Thanks for your reply. I don't really have time for a lengthy response. Regarding Judy. I'm not happy she posted out. It's just that if anyone would seem to appreciate having more posts available in a week, it would be Judy. And here she is seemingly thankful that she has no additional posts. That is the point I was trying to make. I'll think about the other comments you made. It's always nice to hear from you.
Thinking about the term, "having a blast". I've been reflecting on that. Perhaps it wasn't the best phrase to use. On the other hand, I'm not able to attempt Ravi's psychology or state of mind as you are. And I always find your insights interesting. I relate in that we both seem to use the faculty of intution to find our way thorugh the world. Oh, and yea, I always like to hear from Edg. At the risk of sounding arrogant, sometimes he comes across to me as the most enlightened person I might ever have meant. Especially when he first came on the scene. And then sometimes he seems so full of rage and anger that you just want to stay far away. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > Steve: You got it all wrong Robby. We're having a blast. We haven't had this much fun since the last time Ravi had an........emotion. You weren't around then, but it was pretty exciting. And looky here. > > Robin: Perhaps I *did* in fact "g[e]t it all wrong". I doubt it (read my post carefully, please, Steveand my post to whynotnow). However the fact that you say: "We're having a blast" does not go to the issue. Having a blast is no measure of the truthful resolution of a conflict or argument or controversy. I did not get the sense, by the way, that everyone was "having a blast". People seemed very proud and self-congratulatory on their routing and sentencing of Ravi. As if everyone had followed the issue to its very essence and extracted from that essence the supernatural truth: and the truth was: Ravi is an assholeat least this time he was. And he got everything he deserved. By the working out, as it were, of natural justice, as expressed through the consensus of the players in this dispute. > > Now I am still a relative newcomer here, and perhaps I would have a slightly different perspective on this recent event where Ravi abused all the rules of decency, both explicitly understood, and intuitively felt. However, my concern in something like this where there is a sense of outrage and anger and violation, is that the truth gets uncovered so that both the offender and the offended in some sense bow before the same verdict. This did not happen; in fact I am almost certain that Ravi, far from feeling chastised and punished, experienced the sense of being entirely misunderstoodperversely misunderstoodand in this sense his superobjective in being the transgressor that he is, was perfectly realized. > > Now you will say: Of course he feels this, Robin; does that make it a valid conclusion? Well, there the matter turns on the quality of his experience versus the quality of your experience (and others who came to the same judgment of Ravi). My own perception in all this, Steve, is that no one was motivated to actually counter-attack Ravi in the precise way he was provoking and confronting others. The only way this could be done would be to use the sense of what Ravi didas experienced and interpreted by you and othersas *the context within which to put Ravi in his place*. This was never done. So that Ravi never got the benefit of this collective act of shaming. And not because he is obtuse or psychopathic; rather because no one was willing or able to go to where Ravi was in expressing his abusiveness and counter that abusiveness with a true psychological portrait of Ravi which demonstratednot just by the act per se, but by the state of mind and heart he had to be in to do what he didRavi had in some objective sense crossed the line. And therefore disqualified himself from saying anything true or sincere. > > Steve: You've had Edg barging in, even with no ramp up. Coming in allegedly under the auspices of the Ravi discussion, but in actuality displaying all his unprocessed anger towards Richard. > > Robin: I don't know this Edg person, but I thought his initial post was marvellously intelligent and complex enough for him to be a real player. I don't even know who the person was who he was attacking. But he wrote with passion and conviction. I very much liked that first post of his. But you obviously have a much more informed context within which to assess the merits of his post. Straight up, I liked it very much indeed. He was going against the conventional wisdom. He seemed to be an authentic rebel with real powers of Negative Capability (Keats). > > Steve: Curtis dropped in which was certainly a highlight of the day. > > Robin: Yes, he flashed his brilliance across the darkened sky of FFL. No one realized how much we missed him until the energy and mirth and intelligence of his post hit us between the eyes. > > Steve: You've got Judy, glad she posting out. Did you hear that. Glad she's posting out. > > Robin: Well, Steve: why do you say *this*? Is Judy, just by being Judy, rendered irrelevant in what she says by something you don't like about her? Did you read her post? It was way more gutsy and fair-minded than any other post written about this present Ravi controversyshe put all other posts into oblivion. And this happens to be the truth. I am surprised and mystified at your basic premise here: That it's obviously an intrinsic good to have Judy posted out. What gives? Have I missed something? Are you still smarting from some wound she inflicted on you with her indefatigable logic and reason? Obviously