Whoooeeee.  At least we know where you stand.  Thank you for that.  

________________________________
 From: Jason <jedi_sp...@yahoo.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:04 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The day hysteria, paranoia, mayhem reigned supreme 
on FFL
 

  

Yeah, I think so.

No, he didn't give any indication in the beginning.

---  Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Jason:  Do you think yeti was more disconnected from reality than you 
> think Robin is?  Yes or no.  Do you think yeti demonstrated in his first day 
> here that he is bent on nothing but crazy attack?  Yes or no. 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: Jason <jedi_spock@...> 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:17 AM
> 
> 
> ---  "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote:
> >
> > Johnny Manziel creates depression in Tuscaloosa.
> > 
> > Ludwig still allowed Elizabeth to have him buried as a Catholic.
> > 
> > Shakespeare can really get you down.
> > 
> > If there really were such a thing as reincarnation men would not be as 
> > helpless as they are before a beautiful woman.
> > 
> > The revulsion towards incest proves the existence of providence.
> > 
> > Falstaff's first person ontology defeats analysis and yet he is real enough.
> > 
> > Psychotherapy is in any ultimate sense almost useless if it is not as 
> > subtle as quantum mechanics.
> > 
> > Madonna stopped really being Madonna when she became Kabbala-ized.
> > 
> > Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch was doing the same thing as the 
> > Evangelist approaching Curtis when he was busking.
> > 
> > Allah is not interested in making someone beautiful or more intelligent.
> > 
> > A philosopher's philosophy is determined not by objective reality, but by 
> > the subjectivity of the philosopher in his or her unconscious reaction to 
> > reality.
> > 
> > Churchill, although non-religious, knew he was going to win.
> > 
> > Mitt will seek to understand his defeat entirely inside his Mormonism--and 
> > not existentially.
> > 
> > No Maharishi in the West without LSD and the Beatles.
> > 
> > Paula and David probably really did love each other.
> > 
> > If you weren't intelligent you didn't get to be one of Saint Teresa of 
> > Avila's nuns.
> > 
> > Sneezing proves there is (or once was) a Personal God.
> > 
> > My memory of those seven Tour de France victories remains what it was 
> > despite the fallenness of Lance.
> > 
> > I like the originality of the idea that God became a person inside his 
> > creation.
> > 
> > Ann writes about horses the way Balanchine talked about ballet.
> > 
> > James Joyce loved reading Aquinas.
> > 
> > I'll go back to doing TM when The Maharishi School of Enlightenment has a 
> > high school football team.
> > 
> > America is more alive than Canada: that might be our problem--and mine.
> > 
> > The angel of Paris didn't like Hitler standing near the Eiffel Tower.
> > 
> > Oral Roberts could never imagine a Super Bowl commercial--and that proves 
> > the limits of Evangelical Christianity.
> > 
> > Nobody knows what reality is--reality makes sure this is the case: thus no 
> > way of resolving these controversies on FFL.
> > 
> > The phenomenon of Elvis Presley proved Christ was no longer in the world.
> > 
> > If Barry is right about me, I would like to find that out.
> > 
> 
> ---  Jason <jedi_spock@> wrote:
>
> I am now having doubts about the reason of booting out 
> "awakened_yeti". 
> 
> If Robin is just a notch below the yeti, the disconnect, his 
> inability to corelate factors, lack of cohesiveness and 
> incongruent disquisition all support Xeno Taxius's analysis.
> 
> > 
> > ---  turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a good discussion, so against my better judgment :-)
> > > I'll weigh in on it.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Opinions and/or possible insights interspersed below:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
> > > > <lurkernomore20002000@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Share,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I enjoyed your response here.  You realize of course that Judy and
> > > > > perhaps Robin are going to issue a rebuttal,  point by point to
> > > > > everything you are saying.  Well Judy may be running short on 
> > > > > posts. 
> > > > > And you realize of course that your points will be thoroughly
> > > > > discredited, at least in their mind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But your response here is the Kali side of Share that I am so 
> > > > > impressed with.  Rather mild in this case, but effective 
> > > > > nonetheless.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here's something I've been thinking about.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I like Robin. I think he is a gifted writer. But wouldn't you 
> > > > > expect someone who claims to have come off the cult leader 
> > > > > persona, and who is vehement in this claim to come off a 
> > > > > little differently?
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps come off differently in his *actions* but perhaps not 
> > > > necessarily in his *writing*...and the only thing we currently 
> > > > have that tell us anything about who he is today are his *words*.
> > > 
> > > This is a good point. I have made a similar one in the
> > > recent past that I think is relevant -- that most of the
> > > people on this forum only *know* about words. They *never*
> > > spent any appreciable amount of time around Maharishi or
