[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Ravi

[emptybill]

MZ/RC

You seem unaware that RaviBhogi was censcured and came close to being
kicked off of FFL for claiming that MMY (as he put it) used to dick suck
and butt fuck SBS. He would be axed from any other similar forum for
such statements, and deserve such treatment. He just got repremanded by
Rick and tucked his tail for a few weeks.

This is a come-to-Jesus forum compared to most of them.


--- 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, Steve—and 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
asshole—at 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 misunderstood—perversely misunderstood—and 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 did—as experienced and
interpreted by you and others—as *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
demonstrated—not just by the act per se, but by the state of mind
and heart he had to be in to do what he did—Ravi 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 controversy—she
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 touched—very deliberately—the 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
represented—not just in some formal sense, but in some very personal
sense—a 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 resolved—even 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, Steve—at this
point in your reading of my post here—is 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 his—as 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 matter—with 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 wrong—in 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 circumstance—understood 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 intelligence—in the context of the
metaphysics of postmodernism—requires 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
basis—albeit unconscious—for 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 all—and most everyone of us has been subject
to his ecstatic abuses—attempt, 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
everyone—excepting the two persons Judy mentions—to honestly and
courageously meet Ravi exactly where the content of what he said was
aimed—and instead to make his sacrilege the issue—the 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
justice—once everyone had had their say—this 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-respect—he is truly without
any discretion whatsoever—we 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 someone—anyone—at 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.
> >
>