--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@...> wrote: > > I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or sensitive > - he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people talk here > about great words, how we face life, how we interact with other people, you > would certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this interaction > here: It is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why the famous, > 'get a life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels he needs a > shower sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he certainly shows > sensitivity, and it also indicates that he is vulnerable. > > Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically > speaking, and that in various configurations, as it is we were often > opponents. People also forget that he is the one to let people share in his > life and observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I find, > and he exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. > > What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a > reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal > assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make up > for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance to > her, because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him back > into the boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special insight > into Barrys soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, but I think > it was totally unnecessary. >
Yep, you people hijacked what was a perfectly good subject and drove it off in to the ditch, again. Could you re-subject the subject thread when you take a turn and drive off? It should be helpful to the reading public here. Thank you in advance, -Buck > --- 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
