--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
Barry: I have noticed, even in Message View, that some on this forum are confused by the exact meaning of the phrase "first person ontology." Explanations offered so far seem inadequate, so I am introducing a new set of spiritual seminars to teach the benefits of this technique, which I call FPOT, or the First Person Ontology Technique. First, a definition. First person ontology means: Being able to declare that one's own opinion or point of view is always right. Always. Robin: No, Barry, you have it wrong: First person ontology means the possibility of having a subjective experience of what it is like to be you, or what it is like to be me, and from within that irreducible sense of personal selfhood--theoretically--to determine the extent to which that first person experience of oneself in relationship to reality actually IS OBJECTIVE. This is the whole secret, Barry: First of all, that we can't get rid of our first person subjectivity; and secondly (perhaps because of this), that we have the potential to make life shape that first person subjectivity such that--*from a purely personal perspective on the universe*--we actually have a sense of knowing how realistically determined that first person experience of ourselves--in relation to reality in a given moment--*is*. This allows for that Platonic difference between opinion and knowledge. It is a beautiful thing, Barry. Barry: Even spiritual newbs can see the benefit of this. No matter what the circumstance, no matter how much your opinion or point of view makes you appear nuttier than a fruitbat, that is an illusion. In Reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The FPOT practitioner is -- just as they delcare -- not crazy at all, and is ALWAYS right. Robin: No, no, Barry. Again, this is not correct. If you are discerning enough you can feel the perpetual adjudication of reality--that is, the feedback that reality is giving to efforts of a particular FPOT to assert his or her vehement opinions. The 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an instance of first person ontological expression is always determined by the ontology within and beyond reality which first thought of the idea of a FPOT. That is itself the first First Person Ontology [FFPOT]. No, the primary criterion that enables one to determine the extent of the validity of a given first person ontological utterance is: Is there a sufficient element of pure disinterestedness implicit in the articulation of that first person subjective assertion that somehow makes it possible to see that, not just that person's experience is being injected into the universe, but *reality* itself is getting into there as well? This is what we shall call the possibility of the objectification of one's subjectivity. Barry: Furthermore, the FPOT technology gives you the ability to determine whenever anyone else is wrong, or worse, lying. Robin: No, in most cases if the person is plain wrong or is lying, this is a matter which can be decided by access to FACT. There is no need to bring in the FPOT at all. It will be clear in a careful analysis of what a person has said, or claimed, as to its veracity simply on the basis of how much truth gets generated by the rebuttal to what has been said or claimed--and then the sincerity with which the person who has been challenged on his or her facts, is willing to meet that challenge. Barry: On the surface, and to less-evolved people who do have not embraced the FPOT philosophy, it would appear that different people, when they express opinions, are <spit> equal, and that their opinions carry equal weight. But no. The seasoned FPOT practitioner learns to tell which of these people are right and telling the truth (for example, when they agree with them), and which of them are wrong and telling a lie (for example, when they disagree with them). Robin: No, no, Barry: it has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. It has to do with sincerity, innocence, moral conviction, conscience, honesty, and the personal aesthetic (and even acoustics) which comes along with this. The subtext of someone who is not serious, the subtext of someone who is deeply sincere: the difference between these two subtexts will show up when they are juxtaposed. And you are right: in this way one is able to discern which FPOT is making a greater purchase on reality, and this may be accompanied by a somewhat spontaneous recognition of the matter of personal integrity as well. The moment one is reacting according to whether someone is agreeing or disagreeing with oneself--as strictly a matter of content,--then one is a victim of the pejorative form of subjectivity. Humility and a quality of intrinsic vulnerability usually are signposts of the potential appropriateness of a person's FPOT in its judgment and response to a given issue. There really is not a right and wrong here: It's like Oscar said: "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are either well written or badly written. That is all." So, then, either there are FPOTs that are attractive and friendly and strong and good--and then there are the other kind. It is a relative thing, of course. But sometimes the differences (between these two types of FPOTs-along a continuum) do tend to show up quite nakedly. Especially here on FFL. But often it is a matter of degree. However there are--you will know about this, Barry--instances where it is categorical. This FPOT validity difference [FPOTVD] Barry: Just as a hint of the wonderous things you'll learn in your FPOT seminar, here is an abbreviated list of which people are wrong and/or telling a lie every time they speak and which are right and/or telling the truth: WRONG: Barry, Curtis, Vaj, Sal, and Andrew Skolnick Anyone who either agrees with any of the above or interacts with them in a pleasant manner, as if they were human and not the scum they are Anyone who disagrees with Me Robin: No, I have known you to be right on occasion, Barry. And certainly I have known Curtis to be right on many occasions. Even Vaj and Sal have hit the bull's eye. I am not keeping score here at all. I think anyone can be right or wrong at any given moment: I have been wrong on occasion. :-) It's not a matter, as I have tried to argue here, Barry, of who is right and who is wrong: It is a matter of motive, intention, sincerity, a desire to do justice to the truth. FPOT doesn't really enter into the picture here--except where that FPOT finds it very hard to function when reality makes a demand upon that FPOT to be honest and true--and that FPOT reacts to this demand because that person's FPOT has another level of irreducibility than the FPOT which seeks out what is most real, what is most true, and can adapt to the exigent pressures--and pleasures--of truth & reality. RIGHT: Me (the FPOT practitioner him- or herself) Raunchydog, Robin, Ann, Emily, Ravi, doctordumbass, and anyone who sucks up to Me and joins me in dissing people in the WRONG group Anyone who agrees with Me politically Anyone who considers Me an authority Robin: Oh, I just realized: you are talking about someone other than myself here. An instance surely of FPOT misread. It's authfriend you are addressing here. Well, I think the same principles obtain here for her as they do for me, as they do for you and your compadres. Speaking for myself, Barry, I always ignore pretty much who it is who is the author of the post--at least to the extent of not makng that fact determinative in my judgment of--since you are using these terms--the rightness or wrongness of what that FFL poster is saying. I find there is plenty of disagreement between you and persons in the other alliance; and there is plenty of disagreement inside members of the alliance to which I am religious devoted. I always give you a chance, Barry--every time. My best friend and I have intense disagreements about important issues, but we still love each other. You see, Barry, it really does come down to FPOT. :-) I am just realizing I was even more RIGHT than I realized. Barry: Naturally, this list is somewhat flexible and tailored to the needs of the individual FPOT practitioner. For example, if such a list were tailored to Robin, the WRONG list would include Maharishi when he told him he wasn't enlightened and the RIGHT list would include Maharishi when he said that he was, or even hinted at it, or even just said "Yeah, right...whatever" in an attempt to get him out of his face. Robin: Well, Barry, your FPOT is showing here, and it's not that attractive. You see, whenever we are in the grip of the negatively determined tyranny of our FPOT, we are liable to be tendentious, biased, intemperate, and heedless of the truth, because we have a different need: Protection and defence of the predilections of that FPOT--in the teeth of reality or truth or whatever. But perhaps you are being ironic: actually acting out the role of the person whose FPOT is getting the better of him--in the WRONG way. Barry: Sign up for the FPOT seminars today. Find out what always being right can do for YOU. Robin: Well, it is fun to have the sensation that one's FPOT seems to be aligning itself--however faintly and indistinctly--with reality. It means that what one has to say can do most of the work, rather than forcing one's FPOT--against all odds--to bear down upon a situation of conflict heedless of any considerations other than the survival of the familiarity of what it is like to be the person that one is. This FPOT inflexibility, it can be a bitch. Shall I sign you up for the next workshop?
