[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
proven to you something even more significant: I can, as an artist, sort of imagine what it is like for you now, reading this. Why not think *this*, Robin: This comes, as it were, *from your very own self*. Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: snip --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-) People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is that people would have to shower less if they just ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and pristine snow he is. [Barry about Robin--from yesterday) CURTIS: In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am referring only to his intensely opinionated posts--not, for example, to the posts he just wrote from Paris. But you are wrong about them too. It is YOUR lack of ability to see his internal processes in them. If anything it comes through more simply in those. He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. But you knew this. What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of him. It is his freak of nature persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews. But you knew this. Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things that annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are focused on you. But even the infamous C posts were completely comprehensible in terms of his POV and thinking process. The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of him. They are not. Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU. Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin. Seriously, it is so lame. What I want this post to do is to express ideas I am interested in expressing. I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris of today. Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my analysis, Curtis It has to do with mine. In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your internal world. This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever said about me, Curtis. Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday. Actually it does but you will never hear it. I know that now. You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis. Mindfuckery statement. Did this used to work for you in the old days with younger minds? I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this reading of this passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant. But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you want this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you were not being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are unanswerable. Dude, enough with the word flood posts. I read most of them and I have nothing
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Dear Curtis, I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it comes to me. The thought experiment. Now an existential one. I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) or whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely different attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one person who stands out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more importantly, altering my attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it comes to knowing my motives, blind when it comes to understanding who I am, blind when it comes to understanding when criticism (about myself) is valid, blind when it comes to estimating how perspicuous my posts are. But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via examination of self)? Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to seek professional help. If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this private between you and me? Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you will just say: You are nuts, Robin. And if you deem my problem to in fact be psychopathological, you will just say: You are fine, Robin. I promise to cease posting if you oblige me in this way. I mean, unless you choose to answer those four posts from Saturday. (Then, whether crazy or not, I think you will understand my desperate need to have some way of preserving my reputation on FFL as someone who never gives in, or gives up--Oops! that just may decide which kind of problem I have, what I just wrote there. I see that now, Curtis. Still, I am not going prejudge this matter.) I think we should just wipe the slate clean here, Curtis. Until you say something bad about me, I won't say anything bad about you. This, then, will be my last word on FFL until I hear from you as to how I should proceed. Believe it or not, I *am* feeling better. Thank you, Curtis. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Curtis1: Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts stand on their own without commentary. I think that does you the most justice because Judy has informed me that when I respond I can keep others from seeing the truth of your post. Hey great job on deflecting the feedback. Not a drop ever reached you. I guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so you could dismiss it out of hand. Robin1: Well, since you *didn't* believe what [you] wrote, I feel it would have been naive of me not to have dismiss[ed] it out of hand. But I have not, Curtis. I wrote four posts to you yesterday. Those four posts, each one of them, constitutes a comprehensive response to what you wrote to me this morning, which I just responded to now. We are talking about a Curtis Principle. But I think I might not forget *this*: I guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so you could dismiss it out of hand. Orgasm. You came, Curtis. I finally got you to come. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-) People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is that people would have to shower less if they just ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and pristine snow he is. [Barry about Robin--from yesterday) CURTIS: In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am referring only to his intensely opinionated posts--not, for example, to the posts he just wrote from Paris. But you knew this. What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of him. It is his freak of nature persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews. But you knew this. The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of him. They are not. Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Dear Robin, Thank you for your letter. I really don't understand your relentless attacks on me, Robin. I disagree with you about things you take very seriously. Why the problem? Look, Robin, the fact that I have a different POV than you do about something does not mean you have to try to find out some psychological reason why I would come to a different conclusion about this. I am simply responding to you, Robin, and it seems you don't like this. But I am starting to feel badly on your behalf. For someone to rage away, trying to find what is wrong with the other person's psyche which would explain their difference of opinion on some matter--Robin, this is bizarre. I have only done one thing: I have called you on this. And you give plenty of evidence why you don't like this. Once again, I make a simple request (you are just being your ironic asshole self in your letter below: you are not serious about the clinical versus philosophical prescription; I shall pass over that): You express your POV; I will express mine. And if you are offended that I refuse to be converted to your POV, *live with it*, Robin. Don't you see what I and others have found out about you? You don't wish to be contradicted, Robin. The moment someone opposes you, you start to analyze their inner motivation (For not collapsing their different POV, and folding into you own--Is this what you did in those seminars, Robin? Ah, fuck it. Don't answer that. I have had enough of that shit from Ann today). You have to stop doing this, Robin. Almost everyone on FFL liked me, respected me, admired me (with a few exceptions; but you are familiar with those who have determined to be my enemy--and Barry's--for as long as there is life) before you came on board. You have essentially confused and disturbed people with your word floods, Robin. They don't help the cause of truth-finding on this forum. You have to get this through your swelled (still some hallucinatory effects there, Robin?) head. Once you do--and I know you are being facetious and mocking with your proposed thought experiment (yes, now become existential--Funny, that, Robin)--there will be more sunlight here on FFL, Robin. You are the one--you are not going to like this, Robin--who darkens the skies here. I am only interested in letting in more `reality' [sunlight], Robin. You are the person who stirs everything up. I don't like it. Barry doesn't like it. Salyavin doesn't like it. And Bhairitu doesn't like it. Many more would echo this sentiment, Robin. Look, I have made a huge compromise in writing the way I have here. I am almost (please consider this a psychological favour, Robin; I think my ordinary prose is just too hard-hitting for you; I prefer your more effeminate style--and I mean that in a good way; don't fret) imitating your style here, Robin. That's about it, Robin. I appreciate your reading this. Good rap so far today. I enjoyed it. Curtis --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Curtis, I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it comes to me. The thought experiment. Now an existential one. I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) or whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely different attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one person who stands out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more importantly, altering my attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it comes to knowing my motives, blind when it comes to understanding who I am, blind when it comes to understanding when criticism (about myself) is valid, blind when it comes to estimating how perspicuous my posts are. But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via examination of self)? Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to seek professional help. If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this private between you and me? Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you will just say: You are nuts, Robin. And if you deem my problem to in fact be psychopathological, you will just say: You are fine, Robin. I promise to cease posting if you oblige me in this way. I mean, unless you choose to answer those four posts from Saturday. (Then, whether crazy or not, I think you will understand my desperate need to have some way of preserving my reputation on FFL as someone who never gives in, or gives up--Oops! that just may decide which kind of problem I have, what I just
[FairfieldLife] Robin's Four Posts to Curtis
These are my four posts to Curtis. If you wish to understand the dispute between Curtis and myself I hardly think you will understand anything really significant without reading these posts. They are a response to a Curtis post. They are, then, interactive (Curtis vs Robin) from beginning to end. I have put all of myself into each one of them. If they are faulty, or inadequate--or unfair--I would like to know why. For as I say, I can be judged as to my motives and my character (as revealed on FFL at least) by these four posts. Curtis has thus far chosen not to address any of the four posts. If he does, there is always the chance I will realize that I was fundamentally wrong in my judgment of the soundness of his own arguments and the felt truth of his animadversions. Those who make critical comments about this serious conflict between Curtis and myself--without reading these posts--are not in a position to say anything which means much. Although there will be those of you who will immediately quarrel with my having said this. These posts, then, represent the conversation between Curtis and myself. If you come down on Curtis's side after reading them thoroughly--and can explain your reasons--that is a pretty good bet that you have something significant to say. And I will read it, and if possible, respond to it. Contrary to what other posters have said, I believe the issues we are controverting here are extremely significant, and will go to the meaning of what is contained in that event when we have to give an account of ourselves--That is, at the end of our life here inside the physical world. Should this happen. That is the place, then, from which I composed each of these four posts (April 6, 2013). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340243 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340259 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340286 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340308
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. Not only does he vaccinate himself against any feedback from others, but he vaccinates himself against any feedback from himself. This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this. Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what someone writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there. It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to remain inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and he has been posting only to himself. As if this were the case, since he has removed himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the experience of the reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to reality and what abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter about which he is writing. BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or scornful or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in attempting to challenge what BW has written, to the extent to which this represents a real intention inside the other person, is the extent to which that intention--and the writing of a counter-post--will end up in empty space--No one is there. BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-) People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is that people would have to shower less if they just ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and pristine snow he is. [Barry about Robin--from yesterday) CURTIS: In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am referring only to his intensely opinionated posts--not, for example, to the posts he just wrote from Paris. But you knew this. What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of him. It is his freak of nature persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews. But you knew this. The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of him. They are not. Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU. I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris of today. Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my analysis, Curtis In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your internal world. This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever said about me, Curtis. Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday. You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis. I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this reading of this passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant. But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you want this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you were not being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are unanswerable. I am perceptive, Curtis, and my four posts addressed to yourself yesterday touch upon reality. As does my analysis of Barry Wright. Do you give the stars permission to come out in the sky tonight? We are both extremely objective, Curtis. Me for one purpose, you for another. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this. This might be a good example of the lack of perceptiveness I referred to in an earlier post Robin. Barry's frequent stream of consciousness writing style makes this more obvious than for most posters. But I'm ready to be proven wrong. Perhaps you could show us how much more Judy reveals about her experience of herself in her writing, as a clear contrast. In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your internal world. Fill the page. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts stand on their own without commentary. I think that does you the most justice because Judy has informed me that when I respond I can keep others from seeing the truth of your post. Hey great job on deflecting the feedback. Not a drop ever reached you. I guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so you could dismiss it out of hand. Well, since you *didn't* believe what [you] wrote, I feel it would have been naive of me not to have dismiss[ed] it out of hand. But I have not, Curtis. I wrote four posts to you yesterday. Those four posts, each one of them, constitutes a comprehensive response to what you wrote to me this morning, which I just responded to now. We are talking about a Curtis Principle. But I think I might not forget *this*: I guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so you could dismiss it out of hand. Orgasm. You came, Curtis. I finally got you to come. Mighty handy that little trick. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-) People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is that people would have to shower less if they just ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and pristine snow he is. [Barry about Robin--from yesterday) CURTIS: In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am referring only to his intensely opinionated posts--not, for example, to the posts he just wrote from Paris. But you knew this. What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of him. It is his freak of nature persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews. But you knew this. The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of him. They are not. Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU. I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris of today. Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my analysis, Curtis In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your internal world. This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever said about me, Curtis. Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday. You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis. I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this reading of this passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant. But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you want this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you were not being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are unanswerable. I am perceptive, Curtis, and my four posts addressed to yourself yesterday touch upon reality. As does my analysis of Barry Wright. Do you give the stars permission to come out in the sky tonight? We are both extremely objective, Curtis. Me for one purpose, you for another. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: fieldl...@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Curtis1: I was going to second Steve's post but I guess I would rather address you directly Robin since I am so tight with reality that if she dies tonight on the car ride home CSI would convict me on DNA evidence alone. Robin1: I welcome you once again, Curtis. Let us see where this goes. I think you act as if you certainly are tight with 'reality', Curtis--as much easily as I do. We both seemed to be inspired by what is real, I will give you that. I am becoming accustomed to the tension between us. It seems it's going to last. You are bloody consistent, Curtis--and I respect your ferocious commitment to what you have determined must be the case. But you get me wrong every time--except maybe about Descartes. More about that at the end of this. By the way, Curtis, you get me more wrong than I perhaps have got Descartes wrong (although I only was using his idea of there perhaps being a demon behind all that we believe--and turning this into a sense of a devil's advocate: who allows us to consider we might be absolutely wrong in everything we believe is true--I exploited one idea there. Perhaps you can tell me where I misrepresented him). Curtis1: From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly. Robin1: A blatant lie. This demonstrates how unconscionable you are when you argue, Curtis. You are contradicting the record. Share and I started off very much enjoying each other's company and posts. That lasted for quite some time. Where did you get the idea that my mission with Share has been unfriendly--from the outset. Correct this, Curtis. Even Share will admit you have seriously abused the truth here. But your agenda metaphysically and psychologically is so powerful and compulsive that you would make this claim as if in the face of truth--You can do this better I think than anyone I have known. And I respect this. But no, Curtis, I liked Share right from the beginning, and I have not given up on the notion of our becoming reconciled at the most important level. And I think my posts reflect this. You know: clear conscience, loving heart. Curtis 2: Do you think I am referring to my copious notes about how your relationship with other posters have evolved? Robin2: No, I am just pointing out a significant fact which you falsified. Curtis2: Mission: the beginning of the current exchange. The topic and context of all of our discussions in the context of those exchanges. Seemed pretty obvious to me. Robin2: Typical obfuscation and wrenching the issue out of the context within which I had placed it by challenging your assertion that From the outset your mission with Share has been unfriendly. Think of the difference, Curtis. If two persons begin liking each (as I believe *we* did) and then fall out with each other (as we did) this represents a very different kind of interpersonal drama than, for instance, if two persons did not like each other at the outset--which appears to be the case with BW and myself. I corresponded with SL in a meaningful, friendly, and loving way--offline. Those letters themselves protest against your characterization here, Curtis. But there is something foul about what you insinuate by describing the initial antipathy I had towards Share Long. Because--this won't be easy to digest, Curtis, so I am giving you this warning before I tell you what I about to tell you--*I am wanting in each moment to open myself to Share, to reconcile with Share, and to heal the breach in our friendship*. I paid tribute to the recognizable change in Share's approach to me in our most recent exchange (friendly intelligent, non-negative). By defining my motive as intransigently bent upon sustaining my animosity towards Share you willfully distort the truth, Curtis, and, as always, this plays into your determination to make the truth over into the form which becomes your own creation, never letting truth just sit there and making yourself submit to it. Again, Curtis, I deny that you accurately or honestly reveal my intention regarding Share by altering the historical record. What would it mean, do you think, had Barry and I struck up a friendship at the beginning, then became alienated from each other (admittedly an abstractedly conceived contingency)? Our relations would have a very different meaning now, had that once been the case (that we were friends). You relentlessly seek to mould truth and reality into a form which will fit your purposes, Curtis. All you had to say was: Oh, that's right, Robin; you were friends at the beginning. But you sure wouldn't it now! It is *as if* you have always been unfriendly. But as it is you talk about my mission with Share being unfriendly. And then you attempt to wriggle out
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
PART II --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Curtis1: It reminds me of our conversations which followed the same arc, although I at lest got some flowers and chocolates at the door before the assault. Robin1: Yes, I enjoyed our friendship, Curtis, offline as well. I know what it is like to love you. But again, I declare that the record at FFL shows that Robin and Share got along famously at the beginning. AWB described one postal exchange as a Japanese tea ceremony. So you must retract this accusation, Curtis. And I know you will. Curtis2: So you are really gunna run with this when even you referred to : And I have always kept before me the contingent possibility that Share might turn out to be more what she seemed to me to be in the beginning. Robin2: Yes. Because I believe in the literal truth of those words. Where is the problem here, Curtis? You are just running and running away from the implication (and onus) created by your having deliberately--or inadvertently--misconstrued my relationship with Share Long. No mission of unfriendliness from the beginning, Curtis. Remember this. Curtis2: Funny how this context was obvious to you, but mine was so hard to figure out. Robin2: Your context was not hard to figure out at all, Curtis. It never is. How have I misunderstood or failed to understand you? Curtis1 [quoting Robin]You would make Share's post into some devastating counterpunch. Curtis1: You have used similar metaphors of competition in our conversations and I am seeing a pattern. Robin1: This pattern metaphorically, then, Curtis, it is evidence that my motive is pugilistic and not purely intellectual. Curtis2: Yes, that is a great way to sum up how I view your participation here. (On a re-read this seems a bit harsh. I'm sure you have intellectual interests here as well.) (note to Robin, I am re-reading so I can cut stuff OUT. Just say'n...) Robin2: I appreciate the amendment, Curtis. You may surprise me yet. Remember: I am always looking for that undermining of my definition of a person (accumulated over time via my experience). Am I really what I mocked myself as being, Curtis: pugilistic? I hope not. But perhaps reality--a kind of delayed punch to the gut---is going to inform me you were right about this. We shall see. Meanwhile, I do not believe my pugnacity determines my intellectual approach on FFL--and indeed I am very much not a pugilist. Except for yearning and praying nightly for a true knock-out blow when it comes to yourself, Curtis. Robin1: Your choosing to seize upon my metaphorical inclinations is tantamount to extorting from me an admission of wanting to overpower and conquer and beat up my opponent, Curtis? How about our hundred thousand words we exchanged when we began to talk together on FFL--and even offline: Was I aggressive and bloodthirsty then? Curtis2: No, where did that guy go? The current Robin killed him off. Robin2: Of anything you have said--maybe ever since we became estranged--this does hold something for me, Curtis. It is an interesting and provocative statement--and rhetorical question. I sort of like this. Thank you. But I believe the current Robin is the same Robin who killed off that other guy. Still, this felt good when I read it, Curtis. You don't want to know why. But I will tell you anyway. Because of the Curtis you had to be in the moment of writing this. It seemed just straight, human, devoid of stratagem. Against the grain of my case against you, Curtis. I'll have to keep this memory in mind when I find you abandoning this form of yourself, so that I too can declare: Where did that guy go. The now Curtis killed him off. Robin1: When did this pattern begin? This is absurd, Curtis: reread my posts to Share and my two posts to Steve (who you deem incapable of answering me, so you would fight in his stead). Curtis2: This slippery little reframe of the dynamics of the place where posters jump into threads that interest them is dishonest. My joining a discussion has nothing to do with a person's ability to speak for themselves. Not everyone wants to engage with you in the detail I do Robin, you should be thankful, not shaming that I added my two cents. Robin2; WTF? I don't object to your jump[ing] into threads that interest [you]. I chose to interpret your post on behalf of Share (you as much as said you were going to post an affirmation of what Steve posted). You have tendentiously and slyly chosen to deny the truth of my assumption about why you posted--and the intensity with which you objected to this interpretation tells me it was even truer than I thought it was. If my interpretation of your posting was incorrect, Curtis, you would EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT PROVES I WAS MISTAKEN. But what did you do? Accuse, scold, condemn--WITHOUT A SINGLE IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO BACK YOU
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
PART III --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Curtis1: And when they reject this assumption, (as any adult would), you act as if you are in a fight to make them see themselves through your unflattering lens. Robin1: This is absurd, Curtis. I don't make any assumptions about people at all--neither here on FFL nor elsewhere. I adduce my evidence, I provide a context of understanding; I do not just call people names. What I experience (sincerely) is contact with something which makes it seem that not to say what I feel is the truth will be to defraud me and the person of the knowledge ofwhat is really going on. Curtis2: Then I am saying you are as notas good at providing the knowledge of what is really going on as you think you are. Robin2: This is unproven, undemonstrated, and embarrassingly arbitrary. YOU DON'T EVEN LOOK TO YOUR EXPERIENCE TO BUTTRESS THIS ASSERTION, CURTIS. Not good. You are just saying this out of the blue, having insulated yourself inside the exigent demands of your first person ontology. Look, Curtis, even without consciously realizing this, had you made this judgment and there were experiences you had had which formed the basis of that judgment WE WOULD FEEL THIS--again, even unconsciously. And this would go towards demolishing Robin's claims. This is so fascinating, Curtis--I don't know anyone else in my life who does this. That is, assert what is the case completely in a reality vacuum--which disallows the reader's consciousness to have any access to data which exists independent of that argument from authority (which you personify in your polemics here on FFL). Robin1: There is one fatal weakness in all that you say against me, Curtis: I analyze people to some degree here on FFL--that is, how their own subjectivity is interfering with the truth (as I see it). My doing this LEAVES ME OPEN TO BEING ANALYZED MYSELF--not just to get back at me; but in terms of WHAT MAKES ROBIN DO THIS. For why I do this, Curtis, it must be there, transparent--indeed my way of going about arguing with someone (which any adult would reject) itself, for there to be any truth in what you say here (and elsewhere), must reflect more obviously upon some weakness in myself than the weakness or flaw that I seek to expose in the subjective determinations in another person--like yourself, like Share, and now like Steve. Curtis 2: I don't believe this, but I can't imagine that you would care. I don't sense any genuine openness in you this way. Robin2: You don't believe what you profess to disbelieve either, Curtis--as evidenced in both these sentences. I am saying to you, Curtis, that there is tremendous genuine openness in [me] in this way. What about *that*? Am I lying? I maintain that those who read me objectively sense this openness--or at the very least, the firm intention to do justice to the truth no matter how inconvenient or painful it is to myself. No? It's certainly what I set to do in my life, Curtis--at least now. Yes, I would die upon a point of honour; viz. I am sincere, I am open, I am vulnerable, and I am willing to have my clock cleaned--even by CurtisDeltaBlues. I don't sense any genuine openness in you this way: This is barefaced lie, Curtis--*in this sense*: it, once again, is separate from experience, from evidence, from memory, from history, from anything which could feed into this assertion to give it its humanly constituted sincerity. Get it? Robin1: Goddam it, Curtis, I feel you know what's going on here better than I do. You know Share's flaws better than I do--Barry's for sure. I think you deem me naive about Barry. Get it, Curtis? This is the key to understanding you. But again, I return to the self-evident principle of how we set up automatically a judgement of ourselves when we judge other persons. In my case it should be clinically obvious what I am about here--but you have not yet identified the problem I have--or even tried to do this. Why, I wonder? Curtis2: I don't care maybe? You certainly wouldn't be open to it if I did. Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on point of death, unreservedly open to any and all reflections you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN. There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis. Curtis1: Why would we? Robin1 : Well, if what I say --usually (as far as I am concerned at least) on behalf of truth or the principle of fairness in argument and disputation--has a deleterious effect
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
PART IV --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Curtis1: And having been the focus of your unasked for improvement sessions myself, I have to say that you aren't that perceptive Robin. Robin2: I am the second or third most perceptive person I have known, Curtis. Again--I have said this repeatedly--you have the unique distinction of uttering a judgment like this: I have to say that you aren't that perceptive, Robin--ENTIRELY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION TO THIS EFFECT THAT HAS MADE ITS WAY INTO YOUR MEMORY THROUGH YOUR EXPERIENCE. Who knows? I may be exactly what you say I am, Curtis: not that perceptive--but I will never know this from you, because your conclusion does not represent the assimilation of any data which would allow you to feel when you said this, THAT IT IS TRUE. This is an absolute belief/perception of mine about you, Curtis. And anyone who does not grasp what I am saying about you, and its ramifications when it comes to arguing with you, is at a serious disadvantage. It has taken me sometime to understand this Curtis Principle, but now that I have formulated (guess how? from observing and registering what you do: *data*) this principle your exemplification of said principle is unfailing. And all of those who find comfort and succorance in reading your posts, they need to examine my ascertainment--to see if it conforms to their experience. But this, 'you' (whoever you are who needs to continue to get that good feeling off of Curtis--I know what it's like; I once had it too) will not examine this principle. And that's fine. It is just that it's true. And Curtis is about to admit it too. Right, Curtis? What about you, Barry? You realize the irony potential in any denial of this. That in order for this to be disproven you will have to summon up the data which contradicts my conclusion. And it just isn't there. Careful, Robin. You could be on the edge of a great fall here. What if you're wrong? Well, if I am, I will know it. How's that? Robin1 : No, Curtis, when it comes to yourself, I have nailed you pretty good. At least you have not ever tried to argue against anything I have said about you. You have just said: This is not allowed, Robin. Curtis1: And perhaps you are in person, so you have developed an unnaturally high self-regard about this ability, but it isn't cutting it here. Robin1: I feel it cutting every time, Curtis. And if it isn't cutting it herethen your having proven this will cut much deeper than my not-cutting. Right? I am cutting it to the extent to which you have utterly failed to catch me in the act of not cutting it. Curtis1: You have been running a formula and it is increasingly obvious. Robin1: TELL ME WHAT THAT FORMULA IS, CURTIS, because, at least for me, it is not increasingly obvious. If you can describe my formula . . . Curtis2: I have numerous times, but as I said, you are immune to such feedback. Robin2: Whoa, Curtis: I want you to remind me of the outlines of that formula, a formula which explains convincingly, persuasively what I am all about here on FFL when I try to get reality (through me) to beat people up and tell them: You are wrong. I am right. Out with it, Curtis. I tell you, I am praying for this disclosure, even though, according to you, it will be merely a reiteration of what you have said numerous times. I wait for it--again, Curtis--since in my denial I have forgotten the terrible power and truth of your revelation about me. A formula. Robin uses a formula. Well, all that I can say, Curtis, is THAT GODDAM FORMULA BETTER BE BASED UPON YOUR EXPERIENCE--and as well, a sense of its [my formula's] unnaturalness and violative properties. Just make sure, for Christ's sake, that it is REAL. I am praying for you, Curtis. That you can access your experience and your intelligence when you reformulate it for me. I need this reminder, Curtis. Do not torture me while I wait for this shock to the system. Thanks for the Hi, Share. A warm and friendly Hi to you, too. Again. Robin1: [If you can describe me formula, Curtis--and I or anyone else recognizes it is accurate and objectively true--I promise you I will apologize to Share, to Barry, to Steve, but most especially to yourself. My experience when I do this, Curtis, it is too profound to be subject to a formula. But again: let me examine what that formula is. I really want you to set it out for the record. You need to do this, Curtis. What is Robin's Formula? Because if indeed it is a formula, then it can't align itself with the stringent demands of truth--especially when it comes to something as complex as the human soul. More needed here, Curtis. Curtis2: Bullshit. Been there, done that. In fact I am doing it here and your response is as predicted. Robin2: No, I don't see a 'formula' as such which would explain and account for and invalidate the truthfulness of what I am doing, Curtis. You
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Oh Christ: I didn't see this, Curtis, until I had got to the very end of PART IV. Looks as if I have some more ego and status defending to do. Thanks. I will tackle this just as soon as I can. Looks promising. I will look to see if anything you say, or why you say it, seems to be at variance with what I have said about you in those four posts. I will get to this, Curtis. Glad you changed your mind about responding--but WHY NOT BEGIN WITH PART 1? We will get this straightened out somehow, Curtis. I love how determined you are to push me back. Might there not, JUST POSSIBLY, be something, though, that I accidentally hit upon which can be received respectfully and calmly? You would make of me someone who can only attack you. I am not attacking you, Curtis. The protocols of philosophy must SOMETIMES take second place to just plain human honesty and passion and sincerity. No? But I have not read what you have posted here. But I will. And I will answer you. It seems, however, that a more fitting response [from you] would include all four posts. You already said that, Robin. All the words I expended, and not once did I even come close to hitting the mark. That is a pretty ignominious result from all my mental concentration and loving feeling, Curtis. Good evening to you. We can certainly keep this going. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on point of death, unreservedly open to any and all reflections you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN. There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis. Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck. You get to decide what I believe. Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you? Snip Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that you having spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your epistemology--and so I can't know of [your] view of this claim. Right, I can see how you missed this one for example: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: How to Know Reality's Point of View There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered once they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of life? M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got. Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is a single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least consciously. M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of truth as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of objective truth. But he will try... Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came, exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that no one will have ever except us--I contend that since that reality was smart enough to bring us into existence with this complex thing called free will, that THIS REALITY, IN ANY DISPUTE ON FFL, HAS A POINT OF VIEW. Now since this reality is more powerful and necessary than any of us are, it must mean that the point of view of reality is where the truth lies. M: Again the collage. He is mixing up the definition of a God here with our personal existence by his oblique reference to something smart enough to bring us into existence with this complex thing called free will. Leaving for now the neurological data that seems to say that free will is an illusion, I will focus on his personification of the concept of a reality that can be personified to having a POV. Even if this assumption were true
