Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
Judy I've had a quick scan of last night's posts. I see that integrity and corruption are big themes for you in several of them. So my question is: how much integrity do you think you display when you accuse me of avoiding Robin's discourse and yet you fail to mention that in order to make his Hitler's valentine post, he had to ignore about half of an exchange between him and me? Just to be clear, this is the kind of behavior of yours that causes me to question YOUR integrity and purity and credibility. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 7:56 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Share, you interact with people here with much grace and generosity. You are always respectful of others, even when provoked. Well done! That is, if you consider flagrant avoidance of the substance of what she's responding to respectful. (And even without taking said avoidance into account, it's an absurd stretch to call what she wrote that you quote respectful or gracious or generous. But you knew that.) It does not go unnoticed, feste, that you prefer cheap drive-by cheerleading and putdowns to addressing the substance of the controversies here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: There are many people on FFL to whom I feel accountable. They are not however the people who choose to interpret whatever I write in a negative way. As wonderful as those people may be or not be, they have blind spots with regards to me. Just to be clear, I include you in this latter category. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  You know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it! There are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving. I think we are all doing this to some degree or another all
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Not one of Share's statements in this post is made with integrity. One way or another, they're all fraudulent. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: thank you for your support, feste and you too, Curtis and Steve. And I get that you guys are not taking sides. Of course they're taking sides. Emily, indeed I remember that you complimented my poetry and thank you for that. However I must point out to Judy and you that there was only ONE Dolphie followup post. I know yahoo is being wonky these days but I've checked my Sent folder several times and unless I'm totally addled by all this, which is quite possible, I count one original Dolphie post and one followup. Right. Two Dolphie follow-up posts to your Hitler Valentine response to Robin. But you knew that. Both were written in what I thought was an transparently joking way. Obviously YMMV and does. No, our mileage does not vary. That they were written in an oh-so-cutsie-poo transparently joking way WAS THE PROBLEM, Share. But you knew that. snip BTW, it was Robin's choice to play up the Hitler angle which he also introduced. Did anybody claim otherwise? He had excellent reason to do so, and it inspired your two Dolphie follow-up posts, which have told us more about you than anything you've written here so far, handily confirming what Robin has perceived about you. Anyhoo, Emily, just in case you were being neither Robin Ironic nor Defensive Ironic, I assure you that I have not written you off nor categorized you out of existence nor put you in any bucket. That post in which you used these phrases, that post was written to... JUDY. However, the phrases in question defined an entire *category* of people on FFL, not just Judy (as you know). Emily had every reason to assume she was included given your past interactions. FWIW I do believe that this whole thing happened because Robin and I misinterpreted his original * everything * differently. No, this whole thing happened because (as you know) you stupidly disapproved of his posts to Curtis and Barry and stupidly (and disingenuously) tried to draw me into an argument about them. When he suggested that a valentine would have made everything all right, he, no doubt having a more cosmic view than me, meant Hitler's Holocaust. Whereas I, having a more psychological view, meant Hitler's damaged psyche and monstrous actions. No cosmic view required, just the ability to read English. Here's what he wrote: I think you would like to send Hitler a Valentine's Card and make everything all right again. He obviously wasn't talking about going back in time to send the card *before* everything went wrong. He was suggesting you'd send it hoping to make everything all right that had already gone wrong--i.e., the Holocaust. But you knew that too. Phew. It's getting hard to breathe in here; the smell is nauseating. She who dealt it, smelt it...I simply couldn't resist (smiley face).
