assumption of most posters on FFL is: NO ONE CAN KNOW > > > > WHAT > > > REALITY'S POINT OF VIEW IS. So we just go it alone, determined to uphold > > > our own > > > first person perspective (that's for you, PaliGap) regardless of the > > > Platonic > > > notion of the Form of the Good--or whatever we want to call what is > > > metaphysically ultimate: why there is something rather than nothing. > > > > > > M: This is now approaching word salad. He has introduced the concept of > > > reality having a POV and is now building assumptions on top of that. > > > Plato's > > > ideas have been modified through years of philosophy and one of the first > > > ideas > > > to get the boot was his assumptions about the forms having an ontological > > > reality. They are a good starting point for a more advanced lecture on > > > linguistic philosophy because philosophers discovered that we cannot > > > discuss > > > concepts without first understanding the limits of our language itself. > > > So a > > > phrase like "Why there is something rather than nothing" can be seen as an > > > inappropriate use of language outside the realm of advanced physics. When > > > laymen use this phrase they are usually trying to smuggle in a bunch of > > > assumptions about a version of God. > > > > > > > > > R:> But here is where I believe something so critical is being > > > overlooked: If > > > reality created us,> > > > > > > M: No need to assume this. By not using the term God here I suspect Robin > > > is > > > trying to avoid assumptions about his argument. The problem is he is using > > > "reality" as an obvious substitute for the things the definitions of most > > > gods > > > claim to have done, created us. There is an alternative which is the > > > primacy of > > > material existence itself without the need for any creator. It assumes > > > less. > > > > > > > > > R:why should it not have some desire to let us know WHAT IT (SHE) THINKS?> > > > > > > M: Equally valid along this line of personification, why can't he have > > > hair and > > > a beard and occasionally feels his serpent uncoiling in his naughty parts > > > when a > > > particularly hot angel flies by in their Victoria Secret wings. (You pick > > > your > > > angels, I'll pick mine.) > > > > > > R: I like to think of reality in the feminine gender. And if reality does > > > in > > > fact have some point of view THERE MUST BE SOME WAY THAT SHE MAKES IT > > > POSSIBLE > > > TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THAT POINT OF VIEW IS. What possibly could be the > > > method--applied by ourselves--to somehow, however faintly, make contact > > > with the > > > point of view of Lady Reality? > > > > > > M: Ok so you have taken the field of epistemology and thrown it away for > > > literature and art. I love art. But you don't get to make the claims that > > > philosophy makes, or at least you don't get to use language that seems to > > > imply > > > you are using a rigorous philosophical method when you are really just > > > winging > > > it. Making shit up as you go along. Which I am in favor of if it is > > > properly > > > labeled and doesn't claim to produce objective truth. > > > > > > R:> I am audacious and presumptuous enough to go against the consensual > > > metaphysic of the postmodernist universe, and say, *I know exactly what is > > > required to know not just some semblance of the point of view of reality, > > > but, > > > more importantly, how to determine the extent to which one's own point of > > > view > > > is in agreement with the point of view of reality*. > > > > > > M: This is not just audacious and presumptuous Robin, it is pure > > > bullshit. I > > > know you got some people to fall for this once. That ship has sailed. > > > > > > > > > R:> I say: reality will teach you how to do this, if you let her in. If > > > your > > > subjective first person experience of yourself was not created by > > > you--and it > > > wasn't--then the reality which created that first person point of view > > > must > > > know: 1. what your point of view is going to be; 2. the extent to which > > > your > > > point of view is accordance with the point of view of reality; 3. what it > > > is > > > about you which is blocking the promptings, urgings, hints, stirrings of > > > reality > > > SUCH AS TO LET YOU KNOW THE TENSION YOU ARE POTENTIALLY CREATING BY > > > FORMULATING > > > AND EXPRESSING A POINT OF VIEW WHICH IS HEEDLESS OF AND PERHAPS EVEN > > > RESISTANT > > > TO THE POINT OF VIEW OF REALITY. > > > > > > M: Right Allah Akbar. Got it. > > > > > > > > > > R: > > > > How can one discern and perpetually calibrate one's own point of view > > > > such as > > > make sure one is not entirely estranged from the point of view of > > > reality? Or > > > better yet: How can one adjust, adapt, modify, improvise one's point of > > > view in > > > perpetual dynamic interaction with the point of view of reality?--for, of > > > course, reality will not just despotically impose its point of view upon > > > the FFL > > > poster; there is not going to be a Road to Damascus reality here. There > > > is an > > > art to this, I believe, but it is very straightforward. > > > > > > M: I wish I had a teacher, a guru to show me this path of knowledge...Oh > > > YOU > > > Robin, figures. > > > > > > > > > R: > > > > > Here, IMO, is how to maximize the chances of increasingly aligning > > > > oneself > > > with the movement and intention of reality. > > > > > > > > 1. Look for the truth separated from your own subjective desire for > > > > what that > > > truth should be, what you want that truth to be, what you insist that > > > truth > > > *will* be. > > > > > > M: Sounds like good advice. > > > > > > > > > > R: 2. Pretend to take a position which is against your own position as you > > > formulate your argument: How could I argue against what I am saying here > > > with > > > sincerity and intelligence? Become a devil's advocate for your own point > > > of > > > view--and do this *at every stage of the development of your argument*. > > > > > > M: Thesis, antithesis, I know what is coming next, synthesis right? All > > > good > > > stuff. > > > > > > R: > > > > 3. Consider that this conflict, dispute, disagreement *exists for the > > > > benefit > > > of your own evolution* as a person; that the last thing to read it as is > > > the > > > means to fortify your standard and habitual point of view; but that > > > instead this > > > debate is to throw you into the unknown, to subvert your point of view, to > > > undermine you and release some fresh understanding and experience into > > > you so > > > that you walk away from this