Hey Robin, Thanks for your reply. Sort of an indulgence when other stuff is going on here, but a few comments. As you know, many times I read posts rather quickly, and may miss some nuances. But I don't generally try to argue with, or analyze "funny". I like "funny" and usually I will take it a face value. I found Barry's post to be funny. And I thought it delivered some well deserved pay back to you and Judy. Sorry about that, but that's what I felt. Let me look down below and see what else there might be. Hold on.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "maskedzebra" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > Dear Steve, > > Wait for your letter; but I couldn't help myself: This one word is the best (and most ironic) response there could be to Barry's ID impersonations. Therefore, you realize how far you are from understanding irony when you see it [irony]. Had I thought of this one word as a response to Barry's post *I would have eagerly seized upon it*. > > That is, me, Robin, would have decided this was *better than anything that I could come up with* to remain consistent and intelligent in all that I believe about Barry. > > The problem here, Steve, is you did not understand my essay on irony. If you had you would have realized that *it is incidental* if the irony is in the service of one's own opinions, biases, predilections-or is against them: for something to be ironic, it is only *up to reality itself*. The moment you begin to obrain delight in something someone has said about someone else, *there is no reality there, Stevie, boy*. For irony impersonalizes everything; puts a person into a unknown experience over which they have no control. I am sure this is correct. Barry's post, I am sure did not meet these parameters. But I wasn't evaluating it on that basis. > Barry did not interface with reality; he only interfaced with himself. Ergo, he voided the irony potential altogether. You can't do irony from some conviction of feeling--you have to do irony from a strictly disinterested and impartial standpoint in the universe: you have to let reality *represent itself*. (Even if your starting motive is some strong affect.) Well, we will disqualify it as irony, and put it in the slam category. > If you loved Barry's posts (re: me and the editor dame) then it certainly was "perfection" for YOU. But it had nothing to do with irony, for if Barry's post had been suitably and objectively ironic, *you would have had an experience over which you had no control*. > > Irony only works on *its* terms; it has no favourites. > > The irony that Barry attempted failed. And why did it fail, Steve? Because it just gave you a great experience of satisfaction that Barry seemed to be getting back at Robin and the editor dame. But that is not what irony is all about whatsoever; irony has to be so good that the person who deploys it can laugh as hard at what he or she has said or written--as if someone else has said or written it. And the victim, he or she, too, has to fight not to laugh--*at himself or herself*. W > There can be no ambiguity when irony is going on, Steve: Barry's post did not touch me--*even as I would have been instructed and edified if it had*--and I would look forward to that experience. > If you're going to write an anti-Book of Mormon you have to find the same metaphysical formula that Stone and Parker found to write their play. But at the same time you have to go one level higher. Barry's post was like someone going hysterical about the possibly implied atheism of Stone and Parker--and calling them names because of this. I can work on that Robin, right after we pay off the mortgage and get the kids through school, (oh, and clean the garage), but it should be on my list at some point. > What Barry had to do to make it here, Steve, was show that Mormonism on its own could make more fun of Stone and Parker's *The Book of Mormon* than the play had succeeded in ridiculing the LDS Church. Hey, you know, The Book of Mormon is playing just up the street from me at the Fox Theater. Or maybe it just finished, or maybe it's still coming. From what I've read it sounds like a great play, but I probably won't be able to see it. > Irony is an entirely objective phenomenon. It is an equal opportunity phenomenon. Which means that Barack Obama could make fun of Mitt Romney; but if Mitt was going to have a comeback (if he was as upset as Barry was on behalf of his friend), he would have to *take in the irony potency and after-effect of the ironic remark of Obama*, and then go one better--or at least hold his own. > > Your rejoicing at Barry's post just proved how irony-challenged you are, Steve--not from some organic limitation--but from some flaw in your approach to reality: you haven't figured out how to look for the complex secret in every moment when there is a conflict like this. Robin, I think you've hit on just one of my flaws. But as someone