Thank you for this, Robin. It seems easier to walk around in someone's shoes if it's a fit with reality, less painful pinching of the toes and cramping of the mind. Cinderella's fantasy shoes always crack under pressure and it's nearly impossible to walk beyond the pumpkin and mice if you're really interested in knowing the truth of who owns the glass slipper.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > If you are seeing more of reality than another person--that which actually > exists independent of one's personal subjectivity--you will know it, because > in the collision of views, you see your own view as separating itself from > your own feelings--and you can see (in imagining yourself as your adversary) > how he or she is--even quite sincerely--unable to do this. No, not even ever > having *done* this. > > Hardly anyone on this forum really has thought of the possibility of reality > having a point of view about an issue being controverted on FFL. Just pretend > this is so--and I mean this to the extent of making reality appear as an > angel and pronouncing who is right, and who is wrong--or at the very least > where the most amount of truth lies. > > Think of the resolution of an argument as being something like getting > Curiosity to land on Mars--What is the mission? What are the calculations? > What is the physics of this? To get Curiosity to land on Mars means to get > all the arguments out such that it then becomes possible to > determine--objectively (or in terms of what the angel of reality would > say)--what the final truth of this matter is. It is not a matter of triumph > or defeat, then; it is matter--ideally--of quiet and final revelation. > > The a priori assumption that no controversy on FFL can ever be resolved > through something resembling science--science having become a kind of > metaphor for the objectification of subjectivities--means that each disputant > (well, *almost* each disputant) believes the truth essentially comes from > one's personal experience--which amounts to this: *Whatever feels like what > the truth is such as to have that truth conform to my own predispositions and > predilections subjectively*. It may be possible to say that, when there are > conflicting views of something, *there just might be a context through which > it can be determined what the truth is at the very end*--for both parties. > This would be getting Curiosity to land on Mars. > > When one feels inclined to disagree with what someone has said (posted), then > it is not the *feeling* that this is so that counts, *it is the willingness > to contemplate that the universe itself has made judgment that coincides with > one's own judgment*. The severity of one's self-scrutiny in this way is the > only way the truth can get separated out from the first person point of view > of each of the two duelling posters. > > What this means is that somehow truth is there, waiting to be found--or at > least experienced. And the *experience* of truth being found is not one of > personal satisfaction; it transcends affect; and of course it must transcend > one's own subjective patterns of feeling and even thinking. Curiosity landing > on Mars was not the achievement of any scientists's subjective will; he had > to discover what laws of the universe had to be understood and obeyed in > order to make the mission successful. There has to be a form of conceptual > and intuitive engineering within any argument which is going to end up at > some point of resolution. > > When reading the post of someone with whom one disagrees, if one already > begins to start to argue against that post *before reading it as third > person--standing apart from any fixed opinion*--then one is avoiding > *allowing reality to impress itself upon one's mind and heart*--through that > post of one's adversary. There has to be the willingness to entirely subject > oneself to the content and intent of the person with whom one is disagreeing; > what this means is: if you begin to develop and shape your rebuttal as you > are reading the other person's post, you are only preserving the form of > subjectivity which will insure that your response is predictable--and serving > only the needs of your own need to have your point of view prevail *because > it makes you feel good*. > > Argument means self-sacrifice, not self-assertion; and in the sacrifice of > one's subjectivity, one allows that same subjectivity to be filled up with a > sense of what is the case--what is, then objectively true.--There is at least > this *possibility*. If you conceive of argument as simply the assertion of > one's point of view, then this actually has nothing to do with the intrinsic > truth of the matter. None. It has become a matter--even if this remains > unconscious--of reinforcing the metaphysical bias of one's personality--so > that reality remains what it was before the debate began. > > You are not saying anything *unless in the saying of it you get to travel > somewhere inside yourself*. And why does this happen, or how does this > happen? It happens--this movement and expansion and change--*because reality > making itself present inside one's subjectivity as it (reality) senses the > opportunity to have its say. Is this a fantasy? It certainly is not. And this > phenomenon is happening--without perhaps the knowledge of any of the parties > locked into disagreement. Yes, reality is more present in the argument of one > person versus the argument of another person--but those who do not experience > any of reality coming into their subjectivity will be entirely ignorant of > this phenomenon--and will of course construe this post as something--at > best--imaginary and unreal. > > It is the most real thing there is. Someone is right in the present dispute. > No one believes this, except that those who are closer to the truth have this > mysterious sense of having argued from a position of perception rather than > opinion. Those who have the lesser amount of reality coming into their > subjectivities, will not have any sense of having transcended their > subjectivity (for truth must be held inside there an nowhere else), and > therefore will not be participating in anything which could be described a > innocent or beautiful. They are imprisoned within an unchanging experience of > themselves in relation to the issue they are discussing. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > RD, I'm not sure if you read *all* my comments interspersed > > throughout...read all the way to the bottom where I recognize what I've > > done and why I did it: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327690 > > > > If not, you might want to do that, then revise your list of questions > > below. I'm not sure if I can answer them because I'm *can't* read Share's > > mind. And it's not that I'm a stalwart defender of Share; you and the > > others (see Judy's list) have had her under the spotlight for so long that > > I think it's only fair that the spotlight be turned on you and the others. > > And it appears that this might be beginning to happen in a very logical and > > intelligent manner, and not from my posts alone. As my wise grandfather > > used to say: "It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost." Open up > > and have a willingness to learn. It's really not so bad. > > > > You see RD, one of you alone *might* be just enough for the "stupid" people > > *as an entire group* to handle; add to the mix Judy, Ann, Ravi, Robin, or > > any of the others and the "stupid" people get just so overwhelmed and start > > making no sense whatsoever, and I just can't have that. Think of me as the > > defender of fair play: one of you at a time against the entire group of > > "stupid" people...I simply cannot allow any more. > > > > (Keep reading, just a few more below.) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > LG I'm really glad Share has such a stalwart defender as you. Since > > > you're butting in on Share's behalf as if she were not an intelligent > > > adult, capable of responding to my post herself, > > > > Oh, this sounds so familiar...where have I seen this so many times before? > > Oh, oh, I know, I know! You not trying to say that Robin isn't intelligent, > > are you? How dare you! > > > > > could you take a moment to read her mind as I have been unable to do and > > > answer a few questions help understand her better? You can elaborate but > > > yes or no will do. > > > Based on Share's post below: > > > Is wts Share's fantasy? > > > Did Share accuse Judy of psychological rape? > > > Did Share accuse Judy of attributing thoughts and feelings to her without > > > explicitly saying how or what they were? > > > Does Share's framing of her argument against Judy based on her > > > assumptions about the fantasized existence of wts help her effectively > > > rebut the posts Judy cites in the archives that demonstrate Share's > > > misunderstanding of why Robin decided to cut off private email > > > communication, her subsequent misunderstanding of the sequence of events > > > that transpired, and then based on misunderstanding of her own making, > > > accused him of psychological rape? > > > If Share dropped her wts and psychological rape fantasy, and rebutted > > > Judy based on what transpired between herself and Robin in the archives > > > would she be more successful in defending herself and put an end to your > > > need to defend her? > > > Is Share unwilling to address her misunderstandings in the posts Judy > > > cites because she cannot defend what she has written? > > > In order to truthfully address the posts Judy cites would Share have to > > > first drop fantasizing herself as a victim of wts and psychological rape? > > > Do you think these are fair questions? > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's Judy at her wts best. Doing the psychological rape thing > > > > > > of attributing to me thoughts and feelings I've not had. Then > > > > > > presenting her ideas as The Truth. Then lacking in compassion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to be clear, Share, you are accusing Judy of psychological rape. > > > > > > > > Fact 1: RD *wrote* the above, therefore > > > > > > > > Fact 2: RD knows that Share has accused *Judy* of psychological rape. > > > > > > > > Question 1: Why is RD butting in on a situation that involves Share and > > > > Judy? > > > > > > > > (IMO, it couldn't be that RD feels that Judy needs her assistance, as > > > > Judy has always shown herself to be completely capable of expertly > > > > handling *all* accusations thrown in her direction.) > > > > > > > > Question 2: If Share chooses to *not* respond to RD (IMO, probably > > > > because RD had no business butting in on a matter involving Share and > > > > Judy), does that make everything true in what RD has written in the > > > > rest of her post? > > > > > > > > Question 3: If RD persists in confronting Share to answer her questions > > > > from a post where she butted in on a matter involving only Share and > > > > Judy (kinda like somebody else did a couple of weeks ago), would that > > > > be considered cyberharassment or cyberbullying or somesuch? > > > > > > > > Question 4: Is RD's butting in on a matter involving only Share and > > > > Judy an example, albeit early stages, of "piling on" to which Share and > > > > others have referred. > > > > > > > > > Why do you persist in portraying yourself as a victim? wts is your > > > > > fantasy. You are entitled to make ridiclous assumptions based on > > > > > fantasy but it doesn't help you deal with the reality of people > > > > > calling you out on your behavior or make a coherent argument in you > > > > > own defense. To make your case against Judy, here's a starter: > > > > > Clearly state exactly what thoughts and feelings Judy attributed to > > > > > you that you did not have. > > > > > > > > Start here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/327618, > > > > then follow the "post trail" beginning with the post Share mentions at > > > > the top. And you're going to have to put a little work into > > > > this...don't expect Share to do your homework for you. > > > > > > > > > Judy backs up her ideas with facts that she doesn't make up. Her > > > > > forthright style of presenting posts in evidence of your own words in > > > > > the archives is perhaps emotionally unsettling, a "trigger" making > > > > > you feel defensive but it doesn't negate the truth of what she says > > > > > or what you have written. > > > > > > > > Does "context" count? I'm assuming it doesn't because not too long ago, > > > > you tried to revive the "milk and cookie" debacle by posting the *one* > > > > comment taken out of context that portrayed the poster in the worst > > > > possible light. > > > > > > > > > Rather than lash out at Judy ineffectually, deal with your > > > > > "triggers" and deal with the reality of what she says, not as a > > > > > victim but as an equally intelligent adult. If you want to make a > > > > > case against her you cannot do this successfully if the starting > > > > > point of your defense is based on fantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I realize that I've just "butted in" on a post from RD to > > > > Share but I wanted to show how a situation quickly begins to escalate > > > > from simplicity to complexity then gets completely out of hand when all > > > > sides start jumping in. Could that be the intent of the "butter-inners" > > > > all along? Couldn't be, because then that would make them very bad > > > > people, and we just don't have any bad people on FFL. > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > >
