If Barry approves of this, I do. You must realize, though, Curtis, that not all of us can aspire to such saintly disinterestedness and impartiality as you do (as evidenced in this post).
You attempted one approach; now you proffer another one. We are all different; we each have our own personal and unavoidable (and uncorrectable) point of view. I can't help but being prejudiced and biased against Barry; he, the same vis-a-vis me. We are all doing our very best. Why not recognize that these issues can never been adjudicated objectively, decisively? I get it now. I was fighting for something unwinnable. And I am sorry. Now, that is; after reading this second mood post. If Barry will pretend to like me, I promise I will not try to strike back at him. How did those women ever resist you, Curtis? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
