Robin,
I love you too---more on that later. I need to run, Jody is here visiting Mel. Is it just me or does Jody remind you of Annie? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CjBgIe9WkE&feature=fvst ________________________________ From: maskedzebra <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:39:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Excuses for avoiding liberation? [was Re: Blissy vs. Happy] Dear Bob, My feelings about "Turqo" are not influenced by anyone else's. That Judy's comments converge with my own (to a certain extent) is an accident. If she were defending your friend as intensely as she criticizes him, that would make no difference to me. I have an *experience* of your friend, and that experience is true to my soul. Your own regard for him does not go to where the problem is (for me). I have nothing but a totally positive orientation to this person. However, he sticks people in the eye with his—this is largely unconscious—cruel and sneering comments, and this, always, for me, reacts back upon him (seen sub specie aeternitatis). He is so shockingly non-objective *about his own self* that I can only understand his hostility as entirely innocent (innocent because of this incapacity to see himself as he really is). Now either your friend is playing a game (Andy Kaufman-like), or else he is genuinely alienated from a normal (and *living*) perspective on himself. There can be no other conclusion, Bob—I won't even attempt to prove my point. I assure you, I have not gone the route of logic or argument or confrontation: there he would be dead in the water. With the criteria I am applying to the reading of this situation, Bob, I am comprehending what your friend is doing—psychologically, and even metaphysically. And I won't respond to the taunt to prove this. Where I am coming from in my approach to your friend, it is equable, flexible, versatile,—and even loving. He just doesn't get it. And to repeat: I don't fault him in this. But he is, no matter what you say in his defence (and if *you* attempt a defence of him, then I *will* subject this issue to the analysis which in some ultimate form of determination of truth it deserves), obnoxious and ill-humoured—in the extreme. If you know another side of him, then I am very disappointed that you are unable to draw this out from him. From his posts to yourself it does not seem he believes you possess any kind of credibility that is germane to this issue of him and his imagined critics (obsessed as they are with him: "attention vampires"). As for Judy, without knowing much about her other than what I have read since I came on FFL (and yes, there have been lacunae in my reading of FFL, so I missed whatever you are referring to below), I find (like your wife does, according to some earlier post of yours) her to be the most objective and disinterested writer on FFL. When I track her analyses of your friend, I am sensitive to the least sign of subjective first person bias. I find none. This does not mean (of course) that Judy is beyond criticism herself—I don't know her at all. But one thing that is established: she has the upper hand intellectually, morally, and aesthetically, when it comes to your friend. He is a beaten man here, Bob. Now should you directly attempt to mount a defence of your friend—inside the context of our nascent friendship—then I will get down on all fours and take full responsibility for what I have said by way of mocking your friend. I will substantiate my thesis. Until that happens, I have said all that needs to be said. Your friend needs to be shocked—and it would take all the energy of Rick's 10,000 galaxies to do this, I'm afraid—that, or 'God' when your friend finally has to face the music—out of his terrible and tragic self-stasis. Bob, baby, your friend is held in a kind of terrible self-intertia. He is not alive to the experience of himself. Period. Now as for bringing Curtis into this, let me state something of critical importance: I think of Curtis as the most sensitive and intelligent and discerning human being writing on FFL. But, strange as it seems, I have the feeling that what I must guard beyond all else is the privacy of himself. Curtis is a universe unto himself. This can be an extraordinarily positive thing; but it also carries with it a certain prohibition. For me—in some functional sense—it amounts to honouring what is inviolably individualistic about him. Curtis, the real person, I cannot finally touch, or even know. God (if we can speak figuratively) won't let me. And you see, I must respect this. So, I would never take some event from the past (which purportedly might alter my perspective on your friend) so as to somehow be faced with reconciling contradictory data about your friend [my present opinion versus the possibly a dissonant implication from some previous exchange between two other persons]. Judy, Curtis, even yourself, cannot alter my perception of what is going on with your friend. Of course I am always conscientiously open to have my perception adjusted, defeated, superseded by subsequent experience—or argument. But you will have bring this contingency into being yourself, Bob. On your own. And if you do, well then, I look forward to testing it against my present prejudice. There is some kind of mystical (in the non-pejorative use of that word: I tend to use it, these days anyway, in a negatively connotative way—see Curtis's take-down of Tat Wale Baba) friendliness between us—I doubt it has anything to do with what either of us have said to each other. It is more or less there in the background noise of the universe. It puts me in the mind of what I believe to be the simple intelligence of loving goodness behind this whole creation. [Definitely not a CDB thought *there*]. I just find that I feel positive about you—but, as I say, this is not something I could derive necessarily from anything you have written so far. It just happens to come along with you. Yes, that's the bottom line for me, Bob: there is a somewhat angelic vibration coming off of you, and I find it of the good kind, rather than the bad kind. Robin ***Normally I avoid conflict unless there’s money in it. That said, Mel somehow got into my account and has stated in his very strongest William Wallace voice that being called an anti-semite is one thing, but being called a coward must not be allowed to stand (I’ll get back to you on some good news from Mel----vis a vis you and Jody). Frankly, I’d much rather be called a coward than an anti semite, but who can argue with $800 Million. For starters, I’m as committed to our commercial endeavours as I’ve ever been so your happiness is what gets me up in the morning (more on that later). I think I could scare up a few thoughts on Judy’s thoughts on Turqo, but before I do can I trouble you for your thoughts on a previous exchange the Commish and Curtis had during your absence? Fair is fair, and although I know you’re recent collaboration with Judy has nothing to do with the Turqo’s, at times, excessive checking (not to forget you are from the true north) of your person, there are some other posters that feel since Curtis has intelligently stayed out of this post (I’m sure the man is in Unity and is just too polite to make us feel small) and his and the Commish’s rather lengthy exchange might better demonstrate your neutrality and insight? What do you say, let’s have some fun---oh illustrious friend---and I promise to share my thoughts on Judy’s thoughts on Barry’s behaviour. And to be a sport I leave you with peek into my thoughts on Judy’s thoughts: I’ve often wondered why the Commish refers to the lovely Sally Sunshine as “Stupidâ€�. My theory (likely this says more about me than the Commish) is that either Sal is drop dead gorgeous or a Republican? What do you think?