encounter altered in some way. Turn the > > > circumstance into one of personal growth and maturation as a person. Not, > > > then, > > > as the means to reinforcing the rightness of your own point of view. > > > Winning as > > > an object is inimical to this more creative way of proceeding. > > > > > > > > > M: Little New Agy for me. All ideas from all sources don't deserve this > > > much > > > credit. But I can't argue with it if someone had the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > R: > 4. Always try to see what really is going on inside your experience > > > of > > > quarrelling with someone: what does my reaction to this person tell me > > > about > > > myself? Why am I reacting the way I am? Do I have a choice about the > > > reaction I > > > am having to this person? What other point of view could I possibly have > > > about > > > this issue if I were someone other than myself? > > > > > > M: Little self help advice in discussions. I follow this on a case by case > > > basis. I would not assume this of every single thing thrown at me. > > > > > > > > > R: > > > > 5. Seek above all one experience and only one experience: the > > > > experience, > > > sensation, feeling of reality touching one, stimulating one, informing > > > one--to > > > whatever extent this is possible--as one writes and argues. The > > > experience of > > > feeling isolated from reality, defending the citadel of self against > > > everything > > > that seems opposed to one: this is the very situation most to avoid. Why? > > > Because the extent to which we are committed to this orientation is the > > > extent > > > to which reality can never gain entrance into our consciousness, so as to > > > allow > > > us to be moulded and shaped by reality. A glorious experience. > > > > > > M: Sounds like an argument for the primacy of mystical experience to me. > > > I'm > > > not sure the first phrase has meaning for me. I would substitute: do your > > > best > > > period without all those assumptions about "reality". It seems naively > > > unaware > > > of how our cognitive gaps shape all that. I am reading a great book called > > > "What Makes Your Brain Happy and Why You Should Do the Opposite" about > > > bad we > > > are at this, especially by using feeling as a guide. We totally suck at > > > what > > > you are claiming to do here. > > > > > > > > > > > 6. Look for, in argument, the highest experience you can get: concerns > > > > about > > > triumph, your own ego, reputation, status: these are just the potential > > > enemies > > > of making contact with truth. Ultimately, in my opinion, the only > > > philosophy > > > which survives--and I believe will survive right through the experience of > > > dying--is that philosophy whereby *one is willing to do anything in order > > > to > > > know and represent what the truth is*--but not conceptually, dogmatically; > > > rather through experimental knowledge. *What reality wants one to know and > > > experience as the truth*. This is purely experiential. But it is that > > > extraordinary confluence of the objective and the subjective. > > > > > > M: Last sentence does not fly for me at all. This is mysticism. I do not > > > believe that Robin or any other human has achieved this. > > > > > > > > > > R: > 7. Consider then there are always three points of view extant in any > > > argument between two parties: the point of view of one person; the point > > > of view > > > of the other person; and the point of view of reality. > > > > > > M: Your imagination of "reality". > > > > > > R:Meaningful conversation about topics where there is profound > > > disagreement can > > > only move forward if both diverging parties conceive of the possibility of > > > bringing their point of view into alignment with that third point of > > > view.> > > > > > > M: In most of my discussions with you, you are claiming to represent this > > > third > > > and that I am not. You have co-opted its imagined authority into your > > > subjective opinion and claim that you are expressing more than that. This > > > is a > > > tiresome habit for me to respond to. It has the ring of "God told me" > > > when we > > > are just expressing our personal opinions. You are claiming higher ground > > > by > > > assumption. It is also why you often come off as condescending. > > > > > > R: I say that reality seeks to make each human being aware of this > > > approach, and > > > it is there for those willing to be humble and innocent enough to make > > > contact > > > with this living energy and grace. > > > > > > M: You know God, I don't, got it. > > > > > > R:> > > > > Now the question comes at this point: Robin, did you represent the > > > > point of > > > view of reality in giving us this disquisition on how to conduct a debate > > > about > > > some controversial issue--like Raunchy's honour, the use of C word as it > > > applies > > > to three women on this forum, the TM credentials of Vaj, the validity of > > > the > > > defence by Curtis of his friend Sal? Well, that is the question: Is what > > > I have > > > written blatantly and ironically *Robin's own personal point of view* > > > about > > > reality's point of view, or is it indeed a fair and honest and more or > > > less > > > accurate representation of what reality would like to be known about its > > > own > > > point of view? > > > > > > > > For those who respond to this post necessarily--*from my own point of > > > view*--put themselves into an experimental situation whereby it may become > > > possible to make a determination of the viability and plausibility of my > > > post. > > > > > > M: These ideas are not so hard to understand or evaluate. You have > > > attempted to > > > make a case that your subjective opinions are more than that. > > > > > > You have not succeeded with me. I believe that a discussion of > > > epistemology is > > > inappropriate in analyzing the very subjective judgement calls employed > > > in your > > > examples at the beginning and end. It is perfectly reasonable that there > > > could > > > be many POVs on any of them and the idea that one or more is more aligned > > > with > > > "reality" seems absurd. I am not making a case for the relativity of all > > > knowledge and therefore saying that we cannot be confident about any > > > knowledge. > > > It is just that you are attempting to apply standards of truth that have > > > no > > > place in the kinds of interpersonal interpretations involved in those > > > discussions. > > > > > > I think we had the same argument when you tried to apply this to art > > > interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
