Judy, if the psychological rape incident is all hoo-hah as you say below, then why are you still bringing it up?! And since I am no longer accusing Robin of psychological rape, I think it unhealthy of you to continue bringing it up. And if only for your own overall health, I hope you are soon able to stop carrying such vitriolic grudges which are probably damaging to your own physiology though they certainly strengthen what Eckhart Tolle calls the pain body.
Is it possible that Robin's actions here on FFL are to help you heal your pain body? I think once before you raised the question of some Robin hater causing me to use the term psychological rape. No one in person or via electronic devise or printed matter suggested that term to me. Lord Knows contacted me offline AFTERWARDS to support me. And then Bill and Brahmi Howell also validated what I said, all 3 of them having been part of WTS and friends of Ann. I don't think it's possible for there to be what you describe as *two way* confrontations when there is such a power deferential as it sounds like there was in WTS. Meaning that it sounds like Robin had all or the vast majority of the power. For example, when he literally cast his devoted wife out of the group, did she have any power to stay if she wanted to? As for your saying that Robin pushes people to make them more interesting to have a dialogue with, I would hope that this is not his only motivation for pushing especially when he pushes too much according to the other person's valid assessment. ________________________________ From: authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > Thank you Judy for laying it out again. I think one > thing you may miss is that interactions often start > out friendly. We often give one another the benefit > of the doubt. But then, often the exchange starts to > escalate and the more friendly banter becomes less so. No, Steve, I haven't "missed" this phenomenon. > So it is entirely possible that this is the case here. Actually not; it's irrelevant in this case. All the hoo-hah (as you should have been able to tell if you read the quotes from Share's posts) was about one single incident. > But over and above this, there are some that feel that Robin > has the skill of zeroing in on people's blind spots, or > unwillingness to acknowledge reality and "bring them around" > to a truer picture of things. And then there are others that > feel he is engaging in an unwelcome agenda of pushing his > notion of what is real, or the truth, with no real interest > in a dialogue. None of which would have been relevant in this case. (Read the other post of mine I linked to for more of the context.) My sense, BTW, is that such feelings about Robin are a function of the subconscious recognition of one's discomfort with reality. I do agree that Robin doesn't have much interest in having a dialogue with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality. But he's willing to push them a little to see if maybe he can get them to the point at which they *will* be interesting to have a dialogue with. But as noted, none of this would have been relevant with regard to the incident with Share. > And those people may feel that it was exactly what they > experiened first hand many years ago, Which would not have included Share. (And in the case of these other people, it *certainly* wouldn't have been "exactly" what they had experienced themselves. Those confrontations were no-holds-barred, much more intense-- and as Ann has pointed out, they were *two-way* confrontations.) > or may feel that > it seems exactly as they have understood it to be from > those many years ago. Which was not the case with Share at the time of the incident. Mild annoyance was the extent of her feelings then, according to her. And as noted, Robin had apologized extensively for having been inadvertently responsible for that annoyance (inadvertently because she was annoyed at what she had misunderstood him to be saying, not what he'd actually meant). What happened between those posts and the "psychological rape" accusation four weeks later? I think I know what happened. I think one of the Robin- haters got to her privately and talked her into seeing what had initially been only an annoyance as something far more serious. When she referred to the incident in that later post, notice that she claimed she had been very upset by the incident *at the time*. But that contradicts what she had said in the two earlier posts. > Robin has stated that he had come up with a sure fire, > infallable method of determining the reality of any > situation. Do you remember that? It turns out that it > was his entirely subjective determination of reality. > Does that alone not sound sort of weird, and raise some > flags? I don't think you read what he said in that vein very carefully. Yes, if what you describe were accurate, it would be weird. But his take was more complicated and subtle than that. > So, if you happen to be in the "other" camp, where you > think he may not possess such abilities, Remember that he wrote about this because he assumed everyone had the ability to do it if they had some idea of how to go about it. It wasn't a special ability of his. > then you may > wish to describe his confrontational approach as > "psychological rape". Don't think there's much of a connection here. In any case, his "How to Know Reality" posts were made quite some time after the incident with Share. And *he hadn't been confronting her in the first place*. That was *her* misunderstanding. See what I mean? You have been in this "little microcosm" all along, and *you* don't have much of a grasp of what went on. How would you expect someone who hadn't been here at all to render a meaningful verdict, as you suggested to start with? > And really, I don't understand why that would be such an > incendiary term. We fling a lot of insults at one > another. I don't know that this is so much worse than > the usual fare. Yet you think "some apologies might be in order, going in the other direction." Perhaps you need to think about all this just a little bit more; your thinking so far has been pretty incoherent. (BTW, in your post just now to Ann, I think you meant "maligned," not "misaligned.")
