[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > Judy, I do not think you get this: the only consistent context *plonk*
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > You know, Curtis, it's amazing how much Share sounds like > > > > you sometimes, especially when she's talking about Robin, > > > > and about the folks who are trying (unsuccessfully) to > > > > keep her honest. > > > > > > I don't know what your point is here. More conspiracy > > > theories no doubt. To your unasked question I answer: > > > zero offline contact. We did share the focus of Robin's > > > uninvited improvement sessions though, so perhaps we > > > found it equally distasteful. Our interests couldn't > > > be further apart aside from being the focus of ... > > > > WARNING: CONTEXT SHIFTING AHEAD. > > Are you actually unaware that the only way the context > will not shift in a post exchange is if you post responses > to yourself? Not the way you shift context. I've never encountered anyone else, in 25 years of posting to online forums, who does what you do. If everybody did what you do, I wouldn't, you know, be mentioning it. > See this is the emotional intelligence thing again. Uh-huh. CluelessDeltaBlues. > > > Your fairly constant references to honesty and your > > > high value on it has taken the form of a tell. There > > > is only one type of person who makes such constant > > > references to something which the rest of us just > > > take for granted in our dealings with people. You > > > are the magician announcing to the audience that he > > > is hold a "normal deck of playing cards". It draws > > > too much attention to the possibility of the gimmicked > > > deck. Same with your constant "story" about your > > > special relationship with honesty. You have played it > > > too hard and now your audience views you with the > > > suspicion of "why is she trying sooo hard to sell this > > > impression?" I know why. > > > > Notice what Curtis has done here: He has shifted the > > context from the issue of dishonesty on Share's part > > I don't have any issue with Share's "honesty", that is > your fixation. I think you really do not want anyone else to have an issue with it either. You need for her to be credible. > I am only aware of the brouhaha you are trying to keep > alive forever about an apt expression she used about > Robin It was not apt, and it was not honest. > and your running the typical Judy program relentlessly about it. > > > that I and others have been pointing out to an implied > > accusation of his own: dishonesty on my part. > > > > What's that called when a magician does it, Curtis? > > Misdirection, I think.> > > It is what humans do when they have communication from > their own perspective. How's that again? Everyone communicates from their own perspective. I'm asking about the magician's analog of your special brand of context-shifting. > > Let's shift the context back to where it was: There > > is a great deal of *actual evidence* of Share's > > dishonesty in her posts that she has been unwilling > > to address. (Not to mention that the same might be > > said of you, but let's leave that aside for now.). > > Of course there is. There ALWAYS is, that is the Judy > routine. Right, for the people here who are consistently dishonest. > But since you have tried it on my one too many times it > holds not weight for me. I am judging her from my own > interactions not yours. I don't find her dishonest. Well, of course you don't. Not that you'll admit, at any rate. > Nor does she seem compelled to make a huge deal about > her "honesty" as you relentlessly seem to need. That > was MY point which you are shifting the context away > from. I can see why. I've let you shoot yourself in the foot on this one, Curtis. The only time I make any kind of deal about my honesty is when someone accuses me of being dishonest, as you have here. > > Where's the evidence of dishonesty in my posts, > > Curtis? When have I ever been unwilling to address > > accusations of dishonesty on the rare occasions > > when somebody has tried to make one?> > > Oh you would like to argue some more. No, there's nothing to be argued here. I'm pointing out the distinction between Share and me where honesty is concerned. You can't supply any evidence that I am dishonest; I can supply and have supplied plenty that Share is dishonest. > I see. Good luck with that. I was making a different > point than your parsing game. I don't think you know what "parsing" means. > It has to do with our over playing your story about how > honest you are and how dishonest your enemies are. Freudian typo there, I think. This may come as a great shock to you, Curtis, but some people are more honest than others. > > > > (I'm not sure she's ever gone *quite* so far as equating > > > > calling Robin a p
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: > > PLATITUDE ALERT !!! MAGNITUDE 6.0 - Moderate to high ability to deal with > discomfort arising from the need to take an actual stand. Only 6.0? Oh fuck. You should read the ones by the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (post #342683). > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius < > anartaxius@...> wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Judy, I do not think you get this: the only consistent context in the > > field of language, in thought, is one's own mind. The version of truth we > > have represented in our own mind always seems to be the correct one, at > > least initially. Another mind is a different world altogether with seeming > > points of similarity sometimes, but never as often as we would like. To be > > content, one must simply acquiesce to this, that no one else will ever > > match that context one has, as closely as one's own. That variety is the > > interest of life. To force it to match one's own is a distortion. Certain > > people have a resonance with one another, and their minds might in time > > become more similar to one another. When that is not the case, they remain > > disparate. Certain minds are at a deviant end of the Bell curve, and these > > for our safety and the safety of others, we lock away, or attempt to > > destroy. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You know, Curtis, it's amazing how much Share sounds like > > > > > > you sometimes, especially when she's talking about Robin, > > > > > > and about the folks who are trying (unsuccessfully) to > > > > > > keep her honest. