[FairfieldLife] Re: Is this Ann?

[Jason]

> 
> ---  Jason  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is this Ann?
> > 
---  awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Absolutely, except my ears are a little more rounded at the top.
> 
> Is this Jason, is this Jason?
> 
> 
> 

Well, if you add a little melanin on the skin.  My apologies 
for posting under a pseudonym. It's a long story.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Will you help America choose wisely?

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: "Dr. John Hagelin" 
> > Subject: Will you help America choose wisely?
> > Date: October 8, 2012 8:08:55 PM CDT
> > To: "Dick," 
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Dick,
> > 
> > Are you aware that early voting has already begun in some of the 
> > thirty-four states which provide it? The moment for us to help America 
> > choose wisely has arrived.
> > 
> > You are a much treasured member of our Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City 
> > Super-Radiance community. I know that nobody understands more intimately 
> > than you the need to create maximum coherence in our national consciousness 
> > over the election period. Here's the plan I want to suggest to you:
> > 
> > Join your friends in the Domes every possible day from now through election 
> > day, November 6th.
> > Call your out-of-town Sidha friends and encourage them to take a 
> > coherence-creating vacation here in Fairfield during this election period.
> > Advertise your spare room / guest room as available on the IAA housing 
> > board at www.mum.edu/forum. You might consider making it available without 
> > charge for these few days.
> > America's fortune depends on us.
> > 
> > With my warmest wishes,
> > 
> > Jai Guru Dev,
> > Raja John Hagelin

Hey Dick, perhaps you could ask Mr Hagelin what result he is
actually after, if "natural law" has an electoral preference
wouldn't he be better off getting us to canvass friends and
relatives to go with the most "coherent" party?

Otherwise we might just meditate and be in the sad position
of having to accept the winner as the best because they were
elected while we were meditating! I've seen this before in
the NLP "nature must want this result because it's the result
we got" 

Scary, but not as scary as the guy who thought the leader of 
the NLP should be made lifetime ruler of Europe because he's 
the most "coherent" And obviouslt the most because Marshy 
wouldn't have given the job to him if he wasn't!

Maybe find out who does JH votes for then we can assume he's
right because he's obviously highly "coherent" Or not, depending
on your own personal politics which makes the whole excercise
rather pointless. Hey ho.

PS If "natural law" doesn't have an electoral preference, why not?


> > 
> > DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS  
> > ©2012 Maharishi Foundation USA, a non-profit educational organization.
> > All rights reserved. Transcendental Meditation® and TM® are protected 
> > trademarks
> > and are used in the U.S. under license or with permission.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] O'Reilly vs Stewart

[raunchydog]

Bill O'Reilly vs Jon Stewart Rumble In The Air-Conditioned Auditorium 
http://youtu.be/UBmjuwCtn_s

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar

[Emily Reyn]

Exactly.  I agree that we as a nation have tried the trickle-down theory.  It 
doesn't work.  Has it ever worked?  When did it work?  Perhaps I'm too young to 
have experienced it.  Maybe I experienced it and wasn't aware at the time.  



 From: raunchydog 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:45 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar
 

  
Why Obama Now 
http://youtu.be/U9G8XREyG0Q

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> wgm4u:
> > Romney a liar?
> >
> When you can't debate the facts, accuse your 
> opponent of lying. LoL!
> 
> "While we're on the subject of economic plans, 
> has anyone heard of a coherent plan from 
> President Obama yet?"
> 
> 'Liars Accuse Romney Of Lying'
> Posted by David King
> October 8, 2012
> http://tinyurl.com/8zynumf
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Mother, etc.

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear Buck -  and hasn't Maharishi conning and defrauding millions of people
not teach you anything that you have to keep repeating this garbage here?

These assembly line of life-abnegating, masochistic,
poverty worshiping Gurus posing as avatars, divine mothers, fathers
fashioning pseudo-spiritual values such as celibacy and renunciation which
has caused all kinds of sexual perversion, repression, amassing personal
fortunes. Do you have any newspapers, Television in your dome?

Are you telling me someone has to torture themselves, abandon/destroy their
families, abandon their social obligations to achieve enlightenment,
awakening - you can't be more wrong because this grandiose, delusional mad
Yogi is proof that it's not necessary.

I'm sick and tired of this bullshit, this is just not acceptable in this
modern age, I am telling you the future generations will not accept this
garbage. Mysticism and Enlightenment has to be framed in the modern
context, in the modern, intelligent, rational scientific context, in a
language that a person growing up in this context. You are deluded if you
think people will abandon material comforts, Scientific knowledge, their
Iphones and Ipads to torture themselves for some stupid enlightenment -
why? What's the point - I have more respect for people that enjoy their
life than idiotic people like you.

I absolutely love the Hindu metaphors of Divine Mother, Shiva and Krishna,
but you under the tutelage of your retarded Gurus are causing a perversion
of these beautiful metaphors.

Please stop this nonsense.

Love,
Ravi


On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Ravi Chivukula wrote:

> Yo Buckster you idiot, your message is nothing but garbage.
>
> There are no devatas - that's just hallucination including these parts *"Rick
> Archer on BATGAP.com interviewed a guy recently who was on-line with the
> laws of nature enough that they spoke through him" *and *Maharishi - "In
> that state of celestial experience, if Krishna comes, then he is real
> Krishna. If Shiva comes, he is real Shiva. If Divine Mother comes, she is
> real Divine Mother. There is no mental hallucination, there is no other
> than the real form in that perception"* -  NO - these ARE nothing but
> hallucinations.
>
> The laws of nature speaking through the man, LOL..this man is just a fraud
> - can you please tell me the name of this person on Batgap? Maharishi's
> statement also is garbage -Krishna, Shiva, Divine Mother - these are the
> Hindu objectification's of the mystical energy, of existence, of God, of
> the truth. Look I totally enjoy Shiva, Krishna, Divine Mother, in fact I
> haven't seen anyone sing bhajans to Shiva, Krishna and Divine Mother as
> blissfully as me but to think these are actual entities is just
> hallucination. An objectification of truth, according to
> one's conditioning, inclinations, social beliefs, customs, religion is not
> truth, is not God. We create these visualizations of the truth, these
> metaphors, these symbolisms, metaphors of the God so we can engage the
> heart - but it doesn't make them real.
>
> Please stop misleading people, stop this dangerous drama, stop deluding
> people with your fantasies, delusions, hallucinations.
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Buck  wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Pam, there is a difference whence it is prakritis as devatas giving form
>> in consciousness and then spiritism as you are more narrowly talking here
>> and alarmed by that may also exhibit as psychosis.
>> Spiritism as different from impulses of nature taking vector form in
>> consciousness when this happens and communicate thus. Yes, there are people
>> in town for who this is fluid at that level of having the laws of nature on
>> line. There's a reality to that. This then is a spirituality different from
>> entity spiritism or 'channeling' that you are making out correctly as
>> spiritually bad in conclusion.
>> -Buck in the Dome
>>
>> Also, Rick Archer on BATGAP.com interviewed a guy recently who was
>> on-line with the laws of nature enough that they spoke through him. It is a
>> distinction from hearing voices as entities. It was an interesting
>> interview.
>>
>> Also I found this on the internet from 1966, Maharishi talking about it
>> in his terms:
>>
>> MAHARISHI: ...When we talk of `glow`, we talk in terms of `seeing`,
>> vision. Of course feeling is not eliminated. But seeing dominates more that
>> experience.
>>
>> We never look forward to `glow`, never. Otherwise it won't `glow`. And in
>> that subtle state of mind... because the mind is so very powerful, if you
>> think something immediately, it will come. . But we don't want to think
>> anything unless we become grounded in the perception of the celestial.
>> field of life.
>>
>> Having been profoundly established on the experience of the celestial,
>> then of course we could wish to see something here and there. And then just
>> by our thought this thing will flash in its reality, in whatever form. That
>> state of intellect 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar

[raunchydog]

Why Obama Now 
http://youtu.be/U9G8XREyG0Q

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> wgm4u:
> > Romney a liar?
> >
> When you can't debate the facts, accuse your 
> opponent of lying. LoL!
> 
> "While we're on the subject of economic plans, 
> has anyone heard of a coherent plan from 
> President Obama yet?"
> 
> 'Liars Accuse Romney Of Lying'
> Posted by David King
> October 8, 2012
> http://tinyurl.com/8zynumf
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Mother, etc.

