[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote:

> On second thought, I think you right in all that you say here, Steve. I will 
> try to be more careful next time. And you are certainly correct about Curtis: 
> My response is always inferior to Curtis's. I have never doubted this, Steve. 
> But I certainly have attempted to make it seem as if this might not be true. 
> Now you have told the truth. I am vanquished—at least in my pride. I needed 
> this. And I feel much better having admitted to my weakness. Perhaps you 
> could act as an intermediary between Curtis and myself. It is going to take 
> some time for me to overcome the egregious error I have made—but that's what 
> pride and envy can do to a guy. Thanks from the lonely Canadian. I like 
> negative or damning adjudications—it's humiliation that ennobles my soul. 
> Whew. All the way from St Louis: smackdown. That Ravi guy, what a fucking 
> asshole. I only defended him, Steve, because he was so nice to me. If he had 
> attacked me like he did Curtis, I would not have been as calm and deadly as 
> Curtis was. I would be shrieking blue murder. Too bad about Sidney. And 
> Albert.

Steve: Okay, you have humiliated me a little. I enjoy your posts immensely. 
Sometimes I am short of time, especially in the mornings and have to scim them. 
 But if someone makes an implication about anothers sexual preferences, then I 
think that implication is generally inappropiate.

Robin: I am not going to argue with you about this, Steve: how could I? I only 
say that there is a mystery here, and however justified Curtis was in his 
defence of his personal honour—having been attacked by Ravi—he acted only after 
Ravi overposted. Bob Price challenged him far more profoundly in two posts 
which Curtis chose not to answer. I don't take issue with Curtis responding to 
Ravi—and he could not have composed a more devastating and effective post; but 
in approaching his critic (Ravi) he made sure that the person he was addressing 
conformed to Curtis's determination of who Curtis decided Ravi was as a human 
being. Had Curtis done the more courageous thing, he would have certainly come 
back at Ravi, but he would have done this without necessarily insinuating that 
Ravi was nothing but a fool and an immature asshole. Curtis made sure, by how 
he contextualized Ravi on the basis of what Ravi had said about Curtis, that 
every reader at FFL would conclude from what Curtis said, that Ravi was only 
this. Whereas, the significance of Ravi having insulted Curtis, carries with 
it—and it does whenever he transgresses against any of us—a certain mystical 
and strangely inaccessible context which goes to the mystery of who this person 
Ravi Chivukula is. In the background of this insolent disparagement of Curtis 
were my two open letters to Ravi and his responses—especially to the second 
open letter. Now however unpredictable and reckless and even gratuitous are 
Ravi's attacks on other persons—and I admit that the whole area of sexuality 
has to be out of bounds because no one that I know really has any kind of 
ultimate integrity here [integrity sexually meaning the person has perfect 
control over this and it is never a danger to their own self-esteem: sexuality 
and money are in my opinion metaphysically beyond the jurisdiction of perfect 
understanding]—there is evidence that Ravi cannot simply be judged on the basis 
of what he said about Curtis. Curtis has essentially made Ravi not only 
accountable for what he said; but Curtis has gone far beyond this: he has 
ridiculed Ravi right out of having any kind of prestige or credibility at FFL. 
Curtis is a very strong and powerful person, and when he does what he did here, 
he places Ravi in a place—in the minds of FFL readers—where no one 
spontaneously can taken him seriously again. This is what I was getting at my 
implication in my post to obbajeeba.

Steve: I thought Ravi's implication had a "wink, wink, nod, nod", tone about it 
and deserved a sharp response which was given.

Robin: I don't take *anything* that Ravi does or says out of the context of the 
total person that I am trying my best to fathom. As I say, if one isolates a 
particular act of Ravi's and implicitly draws from this a conclusion about the 
kind of person Ravi must be, then we escape from the more important 
responsibility of trying to understand who Ravi Chivukula is. Now for me, 
Steve, what Ravi has done is to make himself someone whom I cannot process 
within the psychological and metaphysical paradigm I have been developing and 
refining all my life. I think there is something—this is but an intuition based 
upon his writings—to learn here about who Ravi is. The phenomenon of Ravi 
Chivukula. He defies the classification that I have successfully applied to 
everyone else. And this, for me at least, is a profound mystery (vide my second 
open letter).

Now what I was seeking to do was to take his response to my second letter—the 
one that you even liked—and respond again in detail to what he said there. With 
some expectation based upon the thinking I have done since reading that second 
response of his of actually *figuring him out*. Once, however, Curtis acted—and 
here is where you might not be able to follow me. or if you can, you will 
choose not to—then, Ravi was by the force and potency of this, rendered persona 
non grata, and his mystique had the appearance of suddenly not meaning anything 
anymore. Such is the power and influence that Curtis carries through his prose. 
Curtis wanted to kill off Ravi, and I think he did a pretty good job of this. 
Because, Steve, as I say, when I went to look over Ravi's response to my second 
letter, I felt that Ravi—at least at FFL—was inside another context. And 
anything I might say, then, was virtually meaningless—or at least irrelevant. 
Curtis has defined Ravi, and that was enough.

Steve: I am very saddened about Sid, but not so much about Albert.  As most 
people here, I wish him the best.  I am a little too much of a fiscal 
conservative to think that the Cardinals should have anted up that kind of 
money for that many years.  I guess Sid is taking the long term view and not 
taking any chances, although the Great One had several concussions throughout 
his career, but perhaps the effect of those are going to show a little later.

Robin: I find myself in agreement with all that you say here. I like what 
happens when you get into the sports context. Sports has always meant a great 
deal to me. I played hard and now I watch with an enthusiasm that almost 
surprises me.

Steve: On the other hand fights are an intergral part of game, but they don't 
generally result in a concussion.   It's those cheap shots that are generally 
responsible.

Robin: A big topic here; I am going to just concur with your sentiments. 

Steve: I remember going to games when they didn't even wear helmuts.  That was 
awesome.

Robin: Good point. Did you see The Soviet Union beat Canada 7-3 in the first 
game of that famous series—in 1972? Canada has never quite recovered from the 
shock of that event. I remember feeling the trauma throughout the entirety of 
Canada that night—I of course watched the game on TV. A real metaphysical event 
Canada. This was one year before I became a TM teacher.

Steve: It's looks like my team has a new life!

Robin: And so do we, after this exchange. I will keep a positive orientation 
towards the Blues because I know someone who has something of himself invested 
in them.