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what your point is here. More conspiracy > > > > > theories no doubt. To your unasked question I answer: > > > > > zero offline contact. We did share the focus of Robin's > > > > > uninvited improvement sessions though, so perhaps we > > > > > found it equally distasteful. Our interests couldn't > > > > > be further apart aside from being the focus of ... > > > > > > > > WARNING: CONTEXT SHIFTING AHEAD. > > > > > > Are you actually unaware that the only way the context will not shift in > > a post exchange is if you post responses to yourself? > > > > > > See this is the emotional intelligence thing again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your fairly constant references to honesty and your > > > > > high value on it has taken the form of a tell. There > > > > > is only one type of person who makes such constant > > > > > references to something which the rest of us just > > > > > take for granted in our dealings with people. You > > > > > are the magician announcing to the audience that he > > > > > is hold a "normal deck of playing cards". It draws > > > > > too much attention to the possibility of the gimmicked > > > > > deck. Same with your constant "story" about your > > > > > special relationship with honesty. You have played it > > > > > too hard and now your audience views you with the > > > > > suspicion of "why is she trying sooo hard to sell this > > > > > impression?" I know why. > > > > > > > > Notice what Curtis has done here: He has shifted the > > > > context from the issue of dishonesty on Share's part > > > > > > I don't have any issue with Share's "honesty", that is your fixation. I > > am only aware of the brouhaha you are trying to keep alive forever about an > > apt expression she used about Robin and your running the typical Judy > > program relentlessly about it. > > > > > > > > > > that I and others have been pointing out to an implied > > > > accusation of his own: dishonesty on my part. > > > > > > > > What's that called when a magician does it, Curtis? > > > > Misdirection, I think.> > > > > > > It is what humans do when they have communication from their own > > perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > Let's shift the context back to where it was: There > > > > is a great deal of *actual evidence* of Share's > > > > dishonesty in her posts that she has been unwilling > > > > to address. (Not to mention that the same might be > > > > said of you, but let's leave that aside for now.). > > > > > > Of course there is. There ALWAYS is, that is the Judy routine. But since > > you have tried it on my one too many times it holds not weight for me. I am > > judging her from my own interactions not yours. I don't find her dishonest. > > Nor does she seem compelled to make a huge deal about her "honesty" as you > > relentlessly seem to need. That was MY point which you are shifting the > > context away from. I can see why. > > > > > > > > > > > Where's the evidence of dishonesty in my posts, > > > > Curtis? When have I ever been unwilling to address > > > > accusations of dishonesty on the rare
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
PLATITUDE ALERT !!! MAGNITUDE 6.0 - Moderate to high ability to deal with discomfort arising from the need to take an actual stand. On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius < anartax...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ** > > > Judy, I do not think you get this: the only consistent context in the > field of language, in thought, is one's own mind. The version of truth we > have represented in our own mind always seems to be the correct one, at > least initially. Another mind is a different world altogether with seeming > points of similarity sometimes, but never as often as we would like. To be > content, one must simply acquiesce to this, that no one else will ever > match that context one has, as closely as one's own. That variety is the > interest of life. To force it to match one's own is a distortion. Certain > people have a resonance with one another, and their minds might in time > become more similar to one another. When that is not the case, they remain > disparate. Certain minds are at a deviant end of the Bell curve, and these > for our safety and the safety of others, we lock away, or attempt to > destroy. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You know, Curtis, it's amazing how much Share sounds like > > > > > you sometimes, especially when she's talking about Robin, > > > > > and about the folks who are trying (unsuccessfully) to > > > > > keep her honest. > > > > > > > > I don't know what your point is here. More conspiracy > > > > theories no doubt. To your unasked question I answer: > > > > zero offline contact. We did share the focus of Robin's > > > > uninvited improvement sessions though, so perhaps we > > > > found it equally distasteful. Our interests couldn't > > > > be further apart aside from being the focus of ... > > > > > > WARNING: CONTEXT SHIFTING AHEAD. > > > > Are you actually unaware that the only way the context will not shift in > a post exchange is if you post responses to yourself? > > > > See this is the emotional intelligence thing again. > > > > > > > > > > > Your fairly constant references to honesty and your > > > > high value on it has taken the form of a tell. There > > > > is only one type of person who makes such constant > > > > references to something which the rest of us just > > > > take for granted in our dealings with people. You > > > > are the magician announcing to the audience that he > > > > is hold a "normal deck of playing cards". It draws > > > > too much attention to the possibility of the gimmicked > > > > deck. Same with your constant "story" about your > > > > special relationship with honesty. You have played it > > > > too hard and now your audience views you with the > > > > suspicion of "why is she trying sooo hard to sell this > > > > impression?" I know why. > > > > > > Notice what Curtis has done here: He has shifted the > > > context from the issue of dishonesty on Share's part > > > > I don't have any issue with Share's "honesty", that is your fixation. I > am only aware of the brouhaha you are trying to keep alive forever about an > apt expression she used about Robin and your running the typical Judy > program relentlessly about it. > > > > > > > that I and others have been pointing out to an implied > > > accusation of his own: dishonesty on my part. > > > > > > What's that called when a magician does it, Curtis? > > > Misdirection, I think.> > > > > It is what humans do when they have communication from their own > perspective. > > > > > > > > Let's shift the context back to where it was: There > > > is a great deal of *actual evidence* of Share's > > > dishonesty in her posts that she has been unwilling > > > to address. (Not to mention that the same might be > > > said of you, but let's leave that aside for now.). > > > > Of course there is. There ALWAYS is, that is the Judy routine. But since > you have tried it on my one too many times it holds not weight for me. I am > judging her from my own interactions not yours. I don't find her dishonest. > Nor does she seem compelled to make a huge deal about her "honesty" as you > relentlessly seem to need. That was MY point which you are shifting the > context away from. I can see why. > > > > > > > > Where's the evidence of dishonesty in my posts, > > > Curtis? When have I ever been unwilling to address > > > accusations of dishonesty on the rare occasions > > > when somebody has tried to make one?> > > > > Oh you would like to argue some more. I see. Good luck with that. I was > making a different point than your parsing game. It has to do with our over > playing your story about how honest you are and how dishonest your enemies > are. > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure she's ever gone *quite* so far as equat
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