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy I've had a quick scan of last night's posts. I see that integrity and corruption are big themes for you in several of them. So my question is: how much integrity do you think you display when you accuse me of avoiding Robin's discourse and yet you fail to mention that in order to make his Hitler's valentine post, he had to ignore about half of an exchange between him and me? Just to be clear, this is the kind of behavior of yours that causes me to question YOUR integrity and purity and credibility.   Unfortunately, most of the people on this forum can quote verbatim what the reply to this will be. And here's something (I thought was neat) that will probably get me accused of being a major suck up. The other day I made a post to Curtis, anticipating a certain response, and the response turned out to be completely different than I expected. I liked that. (this, under the category of notes to myself, (that I guess I just shared) (-:
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Judy I've had a quick scan of last night's posts. I see that integrity and corruption are big themes for you in several of them. So my question is: how much integrity do you think you display when you accuse me of avoiding Robin's discourse and yet you fail to mention that in order to make his Hitler's valentine post, he had to ignore about half of an exchange between him and me? Actually, he didn't respond to *anything* in your post except your Hitler idiocy. Not sure where you get half. But he didn't ignore it, as you know. You had ended your post by saying, I enjoyed writing this. Thank you. And he replied, Thank you for writing with the intention to do your best, Share. It was pretty good, all things considered. IOW, it appeared that both of you considered the exchange to have been complete, except for Robin wanting to comment further on your nitwit Hitler remark. Of course, what I had commented on was your *initial* response to Robin's first post in that exchange, in which you went on at some length without ever having directly addressed anything he had said in that post. He replied in detail to that initial response in some detail, point by point, nevertheless. So the two instances aren't even remotely parallel. Just to be clear, this is the kind of behavior of yours that causes me to question YOUR integrity and purity and credibility. (chuckle) If that's the only example of my behavior you can find to support your thesis, Share, I'd say you're having a pretty hard time coming up with anything to question. And even that one doesn't begin to pass the smell test, sorry. All it does is add yet another example to the very long list of *your* demonstrations of lack of integrity and credibility. Plus which, you haven't addressed any of the points I made last night about the dishonesty in your recent posts. But you said you had made only a quick scan, so perhaps you'll have more to say later. You really shouldn't have attempted this present post, though, because you just put yourself even farther behind. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 7:56 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Share, you interact with people here with much grace and generosity. You are always respectful of others, even when provoked. Well done! That is, if you consider flagrant avoidance of the substance of what she's responding to respectful. (And even without taking said avoidance into account, it's an absurd stretch to call what she wrote that you quote respectful or gracious or generous. But you knew that.) It does not go unnoticed, feste, that you prefer cheap drive-by cheerleading and putdowns to addressing the substance of the controversies here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: There are many people on FFL to whom I feel accountable.à They are not however the people who choose to interpret whatever I write in a negative way.à As wonderful as those people may be or not be, they have blind spots with regards to me.à Just to be clear, I include you in this latter category. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 à --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 Ãâà --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: (snip) Just to be clear, this is the kind of behavior of yours that causes me to question YOUR integrity and purity and credibility. Unfortunately, most of the people on this forum can quote verbatim what the reply to this will be. If that were the case, I'd be delighted, because it would mean they were all able to see how ridiculous her post was. I doubt you'd be among them, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Plus which, you haven't addressed any of the points I made last night about the dishonesty in your recent posts. But you said you had made only a quick scan, so perhaps you'll have more to say later. You really shouldn't have attempted this present post, though, because you just put yourself even farther behind. What a surprise. Judy having the upper hand in a discussion. Was she always this smart? I wonder when it started? Grade school, junior high, high school? I think though, that she's found her perfect forum here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: (snip) Just to be clear, this is the kind of behavior of yours that causes me to question YOUR integrity and purity and credibility. Unfortunately, most of the people on this forum can quote verbatim what the reply to this will be. If that were the case, I'd be delighted, because it would mean they were all able to see how ridiculous her post was. I doubt you'd be among them, though. Judy, I am going to tell you that you are wonderful. Maybe you did not hear that enough growing, up, and in case you didn't, I want to tell you that. That you are wonderful, and I wish you many good things.