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Oh, Jesus Christ again. I goofed. Just began reading this over, and realized YOU HAVE REPOSTED AN OLD POST. Hey, Curtis, I was Lesser Evolved then. Why hold me to the nonsense I said in the PAST? I am beyond and above all that now, Curtis. I sense the stresses here still lodged in my nervous system. I have purified myself since this was composed. I must assume: I DID NOT ANSWER THIS? I don't defend my past self in quite the same way I must defend my present self. You have done something underhanded and disappointing: insinuating that you HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH ROBIN BEFORE THIS, so trotting out this old post, will do the job. But it won't Curtis; it just won't. Because I AM COMING OUT WITH A WHOLE CONSTELLATION OF NEW IDEAS in these four posts from today--haven't you noticed? I will have to find out the chronology of this post--very disappointing, Curtis: Curtis to all FFL readers: This guy Robin doesn't say anything new. Hey, I have already smashed him to pieces intellectually before. Want to see the proof? You have never become this desperate, Curtis. Still, it will do me good to reread what you said to the more primitive Robin. I will have to judge the appropriateness of what you have done here--ignoring my four posts--and reposting a response from you from way back (I don't know how far, however). If your reposted post merits a response that I never gave to it--and it deserved such a response--then I will certainly answer it (because not having answered it just might justify your inserting it as a substitute for the effort and irritation of having to respond to what I wrote to you today). But at least read what i wrote to you, Curtis. Will you do that? I hope so. I will look at this--and see whether at the time I responded or not. But I suppose all that I wrote today, it was mainly for me anyhow. You are a beautiful adversary to have, Curtis. I am fortunate indeed. I do expect that you will see how many fresh things I have presented in my analysis of your post here in Parts I, II. III IV. We are inside a Story, Curtis. I am sure of this. Glad we are keeping in touch. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on point of death, unreservedly open to any and all reflections you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN. There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis. Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck. You get to decide what I believe. Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you? Snip Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that you having spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your epistemology--and so I can't know of [your] view of this claim. Right, I can see how you missed this one for example: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: How to Know Reality's Point of View There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered once they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of life? M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got. Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is a single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least consciously. M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of truth as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of objective truth. But he will try... Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came, exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that no one will have
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Dear Curtis, I get it. More irony. You give the impression you ARE RESPONDING TO TODAY'S POSTS FROM ROBIN BY BEGINNING THIS POST WITH A QUOTATION FROM ONE OF TODAY'S POSTS. But then quickly you advert to an old post--and then that's all that is there. What, pray tell, Curtis, was your thinking here? Am I really that repetitive? That you can just repost an old post? Astonishing. You think me insincere in all that I wrote today, Curtis? I must have struck a pretty major nerve. Don't say that, Robin: Curtis did his duty to God, country, and atheism today in just reposting a post from the distant past. Live with it, Robin. OK. I get it now. You didn't like me answering. It hurt you. Well, I wanted to hurt you, Curtis, because you were BS-ing a lot. Not all the time, mind you. For Christ's sake, read the goddam posts, Curtis--all four of them. You will find some writing prompts, surely. You are undoubtedly a necessary character, Curtis. There is a lot more to happen inside the Story. I am hoping it goes beyond science. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Oh Christ: I didn't see this, Curtis, until I had got to the very end of PART IV. Looks as if I have some more ego and status defending to do. Thanks. I will tackle this just as soon as I can. Looks promising. I will look to see if anything you say, or why you say it, seems to be at variance with what I have said about you in those four posts. I will get to this, Curtis. Glad you changed your mind about responding--but WHY NOT BEGIN WITH PART 1? We will get this straightened out somehow, Curtis. I love how determined you are to push me back. Might there not, JUST POSSIBLY, be something, though, that I accidentally hit upon which can be received respectfully and calmly? You would make of me someone who can only attack you. I am not attacking you, Curtis. The protocols of philosophy must SOMETIMES take second place to just plain human honesty and passion and sincerity. No? But I have not read what you have posted here. But I will. And I will answer you. It seems, however, that a more fitting response [from you] would include all four posts. You already said that, Robin. All the words I expended, and not once did I even come close to hitting the mark. That is a pretty ignominious result from all my mental concentration and loving feeling, Curtis. Good evening to you. We can certainly keep this going. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on point of death, unreservedly open to any and all reflections you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN. There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis. Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck. You get to decide what I believe. Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you? Snip Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that you having spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your epistemology--and so I can't know of [your] view of this claim. Right, I can see how you missed this one for example: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: How to Know Reality's Point of View There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered once they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of life? M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got. Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is a single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least consciously. M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
I WILL ANSWER THIS, CURTIS--IF I DIDN'T AT THE TIME. Seems pretty meaty. But make sure you read my four posts from today--just in preparation for what will be coming towards you when I answer THIS. It might turn out, once I read through this, that I decide it was most appropriate for you to answer me in this way. We shall see. So, I suspend any judgment about the fittingness of your having reposted something from our past, Curtis. At least until I have read through this with the care I always give your posts. But I must say: regardless of what I have said in the past, today, I really did get out so much that I believe I have never got out before. So, I am hoping you allow yourself to see if I may have said something that goes to what really interests you. Sincerely, Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on point of death, unreservedly open to any and all reflections you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN. There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis. Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck. You get to decide what I believe. Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you? Snip Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that you having spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your epistemology--and so I can't know of [your] view of this claim. Right, I can see how you missed this one for example: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: How to Know Reality's Point of View There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered once they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of life? M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got. Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is a single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least consciously. M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of truth as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of objective truth. But he will try... Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came, exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that no one will have ever except us--I contend that since that reality was smart enough to bring us into existence with this complex thing called free will, that THIS REALITY, IN ANY DISPUTE ON FFL, HAS A POINT OF VIEW. Now since this reality is more powerful and necessary than any of us are, it must mean that the point of view of reality is where the truth lies. M: Again the collage. He is mixing up the definition of a God here with our personal existence by his oblique reference to something smart enough to bring us into existence with this complex thing called free will. Leaving for now the neurological data that seems to say that free will is an illusion, I will focus on his personification of the concept of a reality that can be personified to having a POV. Even if this assumption were true, it would not preclude the necessity for one of us to claim to know what that was. Anyone? Only Robin? OK let's see if he can make his case. The unconscious assumption of most posters on FFL is: NO ONE CAN KNOW WHAT REALITY'S POINT OF VIEW IS. So we just go it alone, determined to uphold our own first person perspective (that's for you, PaliGap) regardless of the Platonic notion of the Form of the Good--or whatever we want to call what is metaphysically ultimate: why there is something rather than nothing. M: This is now
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Dear Curtis, It turns out, just as you say, I did in fact respond exhaustively and exhaustingly to this post. Here is the record of our conversation. First of all: this is the post to which your reposted post below is a response: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321523 After reading your post I responded with the following: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290 You then posted this:: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321932 Then I really let you have it, and posted the marathon three-part series (which took a great deal out of me--lost now and remembered only by God or the empty meaningless universe): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322287 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322288 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290 You never responded. But you exited (as I am wont to do from time to time) with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322482. Given what you have just admitted to me in your last post of tonight, I will assume your putting that post up there today was sort of waving a white flag? I mean it wouldn't be had I ignored this post you have reposted. But evidently I went nuts, and just wrote and wrote. I won't press this, Curtis, but I will always wonder: Why did Curtis repost that post, knowing as he did, that I answered him exhaustively and exhaustingly--and put my soul into it? Especially that three-part post. No matter. Márgarét, áre you gríeving Over Goldengrove unleaving? Leáves, like the things of man, you With your fresh thoughts care for, can you? Áh! ás the héart grows ólder It will come to such sights colder By and by, nor spare a sigh Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie; And yet you will weep and know why. Now no matter, child, the name: Sórrow's springs are the same. Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed: It is the blight man was bórn for, It is Margaret you mourn for. GMH --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on point of death, unreservedly open to any and all reflections you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN. There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis. Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck. You get to decide what I believe. Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you? Snip Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that you having spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your epistemology--and so I can't know of [your] view of this claim. Right, I can see how you missed this one for example: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: How to Know Reality's Point of View There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered once they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of life? M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got. Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is a single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least consciously. M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of truth as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of objective truth. But he will try... Let me put it this way: I contend that the reality out of which we came, exist, live, and choose--the very identity of ourselves as distinct persons utterly unique in our experience of being the me we are--an experience that no one will have ever except us--I contend that since that reality was smart enough to bring us into existence with this complex thing
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
There was an error in my last post, Curtis. I have amended it to give the correct numbers. We can both drop the body now, I figure. RC --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Curtis, It turns out, just as you say, I did in fact respond exhaustively and exhaustingly to this post. Here is the record of our conversation. First of all: this is the post to which your reposted post below is a response: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321523 After reading your post I responded with the following: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321877 You then posted this:: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321932 Then I really let you have it, and posted the marathon three-part series (which took a great deal out of me--lost now and remembered only by God or the empty meaningless universe): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322287 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322288 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322290 You never responded. But you exited (as I am wont to do from time to time) with this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/322482. Given what you have just admitted to me in your last post of tonight, I will assume your putting that post up there today was sort of waving a white flag? I mean it wouldn't be had I ignored this post you have reposted. But evidently I went nuts, and just wrote and wrote. I won't press this, Curtis, but I will always wonder: Why did Curtis repost that post, knowing as he did, that I answered him exhaustively and exhaustingly--and put my soul into it? Especially that three-part post. No matter. Márgarét, áre you gríeving Over Goldengrove unleaving? Leáves, like the things of man, you With your fresh thoughts care for, can you? Áh! ás the héart grows ólder It will come to such sights colder By and by, nor spare a sigh Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie; And yet you will weep and know why. Now no matter, child, the name: Sórrow's springs are the same. Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed: It is the blight man was bórn for, It is Margaret you mourn for. GMH --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on point of death, unreservedly open to any and all reflections you might have about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line here. Test me. I AM OPEN. There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis. Nice loophole of you need to back in a truck. You get to decide what I believe. Has this kind of thinking really ever worked for you? Snip Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all delusional. The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your tactics in argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the intimate interface of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except at the beginning--I don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that you having spent a lot of time examining your articulation of your epistemology--and so I can't know of [your] view of this claim. Right, I can see how you missed this one for example: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: How to Know Reality's Point of View There is a notion of life that many posters on FFL have never considered once they are engaged in argument, insult, and acrimony. And what is that notion of life? M: Maybe we have or we think of it differently. Let's see what he's got. Well, for me, it seems very empirical and experimental. It is this: truth is an objective thing; it can defend itself. No matter what is in dispute--Raunchy's honour being slandered, the matter of Sal's sincerity and intention with regard to Jennifer, the accusation of three women on FFL being C's, the TM credentials of Vaj--it doesn't matter what the topic is: there is a single principle which I believe almost every poster misses--at least consciously. M: This is a mish-mosh of logical levels. He is collaging together the idea of truth as an objective thing and then gives all subjective opinion examples that no system of epistemology would or should combine with the concept of objective truth. But he will try... Let me put
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
It is indeed Perfect Response. And so is this. But the verdict is now in. Share's response is quite obviously a form of defensive irony to avoid having to reveal whether her initial suggestion of the Holocaust remedy was meant ironically or not. It was obviously a straight answer. Why don't you ask her--offline: Am I to assume that this last response to Robin means unequivocally that you made that Hitler Valentine comment in jest? No, Share simply and reflexively (and I must presume involuntarily) found that her modus operandi could come up with only one idea: I WILL JUST NOT DEAL WITH THIS. And she did not. Steve, Yes, you are a great guy, but your NEED to celebrate what Share just did, it is your meta-blind spot. But you dwell in a kind of grace of not-knowingness (regarding matters like this), so I say: This is what they call in the trade A Perfect Response. Sure, let's do that. I will not try to remove the bullet in your foot--as I see there are quite a few lodged there--but since you don't feel any pain, no problem. Great post, Steve. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: This is what they call in the trade. A Perfect Response!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Dolphie, I love you. Please be my valentine forever. If you build me a house I will happily live in it with you and our little Dolphies and Dolphinas. And every time you build another building you will bring me yellow roses and white chocolate and we will drink dark red wine with our vegetarian dinner. We will send the children off to bed early and then we will giggle a lot on the front sofa just like my Mommy and Daddy do when he has sold another VW. Ooops, here comes teacher Old Scowly Face. I'll give this to you at recess. Your friend, Theodora  From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] HITLER'S VALENTINE  Robin:I think you would like to send Hitler a Valentine's Card and make everything all right again. Share: Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he would have become a happy architect. Robin: If you said this ironically then you have essentially defied my analysis of you--or at least in coming up with this response (assuming, again, that it is ironic) you have proven to me you can resist your primary tendency (sentimentality = a failure of real feeling). If, however--you must tell me which it is, dear Share,--you meant this non-ironically, then you have demonstrated just how true my essential idea of you is, dear Share. So, either way I win. Because if you meant it in a deliberately ironic way, then you have jumped out of your mould and have said something easily as good as anything I could have said. And if you meant it sincerely (really believing in the truth of what you say here; namely, that the course of history could have been changed by one valentine) then you have rendered my last three posts to you superfluous. I won't ask you to clarify whether you were being ironic or not, Share; I will just pray that if you were serious you will see that what you have said means you have knocked yourself out with one roundhouse to the brain. And I wonder whether you will ever get up off the canvas. That said, I have to contemplate that the joke is on me; and in that case I declare you the victor here. It is that good, your self-mockery--and in a way you are making fun of me brilliantly. Roger I believe had less of a problem in facing what is there (as he had to today) than did Adolph--but then, if all it would have taken was one valentine, then perhaps God thought Hitler was just one valentine short of going to heaven. Thank you for writing with the intention to do your best, Share. It was pretty good, all things considered. But the motive for Hitler's valentine: on that hangs a fearful judgment!
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
with enjoying reading someone's posts who effectively eliminates the possibility that your own experience and judgment of those posts was true. Are you telling me, Share--and I guess you are--that you can listen to an argument which you detest and makes you feel uncomfortable (and which leaves you perplexed) and yet at the same time enjoy someone who is having a positive and satisfying and unconfused experience of the same phenomenon? SL: It is my experience also that the tragic and the beautiful can be exquisitely intertwined. RC: Meaningless, non-empirical, lacking any connection to your real historical and personal and minute experiences. What does this mean, Share? You are saying It is my experience. If it were your experience we would feel some evidence of this coming through this statement. And besides, Share, to aver this is so (what you say here) YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ON WHAT I HAVE SAID WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS--or which says something which you must include in your attempt to refute it. This you did not do. There is absolutely no sense of this statement coming out of your life, Share. Nor, obviously, from any kind of serious grappling with what I have said (one must suffer to be wise--as those ancient Greeks believed--or, what I specifically said: one must suffer to know what is beautiful). And if, factually it is, why not try to make contact with what has led you to come to this conclusion? Do you understand me, Share? The origin of what we believe, the philosophy we have arrived at, this is always present in us. But in the case of yourself, the provenance of your ideas could never be traced. (I am radically doubting myself as I say this, Share--remember this.) I doubt there is anything either of us can do to make the other person understand our very different points of view, Share. But you understand what made me write this, right? You see I believe truth and reality has a form--even in the absence of the existence of God. It is part psychological, part metaphysical, part aesthetic. I seek the form of truth and reality--and I believe I have made contact with that form. Having experienced what it is--outside and independent of any religious context or mythology--I rely upon it. And for me there is always some means of getting reality and truth to show itself in each moment--so that I can internally judge the extent to which I am acting in accordance with that form. I have a ways to go yet. Because I believe at death the form of truth and reality will be all that there is. Glóry be to God for dappled things. For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow; For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swím; Fresh-firecoal chestnut-fálls; fínches' wings; Lándscape plotted and pieced--fold, fallow, and plough; And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim. Áll things counter, origínal, spáre, stránge; Whatever is fickle, freckléd (who knows how?) With swift, slów; sweet, sóur; adázzle, dím; He fathers-forth whose beauty is pást chánge: Práise hím. GMH Talking in Bed Talking in be ought to be easiest, Lying together there goes back so far, An emblem of two people being honest. Yet more and more time passes silently. Outside, the wind's incomplete unrest Builds and disperses clouds about the sky, And dark towns heap up on the horizon. None of this cares for us. Nothing shows why At this unique distance from isolation It becomes still more difficult to find Words at once true and kind, Or not untrue and not unkind. James Dickey --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: dear Dolphie, I love you. Please be my valentine forever. If you build me a house I will happily live in it with you and our little Dolphies and Dolphinas. And every time you build another building you will bring me yellow roses and white chocolate and we will drink dark red wine with our vegetarian dinner. We will send the children off to bed early and then we will giggle a lot on the front sofa just like my Mommy and Daddy do when he has sold another VW. Ooops, here comes teacher Old Scowly Face. I'll give this to you at recess. Your friend, Theodora  From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] HITLER'S VALENTINE  Robin:I think you would like to send Hitler a Valentine's Card and make everything all right again. Share: Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he would have become a happy architect. Robin: If you said this ironically then you have essentially defied my analysis of you--or at least in coming up with this response (assuming, again, that it is ironic) you have proven to me you can resist your primary tendency (sentimentality = a failure of real feeling). If, however--you must tell me which it is, dear Share,--you meant this non-ironically, then you have demonstrated
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
Your subjective delight overwhelms any chance of the impartiality of truth getting to have any say in this, Steve. And therefore, all we get is your emotion. If you were really making contact with what was true, the truth would do the work for you that, in the absence of this objectifying element, you must do all on your own. If your initial experience of reading Share's response to my Hitler's Valentine post originated in reality, this would be present in your post. The desperate chivalry and eruption of unfortunate relief is all that came through, Steve. If there was any validity in your judgment of Share's post, it would make itself known independent of your own feelings. And it did not. See what a sore loser I am? You would make Share's post into some devastating counterpunch. Share actually just went into her corner and handed out flowers. Did you actually smell those flowers, Steve? And your post ignored how much I wanted her to best me. (Read my post again, Steve; the first Hitler's Valentine.) You must remember, Steve: The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: This is what they call in the trade. A Perfect Response!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Dolphie, I love you. Please be my valentine forever. If you build me a house I will happily live in it with you and our little Dolphies and Dolphinas. And every time you build another building you will bring me yellow roses and white chocolate and we will drink dark red wine with our vegetarian dinner. We will send the children off to bed early and then we will giggle a lot on the front sofa just like my Mommy and Daddy do when he has sold another VW. Ooops, here comes teacher Old Scowly Face. I'll give this to you at recess. Your friend, Theodora  From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] HITLER'S VALENTINE  Robin:I think you would like to send Hitler a Valentine's Card and make everything all right again. Share: Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he would have become a happy architect. Robin: If you said this ironically then you have essentially defied my analysis of you--or at least in coming up with this response (assuming, again, that it is ironic) you have proven to me you can resist your primary tendency (sentimentality = a failure of real feeling). If, however--you must tell me which it is, dear Share,--you meant this non-ironically, then you have demonstrated just how true my essential idea of you is, dear Share. So, either way I win. Because if you meant it in a deliberately ironic way, then you have jumped out of your mould and have said something easily as good as anything I could have said. And if you meant it sincerely (really believing in the truth of what you say here; namely, that the course of history could have been changed by one valentine) then you have rendered my last three posts to you superfluous. I won't ask you to clarify whether you were being ironic or not, Share; I will just pray that if you were serious you will see that what you have said means you have knocked yourself out with one roundhouse to the brain. And I wonder whether you will ever get up off the canvas. That said, I have to contemplate that the joke is on me; and in that case I declare you the victor here. It is that good, your self-mockery--and in a way you are making fun of me brilliantly. Roger I believe had less of a problem in facing what is there (as he had to today) than did Adolph--but then, if all it would have taken was one valentine, then perhaps God thought Hitler was just one valentine short of going to heaven. Thank you for writing with the intention to do your best, Share. It was pretty good, all things considered. But the motive for Hitler's valentine: on that hangs a fearful judgment!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latcho Drom - Auschwitz Song - Gypsy Melody - To Share
For once, Curtis, I can see your point. And I appreciate it. I wish I had read this before I posted that HV post. What I most respect about you is how you seek to do justice to an issue that is being controverted, how you amass all the details and demonstrate in your rebuttals how keen you are to grasp the entirety of what is at stake (in terms of truth). For instance, I could feel how you had absorbed all the posts back and forth between me and Share--and then how your post here reflected--and then transcended--the totality of what had been said. It is a very beautiful thing watching you in action, Curtis. You have the extraordinary gift of being infinitely invulnerable. All of what you say here is pure BS. Want to know why? I don't think you do. But if you answer this, I will tell you. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: I get it that you don't like Share Emily, but this energetically aligning to Hitler charge seems unfair. It was Robin who brought him into the conversation and she just batted that ball back in the same sense of absurdity that it was thrown. It is a setup to now lay the whole heaviness of the holocaust on her as if she doesn't have the same grasp any of us have who didn't live through it, but have read about it. I'll be she also thinks it was a horrible bad thing just as you do, and posting more horrors wont make her more sensitive to the issues than she already is. And why didn't Robin get the sad gypsy song treatment when he brought Hitler up in a flip way? That said the song is beautiful and moving and the video is amazing so I guess in the end art triumphs over all intentions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Dear Share: This song is quite stirring from about 1:12 - in that the video allows us to *see* the woman singing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwsNbhz-XcI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwsNbhz-XcI
[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
sayeth Curtis. And good afternoon to you, sir. Curtis: And no I don't want to know why you don't approve of my post to Emily. I'll let her speak for herself. Robin: Oh, I won't try to defend Emily Baby. I am anxious always to stay on her good side, as I would dread that circumstance where she began to go after me. She can cut it, as they say. We'll see how she does up against the Curtis guy. I predict she will hold her own. Curtis: One more thing. Crack a book on Descartes, you have him all wrong. Robin: Well, I read him pretty carefully once; but you must understand, Curtis, I used his Demon idea merely for purposes of making a point about how much we can trust in how we know something to be true. The Descartes principle was seized upon in order to explain what happens to me when I find myself certain that I know something: I make certain I subject that belief to immediate radical doubt: this might not be true, Robin. It is what I take away from Descartes; I never attempted to present his philosophy--at least I hope I did not give that impression. Although I think I do understand him. It is damage control once again, Curtis. It is as if you experience something getting inside reality which you are determined to block, to drive away. Your motive in argument is intriguing to me. And there is one more mysterious and perhaps even heroic quality about you: You are the only TM initiator I have ever encountered who is perfectly unaffected by their experience of TM or teaching TM. That is remarkable. And the subject perhaps of a most interesting post. It's always good talking to you, Curtis. As you would say: Good rap, Curtis. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your subjective delight overwhelms any chance of the impartiality of truth getting to have any say in this, Steve. And therefore, all we get is your emotion. If you were really making contact with what was true, the truth would do the work for you that, in the absence of this objectifying element, you must do all on your own. If your initial experience of reading Share's response to my Hitler's Valentine post originated in reality, this would be present in your post. The desperate chivalry and eruption of unfortunate relief is all that came through, Steve. If there was any validity in your judgment of Share's post, it would make itself known independent of your own feelings. And it did not. See what a sore loser I am? You would make Share's post into some devastating counterpunch. Share actually just went into her corner and handed out flowers. Did you actually smell those flowers, Steve? And your post ignored how much I wanted her to best me. (Read my post again, Steve; the first Hitler's Valentine.) You must remember, Steve: The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: This is what they call in the trade. A Perfect Response!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear Dolphie, I love you. Please be my valentine forever. If you build me a house I will happily live in it with you and our little Dolphies and Dolphinas. And every time you build another building you will bring me yellow roses and white chocolate and we will drink dark red wine with our vegetarian dinner. We will send the children off to bed early and then we will giggle a lot on the front sofa just like my Mommy and Daddy do when he has sold another VW. Ooops, here comes teacher Old Scowly Face. I'll give this to you at recess. Your friend, Theodora  From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:24 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] HITLER'S VALENTINE  Robin:I think you would like to send Hitler a Valentine's Card and make everything all right again. Share: Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he would have become a happy architect. Robin: If you said this ironically then you have essentially defied my analysis of you--or at least in coming up with this response (assuming, again, that it is ironic) you have proven to me you can resist your primary tendency (sentimentality = a failure of real feeling). If, however--you must tell me which it is, dear Share,--you meant this non-ironically, then you have demonstrated just how true my essential idea of you is, dear Share. So, either way I win. Because if you meant it in a deliberately ironic way, then you have jumped out of your mould and have said something easily as good as anything I could have said. And if you meant it sincerely (really believing in the truth of what you say here; namely
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latcho Drom - Auschwitz Song - Gypsy Melody - To Share
Dickey, Feste. It certain SEEMS like Larkin--I like this. But JD all the way. I will admit to being wrong if you provide the proof. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Wrong poet. This is by Philip Larkin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Dear Curtis, the last line in your post is the closest that you come to my intentions on posting what I did. Talking in Bed Talking in be ought to be easiest, Lying together there goes back so far, An emblem of two people being honest. Yet more and more time passes silently. Outside, the wind's incomplete unrest Builds and disperses clouds about the sky, And dark towns heap up on the horizon. None of this cares for us. Nothing shows why At this unique distance from isolation It becomes still more difficult to find Words at once true and kind, Or not untrue and not unkind. James Dickey --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I get it that you don't like Share Emily, but this energetically aligning to Hitler charge seems unfair. It was Robin who brought him into the conversation and she just batted that ball back in the same sense of absurdity that it was thrown. It is a setup to now lay the whole heaviness of the holocaust on her as if she doesn't have the same grasp any of us have who didn't live through it, but have read about it. I'll be she also thinks it was a horrible bad thing just as you do, and posting more horrors wont make her more sensitive to the issues than she already is. And why didn't Robin get the sad gypsy song treatment when he brought Hitler up in a flip way? That said the song is beautiful and moving and the video is amazing so I guess in the end art triumphs over all intentions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Dear Share: This song is quite stirring from about 1:12 - in that the video allows us to *see* the woman singing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwsNbhz-XcI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwsNbhz-XcI
[FairfieldLife] Re: Latcho Drom - Auschwitz Song - Gypsy Melody - To Share
Feste: You were right. Thank you. Apologies. It somehow means less to me that I know it is Larkin now. :-) If you get my drift. I liked being corrected, as in some subtle way I was misaligned with reality when I thought it was a James Dickey poem. Tell Share I am doing my best. And that I am a nice guy. I always was a kind of bully. Anyway, Larkin it is. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Wrong poet. This is by Philip Larkin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Dear Curtis, the last line in your post is the closest that you come to my intentions on posting what I did. Talking in Bed Talking in be ought to be easiest, Lying together there goes back so far, An emblem of two people being honest. Yet more and more time passes silently. Outside, the wind's incomplete unrest Builds and disperses clouds about the sky, And dark towns heap up on the horizon. None of this cares for us. Nothing shows why At this unique distance from isolation It becomes still more difficult to find Words at once true and kind, Or not untrue and not unkind. James Dickey --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I get it that you don't like Share Emily, but this energetically aligning to Hitler charge seems unfair. It was Robin who brought him into the conversation and she just batted that ball back in the same sense of absurdity that it was thrown. It is a setup to now lay the whole heaviness of the holocaust on her as if she doesn't have the same grasp any of us have who didn't live through it, but have read about it. I'll be she also thinks it was a horrible bad thing just as you do, and posting more horrors wont make her more sensitive to the issues than she already is. And why didn't Robin get the sad gypsy song treatment when he brought Hitler up in a flip way? That said the song is beautiful and moving and the video is amazing so I guess in the end art triumphs over all intentions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Dear Share: This song is quite stirring from about 1:12 - in that the video allows us to *see* the woman singing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwsNbhz-XcI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwsNbhz-XcI
[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
[FairfieldLife] HITLER'S VALENTINE
Robin:I think you would like to send Hitler a Valentine's Card and make everything all right again. Share: Perhaps if someone had sent Hitler a valentine, he would have become a happy architect. Robin: If you said this ironically then you have essentially defied my analysis of you--or at least in coming up with this response (assuming, again, that it is ironic) you have proven to me you can resist your primary tendency (sentimentality = a failure of real feeling). If, however--you must tell me which it is, dear Share,--you meant this non-ironically, then you have demonstrated just how true my essential idea of you is, dear Share. So, either way I win. Because if you meant it in a deliberately ironic way, then you have jumped out of your mould and have said something easily as good as anything I could have said. And if you meant it sincerely (really believing in the truth of what you say here; namely, that the course of history could have been changed by one valentine) then you have rendered my last three posts to you superfluous. I won't ask you to clarify whether you were being ironic or not, Share; I will just pray that if you were serious you will see that what you have said means you have knocked yourself out with one roundhouse to the brain. And I wonder whether you will ever get up off the canvas. That said, I have to contemplate that the joke is on me; and in that case I declare you the victor here. It is that good, your self-mockery--and in a way you are making fun of me brilliantly. Roger I believe had less of a problem in facing what is there (as he had to today) than did Adolph--but then, if all it would have taken was one valentine, then perhaps God thought Hitler was just one valentine short of going to heaven. Thank you for writing with the intention to do your best, Share. It was pretty good, all things considered. But the motive for Hitler's valentine: on that hangs a fearful judgment!