Judy, I do not think you get this: the only consistent context in the field of language, in thought, is one's own mind. The version of truth we have represented in our own mind always seems to be the correct one, at least initially. Another mind is a different world altogether with seeming points of similarity sometimes, but never as often as we would like. To be content, one must simply acquiesce to this, that no one else will ever match that context one has, as closely as one's own. That variety is the interest of life. To force it to match one's own is a distortion. Certain people have a resonance with one another, and their minds might in time become more similar to one another. When that is not the case, they remain disparate. Certain minds are at a deviant end of the Bell curve, and these for our safety and the safety of others, we lock away, or attempt to destroy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > You know, Curtis, it's amazing how much Share sounds like > > > > you sometimes, especially when she's talking about Robin, > > > > and about the folks who are trying (unsuccessfully) to > > > > keep her honest. > > > > > > I don't know what your point is here. More conspiracy > > > theories no doubt. To your unasked question I answer: > > > zero offline contact. We did share the focus of Robin's > > > uninvited improvement sessions though, so perhaps we > > > found it equally distasteful. Our interests couldn't > > > be further apart aside from being the focus of ... > > > > WARNING: CONTEXT SHIFTING AHEAD. > > Are you actually unaware that the only way the context will not shift in a > post exchange is if you post responses to yourself? > > See this is the emotional intelligence thing again. > > > > > > > Your fairly constant references to honesty and your > > > high value on it has taken the form of a tell. There > > > is only one type of person who makes such constant > > > references to something which the rest of us just > > > take for granted in our dealings with people. You > > > are the magician announcing to the audience that he > > > is hold a "normal deck of playing cards". It draws > > > too much attention to the possibility of the gimmicked > > > deck. Same with your constant "story" about your > > > special relationship with honesty. You have played it > > > too hard and now your audience views you with the > > > suspicion of "why is she trying sooo hard to sell this > > > impression?" I know why. > > > > Notice what Curtis has done here: He has shifted the > > context from the issue of dishonesty on Share's part > > I don't have any issue with Share's "honesty", that is your fixation. I am > only aware of the brouhaha you are trying to keep alive forever about an apt > expression she used about Robin and your running the typical Judy program > relentlessly about it. > > > > that I and others have been pointing out to an implied > > accusation of his own: dishonesty on my part. > > > > What's that called when a magician does it, Curtis? > > Misdirection, I think.> > > It is what humans do when they have communication from their own perspective. > > > > > Let's shift the context back to where it was: There > > is a great deal of *actual evidence* of Share's > > dishonesty in her posts that she has been unwilling > > to address. (Not to mention that the same might be > > said of you, but let's leave that aside for now.). > > Of course there is. There ALWAYS is, that is the Judy routine. But since you > have tried it on my one too many times it holds not weight for me. I am > judging her from my own interactions not yours. I don't find her dishonest. > Nor does she seem compelled to make a huge deal about her "honesty" as you > relentlessly seem to need. That was MY point which you are shifting the > context away from. I can see why. > > > > > Where's the evidence of dishonesty in my posts, > > Curtis? When have I ever been unwilling to address > > accusations of dishonesty on the rare occasions > > when somebody has tried to make one?> > > Oh you would like to argue some more. I see. Good luck with that. I was > making a different point than your parsing game. It has to do with our over > playing your story about how honest you are and how dishonest your enemies > are. > > > > > > (I'm not sure she's ever gone *quite* so far as equating > > > > calling Robin a psychological rapist with "having a non > > > > complimentary feeling" about him. Maybe she'll start now, > > > > though.)> > > > > > > When did she say that, was it within this calendar year? > > > > (See the attempted context-shift?) > > People outside your style of limited focus would recognize this as something
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > You know, Curtis, it's amazing how much Share sounds like > > > you sometimes, especially when she's talking about Robin, > > > and about the folks who are trying (unsuccessfully) to > > > keep her honest. > > > > I don't know what your point is here. More conspiracy > > theories no doubt. To your unasked question I answer: > > zero offline contact. We did share the focus of Robin's > > uninvited improvement sessions though, so perhaps we > > found it equally distasteful. Our interests couldn't > > be further apart aside from being the focus of ... > > WARNING: CONTEXT SHIFTING AHEAD. Are you actually unaware that the only way the context will not shift in a post exchange is if you post responses to yourself? See this is the emotional intelligence thing again. > > > Your fairly constant references to honesty and your > > high value on it has taken the form of a tell. There > > is only one type of person who makes such constant > > references to something which the rest of us just > > take for granted in our dealings with people. You > > are the magician announcing to the audience that he > > is hold a "normal deck of playing cards". It draws > > too much attention to the possibility of the gimmicked > > deck. Same with your constant "story" about your > > special relationship with honesty. You have played it > > too hard and now your audience views you with the > > suspicion of "why is she trying sooo hard to sell this > > impression?" I know why. > > Notice what Curtis has done here: He has shifted the > context from the issue of dishonesty on Share's part I don't have any issue with Share's "honesty", that is your fixation. I am only aware of the brouhaha you are trying to keep alive forever about an apt expression she used about Robin and your running the typical Judy program relentlessly about it. > that I and others have been pointing out to an implied > accusation of his own: dishonesty on my part. > > What's that called when a magician does it, Curtis? > Misdirection, I think.> It is what humans do when they have communication from their own perspective. > > Let's shift the context back to where it was: There > is a great deal of *actual evidence* of Share's > dishonesty in her posts that she has been unwilling > to address. (Not to mention that the same might be > said of you, but let's leave that aside for now.). Of course there is. There ALWAYS is, that is the Judy routine. But since you have tried it on my one too many times it holds not weight for me. I am judging her from my own interactions not yours. I don't find her dishonest. Nor does she seem compelled to make a huge deal about her "honesty" as you relentlessly seem to need. That was MY point which you are shifting the context away from. I can see why. > > Where's the evidence of dishonesty in my posts, > Curtis? When have I ever been unwilling to address > accusations of dishonesty on the rare occasions > when somebody has tried to make one?