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  You know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it! There are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving. I think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time. If only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond. And I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development. So I am at a certain level of development with reference to this. As is everyone else. No need to feel sad on my account. I am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably. Referring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything. Just as is everyone else! And from Salyavin: Another explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq. I apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction with Curtis. And I apologize to Doc if it seemed I was mocking him. Indeed I enjoyed his post about this. It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined.   PS I saw your post in one of Ann's and retrieved it from Message View. It has not yet appeared in my yahoo inbox. Fair enough, Share. Thanks. I was acting in both my analysis of Barry and in my two posts to Curtis, from a clear conscience and a loving heart. I do not carry or have grudges--never have. My analysis came from a direct perception, and I believe it to be something that can be tested against one's experience. No one with any intelligence could fail to comprehend what I said. Indeed Curtis said it was formulaic, simple, and unsophisticated. In my two posts to Curtis I was acting honourably and appropriately, given what he had written to Ann about me and about his friend and then in his contemptuous reference to DrD. You will understand, then, Share, that as far as I am concerned my motives to write what I wrote were unimpeachable. You will realize therefore that your characterization of those posts gravely contradicts my conscious intention and experience--and make a mockery of those posters who chose to respond to what I have written in terms which coincide with my intention and experience. What this disagreement turns on then, Share, is the quality of truthfulness I exercised in writing that analysis of Barry, and in my two posts to Curtis versus the quality of truthfulness you are exercising in telling me I was in the case of the analysis of Barry expressing a grudge and that I was incomprehensible; and in the case of Curtis, that I was sarcastic and accusatory when he had been reasonable. You realize that if there is such a thing
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
Perhaps you might ask them whether or not they think it is a good idea for you to energetically align yourself with Adolf Hitler. I will pray for your soul. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 àYou know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it!àThere are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving.àI think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time.àIf only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond.àAnd I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development.àSo I am at a certain level of development with reference to this.àAs is everyone else.àNo need to feel sad on my account.àI am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably.àReferring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything.àJust as is everyone else! And from Salyavin:àAnother explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq.àI apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction with Curtis.àAnd I apologize to Doc if it seemed I was mocking him.àIndeed I enjoyed his post about this. It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined. ààPSàI saw your post in one of Ann's and retrieved it from Message View.àIt has not yet appeared in my yahoo inbox. Fair enough, Share. Thanks. I was acting in both my analysis of Barry and in my two posts to Curtis, from a clear conscience and a loving heart. I do not carry or have grudges--never have. My analysis came from a direct perception, and I believe it to be something that can be tested against one's experience. No one with any intelligence could fail to comprehend what I said. Indeed Curtis said it was formulaic, simple, and unsophisticated. In my two posts to Curtis I was acting honourably and appropriately, given what he had written to Ann about me and about his friend and then in his contemptuous reference to DrD. You will understand, then, Share, that as far as I am concerned my motives to write what I wrote were unimpeachable. You will realize therefore that your characterization of those posts gravely contradicts my conscious intention and experience--and make a mockery of those posters who chose to respond to what I have written in terms which coincide with my intention and experience. What this disagreement turns on then, Share, is the quality of truthfulness I
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 Â --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 ÃÂ You know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it!ÃÂ There are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving.ÃÂ I think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time.ÃÂ If only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond.ÃÂ And I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development.ÃÂ So I am at a certain level of development with reference to this.ÃÂ As is everyone else.ÃÂ No need to feel sad on my account.ÃÂ I am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably.ÃÂ Referring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything.ÃÂ Just as is everyone else! And from Salyavin:ÃÂ Another explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq.ÃÂ I apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction with Curtis.ÃÂ And I apologize to Doc if it seemed I was mocking him.ÃÂ Indeed I enjoyed his post about this. It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined. ÃÂ ÃÂ PSÃÂ I saw your post in one of Ann's and retrieved it from Message View.ÃÂ It has not yet appeared in my yahoo inbox.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
