Hi Share, I have been reading through all these messages over this original expression of yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a public forum with neither person physically known to the other, with no prior relationship at all, for someone to psychologically ultimately violate another person.
If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all means, in terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your feelings on the forum poster. And, again, this is a public Internet forum. As you said yourself, you didn't have a relationship with Robin. Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the right to ask me such questions. I am comfortable working on this on my own."? By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only is it not true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal power. Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone, observation and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over their identity here, including you, and including Robin. There is nothing easier. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Xeno, I've been out of town today. Shopping for my foray into the big > city. Thank you for this even though I know you did not write it for me or > for my big, fat, stupid ego. Hope you won't gag when I say how healing this > is for me to read. Oy, more ego! What you did here, the time and > attention you put into it, really feels like a labor of love, love for what > is. I didn't even freak out too much when I read that I did say > psychologically raped instead of rape. But I remember how I felt, > especially at that point in time when ego had been invaded uninvited and > pulverized for a few weeks and not only by Robin. Extremely upset and still > reeling from events I'd never experienced before. So out popped a phrase > that I had not used before nor that was so familiar too me. But felt spot > on nonetheless. > > > I'm so grateful that I'm gonna shut up now (-: > > > ________________________________ > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius <anartaxius@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:00 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Psychological Rape > > > >  > Psychological rape is a term that does not seem to have much of a fixed > professional definition in psychology. It sometimes is applied to parents who > drug their children to keep them under control. On a common sense level, the > term would seem to imply a kind of invasiveness into one's private space. > That private space is the ego, our sense of individuality and self. There are > other private spaces, such as the experience that some call transcendental > consciousness, which at a certain point in practice, seems deep inside. But > this space (TC) has no characteristics other than the sense of wakefulness, > so it really does not do anything, or provide one with an individual > identity; it has no identity other than bare existence, it is neither private > or public, though the experience seems to be restricted to the individual > body, which we gather from the experience of coming out of a deep meditation, > that that experience occurred somehow in what we are. > > Share used this term 'psychological rape' in reference to Robin. I take this > to mean invasion of that personal space we call the ego, our sense of self as > an individual person, or at a minimum, the sense that our human body is a > locus or point of focus for experience. The ego is a big problem in > spirituality because it is seen as an obstacle to universal experience, it is > the process that makes us seem as if we are special in some way. It divides > us from everything else. So one way to attempt to get rid of the ego, so we > can experience unity (non-division with the world about us) is to try to > manipulate it or attack it. > > But this is the point of maximum resistance. The ego is that in us which > wants us as individuals to survive and never die. Subjugating the ego has to > be an inside job. It has to be eaten away from inside. This is why meditative > techniques may be important because they give our experience a wider > dimension than just the ego, they put the ego in a larger space. Because we > are not really our ego (so the spiritual talk goes), eventually, if we are > lucky, we begin to see that this thing we call our ego, our 'me' is not such > a hot thing. The ego cannot really be taken down much until a substantial > experience of unity dawns because unity provides a big enough space around > ego to manoeuvre it into lesser importance. CC, experiencing yourself as pure > consciousness inside, as silence inside while in activity is too small a > puddle of spiritual value to kick ego off its perch. We can be ass holes in > waking awareness, ass holes in CC, and even ass holes in unity. The > ego is the most subtle beast in the field, and given its chance, it can take > these spiritual benchmark experiences and subvert their potential to its own > machinations. Then you become a spiritual ass hole. Your AssHoliness if you > will. I will venture to say no one ever escapes becoming a spiritual ass hole > at some point in their journey. > > Robin's technique was to saddle up to you kind of friendly like, and then > attempt to get you to see reality by taking down the ego, by attacking it. > And it resists. It does anything to survive. Robin's method, as applied in > the past, and seemingly also recently, though he has claimed he is changed, > is basically to trash the ego, the individual. I find this strange because of > his emphasis on personal ontology. If the