> Oh you would like to argue some more. I see. Good luck with that. I was making a different point than your parsing game. It has to do with our over playing your story about how honest you are and how dishonest your enemies are. > > > > (I'm not sure she's ever gone *quite* so far as equating > > > calling Robin a psychological rapist with "having a non > > > complimentary feeling" about him. Maybe she'll start now, > > > though.)> > > > > When did she say that, was it within this calendar year? > > (See the attempted context-shift?) People outside your style of limited focus would recognize this as something else. Wanna guess? > > October 1, 2012, seven months ago. And she has > reiterated it and defended it vigorously whenever > it's been questioned. Judy you really are clueless aren't you? I work with kids like you I know exactly what the cognitive issues are that are driving this. > > But at least she's never referred to it as "having a > non complimentary feeling" about Robin. > > > > Curtis to Share: "Your playfulness in the face of > > > the barrage of ill-intentions and unfriendliness > > > is your jiu-jitsu, your mojo, and ultimately your > > > sanity preserver." > > > > > > Exactly. It keeps that ugly, ill-intentioned, unfriendly > > > ol' reality at bay so she doesn't have to deal with it > > > and can remain safely and obliviously ensconced in her own > > > comfortable Disn--er, ShareWorld with its population of > > > colorful cartoon characters.> > > > > Oh I get it, then all this constant badgering of her > > is due to your better grip on "reality" and you are > > just trying to help her then. > > CONTEXT SHIFT ALERT!!! I am mocking you little robot. Of course that would be a context shift from your own self ag
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > You know, Curtis, it's amazing how much Share sounds like > > you sometimes, especially when she's talking about Robin, > > and about the folks who are trying (unsuccessfully) to > > keep her honest. > > I don't know what your point is here. More conspiracy > theories no doubt. To your unasked question I answer: > zero offline contact. We did share the focus of Robin's > uninvited improvement sessions though, so perhaps we > found it equally distasteful. Our interests couldn't > be further apart aside from being the focus of ... WARNING: CONTEXT SHIFTING AHEAD. > Your fairly constant references to honesty and your > high value on it has taken the form of a tell. There > is only one type of person who makes such constant > references to something which the rest of us just > take for granted in our dealings with people. You > are the magician announcing to the audience that he > is hold a "normal deck of playing cards". It draws > too much attention to the possibility of the gimmicked > deck. Same with your constant "story" about your > special relationship with honesty. You have played it > too hard and now your audience views you with the > suspicion of "why is she trying sooo hard to sell this > impression?" I know why. Notice what Curtis has done here: He has shifted the context from the issue of dishonesty on Share's part that I and others have been pointing out to an implied accusation of his own: dishonesty on my part. What's that called when a magician does it, Curtis? Misdirection, I think. Let's shift the context back to where it was: There is a great deal of *actual evidence* of Share's dishonesty in her posts that she has been unwilling to address. (Not to mention that the same might be said of you, but let's leave that aside for now.) Where's the evidence of dishonesty in my posts, Curtis? When have I ever been unwilling to address accusations of dishonesty on the rare occasions when somebody has tried to make one? > > (I'm not sure she's ever gone *quite* so far as equating > > calling Robin a psychological rapist with "having a non > > complimentary feeling" about him. Maybe she'll start now, > > though.)> > > When did she say that, was it within this calendar year? (See the attempted context-shift?) October 1, 2012, seven months ago. And she has reiterated it and defended it vigorously whenever it's been questioned. But at least she's never referred to it as "having a non complimentary feeling" about Robin. > > Curtis to Share: "Your playfulness in the face of > > the barrage of ill-intentions and unfriendliness > > is your jiu-jitsu, your mojo, and ultimately your > > sanity preserver." > > > > Exactly. It keeps that ugly, ill-intentioned, unfriendly > > ol' reality at bay so she doesn't have to deal with it > > and can remain safely and obliviously ensconced in her own > > comfortable Disn--er, ShareWorld with its population of > > colorful cartoon characters.> > > Oh I get it, then all this constant badgering of her > is due to your better grip on "reality" and you are > just trying to help her then. CONTEXT SHIFT ALERT!!! (You may have noticed that I'm not the only one who holds this opinion of Share or who objects to her accusation. Oh, wait, I forgot, the others are all under my control and take a dim view of Share in hopes of a pat on the head from me. Everyone would just love Share and hate Robin if it weren't for me. Right, Curtis?) If my "badgering" helps her, that's all to the good. But my intention is get her to, in effect, unsay that accusation, to retract it, if not to apologize for it. And failing that, to make it clear to anyone who might happen to do a search for "Robin Carlsen" that there is good reason to wonder whether the accusation had any substance to it, or whether it was an especially nasty, malicious, and potentially very damaging bit of slander. There is, in fact, considerable evidence for lack of substance, which leads one to wonder why it was made in the first place. > I had it all wrong, I thought that you were just > being Judy and running the Judy routine FOREVER > about a comment she made about one hundred years > ago. Seven months ago. Let me do my own context-shift here: Given Curtis's animus against Robin, it isn't exactly surprising that he would be supporting Share. After all, he was the first to introduce--publicly--the notion that Robin had been trying to violate Share's boundaries: "Now I can also understand why Robin was so surprised. He only started to put in the lever and hadn't applied any pressure yet, but he got called out immediately." There's more to this intervention by Curtis on Share's behalf, but let's not introduce any more complications right now. Suffice it to say that either Curtis hadn't followed their exchange, or that he had but wanted to spin it in Share's favor,