[FairfieldLife] Re: President Barack Monsanto Obama
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Angels of Yahoo at work. I actually posted this at 8:43 pm Central on Tuesday but it didn't show up in my inbox til 3:55 am Central on Wednesday. I was expecting and dreading a blizzard of posts about it, especially from Judy and Ann who seemed upset by my questions about Robin's recent postings. Dear Share, I think your questions to Judy about why I wrote that analysis of Barry, and those two responses to Curtis, were valid questions. I just don't get Judy's answer to you. The thing is, when I saw that you were perplexed as to why I would post something like this (Barry Curtis), I realized: Goddam it! *I* don't even know myself why I did this! So, contrary to what Judy's post seemed to indicate (you will have to ask her about *her* post; it needed way more explanation even than mine re: BW and then CM did) I believe you opened me up to some self-examination--as to my actual motives. And having searched my heart, Share, I will have to admit: There was no bloody good reason for those posts whatsoever. I only wish I could have felt the impact of your remarkable objectivity before I posted them; because if I had, I would not now experience the wish that I had not posted. Just make sure you realize one thing, Share: There is at least one other person--besides Steve--who perfectly understands you. Indeed I think I have gone even beyond Steve in this instance. Thank you, Share. In a sense you undid me in just the right way. You are much superior to any Zen Roshi I have studied under. In a way that is perhaps only meaningful to you and to me, what you initially posted to Judy amounts to a Share Koan--and the Satori it produced in me, therefore, will have to remain a secret between you and me. I realize most everyone at FFL will not comprehend this, Share; but the real point here is: I loved that post of yours to Judy. And I was disappointed at her defensiveness and negativity--Ann does the same thing, I believe. I think in some way they would both deny (raunchy and Emily have some issues here too; as I think you know) you threaten them. But you probably understand women better than I do. For once, Barry got it right when he responded in sympathy to you today. I certainly wish I could revise that analysis now. Know this, Share: You did a good deed for me. Martyrdom, as you know, can sometimes be secretly triumphant. I believe that is the case in your contretemps with authfriend--and AWB. And let the unbelievers think I am being ironic here. You will know the difference. At least I pray you will. Robin turq, I was wondering if you and your household did the whole Easter egg thing for Maya. Is that a tradition in Holland?   noozguru if I offended you with my comments about the fruit trees, I apologize. I think of ayurveda as something you and I can joke about since we're both into it. Just as I think of jyotish as something John and I can joke about because we're both into it. So John, apologies to you too if I offended you by my recent comment about jokes and jyotish. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 4:16 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: President Barack Monsanto Obama  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: No, Ann this is how IMO we differ: I was making an ayruvedic joke with noozguru that I thought he would enjoy. OTOH I don't think you were doing something that you thought I would enjoy. If I may be more blunt, Ann was just being a minion- bitch, trying to impress the uber-bitch by continuing to rag on you, *no matter what you post*. Junior high school clique-bitch behavior to the max. Welcome to the club. You'll get used to it, and if history is any indicator, you can expect their harassment of you to continue in the future as long as it has for Curtis, myself, and anyone who has pleasant conversations with us from time to time. Bitches never forget a grudge. What is even sadder is that they think of this as a sign of strength. From: Ann awoelflebater@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:35 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: President Barack Monsanto Obama --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: The fruit trees sound wonderful and also that you've learned so much about those moths.ÃâàSo you got apples for vata, lemons for pitta.ÃâàNow you just need something to vitiate kapha.ÃâàHow about some watermelons? (-: This is how we differ - I just figured it out. I would have said, So you got apples for homemade apple pie, lemons for fresh lemonade. Now we just need something to satisfy Uncle John. How about some watermelons?
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Robin, your response to me has not yet appeared in my inbox. I only know of it because I saw it in one of Judy's responses which HAS appeared in my inbox. One of God's little jests no doubt. Anyway, semi annual Dome cleaning today so I'm rushing out. For now I'll simply say that to me you seem ironic almost all of the time. And it does my head in. That's why I wrote to Judy rather than to you about your recent posts. And why I won't say thank you for replying to me. Though I'm glad you're posting again on FFL. Share Let me know when it does show up. (In this case Gd's just surely cannot last forever--and from your post you have implied it might).
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Sorry for the Thomistic Slip there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, your response to me has not yet appeared in my inbox. I only know of it because I saw it in one of Judy's responses which HAS appeared in my inbox. One of God's little jests no doubt. Anyway, semi annual Dome cleaning today so I'm rushing out. For now I'll simply say that to me you seem ironic almost all of the time. And it does my head in. That's why I wrote to Judy rather than to you about your recent posts. And why I won't say thank you for replying to me. Though I'm glad you're posting again on FFL. Share Let me know when it does show up. (In this case Gd's jest surely cannot last forever--and from your post you have implied it might).
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin
Sorry, Share. I misread you. It seems you *have* read my post. But there was no irony in the three posts which led you to write to Judy. So you have left me baffled: Why did you ask Judy why I wrote those posts, since the reason you give here does not apply to those posts? If they were not ironic--and they were not; there must be another reason why you asked Judy that question other than what you tell me here. I do, however, have an answer to the question I have posed to you: viz. Why did you ask Judy that question? It's pretty interesting. Let me know if you want me to tell you. Sincerely, Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Sorry for the Thomistic Slip there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, your response to me has not yet appeared in my inbox. I only know of it because I saw it in one of Judy's responses which HAS appeared in my inbox. One of God's little jests no doubt. Anyway, semi annual Dome cleaning today so I'm rushing out. For now I'll simply say that to me you seem ironic almost all of the time. And it does my head in. That's why I wrote to Judy rather than to you about your recent posts. And why I won't say thank you for replying to me. Though I'm glad you're posting again on FFL. Share Let me know when it does show up. (In this case Gd's jest surely cannot last forever--and from your post you have implied it might).
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin
Look, Barry: between you and me, I just hope the bitch stays silent. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: Robin, your response to me has not yet appeared in my inbox. I only know of it because I saw it in one of Judy's responses which HAS appeared in my inbox. One of God's little jests no doubt. Anyway, semi annual Dome cleaning today so I'm rushing out. For now I'll simply say that to me you seem ironic almost all of the time. And it does my head in. That's why I wrote to Judy rather than to you about your recent posts. And why I won't say thank you for replying to me. As I've said before, IMO irony is a tactic used primarily by people without balls who want to be able to tell the truth, but then deny that they said it later, claiming that they were only being ironic. Though I'm glad you're posting again on FFL. Not as glad as the Judester, I'll bet. Finally she has someone to toady up to again and seek approval from. Her minions were never going to fill that bill, because they'd just sling approval her way because they're toadying up to her. :-) I think that we should compassionately wish her well in her quest. It's not easy to get approval from a full-blown NPD personality. But if anyone can pull that level of toadying off, it'll be Jude.
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin
I can't help myself. The reason why you asked Judy that question, Share, was because you sensed I was letting my anger get the best of me. [Apologies to BW for this sentence only] But I will ask you one other question: How do you account for the fact that DrD knew exactly why I wrote those three posts; and indeed his confidence in the justification for my having done so (as expressed in his post) exceeds in significant measure the perplexity my having done so induced in yourself? The answer here--Let's get it out, dear Share: You asked Judy that question because you tend to resist the contact point in reality where there is the most tension, the most meaning, and the most truth: where it can make a demand upon us which hurts. You are acutely aware of the metaphysical point of the maximum realness (and helplessness), and you are, for Christ's sake, more sensitive to it than I am. So you asked the question to Judy in order to push away the way reality came in on you in those three posts. Not one other person on FFL wondered (the way you professed to wonder, Share) why I wrote those three posts, Share. Why don't you ask yourself THAT question: Why was I, Share Long, the only person who was unable to understand why Robin wrote that analysis of Barry, and those two posts to Curtis? You didn't like having to experience what was going inside of you when you read those three posts, Share. So you turned your psychological aversion into a seemingly guileless question, but in the very act of forming the question you managed to get some distance on the experience that had been engendered in you when you first read those posts. An experience you wished to get rid of. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Robin, your response to me has not yet appeared in my inbox. I only know of it because I saw it in one of Judy's responses which HAS appeared in my inbox. One of God's little jests no doubt. Anyway, semi annual Dome cleaning today so I'm rushing out. For now I'll simply say that to me you seem ironic almost all of the time. And it does my head in. That's why I wrote to Judy rather than to you about your recent posts. And why I won't say thank you for replying to me. Though I'm glad you're posting again on FFL. Share
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin
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 metaphysical discomfort in you; and you are compelled therefore to construe those posts in a form which will insulate you from the experience they were designed to produce. A hummingbird's wing moves more slowly than does your hidden anxiety, Share, as you seek to blow out the fire of existence itself and substitute your necessary sentimentality. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Hi Robin, FIVE hours in the Dome this afternoon! First helping with the cleaning. Which includes hoisting pieces of foam. Then program. And get this: there are women who have spent 5 hours every morning in the Dome FOR OVER SIX YEARS! How how how how?! Anyway, the post of yours which I only saw in one of Judy's finally came into my inbox at 2:45 this afternoon. It actually came in AFTER the ones you sent today! When I read your analysis of turq, I remember that I felt so disappointed. You seemed to be expressing a grudge and to be as incomprehensible as before. And when I read your exchanges with Curtis, I couldn't understand why you were being so sarcastic and accusatory when he sounded reasonable. In both cases I felt sad because I felt that gulf between us. From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 2:27 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Robin  I can't help myself. The reason why you asked Judy that question, Share, was because you sensed I was letting my anger get the best of me. [Apologies to BW for this sentence only] But I will ask you one other question: How do you account for the fact that DrD knew exactly why I wrote those three posts; and indeed his confidence in the justification for my having done so (as expressed in his post) exceeds in significant measure the perplexity my having done so induced in yourself? The answer here--Let's get it out, dear Share: You asked Judy that question because you tend
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
You make me believe there is a God, Curtis. Your dishonesty is too profound to be addressed by anyone else. On my life I swear you are false in nearly all that you say here, Curtis. Knowingly so. Your inspiration for this, however, is paradoxically your sensitivity to truth. Truth is your muse to know how to be so immaculately deceitful. But this almost makes me religious. A truly unbelievable performance. You are masterful, Curtis. I am more interested now in what the death experience will be. I am inspired after this to take my life even more seriously. This is immensely significant. I just found the perfect sacrament. It's all good, then, Curtis. We will resolve this matter between us someday. I promise you this. Maybe there is a heaven after all. My faith has been strengthened by reading this. Thank you, dear Curtis. I feel as if I am praying now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: snip The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people? **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1. Me: You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior. If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man. It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other. I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender based insults. Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man? **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too. So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation with a man. Yeah, that was very convincing. You don't add up dude. **Hm...course correction time, Ethel?? In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You are a very unpleasant person underneath the I am enlightened, no really , I am really enlightened, no really I am rap. Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools (like you). My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-) PS Fred called me a meanie. Ain't that a hoot?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. Not
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about Barry now--and may I say this? I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively. I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has caused the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver. So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like me much. Right from the beginning. That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to get my revenge here. I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as Curtis has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For having given evidence of simple projection. A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for Barry trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed sincerity and honesty of my post about Barry. I never thought you would have the guts to stand up for Barry. And that I could sneakily deceive all FFL readers into believing what I knew, right from the start, was pure resentment and pique. What is marvellous is the impression I get that your post, it cannot be faulted. Magic. But I am glad you were moved by the profound sense of what you deemed the critical implications for yourself, about leaving my BW post unanswered. Your pride exceeds my love of what is true. Our standoff here, it makes me sense the justification of death (assuming as I do it will deal with this controversy-among other things). No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis. (But you will understand the psychological need I had to respond like this.) Subjective ex cathedra. Oh, and by the way: everything I said about Barry Wright is true, and your post underscores this. Kidding. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation. If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that person. I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. Or you can prove me wrong. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force myself to plow through his bloviated language. He still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-) You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would say, a person he barely acknowledges the existence of. :-) BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. The combination of you being present and his primary devotee and groupie not being present this week was too tempting for him to resist. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
If Barry approves of this, I do. You must realize, though, Curtis, that not all of us can aspire to such saintly disinterestedness and impartiality as you do (as evidenced in this post). You attempted one approach; now you proffer another one. We are all different; we each have our own personal and unavoidable (and uncorrectable) point of view. I can't help but being prejudiced and biased against Barry; he, the same vis-a-vis me. We are all doing our very best. Why not recognize that these issues can never been adjudicated objectively, decisively? I get it now. I was fighting for something unwinnable. And I am sorry. Now, that is; after reading this second mood post. If Barry will pretend to like me, I promise I will not try to strike back at him. How did those women ever resist you, Curtis? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis. Only you, right? I know the drill. Anyhoo I am working on a premise that we are all working in a more similar than different way here. We have different styles of expressing it. You are gunna be more rope a dope with some people, Jim and Judy more aggressive. But basically we have each sized each other up and there will be very little openness between certain people, no matter how it appears at first. I am trying to go post by post mirroring the openness or hostility. It does not work with Judy, has worked a bit with Jim in the past. It has actually worked best with Richard who I have shifted my view about, knowing full well that he may let me have it in the next post. Ravi too actually, and certainly Ann and Buck who vacillate in how they relate to me. I am trying to let every post stand on its own without giving the highest weight to the history. With my strong views about the value of the spiritual path I am always gunna get some version of disapproval from many poster here from time to time, and I can accept that and even still like them, while believing they are wrong. Most of them just blow me off unless we are on a non spiritual topic and I understand that. I little of me on that topic goes a long way. I have never gotten back to a trusting sincere space with you. It's funny, I was looking at some old posts from our beginning run and there was a comment you made that at the time I think I took completely the wrong way. You were saying that the one thing I must never do is question your enlightenment in the past. I realized now that I thought you were being snarky and self-effacing, making a joke about insisting that I take that seriously, you know wink, wink, nudge, nudge style. I thought it meant that you were beyond taking that part of your life seriously. In retrospect I suspect a lot of our initial rapport was based on this kind of misread. And perhaps the same for you. Maybe you read my denouncing spirituality as more tongue in cheek than I meant it. Perhaps when you found out I really don't believe in enlightenment in the way you do it was a shock too. You know I wasn't punching you with my analysis of your take on Barry. I wasn't even denying that it was true for you. My point was that your subjective take was not more than that. And there are other perceptual positions that might also be valid for that person. None of us is seeing the other clearly, we all have our choices of interaction embedded in our history of communications here. I wasn't just sticking up for Barry, that is irrelevant. I was sharing my perspective which was different from yours. We are both entitled to our own views, we earned them. I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about Barry now--and may I say this? I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively. I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has caused the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver. So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like me much. Right from the beginning. That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to get my revenge here. I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as Curtis has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For having given evidence of simple projection. A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for Barry trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed sincerity and honesty of my post about Barry. I never thought you would have
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality. [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.] It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational outburst against BW. I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. And, as you know, I am a very humble man. But Christ! it ain't easy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero. What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. Not only does he vaccinate himself against any feedback from others, but he vaccinates himself against any feedback from himself. This means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this. Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what someone writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there. It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to remain inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and he has been posting only to himself. As if this were the case, since he has removed himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the experience of the reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to reality and what abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter about which he is writing. BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or scornful or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in attempting to challenge what BW has written, to the extent to which this represents a real intention inside the other person, is the extent to which that intention--and the writing of a counter-post--will end up in empty space--No one is there. BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: Ah, I like that. With God, not one with God. Very Christian. And yea, too, for the self that is better than the Self, because who can match any one of us in our exquisite uniqueness -- not the Self, surely, which is boringly the same yesterday, today, and forever! Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality. [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.] It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational outburst against BW. I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. And, as you know, I am a very humble man. But Christ! it ain't easy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. Color me not surprised. :-) Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that others have to work on it. You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just played Shoot the messenger. How cultist can one get? Just sayin'... If you disagree with something I said, try explaining WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying a grudge over something that real men would have gotten over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation. BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other persons. If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to truth--to his
[FairfieldLife] Re: Light On Water
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I've got nothing much more to say on this topic, but am replying to it anyway to point out the contrast between what I wrote (below) and the angry, panicked, out-of-control, gotta-get- Barry reaction to it by DocDumbass, Judy, Ann, and Ravi. Pretty interesting, wouldn't you say? :-) No. Or not the way you'd like to think. No panic, nothing out-of-control. That's your fantasy, and also an example of what we've been talking about. The contrast is between what you wrote below and the sick, twisted, dishonest, sadistic crap you usually write, the gotta-get-Judy/Ann/Ravi/ DrD/Robin/whoever hysterical tirades that are your stock in trade, the smarmy I'm just pushing buttons garbage, the faux-Tantra nonsense, the utter lack of even the faintest wisp of self-knowledge. You can dish it out, but you can't take it, never have been able to take it, not since I've known you. You think you're entitled to gratuitously shit on anybody you feel like shitting on without ever having to take responsibility for it. You're a coward and a bully and a cheat and a phony and just generally a disgrace as a human being. One pretty little word picture and photo does not erase all that ugliness we're forced to endure from you. If you feel put-upon because you're getting reamed out for your toxic rubbish instead of getting strokes for your creative effort, tough. Live with it. We don't like having to live with you either. Judy, I must say I just can't understand why and how anybody would be forced to read what Barry, or anyone else, for that matter, writes... :o This is not the right question, Card. If one posts on a forum like this one, it is *unnatural* not to see what everyone else is saying. Even about oneself. Is it your inclination *not* to read posts that are addressed personally to you, and which either challenge your views, or disparage your person? I think most persons posting on this forum are interested in expressing their opinions and judgments--that's why they post; that's why they read what others post. This response of yours, you think it answers to all the acrimonious debates that have raged here on FFL? You think it the *solution* to the fierce contesting of what is true, what is right, what is real? It is a small-minded idea and it cost you nothing. If people are cruel or unfair or dishonest--or if they are sincere or fair or honest: this means something. To propose what you do here, in what way does that possibly encompass what it means to be a human being with an investment in your beliefs and feeling for what should count in the universe? No one is forced even to read anything on FFL--or even post on FFL. Why not, since there is so much violent argument, just quit reading and writing on FFL? Why, in view of these intense disagreements, not have everyone just stop contributing to FFL *so it can just shut down*. When you make a suggestion like this, the criterion of is validity has to be: Does my suggestion somehow take in the reality and meaning of what happens on FFL in the controversy over who is right and who is wrong? It seems like a perfect solution--what you say here--but does it seem as if that would have prevented all the tension and disputation that seems so serious here on FFL? Again, in argument, in life, one wants to bring an idea or proposition that really gathers as much reality into itself, so that it is a just and sensible and *meaningful* idea. Yours is the equivalent of saying: Well, if you were hurt in love, why ever get romantic with someone again? If you don't like the NRA, why do you read about what they have to say about the massacre in Newtown? You would make your proposal something more significant and truthful than authfriend's sincerely felt analysis of the sweet and disinterested consciousness in Holland. If I read authfriend's post and then I read yours: Is is possible to believe that your post essentially makes authfriend's post (about the Holland guy) superfluous? Look at the response from Holland (to your post): this is the proof of how irrelevant and meaningless your admonition was. Hamlet is a tragedy--it makes people sad. Why not just read comedy?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Light On Water
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: So it's Friday, and the End Of The World to boot. Cool. So I finished all my work for the week a few minutes ago, and then chose to celebrate it by taking a walk around the 'hood I live in, prior to celebrating it by going out to dinner with my extended adoptive family. Barry, just wondering if you took that photo of the light on water from the location pictured below. Yes. It's a couple of hundred meters from where I live. Good Googling! Haarlemerstraat, at the upper left of the ariel view, is Leiden's main shopping drag. I went shopping on it today, with Paris and Pippin in their Christmas attire. The photo below shows them in their little reindeer antlers and Santa hat, but from an earlier Christmas in Paris, the city. The dogs are a bit greyer around the muzzle now, as am I. :-) [Barry';s Christmas Dogs] We were quite a hit. Stupidly, I forgot to bring my iPhone (same camera that took the other photo of the canal) with me, so I don't have any reaction shots of the often-dour Dutch cracking up and smiling. A few even laughed out loud. I consider that a win. Even though no one asked, dinner was smashing. We went to a Thai restaurant called Buddhas (http://www.buddhas.nl/ http://www.buddhas.nl/ ) and it was delightful -- one of the few Dutch restaurants I've found in which the food was worth what they were charging for it. Spain and France spoil you when it comes to eating out. After dinner we walked around and looked at the Christmas lights and at the skaters on the rink they have erected over the canal in front of the town hall. Not Rockefeller Center, but cool. Then I let the others walk home and I climbed up to the Citadel (a castle from the 11th century that is one of the oldest (and interestingly, since it is in the center of Leiden, one of the most silent areas of the city) and meditated for a while. [http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2071/2115542556_1343492e48.jpg] Not because of the so-called Apocalypse, not because I wanted to tune in to some grand global W00 Woo Fest...just because I felt like meditating. It was an OK meditation, just your normal, every- day stuff like seeing visions of Shiva dancing Gangnam style with an unidentified Hindu goddess almost wearing the sexiest see- through sari I've ever seen, followed by God herself coming down for a chat, sharing a champagne glass full of soma with me and commending me for my infinite patience in dealing with FFL stalkers. Oh wait. That didn't happen. I must have been channeling that. That's what TMers might consider an OK meditation. :-) Mine was just silence. Pure, infinite silence. Robin: Well, that's good, Barry. In fact that's *really* good. Pure, infinite silence. You are a fun guy, Barry. Did Curtis every get around to telling you that you weren't supposed to eat Irish children because of the shortage of potatoes? I don't believe authfriend has ever said anything about you that was objectively false. And yet, you have never come back at her to refute her--You think her severe analysis of you refutes itself? Your hatred of FF, TM, the TMO, and MMY: this tempts you into deliberate exaggeration and misrepresentation of your own meditation experience: Pure, infinite silence: this is a description motivated by your antipathy about TM MMY--Did that cynicism not exist, you would probably have said: It was pleasant enough. Quite relaxing. But no big deal. The pure, infinite silence: Simply an anti-Bevan remark. Although I don't disagree with you--contra Buck--about the charismatic potential John Hagelin. Eliot said that Santayana's philosophy lectures at Harvard were soporific. I like the mystery of tragedy in Bevan more than the unseriousness (in some unpreventable way) of soul in John Hagelin. Santayana, he would seem on fire. Merry Christmas, Barry. Your dogs look like they don't know who you are. Not enough individuation of first person ontology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey, Curtis...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: ...not that I'm picking on you or anything, it's just that I thought you'd be a good person to aim this generic rap at, because I think you'll get it, whereas many here will not. :-) Have you ever noticed that the Hater Tots on Fairfield Life tend to react the most strongly, the most vehemently, and the most out-of-control angrily when we post something creative, something that reflects the FUN we're having in the moment of having written it? A clear lie. I enjoy your posts when you are not vicious and stupid, Barry. These recent ones (except for the part I singled out) were quite wonderful--as are many of Curtis's posts. I can assure you, when you write passionately in some way which is not the occasion to say silly and tendentious (and untrue) things, I enjoy your writing--and even hold out some notion of you being a really good guy. But examples like this, destroy whatever credibility you might have. You think I look for confirmation of my judgment of you, Barry? You are wrong. I look for redemption posts. One thing that is always the case with you, Barry: when someone goes after you, your reaction always expresses itself in the form of exactly what the person's description is of you. You are always proving the charges against you. Whereas all you would have to do is to deny what someone says about you FROM THE PLACE WHERE YOU KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE. As it is, you attack from inside the very character of yourself which has been the subject of satire or devastating judgment. I have no hatred for you--and I liked your photographs and your essay. But what you say here--pleading with your friend Curtis who is now heart-to-heart with Ravi (and appreciative of Authfriend's humour)--is what gives you bad press around here--did act upon laughinggull's exhortation to read my post to Curtis? Nobody hates on this forum except you, Barry. Does this post manifest the frustration and meanness you accuse me and others of harbouring in our souls because you (and Curtis) are HAVING SUCH A GOOD TIME OUT THERE? You'll figure it out some day, Barry; I am pretty sure of this. But you might have to give up everything before this happens. But that it will happen, I am convinced of this. The people who give you the hard time you deserve, they are the most loving among us, I reckon. You there, Barry? Send me some Christmas love, I am lonely. It's like something in them feels the need to warp reality into their shadow view of it: [http://i.huffpost.com/gen/867522/thumbs/s-ILLUSION-large300.jpg?4] In this case (the illusion), the chair is bent but as the result of careful spotlight placement the shadow seems normal. The Hater Tots tend to do the opposite -- they see an interesting reality, and transform it in their minds (and in their posted words) into something misshapen, something hateful. Go figure. I sometimes wonder about this phenomenon. It's not -- obviously -- as if I lose any sleep over this pondering, or actually spend any time actually pondering it, but I sometimes wonder what it IS in some people that makes them believe that because they post something on an Internet forum, someone OWES them for their efforts. They see something that someone else has written and they react to it. Sometimes rather strongly. Rather than deal with the essence of what the other person said that pushed their buttons and that put them into reactive mode, they focus all of their button-pushéd wrath on the person who said it. It's like on some level they're screaming, How DARE they be having FUN with their lives when we've spent so much time and energy trying to prevent that? How DARE they get positive feedback from other posters here *for* having FUN with their lives when we've done all that we could possibly do over the years to poison the well and try to insure that no one EVER views them positively? Go figure. I've always identified with the title of a great little book about American expats in Paris during the Golden Age of Expats. It was all about the era that Woody Allen romanticized so well in his film Midnight In Paris, the era of Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald and Cole Porter and Alice B. Toklas and Gertrude Stein and Picasso and Dali and Bunuel and Man Ray and Josephine Baker together in Paris, the last era in which the City Of Lights really blazed with creative light. I always loved the title of the book. It seemed to get the point, especially when it came to these free-thinkers, hounded and chased out of their native lands, only to end up in a Better Place, having a Better Time than those who had chased them away. The name of the book was Living Well Is The Best Revenge. Here's my thinking...if the people who seem to have dedicated their lives to hounding US, and to trying to make us feel as bummed out and dead-ended as they must feel seem to be so
