Thank you for your thoughts. I realize that a quick early morning drive by from a stranger may lack a bit of context. Perhaps I can expand on that a bit. I was not arguing with you nor finding fault in your position. And not judging you, which was a concern in one of your responses. I was fascinated in what I perceived to be the dichotomous nature of your views, a la, this or that, no middle ground. However, my quick take was solely on your response to Turq.
I do not have the context of your other writings. (To be honest, I have not read many of your posts, and this is a personal preference only, not an evaluative comment, because for me your writing style has a density level outside of the range of my efficient (or comfortable) intake of ideas and concepts.) Thus I am quite aware that I may have picked up a flavor that was not present. And confirmational bias can always slip in -- having an initial concept/framework, an initial hypothesis, and then "seeing" how subsequent perceptions support the hypothesis (out of whack to the fuller context.) That said, I was drawn into the flavor of your comments, and fascinated enough to respond (albeit in rapid, casual, non-edited, not well considered early morning way). And anything I saw in them, or anything for that matter, are first and foremost the projections of my own mind. I assume I was drawn to them, as I perceived it, the non-nunance, absoluteness of your statements, because such exists with me -- though frankly, not consciously (perhaps a personal blind spot). My style is to work with such "takes" of mine, explore them, come to understand them better, first and foremost to loosen up any such quirks within my self, to sensitize myself to the possibility that I do at times precisely what I am finding odd in others. (And to clarify, I am not evaluating you as odd, I am evaluating the oddness (after all its my perception) of my own mindstate. I try to do such in playful ways. (My quip about Curtis' gfs saying worse about him was a joke, which at least in my mind's eye I could see Curtis chuckling about, though my sensitivities may be way of base.) Sometimes such may come across quite focused and serious sounding, when not intended. Your comments, and I admit that I have not fully digested them, provide stimuli for more reflection and hopefully insight. If some strike me as interesting discussion, perhaps we can extend the dialogue. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > Re: Conversation between Curtis & Robin > > 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, > > MZ: 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. > > TB: 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). > > RC2: I understand you perfectly here. And of course I would rejoice in having > my philosophy destroyedif I could experience it was being destroyed by > something truer than itself. But to merely, abstractly, assume this perpetual > contingency is a good thing to contemplate would mean that in holding to the > validity of one's philosophy (it works for me) I am living it out with > reservations, reservations which would inhibit my existential commitments to > what is real. I think you misunderstand me here, as if I am saying: It will > be the death of me if I am refuted. Not at all. I can both live and adhere to > my philosophy as if it is ultimately real without thereby becoming defensive > and irrational should it be challenged. You are drawing a conclusion out of > what I say which is not in the least implied by the specific way in which I > am writing hereand what I seek to convey. > > MZ: 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. > > TB: And how would you know? For sure? In some epistemologically valid way. > > RC2: How does a clinical psychologist attempt to talk to a patient who is > paying him for psychotherapyor a psychoanalyst to an analysand? I am not > making the claim that I *infallibly* understand (or "read") the motives of > others when they write to me; I am only saying, that in some subjective > sense, I have the ability to go quite a ways in that direction, enough so, > that I can use my perception of motive as part of the arsenal I bring to the > debate. Now I believe I was wrong in some very subtle sense about Curtis, and > you can see how I have made amends for this in my latest post (directed to > him). There could be, except for God (who possesses what Linda Zagzebski > refers to as Omnisubjectivity: "the property of consciously grasping with > perfect accuracy and completeness the first-person perspective of every > conscious being. . . this property explains how an omniscient being is able > to distinguish between first person and third person knowledge of the same > fact, and it explains how an omniscient being is able to know what it is like > for conscious creatures to have their distinctive sensations and emotions, > minds, and attitudes."), no created person who could decode perfectly the > subjective experience of another person. That is intrinsically a private > matterand science will never (as a Mysterian, this is what I believe) find > the neurophysiological correlates to qualia. First person ontology is that > element within creation which, by the very nature of itself, asks something > of us that goes beyond scienceCurtis's POV notwithstanding. > > But if there is a being in the universe (God) who does see and understand > perfectly what goes on inside our first person ontology (which is never > repeated in any other human being, past, present, or future), then it becomes > possible to conceive, just as in a third person perspective, the > *possibility* of participating in this knowledge that only God has. > Participating here might mean (and I believe it does in my case) sensing the > motives of others when they write to myself *to the extent to