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > Thanks Judy, but I looked up the whole exchange, (below) > and it appears much more involved than you have here. Very interesting, Steve. It appears that after reading that quote from Robin I posted for you, you realized it couldn't possibly have justified Share's "psychological rape" charge, so you figured you needed to see more of their interaction. You looked up the original post, but that didn't help; so you went on to look up one of the follow-ups. And you found something you thought might be the smoking gun that would vindicate Share: (Share wrote, back then:) > Replying to the first Robin2 below: > > Robin, it sounds like you're saying that you sensed you were > getting the real me and not my beliefs. But OTOH you were > very likely wrong. Given this assessment of me by you, I'd > prefer to suspend communication with you. Apologies if I've > misunderstood and in that case, I hope we can work things out. Er, no, sorry, this actually puts her in a deeper hole. You need to do a *lot* more reading of what went on, Steve, before you have anything like a clear picture. Believe me, if there were anything I could do to get Share's current fans to go back and read every word Share and Robin have said to and about each other, I would do it, because then they would understand what the problem is with Share. Anyway, what Steve quotes is Share's *misunderstanding* of what Robin had written that I keep mentioning. Robin nearly went out of his gourd trying to explain to her what she'd gotten wrong, to no avail. It took him a while to even understand himself what she had misunderstood because it was so convoluted. The key phrase is from Robin's initial post, the parenthetical "it is very likely I am wrong." Share's misunderstanding was SO tangled and nonsensical that it became clear that *she herself* didn't understand what she had been objecting to--because at different times she objected to *opposite interpretations* of that phrase without realizing she was doing so. I made a post about this back then, with quotes and links; it's here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321880 (It's almost as if someone had told her what to say, but after she'd said it and then had to follow up on it, she got completely lost because she had never really grasped the reason for saying it in the first place.) > Perhaps I will have time to examine further. Thanks again. You won't, of course. Leaving this in: > > Xeno posted a definition of psychological rape: > > > > "Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which > > amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and > > excessive. It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, > > or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not > > meant to resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy." > > > > I'm sure you can see how well that describes what Robin > > said to Share that I just quoted. > > > > (snip) > > > > I guess you don't have any comment on this part of my > > post: > > > > > > And you're aware by now, I'm sure, that her initial reaction > > > > to the interaction was that she was feeling a little grumpy > > > > from eating too much sugar, "no problemo." And she apologized. > > > > > > > > Unless she was lying, of course. And boy, if she really had > > > > just experienced herself to have been psychologically raped, > > > > what a cool customer to apologize to her rapist for being > > > > grumpy, and then continue the lighthearted conversation as > > > > if nothing had happened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
Thanks Judy, for filling in some of my blanks.:-) Good to know. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > Hi Share, > > I have been reading through all these messages over this original > > expression of yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a public > > forum with neither person physically known to the other, with no prior > > relationship at all, for someone to psychologically ultimately violate > > another person. > > > > If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all > > means, in terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your feelings > > on the forum poster. And, again, this is a public Internet forum. As you > > said yourself, you didn't have a relationship with Robin. > > > > Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the > > right to ask me such questions. I am comfortable working > > on this on my own."? > > If I may interject to clarify something: > > At the time Robin made his remarks to which Share four > weeks later took violent exception, Share *did* indicate > some mild discomfort with the issue he had raised. He > backed off immediately and apologized for making her > uncomfortable, explaining that what he had described was > *his* experience of what she had said in her previous post > and that he had never meant to impose his experience on > her. > > See that exchange here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342376 > > They continued to chat about this-a and that-a, the issue > apparently having been resolved to the satisfaction of > both. > > Three days later, Share suddenly declared an end to their > conversations because of his initial remarks. > > However, she insisted that she had not "suffered or [felt] > insulted," nor did she think Robin was being "hurtful or > cruel." She simply didn't want "to pursue the theme of > whether or not" she was being the real Share or of her > "alleged hyper positivity." > > Robin was baffled because he *hadn't* pursued either "theme." > As it turned out, her reappraisal at that point was due to > a misunderstanding on *her* part of what he had said > initially. It took some time before the nature of her misunderstanding became > clear. That's another whole story; > it was rather convoluted, to say the least. > > Anyway, the "psychological rape" accusation came four > weeks later. According to Share, she had considered his > remarks "psychological rape" at the time, although she > hadn't yet come up with the term, and what she said at the > time did not seem to indicate any significant distress on > her part. > > OK, I'm done. Pardon the interruption. You've made excellent > points, but so much of this issue depends on knowing exactly > what happened when. > > > > By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only is it > > not true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal power. > > > > Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone, > > observation and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over their > > identity here, including you, and including Robin. There is nothing easier. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
I don't know anything about you, except what you post here. And that is what I see, CC. The tell is your intellectual clarity, on the one hand, and the zeal with which you favor it, over a more simple representation of what goes on around here. I am not praising you or insulting you, simply making a judgment based on what I can see of you. My point to Share was that her desire for a more perfect integration, inside and out, is hard to follow vis a vis someone who is expressing CC, because the nature of CC, as explained with my building analogy, is duality. Sort of a perfect duality, but nonetheless lacking the simple integration into non-dual existence (while appreciating the overflowing abundance and diversity in the universe). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > Zee Know is in CC when he posts. A very inefficient reality. Imagine a > > building with a solid foundation, but lots of scaffolding covering the > > exterior. Not yet ready to look through the windows at the outside world. > > :-) > > Doc, as I do not experience any witnessing, this must be a particularly inept > version of CC you are blessing me with. Perhaps it is indeed the long sought > for comatose consciousness. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
