--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > And I thought I was going to have a few days off from this place. > [comments in text] > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > [Comments in text] > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > I find it fascinating that you focus on my purported > > > > emotional projections onto Barry, while completely > > > > ignoring Barry's own tendency to project. > > > > > > I was posting via a post you had written, and to give what > > > I wanted to say some kind of point of view, that seemed to > > > me to be the point of view to take. Barry obviously does > > > mention others in his posts and makes comments about them. > > > Don't feel like you have been picked out for persecution. > > > If 10 vehicles are going 75 in a 50 miles per hour zone > > > and one gets ticketed out of the group for speeding and > > > the other get off free, it might just be the fall of the > > > dice. > > > > Ah, I see, you claim to be a cop qualified to discern > > who is guilty of infractions and hand out tickets. But > > you seem to be carrying around a loaded pair of dice, > > because this is hardly the only time you've singled me > > out. > > First of all I was responding to a post you had written. > I was questioning some of the things you said in the post.
As you've done before several times. > I am not a cop. You were and are and have been playing that role. You did not choose that analogy by accident, although the intention may have been subconscious. <snip> > > Look, Xeno, I could not possibly be less interested in > > taking enlightenment lessons from you. > > You do not have to take anything from me. You can ignore me. I have been ignoring your attempts to give me enlightenment lessons. I'm a little surprised you haven't noticed. <snip> > > If you want to > > engage me in the realm of duality, you will (a) come > > down from the mountain; > > I am not on a mountain. I am just an ordinary person. You give a very good impression of being on a mountain. You write as if you were on a mountain. > I > am almost on ground level; there seems to bit a bit of > wood and concrete just below me though. Why is it you > have fashioned this as a command? You seem to have overlooked the phrase that began my sentence. > (b) observe duality's rules of fair play; > > I was not aware that duality had rules of fair play. It does, by general consensus. They've even been formalized to some extent. <snip> > Duality is what I presume (correctly presume I hope) is what > we are trying to get away from on this forum. I believe you presume incorrectly. <snip> > > and (c) not retreat back up the mountain to > > avoid dealing with the issues you've raised. Otherwise, > > I don't recognize your authority to hand out tickets. > > As I said, I did not hand out any tickets. You have not > been cited. Yes, you did, and I have been. More than once. <snip> > > > So, do you feel you project your inner feelings and musings > > > and ideas onto others as you discuss them, or do you feel > > > you do not do this? > > > > Not anywhere near as much as you imagine. > > I am not sure how much I imagine about this You imagine enough about it to have spoken up. <snip> > > I might point out that some of us here have had much > > longer experience with Barry than you have. He can be > > very impressive at first blush because of his skill > > with words, but ultimately that skill fails to hide a > > barrenness and lack of authenticity, as well as a > > profoundly malicious hostility toward most other people. > > Yes, Barry is skilful, and I have experienced what I would > call hostility from him, but I do not regard him as malignant. > There are things in this world that we call malignant, cancer > for example, but all these things are natural occurrences that > have their range and course of action. Says Xeno, scampering hastily back up the mountain. <snip> > > > As far as I can see, Barry conserves his energy for what > > > he likes to do. > > > > Which is, mostly, putting down other people. > > There are many passages in his writing that I would call ad > hominem attacks. He points out that others are making ad > hominem attacks. Or not. I repeat that most of what he writes involves putting down other people. If he's conserving his energy for what he likes to do, that's what he uses it for. <snip> > Now in my own estimation, my own projection of my inner world, > Barry has said some very unkind things to people on this > forum in the past. I may be mistaken in the following, but is > there a trend in which he is becoming less specific in his > criticisms? He is not naming specific people, but leaving > blanks, so to speak, in which one can fill in a name or two. Yes, that's by design. Two main reasons: First, it allows him to put people down with apparently nonspecific criticisms that are designed to refer recognizably to individuals without having to use their names. But since he doesn't use names, he then has plausible deniability as to the person he was referring to. (For some value of the word "plausible.") IOW, he