Are you Tim Tibow playing Andy Kaulfman? I assume you are beingquite effectivelyironic. And I appreciate the in-joke that I am as far from being a Jesus freak as I could possible be. While at the same time not giving the TMO much love either. Very funny stuff, jason, but a little bit too Jedi Spockish for most FFL readers I suspect.
Did you ever consider they might take you literally? It's possible, you know. But thanks. Yeah, Catholicism is not for me; Jesus either. But the goddamn thing is: *they would have been* had I lived before the Second World War. Now, Judy, does that stitch the whole thing together finally? Jason, you are one crazy guybut I think I get it. I sure hope I do. Where's the non-ironic you? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > >  >  > Robbie boy, if you want to to be a part of the 'Jesus freak > Show' so be it. > > But none of us here in the forum want any part of it. > Judeo-Christian philosophy is a major deception that has > conned humanity for centuries. I don't know weather you are > an unwitting player in this greatest con-job ever played on > humanity. You are just fooling yourself. >  >  >  > From: emptybill <emptybill@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:57 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi > Chivukula > > >  >  >  >  > > > > Robin sez: > > I knew there would be others who would disagree with you, and I was not > > disappointed in this (e.g. emptybill). But within how I have understood > > what you have said about me, I believe emptybill has provided evidence of a > > misunderstanding of me. But there will be no proof of his failure of > > sensitivity versus your precision of sensitivity. So I must leave it there. > > > > Oh gosh, the insensitivity is so crushing, how can you continue? However no > > need for you to demonstrate or exemplify your claims since all truth is > > self-evident and self-revealing. Isn't it? > Only god knows our heart, so who cares about veracity? The human faculty of > knowing (nous/intellectus) is as corrupted in its nature as human will is > debased by self-love. This is all we need to know, and any other conclusion > is mere fantasy. Adequation is for the angels, not us. > > This is why Jesus (and Him crucified) walked the earth, isn't it? To show > > that He is the only Logos and all else is deception. > It is so simple, isn't it?> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear whynotnow: > > > > > > No one that I know is above feeling some happiness in being praised. What > > > makes your overall review of my posts, though, so gratifying to me, is > > > the sense that you have really caught my own intention and, if I may say > > > it, even my own experience in writing at FFL. > > > > > > "Then, a while ago I began reading every word of yours, the context you > > > create, the reality coming through, the innocence, and the world of Robin > > > became known, with immediacy, not compared to anything else, just you". > > > > > > This may beâ"from my own first person ontological perspectiveâ"the most > > > accurate and perspicacious description I have ever read about what is > > > going on when I write. And I am led on to the conclusion that your own > > > way of apprehending reality partakes of a certain grace and elegance that > > > affords you the inner confidence that you have 'seen what is really > > > there'. I think this quite an exceptional virtue: to catch at what is > > > most real and individuated, ignoring what would be merelyâ"inadvertently > > > of courseâ"a derivative and conditioned response. > > > > > > You see, whynotnow: you are meeting my own innocence [if I may use that > > > term since you have generously applied it to me] with your own innocence. > > > This creates some agreement in reality. It is not merely someone saying > > > something nice or flattering about someone else. For me at least you have > > > in this post received and then articulated almost perfectly the context > > > within which I express myself. And I have to admit it: I was a little > > > floored by this. So, then, whynotnow, it was not so much the fact that > > > you came out so positively in your review, it was the fact that in all > > > that you said, you identified the minute particulars of what I > > > attemptâ"personallyâ"to do when I post at FFL. > > > > > > And you also recognized the sense of how much I seek to make a completion > > > when I write; that is, the way I "delve into awareness in a > > > comprehensible way, weave a succinct explanation with no loose threads". > > > Again, whynotnow, it is not the favourability or positivity of what you > > > have said about me; no, it is something much more satisfying to me: viz. > > > the identification of seemingly every element in my original ambition; I > > > would have thought at best certain persons would get the *effect* of all > > > this; but I had not anticipated someone who would anatomize my intention > > > and my method with this kind of delicate and acute sensitivity. > > > > > > I won't quote the rest of your post, since it illustrates the same almost > > > perfect grasp of my intention and my experience. The "genuineness", the > > > sense of the "real": these are what constitute what is essential for me. > > > I must stop here, whynotnow: please know you haveâ"if I may say > > > itâ"*objectively* understood what I am all about. And I never dreamed of > > > someone understanding me in the way that I understand myself. > > > > > > I hope that this, what I have written here, does not come off as some > > > opportunity to indulge in self-centered gratification or ego massaging, > > > because that is not why I have written back to you. I have written this > > > response out of my wonder and appreciation that someone has so > > > intelligently delineated what I am all about [at least according to my > > > own lights]. > > > > > > I knew there would be others who would disagree with you, and I was not > > > disappointed in this (e.g. emptybill). But within how I have understood > > > what you have said about me, I believe emptybill has provided evidence of > > > a misunderstanding of me. But there will be no proof of his failure of > > > sensitivity versus your precision of sensitivity. So I must leave it > > > there. > > > > > > With much thanks for this discerning post, and risking the brickbats of > > > my critics for being narcissistic and drama queenly, I am > > > > > > The Canadian Zebra unmasked >
