PART III
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote:
Curtis1: And when they reject this assumption, (as any adult would), you act as
if you are in a fight to make them see themselves through your unflattering
lens.
Robin1: This is absurd, Curtis. I don't make any assumptions about people at
all--neither here on FFL nor elsewhere. I adduce my evidence, I provide a
context of understanding; I do not just call people names. What I experience
("sincerely") is contact with something which makes it seem that not to say
what I feel is the truth will be to defraud me and the person of the knowledge
ofwhat is really going on.
Curtis2: Then I am saying you are as notas good at providing the knowledge of
"what is really going on" as you think you are.
Robin2: This is unproven, undemonstrated, and embarrassingly arbitrary. YOU
DON'T EVEN LOOK TO YOUR EXPERIENCE TO BUTTRESS THIS ASSERTION, CURTIS. Not
good. You are just saying this out of the blue, having insulated yourself
inside the exigent demands of your first person ontology.
Look, Curtis, even without consciously realizing this, had you made this
judgment and there were experiences you had had which formed the basis of that
judgment WE WOULD FEEL THIS--again, even unconsciously. And this would go
towards demolishing Robin's claims. This is so fascinating, Curtis--I don't
know anyone else in my life who does this. That is, assert what is the case
completely in a reality vacuum--which disallows the reader's consciousness to
have any access to data which exists independent of that argument from
authority (which you personify in your polemics here on FFL).
Robin1: There is one fatal weakness in all that you say against me, Curtis: I
analyze people to some degree here on FFL--that is, how their own subjectivity
is interfering with the truth (as I see it). My doing this LEAVES ME OPEN TO
BEING ANALYZED MYSELF--not just to get back at me; but in terms of WHAT MAKES
ROBIN DO THIS. For why I do this, Curtis, it must be there, transparent--indeed
my way of going about arguing with someone (which "any adult would reject")
itself, for there to be any truth in what you say here (and elsewhere), must
reflect more obviously upon some weakness in myself than the weakness or flaw
that I seek to expose in the subjective determinations in another person--like
yourself, like Share, and now like Steve.
Curtis 2: I don't believe this, but I can't imagine that you would care. I
don't sense any genuine openness in you this way.
Robin2: You don't believe what you profess to disbelieve either, Curtis--as
evidenced in both these sentences. I am saying to you, Curtis, that there is
tremendous "genuine openness in [me] in this way". What about *that*? Am I
lying? I maintain that those who read me objectively sense this openness--or at
the very least, the firm intention to do justice to the truth no matter how
inconvenient or painful it is to myself. No? It's certainly what I set to do in
my life, Curtis--at least now. Yes, I would die upon a point of honour; viz. I
am sincere, I am open, I am vulnerable, and I am willing to have my clock
cleaned--even by CurtisDeltaBlues. "I don't sense any genuine openness in you
this way": This is barefaced lie, Curtis--*in this sense*: it, once again, is
separate from experience, from evidence, from memory, from history, from
anything which could feed into this assertion to give it its humanly
constituted sincerity. Get it?
Robin1: Goddam it, Curtis, I feel you know what's going on here better than I
do. You know Share's flaws better than I do--Barry's for sure. I think you deem
me naive about Barry. Get it, Curtis?
This is the key to understanding you. But again, I return to the self-evident
principle of how we set up automatically a judgement of ourselves when we judge
other persons. In my case it should be clinically obvious what I am about
here--but you have not yet identified the problem I have--or even tried to do
this. Why, I wonder?
Curtis2: I don't care maybe? You certainly wouldn't be open to it if I did.
Robin2: I don't care MAYBE. But you *do* care, Curtis. I am, I declare this on
point of death, unreservedly "open" to any and all reflections you might have
about me personally--that is, turning a judgment on me the way--you insist--I
turn a judgment on others. Out with it, Curtis. I have put myself on the line
here. Test me. I AM OPEN.