[Ravi Chivukula]

Yo Buckster you idiot, your message is nothing but garbage.

There are no devatas - that's just hallucination including these parts *"Rick
Archer on BATGAP.com interviewed a guy recently who was on-line with the
laws of nature enough that they spoke through him" *and *Maharishi - "In
that state of celestial experience, if Krishna comes, then he is real
Krishna. If Shiva comes, he is real Shiva. If Divine Mother comes, she is
real Divine Mother. There is no mental hallucination, there is no other
than the real form in that perception"* -  NO - these ARE nothing but
hallucinations.

The laws of nature speaking through the man, LOL..this man is just a fraud
- can you please tell me the name of this person on Batgap? Maharishi's
statement also is garbage -Krishna, Shiva, Divine Mother - these are the
Hindu objectification's of the mystical energy, of existence, of God, of
the truth. Look I totally enjoy Shiva, Krishna, Divine Mother, in fact I
haven't seen anyone sing bhajans to Shiva, Krishna and Divine Mother as
blissfully as me but to think these are actual entities is just
hallucination. An objectification of truth, according to
one's conditioning, inclinations, social beliefs, customs, religion is not
truth, is not God. We create these visualizations of the truth, these
metaphors, these symbolisms, metaphors of the God so we can engage the
heart - but it doesn't make them real.

Please stop misleading people, stop this dangerous drama, stop deluding
people with your fantasies, delusions, hallucinations.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Buck  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Pam, there is a difference whence it is prakritis as devatas giving form
> in consciousness and then spiritism as you are more narrowly talking here
> and alarmed by that may also exhibit as psychosis.
> Spiritism as different from impulses of nature taking vector form in
> consciousness when this happens and communicate thus. Yes, there are people
> in town for who this is fluid at that level of having the laws of nature on
> line. There's a reality to that. This then is a spirituality different from
> entity spiritism or 'channeling' that you are making out correctly as
> spiritually bad in conclusion.
> -Buck in the Dome
>
> Also, Rick Archer on BATGAP.com interviewed a guy recently who was on-line
> with the laws of nature enough that they spoke through him. It is a
> distinction from hearing voices as entities. It was an interesting
> interview.
>
> Also I found this on the internet from 1966, Maharishi talking about it in
> his terms:
>
> MAHARISHI: ...When we talk of `glow`, we talk in terms of `seeing`,
> vision. Of course feeling is not eliminated. But seeing dominates more that
> experience.
>
> We never look forward to `glow`, never. Otherwise it won't `glow`. And in
> that subtle state of mind... because the mind is so very powerful, if you
> think something immediately, it will come. . But we don't want to think
> anything unless we become grounded in the perception of the celestial.
> field of life.
>
> Having been profoundly established on the experience of the celestial,
> then of course we could wish to see something here and there. And then just
> by our thought this thing will flash in its reality, in whatever form. That
> state of intellect is called ritam bhara.
>
> There was that point some day to express more clearly what ritam bhara
> pragya is.
> Ritam means satyam. Satyam means `truth`. Bhara (...?) which accepts only
> the truth. That state of intellect which only accepts the truth, or which
> only reflects the truth. In that state only the truth is reflected.
>
> That ritam bhara pragya is that state of intellect, which conceives or
> perceives things as they are. In that state of celestial experience, if
> Krishna comes, then he is real Krishna. If Shiva comes, he is real Shiva.
> If Divine Mother comes, she is real Divine Mother. There is no mental
> hallucination, there is no other than the real form in that perception.
>
> Until that thing has happened we don't want to desire to see anything.
> Otherwise, much before that state is gained, you could desire and something
> flashes, but there won't be the guarantee for truth of it. Something may be
> right, something may be wrong. Therefore we don't think to see anything
> until the celsetial vision becomes clear.
>
> And once that is clear, anything could be seen in that state. We desire
> something and it is there in its true colour. There won't be any mistake in
> there.
>
> That state of finest mind is called intellect. Much grosser than that also
> is said to be intellect, (but) that is decisive. That (ritam level) is very
> fine state of the mind. The thought will be materialized in that state very
> quickly.
>
> There are two aspects of materialization of a thought. One is the
> fulfilment of the thought, the other is the material perception of the
> thought. Both will happen. But as long ritam bhara pragya has not been
> fully developed, perceptions may be faulty

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
> > > > of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
> > > > exchange with Curtis:
> > > > 
> > > > "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
> > > > disinterested perspective to see where the 'support'
> > > > metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is
> > > > possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling,
> > > > which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with
> > > > reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our 
> > > > subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our 
> > > > subjectivities what is considered by what created our
> > > > subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending
> > > > reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous
> > > > such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to
> > > > be true within any interaction where there are serious
> > > > and significant differences of point of view and where
> > > > feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play."
> > > 
> > > M:  Do tell Judy:
> > > 
> > > How do we know what the origin of our subjectivity is?
> > > How does the origin of our subjectivites make itself known
> > > to us?
> > > How do we know that what created our subjectivities considers
> > > what is a more valid way of apprehending reality?
> > 
> > We don't "know" any of these things.
> > 
> > Next question?
> 
> M:  So you might be able to imagine that I would object to
> someone claiming they did.

Who would that be, Curtis?

> Now if Robin is taking your humble position, which I believe
> reflects the human condition, then I will have to ask him
> what all this fuss of his theory (tip O' the hat) is all
> about.

Uh, no, you won't, not on that basis.



> And if he claims that he is able to know any of those
> things you might be able to understand my objection.