There are many people on FFL to whom I feel accountable. They are not however the people who choose to interpret whatever I write in a negative way. As wonderful as those people may be or not be, they have blind spots with regards to me. Just to be clear, I include you in this latter category. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  You know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it! There are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving. I think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time. If only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond. And I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development. So I am at a certain level of development with reference to this. As is everyone else. No need to feel sad on my account. I am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably. Referring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything. Just as is everyone else! And from Salyavin: Another explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq. I apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction with Curtis. And I apologize to Doc if it seemed I was mocking him. Indeed I enjoyed his post about this. It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined.   PS I saw your post in one of Ann's and retrieved it from Message View. It has not yet appeared in my yahoo inbox.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
Again, Share - you are exhibiting an us and them mentality here. You have made zero progress in this assumption of yours - you assume it's true and that's that, isn't it? I summarily reject your second sentence and assume you, in your need to categorize me out of existence with this theory (if past posts from you to me are any indication - remember wts), also include me in this bucket. Have you forgotten that I recently posted an appreciation for your poetry? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: There are many people on FFL to whom I feel accountable. They are not however the people who choose to interpret whatever I write in a negative way. As wonderful as those people may be or not be, they have blind spots with regards to me. Just to be clear, I include you in this latter category. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 ÃâàYou know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it!ÃâàThere are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving.ÃâàI think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time.ÃâàIf only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond.ÃâàAnd I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development.ÃâàSo I am at a certain level of development with reference to this.ÃâàAs is everyone else.ÃâàNo need to feel sad on my account.ÃâàI am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably.ÃâàReferring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything.ÃâàJust as is everyone else! And from Salyavin:ÃâàAnother explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq.ÃâàI apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
Share, you interact with people here with much grace and generosity. You are always respectful of others, even when provoked. Well done! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: There are many people on FFL to whom I feel accountable. They are not however the people who choose to interpret whatever I write in a negative way. As wonderful as those people may be or not be, they have blind spots with regards to me. Just to be clear, I include you in this latter category. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 ÃâàYou know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it!ÃâàThere are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving.ÃâàI think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time.ÃâàIf only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond.ÃâàAnd I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development.ÃâàSo I am at a certain level of development with reference to this.ÃâàAs is everyone else.ÃâàNo need to feel sad on my account.ÃâàI am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably.ÃâàReferring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything.ÃâàJust as is everyone else! And from Salyavin:ÃâàAnother explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq.ÃâàI apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction with Curtis.ÃâàAnd I apologize to Doc if it seemed I was mocking him.ÃâàIndeed I enjoyed his post about this. It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined. ÃâàÃâàPSÃâàI saw your post in one of Ann's and retrieved it from
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
thank you for your support, feste and you too, Curtis and Steve. And I get that you guys are not taking sides. Emily, indeed I remember that you complimented my poetry and thank you for that. However I must point out to Judy and you that there was only ONE Dolphie followup post. I know yahoo is being wonky these days but I've checked my Sent folder several times and unless I'm totally addled by all this, which is quite possible, I count one original Dolphie post and one followup. Both were written in what I thought was an transparently joking way. Obviously YMMV and does. And yes I misspoke when I did not qualify better and say that even those who USUALLY think negatively of me and or what I write, do not always do so. BTW, it was Robin's choice to play up the Hitler angle which he also introduced. Emily, that was a clever swipe at me and my Dome cleaning tales, your quip to feste about cleaning his Dome. Just fyi, feste told us some time ago that due to his knees, he does not go to the Dome. So I'm pretty dang sure he's not gonna go there to hoist foam, etc. Anyhoo, Emily, just in case you were being neither Robin Ironic nor Defensive Ironic, I assure you that I have not written you off nor categorized you out of existence nor put you in any bucket. That post in which you used these phrases, that post was written to... JUDY. And finally please forgive me for, as you said, shocking the s**t out of you. And please also forgive me for saying: but not quite all of it. FWIW I do believe that this whole thing happened because Robin and I misinterpreted his original * everything * differently. When he suggested that a valentine would have made everything all right, he, no doubt having a more cosmic view than me, meant Hitler's Holocaust. Whereas I, having a more psychological view, meant Hitler's damaged psyche and monstrous actions. From: feste37 fest...