An unwarranted intrusion, aka, psychological rape, on here, FFL? Nah - I also agree the past is where it belongs, though I am not convinced that anyone influences anyone else here on FFL, *against* their will. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > For a person to express something about how another's post feels to > them is one thing. I do it all the time, on here. But to make the other > person responsible for such a feeling, is ultimately irresponsible. Do > you see it differently? > > My take is that Share felt that the best description of that interaction > with Robin was "psychological rape". > > I don't think she feels she was victimized, any more that I might have > felt when Robin played the same number on me. > > You think you are interacting with someone along more normal paramters, > more of a mutual give and take, but Robin brings to the table a > different approach. > > People may feel that it is an awesome approach designed to help them > break through some boundries that need to be broken, or people may feel > it is an unwarranted intrusion into their personal space. I think it is > as simple as that. > > And if someone wished to describe that intrusion as "psychological > rape", well then, that is their perogative, and I don't see that it is > that big of a deal. But others may feel differently. > > I think Share reacted well within what would be considered a normal > reaction. And if she was knocked off balance for a (very) short time, > then that is also understandable and I would say she bounced back pretty > quickly and would have been ready to move on if not > for.. > > My apologies, if I have taken any liberties into Share's thought > processes. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > Judy, it has been some time since I read the interaction. Too bad you missed my post of yesterday in which I quoted the whole thing, and my post to Xeno that quoted what Robin said. But don't worry, I'll post what Robin said here so you can see what Share means by "psychological rape," if you choose to: "You must excuse my presumption here (because it is very likely I am wrong) but I must tell you that in this post I get to feel the most Share that is there severed (perhaps not consciously:)) from her philosophy. It just *seemed* to me that all you wrote here came out of your experience unmediated by any final beliefs about what is real. Like a beautiful accident of Share making herself available beyond what would be possible were she solidly, as she almost always is, behind her spiritual orientation to people and reality (which, in the weaponry and ordnance deployed by some of us more irascible FFL posters, is sometimes--silently, mind you--denigrated as being overly positive--and therefore impotent:))." That's it. That's the psychological rape. If you want to see Share's response to it, in context, it's here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342376 Xeno posted a definition of psychological rape: "Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not meant to resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy." I'm sure you can see how well that describes what Robin said to Share that I just quoted. (snip) I guess you don't have any comment on this part of my post: > > And you're aware by now, I'm sure, that her initial reaction > > to the interaction was that she was feeling a little grumpy > > from eating too much sugar, "no problemo." And she apologized. > > > > Unless she was lying, of course. And boy, if she really had > > just experienced herself to have been psychologically raped, > > what a cool customer to apologize to her rapist for being > > grumpy, and then continue the lighthearted conversation as > > if nothing had happened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
> Zee Know is in CC when he posts. A very inefficient reality. Imagine a > building with a solid foundation, but lots of scaffolding covering the > exterior. Not yet ready to look through the windows at the outside world. :-) Doc, as I do not experience any witnessing, this must be a particularly inept version of CC you are blessing me with. Perhaps it is indeed the long sought for comatose consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
Judy, it has been some time since I read the interaction. I am basing my interpretation on what I know about Share. And, of course, I see things differently than you do. I allow more leeway in people's reactions, and in peoples motivations than perhaps you do. Share's reaction makes sense to me, and it does not to you. Why it makes sense to me and does not to you is something that has been played and over played (IMO) out over the past week or so, and several times over the past few months. Perhaps you will give me a pass on revisiting it again . And if not, that's okay too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > My take is that Share felt that the best description of > > that interaction with Robin was "psychological rape". > > Just out of curiosity, did you read the interaction? If so, > how long ago, would you guess? > > And you're aware by now, I'm sure, that her initial reaction > to the interaction was that she was feeling a little grumpy > from eating too much sugar, "no problemo." And she apologized. > > Unless she was lying, of course. And boy, if she really had > just experienced herself to have been psychologically raped, > what a cool customer to apologize to her rapist for being > grumpy, and then continue the lighthearted conversation as > if nothing had happened. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > My take is that Share felt that the best description of > that interaction with Robin was "psychological rape". Just out of curiosity, did you read the interaction? If so, how long ago, would you guess? And you're aware by now, I'm sure, that her initial reaction to the interaction was that she was feeling a little grumpy from eating too much sugar, "no problemo." And she apologized. Unless she was lying, of course. And boy, if she really had just experienced herself to have been psychologically raped, what a cool customer to apologize to her rapist for being grumpy, and then continue the lighthearted conversation as if nothing had happened.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > For a person to express something about how another's post feels to them is one thing. I do it all the time, on here. But to make the other person responsible for such a feeling, is ultimately irresponsible. Do you see it differently? My take is that Share felt that the best description of that interaction with Robin was "psychological rape". I don't think she feels she was victimized, any more that I might have felt when Robin played the same number on me. You think you are interacting with someone along more normal paramters, more of a mutual give and take, but Robin brings to the table a different approach. People may feel that it is an awesome approach designed to help them break through some boundries that need to be broken, or people may feel it is an unwarranted intrusion into their personal space. I think it is as simple as that. And if someone wished to describe that intrusion as "psychological rape", well then, that is their perogative, and I don't see that it is that big of a deal. But others may feel differently. I think Share reacted well within what would be considered a normal reaction. And if she was knocked off balance for a (very) short time, then that is also understandable and I would say she bounced back pretty quickly and would have been ready to move on if not for.. My apologies, if I have taken any liberties into Share's thought processes.