I haven't fisked one of Barry's posts in a while, but this one is so rich in fiskworthy assertions, I can't resist.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Well said. Comments interspersed. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > I don't get off on eastern spiritual superlatives, sorry. > > > In any case, you have the same propensity for fence sitting > > > an issue and abstractly equivocating everything with everything > > > that nm did. He also used to stick up for Vajihad. > > > > I just come back to the 'fence-sitting', because I had to look > > it up. (I hate it if I have to look up too many words in articles, > > not being born in america, because people speak overly slang - > > in the above sentence three words). So, I think that I have made > > my POV very clear on several occasions, for example regarding > > MZ/RC, Vaj, Judy and many others. Of course, making a spoof, or > > being satyrical, some people will not get my point, and I leave > > it somewhat open. Also, of course, I will try to be friendly to > > people, and respect them, even if I strongly disagree with their > > POV. > > Some will *never* get your point. If it presents them in > any different light than the one they want to be presented > in, that is. Note that the person in the above exchange who is not happy about being presented in a different light than the one they want to be presented in is zarzari, not whynotnow. And zarzari has a perfect right to object to what he feels is an inaccurate presentation, as does anybody else. Goodness knows Barry does it often enough. As to not getting the point of a spoof, that has nothing to do with whynotnow "being presented in a different light than the one they want to be presented in" in this exchange. As noted, that isn't what was happening. And if we wanted to go back and check, we'd find many instances of Barry himself having completely missed the point of a spoof. He's notorious for it. > One thing you might not be aware of, but that > may provoke some humor, is that the person who is trying > to give you a hard time for being (in his view) the cyber- > reincarnation of a former FFL poster has himself posed as > *several* different personalities here, only a couple of > which he has ever admitted to. Can you say "projection?" > I think you can. :-) But that wouldn't be what whynotnow is doing, of course. zarzari, you might want to ask Barry to name the "several different personalities" whynotnow has posed as, and which ones he has not admitted to. You might also want to ask Barry how many different personalities *he* has posed as in the past (not on FFL, as far as we know, but on alt.meditation.transcendental). > > Being ironic and satyrical is sometimes a lighthearted manner > > of pointing something out without being confrontational. Not > > being confrontational, I do not force a person to answer or > > respond. I will never write a 5 part answer to somebody and try > > to force it down their throat, as a condition to continue to be > > friendly to them. How enlightened, or de-enlightened is that? > > About in the same ballpark of "enlightened" as your corres- > pondent's flippant "I will share my shroud [sic...meaning > holy relics, after he dies) only with those who read my > posts." Yup, that's sure the image of enlightenment and its > essential compassion we've been presented through the ages. :-) Notice that it's fine for zarzari to be "ironic and satyrical," as far as Barry's concerned, but not for whynotnow. Apparently Barry has been presented "through the ages" with an "image of enlightenment and its essential compassion" that excludes being ironic and satirical on occasion. > > Also, I am very much differentiating, that is to say, I agree > > with people on certain points, but not on everything, and of > > course, that is normal for most here I think. I can now choose, > > what I emphazise, the points I agree with or the ones I disagree > > with, and believe me or not, over the time, I have chosen both > > approaches with the same people, and that includes you. You are > > not even aware of that. > > > > Another aspect that plays a role here for me is, that I think > > it is useless to confront a person with 'my opinion about things' > > if I think that, for whatever reason, which is also part of my > > opinion about the person, he/she is unlikely to accept a different > > POV in the matter - it is just useless. As Barry rightly points > > out, it is not a matter of 'winning' an argument. So in some > > cases, I simply have chosen to poke fun once in a while, hoping > > to hilight a certain aspect of a behaviour I find disagreeable > > or manipulative or whatever. > > As some wit has said, it's like having an argument with > a pig. It never accomplishes anything, and it only pisses > off the pig. > > What I find fascinating is that -- IMO, and from my some- > what biased POV -- several of the posters on this forum > who are the most fundamentalist (in the sense of having > rigid, fixed beliefs), the most reactive (in that their > emotional buttons are the most easily pushed, causing them > to lash out angrily), and the most confrontational (in that > they seem to feel the need to turn discussions into "battles" > and "win" them) are THE VERY ONES WHO EITHER > CLAIM TO BE ENLIGHTENED OR CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN > IN THE PAST. In capital letters, yet. Barry appears to be losing his ability to count. He refers to "several" posters, but in fact there are only two here who have claimed either to be enlightened or to have been in the past--whynotnow and Robin, respectively. > Does this compute? Are they DERANGED? They are speaking > to an audience that has been told for years the qualities > one should expect of an enlightened being. Non-attachment. > Non-reactivity. "Line on water." Being able to see Unity > in diversity. etc. Aside from the impossibility of deciding whether any of these characteristics apply from a person's behavior, aside from the willingness to accept the dictates of authorities as to what does and does not constitute enlightenment--or even understand what they imply--the DERANGEMENT in this case seems to me to involve holding someone to the purported standards of a state of consciousness they say they aren't in any longer. > But on a daily basis they present the opposite. And then > they get uptight and even more fundamentalist, reactive, > and confrontational because people don't believe in > their supposed "enlightenment." Again, remember that one of the two people Barry is talking about says he is no longer enlightened. The other has shown over and over again that he doesn't *care* whether anyone believes in his enlightenment. He tweaks Barry when Barry expresses his disbelief because Barry's such a dork about it. As to "fundamentalist," obviously that doesn't apply to either individual. But by "reactive and confrontational," Barry refers to the fact that both these people smack him down hard whenever he gets above himself. > In my view, *every* claim of enlightenment ever made in > human history was just that -- a claim. NOT ONE OF THEM > can ever be proved. But it's fairly easy to *disprove* > the claims, if the claimants walk a completely different > walk than the one described by the talk of the tradition > they claim to come from. Readers can decide for themselves whether a claim to be enlightened can ever be disproved in this manner. But it's fascinating how a person who consistently mocks and rejects any appeal to authority is so willing to appeal to it himself when he wants to use it to put down those he doesn't like (i.e., those who give him a hard time). Some of us here feel it's not necessary or important or even *interesting* to try to determine the accuracy of claims to enlightenment (if it were even possible). Why Barry has such an intense personal investment in "disproving" such claims is left as an exercise for the reader. And just one more point: Barry has a convenient tendency to slam people without naming them. He does it because it gives him, he believes, license to say *anything at all* about them without having to worry about readers being unable to match the characteristics he lists with the people he's referring to. It's typical of his unwillingness ever to be accountable for what he says. Unfortunately in this case, his descriptions of the two people he's talking about have inadvertently identified them quite specifically, so it's easy to determine which of the things he says about them are true and which are not.