> > > any other spiritual teacher, and as a result place a
> > > great deal of importance *on* words. Words are the only
> > > way they've ever learned *anything* in a spiritual context,
> > > and and they've actually come to believe that they can
> > > learn things *from* words that they really can't. 
> > > 
> > > But there is another aspect to this that relates more to
> > > what laughinggull said. In my opinion -- and please bear
> > > in mind that when *I* use those three words I really mean
> > > them, not like others here who spout opinion and claim it
> > > as truth -- *IF* Robin has changed in any significant way
> > > in these last 25 years, he hasn't changed his writing 
> > > style to reflect it. IMO he is a *lazy* writer, falling 
> > > into the same ruts while writing FFL posts that he fell
> > > into while writing his earlier interminable rants as a
> > > wannabee spiritual teacher. 
> > > 
> > > THAT, in fact, was the thing that first "blew his cover"
> > > on TM-Free. People recognized his corpulent, completely
> > > self-obsessed *style*, even though he (as I understand)
> > > hadn't revealed who he was. 
> > > 
> > > > > I mean, keep in mind that Robin saw  fit to write what was, 
> > > > > I believe, a forty page letter to Curtis, insisting that 
> > > > > Curtis address some issues that Robin deemed to be essential.
> > > 
> > > I would suggest that THIS is an *action* that reveals a
> > > great deal about present-day Robin. It's NOT as if what
> > > he did with Curtis -- *demanding* that he plow his way
> > > through page after page of invective and self-serving
> > > justifications -- was unique; he's done it with MANY
> > > people here. 
> > > 
> > > This leads me to ask, "How exactly is this *action*, this
> > > *behavior* any different than when he was equally demand-
> > > ing of his cult students, and in fact dragged them up on
> > > a physical stage to endure his flagellation? The only
> > > thing that seems to have changed IMO is that he shifted
> > > from a physical stage to a virtual one, re-enacted in
> > > cyberspace. 
> > > 
> > > The same bullying, the same *demanding*, and the same 
> > > overriding sense of *entitlement* are still present. 
> > > THIS is the primary behavior that makes me believe that
> > > nothing has changed from the "old Robin" to the "new
> > > Robin." He's still the same bullying cult leader, or
> > > trying to be. The only difference is that this time
> > > he has run into a few people who refuse to fall for it.
> > > 
> > > > > Does that make any sense? I mean Curtis indicated that 
> > > > > he didn't really care to discuss the matter further. 
> > > > > And yet Robin pressed on, again and again. A forty 
> > > > > pager, a 20 pager, 10 pagers.
> > > 
> > > Just the sheer *volume* is an affront to the senses. 
> > > WHO in their right mind would feel that he has the
> > > right to subject people to *literally* novel-length
> > > diatribes and then 1) expect them to actually read
> > > them, and 2) expect them to respond and get into one
> > > of his "confrontations" with him, point by point?
> > > 
> > > I'll tell you WHO -- someone still suffering from 
> > > Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 
> > > 
> > > > It's not really my "cup of tea" which is why I don't 
> > > > generally read what he writes. 
> > > 
> > > Tell me about it. :-)
> > > 
> > > For me it's not just about the florid prose and the 
> > > oppressive style, but an overriding icky feeling I
> > > get when in the presence of someone who has an 
> > > overweaning sense of *entitlement*. Robin DOESN'T
> > > RESPECT his readers. He doesn't respect them enough
> > > to allow them to withdraw from one of his harrangues
> > > when they want to, and he doesn't respect them 
> > > enough to fucking EDIT, and find ways to spew his
> > > crap in fewer words. 
> > > 
> > > > (But I have occasionally uncovered a gem...well, maybe 
> > > > not a gem but a zirconia...in my in scanning some of 
> > > > his shorter posts.) 
> > > 
> > > I have not. I have been *consistently* underwhelmed.
> > > 
> > > > But that's the "nature of the beast" (i.e. a public forum) 
> > > > in which we have all *chosen* to participate. What anyone 
> > > > writes here can be read and responded to, read and not 
> > > > responded to, or completely ignored (i.e. not read). 
> > > 
> > > See, THIS is what Robin -- IMO still lost in his NPD
> > > haze -- doesn't understand. It is difficult for him
> > > to even *conceive* of the last two possibilities you
> > > list above. It's more like, "*I* wrote it...*of course*
> > > have to read it and respond to it." 
> > > 
> > > > However, what anyone writes comes with a responsibility 
> > > > of not slandering a person, and the right of anyone to 
> > > > respond in defense.
> > > 
> > > Not to mention the right to NOT respond to slander, 
> > > and to just ignore the slanderer as if he (or she)
> > > didn't exist. That doesn't "map" to Robin's universe;
> > > IMO he doesn't even get the possibility of such a 
> > > thing happening. He can only envision people reacting
> > > the way *he* would react -- "If someone challenges
> > > my world view, I *have* to react and bat them down
> > > and make them see things the right way...*my* way."
> > > I don't think he can comprehend people who have no
> > > need to do that.
> > > 
> > > And again, this is a classic symptom of Narcissistic
> > > Personality Disorder. 
> > > 
> > > > > And this is the pattern with Robin.  A pattern of bringing 
> > > > > to most every discussion a template which attempts to 