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:35 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 Share, you interact with people here with much grace and generosity. You are always respectful of others, even when provoked. Well done! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: There are many people on FFL to whom I feel accountable. They are not however the people who choose to interpret whatever I write in a negative way. As wonderful as those people may be or not be, they have blind spots with regards to me. Just to be clear, I include you in this latter category. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  You know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Emily, that was a clever swipe at me and my Dome cleaning tales, your quip to feste about cleaning his Dome. Just fyi, feste told us some time ago that due to his knees, he does not go to the Dome. So I'm pretty dang sure he's not gonna go there to hoist foam, etc. omg, I hope I didn't make it sound like I am an old crock. Far from it, actually, although I do have to be a little protective of an old knee injury that makes it inadvisable me to sit for too long cross-legged or go leaping about on foam like a two-year-old.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Share, you interact with people here with much grace and generosity. You are always respectful of others, even when provoked. Well done! That is, if you consider flagrant avoidance of the substance of what she's responding to respectful. (And even without taking said avoidance into account, it's an absurd stretch to call what she wrote that you quote respectful or gracious or generous. But you knew that.) It does not go unnoticed, feste, that you prefer cheap drive-by cheerleading and putdowns to addressing the substance of the controversies here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: There are many people on FFL to whom I feel accountable. They are not however the people who choose to interpret whatever I write in a negative way. As wonderful as those people may be or not be, they have blind spots with regards to me. Just to be clear, I include you in this latter category. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 ÃâàYou know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it!ÃâàThere are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving.ÃâàI think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time.ÃâàIf only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond.ÃâàAnd I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development.ÃâàSo I am at a certain level of development with reference to this.ÃâàAs is everyone else.ÃâàNo need to feel sad on my account.ÃâàI am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably.ÃâàReferring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything.ÃâàJust as is everyone else! And from Salyavin:ÃâàAnother
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
Not one of Share's statements in this post is made with integrity. One way or another, they're all fraudulent. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: thank you for your support, feste and you too, Curtis and Steve. And I get that you guys are not taking sides. Of course they're taking sides. Emily, indeed I remember that you complimented my poetry and thank you for that. However I must point out to Judy and you that there was only ONE Dolphie followup post. I know yahoo is being wonky these days but I've checked my Sent folder several times and unless I'm totally addled by all this, which is quite possible, I count one original Dolphie post and one followup. Right. Two Dolphie follow-up posts to your Hitler Valentine response to Robin. But you knew that. Both were written in what I thought was an transparently joking way. Obviously YMMV and does. No, our mileage does not vary. That they were written in an oh-so-cutsie-poo transparently joking way WAS THE PROBLEM, Share. But you knew that. snip BTW, it was Robin's choice to play up the Hitler angle which he also introduced. Did anybody claim otherwise? He had excellent reason to do so, and it inspired your two Dolphie follow-up posts, which have told us more about you than anything you've written here so far, handily confirming what Robin has perceived about you. Anyhoo, Emily, just in case you were being neither Robin Ironic nor Defensive Ironic, I assure you that I have not written you off nor categorized you out of existence nor put you in any bucket. That post in which you used these phrases, that post was written to... JUDY. However, the phrases in question defined an entire *category* of people on FFL, not just Judy (as you know). Emily had every reason to assume she was included given your past interactions. FWIW I do believe that this whole thing happened because Robin and I misinterpreted his original * everything * differently. No, this whole thing happened because (as you know) you stupidly disapproved of his posts to Curtis and Barry and stupidly (and disingenuously) tried to draw me into an argument about them. When he suggested that a valentine would have made everything all right, he, no doubt having a more cosmic view than me, meant Hitler's Holocaust. Whereas I, having a more psychological view, meant Hitler's damaged psyche and monstrous actions. No cosmic view required, just the ability to read English. Here's what he wrote: I think you would like to send Hitler a Valentine's Card and make everything all right again. He obviously wasn't talking about going back in time to send the card *before* everything went wrong. He was suggesting you'd send it hoping to make everything all right that had already gone wrong--i.e., the Holocaust. But you knew that too. Phew. It's getting hard to breathe in here; the smell is nauseating.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Share, you interact with people here with much grace and generosity. You are always respectful of others, even when provoked. Well done! That is, if you consider flagrant avoidance of the substance of what she's responding to respectful. (And even without taking said avoidance into account, it's an absurd stretch to call what she wrote that you quote respectful or gracious or generous. But you knew that.) It does not go unnoticed, feste, that you prefer cheap drive-by cheerleading and putdowns to addressing the substance of the controversies here. You may well be right on that, authfriend. I don't have time to write much more. I am a full-time worker. I often wonder how you guys find the time to do so much in-depth posting. Are you all wealthy retirees? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: There are many people on FFL to whom I feel accountable. They are not however the people who choose to interpret whatever I write in a negative way. As wonderful as those people may be or not be, they have blind spots with regards to me. Just to be clear, I include you in this latter category. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Duh! Well since the majority of they have known me for less than a year and only online, hopefully they will understand that I trust more the opinions of family, friends, TMers and acquaintances who have known me in person for 65 years or slightly less in the case of family members; 38 years or slightly less in the case of friends, acquaintances and TMers. Oh, by all means trust those who have known you in person for many years with regard to how you behave in person. Then ask yourself why those with whom you have interacted most intensely and extensively on FFL perceive your behavior here quite differently. You see, unfortunately one can't disavow how one's online persona appears to others online by claiming that one's offline persona is somehow much different. One must own both personas and be accountable for each one to the people who are familiar with it. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:17 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 ÃâàYou know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it!ÃâàThere are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving.ÃâàI think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time.ÃâàIf only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond.ÃâàAnd I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development.ÃâàSo I am at a certain level of development
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
You know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it! There are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving. I think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time. If only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond. And I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development. So I am at a certain level of development with reference to this. As is everyone else. No need to feel sad on my account. I am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably. Referring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything. Just as is everyone else! And from Salyavin: Another explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq. I apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction with Curtis. And I apologize to Doc if it seemed I was mocking him. Indeed I enjoyed his post about this. It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined. PS I saw your post in one of Ann's and retrieved it from Message View. It has not yet appeared in my yahoo inbox. Fair enough, Share. Thanks. I was acting in both my analysis of Barry and in my two posts to Curtis, from a clear conscience and a loving heart. I do not carry or have grudges--never have. My analysis came from a direct perception, and I believe it to be something that can be tested against one's experience. No one with any intelligence could fail to comprehend what I said. Indeed Curtis said it was formulaic, simple, and unsophisticated. In my two posts to Curtis I was acting honourably and appropriately, given what he had written to Ann about me and about his friend and then in his contemptuous reference to DrD. You will understand, then, Share, that as far as I am concerned my motives to write what I wrote were unimpeachable. You will realize therefore that your characterization of those posts gravely contradicts my conscious intention and experience--and make a mockery of those posters who chose to respond to what I have written in terms which coincide with my intention and experience. What this disagreement turns on then, Share, is the quality of truthfulness I exercised in writing that analysis of Barry, and in my two posts to Curtis versus the quality of truthfulness you are exercising in telling me I was in the case of the analysis of Barry expressing a grudge and that I was incomprehensible; and in the case of Curtis, that I was sarcastic and accusatory when he had been reasonable. You realize that if there is such a thing as truth and justice, one of us--since we are so polarized in our interpretations of these three events--is mistaken. Since there is no way to reconcile our respective judgments of this matter. I have given my explanation for how I understand why you wrote to authfriend asking why I wrote those posts and why you have written as you have here. Because the matter of free will is problematic for me metaphysically, I cannot accuse you of deliberating choosing to act in a way which you know was false. But I will say, Share, that you have a meta-phobia about making any sort of contact with life when it wishes to force its own interpretation upon you. You appear to me to be governed by some profound form of reality denial--and you can never escape from this. The sense of the tragic is, as fas I am concerned (Maharishi missed this) built into the nature of life as we human beings know it. I choose to embrace the tragic, and believe you can never get close to any kind of truth which means anything unless you are willing to suffer to know what is the beautiful. You--perhaps uncontrollably--flee from where reality would wish to hold you. It is a cause of sadness in me, Share. But you enlist all your resources in the service of protecting yourself against any chance realty might coercively impose its meaning upon you, instead of your imposing your philosophy on reality. My analysis of Barry, and then my two posts to Curtis, create real
