--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: > > Ah, I like that. "With" God, not "one with God." Very Christian. And yea, > too, for "the self" that is better than "the Self," because who can match any > one of us in our exquisite uniqueness -- not the Self, surely, which is > boringly the same yesterday, today, and forever!
Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been? > > > > With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. > > truthful to reality. > > > > [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my > > first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things > > really are.] > > > > It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational > > outburst against BW. > > > > I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. > > > > And, as you know, I am a very humble man. > > > > But Christ! it ain't easy. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
