Robin, I am at peace about all that. I hope you are too. I was explaining to Great Grandfather Richard for whom It's all about not going down any rabbit holes. Thus he might have missed a crucial part of our previous exchanges. Wishing you all the best always, Share
________________________________ From: Robin Carlsen <maskedze...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday to Ann --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Richard, I actually did tell Robin which actions of his I was calling > psychological rape. His declaring many times with certainty what my inner > thoughts and feelings were. However, Ann does not name which actions or > inactions of mine are the basis for her accusations. This is the crucial > difference between what I did and what she did. I also list her words on > which I'm basing what I say about her. Richard, I actually did tell Robin which actions of his I was calling psychological rape. His declaring many times with certainty what my inner thoughts and feelings were. However, Ann does not name which actions or inactions of mine are the basis for her accusations. This is the crucial difference between what I did and what she did. I also list her words on which I'm basing what I say about her. Rape--psychological or physical--means to invade and violate the integrity, mentally or physically, of another human being, How can there possibly be psychological rape if someone describes the experience that person is having of the effect of the subjectivity of another person, an effect which is interfering with the rationality and intelligibility of the discourse? Someone reading another's thoughts and feelings--Isn't that spiritualism, mind-reading, occultism of some kind? How can there be psychological rape if someone describes the effect of the subjectivity of another person such as to identify how that subjectivity is systematically depriving the interaction of a minimally desirable level of objectivity? One must presume from Share's testimony that either: 1. Robin did indeed declare "many times with certainty what [Share's] inner thoughts and feelings were"--and he was accurate in doing this (making him a mind and heart reader of sorts) or 2. Robin did indeed declare "many times with certainty what [Share's] inner thoughts and feelings were"-and he was inaccurate in doing this (making him simply irrelevant to the inner world of Share). One would want to ask in terms of this alleged accusation (which Robin denies) whether Share did in fact experience that her thoughts and feelings were being accurately described--for in that case science would have no business mapping the brain to discover the physiological correlates of certain states of feeling and thinking; or whether Share experienced (in thinking Robin was trying to read her thoughts and feelings) that her thoughts and feelings were not being accurately described. If Robin (according to Share) did not describe Share's feelings and thoughts accurately, then how can there be any invasion or violation of Share? And if (according to Share) he did describe Share's feelings and thoughts accurately, what is that but a simple scientific observation? Share suddenly escalated the entire interaction (as she just did yesterday with AWB) to a level of hysteria and extremism which entirely altered the context of the conversation, and by doing so she recreated reality in such an unexpected way that it took me several weeks to figure out WTF was even happening. I was confused and disoriented--as I tried conscientiously to understand what Share was doing. The hair-trigger subjectivity of Share destroys any semblance of intellectual order and psychological coherence. The charge of psychological rape was absurd and meaningless. Any attempts by anyone to describe how the subjectivity of a person is influencing their apprehension of reality--it is like anything else: either it is true or it is false. For instance, here in this post: If someone were to point out to me how my own first person perspective was dictating the analysis I was making, I have a simple way of responding to this: Does this interpretation obtain here according to my understanding of what is being said to me? or does this interpretation not obtain here according to my understanding of what is being said to me? If someone on FFL were to try to point out how some specific tendency or inclination or bias of my first person ontology was determining my point of view about Share WHY I WOULD FIND THAT FASCINATING AND MEANINGFUL IN THE EXTREME. I would have to assess the extent to which what was being said to me appeared to contain more objectivity than my own judgment of its application to me--but if someone were able to show to me that my own subjectivity in some way was--presumably without my realizing this--negatively influencing my capacity to read the situation truthfully, I would find that beneficial to me--and something I would welcome. The question for me always comes down to one thing: Can I adjust my first person subjective perspective to reality's perpetual adjudication of its appropriateness, its suitability, its objectivity, its inherent truthfulness. Whether we are aware of it or not, this is what life really comes down to: The extent to which our first person ontology can achieve an objective reading of the metaphysical facts of the universe as those facts apply to the meaning, truth, and well-being of ourselves as a individual created being with the utterly mysterious faculty of free will, whose destiny is to go through the experience of dying. There has never being any psychological rape on FFL. > ________________________________ > From: Richard J. Williams <richard@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 7:19 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fw: The Science of Compassion, for Wednesday to > Ann > > >  > > > > > Ann, numbered below are excerpts showing the vile > > > accusations about my character you make... > > > > awoelflebater: > > The tone of this post to me is very reminiscent of your > > responses to Robin when you felt you had been so "raped" > > by him in some way... > > > > Well, I think it's time to stop all the 'mind-rape' on > FFL; trying to take Share down the Rabbit Hole. What > business is it to some anonymous posters that want to > change what we believe in? > > When are they going to send in the thought police? How > dare these people have something to believe! This is just > getting outrageous! > > Next thing you know, they'll be taking away our posting > privilages on Yahoo! Groups for asking 'What did he know, > and when did he know it?'. > > 'Christians persecuted throughout the world' > http://tinyurl.com/8vkorn8 > > <snip> >
