On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Bob Price <bobpri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tom,
>
> I don't think you know me and I hope I don't upset you, heaven forbid. But
> I've been pondering most of the night about how I could do something
> positive to help Tom and MZ's relationship. More specifically, how I might
> convince you to make amends to MZ.
>
>
>
Bob, why is it so important for MZ and I to kiss an make up, Indeed for me
to buy chocolates, buy flowers, some jewelry and made reservations at MZ's
favorite expensive restaurant so that I can get down on my knees and make
amends to MZ? Why can't I just call it as I see it move on. He'll be
moving on in a week or two, I assure you.
What rankles me about MZ? Why do I say he speaks shit? Read this:
"
Just for the record, Tom: all that I have written here (that isn't
deliberately ironic) is utterly sincere—sincere here means, my motives are
honourable (at least as far as I can consciously know them). As for your
condemnation of my writing: style and form of argumentation, I must admit I
don't follow you here. Of course I grant that sometimes my style becomes
convoluted and dense, but I am only trying to track the deepest feelings,
the deepest experiences, and the most complex ideas.
When someone is harshly critical of oneself, there is always the thought: Is
this person right about me—or at least partially right? Then, if one poses
this question and tries to be as honest and fearless as one can, one steps
outside of oneself and says: "Are you sure this person hasn't got a hold of
an important truth about you, as painful and traumatizing as it is to
contemplate it?"
And there are (at least as far as I can tell) only four outcomes to this
self-interrogation: 1. denial but silence (a sort of turn the other cheek
response) 2. denial and retaliation (and here there has to be SOME truth in
the negative judgment of oneself) 3. acceptance and regret (wishing what was
said was NOT true, but getting down about it, because of the irresistible
sense that it IS true) 4. acceptance and humility (one learns from the
criticism, and amends one's ways—to the extent to which this is possible).
Depending of course on HOW MUCH ACTUAL TRUTH IS GETTING SAID AND THROUGH TO
ONE.
The real question, then, becomes, Tom: If I were a third person observing
this point counterpoint (that is, while still being aware that one is in
fact the object of a blanket dismissal of the worth of anything and
everything one has written), where would I come down in terms of my
assessment of where the truth lies?
Mostly on Tom Pall's side? or mostly on Masked Zebra's side? Or a
combination of both (i.e. there is SOME truth in what Tom Pall is saying,
but at the same time the criticism is not entirely justified)?
I will just say to you outright, Tom, that however sincere and passionate
you are in judging my contributions here on FFL to be "shit", I am unable to
make this judgment fit the reality of my experience. And therefore I am
left—I hope not in any defensive or self-serving way—with the overwhelming
impression that you yourself have no notion of where your bitterness or
anger or hatred comes from.
Now I don't mean this necessarily as a personal criticism of you. I only
mean to say that, without sparing myself in my determination to get at where
the truth lies, I find myself unable to arrive at any other conclusion—than
that, in some mysterious way, you have—for a considerable time now—found
yourself in the act of hating someone (or something) without being able to
consciously stay aware of WHY IT IS YOU ARE DOING THIS.
And on what basis do I reach this conclusion?
Your judgment of me (in the terms at least that you have made it) just does
not apply to the objective truth of the situation. You have missed your man,
Tom. You have got me wrong.
Because (I am repeating myself here) there is not a single subjective
response inside of myself which would suggest I am avoiding taking on this
challenge—and mounting a counter-offensive to protect my self-esteem.
I must conclude, therefore, that you are mistaken about me, Tom. And that
therefore you lack any meaningful rationale for the perpetuation of this
antipathy.
You see—I AM COMING TO THE END OF THIS, TOM!—If there were the slightest
truth in what you have said about me (I mean in the main: you are full of
shit and your writing is shit, MZ) then, believe it or not, in reading this
[what I am writing here in this very post], at some level at least, YOU
WOULD EXPERIENCE YOURSELF AS A MARTYR. A martyr? Yes, a martyr for the
truth.
Because MZ has just tried to pull a fast one here, seeking a kind of false
exoneration. I (Tom Pall) know in my soul: Hey, here is deceit and
corruption ('shit') in the service of the ego.: Do you need any more proof
than this very attempt to overthrow my (TP/s) TRUE judgment of this guy?
Yes, if you would go into your death with this conviction, Tom, then somehow
I have 1. misconstrued reality 2. misconstrued you 3. misconstrued the
truth.
Now I look forward to seeing your reply to this, having, as best I can, set
up certain criteria that would enable us (and the unsentimental readers on
this blog) to properly evaluate the merits of our respective positions in
this matter. Masked Zebra, he is full of shit. Masked Zebra, he is not full
of shit. No, Tom, I have (excepting the necessary strategic use of irony)
written in good faith. And somehow your experience of me and my writing is
not consistent with reality. Now there very well may be significant, even
devastating criticisms to be made—of me, of my writing—but you have not hit
upon what they are."
Now tell me how this couldn't have been said in, say 4 short sentences?
If anyone wants to indulge me in reading my posts, cool. If not, well, we
post, we don't post pieces of paper with little tear offs on the bottom with
our email address and phone numbers hoping people will call us and email us,
raving out our posts.
I don't wish to indulge MZ in his seemingly endless obsession with the
wonderfulness of his self, as evidenced by his having to write so much you
have to pay him the time to read his stray, convoluted words. Great
prophets taught us many things. Maharishi, like him or not, got his words
out, succinctly. Unless you're a Catholic Saint trying to show off to the
clerics and academics about how wordy, erudite and far out there you can be,
simple English can get even the most complicated, most ineffable experience
across. At least it works for Stephen Hawkins, worked for Einstein, worked
for the many mystics I've read.
I care not to be won over. I'm nobody special. I'm nothing important. I
like to post a URL that I find amusing or amazing now and then and perhaps a
bit of a play on words. I don't need to be understood here or elsewhere.
I don't need communion. So allow MZ to just go about his way (and he will)
and I will go about mine, if you allow me to or not, care if I do or not.
