I have zero interest in whether what I say makes any sense to you. I have nothing to prove or defend.
Thanks for "retweeting" some of my old posts. I enjoyed reading them again. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- 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 >