can pretend he wasn't talking about anybody in specific. Second, he has a longstanding habit of doing searches of the archives for the number of mentions of his name in my posts versus the number of mentions of my name in his posts to prove that I am "obsessed" with him. He realized at some point that he could reduce his own totals by not using my name in his posts attacking me. > Our inner worlds of thought and concept, with their back > histories, and our natural tendency to completion, have an > impulse to respond by filling in those blanks. Logically > the gap is a blank Not so blank, actually, when identical or very similar phrases and characterizations have been used in the past attached to a specific name. <snip> > > > If he does not engage in an argument, perhaps he knows > > > this, perhaps not, but he is saving himself a lot of work > > > by not engaging. > > > > And some of us see this as lazy and/or fearful. Again, > > if one is going to hand out tickets, one has to be > > prepared to defend them in court. > > No tickets have been issued. The docket is clear. Nope, you've been issuing tickets almost since you got here. > > But that excuse for not engaging doesn't hold water in > > any case, because he has enormous amounts of energy > > invested in fantasizing about his critics--not just > > about their inner lives but about factual elements of > > their behaviour and what they've said. <snip> > Judy, you have a very linear logical, mind. This is a great > asset. If Barry's writing involves fantasising (as you point > out), then we can conclude he is being analogical rather > than logical, he is creating illustrations of the point he > trying to make, so factual fidelity is a casualty If asked, he would probably take the out you've offered, but he doesn't present his false accusations as analogies, he presents them as factual. So no, I don't think we can conclude he's being analogical. I think we can conclude he's being deceptive or is deluded. <snip> > > Those are just two of the very recent examples. His > > history of making stuff up about his critics is very, > > very long and very, very extensive (and very, very > > well documented). This is, in fact, one of the main > > reasons he no longer responds to criticism of his > > posts, because he's found trying to defend his > > falsehoods ends up doing him far more harm than good. > > If you accept that Barry is writing fiction, why bother > to correct it in an attempt to conform with factual truth? To point out that he's writing fiction while pretending it's factual, of course. > > Whether he *believes* what he says is always a > > question. It's never been clear whether he's a chronic > > liar or simply desperately self-deluded, but either > > way, it's a tremendous amount of mental and emotional > > labor to construct and maintain those demonstrably > > false views in the face of reality (not "Reality," but > > on-the-record, ordinary factual reality). It does seem > > to be the only way he knows to preserve his self-image. > > You are creating a false dichotomy here. He is either a > chronic liar or simply desperately self-deluded. There > are other possibilities. Yes, could be a mixture. And sometimes he says things that aren't true because he's too lazy to check first, or because he hasn't been paying attention. > Also if you are self-deluded, you do not necessarily have > to be desperate. "Desperately" above is an intensifier meaning "extremely." Check Mr. Dictionary. > All fiction writers are chronic liars, but we generally > do not appreciate them that way. We appreciate them for > their ability to make up stuff, and to express it in an > admirable way. Right, when they've acknowledged what they're writing is fiction. When they haven't and present it as fact, we call them liars or self-deluded. > Because you respond to Barry's writing, and because you seem > to be a specified subject in it, either directly or veiled, > you must be getting some value out of it; what is in it for > you, to persist in this battle with him? If his writing > attacks you, must you respond to safe face? No, I respond to point out that he is a chronic teller of falsehoods, deliberately or because he's deluded. (And not just about me by any means.) That limits, to some extent, the amount of damage he can cause. <snip> > Now regarding enlightenment, am I correct in saying that > while you deal with factual information in your posts, you > do not seem to discuss enlightenment much in your posts? Depends entirely on what conversations are going on. > Enlightenment is about as non factual a subject that one > could discuss. There is much written about enlightenment, > but do any real facts exist? Any bullet-proof definitions? > It would seem to be the height of subjectivity. Why are > you here? I don't understand the question. Why would the subjectivity of enlightenment cause you to question why I'm here? Seems like a total non sequitur. I note that you've ignored my point about the amount of energy it takes for Barry to create and maintain fantasies (whether deliberate or because of delusion).