ego goes, so does personal > ontology. Without the ego, there is no internal 'self' with which to > experience the world. Therefore I would conclude that Robin's method is > deceptive in that getting to see reality by way of personal ontology is an > impossibility. My view is that personal ontology is the main reason, that > whatever reality there is that is possible for a human body to experience, > that reality is *not* experienced. > > The following quotation (so I read) was published in Ms. magazine some years > ago. It describes psychological rape in the manner that a number of us here > feel is Robin's modus operandi: > > 'Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which > amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. > It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered > up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not meant to > resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy....' > > Now, whether Robin has changed is not necessarily the point. I did not know > Robin in the past, and only know of him as an occasional contributor on this > forum in the past couple of years. My sense of him, based on the history I am > familiar with at this point, is perhaps he has changed a bit from those past > days, but I do not trust what he says about being dramatically changed from > his former ways. But in fact, this is just evaluating words on a page. > > In my interactions with him, I felt what he was doing was strangely invasive > in this sense: imagine you are a clam, and you are having the time of your > life just sitting on the ocean floor. Along comes a starfish, crawls up to > you and then embraces you with its arms and suckers. While you may resist, > eventually it pries you open and digests you. The starfish always wins, > because however strong the ego is, it has a fatal weakness - it is not really > real - it is like a vacuum putting on airs. This method of taking down the > ego can be extremely painful for a person; it can leave scars, for if the ego > is not eliminated, it simply adds this last experience to its repertoire of > misery. > > The difference between the past Robin, and the current Robin is, previously > he was surrounded by a number of people who, for whatever reason, wanted to > be a clam to the starfish. In other words they were willing participants. > Consenting adults. In the current situation on the forum, most here have a > certain degree of independence, and are not willing subjects in adulation of > some spiritual personality. It is not a teacher student relationship here. > There is discussion, argument, backbiting, but this place is not a monastery, > ashram, or temple, or any other kind of spiritual sanctuary devoted to some > particular facet of spiritual discourse. It is more like a free-for-all mud > wrestling match in some cases. > > Now Share felt Robin was invasive and she used the term 'psychological rape' > as how she felt Robin was interacting with her. She had not given her consent > for Robin to ply his trade. As a term used in analogy with sexual rape, this > seems to be a loose representation of how she felt. It think it's > appropriate. I once used the analogy of a constrictor snake in describing how > I felt Robin's approach felt to me. I am sure Curtis has his own way of > expressing this. Note that Barry just brushed Robin aside immediately, and > did not have to deal with any of this. That he has made comments occasionally > is just a writer's tendency to keep his skills honed and to present to us why > he thought Robin was and is a phoney. > > This approach of Robin's is useful only if the person (the clam, the prey) is > willing to be taken out by the starfish or the snake. There is a tacit > agreement, as with all those who surrounded Robin years ago. Those days are > over, but Robin still seems to have those tendencies, in my opinion. > > There are those here, Judy specifically, who feels Robin has changed. She > takes what he says more literally than do I, or than quite a few here on FFL > do. I do not feel Robin's statements to this effect are sincere. I think they > are a ploy, so he can approach and apply his deadly embrace. > > That Judy likes Robin and feels he is sincere and brilliant, and many others > of us here do not, is a reflexion of the differences in how we interpret the > world before our eyes. Truth, beauty, ugliness, bliss and terror are in the > eye of the beholder undefined, but it is the mind of the beholder that gives > those qualities definition. > > ================================ > POST 321664: Share's Original Post where the term 'psychological rape' was > mentioned in the form of 'psychologically raped' > -------------------------------- > > Thank you so much Curtis and Xeno and Steve and Bhairitu who was lighter the > second time around. And JR too. Sometimes when these pilings on happen, I > get flummoxed and it helps a lot to hear from supportive and clear others. > > Curtis, you do not come between me and Robin. He does that all by himself. > Talking about my mystical trance and super positivity and daily New Age > affirmations! Even if any of that is true, which it isn't, then thinking he > needs to deliver a shock. Or to force me into a recognition, as he said in > an earlier email to you. > > Then on top of all that, to say that all this behavior of his is more loving > towards me than your stepping in on my behalf! Ok, I realize that Robin was > being, in his own mind, more loving towards me. But it did not at all feel > more loving to me. Curtis, your continually stepping in did. > > Anyway, I thank Robin for his