> > > > You want proof of this? Just observe what your mind is doing > > > > right in this moment: it is refusing, a priori and > > > > involuntarily, to do anything but react to what I am saying. > > > > You can't take in even the content of what is being presented > > > > to you in this moment. > > > > > > Robin, he's most likely not reading it at all. That's > > > one of his prime defensive strategies. > > <snip> > > RESPONSE; I appreciate this, Judy: The "not reading it > > at all" as "one of his prime defensive strategies" had > > never occurred to me. Now that takes away some of my > > perplexity. What has baffled me up until this point is > > that in his dismissal of my posts he does not disclose > > any of the real substance of his *experience* which > > leads him to this judgment. He might as well be accusing > > me of being a Salem witch: there is no accountability > > for his opinions: they occur (or are expressed) in a > > personal void. Therefore he can never feel out the > > feedback he gets from realityand can say and believe > > anything at all. As if he is immune to the very life > > which gives him existence. > > > > I certainly don't mind having criticsor even enemies. The > > problem comes up when there is no revealed context within > > which to understand this opposition or antipathy: > > turquoiseb feels he can make sweeping statements about > > anything and remain utterly invulnerable to the very real > > implication and responsibility that inheres in this act. > > That's right. As you say, he accepts no accountability > whatsoever for his behavior. > > <snip> > > Turquoiseb (talented, intelligent, witty fellow that he is) > > is unknowingly disassociated from his own self. I wonder how > > he understands childrenor a would-be lover. > > authfriend: > Well, let's remember we're seeing only the electronic > side of him, as it were. He's apparently living with a > couple who have a young child he's known from birth, > and from what he says, he relates to her very closely. > So his real life may be very different from what we > see of him. It's very hard to maintain invulnerability > in the face of the innocence of a child. > > > But I am going further than I should here; I certainly sense > > you have him in your crosshairs: it is a wonder to me that > > none of your bullets leave a mark upon his consciousnessdoes > > he even know he is so de-sensitized? > > Not reading the posts of those who have him in their > crosshairs (I'm not the only one by any means; you've > just demonstrated that) is a fairly recent strategy. > Up until a couple of years ago (I first ran into him > on the Usenet newsgroup alt.meditation.transcendental > back in 1994), he did engage with people who disagreed > with or criticized him. That leads me to believe that > he was more sensitized than was comfortable for him, > and he ultimately withdrew to his present posture so > he wouldn't have to deal with the discomfort. > > Thing is, even then he wasn't very good at debate, > which was likely a major factor in his discomfort. > Whether he's aware of this dynamic or has convinced > himself of the rationalizations for his withdrawal > that he's trumpeted here--he doesn't read certain > people's posts, including mine, because we don't > have anything interesting to say, e.g.--I'm not sure. > He apparently doesn't realize how transparent his > motivations are, though. Just on the basis of his > posts, he has less self-knowledge than just about > anyone I've ever encountered. > You really waxed Barry big-time, this time, Judy.
Good work!