[FairfieldLife] Re: Light On Water
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: So it's Friday, and the End Of The World to boot. Cool. So I finished all my work for the week a few minutes ago, and then chose to celebrate it by taking a walk around the 'hood I live in, prior to celebrating it by going out to dinner with my extended adoptive family. Barry, just wondering if you took that photo of the light on water from the location pictured below. Yes. It's a couple of hundred meters from where I live. Good Googling! Haarlemerstraat, at the upper left of the ariel view, is Leiden's main shopping drag. I went shopping on it today, with Paris and Pippin in their Christmas attire. The photo below shows them in their little reindeer antlers and Santa hat, but from an earlier Christmas in Paris, the city. The dogs are a bit greyer around the muzzle now, as am I. :-) [Barry';s Christmas Dogs] We were quite a hit. Stupidly, I forgot to bring my iPhone (same camera that took the other photo of the canal) with me, so I don't have any reaction shots of the often-dour Dutch cracking up and smiling. A few even laughed out loud. I consider that a win. Even though no one asked, dinner was smashing. We went to a Thai restaurant called Buddhas (http://www.buddhas.nl/ http://www.buddhas.nl/ ) and it was delightful -- one of the few Dutch restaurants I've found in which the food was worth what they were charging for it. Spain and France spoil you when it comes to eating out. After dinner we walked around and looked at the Christmas lights and at the skaters on the rink they have erected over the canal in front of the town hall. Not Rockefeller Center, but cool. Then I let the others walk home and I climbed up to the Citadel (a castle from the 11th century that is one of the oldest (and interestingly, since it is in the center of Leiden, one of the most silent areas of the city) and meditated for a while. [http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2071/2115542556_1343492e48.jpg] Not because of the so-called Apocalypse, not because I wanted to tune in to some grand global W00 Woo Fest...just because I felt like meditating. It was an OK meditation, just your normal, every- day stuff like seeing visions of Shiva dancing Gangnam style with an unidentified Hindu goddess almost wearing the sexiest see- through sari I've ever seen, followed by God herself coming down for a chat, sharing a champagne glass full of soma with me and commending me for my infinite patience in dealing with FFL stalkers. Oh wait. That didn't happen. I must have been channeling that. That's what TMers might consider an OK meditation. :-) Mine was just silence. Pure, infinite silence. Robin: Well, that's good, Barry. In fact that's *really* good. Pure, infinite silence. You are a fun guy, Barry. Did Curtis every get around to telling you that you weren't supposed to eat Irish children because of the shortage of potatoes? I don't believe authfriend has ever said anything about you that was objectively false. And yet, you have never come back at her to refute her--You think her severe analysis of you refutes itself? Your hatred of FF, TM, the TMO, and MMY: this tempts you into deliberate exaggeration and misrepresentation of your own meditation experience: Pure, infinite silence: this is a description motivated by your antipathy about TM MMY--Did that cynicism not exist, you would probably have said: It was pleasant enough. Quite relaxing. But no big deal. The pure, infinite silence: Simply an anti-Bevan remark. Although I don't disagree with you--contra Buck--about the charismatic potential John Hagelin. Eliot said that Santayana's philosophy lectures at Harvard were soporific. I like the mystery of tragedy in Bevan more than the unseriousness (in some unpreventable way) of soul in John Hagelin. Santayana, he would seem on fire. Merry Christmas, Barry. Your dogs look like they don't know who you are. Not enough individuation of first person ontology. Coda: I would love JH to become a charismatic leader/beautiful human being--who knows! maybe he will become this. But I side with Bevan in his fidelity to the purity of Maharishi's Teaching--also in the depth of his suffering and despair--he remains absolutely and properly true to Maharishi. If Buck gets his way--through championing the authority of JH--it will mean the death of that ultra innocent experience that an initiator can give to a initiate the moment he begins to repeat the mantra after the initiator has sung the Puja. There is nothing like TM, and there never has been anything like it. And there is no one
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Christmas FFL
Hey, Bob: Marvellous to hear from you. I have only got through the first video to TURQB--but it says everything I could ever conceive of saying to him, and if he ever gets his mind around that video (and how perfectly it speaks to him) I will take Jesus as my saviour. No one has addressed Barry as brilliantly as this. This might just be the most apposite video ever posted on FFL. I certainly think it the funniest. It is the metaphysical video I would send to Barry were I to try to tell him EVERYTHING I HAVE EVER WANTED TO TELL HIM. I think no one need send another post--critically--to Mr Wright. But only those who really know Barry will get it. It is heavenly--and not incompatible with loving the Holland guy. This is irony beyond where I have ever gone. But irony only in the service of truth. It was made for TURQB. I will now look at your other videos, Mozart. I am sure no one has more carefully chosen their Christmas gifts than you have here. There is a Santa, Curtis. This proves it. And if you don't laugh (in the context of knowing Barry) you are either dumb--or dishonest. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Happy Christmas FFL For TURQB http://www.spike.com/video-clips/ifl7g8/snl-christopher-walken For EMILY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEq0NNH1AM For SEVENTHRAY27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVGMsMws9Y For LORDKNOWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m60s70qX-xw For CM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5Egv0GYG4feature=endscreen For RAUNCHY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbvtB_0pKk For RAJA RAVI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I For EMPTYBILL: http://www.archive.org/stream/interpersonaldia00learrich#page/n0/mode/2up For AUTHFRIEND: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU For SHARE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpWwgwytdzk For LG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP15EEaEQrU For ANN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95_7l87prmI For BUCK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcHLpjiEdw For MASKEDZEBRA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjCSK0oOlI HAPPY CHRISTMAS FFL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHyuraau4Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_WSQpewNY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_ZcdxAAkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2iAkqtylY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11s0w9UNlg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knau6er2yow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lNr5jK8QE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Light On Water
I have been sprayed so many times I have developed an immunity to mace. Christopher Walken on SNL courtesy of Bob Price --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Whatever happened to Tony Nader in all of this assessment? He is after all the designated King of the TM movement by MMY himself. Isn't this a lot like asking, What ever happened to the meaningless dweebnessitude that the Wizard Of Oz tried to distract people with? No one ever CARED, because the wizard wasn't one. Neither was Maharishi. King Tony was merely the latest -- and the lamest -- of a series of charisma-challenged people who Maharishi tried to get people to focus on, just in case he should someday...uh...die. He did. They didn't. There isn't enough charisma there to fill an ant's chamber pot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Christmas FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Happy Christmas FFL For TURQB http://www.spike.com/video-clips/ifl7g8/snl-christopher-walken For EMILY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEq0NNH1AM For SEVENTHRAY27 A video from God. As inspired as God was when he thought: Why not a Woman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVGMsMws9Y For LORDKNOWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m60s70qX-xw For CM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5Egv0GYG4feature=endscreen For RAUNCHY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbvtB_0pKk For RAJA RAVI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I For EMPTYBILL: http://www.archive.org/stream/interpersonaldia00learrich#page/n0/mode/2up For AUTHFRIEND: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU For SHARE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpWwgwytdzk For LG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP15EEaEQrU For ANN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95_7l87prmI For BUCK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcHLpjiEdw For MASKEDZEBRA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjCSK0oOlI HAPPY CHRISTMAS FFL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHyuraau4Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_WSQpewNY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_ZcdxAAkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2iAkqtylY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11s0w9UNlg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knau6er2yow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lNr5jK8QE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Christmas FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Happy Christmas FFL For TURQB http://www.spike.com/video-clips/ifl7g8/snl-christopher-walken For EMILY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEq0NNH1AM For SEVENTHRAY27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVGMsMws9Y For LORDKNOWS: I listened to all twenty-five minutes and thirty seconds--the genius of this in relation to person for whom it is a true Christmas gift--this goes beyond what can be told. But I feel I got it. Tubular Bells Part is what love wants to do for LK--but he will (likely) react strongly to this implication that someone can know him this well. What thoughtfulness and discrimination went into the choosing of this. There is even the chance for a momentary Merry Christmas here--for LK. I ain't this sensitive--I mean to find this. But does it ever make it. I *understand* this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m60s70qX-xw For CM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5Egv0GYG4feature=endscreen For RAUNCHY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbvtB_0pKk For RAJA RAVI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I For EMPTYBILL: http://www.archive.org/stream/interpersonaldia00learrich#page/n0/mode/2up For AUTHFRIEND: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU For SHARE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpWwgwytdzk For LG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP15EEaEQrU For ANN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95_7l87prmI For BUCK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcHLpjiEdw For MASKEDZEBRA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjCSK0oOlI HAPPY CHRISTMAS FFL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHyuraau4Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_WSQpewNY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_ZcdxAAkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2iAkqtylY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11s0w9UNlg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knau6er2yow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lNr5jK8QE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Christmas FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Happy Christmas FFL For TURQB http://www.spike.com/video-clips/ifl7g8/snl-christopher-walken For EMILY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEq0NNH1AM For SEVENTHRAY27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVGMsMws9Y For LORDKNOWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m60s70qX-xw For CM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5Egv0GYG4feature=endscreen For RAUNCHY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbvtB_0pKk For RAJA RAVI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I For EMPTYBILL: http://www.archive.org/stream/interpersonaldia00learrich#page/n0/mode/2up For AUTHFRIEND: What a brilliant conversation here. Nothing better. Bob Price has demonstrated the knowledge of the character and mind of our resident editor. I think the Dove should descend. Let us have a discussion which will wallow in agreement: This video was superb. I think Authfriend just received the highest compliment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU For SHARE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpWwgwytdzk For LG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP15EEaEQrU For ANN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95_7l87prmI For BUCK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcHLpjiEdw For MASKEDZEBRA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjCSK0oOlI HAPPY CHRISTMAS FFL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHyuraau4Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_WSQpewNY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_ZcdxAAkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2iAkqtylY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11s0w9UNlg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knau6er2yow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lNr5jK8QE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Light On Water
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: I've got nothing much more to say on this topic, but am replying to it anyway to point out the contrast between what I wrote (below) and the angry, panicked, out-of-control, gotta-get- Barry reaction to it by DocDumbass, Judy, Ann, and Ravi. Pretty interesting, wouldn't you say? :-) No. Or not the way you'd like to think. No panic, nothing out-of-control. That's your fantasy, and also an example of what we've been talking about. The contrast is between what you wrote below and the sick, twisted, dishonest, sadistic crap you usually write, the gotta-get-Judy/Ann/Ravi/ DrD/Robin/whoever hysterical tirades that are your stock in trade, the smarmy I'm just pushing buttons garbage, the faux-Tantra nonsense, the utter lack of even the faintest wisp of self-knowledge. You can dish it out, but you can't take it, never have been able to take it, not since I've known you. You think you're entitled to gratuitously shit on anybody you feel like shitting on without ever having to take responsibility for it. You're a coward and a bully and a cheat and a phony and just generally a disgrace as a human being. One pretty little word picture and photo does not erase all that ugliness we're forced to endure from you. If you feel put-upon because you're getting reamed out for your toxic rubbish instead of getting strokes for your creative effort, tough. Live with it. We don't like having to live with you either. Judy, I must say I just can't understand why and how anybody would be forced to read what Barry, or anyone else, for that matter, writes... :o This is not the right question, Card. If one posts on a forum like this one, it is *unnatural* not to see what everyone else is saying. Even about oneself. Is it your inclination *not* to read posts that are addressed personally to you, and which either challenge your views, or disparage your person? I think most persons posting on this forum are interested in expressing their opinions and judgments--that's why they post; that's why they read what others post. This response of yours, you think it answers to all the acrimonious debates that have raged here on FFL? You think it the *solution* to the fierce contesting of what is true, what is right, what is real? It is a small-minded idea and it cost you nothing. If people are cruel or unfair or dishonest--or if they are sincere or fair or honest: this means something. To propose what you do here, in what way does that possibly encompass what it means to be a human being with an investment in your beliefs and feeling for what should count in the universe? No one is forced even to read anything on FFL--or even post on FFL. Why not, since there is so much violent argument, just quit reading and writing on FFL? Why, in view of these intense disagreements, not have everyone just stop contributing to FFL *so it can just shut down*. When you make a suggestion like this, the criterion of is validity has to be: Does my suggestion somehow take in the reality and meaning of what happens on FFL in the controversy over who is right and who is wrong? It seems like a perfect solution--what you say here--but does it seem as if that would have prevented all the tension and disputation that seems so serious here on FFL? Again, in argument, in life, one wants to bring an idea or proposition that really gathers as much reality into itself, so that it is a just and sensible and *meaningful* idea. Yours is the equivalent of saying: Well, if you were hurt in love, why ever get romantic with someone again? If you don't like the NRA, why do you read about what they have to say about the massacre in Newtown? You would make your proposal something more significant and truthful than authfriend's sincerely felt analysis of the sweet and disinterested consciousness in Holland. If I read authfriend's post and then I read yours: Is is possible to believe that your post essentially makes authfriend's post (about the Holland guy) superfluous? Look at the response from Holland (to your post): this is the proof of how irrelevant and meaningless your admonition was. Hamlet is a tragedy--it makes people sad. Why not just read comedy? Hamlet did not make me sad. Robin, why must reality be somehow infused, or invested in what a person says? Thoughts come spontaneously. That should say something about whether we can actually control their content. If they come spontaneously, who
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Christmas FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Happy Christmas FFL For TURQB http://www.spike.com/video-clips/ifl7g8/snl-christopher-walken For EMILY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEq0NNH1AM For SEVENTHRAY27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVGMsMws9Y For LORDKNOWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m60s70qX-xw For CM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5Egv0GYG4feature=endscreen For RAUNCHY Yes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbvtB_0pKk For RAJA RAVI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I For EMPTYBILL: http://www.archive.org/stream/interpersonaldia00learrich#page/n0/mode/2up For AUTHFRIEND: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU For SHARE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpWwgwytdzk For LG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP15EEaEQrU For ANN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95_7l87prmI For BUCK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcHLpjiEdw For MASKEDZEBRA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjCSK0oOlI HAPPY CHRISTMAS FFL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHyuraau4Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_WSQpewNY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_ZcdxAAkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2iAkqtylY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11s0w9UNlg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knau6er2yow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lNr5jK8QE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Christmas FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Happy Christmas FFL For TURQB http://www.spike.com/video-clips/ifl7g8/snl-christopher-walken For EMILY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEq0NNH1AM For SEVENTHRAY27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVGMsMws9Y For LORDKNOWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m60s70qX-xw For CM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5Egv0GYG4feature=endscreen For RAUNCHY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbvtB_0pKk For RAJA RAVI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I Floating safely down to earth. Keep talking Ravi: you can see he's in control. You are in a control descent. He's down on the earth, safely back! Down on his knees. So he has the new record. I clocked you at 729 mph for a while there, Ravi. How does it feel? For EMPTYBILL: http://www.archive.org/stream/interpersonaldia00learrich#page/n0/mode/2up For AUTHFRIEND: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU For SHARE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpWwgwytdzk For LG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP15EEaEQrU For ANN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95_7l87prmI For BUCK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcHLpjiEdw For MASKEDZEBRA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjCSK0oOlI HAPPY CHRISTMAS FFL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHyuraau4Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_WSQpewNY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_ZcdxAAkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2iAkqtylY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11s0w9UNlg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knau6er2yow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lNr5jK8QE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Christmas FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Happy Christmas FFL For TURQB http://www.spike.com/video-clips/ifl7g8/snl-christopher-walken For EMILY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEq0NNH1AM For SEVENTHRAY27 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVGMsMws9Y For LORDKNOWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m60s70qX-xw For CM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj5Egv0GYG4feature=endscreen For RAUNCHY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILbvtB_0pKk For RAJA RAVI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-K-XnHi9I For EMPTYBILL: http://www.archive.org/stream/interpersonaldia00learrich#page/n0/mode/2up For AUTHFRIEND: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smMa38CZCSU For SHARE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpWwgwytdzk For LG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP15EEaEQrU For ANN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95_7l87prmI For BUCK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZcHLpjiEdw The wisdom and beauty of this is inexpressible. I hope that Buck finds it in his conscience to understand what you are saying to him. If he can do this, and answer you, I will trust his philosophy--but only if he does as brilliantly (even just in his sincerity) in his response to this as you have done in creating this for him. Wow. Your videos are so bloody definitive. The only way people can answer them is to either 1. ignore them 2. deliberately misrepresent them. [That is, if the person seeks to deny how they speak to that person.] What a fabulous Santa you have been to all of us. Let see if anyone can post something as good as your videos. I doubt it, How about it, Buck? It's *Watership Down*: You stupid bunny! Moral courage and mortal fear. For MASKEDZEBRA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjCSK0oOlI HAPPY CHRISTMAS FFL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHyuraau4Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW_WSQpewNY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_ZcdxAAkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-2iAkqtylY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11s0w9UNlg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knau6er2yow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47lNr5jK8QE
[FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Christmas FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: What a brilliant conversation here. Nothing better. Bob Price has demonstrated the knowledge of the character and mind of our resident editor. I think the Dove should descend. Let us have a discussion which will wallow in agreement: This video was superb. I think Authfriend just received the highest compliment. Jesus Christ. Did you just borrow the Pope's Chair of Infallibility of something? Steve: Bob Price has a video for you for Christmas too. You should see it. It's very good, I think. Merry Christmas to you. No, no ex cathedra here; just plain common sense. Did you actually listen to the conversation here, Steve? I need to know. It was just an intuitive judgment based upon having enjoyed every word of that conversation. But believe me: have a look at Santa's video. And Merry Christmas, Steve. The one-liner temptation, it usually is funny on one level, but ironically insensitive on every other level. That's me being defensive, Steve. Share loves you, this the Veda tells me so. Have some pity on Canada, please: we are without hockey right now and some of us are over-compensating. Don't select what you think you can say something to, Steve; take in everything, and then when you want to get a good line off you can hold it all inside of you; that way, you will have something a little more in your song. We love you anyhow. Truth for me, Stevie, is a moment-to-moment thing. If you really meant that I misinterpreted Santa's present to authfriend, give us your interpretation. Reality is the target. That's what we're all trying to hit. Whether we know it or not. Get into the guts of it all, Steve. Not one fingernail. Love to you and your family at Christmas. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Light On Water
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: snip If there is some silent coup d'etat, it will be the end of Transcendental Meditation and the the last light of the brilliance of what the TM Movement once was (up to the ruling in the New Jersey case) will go out. Yes, and let's hope it doesn't coincide with the destruction of a nearby monastary. That would pretty much seal it. Actually, that's interesting you would say that, Steve, because the way I see it the ontological context of the universe changed around the time the Allies bombed Monte Cassino (1944). This is like Share's accident and yours. Some kind of synchronicity happening. And I thought you would be trying to get off a stunner that would deal with the meaning of my comments about Bevan versus JHagelin. Did you deal with my point of view about that? or was this reference the attempt to receive into yourself the merit of my argument? Anyhow, the coincidence is striking. I thought you knew about the Monte Cassino thing. Merry Christmas again, Steve. Watch that video. It comes from directly from God (through Bob Price). If you want the gold standard, read raunchy's response to BP. That is as good as it gets. And then you can, when you next have a funny to get off, think: Is this almost a good as raunchy's Christmas note to my friend Bob Price? Hey! just kidding, Steve. All is well and I will say hello to Santa in Manhattan for you. I am wrapping all my presents tonight. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Christmas
