--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > His philosophy is his own, not "borrowed," first of all, as > > Barry would know if he'd been reading Robin's posts. Second, > > given that he has concluded Maharishi was fundamentally a > > fraud-- > > > > "Objectively, I have have been forced to conclude that Maharishi > > did not possess either the personal or even impersonal integrity > > to justify what he claimed to be and what he claimed as his > > purpose in this life." > > > > --how would this "butter up" TMers? > > > > Could it be that Robin suffers from a disconnect between his > emotional relationship with Maharishi and his intellectual > relationship with Maharishi? > > If Maharishi is a fraud and he still loves this fraud and > has fond memories of this fraud? > > That means Robin is in the same boat as Barry who has fond > memories of this 'Cheater cunt Rama' and brags over and over > again about how much he benefited from him. > > Think about it authbabe. Maybe you too have this > disconnect.
ROBIN: Jason, you are a sharp fellow--I think we all know that. But as sensitive and sophisticated as your reflections are--and your posts always seem to achieve this standard--there is one point that you seemed to have overlooked. And I think it is an important one. Jason, you don't consider how, when you interpret and/or judge the point of view of another person, you are, in that very act, producing the evidence of your own point of view. Therefore, when arriving at some conclusion about another person, and expressing that conclusion, you realize you place yourself in the very same position that the person you are judging has placed himself or herself in what they have posted. It is obvious that you are entirely oblivious to this truth, a truth which would make you realize something of fundamental importance: If you are determined to evaluate the validity of someone's point of view--as you are doing here (to three separate persons), you realize that YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW BECOMES SUBJECT IN THAT VERY ACT TO BEING EVALUATED. Even if no reader consciously realizes this is what is happening; it still is happening. You subject your own point of view to scrutiny and evaluation in the very act of having rendered a judgment about the validity of another person's point of view. Now, the proof that this does not occur to you is in what you say here. Whatever was going on in my post to raunchy, then in authfriend's commentary on that post--in response to Barry's criticism of that post--your own remarks here are intrinsically superficial, even frivolous. How so? Jason, the point of view you reveal in order to take the position you have in this post demonstrates that you have never subjected that point of view to any kind of assessment which, in principle, mimics what you are doing here in forming a psychological hypothesis about Robin, Authfriend, and Barry. You have made it inevitable that any discerning FFL reader will, even subconsciously, compare the point of view which you are analyzing and explaining causally, with the point of view implicitly which you are revealing in making your hypothesis. And guess what, Jason? You are a singularly thoughtless and non-objective actor in this circumstance--because there is no evidence in anything you say here that you are aware that YOU ARE EXPOSING YOURSELF AND YOUR POINT OF VIEW TO A JUDGMENT. If you are going to make a definitive judgment about someone, that judgment both in the way it is articulated and in its very substance, must contain more intelligence and meaning and reality than the point of view which you would seek to subject to an unfavourable judgment. Your thesis here does't do this. Now it might be possible for the idea behind your thesis to acquire some form of expression which would not bring attention back onto the person who is making it; but in your case, Jason, the absence of self-consciousness with respect to what you were doing in writing this post becomes obvious to the reader's consciousness. THIS GUY DOESN'T EXERCISE ANY SELF-REFLECTION WHEN HE ATTEMPTS TO SAY SOMETHING CRITICAL ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S POINT OF VIEW. Now just think about it for awhile, Jason: your idea might have some potential merit if when you uttered it you realized you were forcing your audience to compare the depth and seriousness of what you have proposed (as an explanation for the feelings expressed in a post concerning a particular person) with the posts (and commentary) you are subjecting to your analysis. What I wrote to raunchy, what she wrote to me, what authfriend then wrote in response to Barry's attack on my post to raunchy: each of these posts appear to make your hypothesis--IN HOW IT IS EXPRESSED--seem inadequate, shallow, and somehow trivial. Do you get it, Jason? Now in your reaction *to this post* you must, if you have anything to say, realize your post has to take the measure, not just of what you think of the interpretation I have put upon your post, but, in order for what you say to compel the reader, you must somehow surround the context of the point of view which I have revealed in making this judgment of your post--that is to say, *this post itself which you are reading here*, it must be put in its place by something inherently more intelligent and sensitive and truthful than itself. And for that, Jason, you will have to, I think for the first time, look at the person you are as you go to do this. Ask yourself: If what I am about to say was said by someone else would I assign the same value to it as I am inclined to do (without thinking) now in responding to Robin's post? I make a solid prediction: You will, in your response to this post, exhibit the same lack of self-objectivity. But I'd like to be surprised; so give it your best there, Jason; just make sure you are aware that a judgment is itself being judged, and if you want a judgment to stick, it has to have a certain intellectual, moral, or aesthetic coherence that validates its appropriateness. And that judgment has to possess the means to make itself relevant to what it would seek to judge. > > TM critics, maybe. It's always puzzled me that the most > > vocal TM critics on this forum are also Robin's most vocal > > critics. You'd think they'd be eager to make common cause > > with him. > > > > > 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you > > > *projected* onto him all of the experiences you claim came > > > *from* Maharishi, and that one of the reasons you did this > > > is just to avoid dealing with the possibility that you had > > > an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that the love you > > > felt for him was the "highest love you'd ever experienced," > > > but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. > > > What's up with that? > > > > How can one suggest he has "avoided dealing with the > > possibility" that he had an "enormous man-crush" on > > Maharishi when he's stated explicitly over and over how > > much he loved him? > > > > >
