There was an error in my last post, Curtis. I have amended it to give the correct numbers.
We can both drop the body now, I figure. RC --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > Dear Curtis, > > It turns out, just as you say, I did in fact respond "exhaustively and > exhaustingly" to this post. > > Here is the record of our conversation. > > First of all: this is the post to which your reposted post below is a > response: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321523 > > After reading your post I responded with the following: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321877 > > You then posted this:: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321932 > > Then I really let you have it, and posted the marathon three-part series > (which took a great deal out of me--lost now and remembered only by God or > the empty meaningless universe): > > 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. > > But you exited (as I am wont to do from time to time) with this: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322482. > > Given what you have just admitted to me in your last post of tonight, I will > assume your putting that post up there today was sort of waving a white flag? > > I mean it wouldn't be had I ignored this post you have reposted. But > evidently I went nuts, and just wrote and wrote. > > I won't press this, Curtis, but I will always wonder: Why did Curtis repost > that post, knowing as he did, that I answered him "exhaustively and > exhaustingly"--and put my soul into it? Especially that three-part post. > > No matter. > > Márgarét, áre you gríeving > Over Goldengrove unleaving? > Leáves, like the things of man, you > With your fresh thoughts care for, can you? > Áh! ás the héart grows ólder > It will come to such sights colder > By and by, nor spare a sigh > Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie; > And yet you will weep and know why. > Now no matter, child, the name: > Sórrow's springs are the same. > Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed > What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed: > It is the blight man was bórn for, > It is Margaret you mourn for. > > GMH > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