> > > I know you want to turn this all into another Curtis bash fest, but I am 
> > > going to keep you nose the grindstone.  Don't just cut and paste, present 
> > > these ideas so they can be discussed or admit that you don't understand 
> > > Robins ideas or that you don't agree with them.  I have raised legitimate 
> > > challenges to the ideas themselves.  Your usual routine is not gunna work 
> > > with me. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > This question of whether or not any man can claim to be
> > > > > representing the POV of Reality, is central to my life.
> > > > 
> > > > However, that is not a question that Robin was asking.
> > > > 
> > > > > I have a lot of skin in this game.  My current view is
> > > > > that people who claim this ability are a real block to a
> > > > > discussion of ideas between people.  As soon as someone
> > > > > claims this upper hand, and humans have claimed this
> > > > > often, it breaks down secular discussion of ideas based
> > > > > on their own merit rather than based on their claim that
> > > > > their subjective opinion is somehow more than that, and
> > > > > not up for discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > This is such a gross and deliberate misrepresentation
> > > > of Robin's ideas. It's the context Curtis is attempting
> > > > to impose on those ideas; it's not the context in which
> > > > Robin was presenting them.
> > > > 
> > > > Curtis chose this false context because he has some 
> > > > idea of how to object to it. But because it's *Curtis's*
> > > > context, not Robin's, Curtis's objections are
> > > > irrelevant; he's created a big fat straw man to knock
> > > > down.
> > > > 
> > > > Furthermore, it's the height of inadvertent irony for
> > > > Curtis to object to anyone imposing their POV over
> > > > that of others. This is precisely Curtis's own M.O. in
> > > > any dispute or disagreement. He does it so many times
> > > > in this exchange with Robin that Robin starts referring
> > > > to him as "Commandante," a la Fidel Castro.
> > > > 
> > > > "People who claim to have this ability"--Robin's thesis
> > > > is that we all have it.
> > > > 
> > > > "It breaks down secular discussion of ideas based on
> > > > their own merit"--according to Robin's theory, if two
> > > > people with opposing ideas both go to the trouble of
> > > > exercising this ability to perceive reality's POV,
> > > > *they will end up in agreement*.
> > > > 
> > > > Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
> > > > of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
> > > > exchange with Curtis:
> > > > 
> > > > "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
> > > > disint

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > It's hard to imagine how you could have confused them,
> > given the absolutely crucial, *massively* significant
> > distinction Robin makes following the colon in the last
> > sentence.
> 
> Ok Judy, explain this sentence in your own words if it
> is so critical and I am missing its point:
> 
> Robin: "but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> > > > mystical--innocence."
> 
> Do tell:  What does it mean to draw it out by existential
> innocence.
> 
> How is this different from mystical innocence.

Mystical innocence involves seeking external
supernatural guidance in making one's choices;
existential innocence involves using one's own
subjectivity to suss out the most objectively valid
choices. That's significantly oversimplified, but
it's the general idea.

> No more cut and paste Judy, show us all that you understand
> these concepts more precisely.

Excuse me, Commandante, but you are not in a position
to dictate to me how to respond or what is required of
me. I will reply to your questions if, when, and how I
choose. I'm not interested in showing anybody anything
about my own understanding; I'm interested only in
seeing to it that Robin is not misrepresented. If that
seems to require cutting and pasting, I'll cut and
paste.

Is that clear?

Moreover, it's dishonest of you to pretend that I've
only been cutting and pasting rather than explaining
Robin's ideas in my own words. I've used quotations a
couple of times to *supplement* my own explanations.
That was, in fact, the case with the quotation we're
discussing now: I had already provided my own
explanation of the difference between God and Reality
(see the quoted post below).

Most by far of what I've said has been in my own words.
Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

You're doing an excellent job of confirming what Robin
has said about you, Curtis.





> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > Quoting Robin making his distinction between the God idea
> > > and his idea of reality:
> > > 
> > > > "No, reality is just what supremely exists as The Real. I
> > > > should go into what my definition is of what, for me, has
> > > > replaced God. For me it is a living and providential
> > > > intelligence that can only be caught in the stream of life.
> > > > It is a context of intelligence, intention, purpose, and
> > > > meaning: but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> > > > mystical--innocence."
> > > 
> > > Me: Yeah, a "living and providential intelligence" that has
> > > the qualities of omnisubjectivity and it also caused our
> > > existence.
> > > 
> > > How could I have mistaken these qualities for the God idea?
> > 
> > It's hard to imagine how you could have confused them,
> > given the absolutely crucial, *massively* significant
> > distinction Robin makes following the colon in the last
> > sentence.
> > 
> > This is the sort of willful lack of comprehension--
> > refusal to even *attempt* to comprehend--that Robin
> > was having to deal with in his exchange with Curtis.
> > 
> > The above is just one more attempt by Curtis to "kill
> > the truth."
> > 
> > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
> > > > > > to have a POV?
> > > > > 
> > > > > M: I agree, this is a central issue.  It is using a term which
> > > > > has less emotional load than "God" (who would be such a dick
> > > > > that they would not respect "reality" right?) and then
> > > > > basically giving the word the same function and qualities of
> > > > > what the term "God" usually refers to.  A form of concept 
> > > > > smuggling.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > And it ignores the issues concerning how we can have
> > > > > confidence that someone is speaking for it, he she, whatever.
> > > > 
> > > > Two sterling examples of how Curtis attempts to "kill"
> > > > the truth, in this case the truth concerning the nature
> > > > of Robin's theory (not the truth *of* the theory; Curtis
> > > > refuses to come anywhere near trying to address that).
> > > > 
> > > > "Reality," as Robin is using the term, has some *but by
> > > > no means all* of the functions and qualities of what the
> > > > term "God" usually refers to. Robin has explained on FFL
> > > > any number of times that he believes God used to be
> > > > immanent in the world but no longer is; God is no longer
> > > > accessible to human beings and has (inexplicably) left
> > > > them to their own devices. God is not around to guide
> > > > us to the truth. That's up to us now.
> > > > 
> > > > "Reality" cannot be said, in Robin's conception, to
> > > > have taken on that fu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Mother, etc.

[Buck]

Pam, there is a difference whence it is prakritis as devatas giving form in 
consciousness and then spiritism as you are more narrowly talking here and 
alarmed by that may also exhibit as psychosis.
Spiritism as different from impulses of nature taking vector form in 
consciousness when this happens and communicate thus.  Yes, there are people in 
town for who this is fluid at that level of having the laws of nature on line.  
There's a reality to that.  This then is a spirituality different from entity 
spiritism or 'channeling' that you are making out correctly as spiritually bad 
in conclusion.
-Buck in the Dome

Also, Rick Archer on BATGAP.com interviewed a guy recently who was on-line with 
the laws of nature enough that they spoke through him.  It is a distinction 
from hearing voices as entities.  It was an interesting interview.  


Also I found this on the internet from 1966, Maharishi talking about it in his 
terms:  

MAHARISHI: ...When we talk of `glow`, we talk in terms of `seeing`, vision. Of 
course feeling is not eliminated. But seeing dominates more that experience.

We never look forward to `glow`, never. Otherwise it won't `glow`. And in that 
subtle state of mind... because the mind is so very powerful, if you think 
something immediately, it will come. . But we don't want to think anything 
unless we become grounded in the perception of the celestial. field of life.

Having been profoundly established on the experience of the celestial, then of 
course we could wish to see something here and there. And then just by our 
thought this thing will flash in its reality, in whatever form. That state of 
intellect is called ritam bhara.

There was that point some day to express more clearly what ritam bhara pragya 
is.
Ritam means satyam. Satyam means `truth`. Bhara (...?) which accepts only the 
truth. That state of intellect which only accepts the truth, or which only 
reflects the truth. In that state only the truth is reflected.

That ritam bhara pragya is that state of intellect, which conceives or 
perceives things as they are. In that state of celestial experience, if Krishna 
comes, then he is real Krishna. If Shiva comes, he is real Shiva. If Divine 
Mother comes, she is real Divine Mother. There is no mental hallucination, 
there is no other than the real form in that perception.