Sorry to hear about Buttons, Steve. I am extremely close to a beautiful black poodle, and I realize that my heart would break if he is were taken out of the world. No matter when. My philosophy is not quite strong enough to bear the grief of his not being here with me. He has loved me the most, perhaps, of any creature I have met--So far. So I understand what you and your family are going through right now. (My poodle is just over four years old. So I won't have to face this for some time.) Sincerely, Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: Thank you. First, when a cat gets overweight, they are not able to get around and jump as easily. So, the one cat fits that description. The second cat would love to be outdoors all the time. But my wife is a bit over protective, so she let's him out early (on weekends) before he's been fed, and so he comes back after about an hour for food. He is not nearly as affectionate, and has always been afraid of me. We also have a cat at my place of business. This was a kitty that showed up at our house a couple years ago, (already declawed and spayed) but we couldn't take another one in. So, he stays at my place of business, (goes home with an employee on the weekends) and she (she's a caleco), can go in and out as she pleases. Well, my wife just called, Our black and white long hair kitty, Buttons has cancer is going to have to be put down. The daughter just went upstairs crying. I'll likely start crying as soon as I see my wife. We had Buttons for about 15 years. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: Wow! I can't imagine being able to train a cat - the two I have had, Shakti and Shiva (a 15 lb. black and white shorthair who used to sleep on my shoulders when I was in the kitchen cooking) made it plain to me that they were not willing to be trained. I was raised with dogs too - mutts always, never had a pure bred dog, although the Chow I once had was nearly pure (no black tongue) Shiva changed that - got him as a tiny kitten, eyes still closed - my girlfriend-at-the-time's daddy's cocker spaniel brought it in his house, the mom had been killed by another dog - actually the cocker brought in two kittens, Shiva's brother didn't make it Anyway, bottle raising that kitty opened up my feline felicity. I hope all goes well with your cat - and enjoy your vacation! From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:05 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Christmas  The very instant I brought up this post, my wife called from the animal hopsital where she just took our cat. He appeared to be constipated. But in the last month or so he has been drinking way more water than usual. But he had a blood test that indicated than nothing was abnormal. I don't know what will happen if.. This cat adores her. And of course we leave for vacation tomorrow. I grew up with a dog. Somehow, the thought of the cat moving on to his reward doesn't bother me so much. But how nice that your cat had an active outdoor life. Our two cats get limited outside time. She has them trained to come back after about an hour, and that's what they get for the day.  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson wrote: I have to admit reading your experience made me cry again. I felt like a traitor for not being willing to do anything and everything possible to keep her alive. I even have a holistic vet friend who was willing to guide me with regards to diet, herbs and treatment (she lives in Spokane and was Shakti's vet years ago when she lived in SC) The night before I was up about half the night, and as I sat with her, I could tell or at least I felt she was already not fully in her body - the other thing was for me to choose to keep her alive I would have had to move her to my new place and she would have had to become an indoor cat after nearly 18 years of traipsing around in the woods outside my old house - I just didn't want to put her through the stress of a new strange environment and then have to put her to sleep in that strange environment - the vet I took her to said she might have a year, or she might go down hill in 2-3 weeks. (it was kidney failure - we completely missed what few symptoms were there - mainly drinking way more water than she usually did - in fact that was the only symptom for about 3 months and I was stupid enough to be happy that she was being well hydrated) I just wanted her to go in the same place she had lived and known for all those years - it was still a very strange thing to place her on the table after they had give the tranquilizer and step back so the vet and her assistant could administer the euthanasia drug. She survived all those years, lost
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened to Nablusoss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: In his Commentary on the Gita Maharishi explains, With the constant practice of meditation, this infusion continues to grow and when it is full-grown cosmic consciousness will have been attained. Once this state is attained, to fall from it is impossible. pg 173 from The Science of Being and Art of Living, with my underlining for emphasis: When this self-consciousness is forever maintained, even when the mind emerges from the Transcendent and engages in the field of activity, then self-consciousness attains the status of cosmic consciousness. Self-consciousness is then established eternally in the nature of the mind. pg 249 Ann wrote: Unless, of course, you make a conscious and concerted Herculean effort, as Robin evidently did, to overthrow the overwhelming hold of enlightenment on yourself. It appears not everyone wants to stay under the influence or to be held so firmly by the force of this power over them. I daresay Robin would still be in UC unless he had taken the steps he did to counteract that state. You are implying, Share, that his UC was not real because he is no longer in that state of consciousness. You see, what you write here is transparent. Judy adds: She fully intended it to be transparent. (Don'cha love the way she underlines forever and eternally just to make sure we don't miss them?) At least Nabby had the guts and integrity to put his point right out there. Note that Maharishi writes, TO FALL from [cosmic consciousness] is impossible. To fall implies something that happens against one's will, something one doesn't want to happen. Robin *wanted* to get out of the state he was in and, as Ann says, made a conscious and concerted Herculean effort to do so--and *sustained* that effort for *25 years*, a third of a lifetime. That doesn't seem to be what Maharishi was saying is impossible. (And even if he was, that doesn't mean he was correct. He wasn't always right, as we all know.) It's likely Maharishi never even conceived of someone going at it as Robin did. Wanting to go back to waking state *isn't in the books*, it isn't something that is taught. It's assumed that the enlightened state will always remain desirable once it has been achieved. At least, I've never seen anything to the contrary from a teacher of enlightenment; if anyone else has, please set me straight. At least the above gave me a good laugh for the day and maybe even for the week. I have never seen anyone sink to this level in order defend their position. However, not quite as good as: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328550 where you wrote to Share: I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. OMG, look at the time. Gotta get to work. I wonder if too much laughter is bad for someone? BTW Judy, do you prefer boldface or underline? If sex were all, then every trembling hand Could make us squeak, like dolls, the wished-for words. But note the unconscionable treachery of fate, That makes us weep, laugh, grunt and groan, and shout Doleful heroics, pinching gestures forth From madness or delight, without regard To that first, foremost law. Anguishing hour! Last night, we sat beside a pool of pink, Clippered with lilies scudding the bright chromes, Keen to the point of starlight, while a frog Boomed from his very belly odious chords.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened to Nablusoss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: In his Commentary on the Gita Maharishi explains, With the constant practice of meditation, this infusion continues to grow and when it is full-grown cosmic consciousness will have been attained. Once this state is attained, to fall from it is impossible. pg 173 from The Science of Being and Art of Living, with my underliningfor emphasis: When this self-consciousness is forever maintained, even when the mind emerges from the Transcendent and engages in the field of activity, then self-consciousness attains the status of cosmic consciousness. Self-consciousness is then established eternally in the nature of the mind. pg 249 Unless, of course, you make a conscious and concerted Herculean effort, as Robin evidently did, to overthrow the overwhelming hold of enlightenment on yourself. It appears not everyone wants to stay under the influence or to be held so firmly by the force of this power over them. I daresay Robin would still be in UC unless he had taken the steps he did to counteract that state. You are implying, Share, that his UC was not real because he is no longer in that state of consciousness. You see, what you write here is transparent. Maybe transparent to you Ann (and now to Judy who's chimed in with her support) but that's just the way you roll or whatever you seem to be looking for. Whatever is *transparent* to you, what the hell difference does it make? It seems that a few of you are making a concerted effort to beat on those with differing viewpoints until they just give up and no longer post here or at least post less frequently. Is that what you're trying to do Ann? Anyway, what you write above *seems* transparent to me but, then again, maybe that's just the way I roll. Or maybe what you write touches my heart, but not in a good way, and forces me to respond. BTW, love the boldface on your entire response...almost as good as underline. A High-Toned Old Christian Woman Poetry is the supreme fiction, madame. Take the moral law and make a nave of it And from the nave build haunted heaven. Thus, The conscience is converted into palms, Like windy citherns hankering for hymns. We agree in principle. That's clear. But take The opposing law and make a peristyle, And from the peristyle project a masque Beyond the planets. Thus, our bawdiness, Unpurged by epitaph, indulged at last, Is equally converted into palms, Squiggling like saxophones. And palm for palm, Madame, we are where we began. Allow, Therefore, that in the planetary scene Your disaffected flagellants, well-stuffed, Smacking their muzzy bellies in parade, Proud of such novelties of the sublime, Such tink and tank and tunk-a-tunk-tunk, May, merely may, madame, whip from themselves A jovial hullabaloo among the spheres. This will make widows wince. But fictive things Wink as they will. Wink most when widows wince. Wallace Stevens
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened to Nablusoss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: In his Commentary on the Gita Maharishi explains, With the constant practice of meditation, this infusion continues to grow and when it is full-grown cosmic consciousness will have been attained. Once this state is attained, to fall from it is impossible. pg 173 from The Science of Being and Art of Living, with my underlining for emphasis: When this self-consciousness is forever maintained, even when the mind emerges from the Transcendent and engages in the field of activity, then self-consciousness attains the status of cosmic consciousness. Self-consciousness is then established eternally in the nature of the mind. pg 249 Ann wrote: Unless, of course, you make a conscious and concerted Herculean effort, as Robin evidently did, to overthrow the overwhelming hold of enlightenment on yourself. It appears not everyone wants to stay under the influence or to be held so firmly by the force of this power over them. I daresay Robin would still be in UC unless he had taken the steps he did to counteract that state. You are implying, Share, that his UC was not real because he is no longer in that state of consciousness. You see, what you write here is transparent. Judy adds: She fully intended it to be transparent. (Don'cha love the way she underlines forever and eternally just to make sure we don't miss them?) At least Nabby had the guts and integrity to put his point right out there. Note that Maharishi writes, TO FALL from [cosmic consciousness] is impossible. To fall implies something that happens against one's will, something one doesn't want to happen. Robin *wanted* to get out of the state he was in and, as Ann says, made a conscious and concerted Herculean effort to do so--and *sustained* that effort for *25 years*, a third of a lifetime. That doesn't seem to be what Maharishi was saying is impossible. (And even if he was, that doesn't mean he was correct. He wasn't always right, as we all know.) It's likely Maharishi never even conceived of someone going at it as Robin did. Wanting to go back to waking state *isn't in the books*, it isn't something that is taught. It's assumed that the enlightened state will always remain desirable once it has been achieved. At least, I've never seen anything to the contrary from a teacher of enlightenment; if anyone else has, please set me straight. At least the above gave me a good laugh for the day and maybe even for the week. I have never seen anyone sink to this level in order defend their position. However, not quite as good as: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328550 where you wrote to Share: I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad* intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others be the best they could possibly be. OMG, look at the time. Gotta get to work. I wonder if too much laughter is bad for someone? BTW Judy, do you prefer boldface or underline? The proud black swan hissing her contempt for the unthoughtful barking of the excited spaniel. When the coldness of the air bites our cheeks, do we believe we will be alive again when the heat of summer burns the sand? What aches and pains these animals feel, who cannot tell us how silent their misery becomes--until their secret fate is changed, and they are happy once again. What a privilege it must be to think our feelings right because they are our own, and in their smugness and complacency that we have done away with death. Poor gulls which laugh easily as the majestic eagle pierces with his talons young birds who never will feel their wings beating. The sensation you are left with after you have spoken, its boredom tells us all you need to know of unsuspected tragedy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened to Robin
Look at the stars! look, look up at the skies! O look at all the fire-folk sitting in the air! [Gerard's stars, then--I am a literalist. It is those very stars that tremble, Share.] --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Robin: Just please don't shoot any of those helpless stars out of the night sky. Share: Helpless?! Hard to see that with such devoted helpers ever at the ready! Happy Holidays and may everyone on FFL have more peace and or happiness and or well being from whatever they post on FFL and whatever they pursue in their offline lives (-: From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:55 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened to Nablusoss  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: In his Commentary on the Gita Maharishi explains, With the constant practice of meditation, this infusion continues to grow and when it is full-grown cosmic consciousness will have been attained.àOnce this state is attained, to fall from it is impossible.àpgà173 from The Science of Being and Art of Living, with my underliningfor emphasis: When this self-consciousness is forever maintained, even when the mind emerges from the Transcendent and engages in the field of activity, then self-consciousness attains the status of cosmic consciousness.àSelf-consciousness is then established eternally in the nature of the mind. pg 249 Look: I never said I got anywhere near SLC. You are established in SLC--and certainly it is as unified as UC. Just please don't shoot any of those helpless stars out of the night sky. From: Robin Carlsen To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described àThe Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life. The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
snorefest in the Batgap interviews. So we have nothing but the kind of beliefs we see in every religion. A guy like Robin says he feels something that could be expressed in that sentence at the top. And some people around him say, hey this guy really does seem to be special so I will believe him. But we have such a shitty track record with this don't we? I know what a broad swath this cuts, but here it goes: When any human makes the claim that he is speaking for God. I call bullshit till proven otherwise. And the burden is on the person making the claim. I don't know if there really is a God, but I do know that people claiming to represent him on earth in any capacity are trying to separate their claim to authority from my own. They are attempting to assume epistemological higher ground. And we all know what to assume does. It makes an ass of ...no wait that can't be right, it has something to do with me, or u or...oh hell I just had it... it makes that person a total pain in the ass. Nailed it! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life. The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this. If you had put a full stop after Arosa your story would be fine. It's the following 6 words that creates a confusion that seems to linger on to this day. Last time I suggest you had a checking. This advice still stands. Dear Nablusoss, I would ask you one question, Nablusoss: What is the context and quality of your experience in making this judgment of my enlightenment? It is purely intuitional. It has nothing to do with details of what you have written. Quite the contrary in fact; many of your descriptions of experiences certainly has the rings of truth to them and are profoundly beautiful. But somewhere there is a shorting, something unhinges. Then this sense of not finding your writing quite fitting was confirmed by others whom I trust. But there is always the matter of who we are. May I suggest your rereading AWB's post where she questions the realness of this differentiation of higher states of consciousness--I mean the paragraph which precedes the one where she addresses a question to myself Thank you
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/329261 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Maharishi: Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. Me: What a great writing prompt. This discussion between Nabby and Robin is fascinating on many levels but serves as an introduction to one of my favorite issues: people who claim to be in some state of mind where this statement is true. The idea that Nabby found something he finds hard to believe, i.e. that Robin was really enlightened till he wasn't, is a hoot itself. The biggest problem I have with the whole traditional interpretation of people experiencing states of mind which might be expressed in such a grandiose claim, is that there is no real distinction given the poetic looseness of the language, between the so called higher states and people who are high functioning but suffering from mental disorders which manifest in this kind of belief. And there seems to be little interest among the enlightened to make sure there is a sorting mechanism other than, in Maharishi's case, if you are speaking for God please keep your mouth shut, there is only one God mouthpiece per movement. So Robin had his internal shift and was never evaluated to see if these experiences were the real deal other than a short time in casual conversation with Maharishi where very vague poetic terms were exchanged. And certainly no one got a psych exam, right? Until the spiritual community has a way to distinguish this kind of claim as the real, real, real, seriously the real deal, even within its own system compared to the many versions of this conclusions drawn by people suffering from serious mental disturbances, the whole thoery of higher states will not be taken seriously in mainstream society. Nor should it be. I am fairly sympathetic to the idea that some styles of mental functioning created by years of doing mental techniques might be useful. But not on the heels of proclamations like that one Maharishi made. We already have too many people making this claim while holding an AK or strapped with bombs. Now Maharishi actually proposed tests that I still think are reasonable within the crazy world of his beliefs. That was that the sidhis performance was an objective benchmark for higher states. And what I like about this is that the claims about enlightenment are so over the top, it seems logical that the person would have some noticeable difference in how they function. But that was not to be, so now we lack such a standard. I would like to see the enlightened just showing up with some quality that I find admirable or interesting that might support the grandiose traditional claims. Instead I see a self-satisfied snorefest in the Batgap interviews. So we have nothing but the kind of beliefs we see in every religion. A guy like Robin says he feels something that could be expressed in that sentence at the top. And some people around him say, hey this guy really does seem to be special so I will believe him. But we have such a shitty track record with this don't we? I know what a broad swath this cuts, but here it goes: When any human makes the claim that he is speaking for God. I call bullshit till proven otherwise. And the burden is on the person making the claim. I don't know if there really is a God, but I do know that people claiming to represent him on earth in any capacity are trying to separate their claim to authority from my own. They are attempting to assume epistemological higher ground. And we all know what to assume does. It makes an ass of ...no wait that can't be right, it has something to do with me, or u or...oh hell I just had it... it makes that person a total pain in the ass. Nailed it! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Little Hummingbird
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/329261 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Beautiful post Ann, probably my favorite from you. I spent a lot of time with the ruby throated ones that migrate through Northeastern PA. Our family has a book of 50 years of feeding them and when they come and when they leave. Through years of observation and reading about their lives my guess is that hyper-territorial bird saw a reflection of himself in the window and attacked it breaking his neck. The combination of their ethereal delicacy and how insanely combative they are with each other is one of the oddest pairings in nature. They are adorable little devils in a constant dogfight around out feeders. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: Yesterday my husband handed me, ever go gently, the body of a dead hummingbird he found outside our window where we keep two feeders stocked with the sugar/water mixture so necessary for these small birds' survival during the winters here in Victoria. He fills them every other day because there is such a demand from these tiny creatures who often arrive, seven or eight at a time, to flit and drink just outside our kitchen door. I took the small, frozen body out to bury it thinking of that frantic heart, no bigger than a tear, now still within its pearlescent breast. Its eyes were half open but sightless and that long, exquisitely fine beak as slender as four strands of horsehair still looking perfect and unbroken, ready to sip some fragrant nectar from some flower no longer blooming here in December. And those little wings, usually invisible in their speed, were folded back along the tiny body, looking so prim but probably just trying to keep itself warm in those final seconds of having fallen to the ground, dying. As I dug a small grave in the front garden underneath a statue of St Francis (something that used to sit in my parent's yard) I noticed the gnarled quality of the curled feet at the end of legs as fine as the smallest glass pipette. And as I laid the little thing into the small hole I had dug and covered it over, very gently so as not to crush the spent body within, I felt a mixture of grief and amazement that something this fine, this perfect, this active - this brilliant winking gem - was so stilled and because of that I was able to hold it in my hand, an impossibility under any other circumstances. Last night I was awakened by the wind, assaulting the house, driving the rain against the window behind my headboard and I found myself thinking about the hummer lying undisturbed under the soil. No wind buffeted there and all would be quiet, dark and very calm. Strange how one little life, and death, can fill your thoughts. I'm still thinking about that bird, even as I see seven others were drinking from the feeders, in this terrible wind, just ten minutes ago.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
support the grandiose traditional claims. Instead I see a self-satisfied snorefest in the Batgap interviews. So we have nothing but the kind of beliefs we see in every religion. A guy like Robin says he feels something that could be expressed in that sentence at the top. And some people around him say, hey this guy really does seem to be special so I will believe him. But we have such a shitty track record with this don't we? I know what a broad swath this cuts, but here it goes: When any human makes the claim that he is speaking for God. I call bullshit till proven otherwise. And the burden is on the person making the claim. I don't know if there really is a God, but I do know that people claiming to represent him on earth in any capacity are trying to separate their claim to authority from my own. They are attempting to assume epistemological higher ground. And we all know what to assume does. It makes an ass of ...no wait that can't be right, it has something to do with me, or u or...oh hell I just had it... it makes that person a total pain in the ass. Nailed it! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life. The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this. If you had put a full stop after Arosa your story would be fine. It's the following 6 words that creates a confusion that seems to linger on to this day. Last time I suggest you had a checking. This advice still stands. Dear Nablusoss, I would ask you one question, Nablusoss: What is the context and quality of your experience in making this judgment of my enlightenment? It is purely intuitional. It has nothing to do with details of what you have written. Quite the contrary in fact; many of your descriptions of experiences certainly has the rings of truth to them and are profoundly beautiful. But somewhere there is a shorting, something unhinges. Then this sense of not finding your writing quite fitting was confirmed by others whom I trust. But there is always the matter of who we are. May I suggest your rereading AWB's post where she questions the realness of this differentiation of higher states of consciousness--I mean the paragraph which precedes
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
we have nothing but the kind of beliefs we see in every religion. A guy like Robin says he feels something that could be expressed in that sentence at the top. And some people around him say, hey this guy really does seem to be special so I will believe him. But we have such a shitty track record with this don't we? I know what a broad swath this cuts, but here it goes: When any human makes the claim that he is speaking for God. I call bullshit till proven otherwise. And the burden is on the person making the claim. I don't know if there really is a God, but I do know that people claiming to represent him on earth in any capacity are trying to separate their claim to authority from my own. They are attempting to assume epistemological higher ground. And we all know what to assume does. It makes an ass of ...no wait that can't be right, it has something to do with me, or u or...oh hell I just had it... it makes that person a total pain in the ass. Nailed it! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life. The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this. If you had put a full stop after Arosa your story would be fine. It's the following 6 words that creates a confusion that seems to linger on to this day. Last time I suggest you had a checking. This advice still stands. Dear Nablusoss, I would ask you one question, Nablusoss: What is the context and quality of your experience in making this judgment of my enlightenment? It is purely intuitional. It has nothing to do with details of what you have written. Quite the contrary in fact; many of your descriptions of experiences certainly has the rings of truth to them and are profoundly beautiful. But somewhere there is a shorting, something unhinges. Then this sense of not finding your writing quite fitting was confirmed by others whom I trust. But there is always the matter of who we are. May I suggest your rereading AWB's post where she questions the realness of this differentiation of higher states of consciousness--I mean the paragraph which precedes the one where she addresses a question to myself Thank you for caring so deeply about truth of why we
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
You stay out of this, Barry. You have no business interfering in my relationship with Curtis. What do you know about FRIENDSHIP? This is something that Curtis and I are working out, and you only make things worse. Please, I ask you, Barry: leave us alone. I don't try to butt into your friendship with Curtis, so go take a long walk off a short pier. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Gawd, he's still trying to rope Curtis into interacting with him. Since abuse hasn't done it, he's trying the honey trap. What a twat. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: You are honest, Curtis. This piece is honest. It is a valid analysis of the claims of higher states of consciousness. I liked it very much. I wish I had read it immediately upon coming down from that mountain; it might have saved me (and others) a lot of grief. I don't think you know quite what you are saying here; your agenda is other than what it is you are writing about. Nevertheless it is a clear and cogent critique of the inadequate scrutiny that is given to enlightenment. I go along with most of what you say. I think, though, that sometimes you may be being driven to a certain conclusion before you have entirely studied all the facts. I could be wrong about this, however. One thing is for sure: I think you nailed it. There can be no doubt about this. But I have some faint feeling that I am not, at times, in perfect agreement with you. Perhaps, though, this will pass. It's good--I think all of it is good. But somehow there is something missing here--Maybe it's in me. That could be. I have been known to not quite get what is happening in the right way. But I think people here in FFL can benefit from your post--as I have. It seems we almost can make a new beginning here--assuming I have understood you correctly--and I believe I have. I am sorry if I have been insensitive to what you were trying to say in the past; but those days, they seem pretty much over to me. I think we can just believe in ourselves, without having to get all upset with either what you say to me, or what I say to you. This seems the very best way to not have any issues come up between us. I am a man of my word; and I give it here, Curtis: you are just my happy friend again. And it feels right to me. But I want this mood to persist throughout the day. I know it will, but I have not practiced this long enough to have the confidence I know I will have if by the time tonight comes I am still in this present state. Which seems pretty normal to me. Now I am saying perhaps something very subtle here, but I know you, of all people on FFL, will get it. And that will have to be enough for me. Thank you very much for writing this, Curtis. It has helped me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Maharishi: Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. Me: What a great writing prompt. This discussion between Nabby and Robin is fascinating on many levels but serves as an introduction to one of my favorite issues: people who claim to be in some state of mind where this statement is true. The idea that Nabby found something he finds hard to believe, i.e. that Robin was really enlightened till he wasn't, is a hoot itself. The biggest problem I have with the whole traditional interpretation of people experiencing states of mind which might be expressed in such a grandiose claim, is that there is no real distinction given the poetic looseness of the language, between the so called higher states and people who are high functioning but suffering from mental disorders which manifest in this kind of belief. And there seems to be little interest among the enlightened to make sure there is a sorting mechanism other than, in Maharishi's case, if you are speaking for God please keep your mouth shut, there is only one God mouthpiece per movement. So Robin had his internal shift and was never evaluated to see if these experiences were the real deal other than a short time in casual conversation with Maharishi where very vague poetic terms were exchanged. And certainly no one got a psych exam, right? Until the spiritual community has a way to distinguish this kind of claim as the real, real, real, seriously the real deal, even within its own system compared to the many versions of this conclusions drawn by people suffering from serious mental disturbances, the whole thoery of higher states will not be taken seriously in mainstream society. Nor should it be. I am fairly sympathetic to the idea that some styles of mental functioning created
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
