Note that these "old posts" are all about Robin *as he was 30-some years ago*, a period when Robin himself says he was, essentially, nuts, when he himself says he did great harm to people who loved and trusted him toward the end of the 10 years of his group. None of the writers of these posts had seen him or even heard about him since those days.
While these folks were writing their posts in 2003, Robin was still in seclusion, engaged in self- administered penance and self-correction, having cut himself off from his family and everyone he had known, except for his best friend. He had begun this withdrawal in 1986 and did not emerge from it until 2011. Anyone who can read the accounts he's posted here of what he had done back then, and what this quarter- century of withdrawal was like for him, without sensing the personal agony and extreme remorse and self- condemnation behind them is pathologically insensitive, IMHO. Nobody in these posts says anything about what Robin was like in those days that Robin has not said of himself, and worse. So the intention in reposting them to badmouth and embarrass him and his supporters fails miserably and does serious discredit to the reposter. Quoting from the article below: "The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the other feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath can follow the same script as a normal person, usually with all the subtle nuances of a skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An untrained observer is very unlikely to note any difference from the real thing." The insidious thing about this pronouncement is that when it is quoted in the context of attempting to cast a specific individual as a psychopath, as Xeno is doing, the immediate reaction is to think, "Oh, this person's empathetic responses are automatic, compelling, intuitive, and appropriate, and apparently normal, *just like those of a psychopath*. That's powerful evidence that he *is* a psychopath." It was Xeno's intention for readers to have this reaction. Of course, with a little reflection, one realizes that the only significance of the pronouncement is that if a person seems normally empathetic, his empathy does not by itself *rule out* that he is a psychopath. But it is most certainly not evidence *for* psychopathy. The ill will and desire for revenge embodied by this post of Xeno's is shocking. It tells us something about Xeno: he is just as much in the grip of ego and at the mercy of his emotions as anybody else here, and more so than some. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Some old FFL Posts concerning Robin: > > ======================= > POST #11849 01 OCT 2003 > > Did anyone on this list stick with Robin Carlsen for awhile? He took a lot > of people out of Fairfield and I don't think many came back. Good friends of > mine followed him to Victoria BC: > > Linda Allen > Marty Wolfe > Mark Frost > Peter Mellody > Steve Oliver > > I eventually tracked down Linda and Marty in Sedona. (Linda is now in CT). > But does anyone know where Mark, Peter, and Steve are now? Hope they don't > have Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. > > Linda said Robin got progressively more extreme and paranoid. He made great > show of seeing the Virgin Mary in his wife, Gemma, and then suddenly within > months, he saw Satan Itself in her instead and just as ostentatiously > repudiated her. A lot of followers left him around this time. It sounds like > he really was headed for a mental institution. Too much Catholicism can > really do you in. Puts his obsession with "The Demonic" in perspective, > doesn't it? > > Was anyone at the first meeting with Robin when he came to Ffd? Who was that > woman who refused to back down and kept hammering at him about his claims of > being enlightened in a new Western way? I didn't appreciate her courage then. > > Vashti > _______________________ > > > ======================= > POST #11858 01 OCT 2003 > > I was in Switzerland with Robin, on a 6-month course. We used to walk and > talk together and talk about writing and theater and the like. Then he > allegedly got enlightened and it got very weird. When I later heard what > happened, my first thought was that certain things made sense because Robin > had been a drama teacher. [Phil Goldberg] > > _______________________ > > > ======================= > POST #11889 01 OCT 2003 > > Re: Who was that woman who refused to back down and kept hammering at him > about his claims of being enlightened in a new Western way? I didn't > appreciate her courage then. > > I think the woman you are referring to may have been La Verne Dunn - very > outspoken and bold (which is a good thing as far as I am concerned). She > still lives in Fairfield and is still outspoken. And she was long ago > ostracized by the TMO. > > ======================= > POST #11897 02 OCT 2003 > > Lavergne had the right instincts—she confronted