--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater no_reply@ wrote:
>
> I am isolating two paragraphs which illustrate why I am unlikely to
feel understood by you.
>
> Me:> >I am left with a mysterious natural world and the wonder of my
own conscious awareness with no word that pretends, falsely, to explain
it all. It is the existential boldness of facing the absurdity of
life,and then having faced it, creating my own meaning for my existence
rather than putting on one of the mental suits off the rack. My lack of
belief is beautiful to me, just as religious people hold their faith.
But opposite, like in Superman's reverso world.
> >
> > OK. This seems to imply that once you held beliefs very close to
your center, to your heart but you were disappointed, let down, it
became apparent it was all lies and you had to fight hard to come to
where you are now but not without great cost. It appears you have
suffered for your beliefs and now you reject mightily the very things
you nurtured at one time. Of course, I could be completely wrong, I'm
just trying to work it out here.
>
> Me: My statement was a summation of Camus' Existentialism. It
implies none of the the things you internally generated about how I was
"let down" or "disappointed". It implies no suffering by having come to
this conclusion. But in your filter of seeing me, you believe they are
implied or contained. My transition from belief to non belief was the
direction of more truth and more joy, insight into life beyond
fabricated constructs imposed on it from outside life itself. You are
fitting me into your own narrative and I don't see myself in it.
I have no narrative that would imply what you are implying which seems
to be that I have some agenda to present you as something you are not. I
get the distinct impression you are trying to make it look like I am
imposing something on you based on my need to do this which is based on
- what?
>I suspect you would not make this assumption if we met personally.
Writing is already a skewed perspective.
You may be correct but I have not placed a value judgment on you or your
beliefs. I don't know you but am trying to know you better because you
put some interesting ideas out there. My purpose is not to get any
handle on Curtis in some absolute way, just to figure out what was
behind what you wrote and maybe why I felt the way I did. No big agenda.
It's not like we're figuring out if we'll be suitable marriage partners
or anything.
>
> But the spin is consistent and below we will see it again.
No spin Curtis, just an honest attempt to think about what you put out
there and have an intelligent discussion about it.
>
>
> > >
> > > Your millage obviously did vary. And I can respect that. As soon
as you introduced the term "hideously blasphemous" in response to my
first piece, I knew we were listening to different drummers. There are
many ways to get to hope. Enjoy yours as I do mine.
> >
> Anne> Oh, yes, hope. Well, I haven't lost that yet so I don't have to
get to it but I certainly respect those, like yourself, who are seeking
it.
>
> Me: Do you see it? I never said I had either lost hope or was
seeking it.
Oh, then what you wrote that I highlighted in blue was something
different than how I read it. I read that to mean that you were "getting
to hope" meaning you were making your way and you were wishing me
enjoyment in the getting there as well, whatever form that might take.
But from what you say now it seems that you are are already at hope and
that you wish that I could enjoy my being at hope as much as you do. Or
something like that.
>My point was that we come to a perspective of hope in different ways,
there was no reason to assume I was lacking in it or had lost it or now
was seeking it. But it fit a story you are telling yourself about me,
so you assumed it.
I didn't assume, I read what you wrote but you say I misinterpreted what
you wrote. No biggie. You are now clarifying that you were and are
always hopeful, that you never lacked hope.
>
> But it leaves the real me out.
Only you can be clear in what you write and then I have a better chance
of leaving the "real" you in. You seem to be implying I am making things
up on purpose about you but the blue sentence was not clear when I first
read it. (Kind of like the blue rabbit.)
>
> I believe you are processing me through a story about me you are
creating.
Working it out, Curtis. But I get the vibe you aren't digging it so I
will leave it. This will only turn into some sort of fight. You know who
you are and what motivates you, how much hope you have or not so I'll
just leave it at that. >So I don't feel it is likely that I will feel
understood by you even if your intentions are good and you sincerely
want to do so. Just like you don't "get" my humor, you don't "get" me.
>
> But I wouldn't try to make a case that you are missing much.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for taking the time to express these thoughts. (I think)
> > >
> > > It is 55, let's please keep those slippery years from flying by
any faster!
