--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote:
> No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis.> Only you, right? I know the drill. Anyhoo I am working on a premise that we are all working in a more similar than different way here. We have different styles of expressing it. You are gunna be more rope a dope with some people, Jim and Judy more aggressive. But basically we have each sized each other up and there will be very little openness between certain people, no matter how it appears at first. I am trying to go post by post mirroring the openness or hostility. It does not work with Judy, has worked a bit with Jim in the past. It has actually worked best with Richard who I have shifted my view about, knowing full well that he may let me have it in the next post. Ravi too actually, and certainly Ann and Buck who vacillate in how they relate to me. I am trying to let every post stand on its own without giving the highest weight to the history. With my strong views about the value of the spiritual path I am always gunna get some version of disapproval from many poster here from time to time, and I can accept that and even still like them, while believing they are wrong. Most of them just blow me off unless we are on a non spiritual topic and I understand that. I little of me on that topic goes a long way. I have never gotten back to a trusting sincere space with you. It's funny, I was looking at some old posts from our beginning run and there was a comment you made that at the time I think I took completely the wrong way. You were saying that the one thing I must never do is question your enlightenment in the past. I realized now that I thought you were being snarky and self-effacing, making a joke about insisting that I take that seriously, you know wink, wink, nudge, nudge style. I thought it meant that you were beyond taking that part of your life seriously. In retrospect I suspect a lot of our initial rapport was based on this kind of misread. And perhaps the same for you. Maybe you read my denouncing spirituality as more tongue in cheek than I meant it. Perhaps when you found out I really don't believe in enlightenment in the way you do it was a shock too. You know I wasn't punching you with my analysis of your take on Barry. I wasn't even denying that it was true for you. My point was that your subjective take was not more than that. And there are other perceptual positions that might also be valid for that person. None of us is seeing the other clearly, we all have our choices of interaction embedded in our history of communications here. I wasn't just "sticking up for Barry", that is irrelevant. I was sharing my perspective which was different from yours. We are both entitled to our own views, we earned them. > > I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about Barry > now--and may I say this? > > I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be > refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively. > > I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has caused > the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver. > > So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was > entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like me > much. > > Right from the beginning. > > That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to get > my revenge here. > > I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it > that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as Curtis > has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For having given > evidence of simple projection. > > A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for Barry > trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed sincerity and honesty of my post about > Barry. > > I never thought you would have the guts to stand up for Barry. > > And that I could sneakily deceive all FFL readers into believing what I knew, > right from the start, was pure resentment and pique. > > What is marvellous is the impression I get that your post, it cannot be > faulted. > > Magic. > > But I am glad you were moved by the profound sense of what you deemed the > critical implications for yourself, about leaving my BW post unanswered. > > Your pride exceeds my love of what is true. > > Our standoff here, it makes me sense the justification of death (assuming as > I do it will deal with this controversy-among other things). > > No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis. > > (But you will understand the psychological need I had to respond like this.) > > Subjective ex cathedra. > > Oh, and by the way: everything I said about Barry Wright is true, and your > post underscores this. > > Kidding. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. He is not open to > > being vulnerable to people who he does not like. Sometimes this is people > > who attack him, but not always. He didn't like you right off. So you only > > see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect. > > > > > > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, > > > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as > > > he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily > > > be missed) argues for his position.> > > > > The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any reason > > to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it > > as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, > > they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than > > conversation. > > > > If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they > > often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting > > or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to > > your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably > > predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to > > predict that you were not gunna be friends. > > > > So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the ability > > to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. Do you see > > Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a > > person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me for that matter? > > Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are > > openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and > > might say something with no intention to be open to that person. > > > > I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each > > other space to express our opinions even if we differ. So we get along > > based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna > > send out some version of what you just wrote. I've received enough of them > > myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your > > consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode. > > > > Or you can prove me wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took > > > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before > > > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, > > > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. > > > > > > > > > > > > Color me not surprised. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? > > > > > > > > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to > > > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. > > > > > > > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-) > > > > > > > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called > > > > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are. > > > > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain > > > > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just > > > > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get? > > > > Just sayin'... > > > > > > > > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining > > > > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with, > > > > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would > > > > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying > > > > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten > > > > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten > > > > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course. > > > > > > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a > > > strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and > > > subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that > > > person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any > > > concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying > > > he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, > > > how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has > > > written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and > > > offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he > > > writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval > > > in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of > > > provocation. > > > > > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, > > > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as > > > he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily > > > be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any > > > investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. > > > And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of > > > writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into > > > reality and the consciousness of other persons. > > > > > > If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely > > > opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to > > > your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of > > > psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will > > > ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually > > > acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any > > > responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of > > > truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an > > > unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion > > > but anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that > > > only you are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure > > > he is feeling nothing. A zero. > > > > > > What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense > > > that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely > > > interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by > > > how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. > > > You see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation > > > from reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading > > > BW's post; reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his > > > opinion of some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality > > > might think about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes > > > those readers who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what > > > he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic and controlled mind game. > > > > > > BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his > > > subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his > > > posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service > > > of producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he > > > knows are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have > > > stipulated, likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else > > > but BW has to bear the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. > > > Not BW. Not only does he vaccinate himself against any feedback from > > > others, but he vaccinates himself against any feedback from himself. This > > > means the FFL reader experiences a strange kind of reality: A person who > > > is expressing a strong opinion who, when he does this, does not offer up > > > any evidence of what his own experience is of himself when he does this. > > > > > > Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what someone > > > writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there. > > > > > > It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the > > > quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to > > > remain inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and > > > he has been posting only to himself. As if this were the case, since he > > > has removed himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the > > > experience of the reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to > > > reality and what abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter > > > about which he is writing. > > > > > > BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or > > > scornful or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in > > > attempting to challenge what BW has written, to the extent to which this > > > represents a real intention inside the other person, is the extent to > > > which that intention--and the writing of a counter-post--will end up in > > > empty space--No one is there. > > > > > > BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to his own subjectivity. His > > > pleasure comes from the ineluctable consequence of this as it affects > > > other human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > > > > > > > <seekliberation@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in > > > > > > > > the 90's. I remember that whole thing (I think it's still > > > > > > > > going). I ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the > > > > > > > > basis of the whole group. It's actually valuable if you've > > > > > > > > been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, > > > > > > > > immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, > > > > > > > > etc...). The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but > > > > > > > > primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and > > > > > > > > pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America. It > > > > > > > > was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful > > > > > > > > for it. Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life > > > > > > > > with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and > > > > > > > > growth that is often justified by modern American males to > > > > > > > > avoid altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult > > > > > > > > within a cult'. Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly > > > > > > > > meditators, but now they're a part of another new > > > > > > > > 'paradigm-shifting' group. I found that a lot of the men in > > > > > > > > that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were > > > > > > > > just NOT a part of their character. It was usually to display > > > > > > > > some masculinity or manliness. There were so many of them that > > > > > > > > would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were > > > > > > > > tough their entire life. The intensity of their recruiting > > > > > > > > efforts was borderline psychotic. I honestly believe that only > > > > > > > > a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious > > > > > > > > conflict with others. Many men who were part of it eventually > > > > > > > > drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it. > > > > > > > > However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our > > > > > > > > lives for the better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of > > > > > > > > all nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an > > > > > > > > executive decision to disband the group from Fairfield from > > > > > > > > being an official representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig > > > > > > > > felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group > > > > > > > > from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the > > > > > > > > nation. He was probably right. A lot of these men were > > > > > > > > fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality or > > > > > > > > new-agism. And if you take someone like that and latch them > > > > > > > > onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes > > > > > > > > through the roof. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed > > > > > > > > some people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding > > > > > > > > the group activities that come afterward (unless you really > > > > > > > > enjoy it). It was a major pain in the ass when I announced to > > > > > > > > the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. > > > > > > > > It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you > > > > > > > > changed your mind�..literally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seekliberation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" > > > > > > > > <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" > > > > > > > > > movement thing > > > > > > > > > from some time ago. Was it Sterling, or something? I guess > > > > > > > > > I could > > > > > > > > > look it up. But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one > > > > > > > > > of my good > > > > > > > > > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to > > > > > > > > > participate or something. It was awkward for him, and it was > > > > > > > > > awkward > > > > > > > > > for me. But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure > > > > > > > > > tactics > > > > > > > > > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house > > > > > > > > > and the FF > > > > > > > > > guy was doing his thing on the phone. But then, as now, I > > > > > > > > > didn't care > > > > > > > > > to get recruited to a new group. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his > > > > > > > > > blatant > > > > > > > > > manipulation. He just wouldn't take no for an answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