kind intentions but just to offer feedback: > these kinds of shocking and forcing actions of do not feel loving to me. In > case that matters to you at all. > > Which is why I chose to disengage from Robin: it seems that it doesn't > matter if his behavior does not feel loving towards me. If he deems it > loving, then he's going to do it. It seems with Robin it doesn't matter what > I experience as reality. If it doesn't jive with his idea of reality, then > he's going to shock me or force me. It seems that with Robin it doesn't > matter what my inner experience is. If it isn't in agreement with his idea > of my inner experience, then I must be hyper positive. > > Actually I just realized something: I don't need to disengage from Robin. > He's already not in relationship with me. He's in relationship with his > ideas of how I should be, what should feel loving to me, what I should > experience as reality. > > Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset initially with Robin > about the Russian flash mob post. Being psychologically raped didn't feel > good then just as it doesn't feel good now. > ================================ > > The last two sentences express how she felt about interacting with Robin, and > express her realisation of a terminology that best described it to her. I do > not see why Share should apologise for such a statement. It is no more or > less inciting that anything else on this forum. Other than having read and > gotten the gist (that is, my understanding, my projection of what I though > she was saying) of her statement, I think it is far less inciting than Ravi's > insane comments to people, or Barry's baiting of Judy, or Judy's calling half > the human population a pack of liars (that latter statement is a form of > exaggeration, and as such is not literally true; thus a lie technically; but > this disclaimer puts it in the form of artistic license[1]). Share stated she > did not feel good about her interaction with Robin, said how it felt to her, > and that is that. I did not even remember she was responding to Curtis, > others and me, until I looked it up. What is so > important about this post? To paraphrase her post (not an actual quotation): > 'I felt bad, this is why, this is what I think about what happened now'. End > of Story. > > Apologies are based on the idea that we are intentional agents, that a person > has an intentional stance, and that stance is real rather than just an > apparent manifestation of other processes. If we were to say that all > activity in the universe is governed by 'all the laws of nature', such an > intentional stance would have no meaning. In unity, everything is seen as a > function of the same basic 'value', a branch falling off a tree under the > weight of freshly fallen snow is just the same as someone badmouthing another > person: the same 'rule' is perceived as governing everything that happens or > seems to happen. There is just a single agent, mysteriously winding within > itself. The concept of an apology makes no sense. > > It makes sense to those that think they are intentional agents, that they are > the one that does things in the world. They make demands that reinforce that > perception, that that process called 'me' is an entity, that it is real, and > that it needs to be acknowledged from time to time. The whole thrust of > spirituality is to get out of that particular way of understanding what one > is and what the world is. One problem is that getting involved in 'spiritual' > pursuits is normally done under false pretence - the person interested in > this has delusions about the nature of reality, and therefore has no idea > what they are getting into; and the teacher has to lead the student out of > this morass by communicating in ways that the student can relate to, the old > story of removing a thorn with a thorn, removing a delusion with a delusion. > Demanding apology is a request to legitimatise a particular delusion one has. > > Giving an apology unasked is another matter entirely. Delusion or not, when > we realise we have done harm, and apologise, we are recognising that > something that has happened, seemingly by us, that leaves us feeling out of > tune with the universe, and an apology realigns us with our better nature. It > may or may not help the person apologised to, or even be of importance to > them. An apology is a tool for the apologiser. Demanding an apology is an > attempt to force a situation, an apology, that when spontaneous, results in a > relaxation of tension, and thus demanding an apology is contradictory to the > result desired. Demanding an apology is for small minds. 'Turn the other > cheek' is an instruction for expanding your mind in the face of a situation > where it is likely it would otherwise contract and make you small and petty. > > ---------------------------- > [1] Artistic license (also known as dramatic license, historical license, > poetic license, narrative license, licentia poetica, or simply license) is a > colloquial term, sometimes euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, > alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of > pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art. We are all > artists here, trying to paint a picture of the world that we think is true, > paint a picture that reflects what we feel, paint a picture that we hope, > perhaps, that someone else will appreciate and make their world better or > worse, depending on our conscious or unconscious intent - remember most of > what our brains do is hidden from conscious appreciation according to > neuroscientists. >