There is one catch, however: I am not open to being told something about myself
that I know you do not believe is true. In that sense, I suppose I could say, I
am not open. But open I am. To reality. Just give reality a chance, Curtis.
Curtis1: Why would we?
Robin1 : Well, if what I say --usually (as far as I am concerned at least) on
behalf of truth or the principle of fairness in argument and disputation--has a
deleterious effect on the person--or can never do any good; that the
justification for it is not there, then this should be pointed out--and the WHY
of this, Curtis.
Curtis2: Yeah, but your going after Share for her not being aligned with
"reality" yours,
is going a lot further than that. You are trying to insert yourself into her
view of herself.
Robin2: This is very powerfully stated, Curtis. I like it. There is only one
thing amiss here: I am not trying to "insert [myself] into her view of
herself"--Keep Reading, Curtis; I am rather attempting (however efficaciously
or not--these things generally don't bring about real change--I admit this; but
if reality is behind what I am saying, there is the chance something good will
happen) to INSERT SHARE INTO HERSELF. More of the real intrinsic Share, then,
Curtis. You really think I--extrinsic in every way to Share Long--wish to
inculcate in her some sense of WHAT ROBIN WANTS FOR HER rather than nudging,
teasing, provoking, stimulating, inspiring her to lose her bearings just a
little so that life and reality can get in there? I assure you, Curtis, I wish
only for Share to be Share. It has been my experience that Share still wants to
convert Stalin by presenting him with a flower and perhaps Share's delicious
rice pudding. I only 'go after Share', Curtis, when (nowadays anyhow) she
brings up my name in some judgmental or ambiguous way--and then, my response to
her is based not on trying to insinuate myself into her life, into her person,
but rather to quicken her to what reality might want to happen. If I am out of
it, wrongheaded, stupid in this intention, I will eventually have egg on my
face. It is just that it won't be Steve that acts as the messenger of reality
in this respect.
Still, to say: "You are trying to insert yourself into her view of herself"
gets traction in some meaningful way for me. Again I would argue (as I already
have) that I am attempting to challenge Share to find a deeper and truer Share
that is there, and which the providential arrangement of her life makes it
possible for her to find. That at least is the ideal I have in mind, and I only
work off my discrete and minute experiences in all this. Share was once
violently opposed to me; she at the very least seems willing to open herself to
different currents of opinion and feeling that are coming towards her from
various FFL posters. Do you understand what I am saying here, Curtis?
I am very sensitive to this "psychological rape" charge, which dogs me (falsely
I believe) from my enlightened days (when AWB was around--she was a prime
victim). I do not believe it applies to me now, Curtis; I certainly hope it
does not. I think my techniques are all legitimate and are not transgressive.
I'd say in some way they might be getting through to Share.
Now at least you can agree with *that*, Curtis.
Hi, Share.
Curtis1: People generally are not opened to this kind of invasive, uninvited
analysis.
Robin1: This "why would we"? reminds me of your challenge to Emily when she
questioned whether you had read the Eben Alexander book: "Why would I lie about
that?" Because you didn't read the book, Curtis; that's one reason. And you
wanted to dismiss it out of hand. Not a book I would have thought you would
read--that's like me wanting to reread Crest Jewel of Discrimination .>
Curtis2: You are wrong here. I spend time in my reading seeking out opinions
different
from my own about beliefs. A book with heaven and neurophysiology in the title?
I didn't buy it, I saw it on the new books shelf at the library. I take home
about 50 books a month and some of them are just a passing interest. This is
much more than a passing interest. I re-read the Bible every few years too.
Robin2: You probably have taken the book out by now, Curtis and are mastering
it enough to give yourself the credibility you manifestly lacked in all that
you said about the Eben Alexander's account of his NDE. This testimony you give
here [that you indeed did read the book], I think I will just pass over it. For
your sake. Still, I insist you are a kind of innocent in all this, Curtis. I
will let you and others figure out how I could say that and make it comport
psychologically and objectively with all that I have said about you.