which, at > least, my interpretation is valid". "In some epistemologically valid way"? > Well, I suppose in some relative sense this actually is true, which is a > different kind of process from what the psychotherapist is doing, or the > psychiatrist. He is using psychology to penetrate to the meaning of an > individual's psyche. I hold out the possibility that there is an intuitive > realm of apperception that transcends this purely psychological dimension, > and exists because of the fact there there is a knowingness going on > somewhere which perfectly grasps the first person perspective of that very > person with whom I am interactingI, as it were, draw upon this > inspirationwith, I suppose, God's grace. But of course I am as likely to be > wrong as the next person; and I have been very very wrong about many persons. > Still, there is light there, and for me to have mistaken, in this concrete > instance, the motives of Curtis in writing to me such as to not see that his > motives accorded with what Barry insists they are, would be a rather fatal > and even cataclysmic error of judgment. I have spent so many hours reading > and responding to Curtis; all within the indefectible sense of his motive as > being incompatible with everything that Barry says in his post (Mother > Theresa). > > The knowing is in the proof of what happens when one attributes a certain > motive to someone and acts upon the veracity of that assumed motive. I think > I was proven right about Curtis; I think Barry out of his mind is saying what > he said as it applies to myself. > > MZ: So, I am declaring then, Barry, that everything you say in this post is > false > > TB: 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? > > RC2: Hold it here, tartbrain: You are not arguing with me on the basis of the > discrete and specific point Barry is making. He is saying that something is > wet; I am saying it is dry. In the case of Curtis and Robin, it is an all or > nothing proposition, and you will understand this is the case if you have > read our exchange of posts. Either Curtis is all in and fighting for his > life, and I am all in and fighting for my life, or the whole thing is a > crock. No, in *this particular* instance, it happens to come down to one way > or the other. You are abstracting the issue out of its instantiated > concreteness. From this perspective, of course, there could be, there likely > would be, "nuance, alternative views", "other possibilities", > "qualifications". But Barry has a personal animus against me which militates > against any objectivity, or rather is incompatible with that necessary > disinterestedness which would confer upon his judgments the semblance of > truth. When Barry says something about me which I feel *comes from his real > experience*, I will feel this, and then all of what you say will perhaps > enter into the equation. > > MZ: (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. > > TB: 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? > > RC2: Well, tartbrain, what do you think I am going to say to all this? That I > *am* "absolutely in tune with and understand to the depth of [my] own > existence, clear on all the myriad of motivations typically driving any > actions or behaviors?"I submit to you that this conclusion is not at all > warranted in a fair reading of my response to Barry. You must surely > understand that I am employing irony and subterfuge here; I am arguing after > all with someone who has never once addressed me personally, nor has ever > addressed a single one of arguments. Of course I am provocative and extreme > in what I say; if he would talk to me in the persona of who he really is as a > human being, then you would find, quite automatically, I would drop the > sarcasm, and we would see how the mitigation of my uncompromising position > played out. Again, you are taking things that I have said inside a rather > complex psychological circumstance, and judging me by what I say there as if > I am trying to say I am in contact with the Platonic forms of the real. I > only know one thing: God's omnisubjectivity holds out the possibility that > each of us can, at least in theory, know something about the inner first > person ontology of a given person simply on the basis that there is a > consciousness which possesses this perfect knowingness. Believe me, I have my > blind spotsI almost encounter the evidence of this every day of my life. > Especially around persons who, in some respects, see me more accurately than > I see myself. > > MZ: 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. > > TB: Girlfriends I am sure have called him worse. > > RC2: Does this originate in personal knowledge? Let's the dirt on Curtis. > There are former girlfriends who are theists [not evidently his current GF], > I suppose, and resented his scientism when it came to love-makingor > cookingor ventriloquismor the bluesor animal whispering? Former GFs who > have called him worse than a "psychopathic monster"? I need to know this in > order to get some more people on my side of the argument. No, Curtis, > whatever he is, is authentic and sincereand bloody goddamn intelligent. This > is enough for me. He ain't lying about why we correspond. And if he is, why > then I plan to look up all those former GFs and enlist their aid in my > attempts to make him come clean. We shall surely blacken his namerub him out > as one of the Elect. > > MZ: 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, > > TB: "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). > > RC2: Hey, tartbrain, lighten up. This is rhetorically necessary within the > subjective (first person ontological) context within which this controversy > is going on. If he is going to say Curtis is acting under the motive of > compassion and empathy in his long posts to Robin, then Curtis has traduced > himself fatally. He can't be doing this; ergo, I am absolutely right and > Barry is absolutely wrong. And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, > Curtis would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants to cover off for > Barry, and he will only tacitly indicate that I am not far wrong in what I > have said.) Again, tartbrain, you are making of me an example based upon my > having said something *inside the movement and energy and specificity of a > particular dramatic moment in time*. See the difference? I am not, making > some philosophical point inside the the white radiance of eternity. > > MZ: viz, that he is utterly sincere and engaged with all his mind and heart. > > TB: 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? > > RC2: I am not attempting to be precisely scientific here, tartbrain. I am > speaking as a human being. As you would saying to your girlfriend: " I love > you". Without meaning you were overlooking "deeper levels of mind and heart > that you had not yet fathomed"re: her, re: yourself. I would not normally > say this about almost anyone else, but with Curtis, I think it holdsand if > you review our posts from the beginning I think a strong case can be made > that, insofar as his subjectivity is entailed in this exercise, he is > "utterly sincere and engaged with all his mind and heart". Maybe he was not. > But to the extent to which he acted in good faith with me, this description > is true and what Barry says is false. > > MZ: 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. > > TB: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.) > > RC2: Now don't go platitudinous on me, tartbrain. It's Night and Day for me > with Barry, OK? Temporarily, under the circumstances, under the exigent > necessity of challenging his insolence, his carelessness, his hostility. When > Barry decides to lighten up, I will too, then we can get back to "the humble > and the practical." "For most people, not all things are as they appear to > be." Yes, I have seen a stick appear to be bent under the water. Barry > appears to be bent under the waterbut until he unbends himself, I will > continue to see him as I wish to and *must* see him. No doubt Barry is *not* > as I depict him in my posts. But you see, tartbrain, *I am responding to > Barry inside a certain context" which is determined by his very imprecise and > inapposite remarks about my posts. If he reveals his reasons for his > crankiness, perhaps then I can take him seriously. But I can't take him > seriously now, because he is throwing rocks and not standing still after he > has done this so I can see him. Does anyone (other than Sal and a few others > *understand* the basis of his grievance with me in a way which compares to > the commitment I have made to make my motives clear in all those lengthy > posts?) I am simply being more sincere than Barry is, tartbraineven in my > ironical rejoinders. Who knows, maybe you and Barry can get together and take > me out to the woodshed. But you first have to come up with some specific > sensation of truth. Felt, understood, and then expressed. > > MZ: You have never once even attempted to make your case, and you haven't here > either. Again, Barry, I challenge Curtis: > > TB: Is Curtis so slow he needs to be challenged twice? > > RC2: Picayune. > > MZ: if he refuses to issue any kind of statement in supporteven > infinitesimally > > TB: 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. > > RC2: OK, tartbrain: you win: get Curtis to weigh in on all this. If he ends > up saying something that you believe warrants your concluding that he agrees > with you in the substance of what you are after me about here, then I stand > corrected. But first you have to do this. You evidently know Curtis a lot > better than I do. But I believe Curtis understands *me* better than you > understand Curtis. > > MZ: 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. > > TB: Egregious. No room for any subtlety or nuance. > > RC2: No, the subtlety and nuance in all in the lack of subtlety and nuance. > Think about that one, tartbrain. > > MZ: And that Curtis knows you to be a false witness to his actions. > > TB: String this savage up for bearing false witness. > > RC2: He is not maliciously bearing false witness of course. I don't hold him > in violation of the Mosaic law here. But to the extent that he pretends to > speak for Curtis*and the extent to which in doing so he is misrepresenting > Curtis*yes, by all means, string him up. Oops! I meanget this, please, > tartbrain *figuratively*. I am not quite ready to give him the condign Rick > Perry treatment. > > MZ: If I had the very slightest doubt > > TB: 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. > > RC2: The really sublime "not knowing" is the kind of experience Socrates had, > when he was supernaturally informed that *he did not know*; he knew, just > like Paul did that Christ was the Son of God, that he, Socrates, *was > ignorant*. That is a special kind of knowledge, to be aware of what are the > conditions that obtain which would demonstrateto one's first person > ontologyHey, I am *certain*, infallibly certain, I am in a state of not > knowing. I have, you will never believe this, tartbrain, actually known this > state of mind and consciousness a few times in my life. But *not when it > comes to Barry*! There I am omniscient, or rather omnisubjective. > > MZ: 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. > > TB: 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? > > RC2: Maybe 1 elementary particle. No more. I am sure of it. Trust me on this, > tarbrain. > > > MZ: By the way, I refuse to let anyone compensate for me. Do you get this, > Barry? > Think about that. > > RC2: Good one, Robin. > > > Robin >