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: > > > > Hey Steve, I am always open to dialogue, when dialogue is initiated. > > > > The only difference between Share's approach and mine, is > > that it took awhile for Share to sense she didn't like the > > direction of Robin's questions, and when she recognized it, > > rather than see it as her failure to set appropriate > > boundaries for herself, she laid it on Robin. > > Right, that's the narrative put forth by Judy. No, actually that's DrD's narrative. > If you wish to go > strictly by a timeline, it may appear that way, but that is > not the way I see the truth of it. On the other hand, I do > not wish to speak for Share. I assume by "timeline" you mean what she said in her posts and when. If what she said in those posts was different from what she was thinking, she could clear it up at any time by telling us what was in her mind. I've asked her to explain the timeline--including the odd discrepancies and outright contradictions in her posts--many times, but she declines to do so. I gather she has shared her thoughts with you, and that you know they don't reflect what she said in her posts. Perhaps you could suggest to her that she come clean and end all the speculation. Or does she believe the truth would reflect badly on her? And perhaps even worse on others?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's > analogy. Zee Know is in CC when he posts. A very inefficient reality. Imagine a building with a solid foundation, but lots of scaffolding covering the exterior. Not yet ready to look through the windows at the outside world. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's analogy. Now imagine our little clam not only having an evasively prodding starfish to contend with, but also a big crab with sharp claws and a bunch of slithery stingrays jabbing at her with their acidy tendrils. No wonder she blew a gasket and dropped a bomb on all of them! Psychologically raped! Then a wonderful pod of dolphins arrived and told our little clam that her bomb was on target. I think that Doc may miss that for the most part we try to be conjenial here, we try to keep an open mind, we like to give others the benefit of the doubt. And then if it happens that someone who appears to be on the up and up, turns out not to be, we may feel, well, it may feel like, I mean someone might describe it as being "psychlogically raped" Seems pretty straightforward to me, and hey, it's not the horrific term that some are trying to make it out to be. It could just be an excuse to go after someone for other reasons.  >   > > The evasively prodding starfish has disappeared. Nonetheless the big crab with sharp claws and slithery stingrays with acidy tendrils are still jabbing away at our little clam who has by now both toughened up and lightened up. Stay tuned (-: > > feste, I think you're right. But I'm an idiot and continue to engage. Though I think I'm more discerning about it now. Thank you for your encouragement. > > Emily, I think Robin's prodding at my philosophy is more a mental prodding than an emotional one but both kinds have occurred IMO. > > > > From: "doctordumbass@..." doctordumbass@... > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:03 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL > > > >  > Hi Share, > I have been reading through all these messages over this original expression of yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a public forum with neither person physically known to the other, with no prior relationship at all, for someone to psychologically ultimately violate another person. > > If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all means, in terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your feelings on the forum poster. And, again, this is a public Internet forum. As you said yourself, you didn't have a relationship with Robin. > > Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the right to ask me such questions. I am comfortable working on this on my own."? > By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only is it not true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal power. > > Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone, observation and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over their identity here, including you, and including Robin. There is nothing easier. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote: > > > > Xeno, I've been out of town today.àShopping for my foray into the big city.àThank you for this even though I know you did not write it for me or for my big, fat, stupid ego.àHope you won't gag when I say how healing this is for me to read.àOy, more ego!àWhat you did here, the time and attention you put into it, really feels like a labor of love, love for what is.àI didn't even freak out too much when I read that I did say psychologically raped instead of rape.àBut I remember how I felt, especially at that point in time when ego had been invaded uninvited and pulverized for a few weeks and not only by Robin.àExtremely upset and still reeling from events I'd never experienced before.àSo out popped a phrase that I had not used before nor that was so familiar too me.àBut felt spot on nonetheless.à> > > > > > I'm so grateful that I'm gonna shut up now (-: > > > > > > > > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:00 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Psychological Rape > > > > > > > > à> > Psychological rape is a term that does not seem to have much of a fixed professional definition in psychology. It sometimes is applied to parents who drug their children to keep them under control. On a common sense level, the term would seem to imply a kind of invasiveness into one's private space. That private space is the ego, our sense of individuality and self. There are other private spaces, such as the experience that some call transcendental consciousness, which
