Hey Robin:
On Dec 1, 2011, at 2:20 PM, maskedzebra wrote:
RESPONSE: Ah, I think you may have touched a nerve here, Vaj.
Finally. If you are referring to Gary (and I hardly think it could
be anyone else), then, yes, Gary was a faithful and generous person
when it came to my seminars—I recall especially meeting with him
and Marilynn in a Manhattan hotel after giving a seminar: that was
our best contact ever.
No, it wasn't. If I was I would have given some indication.
When I went to extremes and started to turn on those I loved most—
and then went over to the Catholic Church—Gary was nonplussed and
felt betrayed—a very natural and appropriate response. He came to
DC to attempt to resolve the issue of this destabilization of his
world—based upon the breakup of the whole Robin Carlsen enterprise.
He came armed with my astrology chart—as if in reading this to me
he could get closure on this whole business by proving that my
chart explained me. I resisted (as you know). I wish I could have
been as unconfused and coherent—in some profound sense—as I feel
that I am now in comparison to what I was then. And I ask you to
pass on my sincere best wishes to Gary and his family. I have
nothing but the most positive memories of him and Marilynn. Good
people. I know there are others who, as you say are "carrying" "the
sense of woundedness". I wounded others; I wounded myself. But it
is a very complex story and neither Gary's experience nor mine will
be the last word on all this.
Yours, maybe.
>
> > In the metaphorical sense, then (since we are talking about a
post-
> > Monte Cassino universe) I was a great sinner. But you see, Vaj, I
> > have spent so many hours explaining this before and after Unity
> > Consciousness business, I am surprised that in posting what you
> > have posted—causing some salivating in Amsterdam—you have tacitly
> > implied that I would wish to defend my past from any criticism,
and
> > that there is a real continuum of my beliefs and actions
stretching
> > from 1983 to 2011. This is a misrepresentation of not only the
> > facts, it is a misrepresentation of my entire philosophy of life.
> >
>
Vaj: I don't believe I am implying any such thing. But I do
understand you
> may be extra sensitive on some of these issues. I would expect that
> you'd at least be in some penitential mode to the point where you
> were relieved of your own sense of dread.
RESPONSE: Apart from attempting to provide some evidence for your
claim to know me, what, pray tell, was the purpose of posting that
photo?
You guessed correctly the first time. I had to pick from several
others and the other contender, from a private party, has you in the
center on a hastily constructed throne, but also, perfectly poised
and in crystal clear focus was your former attorney, VMc.
It seemed harmless enough; but once you started commenting on the
psychological state of the persons in the photo, once you began to
interact with Barry, once you brought in names of persons who now
have nothing to do with me, you were, surely you were, Vaj, linking
my recent posts to myself in my past life such as to take something
off the sting of my demand that you tell the truth.
Well I was trying to place the picture in context. I feel it is
important to convey an objective context of the situation. Now
thinking back on it, that might have been the painting of SBS you
were holding, no?
Now don't try to psychologize me; you are a neophyte in this realm.
And you still evince not a inkling of understanding or intuition
such as to make me even consider you have any idea of the person
that I am—or even the person that I was. It is all this Walter
Mitty thing again—but in this instance, with a sense of revenging
yourself.
<sigh>.
