--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > Sounds pretty unlikely to me. I would need to see documentary > > > evidence that this laughter did in fact take place. And do you > > > think anyone will believe for a moment that you just "came > > > across" this post of mine when you were actually "looking for > > > something else"? Now THAT is definitely making ME laugh! > > > > I'm sorry if it's deflating to your ego, feste, to learn > > that I wasn't after one of your posts but was looking for > > somebody else's. I had completely forgotten that you had > > been so effusively supportive of Robin back in August, > > right after Lordknows had appeared to denounce Robin and > > turn FFL into a War Crimes Tribunal. > > > > You do know Lordknows and Bill Howell, author of "Cult," > > are very close friends, right? They're allies in this > > effort to "get" Robin. > > > > That's what made me laugh about this second post of yours > > from August that I turned up: it's anti-Lordknows and pro- > > Robin, whereas your current ugly posts are anti-Robin and > > pro-Howell. Quite a 180. > > > > I understand why you don't want to explain yourself. I > > think we all know what caused the turnaround, and you > > don't want to look any more foolish than you already do. > > All opinions and judgments are subject to revision based on > new information. It would be foolish not to do so.
Right. But that isn't why you did that 180. In any case, one would have to question your judgment in reversing your spontaneously positive opinion, which was based on current information, as a result of encountering old information from 25-plus years ago. The current information, you see, is the same as it was when you formed your first opinion. And the current information actually *includes* all that old information--not in the same detail, but in no less condemnatory terms, even more condemnatory in some cases. *Self*-condemnatory. If you held a positive opinion of the person who had revealed to you the damage he had done a quarter of a century ago, what would be the basis for taking the opposite opinion after encountering the same information revealed by somebody else? It doesn't really make much sense, feste. This time I actually did go looking for your posts, feste. Found these, among others: I've been enjoying your posts because of the intense intellectual, spiritual, and emotional drama they reveal going on at what sounds like a very exalted level of experience. I find these accounts quite remarkable, worthy of a Nietzsche or a William Blake, both of whom lived vast inner lives, and very dramatic ones, too, where few could follow. It cannot be easy. I also found it very interesting, indeed unique from what I know of, to read of someone who consciously removed himself from unity consciousness and reestablished his identity as a personal, individual self that stands in a subordinate relationship to a divine Other. <snip long description of personal experiences of God> Once again, I have enjoyed your posts, MZ, which are written with such grace and conviction and ruthless honesty. I think you are on an amazing journey. --feste37, July 2, 2011 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/281378 You're a beguiling guy, MZ, a seducer, a lover, a Minotaur, no less, luring the unsuspecting into your labyrinth of delicious words. It was post no. 281584 you recall. Reading your posts just after your arrival here stimulated me actually to write something thoughtful that was longer than two sentences. No, I do not see you as dogmatic but as someone who rides gigantic tidal waves of "feeling intellect" (the phrase is not mine but Wordsworth's) wherever they happen to go and then proclaims the truth as it appears to you from whatever metaphysical beachhead you find yourself newly occupying. Before the next tidal wave comes . . . "Old men should be explorers," wrote Yeats, and, although we are surely not yet old, Yeats was also, surely, right. --feste37, January 12, 2012 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/301619 I don't have time to read more than a small part of what gets posted here, but I do want to say that I like Robin Carlsen. I think his views and experiences are interesting. I don't think it's necessary to be steeped in knowledge of MMY to understand what Robin is saying (as someone has suggested). It's a modern take on the age-old East-West division: Christianity insists that creature and creator remain separate, even when in close communion, while the East emphasizes the unity of atman and Brahman (or however they express it). Someone said, in the 1960s I think, that the road to Canterbury (or Rome for that matter) was now via Benares, and this is surely the road Robin has traveled. I think he expresses his point of view with passion and conviction and an uncompromising dedication to the truth. Add to that a graceful wit, a willingness to engage fully with those who disagree with him, great verbal dexterity and ingenuity, and a civilized demeanor, maintained even while under vicious, sneering attacks from certain people, and we have an FFL contributor who is to be admired, in my opinion, even if I may not agree with all his views. --feste37, July 19, 2012 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/314850