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: (snip) > The evasively prodding starfish has disappeared. Nonetheless > the big crab with sharp claws and slithery stingrays with > acidy tendrils are still jabbing away at our little clam who > has by now both toughened up and lightened up. Stay tuned (-: Let's see whatcha got, chickie-boo. From everything I've seen so far, the harder you fight against reality, the worse you end up looking. So go to it, but remember, reality always wins. Now, isn't *that* a scary thought for our little clam!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > Hi Share, > I have been reading through all these messages over this original expression > of yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a public forum with > neither person physically known to the other, with no prior relationship at > all, for someone to psychologically ultimately violate another person. > > If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all means, > in terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your feelings on the > forum poster. And, again, this is a public Internet forum. As you said > yourself, you didn't have a relationship with Robin. > > Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the > right to ask me such questions. I am comfortable working > on this on my own."? If I may interject to clarify something: At the time Robin made his remarks to which Share four weeks later took violent exception, Share *did* indicate some mild discomfort with the issue he had raised. He backed off immediately and apologized for making her uncomfortable, explaining that what he had described was *his* experience of what she had said in her previous post and that he had never meant to impose his experience on her. See that exchange here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342376 They continued to chat about this-a and that-a, the issue apparently having been resolved to the satisfaction of both. Three days later, Share suddenly declared an end to their conversations because of his initial remarks. However, she insisted that she had not "suffered or [felt] insulted," nor did she think Robin was being "hurtful or cruel." She simply didn't want "to pursue the theme of whether or not" she was being the real Share or of her "alleged hyper positivity." Robin was baffled because he *hadn't* pursued either "theme." As it turned out, her reappraisal at that point was due to a misunderstanding on *her* part of what he had said initially. It took some time before the nature of her misunderstanding became clear. That's another whole story; it was rather convoluted, to say the least. Anyway, the "psychological rape" accusation came four weeks later. According to Share, she had considered his remarks "psychological rape" at the time, although she hadn't yet come up with the term, and what she said at the time did not seem to indicate any significant distress on her part. OK, I'm done. Pardon the interruption. You've made excellent points, but so much of this issue depends on knowing exactly what happened when. > By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only is it > not true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal power. > > Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone, > observation and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over their > identity here, including you, and including Robin. There is nothing easier.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
Hi Share, I have been reading through all these messages over this original expression of yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a public forum with neither person physically known to the other, with no prior relationship at all, for someone to psychologically ultimately violate another person. If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all means, in terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your feelings on the forum poster. And, again, this is a public Internet forum. As you said yourself, you didn't have a relationship with Robin. Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the right to ask me such questions. I am comfortable working on this on my own."? By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only is it not true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal power. Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone, observation and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over their identity here, including you, and including Robin. There is nothing easier. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Xeno, I've been out of town today. Shopping for my foray into the big > city. Thank you for this even though I know you did not write it for me or > for my big, fat, stupid ego. Hope you won't gag when I say how healing this > is for me to read. Oy, more ego! What you did here, the time and > attention you put into it, really feels like a labor of love, love for what > is. I didn't even freak out too much when I read that I did say > psychologically raped instead of rape. But I remember how I felt, > especially at that point in time when ego had been invaded uninvited and > pulverized for a few weeks and not only by Robin. Extremely upset and still > reeling from events I'd never experienced before. So out popped a phrase > that I had not used before nor that was so familiar too me. But felt spot > on nonetheless. > > > I'm so grateful that I'm gonna shut up now (-: > > > > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:00 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Psychological Rape > > > >  > Psychological rape is a term that does not seem to have much of a fixed > professional definition in psychology. It sometimes is applied to parents who > drug their children to keep them under control. On a common sense level, the > term would seem to imply a kind of invasiveness into one's private space. > That private space is the ego, our sense of individuality and self. There are > other private spaces, such as the experience that some call transcendental > consciousness, which at a certain point in practice, seems deep inside. But > this space (TC) has no characteristics other than the sense of wakefulness, > so it really does not do anything, or provide one with an individual > identity; it has no identity other than bare existence, it is neither private > or public, though the experience seems to be restricted to the individual > body, which we gather from the experience of coming out of a deep meditation, > that that experience occurred somehow in what we are. > > Share used this term 'psychological rape' in reference to Robin. I take this > to mean invasion of that personal space we call the ego, our sense of self as > an individual person, or at a minimum, the sense that our human body is a > locus or point of focus for experience. The ego is a big problem in > spirituality because it is seen as an obstacle to universal experience, it is > the process that makes us seem as if we are special in some way. It divides > us from everything else. So one way to attempt to get rid of the ego, so we > can experience unity (non-division with the world about us) is to try to > manipulate it or attack it. > > But this is the point of maximum resistance. The ego is that in us which > wants us as individuals to survive and never die. Subjugating the ego has to > be an inside job. It has to be eaten away from inside. This is why meditative > techniques may be important because they give our experience a wider > dimension than just the ego, they put the ego in a larger space. Because we > are not really our ego (so the spiritual talk goes), eventually, if we are > lucky, we begin to see that this thing we call our ego, our 'me' is not such > a hot thing. The ego cannot really be taken down much until a substantial > experience of unity dawns because unity provides a big enough space around > ego to manoeuvre it into lesser importance. CC, experiencing yourself as pure > consciousness inside, as silence inside while in activity is too small a > puddle of spiritual value to kick ego off its perch. We can be ass holes in > waking awareness, ass holes in CC, and even ass holes in unity. The > ego is the most subtle beast in the fie