used the phrase here recently, I've got bigger fish to fry. But thanks for letting me know that in addition to improving my FPOT, I need to work on better identifying irony. Anything else you care to bring up in that regard? > While walking this morning (not knowing about your post here) I had the thought: I should impersonate myself (as Barry or his friend); in other words *attempt exactly what Barry attempted* but show him how it was done. Mock myself, then, Steve! I think I could do a pretty good job of it. That would be great, but I think you are running short on posts. > And that is the trait one seeks above all in trying to master the art of irony: that one ruthlessly sees the contingent possibility of sending oneself up AT ANY AND EVERY OPPORTUNITY; therefore one is always in a potentially ironic relationship to oneself when one acts in the world--or posts at FFL. > > You should consider this idea, Steve. It would save you from the unconscious Monty Python grotesquerie of this very post of yours. But that said, I wish I had said this very thing. > > Much love to you Steve, And the same to you. > Robin > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > > > Perfection! > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Wow. Take a night off from Fairfield Life and it > > > goes officially Bat Shit Crazy. I think that the > > > bottom line on all this insanity should be given > > > to the two people causing most of it: > > > > > > APOLOGY FROM ROBIN: > > > Please forgive me, Curtis, and everyone. I was just > > > having a bad night, after realizing the truth about > > > myself, that I am nothing more than a minor cult > > > wannabee who spent a few years in a minor wannabee > > > cult. And that I finally became so narcissistic and > > > so deluded in that cult that I began to imagine that > > > I had the moxie to start my own cult. I failed > > > miserably at that, and was laughed out of town, and > > > now I'm nothing. In the history of spirituality in > > > North America, I don't even deserve a footnote; I > > > was that minor and that passing a fad. Realizing > > > all this just got me down, that's all, so I made > > > up some shit about you. Sorry. > > > - Robin W. Carlsen > > > > > > APOLOGY FROM JUDY: > > > Please forgive me, Curtis, and everyone. I'm a > > > bat shit crazy old woman with nothing going on in > > > my life and it really, really, really gets my panties > > > in a twist to see anyone liking or supporting anyone > > > I've spent years telling them that they shouldn't > > > like. When that happens I see red and go a little > > > crazier than usual, because it reminds me what an > > > *ineffectual* crazy person I am. All these years, > > > working with an audience not nearly as smart as I > > > am, and I *still* couldn't make them hate the people > > > I wanted them to hate. Realizing all this just got > > > me down, that's all, so I needed to go a little > > > more bat shit crazy than usual. > > > - Judy Stein > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" > > <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Judy, you do leave me speechless. Almost. It is at this point > > > > > > I reflect on the last Narnia book, "The Last Battle", when the > > > > > > ape "Shift" turns the truth upside down. And succeeds in doing > > > > > > so for a while. I guess that's a difference between that book > > > > > > and FFL. I don't think anyone is fooled here, even for a moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope Robin doesn't turn on you here Judy. That could happen > > > > > > you know. > > > > > > > > > > ROBIN: Actually, this is the only moment in today's proceedings > > > > > where I feel you have hit a nerve, Steve. And I believe your > > > > > warning to Authfriend both timely and even portentous. I would > > > > > ask you, Authfriend, to be careful at this point. Curtis and I > > > > > understand each other. I don't know you at all. And sometimes I > > > > > think you act as if you know me much better than you do. Do you > > > > > understand this, Authfriend? > > > > > > > > F*ck off, Zebra Baby. I don't give a crap about you and > > > > your Issues; I'm after Curtis here. Don't get in the way, > > > > OK? I know you better than I need to. > > > > > > > > > You will thank Steve someday for his rebuke here. But funny > > > > > thing is: the more I write into you, the more I like you! > > > > > > > > Yeah, yeah, very funny. Take your levers and hooks and > > > > grappling irons and go after somebody who hasn't made it > > > > all the way around the block even once yet. > > > > > > > > "Write into you," is that Canada-speak? Hey, I'll tell > > > > you where you can write into, mister. > > > > > > > > > But that doesn't change the wisdom of Steve's admonition, > > > > > as surely you must know, Authfriend. > > > > > > > > Nothing can ever change Steve's wisdom, I agree with > > > > you there. > > > > > > > > > >