I read the Eben Alexander book. Anyone who reads it imprints something of the
essence of the book--and if that person goes to say anything specific about
that book, it will carry the impression of how its essence has made itself
known inside that reader. You didn't read the book, Curtis--but then you were
up against it, and did not anticipate Emily would question you on this.
You are reading it now, though, right?
Mind you, I don't think it is a book you need to read, as I think you and I
would be closer in our review of the significance of that book than perhaps any
other book of its kind.
And what do I know? perhaps you *did* indeed read it. If you did, Curtis, I
apologize--just as Emily did. It is just that books leave a mark on a person.
You evinced no mark on you when you alluded to Eben's book. But all this is
unimportant. Let's get back to what we were discussing.
Curtis2: Have you noticed that I am posting on a spiritual, not an atheist
forum? Same reason, it helps define the edges of my POV much better than with
people who see things my way.
Robin2: This does not ring true for me. Although it is a clever gambit. I have
no idea why you post on FFL, Curtis. Maybe you don't either. But I know one
thing: You like to take away the love and belief we all have for Jesus. (If you
get that metaphor.) I have not experienced that you take seriously any argument
of any poster on FFL--as it goes to "help[ing] the edges of [your] POV".
But I am not impaling myself on the truth of this intuition, Curtis. You are a
big mystery. I doubt anyone understands you other than yourself. I will
certainly give you credit for being the most self-knowledgeable person on FFL.
You know who you are in a most profound and exact sense, Curtis. Better than I
know myself, that's for sure.
Robin1:Look, Curtis, if what I say about a person is true, this will have one
kind of effect--on the person, on the readers of FFL, on reality itself.
Curtis2: Not necessarily. It might just come off as unfriendly and annoying.
The "reality itself" concept I find problematic.
Robin2: I can live with this objection. It seems it is uttered honestly. I
don't know as if it goes to the heart of the matter, but it is a valid
perspective. I would only say in opposition to this, Curtis, that I am not,
intrinsically, an "unfriendly and annoying" person. No one in my life who has
known me has ever thought so. Just so you know.
Barry, you, from out of the depths of your soul, have a very different opinion
on this, I know. And I respect the strength and felt truthfulness of your
conviction. I am glad you are in Paris. I am impressed.
I know how problematic "reality itself" is for you, Curtis. I aim to do my
best--I have been now for almost two years--to make this concept more
comprehensible and believable. Let us assume that I am wrong. I think
eventually, inevitably, I will have to give up this idea (and experience and
philosophy) of there being a reality, and that reality has brought us into
existence.
Again, nothing wrong with this for me, Curtis.
Robin1: If what I say is not true, this will have quite another kind of effect.
I am a
gracious and shrewd person: let me just confess one thing, Curtis: I do not like
analyzing people in some way which would demonstrate their motive to argue the
way they are is not sincere--but the perception of what they are doing, *it is
just there*. And it imposes itself upon me--that is, often the need to speak up.
Else, for example, Curtis will get away with pulling the wool over everyone's
eyes--which you are wont to do, dear Curtis.>
Curtis2: I get it that you are being compelled and I don't expect you to
change, I am just offering my opinion of it.
Robin2: Marvellous! And I have nothing to say to this. Nice.
Curtis1: You may be thinking that your "insight" is more valuable than it is.
Robin1: I judge the so-called "insight" according to a rigorous criterion,
Curtis: Is reality agreeing with me?
Curtis2: This is not rigorous, it is delusional. I spent a lot of time
examining your
articulation of your epistemology so you know my view of this claim.
Robin2: Well, at least in the case of yourself, is is not at all delusional.
