--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I think you may have missed something, Curtis. > > There is simply no *possibility* of me "detesting" > > Robin. Nothing he has ever written caused me to > > pay enough attention to him to detest him. Really. > > It was a pretty strongly worded FU to him, so he must have > gotten some of your attention. I ignore plenty of people > here without having to tell them I am ignoring them. I > believe you have a little more skin in the game than you > are claiming. I think he got to you in the same way some > posters have gotten to me.
I disagree. The only thing that "got to me" was him re-running the same "poor, poor pitiful me" number he specialized in when he first arrived here. Déja Moo. <snip> > > I've written about this. I don't quite understand it, > > either, except as I've said before I find your writing > > "inclusive" and his "exclusive." Also, you write about > > real-world things that could possibly be of interest > > to another human being, and with which they could find > > some resonance. I find that mainly he seems to be > > writing about the view from inside his head OF the > > inside of his head. HE finds that fascinating; I do not. > > Personal taste, I can understand that. But I am often > interested in what goes on in someone else's head even > if it seems to have nothing to do with me. Actually > most religious beliefs are like that for me, a trip > to the zoo. I understand that, and I respect you for following the "natural tendency of the mind" in pursuing that. As I tried to say in the cafe rap that will hopefully (God or Yahoo willing) arrive before this one, my natural tendency goes in other directions these days. <snip> > > But the thing for me -- something that I will never be > > able to overcome -- is that I don't find the things that > > he obsesses on the least bit INTERESTING. They are almost > > all theoretical and abstract, and at heart I'm really a > > pretty pragmatic guy. I click Next just as often when > > people get into more mainstream abstract conversations > > here; they just do not entice me in. It's as meaningless > > to me as two people debating whether a dog has Buddha- > > nature. Bzzzzzzzt. I hear something like that and just > > reach for the Next key. > > I can relate to that. I think it is the personal > transformations that interest me more than theology at > this point. But I enjoy his writing style more than you > do to so the specific religious content is not always > the draw. While fully admitting that I haven't read many of his posts, the ones that I had didn't really rock my boat in terms of "transformations." Being com- pletely honest here, they seemed to me to pretty much all fall into the category of "Once I believed what Authority X told me, and now I believe what Authority Y tells me." I tend to judge "transform- ations" based more on the extent of visible change (visible in the outside, "real" world) than I do on the "content" of one's beliefs. To me, in the scenario I present above, there has been no real transformation; there has been only a shift in content. It's all still taking place inside one person's head, unless and until it spills over into "real life." > > > Reading his posts takes a bit of flexibility in perspectives > > > as he shifts very quickly between numerous ones. Following > > > these shifts if really fun if you enjoy that sort of thing. > > > > I guess. I found that process fascinating in writers > > like Buckminster Fuller and Marshall McLuhan. But they > > seemed to be GOING SOMEWHERE with these shifts in per- > > spective. I have never gotten the feeling that Robin is. > > YMMV, and obviously does. Then again, you are still > > willing to get into irresolveable discussions over > > things like whether there is a God. Bzzzzzzt for me. > > Next. > > That has been resolved, there isn't! I see him more as a > fellow Maharishi graduate pilgrim with a twist. That in itself may explain our different perspectives on him and his writing. I managed to avoid MIU/MUM and the endless sitting around having (to me) Déja Moo conversations about the same topics over and over and over. I was never led to develop a taste for that process or view it as all that valuable. <snip> > > You enjoy long, drawn-out conversations, going over the > > same material over and over from slightly different POVs. > > I do not. You don't seem to mind when Robin makes a point > > in one paragraph and then feels he has to make the SAME > > point in ten additional paragraphs, much less ten more > > posts. When I see this, I hit Next. Mea culpa. > > Yeah it is the nuance or the shift of perspective that keeps > me in the game. But I react the way you do with some posters > so it isn't as if I can't relate to your choice. I think I tried to cover this in my cafe rap. I'm more of a "bottom line" kinda guy than I am an appreciator of nuance. When I've sussed out the