Until that thing has happened we don't want to desire to see anything. 
Otherwise, much before that state is gained, you could desire and something 
flashes, but there won't be the guarantee for truth of it. Something may be 
right, something may be wrong. Therefore we don't think to see anything until 
the celsetial vision becomes clear.

And once that is clear, anything could be seen in that state. We desire 
something and it is there in its true colour. There won't be any mistake in 
there.

That state of finest mind is called intellect. Much grosser than that also is 
said to be intellect, (but) that is decisive. That (ritam level) is very fine 
state of the mind. The thought will be materialized in that state very quickly.

There are two aspects of materialization of a thought. One is the fulfilment of 
the thought, the other is the material perception of the thought. Both will 
happen. But as long ritam bhara pragya has not been fully developed, 
perceptions may be faulty, may be faulty. There won't be 100% guarantee for its 
truth.

So, we allow it to develop. With regularity of practice it develops 
automatically. These are the fields where we don't force. (By) forcing we may 
be mislead. and may not be developed systematically.

Question: The other evening you said that ritam bhara pragya would be something 
even beyond the celestial and you said that what would be responsible for the 
knowledge of `I am all this`, so to say...

MAHARISHI: from there (the finest relative, celestial) to that extent (`I am 
all this`), all the way.

Question: It is both celestial and beyond celestial?

MAHARISHI: Because in the celestial (is) the materialization of the thoughts. 
Thoughts pertaining to relative life, anything pertaining to relative life, 
anything seen, anything known, anything in the relative field. That also dawns 
in its true reality, in its truth...






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "pamtaylor108"  wrote:
>
> I want to address this thing some of us are doing, this communication with 
> spirit sources. I realize there's arguments for gains, and for the blissful 
> feelings one gets from the contact, but hear me out.
> We have so little knowledge of the tolls taken on the person in direct 
> contact with the spirit, god or goddess, that it ends up being a gamble as to 
> whether or not it's safe. Other than the fact that contacting spirits makes 
> us feel blissful, we don't know the mechanics taking place in the brain--no 
> matter if the exchange is labeled channeling, or conversation, or anything 
> else; and no matter if the spirit claims divinity--we don't know the amount 
> of har

[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Will you help America choose wisely?

[Dick Mays]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Dr. John Hagelin" 
> Subject: Will you help America choose wisely?
> Date: October 8, 2012 8:08:55 PM CDT
> To: "Dick," 
> 
> 
> Dear Dick,
> 
> Are you aware that early voting has already begun in some of the thirty-four 
> states which provide it? The moment for us to help America choose wisely has 
> arrived.
> 
> You are a much treasured member of our Fairfield and Maharishi Vedic City 
> Super-Radiance community. I know that nobody understands more intimately than 
> you the need to create maximum coherence in our national consciousness over 
> the election period. Here’s the plan I want to suggest to you:
> 
> Join your friends in the Domes every possible day from now through election 
> day, November 6th.
> Call your out-of-town Sidha friends and encourage them to take a 
> coherence-creating vacation here in Fairfield during this election period.
> Advertise your spare room / guest room as available on the IAA housing board 
> at www.mum.edu/forum. You might consider making it available without charge 
> for these few days.
> America’s fortune depends on us.
> 
> With my warmest wishes,
> 
> Jai Guru Dev,
> Raja John Hagelin
> 
> DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS  
> ©2012 Maharishi Foundation USA, a non-profit educational organization.
> All rights reserved. Transcendental Meditation® and TM® are protected 
> trademarks
> and are used in the U.S. under license or with permission.
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> There is no deity but The Deity.
> Muhammad is his Messenger.
> 
> Jesus was the glorious prophet of The Deity.
> The Deity has no mother, no wife,  no son.
> 
> Robin is a idolater and polytheist
> because there are not two deities nor
> three deities.
> 
> Robin has heard this but turns his
> face away from The Face of The Deity.
> 
> Robin has time only until his last breath,
> perhaps his next breath, to take
> refuge in The Deity or be consigned
> to the Fire.
> 
> Or if The Deity wills, Robin shall enter the
> flames quite soon to show the fate of those
> who refuse the Mercy of the All-Knowing.

Who the hell is The Deity? If I haven't heard of him/her then they probably 
aren't worth knowing. Maybe it's a rock band, a new TV show, a song? Geez Bill, 
how could I have missed the season premier?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I disagree with your interpretation of his point
> >
> > I did not "interpret" Robin's point. I quoted his point
> > directly from his post.
> >
> > > but we can let Robin decide if he cares to.
> >
> > He doesn't have to "decide" anything, Curtis, he's
> > already made the point. That's what I quoted, you see.
> >
> > > Although he objects to my characterization of "likeability"
> > > to describe the personality qualities he uses to determine
> > > how aligned someone is to the POV of "reality" he clearly
> > > does list the traits for both sides.
> >
> > Well, I'm not going to quote Robin's refutation of this
> > notion again; I'll simply ask readers to scroll down to
> > the quote, which begins "WTF..."
> >
> > Then readers can ask themselves why Curtis is reiterating
> > his interpretation of what Robin has said after Robin has
> > told him it's wrong.
> >
> > I mean, how many ways are there to interpret "likeableness
> > does not come in here" and "It is not a question of
> > likeableness, Curtis"? Robin doesn't mention "personality
> > traits." He's talking about how a person feels *in the
> > moment* when they have an experience of accord, or lack of
> > accord, with reality. This is entirely independent of
> > their likeability or lack thereof as a person.
> >
> > > He has applied this criteria many times in our exchanges.
> >
> > BTW, "criteria" is plural. The singular is "criterion."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   It is part of the personal attack style that you are also a big fan
> of.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show
> > > > > > > that they understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone
> > > > > > > can offer answers to my objections that don't include an
> > > > > > > assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but
> > > > > > > actually sticks to the points themselves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the most part, the answers to your objections are
> > > > > > simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't
> > > > > > crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you
> > > > > > genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because
> > > > > > you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a
> > > > > > potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the
> > > > > > truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly
> > > > > > suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for
> > > > > > you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the
> > > > > > truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > M: Right, I am against truth and kittens.
> > > >
> > > > Don't know about kittens, but truth has never been your
> > > > friend as long as I've known you.
> > > >
> > > > > > Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the
> > > > > > irrelevance of Curtis's objections:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis?
> > > > > > Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad
> > > > > > hominem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point
> > > > > > in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long
> > > > > > disquisition about how personal likeability is not
> > > > > > necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if
> > > > > > this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It
> > > > > > had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had
> > > > > > said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > M: And your attempt at bullshittery is equally jaw dropping
> > > >
> > > > Well, let's see whether I was bullshitting.
> > > >
> > > > > Robin making the point Judy missed:
> > > >
> > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > 
> > > Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
> > > of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
> > > exchange with Curtis:
> > > 
> > > "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
> > > disinterested perspective to see where the 'support'
> > > metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is
> > > possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling,
> > > which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with
> > > reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our 
> > > subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our 
> > > subjectivities what is considered by what created our
> > > subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending
> > > reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous
> > > such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to
> > > be true within any interaction where there are serious
> > > and significant differences of point of view and where
> > > feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play."
> > 
> > M:  Do tell Judy:
> > 
> > How do we know what the origin of our subjectivity is?
> > How does the origin of our subjectivites make itself known
> > to us?
> > How do we know that what created our subjectivities considers
> > what is a more valid way of apprehending reality?
> 
> We don't "know" any of these things.
> 
> Next question?

