> > > > > > --- "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? > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > 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 Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > 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. >
Am I oblivious to the truth? Atleast tell me what the 'truth' is for whatever it's worth. A simple true or false would suffice. > 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? > > > > > > > > >