the guy when others were > just rolling over in awe. > > L B S > _______________________ > > > I appears Robin, in his interactions with others, showed a lot of insight > into how people tick to the extent that he could basically (as he inferred) > out-argue anyone. That flexibility of response can be an admirable trait; it > would appear to be a trait associated with 'enlightenment'. But is is also a > trait associated with pyschopathy and sociopathy. > > ============================================== > POSTED RECENTLY ON THE BLOG SOCIOPATHWORLD.COM > (This excerpt is found on many different web sites.) > > From "The Partial Psychopath" by Elliott Barker, M.D. and B. Shipton, Ph.D.: > > (Elliot Barker is Director of the Canadian Society for the Prevention of > Cruelty to Children and the former editor of the journal Empathic Parenting.) > > In our experience, the dimension that correlates most closely with > psychopathy and which has been identified or is implicit in all definitions > of the illness is the concept of empathy, but empathy defined in a specific > two-part way. > > Empathy is loosely thought to be the capacity to put yourself in another > person's shoes. But this seems to be only one part of what constitutes > empathy in relation to the psychopath. What is different about the psychopath > is that he is unaffected or detached emotionally from the knowledge that he > gains by putting himself in your shoes. Thus, although he is able to very > quickly glean during the briefest encounter with another person a lot of very > useful information about what makes that person tick, this knowledge is > simply knowledge to be used or not as the psychopath chooses. What is missing > in psychopaths is the compelling nature of the appropriate affective response > to the knowledge gained from putting himself in another persons shoes, in the > way that this happens in the normal person. This essential missing aspect of > empathy, even in the severe psychopath, is not in my experience easily seen > and one does not often get a second glimpse of it if one has been treated to > a first one by mistake. > > A rather crude example might suffice. A young psychopath who had inflicted > multiple stab wounds on an elderly woman, and was charged with attempted > murder, appeared subdued and appropriately sad about the offence during the > early stages of a first interview. His eyes were moist as he accurately > described how the woman must have felt during and after the attack. But later > in the same interview, after good rapport had been established, this boy > blurted out, "I don't know what all the fuss is about. The old bag only had a > dozen scratches." To my knowledge, in all his subsequent years in the > psychiatric hospital, he stuck to all the right lines of remorse which he > quickly learned were more appropriate and useful. The bright psychopath, the > experienced psychopath, doesn't stumble like that very often. > > With luck and the right question about how the other person's feelings > affected him there will be a barely perceptible pause, or a puzzled look, or > even – rarely - the question, "How am I supposed to feel?" > > The second part of this two-part empathy for the normal person is the > automatic, compelling, intuitive, appropriate response to what the other > feels - not the acting out of a chosen script. The psychopath can follow the > same script as a normal person, usually with all the subtle nuances of a > skilled actor - if he chooses to do so. An untrained observer is very > unlikely to note any difference from the real thing. > > Thus the second part of this two-part empathy in a psychopath is the > choosing and acting of a script. Unlike the normal person, he can choose what > script to follow. He is not compelled intuitively or automatically to react > to the way he knows you feel. And unlike the normal person, he has been told, > or learned by observing others, what he is supposed to feel. > > As he rapes you or strangles you he is not compelled to feel your pain, your > terror, your helplessness. There is no automatic, compelling, intuitive > connection between what he knows you feel and what he feels. There is no way > he must feel. Thus there is none of this kind of restraining force on his > behavior. Therein lies the danger of psychopathy. > > To take the issue further, if a relative incapacity for this two-part type > of empathy is a key ingredient in the makeup of psychopaths, what are the > consequences for society if large numbers of individuals are functioning > without it? Isn't a capacity to be affected by what is happening to others a > necessary component in the makeup of a majority of persons in order for a > group to function as a group? From a sociological perspective, isn't this one > of the functional prerequisites of any social system? Is there a critical > mass for this type of empathy for a society to survive? >