> >
> > Yes, I just turned 56 so I guess I've been breathing just a little
longer than you have, but not by much.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't enjoy any of the feelings you described from reading my
writing. I can't recommend your reading what I write after this post.
Seriously. It is certainly not my intention to make anyone feel as you
reacted.
> >
> > I believe you. But I will keep reading what you write because that
is how I live life. I like to take it all in, within reason. You contain
a lot of what life can dish out, you have walked a lot of miles and done
a lot of things. You seem to be a man of this world, for sure. I love
that part. Experiencing, experimenting, living, sweating, hurting,
trying, stumbling - it's all important, it's all meaningful. The more
cuts and scrapes and scars and detritus the better. Go for it, I do, and
I know you have too. And you can't make me feel anything, that is all up
to what I am made of so no sweat there. It is not your 'problem' if I
felt the way I did.
> > >
> > > For me, I am as proud of the understanding I have forged through
the years as Buck is about his dome thing. What I most objected to in
both Raunchy and Dr. DA's posts was taking something that I value, my
seeing myth as just that, and trying to turn the greatest intellectual
accomplishment of my life into a superficial personality affliction.
> >
> > Fair enough, but what you say comes from inside of you so if they or
I see your 'myth busting' as a personal fault line then that is
another's perception but not necessarily your concern. However, I speak
for myself only here, the busting of the myth carries with it some sense
I have of negativity on your part and I don't know if it is anger,
disappointment bitterness or none of the above. I suppose it doesn't
really matter for me, but it could for you. But that is for you to deal
with, if at all. I think if I was to say anything about it I would say
that there is some element of the tragic there. You are like the man who
has had things of value smashed before his eyes and there is nothing
left of the mysterious, the magical, the unknown. It all becomes mud or
clay.
> >
> > >And this is generally the fate of atheists through the lens of
"spiritual" people, I get that. But I walked a lot of miles to get here
and I fly my freak flag as high as anyone who is professing the beliefs
that they cherish concerning God. Any one of them. Even the elephant
headed one who rides on a rat. Even the rat god with his own temple in
South India. Where people drink offered milk with rat everything in it
that they believe blesses it. Everything.
> > >
> > > I was expressing my version of hope.
> >
> > OK, I definitely didn't get that.
> >
> > >The God believers get a lot of air time in society. What I write
is my own personal balance to having to watch my president put his hand
on a book I have read many, many times. And it is absurd to me for it
to hold that cherished place in our society. For most of history, and
even now on large areas of the planet, atheists have been put to death,
denied jobs and persecuted for their lack of beliefs. I think religious
people can put up with a little snark now and then considering what we
swallow on a daily basis.
> >
> > You are becoming clearer to me now, I am getting something more of
what motivated you to write that 'Christmas' post by what you just wrote
here. You are the balancer, the guy who does not relate to what all the
fuss is about regarding the belief in Christianity, religion, any of it.
I'm not that far off the mark with you on that one. I am not religious,
don't adhere, never really have, to either Eastern or Western paths of
worship or belief, not in a structured sense.
> > >
> > > I am never left in the place you ended up after I am done
dismantling what I consider to be the presumption of religious beliefs.
> >
> > Oh, but the nature of the dismantling was harsh. It didn't debunk
religious beliefs, it shit on them. Maybe it's my feminine sensibility
but it was not great for me. I had to sort of squint my eyes and look
through my upheld hands, my barely separated fingers, just to watch.
> >
> > >I am left with a mysterious natural world and the wonder of my own
conscious awareness with no word that pretends, falsely, to explain it
all. It is the existential boldness of facing the absurdity of life,and
then having faced it, creating my own meaning for my existence rather
than putting on one of the mental suits off the rack. My lack of belief
is beautiful to me, just as religious people hold their faith. But
opposite, like in Superman's reverso world.
> >
> > OK. This seems to imply that once you held beliefs very close to
your center, to your heart but you were disappointed, let down, it
became apparent it was all lies and you had to fight hard to come to
where you are now but not without great cost. It appears you have
suffered for your beliefs and now you reject mightily the very things
you nurtured at one time. Of course, I could be completely wrong, I'm
just trying to work it out here.