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: SL: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us RC: There is no evidence that this is an 'experience' of yours, whatsoever, Share. This is imagined via your philosophy, a philosophy whose purpose is to insure there is a fire wall between you and reality at all times. Reality? The reality, Share, which would make you seek to find the actual point of tension which results in the disagreement about the truthfulness and appropriateness of those disputed posts of mine. Your platitudes here cannot be a substitute for finding out WTF REALITY THINKS OF THIS DIFFERENT WAY YOU AND I ARE INTERPRETING HER. Does it matter to reality which one of us more closely represents her (reality's) point of view about those posts, Share? Was your construal more innocent and sincere (therefore more convincing) than DrD's judgment of those same posts? Is there, does there exist, some means of adjudicating between different claims about what is more real, what is more truthful? I believe there is, although this is not set out in any book I have read or lived out by any person that I have known. SL: That any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it! RC: What is the empirical or experimental basis of this knowledge you present here, Share? You have actually experienced inside your being the simultaneity of free will and reality being expressed in the actions of an individual human being? No one that I have ever known (or who has existed as a human being) has ever had such an experience--For if they had this experience, Share, they would be able to solve the problem of free will and determinism. Don't you see, Share, you are making an idea take the place of an existential encounter with your own personally felt experience? This is what confounds me, that you settle for a pure abstraction in the place of a required experience. There is no experience here, Share; therefore what you propose is just Hindu philosophy disjoined from your own existence. SL: There are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving. RC: Fine, Undoubtedly true. What has this to do with those three posts of mine, your question to authfriend, or anything I have written to you since then? There is, Share, a real place of exact location where life is going on in this argument we are having. Why not see where we can go by bearing as much of what is happening here as we can--and see where we end up? I want to bring all of myself, all of my history, along with me in any serious debate--and I don't mind being humbled in the discovery that indeed my analysis of BW was ill-conceived, that my posts to CM were scornful and petty. But you have not entered into any form of experience whereby you could deliver up such a verdict--because then, Share, SOME OF REALITY WOULD BE COMING THROUGH YOU WHEN YOU DID THIS. And I would feel this. This is where what really is the case (objectivity) gets into our subjectivity (what we *experience* is the case, or what we would *like* to be the case). SL: I think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time. RC: Are we, Share? Where is the data you have collected on this issue, in terms of recording it on your nervous system? Don't you see, Share, if you really believed this, there should be some evidence--even unconscious--that your life reflects the legitimacy of drawing such a conclusion. Whereas the fact is, you are a zero (in terms of the legacy of your life) in any connection you are making here between this idea and reality. Like right in this very moment, Share, what is your experience of what I just said? I submit to you, Share, you are dominated by a subjective experience that tells you what I am writing must be answered *in order to allow you to survive with your philosophy and modus operandi intact*. Whereas what I would have liked is for you to see what the effect is of what I say upon you as a living soul in the universe. Hell, you might be right about everything, Share, but the irony is: YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO KNOW THIS. SL: If only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond. RC: Just a concept, Share. SL: And I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development. RC: Intriguing idea here, Share. Does it go to anything relevant to what we have been discussing? The need for filtering: that could be a concept interestingly enough which is pertinent here (to our dispute). Again, Share, you are going from an idea, a sentiment, a principle back to life, instead of the other way around. What just astonishes me, Share, is that all I get from you (besides
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. From: authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2 You know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it! There are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving. I think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time. If only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond. And I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development. So I am at a certain level of development with reference to this. As is everyone else. No need to feel sad on my account. I am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably. Referring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything. Just as is everyone else! And from Salyavin: Another explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq. I apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction with Curtis. And I apologize to Doc if it seemed I was mocking him. Indeed I enjoyed his post about this. It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined. PS I saw your post in one of Ann's and retrieved it from Message View. It has not yet appeared in my yahoo inbox. Fair enough, Share. Thanks. I was acting in both my analysis of Barry and in my two posts to Curtis, from a clear conscience and a loving heart. I do not carry or have grudges--never have. My analysis came from a direct perception, and I believe it to be something that can be tested against one's experience. No one with any intelligence could fail to comprehend what I said. Indeed Curtis said it was formulaic, simple, and unsophisticated. In my two posts to Curtis I was acting honourably and appropriately, given what he had written to Ann about me and about his