Some thoughts, not arguments or siding with this or that view. More for my own insights and playful viewing of things.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Dear Barry Wright, > > If you can ever get Curtis to admit that he is, in relationship to myself, > acting the part of Mother Theresa, or if he, in his response to my latest > post, gives *any* indication that this could possibly be the case, I shall > cease posting at FFL. For what you say in this post to be true means the > refutation and destruction of my entire philosophy. Is that a bad thing. Not your philosophy per se, but anyone's, all of ours. It seems healthy, even necessary, (in the abstract, easier said than done)to periodically come to new insights and realizations that enable one to rather joyfully refute, destroy and abandon ones prior views (and meta-views which may be another way of getting at the term philosophies). > Since I take as an original premise the idea that I can read more or less the > motives of others when they write to myself. And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way. >So, I am declaring then, Barry, that everything you say in this post is false Everything? Absolutely everything? There is no grey, no nuance, no alternative views, no other possibilities? Its all black and white -- you are absolutely right and he is absolutely wrong, without qualification? > (I assume it is basically false as well with respect to the other persons who > you categorize as being ministered to by the missionary charity of Curtis; > but I don't profess to know this for a dead certainty). Let's put it this > way, Barry: You are saying Curtis is writing to me for reasons which directly > contradict what he formally professes are his reasons. Not referencing Curtis per se, but is it a real stunner that sometimes people are not aware of the full basis and root of their motivations? Are you absolutely in tune with and understand to the depth of your own existence, clear on all of the myriad of motivations typically driving any actions or behaviors? And if you answer yes, how would you really know that. It seems all of us are blind to our delusions and blindspots -- else they would not be blind spots. If your premise is that you have absolutely no blind spots, well, that's fascinating. But again, how would you know? >Am I to believe you and believe him to be lying to me? I have conducted an >offline correspondence with Curtis, and our interactions within this context >would make of Curtis, should you be right in what you say actuates his writing >to me, a psychopathic monster. Girlfriends I am sure have called him worse. > I will simply say, Barry, you are as inherently wrong about your > characterization of Curtis, as I am objectively right in my attribution of > his motives in writing to me, "Me absolutely right, you absolutely wrong." That is an interesting pattern in your writing and expressed views (as it is in some others at times). > viz, that he is utterly sincere and engaged with all his mind and heart. All? No more room for uncovering deeper levels of mind and heart that he has not yet fathomed? Curtis is at the end of his road developmentally? >And I let this declaration stand: unless Curtis gainsays what I have said >hereor even qualifies it in any wayI will assume that I am right and you, >terribly, perversely wrong. Black and white, day and night. (Though I suppose "Day for Night" might be closer to the truth. That is, for most people, not all things are as the appear to be. Most people accept this, humbly, and practically.) > You have never once even attempted to make your case, and you haven't here > either. Again, Barry, I challenge Curtis: Is Curtis so slow he needs to be challenged twice? >if he refuses to issue any kind of statement in supporteven infinitesimally Even infinitesimally? Not room for even one photon of variance (or in Curtis's case, deviance -- the thrill and nuances of deviance appears to be something, as we all perhaps should enjoy, that Curtis thrives on. Quirky and dancing to the sound of his own drummer. >of what you have said are his reasons for writing to me, I will assume, for >the record, that you are, at least with respect to myself, egregiously wrong. Egregious. No room for any subtlety or nuance. >And that Curtis knows you to be a false witness to his actions. String this savage up for bearing false witness. >If I had the very slightest doubt Awesome that you have not here, and appear never to have, the slightest doubt. A mentor, quite bright, has said many times "I don't know". Not in some casual way, but really "I DON"T KNOW!". That state of detachment for me can be liberating, if not unsettling at times. Some traditions (EmptyBill can elaborate) find that state of utter detachment from not knowing anything for sure is on the verge of wisdom. >about all that I have said here, Barry, I would stop posting at FFL and >personally thank you for performing a service that no one else has been able >to perform for me: demonstrating that I am, when it really