this is in 'in'-joke. And it passes me by. > > Steve: You've got Jim making nice to Barry. Of course this got Vaj pretty jealous. But so what. > > Robin: Well, that essentially resolves the matter of Barry's maliciousness and pusillanimity doesn't it. So simple: Jim "making nice to Barry": that means that Barry has become a decent honourable fellow, right? Barry's motives have to do with seizing upon this matter of Ravi and making use of it to ingratiate himself with the FFL crowd in order to weaken the sense of stigmatizing which has been his fate over the course of the last several weeks. > > Steve: Raunchy coming through with some sharp insights. > > Robin: I have generally loved raunchydog's posts. But I don't know her relationship to Ravi, and from what I could discern from the way Ravi wrote to her [where he touchedvery deliberatelythe ultimate in personal transgression], Ravi was drawing upon some context he has with her about which I know nothing. Only raunchydog knows the extent to which she objectively knows for a fact that Ravi's language representednot just in some formal sense, but in some very personal sensea violation of her. She certainly has responded as if this is the case. And all the males who came her defence have known what true chivalry is. My point is: Was Ravi dealt with in this instance effectively, decisively? I have my doubts. But raunchydog, she seems a truly sane and attractive person to me. I think she holds a certain mystery which only she intuitively senses in the experience she got when Ravi went after her. And I think she does not believe that the persons who felt she was being violated experienced what she experienced. I think in a private conversation with Ravi she would have something to say to him by way of outrage. But as it is, I cannot sense that what Ravi did to her has been resolvedeven to her satisfaction. > > Steve: Even Alex unloading. And we know that doesn't happen often. > > Robin: I don't know Alex at all, except that he finds all my posts incomprehensible. But I did see that he put the knife into Ravi as far as it would go, once he sensed that everyone was on his side more or less. And he went too far for me to trust that he was only serving the cause of justice. He got out some real hatred for Ravi which was in excess of the crime. He really went to town. But certainly he seems like an intelligent and civilized person. "Unloading" is not necessarily a good thing in my book. > > Steve: Robin, this has been a good day. Almost full participation. (haven't heard from Sal) > > Robin: "Full participation" as you might realize, Steveat this point in your reading of my post hereis no criterion for measuring whether justice was done. People have judged Ravi harshly. Have they judged him properly? That is the question, and from almost every point of view I remain dissatisfied on this account. But I appreciate very much your cheerful and friendly tone. Does it tend to represent what should be the general feeling after something like this has more or less been resolved? Do you know in your heart that your own response to this episode is more sane and reasonable than whatever made Ravi go off as he did? If you do have such an experience, then that is good. For me, there has been a lot of concealing of the unspeakable truth: that Ravi did in fact having something to say, that he went further in saying than anyone of us could imagine anyone doing; but that he has not been answered where he was moved to deliberately transgress against our sense of moral propriety. Ever seen a roast? Ravi was easily inside that zone of permissibility. But what was even more significant: Ravi seemed very motivated to get through to the 'victims' of hisas Jim calls them'rants'. > > Steve: And I am wishing my best on Ravi. I hope he had a good day. I hope he made it to his 9:45 meeting on time. I hope he didn't get any speeding tickets. I hope the girl he's been hitting on, has responded favorably to him. I do love him still. > > Robin: Look Steve, I don't have the mysterious read-out on Ravi. I have written three analyses of him, and I think I hit some truths. But in terms of explaining him within the paradigm of reality within which I live my life, good luck! Nevertheless I am certain that the final word about what happened these last two days is not embodied in the consensual validation among those FFL posters who have chosen to write about this matterwith the exception of three posters. > > Steve: Me, I gotta take off for some errands. When I get back, I may try to read your post rather than skim it. > > Robin: I appreciate the tone of your posts, nearly always, Steve. And I am sure you mean well. I am just a bit obsessive when it comes to something as intense as this controversy. I recall writing indignantly and pointedly to Ravi when he first came after me. It took me many months to realize that my initial response to him lacked the right perspective. I am not someone who does not want to be proven wrong; it makes no difference to me whether I am right or wrongin this sense: I want to adhere to what is more real and more true. So far no one has made the case for the argument and judgment of Ravi which has emerged from this episode. > > Perhaps I take things too seriously. As Vaj so brilliantly pointed out I am a much inferior "Christian Canadian" to Bruce Coburn. Heck, I am not even a Christian at all. > > But I hope that you will have mercy on me, Steve, for having stuck my neck out here. > > Tony L. timed his retirement pretty good I'd say. I'd like to choose the same circumstanceunderstood metaphorically. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" whynotnow7@ wrote: > > > > > > Could be, though that again raises the point -- Are we reacting > > > to Ravi's behavior, regardless, or trying to set this up as "a > > > teachable moment" in which we align Ravi's behavior with an > > > assumption about his consciousness, or his mental health? > > > > What's interesting to me is that most of Ravi's posts are > > loving, playful, funny, often even wise, but we freak out > > when he has a negative outburst and start discussing his > > mental health, even asking whether he should have freedom > > of speech or be ejected from the forum. > > > > Yet there are others here whose posts are *routinely* > > negative, whose tone typically is "demeaning harshness," > > to use Curtis's phrase, frequently coldly, calculatingly > > cruel and hateful, and we seem to have learned to take > > them in stride, without wondering about the writers' > > mental health. > > > > We had one of those posts this morning, in which the > > writer not only went to considerable lengths to harshly > > demean those he calls "crazies" (i.e., his critics), but > > actually recommended his own twisted form of censorship > > by counseling others not to interact with the "crazies" > > in order to freeze them out and make them shut up. > > > > And there wasn't a peep of objection. > > > > Indeed, Curtis emerges from lurkdom to pompously > > pronounce judgment on Ravi while arrogantly declining > > to concern himself with the possibility that there may > > be worse transgressors of the social compact holding > > forth here. He chastises Ravi for what he perceives to > > be homophobia, apparently having entirely forgotten > > the remarks of the negative poster described above > > intended to insult Robin by suggesting he was gay (not > > to mention his betrayal of Curtis's confidence by > > citing something Curtis had said to him in private > > email that, taken out of context, made Curtis appear to > > be impugning Robin's sexuality as well). Curtis further > > fulminates over Ravi's insults to a woman when he has > > never been upset by the "demeaning harshness" with > > which the negative poster treats women he doesn't like. > > It's fine with Curtis to call a woman a "dumb cunt too > > stupid to live" as long as there's no mention of blow > > jobs. > > > > (BTW, Curtis, the word is "aplomb," not "aplaumb," > > and it's never used in the plural.) > > > > Bob and Obbajeeba are right, the hypocrisy around here > > is so thick you could cut it with a knife. It makes me > > physically ill. Thank goodness I have only one more post > > left this week. > > > > RESPONSE: Anyone who tries to answer Judy here will necessarily contradict themselves. And by this, I mean that Judy's post holds within itself so much more reality than those posts which have attempted to turn Ravi into a lunatic. Moral intelligencein the context of the metaphysics of postmodernismrequires that we goes as far as we can to open ourselves to the truth, no matter how devastating or hurtful it is to us. The self-righteousness of some FFL posters in the wake of Ravi's uninhibited violations of the privacy of selfhood has re-made reality and would have us make of Ravi that which would enable us to escape from whatever *possible* truths, or semi-truths, he was hitting in his shameless and unabashed style of insult. Judy here has made certain the anaesthetic starts to wear off, so that we are once again in the dilemma of attempting to come up with a version of truth which is at least equal to whatever truth was behind Ravi's intoxicated and violent desecrations. What Ravi struck in certain people became the motivational basisalbeit unconsciousfor their retaliation, and their assumption of having, as a consensus began to develop, dealt him a death blow. Ravi lives; he is the strangest creature I have ever come across. But I think we should alland most everyone of us has been subject to his ecstatic abusesattempt, first of all, to see whether he has hit something in us which could only be hit by the very extremism of his language and the outrageousness of his modus operandi. Judy has restored some sanity and balance to this latest episode of Ravi's loving cruelty and savage playfulness. I had thought that because of the failure of everyoneexcepting the two persons Judy mentionsto honestly and courageously meet Ravi exactly where the content of what he said was aimedand instead to make his sacrilege the issuethe integrity of FFL was doomed. But Judy has, in one remarkable post, allowed all of us to re-discover the right perspective on this business of Ravi Yogi and all that has gone down since his initial reaction to one of Alex's posts. > > > > I was aware of one thing: the sense of triumph, of vindication, of justiceonce everyone had had their saythis had left a false note. As, ironically enough, no one had really taken Ravi on on his own terms. No matter how gravely Ravi has transgressed against our sense of decorum, our right of privacy, our self-respecthe is truly without any discretion whatsoeverwe owe it to ourselves to examine one thing: Did he touch some nerve in us which we recognized could not warrant then ganging up on him and making of him a moral pariah? Judy has prevented us from turning Ravi into a martyr. And I for one am glad of this. Again I say it: if someoneanyoneat FFL attempts to refute the main point Judy has made in this post, that person will have to be dishonest. I am sure some counter-post is being composed in this moment, but I will compare it to Judy's post, and I know what that verdict will be: someone who wants to control the context of truth rather than someone who wants to let truth control the context. > > >
