--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement > > of Robin's theory from his previous post in this > > exchange with Curtis: > > > > "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain > > disinterested perspective to see where the 'support' > > metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is > > possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling, > > which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with > > reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our > > subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our > > subjectivities what is considered by what created our > > subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending > > reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous > > such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to > > be true within any interaction where there are serious > > and significant differences of point of view and where > > feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play." > > M: Do tell Judy: > > How do we know what the origin of our subjectivity is? > How does the origin of our subjectivites make itself known > to us? > How do we know that what created our subjectivities considers > what is a more valid way of apprehending reality?
We don't "know" any of these things. Next question? > I know you want to turn this all into another Curtis bash fest, but I am > going to keep you nose the grindstone. Don't just cut and paste, present > these ideas so they can be discussed or admit that you don't understand > Robins ideas or that you don't agree with them. I have raised legitimate > challenges to the ideas themselves. Your usual routine is not gunna work > with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > This question of whether or not any man can claim to be > > > representing the POV of Reality, is central to my life. > > > > However, that is not a question that Robin was asking. > > > > > I have a lot of skin in this game. My current view is > > > that people who claim this ability are a real block to a > > > discussion of ideas between people. As soon as someone > > > claims this upper hand, and humans have claimed this > > > often, it breaks down secular discussion of ideas based > > > on their own merit rather than based on their claim that > > > their subjective opinion is somehow more than that, and > > > not up for discussion. > > > > This is such a gross and deliberate misrepresentation > > of Robin's ideas. It's the context Curtis is attempting > > to impose on those ideas; it's not the context in which > > Robin was presenting them. > > > > Curtis chose this false context because he has some > > idea of how to object to it. But because it's *Curtis's* > > context, not Robin's, Curtis's objections are > > irrelevant; he's created a big fat straw man to knock > > down. > > > > Furthermore, it's the height of inadvertent irony for > > Curtis to object to anyone imposing their POV over > > that of others. This is precisely Curtis's own M.O. in > > any dispute or disagreement. He does it so many times > > in this exchange with Robin that Robin starts referring > > to him as "Commandante," a la Fidel Castro. > > > > "People who claim to have this ability"--Robin's thesis > > is that we all have it. > > > > "It breaks down secular discussion of ideas based on > > their own merit"--according to Robin's theory, if two > > people with opposing ideas both go to the trouble of > > exercising this ability to perceive reality's POV, > > *they will end up in agreement*. > > > > Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement > > of Robin's theory from his previous post in this > > exchange with Curtis: > > > > "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain > > disinterested perspective to see where the 'support' > > metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is > > possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling, > > which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with > > reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our > > subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our > > subjectivities what is considered by what created our > > subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending > > reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous > > such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to > > be true within any interaction where there are serious > > and significant differences of point of view and where > > feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play." > > > > > > > > > > You asked me to somehow argue you out of this idea if you were wrong > > > about it, to lead you to the Curtis approved promise land. But that is > > > not an option and I wouldn't presume to have this ability. It is enough > > > that we both got to state our cases to the best of our ability. > > > > > > I think you sincerely believe what you wrote. I am disappointed that you > > > seem to need to question my motives here as if they are somehow not as > > > well intentioned as your own. But that was your choice. > > > > > > Even with this non answer to your 3 part response, I feel the river > > > rising again and tugging at the tether holding my raft on the bank. > > > > > > I'm gunna get off here and try my luck busking at the center square a > > > while and let others who want to take up your ideas and express them for > > > discussion in a way I could not. > > > > > > Thanks for the ride Robin. > > >