> > > > > discern if one is acting from a level of truth which is 
> > > > > aligned with reality, or with ones' first person ontology.
> > > 
> > > Yet another classic symptom of NPD. Robin's definition
> > > of "truth" seems to be "How I see things." 
> > > 
> > > > > I mean who communicates like this?  Does this seem normal? 
> > > 
> > > Does it even seem SANE?
> > > 
> > > > > And does this not resemble the little we know about the WTS? 
> > > 
> > > It's *exactly* the same act. 
> > > 
> > > > > According to at least three people who were there, Bill, 
> > > > > Brahmi, and LK, it does resemble that time.
> > > > 
> > > > In his *writing* alone and not necessarily in his *actions*. 
> > > 
> > > I hope that I've made this point sufficiently. We do NOT
> > > have only his writing with which to judge Robin. We have
> > > the ways that he *treats* people, and the ways that he
> > > makes *demands* of them. These are all actions. 
> > > 
> > > > Wouldn't it be interesting to hear from someone who has 
> > > > actually been around him for a period of time over the 
> > > > last couple of years who could really *see* who he is 
> > > > today? 
> > > 
> > > Only if one is interested in Robin to start with. :-)
> > > 
> > > > (I'm beginning to understand the aphorism "actions speak 
> > > > louder than words".) There is no doubt that he is one of 
> > > > the more "colorful" characters that I've come across in 
> > > > my life...
> > > 
> > > Here is where my experience dancing around the spiritual
> > > smorgasbord may give me a different perspective. I find
> > > Robin Carlsen one of the most ORDINARY people I've ever
> > > run across. I've seen cookie-cutter copies of him in 
> > > half a dozen other spiritual movements. And ANY of the
> > > other cookies were more interesting. For one thing, 
> > > most of them were capable of coming up with their
> > > *own ideas*. 
> > > 
> > > > ...and I might enjoy sitting down with him more as a 
> > > > "person of interest" but I think I would not want to 
> > > > sit down with him regularly. But then again, I try to 
> > > > keep an open mind about such things.
> > > 
> > > I'd certainly have a beer with the guy, but I wouldn't
> > > turn my back on him. 
> > > 
> > > > > But evidently Raunchy doesn't see it that way. Nor Judy 
> > > > > or Ravi I assume.
> > > 
> > > Duh. Robin's act is *their* act. Like attracts like.
> > > 
> > > > I'm beginning to understand where they're coming from. It's 
> > > > in defense of someone who is being unfairly judged but what 
> > > > he *writes* alone and not necessarily his *actions* in real 
> > > > life.
> > > 
> > > I disagree. They like Robin because he's better at being
> > > an abuser than they are, and they're gone enough to actually
> > > respect that and want to be around it. 
> > > 
> > > > > But inspite of this, Robin says he is reformed. That he 
> > > > > has spent 25 years reforming himself. 
> > > 
> > > This is one reason that I have posted some of the things
> > > I have about NPD. The condition is rarely successfully
> > > treated by professionals, and almost *never* successfully
> > > self-treated. 
> > > 
> > > > > ...but all we have to go, is his word, because
> > > > > his actions don't indicate this, at least to me.
> > > 
> > > Absolutely. 
> > > 
> > > > "... but all we have to go (on), is his word..." That 
> > > > exactly right, his *word* (i.e. his writing).
> > > 
> > > I hope I've made the point that we have a great deal more
> > > than that to "go on." We have the demands that he has
> > > consistently made on others, the abuse he's heaped upon
> > > them when they failed to react the way he wanted them to,
> > > and the hissy fits he's thrown when someone says something
> > > that *really* pushes one of his hot buttons. I find it
> > > difficult to comprehend how anyone could have witnessed
> > > these things and not considered them "actions."
> > > 
> > > > "...his actions don't indicate this..." What actions? We 
> > > > can't see his *actions* unless we're in his presence for 
> > > > a significant period of time.
> > > 
> > > Nonsense. We see them in the *intent* that lies beneath
> > > every post, and the *demands* these posts make of others.
> > > 
> > > > I was hung up on the same thing until someone pointed out 
> > > > to me that writing style can remain the same even though 
> > > > a person may be different inside. I, for one, am willing 
> > > > to give him the benefit of a doubt until he proves 
> > > > otherwise (i.e. does some *actions* that would impact 
> > > > me in a negative way).
> > > 
> > > And you are free to do just that. Unlike some on this 
> > > forum, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) that
> > > there is one and only one "right" way to view Robin.
> > > I'm just presenting the way *I* see him. 
> > > 
> > > For me, he has *never* acted in such a way that urges
> > > me to give him the benefit of a doubt in terms of 
> > > "having changed." 
> > > 
> > > > > Perhaps he is the cult leader version of a dry drunk. 
> > > 
> > > Best line of the whole discussion. :-)
> > > 
> > > > > He still demonstrates some of the behaviors of a cult leader, 
> > > > > but at his core, he is not.
> > > 
> > > My OPINION is that he still demonstrates not some but
> > > *many* of the behaviors of a cult leader, because at
> > > his core, he still is one. Nothing has changed.
> > > 
> > > > > But like I said, I like him quite a lot, and I enjoy his 
> > > > > participation here.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's my take
> > > 
> > > And now you have mine...
> > >
> >
>


 

Reply via email to