Dear Curtis: Have mercy on your poor friend, who has taken me seriously here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: You stay out of this, Barry. You have no business interfering in my relationship with Curtis. What do you know about FRIENDSHIP? This is something that Curtis and I are working out, and you only make things worse. Please, I ask you, Barry: leave us alone. I don't try to butt into your friendship with Curtis, so go take a long walk off a short pier. Fuck off and die, you cultist asshole. :-) Seriously, it is an indication of the extent of your boundary violation issues that you don't see that on a public forum I have *just* as much right to comment on your *obvious* tactics as anyone else. You'd *like* to be able to ply those tactics without anyone commenting on them, as would those who run similar numbers, but just as you guys feel free to comment on your version of what our motivations are, we can comment on yours. What you don't like is that we CAN. The bottom line is still the bottom line. If any of you were as advanced or as evolved or as important as you like to pretend to be, WHAT WOULD IT MATTER what anyone said about you? But it seems to matter to you a great deal. What you propose as an explanation of this? You HAVE no relationship with Curtis. You've interacted with him a few times on an Internet forum. The rest is all in your head. *As* were any ideas of your own enlightenment* IMO. :-) You may choose to treat these things as reality. I prefer to treat them as what they are -- your fantasy notions of what reality would be if it just catered to your whims and ego-desires. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Gawd, he's still trying to rope Curtis into interacting with him. Since abuse hasn't done it, he's trying the honey trap. What a twat. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: You are honest, Curtis. This piece is honest. It is a valid analysis of the claims of higher states of consciousness. I liked it very much. I wish I had read it immediately upon coming down from that mountain; it might have saved me (and others) a lot of grief. I don't think you know quite what you are saying here; your agenda is other than what it is you are writing about. Nevertheless it is a clear and cogent critique of the inadequate scrutiny that is given to enlightenment. I go along with most of what you say. I think, though, that sometimes you may be being driven to a certain conclusion before you have entirely studied all the facts. I could be wrong about this, however. One thing is for sure: I think you nailed it. There can be no doubt about this. But I have some faint feeling that I am not, at times, in perfect agreement with you. Perhaps, though, this will pass. It's good--I think all of it is good. But somehow there is something missing here--Maybe it's in me. That could be. I have been known to not quite get what is happening in the right way. But I think people here in FFL can benefit from your post--as I have. It seems we almost can make a new beginning here--assuming I have understood you correctly--and I believe I have. I am sorry if I have been insensitive to what you were trying to say in the past; but those days, they seem pretty much over to me. I think we can just believe in ourselves, without having to get all upset with either what you say to me, or what I say to you. This seems the very best way to not have any issues come up between us. I am a man of my word; and I give it here, Curtis: you are just my happy friend again. And it feels right to me. But I want this mood to persist throughout the day. I know it will, but I have not practiced this long enough to have the confidence I know I will have if by the time tonight comes I am still in this present state. Which seems pretty normal to me. Now I am saying perhaps something very subtle here, but I know you, of all people on FFL, will get it. And that will have to be enough for me. Thank you very much for writing this, Curtis. It has helped me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Maharishi: Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. Me: What a great writing prompt. This discussion between Nabby and Robin is fascinating on many levels but serves as an introduction to one of my favorite issues: people who claim to be in some state of mind where this statement is true. The idea
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
But I realize this decision will have to be processed through your super-computer of strategy: which will mean: Oh, I don't know about that, Robin: It might be better that I not say anything to Barry even as I know how deliberately ridiculous you were being--AND BARRY DIDN'T GET IT. I dare you to tell your friend, Curtis, that I was having him on. You won't--BUT IF YOU DO--STRAIGHT--IT WILL AMAZE ME. At least find some way to correct his unfortunate reading of me. Hey! maybe not. Maybe better to not humiliate him; let him think Robin was sincere. Yeah. I think that's better. Dilemma for Curtis. Let's see what he does. But one thing is certain: I was being idiotic with a brain--and you knew this. Did anyone on FFL interpret me as Barry did? I would fine that surprising. Calculate, Curtis. Calculate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: Dear Curtis: Have mercy on your poor friend, who has taken me seriously here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: You stay out of this, Barry. You have no business interfering in my relationship with Curtis. What do you know about FRIENDSHIP? This is something that Curtis and I are working out, and you only make things worse. Please, I ask you, Barry: leave us alone. I don't try to butt into your friendship with Curtis, so go take a long walk off a short pier. Fuck off and die, you cultist asshole. :-) Seriously, it is an indication of the extent of your boundary violation issues that you don't see that on a public forum I have *just* as much right to comment on your *obvious* tactics as anyone else. You'd *like* to be able to ply those tactics without anyone commenting on them, as would those who run similar numbers, but just as you guys feel free to comment on your version of what our motivations are, we can comment on yours. What you don't like is that we CAN. The bottom line is still the bottom line. If any of you were as advanced or as evolved or as important as you like to pretend to be, WHAT WOULD IT MATTER what anyone said about you? But it seems to matter to you a great deal. What you propose as an explanation of this? You HAVE no relationship with Curtis. You've interacted with him a few times on an Internet forum. The rest is all in your head. *As* were any ideas of your own enlightenment* IMO. :-) You may choose to treat these things as reality. I prefer to treat them as what they are -- your fantasy notions of what reality would be if it just catered to your whims and ego-desires. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: Gawd, he's still trying to rope Curtis into interacting with him. Since abuse hasn't done it, he's trying the honey trap. What a twat. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: You are honest, Curtis. This piece is honest. It is a valid analysis of the claims of higher states of consciousness. I liked it very much. I wish I had read it immediately upon coming down from that mountain; it might have saved me (and others) a lot of grief. I don't think you know quite what you are saying here; your agenda is other than what it is you are writing about. Nevertheless it is a clear and cogent critique of the inadequate scrutiny that is given to enlightenment. I go along with most of what you say. I think, though, that sometimes you may be being driven to a certain conclusion before you have entirely studied all the facts. I could be wrong about this, however. One thing is for sure: I think you nailed it. There can be no doubt about this. But I have some faint feeling that I am not, at times, in perfect agreement with you. Perhaps, though, this will pass. It's good--I think all of it is good. But somehow there is something missing here--Maybe it's in me. That could be. I have been known to not quite get what is happening in the right way. But I think people here in FFL can benefit from your post--as I have. It seems we almost can make a new beginning here--assuming I have understood you correctly--and I believe I have. I am sorry if I have been insensitive to what you were trying to say in the past; but those days, they seem pretty much over to me. I think we can just believe in ourselves, without having to get all upset with either what you say to me, or what I say to you. This seems the very best way to not have any issues come up between us. I am a man of my word; and I give it here, Curtis: you are just my happy friend again. And it feels right to me. But I want this mood to persist throughout the day. I know it will, but I have
[FairfieldLife] The Mostly German Philosophers Love Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slcYzUIPSD4
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Mostly German Philosophers Love Song
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slcYzUIPSD4 Well obviously in most possible worlds it is necessary to follow with this: http://youtu.be/92vV3QGagck Aristotle - very much *the man in form*, eh? Hasn't the boy done well! Karl M. was in perfect form too when he was warming up on the sidelines. Typical of him, too, to try to say Socrates was offside. The Greeks had a stronger side, I believe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Clarified Post After Wonkiness of Yahoo
Nablusoss wrote: Once the chakras are open they're open. You've been rewired. Anyone who thinks they undid enlightenment were just confused and not enlightened in the first place. Bhairitu wrote: Well, that certainly is the understanding one has if one has studied with Maharishi, including myself. I posted the question to DR.Dumbass because he has shown to have profound understanding on the subject. I also wonder why this question did not arise as soon as Robin turned up on FFL with his story. Ann: I don't think determining what state of consciousness someone (including oneself) is functioning from is as easy as figuring out if one has the measles, a fever or AIDS. But if I read what many write here it is like this can all be categorized like some sort of yoghurt culture. What objective measurement is there to do such a thing?. There is no thermometer or blood test that can give anyone a reading. Putting these different states of consciousness into such tight knit categories seems way too simplistic and inflexible. It is the human brain we are speaking about here. There may be outside forces, effects, influences that could be said to 'encourage' enlightenment but ultimately these things act on the physical organ we call the human brain. That organ is incredibly adaptable, immeasurably mysterious, chemically balancing on the slightest potential for catastrophic fluctuations; who is to say what it can do, where it can take its recipient? Who is any expert here or anywhere? Who is to say things can not move in one direction and then change, morph, grow, regress? I just don't buy it. I don't believe the so-called states of consciousness can be put into little boxes where they sit like some encased specimens. How can they even be categorized at all, have names? For every individual who is allegedly in some other state they wouldn't all suddenly become clones of one another acting similarly, exhibiting the same interests, speech patterns, decisions, priorities so who is determining that Dick and Sally are both in UC? Certainly not Dick and Sally I hope. Robin: No one will take you on here within the frame of reference--the best one I can conceive of, by the way--you have created by your critique here, Ann. The Self gets frustrated (along with the more magisterial Impersonal God) when someone talks like this. It blows the East out of the water. Sure, the neo-Hindus, Buddhists, pantheists, nondualists on this forum will perhaps respond to you. But that response will not dare take on the Western potency of individualism which is at the heart of your perspective here. AC is a state of consciousness which has more to say than someone who is enlightened--that is, if the criterion of realness is how intricate and relevant and alive one is in one's actions. Not one person on this forum--enlightened or non-enlightened--will be willing to contest you on the ground (firm solid, normal) on which you argue--They will have to change the context, and then act *as if you were coming from some place of ignorance*. Why didn't you challenge me when you had the chance? ;-) No, this is one of the most reasoned and cogent arguments that has ever been made here on FFL--against the existential relevance of the taxonomy of 'higher states of consciousness'--their precious delineation. Ann: If Robin had never meditated or heard of MMY or sought out any spiritual path and he had had the experience he had in Arosa on that mountain during a hike with a friend I wonder what he would have thought happened. How would he explain it? How, in the innocence of having no knowledge that different states of consciousness might even exist, would he feel about how he was seeing the world? Would it be scary, beautiful, terrible? I only thought of this now, maybe he will tell us. And how about anyone else here who believes themselves enlightened? Can you imagine what it would have been like to have 'slipped' into another mental state but not have known anything about the fact/idea that these states existed? Robin: I am fascinated with this question, Ann. I will try to answer it, although I will be like Stevens's metaphysician in the dark, twanging/ An instrument . . .that [I hope] gives/ [Words] a sudden rightness. I WILL NOT SUCCEED IN THIS TO THE SATISFACTION OF ANYONE--but *this will at least be my intent*. For me, Ann, my experience on Arosa 'slipping into Unity' was first of all based upon my first LSD experience: what that meant to me was acquiring the capacity to surrender to something much larger and more powerful than myself, which, under LSD seemed to be the the intelligence behind the universe. I think I could answer your question: If Robin had never meditated or heard of MMY or sought out any spiritual path and he had had the experience had in Arosa on that mountain during a hike with a friend I wonder what we would have thought happened two ways: 1. How I would have interpreted the experience with LSD but
[FairfieldLife] The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life. The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life. The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this. If you had put a full stop after Arosa your story would be fine. It's the following 6 words that creates a confusion that seems to linger on to this day. Last time I suggest you had a checking. This advice still stands. Dear Nablusoss, I would ask you one question, Nablusoss: What is the context and quality of your experience in making this judgment of my enlightenment? Are you drawing from your experience of where life might be able to suggest to you the intrinsic appropriateness of your admonition to me? For me the acute boundedness of your smallest sense of selfhood is behind your remarks here--the fanaticism which is born of lack of grace. You are being obedient to The Teaching of course; but for me, this is why religion fails: it cannot be as interesting as one performance on American Idol--or one ironic commercial on television--or the Stones concert from Newark this past weekend (which I watched live: pay per view). There is something unbeautiful here, nablusoss: dogma cannot do the work of love or intelligence or inspiration: I like many of your posts; but in your solemn and didactic mode you lose contact with any muse which might move the hearts of readers who know nothing of Maharishi or TM. There might indeed be a critical and negative response to what I posted (see what I said to AWB). But you will do me the honour of finding that place inside yourself which at least equals in its sincerity and felt truthfulness the place where I wrote what I wrote in my answer to AWB's question: How would you have interpreted your experience on that mountain above Arosa, Robin, had you had no spiritual orientation? I answered that question as seriously and as honestly as if I had been conscious when I came out of my mother's womb, nablusoss. If you want something more than the satisfaction of scolding me, you must find where it exists within you to feel some passion and innocence in your sense that I am misrepresenting what is so critical to your own feeling of ultimate purpose and meaning in your life. There is, after all, the real person nablusoss: I think he is capable of chastising me with more wit and effect than you have done here. I have no idea what your method might be--that is, a method which would touch others (and maybe even me); but given what I said to AWB about what happened to me on that mountain--and AFTERWARDS--you should (if you will allow me to be make an meta-aesthetic judgment here) at least attempt to equal my own sensitivity
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen wrote: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life. The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this. If you had put a full stop after Arosa your story would be fine. It's the following 6 words that creates a confusion that seems to linger on to this day. Last time I suggest you had a checking. This advice still stands. Dear Nablusoss, I would ask you one question, Nablusoss: What is the context and quality of your experience in making this judgment of my enlightenment? It is purely intuitional. It has nothing to do with details of what you have written. Quite the contrary in fact; many of your descriptions of experiences certainly has the rings of truth to them and are profoundly beautiful. But somewhere there is a shorting, something unhinges. Then this sense of not finding your writing quite fitting was confirmed by others whom I trust. But there is always the matter of who we are. May I suggest your rereading AWB's post where she questions the realness of this differentiation of higher states of consciousness--I mean the paragraph which precedes the one where she addresses a question to myself Thank you for caring so deeply about truth of why we are existing inside the universe, nablusoss. Robin I just read your answer to Ann. Again you write very well, and there is no reason to disbelieve any of this. But as you point out: And then the question will arise in the reader's mind: Given what you have just told us, Robin: How did you get out of this 'cosmic' circumstance? That is something I have not talked about. Since I happen to believe that you had not established permanent enlightenment in the first place, why would I be interested in your de-enlightenment ? Well, perhaps as they say in Germany; The braking of the rule confirms the rule. I certainly could not say that there are once and for all no exception to a rule, and if you would like to explain how, in your opinion, de-enlightenment was done, I'm sure many would find that interesting. Dear Nablusoss, Gee. I never knew you hadn't read my post to Ann. Well, that seems to have made a difference. The person nablusoss comes through in what you have just written to me. Nothing to complain about here. ;-) It seems I must now explain how I became de-enlightened. Getting enlightened took me approximately eight years; de-enlightenment has taken nearly 10,000 days. This is the question, then, I
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Experience of Being Enlightened to Nablusoss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: In his Commentary on the Gita Maharishi explains, With the constant practice of meditation, this infusion continues to grow and when it is full-grown cosmic consciousness will have been attained. Once this state is attained, to fall from it is impossible. pg 173 from The Science of Being and Art of Living, with my underliningfor emphasis: When this self-consciousness is forever maintained, even when the mind emerges from the Transcendent and engages in the field of activity, then self-consciousness attains the status of cosmic consciousness. Self-consciousness is then established eternally in the nature of the mind. pg 249 Look: I never said I got anywhere near SLC. You are established in SLC--and certainly it is as unified as UC. Just please don't shoot any of those helpless stars out of the night sky. From: Robin Carlsen To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:32 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Experience of Being Enlightened Perfectly Described  The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life. The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
If I were a man I would want to be me. Ann likes the person that she is. Her femaleness does not deprive her of the imagination to conceive of herself as a man--and yet in thinking of what kind of man she would like to be, she realizes she possesses the specific attributes which, for her, would be almost ideal in having to be a man. There is no limitation imposed upon herself as a woman; but there is the recognition *as a person* she encompasses--or could encompass, based upon her personal ingredients--the form of herself imagined as a man. It is also a kind of private in-joke between Ann and all those who know her: Ann has a large enough personality to make it an unnatural act to defer--just based on her femininity--to any man. Ann holds within her person, then, the possibility of transmuting what she is, into the form of a man--which says what a powerful woman she is--and yet how her very person would constitute the basis for being a man she would respect and love. She can see herself as being a beautiful man. Now, that's some woman. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: If I were a man I'd want to be me. I cannot help but go on the record here and feel sorry for Ann's hubby, not for the first time. Ooh, stinging. I'll bet this will just devastate Ann. (Actually, I bet she'll show it to her hubby, and he'll hurt himself laughing. But we can certainly understand why a woman like Ann would be a nightmare for Barry.) Please note that Judy carefully snipped the smiley face at the end of my post, so that she could exercise her usual drama queenery and faux outrage. As Emily would say, A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! As if the smiley face would make any difference. Barry's having a *really* hard time coughing up a comeback. What I meant -- and I suspect many people not as committed to turning *everything* into an argument as Judy is understood No, son, I made my point. *You're* trying to turn it into an argument. -- is that I cannot imagine anything more trying than maintaining a relationship with someone (of either sex) whose ideal in the other sex is someone just like them. That's a kind of narcissism that would be tough to cope with. And of course that isn't what Ann said, nor what she meant. What an insane interpretation. Relationships are all about the *differences* between people, not the similarities. Who -- other than Robin and/or people indoctrinated by him -- would ever *want* to be with a clone of themselves? Nobody would want that. Including Ann. Read what she wrote again, you demented dimwit: And if Share were a man she wants to be Steve. If I were a man I'd want to be me. Nothing to do with a *relationship*. It's only your twisted mind that would make this into, My ideal man would be just like me. I'm just suggesting that, even as a passing aside, Ann's comment was very telling. What's telling, Barry, is the deterioration of your mental faculties exemplified by this post. And note that you've managed to bust your faux outrage about my not quoting your smiley face. You never meant your remark to be anything but a nasty putdown of Ann. Judy's? That just more of her normal nastiness and Yet Another Attempt to get everybody arguing, and thus to drag things down to her level. There's no argument here, Barry. *You* tried to start one, but you just made yourself look RLY RLY STPID. Now go sit in the corner.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for DrDumbass
I grew up at the age of six, galloping a horse through the tea fields of Java, so it all evens out. This is where Ann has posed her question about consciousness. And it has to be answered from there. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... no_reply@... wrote: My question was; in your opinion, is CC 24/7 established Cosmic Consciousness, reversible ? Emphatically no!! When I first began experiencing 24/7 witnessing, silence, or whatever you want to call it, I did not treat it tenderly - I did everything I could to destroy it within myself. Wasn't possible. Just keeps getting stronger. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Ok, I'm back - No, you don't need 24/7 CC, to have a UC experience - as a correlation, I had many, many GC experiences in waking state. To be *established* in UC, though, is a whole 'nother issue. First off, with MMY's techniques, the SOCs of CC-GC-UC, are not really stable states of consciousness, merely states of awareness, on the way to exiting from the spiritual game altogether. So, being established in UC is a misnomer. If you look at the definitions of CC, GC, and even UC, they are all in terms of the Self; ripening, like an avocado. Even when the Self recognizes Oneness, in UC, it remains in the domain of the Self, the Infinite Personal. The goal is the practical dissolution, or full integration, of any relative state of awareness. That way, they are all available, though we don't identify with any of them. Hope that helps! Not really :-) Let's try to make this clearer, one step at the time: I think we agree that there is some state we can call Cosmic Consciousness and that when this state eventually becomes permanent it gives rise to other states. AND that experiences of all states of consciousness can appear anytime even without any sort of permanency of any other state. So far I think we all agree. Anyone can have experiences of UC, the majority on this board probably had some such experiences, but let's stick to CC for a moment. My question was; in your opinion, is CC 24/7 established Cosmic Consciousness, reversible ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear FFL, just to set the record straight: I don't even THINK the word imbecile much less express it. Emily recently asked a question about TM and I followed up with a similar question to Steve. Not sure how my asking a question of Steve is saying anything at all about Emily. And it's true that I ONCE called Emily's sense of humor creepy. She is the person who is multiplying it. In this post of hers it is the indirectly attributing to me something I did not say or even think, that is what I'd call creepy here. Why this sudden animosity towards Emily? Steve and her can be friends too, you know. And why don't you just leave this be, Ann? I feel *your* animosity here. There is someone who is being persecuted. Emily is only getting what she deserves. If I were a woman I would want to be Camille Claudel. Ravi was referring to Prince Myshkin--where Dostoyevsky's intent was to create a character entirely positive...with an absolutely beautiful nature. I hope this once, the object of your gratuitous hatred can resist the temptation to take it to you, Ann--because if she does this once more--and you don't realize how ignominiously defeated you are, I will have to send you (this time) into a virtual exile. I am trying to do some good around here, Ann: please learn to whisper more wisely to these other horses. BTW how I remember this sequence: lines on stone, lines on sand, lines on water, lines on air. From: Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid  Steve:  I was being sincere - you really have been laying down some funny stuff, IMO.  You are never the butt of my joke.  I almost always laugh in the spirit of the moment and never with mean intention - and I'm quite serious about that.  I laugh at the human condition and our attempts to communicate with each other and I do it so that I don't grieve too hard when things are tough.  I should really get a volunteer position as I've already filled out the application - I just have to make the call.  I don't always explain the way I interpret FFL and I probably won't.  I run it through a lot of different filters some days.  Which means that I misinterpret at times on purpose for a different effect - easy to do with words on paper. And it is well known now, thanks to Share, that I have a creepy sense of humor.  And I am a TM imbecile.  And I wasn't feeling particularly up today, if truth be told, so I really appreciated your posts.  And, I love a good beer.  Had to give it up when I was diagnosed as gluten intolerant, but I'm going to cheat after what Emptybill posted today.  Emily From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 6:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid  whether Emily was being sincere or making fun of me, I really don't care. If I can be the butt of her joke, so be it. (and yes, I need to check out the link) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you ever figure out why Emily is laughing, Steve, you'll be where Ted wrote about sex with Sylvia. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Ahh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haahh ha ha ha ha ha ha ahah ha ha ha ha ha. Steve, I don't know what is up for you, but you are really making me laugh these days. àA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You always read me perfectly, Steve, and I am loving it. And you have been more merciful than most here--I don't like people criticizing me--but you, you say something nice when you do this (put me in a better place). And believe me, Steve: this makes all the difference. I am trying to 'get' your philosophy; I think you are trying to teach it to me indirectly--through anecdotes like the ones in this post. I think this an efficacious way to get
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
Why do you have to be so creepy, Emily? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Share, *I* wrote the word imbecile.  *I* attributed it to me.  *I was making fun of myself.*  I do that a lot.  *You* never used the word to describe me.  *No one* has ever called me an imbecile here except perhaps Barry, I forget.  Please *STOP* assuming that I am out to get you and hold some animosity towards you.  *I* have *let go*, which frees me up to have fun with you again.  I appreciate the time you took on the question I asked and laughinggull's response. *I* am not a creepy person, I assure you.  *I* am using that word because you did say that about me and I am playing with it now.  *You* said it and it is fair game and *I* am taking the sting out of it by using it.  You may apologize to me if you want to, because it wasn't very nice, but *I* forgive you because I realize you don't understand my sense of humor.  I will spend one more post today on penguins.  My aunt is a wildlife photographer and I have a couple of wonderful shots of penguins that you will appreciate if I can get them uploaded to a link.   From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:08 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid  dear FFL, just to set the record straight: I don't even THINK the word imbecile much less express it. Emily recently asked a question about TM and I followed up with a similar question to Steve. Not sure how my asking a question of Steve is saying anything at all about Emily. And it's true that I ONCE called Emily's sense of humor creepy. She is the person who is multiplying it. In this post of hers it is the indirectly attributing to me something I did not say or even think, that is what I'd call creepy here. BTW how I remember this sequence: lines on stone, lines on sand, lines on water, lines on air. From: Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid  Steve:  I was being sincere - you really have been laying down some funny stuff, IMO.  You are never the butt of my joke.  I almost always laugh in the spirit of the moment and never with mean intention - and I'm quite serious about that.  I laugh at the human condition and our attempts to communicate with each other and I do it so that I don't grieve too hard when things are tough.  I should really get a volunteer position as I've already filled out the application - I just have to make the call.  I don't always explain the way I interpret FFL and I probably won't.  I run it through a lot of different filters some days.  Which means that I misinterpret at times on purpose for a different effect - easy to do with words on paper. And it is well known now, thanks to Share, that I have a creepy sense of humor.  And I am a TM imbecile.  And I wasn't feeling particularly up today, if truth be told, so I really appreciated your posts.  And, I love a good beer.  Had to give it up when I was diagnosed as gluten intolerant, but I'm going to cheat after what Emptybill posted today.  Emily From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 6:04 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid  whether Emily was being sincere or making fun of me, I really don't care. If I can be the butt of her joke, so be it. (and yes, I need to check out the link) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: If you ever figure out why Emily is laughing, Steve, you'll be where Ted wrote about sex with Sylvia. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Ahh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haahh ha ha ha ha ha ha ahah ha ha ha ha ha. Steve, I don't know what is up for you, but you are really making me laugh these days. àA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You always read me perfectly, Steve, and I am loving it. And you