The deliverances offered up by reality in the presence of your tactics in
argument, Curtis, make me an even stronger believer in the intimate interface
of reality and Robin. As far as I am concerned--except at the beginning--I
don't remember any posts which fulfil your claim that you having "spent a lot
of time examining your articulation of your epistemology"--and so I can't "know
of [your] view of this claim". For the purposes of this moment, Curtis, you
have never taken me on on this. Look here, Curtis: I am applying this criterion
in these three posts and countless posts to you before this--one was a
five-part one I believe.
No, you have never really engaged with me in close hand-to-hand combat *on this
specific issue*--not even philosophically. But if you can either find where
your assertion here is confirmed on the record, or *if you would like to begin
to examine my articulation of my epistemology* right now, I would be more than
delighted at this prospect, Curtis. Let's really fight this one out: What are
the elements which constitute Robin epistemological claims, and how can we
assess their validity? Like the epistemological claims I am making right here
in this passage. How epistemically reliable is Robin's claim to know what
Curtis is about when he argues about the epistemological truth of his beliefs
about Curtis?
If I were delusional--not just because you cannot believe my claim to subject
my insights to this rigorous criterion: "Is reality agreeing with me?"--that
proof that it is delusional will come to the fore. Why? Because anyone who
would make such a claim against your fixed POV about what is epistemologically
possible, would reveal--very blatantly (and convincingly) to yourself--what
proves that claim is assuming much more than what I can deliver. Our
conversation has always been epistemologically based and driven, Curtis. And it
still is in this moment.
Robin1: If it is not, then I leave myself wide-open to a counterattack far more
negatively consequential to me than anything unflattering (to use your word)>
Curtis2: You are immune to feedback Robin. This is not a consequence for you at
all. It just gives you another writing prompt.
Robin2: All kangaroos are extinct. I have said so. My name is Curtis. Need I
say more?
No, kangaroos still run freely in Australia, Curtis, and so does me willingness
to contemplate critical, negative feedback. Is this not what you have been
giving me for over a year now? I am only "immune" to feedback to the extent to
which I refuse to relinquish my hold on reality--or relinquish my adherence to
a philosophy which you find anathema. I have been getting negative feedback for
26 years, Curtis, and I have no choice but to act upon that feedback, if I am
to--this is definitely metaphorical--save my soul.
The problem here, Curtis, is that your feedback does not hold much reality, and
therefore reality--through me--resists that feedback. But when the right and
accurate feedback is there, I will hardly be immune to it, Curtis. And if I act
as if I am immune there are enough FFL posters out there who will catch me in
the act and convict me of my hypocrisy. This is one of the guarantees of
posting on FFL. No?
Robin1: I have said about another person. Beside, Curtis, you are ignoring the
reams and reams of writing on FFL where I have taken on this argument and
answered you. You pretend as if you are laying out this charge for the first
time. You have made no headway here, Curtis. And you don't expect to. You are
addressing your followers; you are always doing this--I stipulate: *in the
context of intense disagreement about what is true*.
Curtis2: I am writing because I enjoy writing, and often find your posts to
provide a lot of writing prompts. I have a few people, mostly offline, who
might have the interest in navigating this combined word flood, but very few
here.
Robin2: This is nice of you to say, Curtis, because just a few days ago you
were telling Ann that my intellect was pretty mediocre, that my philosophy was
superficial, and that my analyses were formulaic. I appreciate the vast
difference in your evaluation of my merits as expressed here. I feel I am
recovering from the wound of that earlier post. "Writing prompts": that's what
I ultimately am after, Curtis. And a hearty good afternoon to you there in
Virginia.
This will be the conclusion of PART III. It seems there will be only one more
post after this one, Curtis.
The wait will be worth it. You did say some things which seem genuine and
acceptable to me in Part III, Curtis. I liked this. But remember: either
positive or neutral feedback; never negative. I am not open to negative
feedback. As you know.
Barry, how is Paris? My favourite city in the world. I have a huge photograph
of Paris which dominates one entire wall of my living-room. I envy your fluency
in French. That is an achievement not to scoff at.