friend and then in his contemptuous reference to DrD. You will understand, then, Share, that as far as I am concerned my motives to write what I wrote were unimpeachable. You will realize therefore that your characterization of those posts gravely contradicts my conscious intention and experience--and make a mockery of those posters who chose to respond to what I have written in terms which coincide with my intention and experience. What this disagreement turns on then, Share, is the quality of truthfulness I exercised in writing that analysis of Barry, and in my two posts to Curtis versus the quality of truthfulness you are exercising in telling me I was in the case of the analysis of Barry expressing a grudge and that I was incomprehensible; and in the case of Curtis, that I was sarcastic and accusatory when he had been reasonable. You realize that if there is such a thing as truth and justice, one of us--since we are so polarized in our interpretations of these three events--is mistaken. Since there is no way to reconcile our respective judgments of this matter. I have given my explanation for how I understand why you wrote to authfriend asking why I wrote those posts and why you have written as you have here. Because the matter of free will is problematic for me metaphysically, I cannot accuse you of deliberating choosing to act in a way which you know was false. But I will say, Share, that you have a meta-phobia about making any sort of contact with life when it wishes to force its own interpretation upon you. You appear to me to be governed by some profound form of reality denial--and you can never escape from this. The sense of the tragic is, as fas I am concerned (Maharishi missed
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: I'm quite sure that my definition of sentimentality is different from Robin's. In almost 65 years of living, no one has ever accused me of being sentimental, Well, now they have. nor do I think of myself that way. In this post I begin by addressing Robin's assertions in the 6th paragraph of his post wherein he talks about contact with life and alleged reality denial. As for metaphysical discomfort, I did not experience such in reading Robin's post. I told you what it seemed like to me. Now you get to find out what it seemed like to Robin. From: authfriend authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin 2  You know, Share, all this is very lovely, but it doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with what Robin was saying. In fact, it appears to me to be an *example* of the very behavior he describes: using sentimentality as a way to insulate yourself from the metaphysical discomfort his post produced in you. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, it is my experience that life reality is always making contact with us; that any filtering of that contact is also done by life reality though it may seem like the individual is doing it! There are stories of people going through trauma and their later reports suggest that the system at least partially shut down all by itself for the sake of avoiding overwhelm and surviving. I think we are all doing this to some degree or another all the time. If only to avoid being overwhelmed by all the sensory data being presented to us at every nanosecond. And I think the decrease of the need for filtering is one way to describe human development. So I am at a certain level of development with reference to this. As is everyone else. No need to feel sad on my account. I am simply at a less developed stage than you are probably. Referring back to Emily's quote from Descartes we could say that I am going as far as possible in doubting everything. Just as is everyone else! And from Salyavin: Another explanation is that maybe we just don't know enough about the nature of reality yet? I did say that it seemed you were expressing a grudge against turq. I apologize for misjudging you about that and about your interaction with Curtis. And I apologize to Doc if it seemed I was mocking him. Indeed I enjoyed his post about this. It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined.   PS I saw your post in one of Ann's and retrieved it from Message View. It has not yet appeared in my yahoo inbox. Fair enough, Share. Thanks. I was acting in both my analysis of Barry and in my two posts to Curtis, from a clear conscience and a loving heart. I do not carry or have grudges--never have. My analysis came from a direct perception, and I believe it to be something that can be tested against one's experience. No one with any intelligence could fail to comprehend what I said. Indeed Curtis said it was formulaic, simple, and unsophisticated. In my two posts to Curtis I was acting honourably and appropriately, given what he had written to Ann about me and about his friend and then in his contemptuous reference to DrD. You will understand, then, Share, that as far as I am concerned my motives to write what I wrote were unimpeachable. You will realize therefore that your characterization of those posts gravely contradicts my conscious intention and experience--and make a mockery of those posters who chose to respond to what I have written in terms which coincide with my intention and experience. What this disagreement turns on then, Share, is the quality of truthfulness I exercised in writing that analysis of Barry, and in my two posts to Curtis versus the quality of truthfulness you are exercising in telling me I was in the case of the analysis of Barry expressing a grudge and that I was incomprehensible; and in the case of Curtis, that I was sarcastic and accusatory when he had been reasonable. You realize that if there is such a thing as truth and justice, one of us--since we are so polarized in our interpretations of these three events--is mistaken. Since there is no way to reconcile our respective judgments of this matter. I have given my explanation for how I understand why you wrote to authfriend asking why I wrote those posts and why you have written as you have here. Because the matter of free will is problematic for me metaphysically, I cannot accuse you of deliberating choosing to act in a way which you know was false. But I will say, Share