other person's "bottom line" on a particular subject, that's kinda the bottom line for me. The "nuances" they pull out of their hats to explain or justify the bottom line don't really interest me enough to turn a two-post "We agree to disagree" exchange into a 10-post "We agree to disagree" exchange. > > > I'm certainly not going to try to sell Robin to you Barry, > > > and he doesn't really need my defense. You are entitled to > > > not liking his writing style or the persona he projects here. > > > > Again, and I really think I'm being honest here, I *DON'T* > > "not like" him. I don't find him interesting enough to > > either like or not like. For me there is no "there there," > > because it's all happening inside his own head. > > As a life-long philosophy student I may have a higher > tolerance for this. I think that this is the case. And I don't criticize either you or Robin for feeling that way. But, to paraphrase Jessica Rabbit, "I"m just not drawn that way." > But I opened the rapport with him discussing art and music > so I see him as more than just in his own head. I am more > interested in the personal than the theoretical. Me, too, and I admit to having missed any music threads. > > > I don't find that he takes himself any more seriously than > > > you or I do, and I don't share the opinion that he needs > > > to be taken down a peg. > > > > This morning's whine was a rerun of the same whines he > > made when he first landed here. I found them boring and > > self-obsessed and "poor, poor pitiful me" when he first > > ran this number, and I did again this morning. I think > > the guy should "man up" a little. As you said above, > > WHO THE FUCK *CARES* what other people on this > > tiny little forum, composed of at most a couple of > > dozen people, think of you? > > I think you may be missing his intent and POV in his responses. That may be so. We must agree to disagree on this. > > > You've got decades of posting under your belt and Robin > > > is finding his online voice in this group. > > > > That is true. Much of what I find uninviting in his > > writing style is "newb" stuff. > > > > > I enjoy his writing, you don't. All fair enough. > > > > > > But why so grumpy? > > > > I don't think I *was* being grumpy. Unlike you, and some > > others here, I just decided to be HONEST with the guy, > > and not coddle him like he was really as fragile as he > > was trying to make himself out to be. > > I am honest with Robin and don't view him as fragile. Again > I think you missed what his response really was. What do you think it was? > > It really ISN'T that I don't like the guy. It's not even > > that I don't particularly like his writing style, even > > though I don't. It's that -- unlike some here -- I find > > neither him nor his ideas terribly unique or terribly > > interesting. > > Got it. But I believe his personal journey is a unique one. ONLY within a very tiny context, that of a spiritual trip I no longer identify with, and haven't been part of for 33 years. I bailed from the TMO long before he made his tiny splash in the even tinier pond (compared to the much larger ocean of spiritual practice) of MIU/MUM. Neither he nor his story have any resonance for me at all. > I don't know too many of us who started their own cult after > getting their state shifted by meditation. I do. I don't find many of them all that interesting. I think it's more interesting to have had one's state of attention shifted by meditation and then go do something *else*, not try to re-run the same movie with you playing the part of the teacher this time. > And as Sal wryly noted in one of her first posts about him, > the guy dropped pamphlets on MIU! That totally has to count > for something. Only if you consider MIU something more than a small pond. I do not. > He took on Maharishi full bore. Small frog in a small pond. > I give extra credit for anyone willing to do that. I understand, and that is your right. I do not, no more than I expect anyone here to give me any credit for veering off the Party Line with the Rama guy. That's *MY* small pond, and I don't expect anyone to be all that interested in the antics of its frogs if they weren't there swimming in it. > But again with the selling, I really can't help myself. I > am always an advocate for my opinions! I am not. Or at the very least, I'm trying not to be any more. I really am not invested in any of them to the extent of being able to -- or willing to -- sell them. > > Now I'll go back to ignoring both. > > Fair enough. And I'll go back to reading both of you guys > with pleasure. Fair enough. And thank you for bringing all of this up, and getting me to think about it. As you'll see when you run into my earlier cafe rap, I *did* think about it, and I found that rewarding. For me it again comes down to predilection. I'm drawn a certain way, and you may be drawn another. But we're both just Toons, in a Toon universe.