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: And why don't you just leave this be, Ann? I feel *your* animosity here. There is someone who is being persecuted. Emily is only getting what she deserves. If I were a woman I would want to be Camille Claudel. Ravi was referring to Prince Myshkin--where Dostoyevsky's intent was to create I hope this once, the object of your gratuitous hatred can resist the temptation to take it to you, Ann--because if she does this once more--and you don't realize how ignominiously defeated you are, I will have to send you (this time) into a virtual exile. I am trying to do some good around here, Ann: please learn to whisper more wisely to these other horses. M: Let's see here, ,...uhOh, I think I get it now. Robin is the new Buck. And FFL is the new Dune. The snide schtick has become the man, and as the Beatles say: Let me take you down `Cause I'm going to... Strawberry Fields Nothing is real And nothing to get hung about. Strawberry Fields forever (Insert guitar riff here.) The tell: a character entirely positive...with an absolutely beautiful nature. See, I am catching on to the formula. Share has been dissed, and Ann's challenge supported, but it looks like Ann was being chastised. The overkill, but it makes sure Ann is in on it: if she does this once more--and you don't realize how ignominiously defeated you are, I will have to send you (this time) into a virtual exile. Let the cackling commence. Dear Curtis, I am not sure I follow you here. But I am aware of one thing: You are interested in my tactics, but not, I see, interested in the issue which has drawn me into Strawberry Fields forever. You would make a moral stand against my method of expressing my conviction about a matter that I can consider serious enough to warrant being as ironic as I can be? Do you wish to discuss the issue, Curtis? You would imply that my use of irony proves something underhanded and insincere about me, whereas your exposing what is going on here somehow in that revealing is something higher than my deploying my Buck in the Dome side? Let's fight out this issue--I won't stoop to irony, and you won't therefore have some criticism to make of me. Do you know what the issue is, Curtis? You have already given your judgment of that issue in a post. Do you stand behind that judgment? What I would like to see you do, Curtis--and this would surprise me--is explain why you would in your having (quite effectively) told the FFL readers what's up here feel you had essentially (if implicitly) somehow looked after and answered the issue. Like what Emily is saying in her last post. Are you willing to address Emily or Ann's point, Curtis? I think your avoidance of the issue far more significant a 'tell' than your ability to see what I am up to here. My response is to a sense of what is really going on; your response would make it (the issue Emily for instance is raising) something less morally or psychologically significant than your having caught me in my customary way of handling a dispute when one party is stonewalling. The issue, Curtis: what is it? I understand it--or think I understand it--in a deep enough way to take the liberty of testing where the grace might be in this matter. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: dear FFL, just to set the record straight: I don't even THINK the word imbecile much less express it. Emily recently asked a question about TM and I followed up with a similar question to Steve. Not sure how my asking a question of Steve is saying anything at all about Emily. And it's true that I ONCE called Emily's sense of humor creepy. She is the person who is multiplying it. In this post of hers it is the indirectly attributing to me something I did not say or even think, that is what I'd call creepy here. Why this sudden animosity towards Emily? Steve and her can be friends too, you know. And why don't you just leave this be, Ann? I feel *your* animosity here. There is someone who is being persecuted. Emily is only getting what she deserves. If I were a woman I would want to be Camille Claudel. Ravi was referring to Prince Myshkin--where Dostoyevsky's intent was to create a character entirely positive...with an absolutely beautiful nature. I hope this once, the object of your gratuitous hatred can resist the temptation to take it to you, Ann--because if she does this once more--and you don't realize how ignominiously defeated you are, I will have to send you (this time) into a virtual exile. I am trying to do some good around
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Dear Robin, you must stop taking so many things at face value - it will be your downfall here. You will overreact, you will trigger without knowing it, your panties will always be in a twist, which will be extremely uncomfortable for you, as a man. (Doesn't bother me in the slightest by the way.)  You will feel persecuted.  You will spend way too much time defending your ego, no not your ego, your first person ontology. *I* am coming to terms with my creepiness; I think it likely that Barry and Curtis agree with you.  It has been a hard pill to swallow - like one of those vitamin horse pills that one swallows in the morning before jumping in the car to battle traffic to work and then, a few miles down the road, one realizes that while it is supposed to be good for you, it is making you feel so nauseas that you have to pull over and puke it up, along with the coffee, while wearing a nice corporate suit - and then vomit goes all over the silk scarf and stinks up the car and you walk into the morning meeting smelling like too much perfume and a cherry lozenge.  For you Robin, there is a lovely poem in a magazine I get this month called Walk with Grand-Dog and Wallace Stevens.  I'm so creepy that I am dedicating it to you, but I won't type it out for you because I am lazy.  Here is the link to the Table of Contents - you will have to click on it to see who wrote it (I am a creepy gal, aren't I): http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/444 I apologize, Emily. But as you will see, CURTIS HAS GIVEN ME AN OUT. He makes the case that I am only interesting in setting up that cackling phenomenon--meanwhile overlooking the fact that I insulted you out of pique. I felt much more important after Curtis having essentially said I was doing a Buck-in-the-Dome move on my adversaries--with a wink-wink to all those who have wanted to form this secret guild. Whereas--if the truth be known, Emily--I was just mad at you for how you wrote that post. Curtis's sincerity--in some ultimate way--has meant he has the high moral ground here, and I defer to him in this. (Meanwhile I get to feel damn good, because had he taken me literally--as I intended--I think I would look a lot more stupid than I do now, when he believes I am saying: I think I know I mean a 'Yes' but it's all wrong, that is I think I disagree.) I can't get access to that poem, by the way. I want to start all over again, Emily. I think you utterly sincere (like Prince Myshkin has already said to you--one of my favourite characters in all of literature, by the way). I also think AWB utterly sincere. My first person ontology got objectified very recently. And you should be able to tell. I am on page 97 of your book, and enjoying it immensely. From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:06 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid  Why do you have to be so creepy, Emily? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Share, *I* wrote the word imbecile. à*I* attributed it to me. à*I was making fun of myself.* àI do that a lot. à*You* never used the word to describe me. à*No one* has ever called me an imbecile here except perhaps Barry, I forget. àPlease *STOP* assuming that I am out to get you and hold some animosity towards you. à*I* have *let go*, which frees me up to have fun with you again. àI appreciate the time you took on the question I asked and laughinggull's response. *I* am not a creepy person, I assure you. à*I* am using that word because you did say that about me and I am playing with it now. à*You* said it and it is fair game and *I* am taking the sting out of it by using it. àYou may apologize to me if you want to, because it wasn't very nice, but *I* forgive you because I realize you don't understand my sense of humor. àI will spend one more post today on penguins. àMy aunt is a wildlife photographer and I have a couple of wonderful shots of penguins that you will appreciate if I can get them uploaded to a link. ààFrom: Share Long sharelong60@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:08 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid àdear FFL, just to set the record straight:àI don't even THINK the word imbecile much less express it.àEmily recently asked a question about TM and I followed up with a similar question to Steve.àNot sure how my asking a question of Steve is saying anything at all about Emily.àAnd it's true that I ONCE called
[FairfieldLife] Re: To FFL: Walk With Grand-Dog and Wallace Stevens
Dear Robin, to accentuate my creepiness and pay you back for your playful response to me, I posted a link to the magazine knowing full well you couldn't access the poem. Only back issues are available online. I cackled to make a point - that I can be creepy if I choose - it's my right. Robin1: It certainly *is* your right, Emily--just as Long as you are ready to be called on it. Cackle reminds me both of what Curtis has said directly--and also Feste, who called authfriend the witch from New Jersey. I would like dearly to find out if indeed she is a witch. If she is, that would explain quite a lot, I think. But if she is not, that too would explain a lot. I will take this incident--your knowing that I could not liberate the poem from the link you gave me--as classic Emily mischief and playfulness--I do not think it descends to the level of creepiness. I really don't, Emily. But I shall be wary of you from now on--when you make promises to me. Emily1: But, I know you want to read it and I want you to read it, so here is my Christmas present to you, my sweet. A take-off on Wallace Stevens Robin1:I receive your Christmas present to me, Emily, in the Christ-cheer that I know was behind it: that ontological moment when God was born as one of his creatures--Don't believe everything that Curtis says about that guy--or his sweet mother. Merry Christmas, Emily--I liked the poem, as I will explain a little further down in this post. I believe Curtis has powerful convictions, but I don't necessarily feel I know what they are. But he is just the beautiful adversary that I desire. (I am speaking at the most subtle level of things, by the way; on the more mundane level of reality, we are just two friends who sometimes have different opinions on many matters.) Emily1: To FFL: My heart and mind and soul and being is grateful to all of you every day. You have made an enormous difference in my life and have helped me recover from the deep state of melancholy I was in. I laugh at you all and myself.at your/my expense, not at your/my expense, all the time. You deserve it. Love, Emily. Robin1: This all seems true to me, Emily. And there are those of us who because you can say this, love you (there are other reasons too; but this, what you have said here, that is enough). I take it back, Emily: *You are not creepy. Title: Walk With Grand-Dog and Wallace Stevens ~Jeff Gundy On the page, left column: ...He never supposed divine Things might not look divine, nor that if nothing Was divine then all things were, the world itself, And that if nothing was the truth, then all Things were the truth, the world itself was the truth. ~Wallace Stevens Right column: Sea gull quartering the wind. Heron along the shore, then pinwheeling back, low to the water. Wind in poplar, cedar, beech, and pine, each speaking in a different voice. Wind in me, in the book of vanished Stevens, in you - more voices. Why sort them into human and other? Even the branches the neighbor brought in his barrow and piled in a heap while Loki barked at him - even the cut branches have a voice, through a dry and thin one. Oh, Stevens, you considered but threw away the idea that the world itself is the truth. It might have saved you some trouble. The blue jay and downy woodpecker, clouds that sift the sunlight into something else, the ant that tracks the sand and beach grass, six crows in a dead tree like notes for an unfinished symphony - all voices that seem true to me. When Loki and I walked the ravine, he roamed ahead, aquiver with attention, probing for traces and invisible signs. He ranged away until I called out, turned back only when I yelled, Loki, Loki!looked and loped off to sniff another mystery involving dirt and leaves and a creature long gone. I could only watch and call, having no leash, no hold on him except my little voice and his willingness to listen. All I saw really was Loki's seeing, snuffling through birches and hemlocks, over the old earth for remnants made as others walked, sniffed pissed, as the buried water bubbled up, filled the pools, trickled on its way. Robin: In some way which caught me unawares I feel that Jeff Gundy has pointed up what is sublimely skewed in Stevens's poetry: Stevens possesses a marvellous ear for sound, an elegance of vocabulary that cannot be surpassed--his poems have a pristine brilliance to them. They are the manifestation of a kind of religious irony--and they are always aesthetically and intellectually realized. But *no one can feel who the poet is as a person*; he has achieved (in my mind) a form of objectivity which is complete, but in that objectivity, the frail and fallible and suffering subjective person is silent. Stevens is dazzling and metaphysical and glorious, but he is somewhere mute--almost, as if he were deaf but heard sounds that no one else can hear, meditated on meanings that are too perfect for the rest of us to even know. I think
[FairfieldLife] Re: To FFL: Walk With Grand-Dog and Wallace Stevens
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Dear Robin, to accentuate my creepiness and pay you back for your playful response to me, I posted a link to the magazine knowing full well you couldn't access the poem. Only back issues are available online. I cackled to make a point - that I can be creepy if I choose - it's my right. Robin1: It certainly *is* your right, Emily--just as Long as you are ready to be called on it. Cackle reminds me both of what Curtis has said directly--and also Feste, who called authfriend the witch from New Jersey. I would like dearly to find out if indeed she is a witch. If she is, that would explain quite a lot, I think. But if she is not, that too would explain a lot. I will take this incident--your knowing that I could not liberate the poem from the link you gave me--as classic Emily mischief and playfulness--I do not think it descends to the level of creepiness. I really don't, Emily. But I shall be wary of you from now on--when you make promises to me. Emily1: But, I know you want to read it and I want you to read it, so here is my Christmas present to you, my sweet. A take-off on Wallace Stevens Robin1:I receive your Christmas present to me, Emily, in the Christ-cheer that I know was behind it: that ontological moment when God was born as one of his creatures--Don't believe everything that Curtis says about that guy--or his sweet mother. Merry Christmas, Emily--I liked the poem, as I will explain a little further down in this post. I believe Curtis has powerful convictions, but I don't necessarily feel I know what they are. But he is just the beautiful adversary that I desire. (I am speaking at the most subtle level of things, by the way; on the more mundane level of reality, we are just two friends who sometimes have different opinions on many matters.) Emily1: To FFL: My heart and mind and soul and being is grateful to all of you every day. You have made an enormous difference in my life and have helped me recover from the deep state of melancholy I was in. I laugh at you all and myself.at your/my expense, not at your/my expense, all the time. You deserve it. Love, Emily. Robin1: This all seems true to me, Emily. And there are those of us who because you can say this, love you (there are other reasons too; but this, what you have said here, that is enough). I take it back, Emily: *You are not creepy. Title: Walk With Grand-Dog and Wallace Stevens ~Jeff Gundy On the page, left column: ...He never supposed divine Things might not look divine, nor that if nothing Was divine then all things were, the world itself, And that if nothing was the truth, then all Things were the truth, the world itself was the truth. ~Wallace Stevens Right column: Sea gull quartering the wind. Heron along the shore, then pinwheeling back, low to the water. Wind in poplar, cedar, beech, and pine, each speaking in a different voice. Wind in me, in the book of vanished Stevens, in you - more voices. Why sort them into human and other? Even the branches the neighbor brought in his barrow and piled in a heap while Loki barked at him - even the cut branches have a voice, through a dry and thin one. Oh, Stevens, you considered but threw away the idea that the world itself is the truth. It might have saved you some trouble. The blue jay and downy woodpecker, clouds that sift the sunlight into something else, the ant that tracks the sand and beach grass, six crows in a dead tree like notes for an unfinished symphony - all voices that seem true to me. When Loki and I walked the ravine, he roamed ahead, aquiver with attention, probing for traces and invisible signs. He ranged away until I called out, turned back only when I yelled, Loki, Loki!looked and loped off to sniff another mystery involving dirt and leaves and a creature long gone. I could only watch and call, having no leash, no hold on him except my little voice and his willingness to listen. All I saw really was Loki's seeing, snuffling through birches and hemlocks, over the old earth for remnants made as others walked, sniffed pissed, as the buried water bubbled up, filled the pools, trickled on its way. Robin: In some way which caught me unawares I feel that Jeff Gundy has pointed up what is sublimely skewed in Stevens's poetry: Stevens possesses a marvellous ear for sound, an elegance of vocabulary that cannot be surpassed--his poems have a pristine brilliance to them. They are the manifestation of a kind of religious irony--and they are always aesthetically and intellectually realized. But *no one can feel who the poet is as a person*; he has achieved (in my mind) a form of objectivity
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote: On the contrary, I think we should mention Ann's hubby in every post from now on. I for one would like to know what peculiar magic he possessed that enabled him to saddle up that spirited filly and ride her off into the sunset. Agreed. Those of us who are discerning, recognize a truly extraordinary character in the person of Ann Woelfle Bater. Her presence on this forum is perhaps (speaking personally) the most interesting and sensitive. And her: If I were a man I'd want to be me, for me beats Faulkner--but you first have to get the felicity, irony, and truth of what is behind that confession. That could kill you with its humour and gravity. Ann Woelfle Bater is the only person I have ever met who would be capable of saying something that perfect. A declaration that is still going around the universe. And have you heard her talk about horses? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM, turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.comwrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote: If I were a man I'd want to be me. I cannot help but go on the record here and feel sorry for Ann's hubby, not for the first time. :-) Leave Ann's hubby out of this you paranoid, delusional, narcissistic asshole !!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
There is a perfection to what you are oblivious to in all your posts, lg. Your problem is this: You have lost the capacity to sense what you just might be anaesthetized to in your apprehension of what is going on. It's starts with your conception and experience of yourself: your self is way too known to yourself to have been created by something other than yourself. You have a metaphysical complacency--unconscious as this is--which always deprives you of any kind of real terror or beauty in the form of a self-discovery. Look at the reflexive way you are processing this very post of mine: there you have exactly what I am trying to tell you: You subvert any chance of being in the unknown, and therefore your responses are always tediously predictable to your soul--which is finding you a bore. The malady of the quotidian laughinggull. I knew you would enjoy this. And remember: the first order of response is to defend yourself, find a rejoinder, mount some counterattack. Never to let something get into you which will or might alter your experience of yourself and reality. Don't mind me, laughinggull: I compensate for my congenital mediocrity by trying to be much more interesting and provocative than I have a right to be. My life is just very dull. Forgive me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: One additional response inserted below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Gee, you're stupid, laughinggull. Feste too. But you're *really* stupid. snip Feste, we both got off easy in the above from our dear Judy; IMO, I got off just a bit easier. I received a mere harsh glance whereas you received a slap on the wrist. However, we both avoided a good ol' fashioned ass-whoopin'. You see, she only called me stupid (less favorable) but spelled it correctly (more favorable); same for you, however, she added the adverb really (less favorable), again spelled correctly (more favorable), then used asterisks for emphasis (less favorable). Er, laughinggull, I'm not sure why you thought the you in you're above referred to feste rather than you. It did not. This got me to thinking (!) and, being a slow day at work yesterday, I found myself becoming more proficient in the use of the advanced search function on FFL. Below are some of my findings: Also not clear, especially when you went to such trouble to compile links to examples, why you believe they're all a function of my having asked someone (usually Barry) a question. I'll take a wild guess: You didn't actually read the examples you cited. In any case, while links by themselves can look impressive, it's even more impressive to check the posts themselves. Because if you do, you will find that I do not use the adjective STOPID lightly. That last sentence defines exactly our differences in how each of us approaches this forum. You really *do* take it seriously, don't you? *Not* using adjectives lightly...would that be heavily or harshly? Lighten up Judy! (By you in the paragraph immediately above, I don't mean laughinggull; I mean those readers who are not themselves STPID.) Few have tried but none can match the skill and artistry of our dear Judy in calling someone stupid on this forum...to put it simply, she *is* and will *always be* the one true master. When Judy wants you to pay attention (like a fifth-grade student with his head on his desk abrupty awakened from a stolen nap, and lifting his head in confusion thinking Did Miss Stein just ask me something?), she mispells stupid as stoopid. The number of os used varies from as few as two up to a whopping eighteen and is dependent on how much attention she wishes to garner from you: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/272412 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/253194 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/225008 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/279466 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/276580 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328630 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/261112. My research also indicates that our dear Judy is the only poster on FFL to have attempted using stoopider or stoopidest, again with varying number of os, as in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/247574 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/177467. I humbly bow to the master. By the time she starts attaching really, again misspelled as reely with varying number of es, to her stoopid, it becomes suddenly and
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
Don't mind me, lg. I just got carried away in my desire to make some kind of impression on this Saturday. I think you an exciting, interesting, questioning, compelling person--all that I said in that previous post I now disavow. It was untrue. Every word of it. I don't know what came over me--perhaps some ontological insecurity in the face of your persistent flashes of brilliance and love. I just love your self-confidence--and I am envious of it. How did you achieve this? TM? I find I have hated myself too much in my life to ever acquire that level of self-confidence you exhibit on FFL. I think the death experience should be a breeze for you. Think about me from time to time, will you do that, lg? Perhaps praying for me would help. I am a loser. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... wrote: There is a perfection to what you are oblivious to in all your posts, lg. Your problem is this: You have lost the capacity to sense what you just might be anaesthetized to in your apprehension of what is going on. It's starts with your conception and experience of yourself: your self is way too known to yourself to have been created by something other than yourself. You have a metaphysical complacency--unconscious as this is--which always deprives you of any kind of real terror or beauty in the form of a self-discovery. Look at the reflexive way you are processing this very post of mine: there you have exactly what I am trying to tell you: You subvert any chance of being in the unknown, and therefore your responses are always tediously predictable to your soul--which is finding you a bore. The malady of the quotidian laughinggull. I knew you would enjoy this. And remember: the first order of response is to defend yourself, find a rejoinder, mount some counterattack. Never to let something get into you which will or might alter your experience of yourself and reality. Don't mind me, laughinggull: I compensate for my congenital mediocrity by trying to be much more interesting and provocative than I have a right to be. My life is just very dull. Forgive me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: One additional response inserted below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Gee, you're stupid, laughinggull. Feste too. But you're *really* stupid. snip Feste, we both got off easy in the above from our dear Judy; IMO, I got off just a bit easier. I received a mere harsh glance whereas you received a slap on the wrist. However, we both avoided a good ol' fashioned ass-whoopin'. You see, she only called me stupid (less favorable) but spelled it correctly (more favorable); same for you, however, she added the adverb really (less favorable), again spelled correctly (more favorable), then used asterisks for emphasis (less favorable). Er, laughinggull, I'm not sure why you thought the you in you're above referred to feste rather than you. It did not. This got me to thinking (!) and, being a slow day at work yesterday, I found myself becoming more proficient in the use of the advanced search function on FFL. Below are some of my findings: Also not clear, especially when you went to such trouble to compile links to examples, why you believe they're all a function of my having asked someone (usually Barry) a question. I'll take a wild guess: You didn't actually read the examples you cited. In any case, while links by themselves can look impressive, it's even more impressive to check the posts themselves. Because if you do, you will find that I do not use the adjective STOPID lightly. That last sentence defines exactly our differences in how each of us approaches this forum. You really *do* take it seriously, don't you? *Not* using adjectives lightly...would that be heavily or harshly? Lighten up Judy! (By you in the paragraph immediately above, I don't mean laughinggull; I mean those readers who are not themselves STPID.) Few have tried but none can match the skill and artistry of our dear Judy in calling someone stupid on this forum...to put it simply, she *is* and will *always be* the one true master. When Judy wants you to pay attention (like a fifth-grade student with his head on his desk abrupty awakened from a stolen nap, and lifting his head in confusion thinking Did Miss Stein just ask me something?), she mispells stupid as stoopid. The number of os used varies from as few as two up to a whopping eighteen and is dependent on how much attention
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Don't mind me, laughinggull: I compensate for my congenital mediocrity by trying to be much more interesting and provocative than I have a right to be. My life is just very dull. Forgive me. Hey everybody, give it up for Robin C! You know Robin, studies have been done that show that those people typically categorized as blue collar have sex more often than those who have achieved a higher level of education. I suspect they also laugh more, and do not take things as seriously. I do worry that the element of fun seems to be missing in your life. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help out in this regard. Sincerely, Steve I am going to take you at your word, Steve. I feel you are, in your own way, showing me some real love here. It is true: If I have one regret in my life, it is the element of fun seems to be missing in [my] life--however, the ironic thing is that by confessing that, I tried to GIVE THE OPPOSITE IMPRESSION. But your post here does go where there is this mysterious and inappropriate seriousness--Perhaps you have some solution? It is one thing to sympathize, Steve--but in your last sentence you actually suggest you might have a remedy? Or am I reading too much into what you have said? If there is some way that I can get in on the fun that you have (maybe that is a little too much to hope for--but even just to experience a fraction of what you enjoy; at least that would be an improvement), perhaps you can begin to lead me in that direction. I feel you have penetrated to a secret which I have attempted to keep to myself, but with this post, Steve, this one post, I feel you have begun to break me open, and I would ask you to follow through here with the next level of my initiation into The Way to Have Better Sex and More Fun. I am dead serious about this, Steve. You have shown yourself remarkably immune from having life bring you to a point of internal crisis. This, I believe, is a kind of unconscious metaphysical virtue--I need to unlearn what has turned me into a Soren without the humour. This is a start, Steve--and only you and I know it is said sans irony. Love, Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
Don't mind her, Curtis: I did get what you meant. It was a just rebuke--as gently administered as it was. But one gash is enough--I have lost enough blood in all our battles, Curtis--one last wound: somehow this seems fitting to me. I will watch the incipient orthodoxy--Imagine that! Me becoming a caricature of myself. You would spot that, wouldn't you. Much love to you, my friend. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Whoa, deja vu dude. You have a metaphysical complacency--unconscious as this is--which always deprives you of any kind of real terror or beauty in the form of a self-discovery. Getting a bit formulaic eh? Oh, hmmm, try reading the whole post. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: There is a perfection to what you are oblivious to in all your posts, lg. Your problem is this: You have lost the capacity to sense what you just might be anaesthetized to in your apprehension of what is going on. It's starts with your conception and experience of yourself: your self is way too known to yourself to have been created by something other than yourself. You have a metaphysical complacency --unconscious as this is--which always deprives you of any kind of real terror or beauty in the form of a self-discovery. Look at the reflexive way you are processing this very post of mine: there you have exactly what I am trying to tell you: You subvert any chance of being in the unknown, and therefore your responses are always tediously predictable to your soul--which is finding you a bore. The malady of the quotidian laughinggull. I knew you would enjoy this. And remember: the first order of response is to defend yourself, find a rejoinder, mount some counterattack. Never to let something get into you which will or might alter your experience of yourself and reality. Don't mind me, laughinggull: I compensate for my congenital mediocrity by trying to be much more interesting and provocative than I have a right to be. My life is just very dull. Forgive me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: One additional response inserted below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Gee, you're stupid, laughinggull. Feste too. But you're *really* stupid. snip Feste, we both got off easy in the above from our dear Judy; IMO, I got off just a bit easier. I received a mere harsh glance whereas you received a slap on the wrist. However, we both avoided a good ol' fashioned ass-whoopin'. You see, she only called me stupid (less favorable) but spelled it correctly (more favorable); same for you, however, she added the adverb really (less favorable), again spelled correctly (more favorable), then used asterisks for emphasis (less favorable). Er, laughinggull, I'm not sure why you thought the you in you're above referred to feste rather than you. It did not. This got me to thinking (!) and, being a slow day at work yesterday, I found myself becoming more proficient in the use of the advanced search function on FFL. Below are some of my findings: Also not clear, especially when you went to such trouble to compile links to examples, why you believe they're all a function of my having asked someone (usually Barry) a question. I'll take a wild guess: You didn't actually read the examples you cited. In any case, while links by themselves can look impressive, it's even more impressive to check the posts themselves. Because if you do, you will find that I do not use the adjective STOPID lightly. That last sentence defines exactly our differences in how each of us approaches this forum. You really *do* take it seriously, don't you? *Not* using adjectives lightly...would that be heavily or harshly? Lighten up Judy! (By you in the paragraph immediately above, I don't mean laughinggull; I mean those readers who are not themselves STPID.) Few have tried but none can match the skill and artistry of our dear Judy in calling someone stupid on this forum...to put it simply, she *is* and will *always be* the one true master. When Judy wants you to pay attention (like a fifth-grade student
