Dear Curtis, I am going to pay tribute to you.
Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer to you is: DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH. In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ. Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe. There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere which could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility. I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing something anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): writing to you, Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious determination to keep bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to matters of interpersonal truthfulness) can finally only be met by a simple: I will leave you alone. Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday. Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse opposition. But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are acting the part you were cast to play. In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters in his plays. You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, Curtis. You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you force analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a Shakespeare play I would look forward to writing an essay about what you reveal about who you are in your actions. In this case, the stage is this forum.) I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); but I am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I am certain that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he created. Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become religious from reading how you argue here on FFL. You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as someone who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to the sublime. You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw out the real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his imagination what it feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life form them, alter them, make them, break them, exalt them. You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis. You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation. No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you. CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT: Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay down your trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see through your game. This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not true. You can't have your way around here, Robin. I am not going to let you get away with it. I have been honest and forthcoming from the beginning with you, Robin; but you don't take criticism well--and I have yet to see you respond to the intelligent feedback I keep giving you. Don't you see the irony of all this, Robin? Those who are defending you have deprived themselves of the integrity (they don't realize they have done this, mind you; their self-righteousness tells us this) that I have decided will remain in my possession. You just don't like it when people disagree with you, Robin. And your four posts from yesterday: word flood gets it, Robin. There was nothing there-I read through all of it carefully enough--for me to answer. You were just having your own experience of yourself, imprisoned in your own egotism--although I grant you: you don't think this is the case. But it is, Robin. Do you really believe you can win this thing, Robin? Those who come to my defence here on FFL, to a person they are brave and sincere. You just are not used to having an adversary who will not be intimidated, Robin. Robin, I wish you could hear this. For all your pretensions of "objectification of first person subjectivity" you fail to make the grade. Hardly anyone understands you, Robin; and believe it or not, Barry's criticism of you which you reposted below, it is felt deeply and passionately--by more persons than just Barry. Robin, you won't like this: But Barry's reaction to you says something real about you. I must stop here, Robin, else you will accuse me of what you do almost all the time: word flood. I think the most gracious thing I can say to you, Robin is: You are flawed, you are eccentric, you are very blind, you are very arrogant, and you are--I mean this, Robin, my friend--almost pathetic. I don't really respect either your intelligence or your philosophy. You need a wake-up call, Robin. I am trying to give that to you. I expect you just to say: "You are lying here, Curtis. You don't really believe any of this". There. I said it for you, Robin. And you are wrong. And I have just proven to you something even more significant: I can, as an artist, sort of imagine what it is like for you now, reading this. Why not think *this*, Robin: This comes, as it were, *from your very own self*. Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > snip > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of > > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the > > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality > > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-) > > > > > > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic > > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read > > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is > > > > that people would have to shower less if they just > > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and > > > > pristine snow he is. > > > > > > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday) > > > > > > > > CURTIS: > > > > > > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I > > > > am referring only to his > > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just > > > > wrote from Paris. > > But you are wrong about them too. It is YOUR lack of ability to see his > internal processes in them. If anything it comes through more simply in > those. He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. > > > > > > > > > But you knew this. > > > > > > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis > > > > of him. > > > > > > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging > > > > travelogues--or even movie reviews. > > > > > > > > But you knew this. > > Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things that > annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are focused > on you. But even the infamous C posts were completely comprehensible in > terms of his POV and thinking process. > > > > > > > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a > > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are > > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis > > > > of him. They are not. > > > > > > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the > > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL > > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say > > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I > > > > must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is > > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU. > > Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin. > Seriously, it is so lame. What I want this post to do is to express ideas I > am interested in expressing. > > > > > > > > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who > > > > come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris > > > > of today. > > > > > > > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. > > > > > > > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my > > > > analysis, Curtis > > > It has to do with mine. > > > > > > > > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience > > > > of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others > > > > beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your > > > > internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only > > > > apply to your internal world." > > > > > > > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever > > > > said about me, Curtis. > > > > > > > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no > > > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.> > > > Actually it does but you will never hear it. I know that now. > > > > > > > > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.> > > > Mindfuckery statement. Did this used to work for you in the old days with > younger minds? > > > > > > > > > > I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, > > > > hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance > > > > of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and > > > > from some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed > > > > what you are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this > > > > reading of this passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant. > > > > > > > > But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to > > > > controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight > > > > begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to > > > > you yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and > > > > you want this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if > > > > you were not being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts > > > > are unanswerable. > > > Dude, enough with the word flood posts. I read most of them and I have > nothing to say. You are impervious to feedback and they were too > long...again. Tighten up you shit if you want me to respond to you. I am > not your editor. Better yet, send all your posts to Judy first. > > > > > > > > > I am perceptive, Curtis, and my four posts addressed to yourself > > > > yesterday touch upon reality. As does my analysis of Barry Wright. > > I know you believe this. It is part of your wall to any feedback. I would > never make such a statement like this about myself. Your confidence in your > perceptiveness is maintained by your being impervious to the feedback that > you are not. > > > > > > > > > Do you give the stars permission to come out in the sky tonight? > > > > > > > > We are both extremely objective, Curtis. Me for one purpose, you for > > > > another. > > > > > > > > Robin > > I'm sure in Robin world that was all very clever. It didn't convey more than > a vague sense of smug condescension toward me. Perhaps that was all it was > meant to convey. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness I referred > > > > > to in an earlier post Robin. Barry's frequent stream of > > > > > consciousness writing style makes this more obvious than for most > > > > > posters. > > > > > > > > > > But I'm ready to be proven wrong. Perhaps you could show us how much > > > > > more Judy reveals about her experience of herself in her writing, as > > > > > a clear contrast. > > > > > > > > > > In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience > > > > > of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others > > > > > beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your > > > > > internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only > > > > > apply to your internal world. > > > > > > > > > > Fill the page. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 persons. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 writing. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" > > > > > > > <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CORRECTION BELOW > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, my. Thank you! We musn't have anything amiss in this vital > > > > > > > > communication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think they're finished with this orgy of > > > > > > > ego and nastiness yet? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think that either of them (Judy and Robin) > > > > > > > is even *capable* of understanding how insane this > > > > > > > level of self-absorbed narcissism reveals them to > > > > > > > be? Well over 40 posts between the two of them, > > > > > > > in one day, ranting to (as far as I can tell) no > > > > > > > one, because no one sane would bother to read > > > > > > > them. One really has to wonder what *happened* > > > > > > > to these two people to make them this crazy, > > > > > > > and this incapable of realizing that they're > > > > > > > crazy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