comes down to it, a >neurotic human being who seeks the attention of others because of the >shallowness of his soul. This is not a jab, but do you think that there might be at lease one small grain (albeit that is all of course) of neurotic behavior in your life, and that there might be one small elementary particle in your life that has sought the attention from others? > > By the way, I refuse to let anyone compensate for me. Do you get this, Barry? > Think about that. > > Robin > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Rick Archer wrote: > > > > > > > > > Robin is having trouble posting this, so I'm doing it for him: > > > > > > > > Maybe his email program is bored out of its > > > > mind by his mind-numbingly > > > > long-winded posts, and has decided to rebel. > > > > > > Hey Sal, > > > > > > I have to take part of the credit or blame for the length > > > since I produced my half of it. And I can certainly see > > > how from the outside this beast is just too much to bear! > > > Seriously. But I defend the charge that Robin is just > > > sending out monologues to strangers here. > > > > > > This is one of the most interesting discussions I have > > > engaged in here. And unfortunately it took a lot of words > > > to suss out some key points of interest to both Robin and > > > me. The driving force behind this exchange is a genuine > > > interest in understanding each other's process for > > > approaching reality. Because it engages our complete > > > philosophies, it requires a lot of words. What we are > > > attempting is not simple. And of course any conversation > > > with me is going to be lengthened by whatever improv comedy > > > strikes me as I write, so there we tack on even more. > > > > > > I am not making a case that this should be of interest to > > > anyone else. I am just owning my part in it. > > > > I, too, thank Curtis for his explanation. I do not > > share his fascination with either the people he gets > > into long-winded discussions with, or with any of > > their ideas, but it's probably good that someone does. > > > > As much as I love Curtis, sometimes I see him as the > > Patron Saint Of The Terminally Self Important. As such, > > he is pretty much the polar opposite of myself. When I > > encounter someone on the Internet who combines an over- > > weaning sense of their own self importance with an > > almost pathological need to use as many words as humanly > > possible to convince others of that importance, all > > while coming up with a near-absolute dearth of creative > > ideas (or even original ideas), I tend to react to them > > the way Dogbert does in the cartoon I posted recently, > > by waving my paw at them and saying "Bah." > > > > Curtis *engages* them. Like the saint he is, he reacts > > to the nothing they say by either pretending it's some- > > thing or (more likely) as if he's actually able to find > > something interesting in it. As such, he has become in > > a way the "therapist to the stars," or at least those > > who are legends in their own minds and convinced that > > they *are* stars. > > > > Whereas few others consider Robin or Judy or Ravi or > > Jim interesting enough to even *read*, Curtis not only > > reads their stuff but replies to it as if it actually > > deserved a reply. He meets nitpick with nitpick, self- > > obsession with "I can understand why you're obsessed > > with that," tirade with humor. I admire his compassion > > and his patience in doing this; it is a skill that I > > lack. Since I honestly don't think that I've ever seen > > an original or creative idea emanate from ANY of the > > people I mentioned, it is very difficult for me to > > pretend that I have. It's much easier -- and a far > > better use of my time -- to wave my paw at them and > > say "Bah" than it is to get into their obsessions with > > them. Curtis feels otherwise, and thus provides these > > oh-so-needy people with the attention that they so > > desperately seek. > > > > It's like he's the Mother Teresa of the Internet. > > Whereas some encounter a leper trying to show off his > > sores and turn away, Curtis says, "Wow...that's really > > a good one. Just LOOK at the pus oozing from that one," > > and allows them to feel good about themselves, as if > > there were at least one person out there in cyberspace > > who feels that they're interesting enough to deal with. > > > > It is thus IMO a form of selfless service, and I commend > > him for it. I may not read it, even though I know that > > this may deprive me of glimpses of his awesome humor, > > but I think it's neat that he does it. > > > > > > The average post here is > > > > maybe 5-10 Kbs, this one alone is 125. While > > > > this might be his longest to date, it's hardly > > > > an aberration. I don't get it. Too bad > > > > MDG is no longer here to explain how and why > > > > someone would take the trouble, day after day, > > > > to write these endless monologues to a bunch of almost > > > > complete strangers. > > > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > > > > >