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@... wrote: You always read me perfectly, Steve, and I am loving it. And you have been more merciful than most here--I don't like people criticizing me--but you, you say something nice when you do this (put me in a better place). And believe me, Steve: this makes all the difference. I am trying to 'get' your philosophy; I think you are trying to teach it to me indirectly--through anecdotes like the ones in this post. I think this an efficacious way to get your wisdom to go right into me, Steve. I will let you know (through my deeds) the progress I am making. Don't ever give up on me. I need your help--AND your love. We are good now, I think, Steve. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: snip If there is some way that I can get in on the fun that you have (maybe that is a little too much to hope for--but even just to experience a fraction of what you enjoy; at least that would be an improvement), perhaps you can begin to lead me in that direction. I feel you have penetrated to a secret which I have attempted to keep to myself, but with this post, Steve, this one post, I feel you have begun to break me open, and I would ask you to follow through here with the next level of my initiation into The Way to Have Better Sex and More Fun. I am dead serious about this, Steve. I do not do volunteer work, but that might be something you would want to consider, as it seems to bring some fulfillment to people. Or you may decide to go ice skating one evening. I can't really make a recommendation on sex. That would be a rather personal issue. You have shown yourself remarkably immune from having life bring you to a point of internal crisis. On the contrary, I feel I have an internal crisis many times a day. In fact, at night, I sometimes marvel that I have been able to get through another day. If this sounds like I am down, I am not. It is just my reality, and I accept it. And that is why I like the term, living in the moment. I don't care what it may mean for other people, for me it means taking care of the business at hand. I don't know if things will ease up once I get past this period in life. I work to keep those daily pressures from affecting my psychology and physiology. Todays funny story. Last night my son came home from college for Christmas Break. The first thing he said was, I am really psyched for next semester I think I know what that means. This, I believe, is a kind of unconscious metaphysical virtue--I need to unlearn what has turned me into a Soren without the humour. This is a start, Steve--and only you and I know it is said sans irony. Love, Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
Yet I am the necessary angel of earth, Since, in my sight, you see the earth again, Cleared of its stiff and stubborn, man-locked set, And, in my hearing, you hear its tragic drone --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: In the air of newness of that element, In an air of freshness, clearness, greenness, blueness, That which is always beginning because it is part Of that which is always beginning, again and again. -Wallace Stevens No malady of the quotidian here Robin, nor is my soul finding me a bore. Besides, if either was true, it would be up to me to recognize that on my own, wouldn't it? As Stevens refers to in the above with a hopeful outlook, it's a new beginning each and every time. And the adjustments that come that only *I* can experience and know. I posted this clip from The Joy Luck Club earlier, I think as my first contribution to Wunnerful Wednesday. If you'll watch it to the end, perhaps you'll understand my perspective more fully, especially the part about cannot learn, must be born this way: http://youtu.be/gjpgeCKL2hg May your holidays be joyous Robin! What are your plans? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: There is a perfection to what you are oblivious to in all your posts, lg. Your problem is this: You have lost the capacity to sense what you just might be anaesthetized to in your apprehension of what is going on. It's starts with your conception and experience of yourself: your self is way too known to yourself to have been created by something other than yourself. You have a metaphysical complacency--unconscious as this is--which always deprives you of any kind of real terror or beauty in the form of a self-discovery. Look at the reflexive way you are processing this very post of mine: there you have exactly what I am trying to tell you: You subvert any chance of being in the unknown, and therefore your responses are always tediously predictable to your soul--which is finding you a bore. The malady of the quotidian laughinggull. I knew you would enjoy this. And remember: the first order of response is to defend yourself, find a rejoinder, mount some counterattack. Never to let something get into you which will or might alter your experience of yourself and reality. Don't mind me, laughinggull: I compensate for my congenital mediocrity by trying to be much more interesting and provocative than I have a right to be. My life is just very dull. Forgive me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: One additional response inserted below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Gee, you're stupid, laughinggull. Feste too. But you're *really* stupid. snip Feste, we both got off easy in the above from our dear Judy; IMO, I got off just a bit easier. I received a mere harsh glance whereas you received a slap on the wrist. However, we both avoided a good ol' fashioned ass-whoopin'. You see, she only called me stupid (less favorable) but spelled it correctly (more favorable); same for you, however, she added the adverb really (less favorable), again spelled correctly (more favorable), then used asterisks for emphasis (less favorable). Er, laughinggull, I'm not sure why you thought the you in you're above referred to feste rather than you. It did not. This got me to thinking (!) and, being a slow day at work yesterday, I found myself becoming more proficient in the use of the advanced search function on FFL. Below are some of my findings: Also not clear, especially when you went to such trouble to compile links to examples, why you believe they're all a function of my having asked someone (usually Barry) a question. I'll take a wild guess: You didn't actually read the examples you cited. In any case, while links by themselves can look impressive, it's even more impressive to check the posts themselves. Because if you do, you will find that I do not use the adjective STOPID lightly. That last sentence defines exactly our differences in how each of us approaches this forum. You really *do* take it seriously, don't you? *Not* using adjectives lightly...would that be heavily or harshly? Lighten up Judy! snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: You have a metaphysical complacency--unconscious as this is--which always deprives you of any kind of real terror or beauty in the form of a self-discovery. Whoa, deja vu dude. Getting a bit formulaic eh? Bingo. It's the olde Confrontation number again. And this idiot claims he's changed. You missed the irony, Barry. I was deliberately formulaic *so as to take the sting out of it*. Therefore, it was non-confrontational--because rendered insipid by my dogmatism. Curtis has essentially said: You *have* changed, Robin; your fits of crotchetiness, they have become part of history now--and you no longer have the vitality of your convictions. I took Curtis's post as a kind of blessing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
Suzanne takes you down to her place near the river You can hear the boats go by You can spend the night beside her And you know that she's half crazy But that's why you want to be there And she feeds you tea and oranges That come all the way from China And just when you mean to tell her That you have no love to give her Then she gets you on her wavelength And she lets the river answer That you've always been her lover And you want to travel with her And you want to travel blind And you know that she will trust you For you've touched her perfect body with your mind. And Jesus was a sailor When he walked upon the water And he spent a long time watching From his lonely wooden tower And when he knew for certain Only drowning men could see him He said All men will be sailors then Until the sea shall free them But he himself was broken Long before the sky would open Forsaken, almost human He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone And you want to travel with him And you want to travel blind And you think maybe you'll trust him For he's touched your perfect body with his mind. Now Suzanne takes your hand And she leads you to the river She is wearing rags and feathers From Salvation Army counters And the sun pours down like honey On our lady of the harbour And she shows you where to look Among the garbage and the flowers There are heroes in the seaweed There are children in the morning They are leaning out for love And they will lean that way forever While Suzanne holds the mirror And you want to travel with her And you want to travel blind And you know that you can trust her For she's touched your perfect body with her mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otJY2HvW3Bw --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: In the air of newness of that element, In an air of freshness, clearness, greenness, blueness, That which is always beginning because it is part Of that which is always beginning, again and again. -Wallace Stevens No malady of the quotidian here Robin, nor is my soul finding me a bore. Besides, if either was true, it would be up to me to recognize that on my own, wouldn't it? As Stevens refers to in the above with a hopeful outlook, it's a new beginning each and every time. And the adjustments that come that only *I* can experience and know. I posted this clip from The Joy Luck Club earlier, I think as my first contribution to Wunnerful Wednesday. If you'll watch it to the end, perhaps you'll understand my perspective more fully, especially the part about cannot learn, must be born this way: http://youtu.be/gjpgeCKL2hg May your holidays be joyous Robin! What are your plans? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: There is a perfection to what you are oblivious to in all your posts, lg. Your problem is this: You have lost the capacity to sense what you just might be anaesthetized to in your apprehension of what is going on. It's starts with your conception and experience of yourself: your self is way too known to yourself to have been created by something other than yourself. You have a metaphysical complacency--unconscious as this is--which always deprives you of any kind of real terror or beauty in the form of a self-discovery. Look at the reflexive way you are processing this very post of mine: there you have exactly what I am trying to tell you: You subvert any chance of being in the unknown, and therefore your responses are always tediously predictable to your soul--which is finding you a bore. The malady of the quotidian laughinggull. I knew you would enjoy this. And remember: the first order of response is to defend yourself, find a rejoinder, mount some counterattack. Never to let something get into you which will or might alter your experience of yourself and reality. Don't mind me, laughinggull: I compensate for my congenital mediocrity by trying to be much more interesting and provocative than I have a right to be. My life is just very dull. Forgive me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: One additional response inserted below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: Gee, you're stupid, laughinggull. Feste too. But you're *really* stupid. snip Feste, we both got off easy in the above from our dear Judy; IMO, I got off just a bit easier. I received a mere harsh glance whereas you received a slap on the wrist. However, we both avoided a good ol' fashioned ass-whoopin'. You see, she only called me stupid (less favorable) but spelled
[FairfieldLife] Re: 8000 Mayan Yogic Flyers lifting off December 21, 2012
Maybe there's a God above But all I've ever learned from love Was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you It's not a cry you can hear at night It's not somebody who has seen the light It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah Hallelujah, Hallelujah (Buck in the Dome) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: Reinforcements finally! This is the age of Enlightenment and the end of Kali when the Mayan have come in to our lines and are leading the Vedic charge. All glory to Raja Luis! - --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays dickmays@ wrote: From next week, 8000 Yogic Flyers will lift off at the same time every day in the indigenous village schools of Southern Mexico. To celebrate this historic achievement, a grand Celebration will be held on 21 December on Mt. Alban in Oaxaca the celebrated ancient capital city of the Zapotec Mayans. The celebration will include a public demonstration of Yogic Flying by the students of Oaxaca the size of the group will depend on support from the Movement. The whole of Oaxacan society and the political leadership of the state now accept the Transcendental Meditation and Transcendental Meditation-Sidhi program as essential to education. This is a great, glorious historic celebration of the rise of Natural Law and the change in the trends of time in Latin America and in the whole world. From the side of our Movement we want to support Raja Luis and the teachers in this monumental project and show our thanks to the Oaxacan people for their support and appreciation of Maharishi's world-transforming knowledge. We should create a very large group of Yogic Flyers for the celebration. It will cost $20 to bring each Yogic Flyer to Mount Alban. So for each $1000 we give there will be 50 Yogic Flyers for the world to see. Already we have commitments for $5000 - a group of 250. Let's raise $5000 more and show the power of 500 creating coherence? Please support this opportunity urgently give $20, $100 or more. Any amount will help. To donate by Credit Card please go to www.seedsofheaven.org/donate and click the button in the right column for Oaxaca 8000 Celebration Dec 2012 To send a bank wire transfer: Seeds of Heaven Account: 2399904503 Wells Fargo Bank, USA Swiftcode: wfbius6s ABA: 121000248 and email donations@ with the details. To donate by check, please use the form at: http://seedsofheaven.org/images/stories/Downloads/check%20donation%20form%20-%20to%20print%201.pdf Jai Guru Dev Raja Graham
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: Don't mind me, lg. I just got carried away in my desire to make some kind of impression on this Saturday. I think you an exciting, interesting, questioning, compelling person--all that I said in that previous post I now disavow. It was untrue. Every word of it. I don't know what came over me--perhaps some ontological insecurity in the face of your persistent flashes of brilliance and love. I just love your self-confidence--and I am envious of it. How did you achieve this? TM? I find I have hated myself too much in my life to ever acquire that level of self-confidence you exhibit on FFL. I think the death experience should be a breeze for you. Think about me from time to time, will you do that, lg? Perhaps praying for me would help. I am a loser. You are also asking me questions and I hear you, I answer that I cannot answer, you must find out for yourself. Sit a while dear son, Here are biscuits to eat and here is milk to drink, But as soon as you sleep and renew yourself in sweet clothes, I kiss you with a good-by kiss and open the gate for your egress hence. Long enough have you dream'd contemptible dreams, Now I wash the gum from your eyes, You must habit yourself to the dazzle of the light and of every moment of your life. Long have you timidly waded holding a plank by the shore, Now I will you to be a bold swimmer, To jump off in the midst of the sea, rise again, nod to me, shout, and laughingly dash with your hair. -Walt Whitman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2YjyakdsVs --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: There is a perfection to what you are oblivious to in all your posts, lg. Your problem is this: You have lost the capacity to sense what you just might be anaesthetized to in your apprehension of what is going on. It's starts with your conception and experience of yourself: your self is way too known to yourself to have been created by something other than yourself. You have a metaphysical complacency--unconscious as this is--which always deprives you of any kind of real terror or beauty in the form of a self-discovery. Look at the reflexive way you are processing this very post of mine: there you have exactly what I am trying to tell you: You subvert any chance of being in the unknown, and therefore your responses are always tediously predictable to your soul--which is finding you a bore. The malady of the quotidian laughinggull. I knew you would enjoy this. And remember: the first order of response is to defend yourself, find a rejoinder, mount some counterattack. Never to let something get into you which will or might alter your experience of yourself and reality. Don't mind me, laughinggull: I compensate for my congenital mediocrity by trying to be much more interesting and provocative than I have a right to be. My life is just very dull. Forgive me. snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: America Obsesses and Goes Home
Maharishi refuted in one question. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: I was wondering if you'd let loose with and describe a TM concept for me, the non-TM'er of the group.  This is not a very descriptive explanation.  Yes, I feel deeply for those families that lost children...it's literally painful for me.  Is feeling deeply considered stress? From: Bhairitu noozguru@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] America Obsesses and Goes Home  If you had learned TM you would know what that means. It was an expression that Maharishi used how one experiences stress as they progress towards enlightenment. For the unenlightened it is a line in cement not dirt. IOW, you will be more effected by stress. Once meditating and progressing towards enlightenment stress becomes more a line on water. In moksha it becomes a line in air. For some of us many events even before TM were line on water. For me: Cuban Missile Crisis JFK Assassination On 12/15/2012 01:45 PM, Emily Reyn wrote: How do you define line on water and line on air and is there a line on dirt? From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] America Obsesses and Goes Home Hey, what do you expect? We live in a touchy-feely society. If our talking heads don't express an abundance of regret/remorse-fullness, they are thought to be crude and insensitive. They all have to out-perform their counter parts.Drama sells. From: Bhairitu noozguru@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:54 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] America Obsesses and Goes Home Aren't you glad you learned meditation? The rest of the country gets all emotionally hung up on the shooting yesterday while for us it is line on water. So we are treated to the bleating of talking heads and everyones opinion. Liberals call for more gun laws and conservative point out it was a mental health issue. I just think it is a sign of the times. America doesn't work anymore in more ways than one so expect more of this and worse.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
If you ever figure out why Emily is laughing, Steve, you'll be where Ted wrote about sex with Sylvia. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Ahh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haahh ha ha ha ha ha ha ahah ha ha ha ha ha. Steve, I don't know what is up for you, but you are really making me laugh these days.  A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You always read me perfectly, Steve, and I am loving it. And you have been more merciful than most here--I don't like people criticizing me--but you, you say something nice when you do this (put me in a better place). And believe me, Steve: this makes all the difference. I am trying to 'get' your philosophy; I think you are trying to teach it to me indirectly--through anecdotes like the ones in this post. I think this an efficacious way to get your wisdom to go right into me, Steve. I will let you know (through my deeds) the progress I am making. Don't ever give up on me. I need your help--AND your love.  Make a daily journal.  We'll call it Robin's Daily Journal.  Make a list of the things you hope to accomplish in a given day, and maybe some personality traits to which you want to pay a little closer attention.  And then at the end of the day, you can write about how you feel you did.  For example, Was I too aggressive applying my First Person Ontology test to those I interacted with?  Or, Was my irony appropriate, or insincere.  These might be some areas to consider.  I really don't know.  I am just throwing them out for suggestions.  We're here for you Robin. We can get through this. We are good now, I think, Steve. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid
There might have been something more lethal than Sylvia's oven. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: dear Steve, if I had to be a man, I'd want to be just like you (-: Now I'm wondering how you would answer Emily's question: is feeling deeply stress. My understanding from Maharishi's teaching is that stress actually prevents one from feeling deeply. And that as consciousness becomes established, one actually can feel more deeply because one is rooted in that consciousness. But I'm forgetting some crucial distinction. What do you remember? Thank you    From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Which is worse,,,really stupid or reeely stooopid  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray27 steve.sundur@ wrote: You always read me perfectly, Steve, and I am loving it. And you have been more merciful than most here--I don't like people criticizing me--but you, you say something nice when you do this (put me in a better place). And believe me, Steve: this makes all the difference. I am trying to 'get' your philosophy; I think you are trying to teach it to me indirectly--through anecdotes like the ones in this post. I think this an efficacious way to get your wisdom to go right into me, Steve. I will let you know (through my deeds) the progress I am making. Don't ever give up on me. I need your help--AND your love.  Make a daily journal.  We'll call it Robin's Daily Journal.  Make a list of the things you hope to accomplish in a given day, and maybe some personality traits to which you want to pay a little closer attention.  And then at the end of the day, you can write about how you feel you did.  For example, Was I too aggressive applying my First Person Ontology test to those I interacted with?  Or, Was my irony appropriate, or insincere.  These might be some areas to consider.  I really don't know.  I am just throwing them out for suggestions.  We're here for you Robin. We can get through this. We are good now, I think, Steve. Robin
[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Emily: Dear Robin, I am just getting back.  I haven't read the other responses.  I don't like to base what I write on what other people write.  I like to be spontaneous. Now, regarding your last sentence.  Don't you think that's just a bit over the top? Robin: No I don't. You quite obviously either don't understand what I meant, or you are unable to recognize how sweetly and poignantly reasonable you were being (in that last paragraph especially). Most of us here have been metaphysically and physiologically cultured in TM, Maharishi, and his Teaching. You have not. I believe this means you can experience some quality of life in a way that we might never again experience it--this virginal status (for me at least) is significant. And it means something of life in ignorance of TM and Maharishi gets expressed and comes through. All of us TMers are unconsciously influenced by our Maharishi past. Even if we have, as I have, repudiated him and his Teaching--and no longer practice TM. What this means is that when you try to appeal to your friend here, apart from your humility and passion, you are giving her something fresh and original. I feel this. Your seriousness, your sincerity seems about as real as it could be. And then there is an intelligence that pervades everything, including your very personality. Perhaps some of us can appreciate your more (because of your non-TM influenced consciousness) than other people in your life who are Maharishi-ignorant. Just sensing a form of objectivity in you, Emily, that I don't feel I am quite capable of exercising--because of my extreme blow-out with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. We, as it were, saw Christ walk on the water. Those of us who see how true you have been to Share Long are in the minority. But we do *perceive* this truth about you, Emily. Ann Woelfle Bater is not a liar. Emily:  I am putting myself in Share's shoes right now, just so you know.  I have the ability to move between realities, or rather, feel what it is like in someone else's shoes.  Robin: Yes, I know this. As you can see, Emily, I stand behind my comments about your post. From: Robin Carlsen maskedzebra@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:38 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily about extremely polarized thinking  This letter gave me something, Emily. It is truth going everywhere it can go. It almost seems what should take the place of prayer. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymae.reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: snip BTW, I said it was a NEW low for Emily and Raunchy.Ãâ Not so new for Ravi, right? Dear Share, I missed this earlier. I stopped in for lunch, but let us agree to start right here, with this statement. Us, as in you and me. I have let our entire history go; I apologize for hurting your feelings and I will think fondly of you when I meditate next. Now, deep breathahh. O.K. It's a lovely day here, so I must get back to the ocean, because that is where God resides and I'm only here for another day. I will be back later and hope to hear from you. Please, I really want to work this out with you. I really do. What specifically is a NEW low for me? Specifically. Please quote anything I've written in support of this allegation and explain what it is and why you think it is. I will cop to it all and explain the context and reason why I wrote it, if true. But, I *really* need you to explain what it is. I'm seriously confused and don't understand all of what I am interpreting as purely negative attack rhetoric coming out of you. I could be wrong; I have been wrong before. Let us just figure this one thing out in present time. Sincerely, Emily. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: No Share, that's *not* what I say or have said. àI have said that you avoid - I have nothing but multiple concrete examples of this I could show you, if I cared enough to spend the time to do so, and I don't. àGood barb on me running to the coast and walking my dog. àWay to avoid life - it's one of my specialties, didn't you know? àI àhave many more tricks up my sleeve I could tell you that you might benefit from more than whoever the next healer is on the circuit through Fairfield catering to those addicted to the health and wellness industry. àYou bet your sweet little backjack, that's what I'm doing, and I'll be doing that the rest of the day and loving every balmy second of it. àYou *are* ranting. àYeah! àBe angry Share, be very, very angry. àHow dare these people say these horrific things about Mr. Newton? And, it isn't just those you have cultized
[FairfieldLife] Re: Earnest Confusion
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote: Someone once said that if a person is not serious about a spiritual journey, better they do not start at all. Several people here seem to have gotten in over their heads. I'll explain what I mean. Almost any skill is learned, by absorbing it, and practicing it, for proficiency. Fly a plane, drive a car, play music, read a book, become an architect, etc. The relationship of learner to object changes, only as knowledge of the object deepens. There is an assumed 'I', in order to make learning possible. The goal of the spiritual journey is to burn down any previous identity, and transcend completely, in order to make genuine discoveries. Only then do we begin to see the world as it is, watching its glorious and unending unfolding. But, it means confronting deep stories, beliefs, and the emotions, primarily fear, that drive them. Typically, the journey begins with following somebody, Buddha, Jesus (vs. Christ), Mohammed, Shiva, etc., within the context of previous followers; go to a Buddhist temple, read the bible, start a meditation program. Often times, what these followers will do, is substitute the issues of their life, for the glory and promise they feel as new followers of whatever vehicle they have chosen for their spiritual journey. In other words, the previous dream is replaced, or enhanced, by the current dream, the second dream. For many of us, the initial transcending brought about by the TM technique, seems, and seemed, like a better dream. Get all cozy with Vedic Knowledge-lite, sit in front of a guru, put on the trappings of the organization pushing the technique, and dream, dream, dream on. Inevitably, if a person continues the spiritual journey, they are faced with the extinction of the path and the organization that brought them this far. This will mean they cannot return to the dream that set then on their path, nor can they continue refuge in a religion or spiritual organization. They are on their own. HOLY SHIT! Losing one's contextual identity can be a scary thing. Cutting oneself out like a paper doll, to stand alone, then reducing that to ashes, terrifies most people more than physical death does. The response for many is to retreat into the ego, and ideas and theories and beliefs, escaping into yet a third dream. Like Curtis here, on the illusory basis of their ego-bound selves, they are endlessly questioning and challenging these things they exposed themselves to during that initial spiritual discovery - Maharishi was this and that, blah, blah, blah, often simply spouting palaver to salve their foolish ways during their rush to forget themselves at the feet of some teacher or other. They earnestly reject the second dream, for the third; that of earnest confusion. Its a good place to be these days, earnestly confused. People appreciate and respect this type of false searching, this questioning that never turns inward, this dream of false discovery. It makes us appear genuine and heartfelt to others - a nice guy, a sweet woman. Sadly it is neither. So, these terrified fools (sorry but calling it as I see it) retreat into books, theories and thoughts that leave them hopelessly caught in a vise, between whatever dream they falsely followed, and their deep terror of complete dissolution. However, they have learned enough of their rejected path to have gained some insight. This makes them appear wise, and knowledgeable and widely read. The reality is that they are not a whole lot further along in their spiritual path as when they started. Want to know how to see this type of person? They are tied to their past formal path of spiritual discovery. Even though they are convinced they have rejected it, and seen the truth of it for themselves, the confusion around their previous path follows them around like a shadow. Sensing this shadow, they are constantly denigrating it, often by attacking those they perceive as accepting the same spiritual path in a less critical manner. This is all the earnestly confused have - this one insight that the spiritual organization they got into bed with, was simply another dream! They rail at it, and try to wake up others to this fact. They accomplished something! They saw through the tmo dream! AND IT IS IMPERATIVE that they convince others of this. However, since they are stunted on their way to spiritual freedom, and by definition, continuing to dream themselves, they have nothing to offer those who they are trying to wake up; the blinders leading the blind. And others smell this on them. These third dreamers become like politicians, telling others the endless errors