> > >
> > > Your millage obviously did vary. And I can respect that. As soon
as you introduced the term "hideously blasphemous" in response to my
first piece, I knew we were listening to different drummers. There are
many ways to get to hope. Enjoy yours as I do mine.
> >
> > Oh, yes, hope. Well, I haven't lost that yet so I don't have to get
to it but I certainly respect those, like yourself, who are seeking it.
> >
> > Now, I actually loved this response of yours.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"
<maskedzebra@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"
<raunchydog@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: I already responded to Dr Dumb Ass's snipped comments. I
will accept Raunchy's as a writing prompt.
> > > > >
> > > > > RD:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like what you say here, Doc. Just to guild your lily a
little, I'd say that irreverence is a performance art of disaffected
seekers. They indulge in tipping sacred cows hoping people will react
in horror.
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: Let me stop you there. Can you name a single person who
could be expected to react in horror from a satiric piece on
Christianity here? Name one pearl-clutcher, to use you apt image. A
single person whose identification with the ideas contained in the myths
of Christianity, is so complete that anything I wrote could be expected
to react in the way your are trying to project here. One.
> > > >
> > > > Hey Curtis, just some thoughts on your responses/questions here.
Upon reading your post of yesterday I was carried along on that magic
carpet ride only you here at FFL are capable of providing. Words come
out of you as sleek as little seals and they squirm and splash around
beautifully, effortlessly. And I find my eyes gliding along with these
little creatures frolicking away and before I know it you have
transported me someplace. That place includes twists and turns and drops
and rolls. But then sometimes the little journey I am on strands me in
a kind of bizarre place, an uncomfortable place. Your 'Christmas' spiel
did just that. Not because I am religious, not because I am Christian,
not because I am conservative or narrow. I think it was because in
between all of those really fun little jumps and dives there were these
other things too.
> > > >
> > > > I re-read your piece a few times to try and understand what I
was feeling and why. I am still working it out but I realized, even
though those slick, black agile little seals really performed, I was
left feeling bereft. For some reason I didn't feel good after the post.
I felt yucky in fact. Now I am not saying you are a yucky guy, just that
the effect your writing in this instance had on me was to leave me
feeling sort of besmirched (great word, "besmirched"). Anyway, I think
it was because in what you wrote, what you said was essentially
flattened something. Probably not across the board and certainly not in
everyone's experience based on the kudos you received, but for me it
annihilated something, momentarily. It was sort of like someone telling
you Santa Claus never is or never was and anyone who believed
differently needed to realize this and realize it but good.
> > > >
> > > > You see, there was no redeeming element that allowed for a happy
ending, a reprieve, any hope. It was like so many things that I take joy
in were smashed open and what was inside was just stuffing and sawdust.
The wonder inherent in certain subjects you touched (stomped?) upon
disappeared. The things you wrote about became, for me, less rich, less
full, meaner. They lost their specialness, things, precious things,
became less than ordinary when in fact they are not.
> > > >
> > > > I wish I could have enjoyed it like many others here did
because, man oh man, can you write. You have experienced so much in your
57 years (or pretty close to that I think?) and there seems to be so
much that wants to be expressed within your intelligence. Maybe I'll
just wait for your next aquatic seal show and see if I like it any
better. But boy those little devils can certainly swim.
> > > > >
> > > > > I argue that mine is exactly the opposite motivation than the
one you propose here. I wrote it for people who share my sense of
humor, I am an entertainer. I would never post it on a board of
Christians because I do not have the motivation you ascribe to me. And
at this point if anyone is offended by my perspective on Maharishi,
after years of full disclosure of my POV, shame on them for reading it.
They are going way out of their way for their offended buzz.
> > > > >
> > > > > An example of why I wrote it was Emily's response. That made
me very happy and fulfilled my intentions for posting it.
> > > > >
> > > > > RD:
> > > > > It's rather juvenile but they do it just to show how hip, they
are and how hip you're not because they think you haven't rejected the
beliefs that they have.
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and that
maintaining this believe will somehow alter your disposition in the
afterlife? Can you name one person who has that belief here that I
could impose my hipness on by making a satire about Christianity? Since
we all dissected Judith's book in detail here I could not reasonably
expect my mention of the reality of Maharishi's hidden life would do
more than elicit a ho hum from this jaded crew. You are imagining
something to shame me for that doesn't even make sense. Name one belief
concerning the Jesus myth that I have rejected and you have not. The
unique divinity of Christ? His role as your personal savior through the
mechanism of belief? His role as the fulfillment of the prophesies of
the Old Testament? That he was required by God to suffer for our sins?
You have to dismiss all the details of Christian theology to get to
something we might disagree on, perhaps your conjectures about his state
of mind. Maybe you think he was an enlightened guy and I don't. But we
agree on a hundred things about the story to find the one we do not
agree on.
> > > > >
> > > > > RD:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even today, Barry thought it would be fun to post
humorously irreverent road signs by MUM to see who smiled and see who
didn't smile. I suspect he's more interested in pissing people off than
in delighting them. I go for the latter.
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: I draw your attention to this post as counter evidence for
that claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > RD:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Funny thing is, after awhile all the TMO, TM and Maharishi
bashing, pissing on baby Jesus and exhibitionistic waggling of dicks
gets to be so ho-hum that one hardly notices cries for attention fading
into the distance. Sadly, when irreverent performance artists, shock
jocks, don't get the negative reaction they hoped, they're just as happy
to get applause for taking a public dump from people who don't know the
difference between art and schlock.
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: I saw a great Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David was
being subjected to his wife's family Christmas traditions. Alone in the
kitchen Larry passes the time eating a cookie he found in a manger
scene. To his chagrin and the horror of his in-laws, it turned out that
he had eaten the baby Jesus cookie in an all cookie manger scene.
Opening his mouth only to switch feet, he tried to pacify them all as
they flocked around to shame him by saying "I thought it was a monkey
cookie." They were not pacified.
> > > > >
> > > > > I share my sense of irreverent humor with Larry, and I wonder
if you would project all these negative qualities on his intentions as
you have on mine. A more broad minded perspective might allow that when
it comes to humor, it is a personal thing and not feel the need to
demonize someone making different choices than you.
> > > > >
> > > > > RD
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Irreverent art is really old school. Back in the day of
the Dadaists:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Marcel Duchamp penciled a mustache and goatee on a print
of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa and inscribed the work "L.H.O.O.Q."
Spelled out in French these letters form a risqué pun: Elle a chaud
au cul, or "She has hot pants."...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Francis Picabia, once tacked a stuffed monkey to a board
and called it a portrait of Cézanne...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Schoenberg's music was atonal, Mal-larmé's poems
scrambled syntax and scattered words across the page and Picasso's
Cubism made a hash of human anatomy...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, for all its zaniness, the Dada movement would prove
to be one of the most influential in modern art, foreshadowing abstract
and conceptual art, performance art, op, pop and installation art."
> > > > > > > http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/dada.html
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: I appreciated your references and I think you are
supporting a case more for its value. For me I believe it has
tremendous philosophical value to examine myths in an original way. I
am not only trying to entertain those who share my sense of humor, I am
mapping out my perspective by sharing a unique approach to these myths.
And finally I am sharing my actual throught process as I contemplate the
images of my own nativity dredged up from my youth.
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who are friendly toward me here, it is sharing who I
am my perspective. For those who feel the need to use this as proof of
a personality or spiritual defect, they are welcome to that but I can't
respect that POV. It seems unnecessarily uncharitable considering the
fact that their own beliefs are not being called into question.
> > > > >
> > > > > RD:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When all is said and done and irreverent spiritual
performance artists have met the "Maker of Us All" that they poopoo,
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: So you are really that sure of yourself about this? I
would like you to make a case to support such a belief, show us what you
are basing it on as I have shared why I reject it.
> > > > >
> > > > > RD:
> > > > > generations of unschooled idiots will pay homage to them by
scouring the archives of FFLife for instructions on how to be an asshole
while tipping sacred cows.
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: When I try to conjure up the reasons and motivations for
your writing this insult, I can't come up with a single on that I
respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I loved this, raunchy. You have the right credentials--all
the way down.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ME: That strikes me as a bit disappointing to hear you say
that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