M:  So you might be able to imagine that I would object to someone claiming 
they did.

Now if Robin is taking your humble position, which I believe reflects the human 
condition, then I will have to ask him what all this fuss of his theory (tip O' 
the hat) is all about. And if he claims that he is able to know any of those 
things you might be able to understand my objection.






> 
> 
> > I know you want to turn this all into another Curtis bash fest, but I am 
> > going to keep you nose the grindstone.  Don't just cut and paste, present 
> > these ideas so they can be discussed or admit that you don't understand 
> > Robins ideas or that you don't agree with them.  I have raised legitimate 
> > challenges to the ideas themselves.  Your usual routine is not gunna work 
> > with me. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This question of whether or not any man can claim to be
> > > > representing the POV of Reality, is central to my life.
> > > 
> > > However, that is not a question that Robin was asking.
> > > 
> > > > I have a lot of skin in this game.  My current view is
> > > > that people who claim this ability are a real block to a
> > > > discussion of ideas between people.  As soon as someone
> > > > claims this upper hand, and humans have claimed this
> > > > often, it breaks down secular discussion of ideas based
> > > > on their own merit rather than based on their claim that
> > > > their subjective opinion is somehow more than that, and
> > > > not up for discussion.
> > > 
> > > This is such a gross and deliberate misrepresentation
> > > of Robin's ideas. It's the context Curtis is attempting
> > > to impose on those ideas; it's not the context in which
> > > Robin was presenting them.
> > > 
> > > Curtis chose this false context because he has some 
> > > idea of how to object to it. But because it's *Curtis's*
> > > context, not Robin's, Curtis's objections are
> > > irrelevant; he's created a big fat straw man to knock
> > > down.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore, it's the height of inadvertent irony for
> > > Curtis to object to anyone imposing their POV over
> > > that of others. This is precisely Curtis's own M.O. in
> > > any dispute or disagreement. He does it so many times
> > > in this exchange with Robin that Robin starts referring
> > > to him as "Commandante," a la Fidel Castro.
> > > 
> > > "People who claim to have this ability"--Robin's thesis
> > > is that we all have it.
> > > 
> > > "It breaks down secular discussion of ideas based on
> > > their own merit"--according to Robin's theory, if two
> > > people with opposing ideas both go to the trouble of
> > > exercising this ability to perceive reality's POV,
> > > *they will end up in agreement*.
> > > 
> > > Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
> > > of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
> > > exchange with Curtis:
> > > 
> > > "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
> > > disinterested perspective to see where the 'support'
> > > metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is
> > > possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling,
> > > which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with
> > > reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our 
> > > subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our 
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> 
> > Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
> > of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
> > exchange with Curtis:
> > 
> > "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
> > disinterested perspective to see where the 'support'
> > metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is
> > possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling,
> > which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with
> > reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our 
> > subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our 
> > subjectivities what is considered by what created our
> > subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending
> > reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous
> > such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to
> > be true within any interaction where there are serious
> > and significant differences of point of view and where
> > feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play."
> 
> M:  Do tell Judy:
> 
> How do we know what the origin of our subjectivity is?
> How does the origin of our subjectivites make itself known
> to us?
> How do we know that what created our subjectivities considers
> what is a more valid way of apprehending reality?

We don't "know" any of these things.

Next question?


> I know you want to turn this all into another Curtis bash fest, but I am 
> going to keep you nose the grindstone.  Don't just cut and paste, present 
> these ideas so they can be discussed or admit that you don't understand 
> Robins ideas or that you don't agree with them.  I have raised legitimate 
> challenges to the ideas themselves.  Your usual routine is not gunna work 
> with me. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > This question of whether or not any man can claim to be
> > > representing the POV of Reality, is central to my life.
> > 
> > However, that is not a question that Robin was asking.
> > 
> > > I have a lot of skin in this game.  My current view is
> > > that people who claim this ability are a real block to a
> > > discussion of ideas between people.  As soon as someone
> > > claims this upper hand, and humans have claimed this
> > > often, it breaks down secular discussion of ideas based
> > > on their own merit rather than based on their claim that
> > > their subjective opinion is somehow more than that, and
> > > not up for discussion.
> > 
> > This is such a gross and deliberate misrepresentation
> > of Robin's ideas. It's the context Curtis is attempting
> > to impose on those ideas; it's not the context in which
> > Robin was presenting them.
> > 
> > Curtis chose this false context because he has some 
> > idea of how to object to it. But because it's *Curtis's*
> > context, not Robin's, Curtis's objections are
> > irrelevant; he's created a big fat straw man to knock
> > down.
> > 
> > Furthermore, it's the height of inadvertent irony for
> > Curtis to object to anyone imposing their POV over
> > that of others. This is precisely Curtis's own M.O. in
> > any dispute or disagreement. He does it so many times
> > in this exchange with Robin that Robin starts referring
> > to him as "Commandante," a la Fidel Castro.
> > 
> > "People who claim to have this ability"--Robin's thesis
> > is that we all have it.
> > 
> > "It breaks down secular discussion of ideas based on
> > their own merit"--according to Robin's theory, if two
> > people with opposing ideas both go to the trouble of
> > exercising this ability to perceive reality's POV,
> > *they will end up in agreement*.
> > 
> > Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
> > of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
> > exchange with Curtis:
> > 
> > "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
> > disinterested perspective to see where the 'support'
> > metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is
> > possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling,
> > which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with
> > reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our 
> > subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our 
> > subjectivities what is considered by what created our
> > subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending
> > reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous
> > such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to
> > be true within any interaction where there are serious
> > and significant differences of point of view and where
> > feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play."
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > You asked me to somehow argue you out of this idea if you were wrong 
> > > about it, to lead you to the Curtis approved promise land.  But that is 
> > > not an option and I wouldn't presume to have this ability.  It is enough 
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> It's hard to imagine how you could have confused them,
> given the absolutely crucial, *massively* significant
> distinction Robin makes following the colon in the last
> sentence.

Ok Judy, explain this sentence in your own words if it is so critical and I am 
missing its point:

Robin: "but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> > > mystical--innocence.""

Do tell:  What does it mean to draw it out by existential innocence.

How is this different from mystical innocence. 


No more cut and paste Judy, show us all that you understand these concepts more 
precisely.



>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > Quoting Robin making his distinction between the God idea
> > and his idea of reality:
> > 
> > > "No, reality is just what supremely exists as The Real. I
> > > should go into what my definition is of what, for me, has
> > > replaced God. For me it is a living and providential
> > > intelligence that can only be caught in the stream of life.
> > > It is a context of intelligence, intention, purpose, and
> > > meaning: but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> > > mystical--innocence."
> > 
> > Me: Yeah, a "living and providential intelligence" that has
> > the qualities of omnisubjectivity and it also caused our
> > existence.
> > 
> > How could I have mistaken these qualities for the God idea?
> 
> It's hard to imagine how you could have confused them,
> given the absolutely crucial, *massively* significant
> distinction Robin makes following the colon in the last
> sentence.
> 
> This is the sort of willful lack of comprehension--
> refusal to even *attempt* to comprehend--that Robin
> was having to deal with in his exchange with Curtis.
> 
> The above is just one more attempt by Curtis to "kill
> the truth."
> 
> 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
> > > > > to have a POV?
> > > > 
> > > > M: I agree, this is a central issue.  It is using a term which
> > > > has less emotional load than "God" (who would be such a dick
> > > > that they would not respect "reality" right?) and then
> > > > basically giving the word the same function and qualities of
> > > > what the term "God" usually refers to.  A form of concept 
> > > > smuggling.  
> > > > 
> > > > And it ignores the issues concerning how we can have
> > > > confidence that someone is speaking for it, he she, whatever.
> > > 
> > > Two sterling examples of how Curtis attempts to "kill"
> > > the truth, in this case the truth concerning the nature
> > > of Robin's theory (not the truth *of* the theory; Curtis
> > > refuses to come anywhere near trying to address that).
> > > 
> > > "Reality," as Robin is using the term, has some *but by
> > > no means all* of the functions and qualities of what the
> > > term "God" usually refers to. Robin has explained on FFL
> > > any number of times that he believes God used to be
> > > immanent in the world but no longer is; God is no longer
> > > accessible to human beings and has (inexplicably) left
> > > them to their own devices. God is not around to guide
> > > us to the truth. That's up to us now.
> > > 
> > > "Reality" cannot be said, in Robin's conception, to
> > > have taken on that function of God. But that does *not*
> > > mean, according to Robin, that we are helpless to
> > > discover the truth (or, in the postmodern view, that
> > > there is no truth to be discovered).
> > > 
> > > IOW, Robin has not engaged in "concept smuggling." Curtis
> > > accuses Robin of this to lead readers to think Robin is
> > > trying to put something over on us, to sneak God into his
> > > theory by simply referring to God as "Reality."
> > > 
> > > And yet Robin's *entire thesis* is based on the assumption
> > > of God's *absence*. There is no question whatsoever that
> > > Curtis is aware of this and is deliberately trying to
> > > "kill the truth," the facts concerning Robin's theory.
> > > 
> > > Here's Robin's response to the same accusation from
> > > Curtis's first attempt to dismantle Robin's theory:
> > > 
> > > "No, reality is just what supremely exists as The Real. I
> > > should go into what my definition is of what, for me, has
> > > replaced God. For me it is a living and providential
> > > intelligence that can only be caught in the stream of life.
> > > It is a context of intelligence, intention, purpose, and
> > > meaning: but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> > > mystical--innocence."
> > > 
> > > The term "Reality's POV" does not, of course, "ignore" any
> > > issues at all. To the contrary, it *raises* the issue of
> > > whether Reality can be said to have a POV.
> > > 
> > > Curtis wants readers to believe that all Robi

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
> of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
> exchange with Curtis:
> 
> "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
> disinterested perspective to see where the 'support'
> metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is
> possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling,
> which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with
> reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our 
> subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our 
> subjectivities what is considered by what created our
> subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending
> reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous
> such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to
> be true within any interaction where there are serious
> and significant differences of point of view and where
> feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play."
>

M:  Do tell Judy:

How do we know what the origin of our subjectivity is?
How does the origin of our subjectivites make itself known to us?
How do we know that what created our subjectivities considers what is a more 
valid way of apprehending reality?


I know you want to turn this all into another Curtis bash fest, but I am going 
to keep you nose the grindstone.  Don't just cut and paste, present these ideas 
so they can be discussed or admit that you don't understand Robins ideas or 
that you don't agree with them.  I have raised legitimate challenges to the 
ideas themselves.  Your usual routine is not gunna work with me. 










>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> 
> > This question of whether or not any man can claim to be
> > representing the POV of Reality, is central to my life.
> 
> However, that is not a question that Robin was asking.
> 
> > I have a lot of skin in this game.  My current view is
> > that people who claim this ability are a real block to a
> > discussion of ideas between people.  As soon as someone
> > claims this upper hand, and humans have claimed this
> > often, it breaks down secular discussion of ideas based
> > on their own merit rather than based on their claim that
> > their subjective opinion is somehow more than that, and
> > not up for discussion.
> 
> This is such a gross and deliberate misrepresentation
> of Robin's ideas. It's the context Curtis is attempting
> to impose on those ideas; it's not the context in which
> Robin was presenting them.
> 
> Curtis chose this false context because he has some 
> idea of how to object to it. But because it's *Curtis's*
> context, not Robin's, Curtis's objections are
> irrelevant; he's created a big fat straw man to knock
> down.
> 
> Furthermore, it's the height of inadvertent irony for
> Curtis to object to anyone imposing their POV over
> that of others. This is precisely Curtis's own M.O. in
> any dispute or disagreement. He does it so many times
> in this exchange with Robin that Robin starts referring
> to him as "Commandante," a la Fidel Castro.
> 
> "People who claim to have this ability"--Robin's thesis
> is that we all have it.
> 
> "It breaks down secular discussion of ideas based on
> their own merit"--according to Robin's theory, if two
> people with opposing ideas both go to the trouble of
> exercising this ability to perceive reality's POV,
> *they will end up in agreement*.
> 
> Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
> of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
> exchange with Curtis:
> 
> "I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
> disinterested perspective to see where the 'support'
> metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is
> possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling,
> which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with
> reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our 
> subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our 
> subjectivities what is considered by what created our
> subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending
> reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous
> such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to
> be true within any interaction where there are serious
> and significant differences of point of view and where
> feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play."
> 
> 
> > 
> > You asked me to somehow argue you out of this idea if you were wrong about 
> > it, to lead you to the Curtis approved promise land.  But that is not an 
> > option and I wouldn't presume to have this ability.  It is enough that we 
> > both got to state our cases to the best of our ability.
> > 
> > I think you sincerely believe what you wrote.  I am disappointed that you 
> > seem to need to question my motives here as if they are somehow not as well 
> > intentioned as your own.  But that was your choice.
> > 
> > Even with this non answer to your 3 part response, I f

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> Quoting Robin making his distinction between the God idea
> and his idea of reality:
> 
> > "No, reality is just what supremely exists as The Real. I
> > should go into what my definition is of what, for me, has
> > replaced God. For me it is a living and providential
> > intelligence that can only be caught in the stream of life.
> > It is a context of intelligence, intention, purpose, and
> > meaning: but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> > mystical--innocence."
> 
> Me: Yeah, a "living and providential intelligence" that has
> the qualities of omnisubjectivity and it also caused our
> existence.
> 
> How could I have mistaken these qualities for the God idea?

It's hard to imagine how you could have confused them,
given the absolutely crucial, *massively* significant
distinction Robin makes following the colon in the last
sentence.

This is the sort of willful lack of comprehension--
refusal to even *attempt* to comprehend--that Robin
was having to deal with in his exchange with Curtis.

The above is just one more attempt by Curtis to "kill
the truth."


> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
> > > > to have a POV?
> > > 
> > > M: I agree, this is a central issue.  It is using a term which
> > > has less emotional load than "God" (who would be such a dick
> > > that they would not respect "reality" right?) and then
> > > basically giving the word the same function and qualities of
> > > what the term "God" usually refers to.  A form of concept 
> > > smuggling.  
> > > 
> > > And it ignores the issues concerning how we can have
> > > confidence that someone is speaking for it, he she, whatever.
> > 
> > Two sterling examples of how Curtis attempts to "kill"
> > the truth, in this case the truth concerning the nature
> > of Robin's theory (not the truth *of* the theory; Curtis
> > refuses to come anywhere near trying to address that).
> > 
> > "Reality," as Robin is using the term, has some *but by
> > no means all* of the functions and qualities of what the
> > term "God" usually refers to. Robin has explained on FFL
> > any number of times that he believes God used to be
> > immanent in the world but no longer is; God is no longer
> > accessible to human beings and has (inexplicably) left
> > them to their own devices. God is not around to guide
> > us to the truth. That's up to us now.
> > 
> > "Reality" cannot be said, in Robin's conception, to
> > have taken on that function of God. But that does *not*
> > mean, according to Robin, that we are helpless to
> > discover the truth (or, in the postmodern view, that
> > there is no truth to be discovered).
> > 
> > IOW, Robin has not engaged in "concept smuggling." Curtis
> > accuses Robin of this to lead readers to think Robin is
> > trying to put something over on us, to sneak God into his
> > theory by simply referring to God as "Reality."
> > 
> > And yet Robin's *entire thesis* is based on the assumption
> > of God's *absence*. There is no question whatsoever that
> > Curtis is aware of this and is deliberately trying to
> > "kill the truth," the facts concerning Robin's theory.
> > 
> > Here's Robin's response to the same accusation from
> > Curtis's first attempt to dismantle Robin's theory:
> > 
> > "No, reality is just what supremely exists as The Real. I
> > should go into what my definition is of what, for me, has
> > replaced God. For me it is a living and providential
> > intelligence that can only be caught in the stream of life.
> > It is a context of intelligence, intention, purpose, and
> > meaning: but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> > mystical--innocence."
> > 
> > The term "Reality's POV" does not, of course, "ignore" any
> > issues at all. To the contrary, it *raises* the issue of
> > whether Reality can be said to have a POV.
> > 
> > Curtis wants readers to believe that all Robin has done
> > is to make the claims that Reality has a POV and that we
> > can know what that POV is without offering any support
> > for them--that he has "ignored" the issues raised by
> > those claims.
> > 
> > Curtis knows that is not the case. Again, Curtis has
> > attempted to "kill" the truth, the fact that Robin
> > has repeatedly--not just in this current exchange
> > with Curtis but throughout his tenure on FFL
> > (including in his extended conversations with Curtis
> > last year)--addressed the issues raised by his theory.
> > 
> > > > I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth?  Robin accuses 
> > > > Curtis of killing the truth.
> > 
> > Notice how Curtis goes all cutesy here rather than even
> > attempting to deal with Robin's all-too-apt characterization
> > of Curtis's M.O.
> > 
> > > M:  It is all in the choice o

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poll Numbers- Obama played a dead opossum in first debate

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Doc sez, Obama was unprepared for the debate, because he was...oh, that's 
> right, running the country. Hope he does better next time.

Ditto that.  He needs to be more prepared at what Romney is going to throw at 
him.  There is no room for complacency.


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
> wrote:
> >
> > I love the following theory- Obama played a dead opossum in the first 
> > debate.
> > 
> >   Obama is no dummy.  Just days before the Oct. 3rd debate, the grim 
> > prospects for Romney caused big Republican financiers to plan to give up on 
> > Romney to instead divert money meant for Romney toward Republican 
> > Congressional races.Obama wants fewer Congressional Republicans rather 
> > than more following this election, to prevent increased opposition to his 
> > plans for the second term.  
> >   Romney's big first debate "win" re-inspired his financial backers to 
> > re-commit their financial resources to Romney; and the Republican 
> > Congressional races won't receive new funding, increasing the chances of 
> > Democratic Congressional candidates, and improving Obama's chances of 
> > success during his second term. 
> > - Mainstream  
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to 
> > > perform better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 
> > > 
> > > http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, laughinggull108 
> wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, curtisdeltablues  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Robin's brilliance, intelligence >
> > > >
> > > > M: How about you Ravi, would you like to take a crack at expressing
> > what
> > > > Robin's ideas are, if you understand them?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > What Robin says is very clear to me, in fact what he says really
> > resonates
> > > with me because I have unconsciously followed it my whole life time and
> > > this is the reason why I love him so much.
> > >
> > > What he says is not new to me, but the way he explains it is what's so
> > > beautiful - that each one of us has a subjective sense of truth which is
> > > biased and tinted. And that each one of us should constantly modify our
> > > subjectivity, work on reducing this subjective bias so we are in tune
> > with
> > > the reality. That this is achieved by trying to get a feeling for what
> > this
> > > objective truth is, what this reality's judgement is for every argument,
> > > for every incident that happens in our lives that challenges our
> > subjective
> > > sense of it.
> > >
> > > Most including you are so invested in one's subjectivity, in one's
> > > subjective sense of self-hood that they don't let reality modify this
> > > subjective sense of self thereby as Jason as said - killing the truth.The
> > > only one can be true to reality is being always questioning one's
> > > subjective biases, always remaining vulnerable, remaining vulnerable by
> > > being free of any belief system including religion, Science or atheism
> > that
> > > obscures the truth.
> > >
> >
> > Another bow, not necessarily for what you offered but how it was offered.
> >
> 
> Once again - thank you laughinggull - I'm humbled - I'm a nice guy, am I
> not :-)?
>

The Divine appears to taking very good care of her own, and for that I am 
happy. Bowing to the divinity that appears of each of us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar

[Richard J. Williams]

wgm4u:
> Romney a liar?
>
When you can't debate the facts, accuse your 
opponent of lying. LoL!

"While we're on the subject of economic plans, 
has anyone heard of a coherent plan from 
President Obama yet?"

'Liars Accuse Romney Of Lying'
Posted by David King
October 8, 2012
http://tinyurl.com/8zynumf

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poll Numbers- Obama played a dead opossum in first debate

[John]

MS20016,

This is an interesting theory.  But Obama needs to stay on his toes and keep 
fighting.  A lot of things are at stake.  He needs to reemphasize his vision 
for the country.  From his last debate performance, he appeared lost and 
listless.  Why?

JR


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
>
> I love the following theory- Obama played a dead opossum in the first debate.
> 
>   Obama is no dummy.  Just days before the Oct. 3rd debate, the grim 
> prospects for Romney caused big Republican financiers to plan to give up on 
> Romney to instead divert money meant for Romney toward Republican 
> Congressional races.Obama wants fewer Congressional Republicans rather 
> than more following this election, to prevent increased opposition to his 
> plans for the second term.  
>   Romney's big first debate "win" re-inspired his financial backers to 
> re-commit their financial resources to Romney; and the Republican 
> Congressional races won't receive new funding, increasing the chances of 
> Democratic Congressional candidates, and improving Obama's chances of success 
> during his second term. 
> - Mainstream  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to 
> > perform better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 
> > 
> > http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[emptybill]

There is no deity but The Deity.
Muhammad is his Messenger.

Jesus was the glorious prophet of The Deity.
The Deity has no mother, no wife,  no son.

Robin is a idolater and polytheist
because there are not two deities nor
three deities.

Robin has heard this but turns his
face away from The Face of The Deity.

Robin has time only until his last breath,
perhaps his next breath, to take
refuge in The Deity or be consigned
to the Fire.

Or if The Deity wills, Robin shall enter the
flames quite soon to show the fate of those
who refuse the Mercy of the All-Knowing.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with your interpretation of his point
>
> I did not "interpret" Robin's point. I quoted his point
> directly from his post.
>
> > but we can let Robin decide if he cares to.
>
> He doesn't have to "decide" anything, Curtis, he's
> already made the point. That's what I quoted, you see.
>
> > Although he objects to my characterization of "likeability"
> > to describe the personality qualities he uses to determine
> > how aligned someone is to the POV of "reality" he clearly
> > does list the traits for both sides.
>
> Well, I'm not going to quote Robin's refutation of this
> notion again; I'll simply ask readers to scroll down to
> the quote, which begins "WTF..."
>
> Then readers can ask themselves why Curtis is reiterating
> his interpretation of what Robin has said after Robin has
> told him it's wrong.
>
> I mean, how many ways are there to interpret "likeableness
> does not come in here" and "It is not a question of
> likeableness, Curtis"? Robin doesn't mention "personality
> traits." He's talking about how a person feels *in the
> moment* when they have an experience of accord, or lack of
> accord, with reality. This is entirely independent of
> their likeability or lack thereof as a person.
>
> > He has applied this criteria many times in our exchanges.
>
> BTW, "criteria" is plural. The singular is "criterion."
>
>
>
>
>
>   It is part of the personal attack style that you are also a big fan
of.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> >
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show
> > > > > > that they understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone
> > > > > > can offer answers to my objections that don't include an
> > > > > > assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but
> > > > > > actually sticks to the points themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part, the answers to your objections are
> > > > > simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't
> > > > > crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you
> > > > > genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because
> > > > > you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a
> > > > > potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the
> > > > > truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly
> > > > > suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for
> > > > > you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the
> > > > > truth.
> > > >
> > > > M: Right, I am against truth and kittens.
> > >
> > > Don't know about kittens, but truth has never been your
> > > friend as long as I've known you.
> > >
> > > > > Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the
> > > > > irrelevance of Curtis's objections:
> > > > >
> > > > > Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis?
> > > > > Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad
> > > > > hominem.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point
> > > > > in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long
> > > > > disquisition about how personal likeability is not
> > > > > necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if
> > > > > this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It
> > > > > had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had
> > > > > said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > M: And your attempt at bullshittery is equally jaw dropping
> > >
> > > Well, let's see whether I was bullshitting.
> > >
> > > > Robin making the point Judy missed:
> > >
> > > No, Curtis, I didn't miss it, any more than I missed your
> > > objection to what you go on to quote, or Robin's response
> > > to your objection (which you do not, of course, quote),
> > > pointing out that "likeability" has nothing to do with
> > > anything he's proposing:
> > >
> > > "WTF does 'likeability' have to do with truth--except that it
> > > is a better and more real and more satisfying experience when
> > > one's first person ontology becomes more responsive and
> > > affected by the POV of reality? Objectific

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poll Numbers

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Doc sez, Yeah, as a country we were at the top of our game after Bush, and 
> before Obama was popularly elected; no terrorist attacks on US soil, economy 
> roaring ahead, no deficit, and peace at last - NOT!
> 
> I'll agree with Maharishi on this one, when he said George W. Bush will open 
> the gates of Hell. He did. Credit where credit is due, please. 
> 
> I figure the Republican arm of The One Party f*cked things up so badly, they 
> get to sit out another one. Let's give the Democratic arm of The One Party, 
> another go.

IMO, many people were disappointed at Obama's performance during the debate.  
He either underestimated Romney's abilities or that he's lost the drive to 
continue as prez for another four years.  We'll see how he recovers in the next 
debate.


> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to 
> > > perform better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 
> > > 
> > > http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Pew: Romney 49, Obama 45, hopefully Obama will lose, if not American will 
> > definitely lose!! :-(
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poll Numbers

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to 
> > perform better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 
> > 
> > http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html
> 
> 
> 
> Pew: Romney 49, Obama 45, hopefully Obama will lose, if not American will 
> definitely lose!! :-(

We'll soon find out after the debates how the people will vote.  So far, Romney 
has spoken well.  It remains to be seen if he can stay out of trouble before 
election time.


>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> This question of whether or not any man can claim to be
> representing the POV of Reality, is central to my life.

However, that is not a question that Robin was asking.

> I have a lot of skin in this game.  My current view is
> that people who claim this ability are a real block to a
> discussion of ideas between people.  As soon as someone
> claims this upper hand, and humans have claimed this
> often, it breaks down secular discussion of ideas based
> on their own merit rather than based on their claim that
> their subjective opinion is somehow more than that, and
> not up for discussion.

This is such a gross and deliberate misrepresentation
of Robin's ideas. It's the context Curtis is attempting
to impose on those ideas; it's not the context in which
Robin was presenting them.

Curtis chose this false context because he has some 
idea of how to object to it. But because it's *Curtis's*
context, not Robin's, Curtis's objections are
irrelevant; he's created a big fat straw man to knock
down.

Furthermore, it's the height of inadvertent irony for
Curtis to object to anyone imposing their POV over
that of others. This is precisely Curtis's own M.O. in
any dispute or disagreement. He does it so many times
in this exchange with Robin that Robin starts referring
to him as "Commandante," a la Fidel Castro.

"People who claim to have this ability"--Robin's thesis
is that we all have it.

"It breaks down secular discussion of ideas based on
their own merit"--according to Robin's theory, if two
people with opposing ideas both go to the trouble of
exercising this ability to perceive reality's POV,
*they will end up in agreement*.

Here's a self-contained, relatively succinct statement
of Robin's theory from his previous post in this
exchange with Curtis:

"I have made the case that it is possible from a certain 
disinterested perspective to see where the 'support'
metaphysically is going between two parties, where it is
possible to move towards the zone of seeing, feeling,
which approaches a state of grace [i.e., accord with
reality--JS]. I have simply said that the origin of our 
subjectivities itself can potentially make known to our 
subjectivities what is considered by what created our
subjectivities to be the more valid way of apprehending
reality. I am quite aware of how radical and presumptuous
such a thesis is, but I believe it can be demonstrated to
be true within any interaction where there are serious
and significant differences of point of view and where
feeling and tension and defensiveness come into play."


> 
> You asked me to somehow argue you out of this idea if you were wrong about 
> it, to lead you to the Curtis approved promise land.  But that is not an 
> option and I wouldn't presume to have this ability.  It is enough that we 
> both got to state our cases to the best of our ability.
> 
> I think you sincerely believe what you wrote.  I am disappointed that you 
> seem to need to question my motives here as if they are somehow not as well 
> intentioned as your own.  But that was your choice.
> 
> Even with this non answer to your 3 part response, I feel the river rising 
> again and tugging at the tether holding my raft on the bank.
> 
> I'm gunna get off here and try my luck busking at the center square a while 
> and let others who want to take up your ideas and express them for discussion 
> in a way I could not.
> 
> Thanks for the ride Robin.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is this Share?

[Share Long]

Jason, you deserve to be blessed with such a rich imagination for making the 
day of a 64 year old midwestern woman whose younger sister has 13 
grandchildren!  I cop to the blue eyed pensive gaze and long flowing locks.  
But alas, they are a mix of auburn and grey, not blond.  As for the body, sort 
of.  But that was about 50 years ago!  




 From: Jason 
To: "fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 3:07 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is this Share?
 

  
 
 
  Is this Share?
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM, laughinggull108 wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, curtisdeltablues  > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Robin's brilliance, intelligence >
> > >
> > > M: How about you Ravi, would you like to take a crack at expressing
> what
> > > Robin's ideas are, if you understand them?
> > >
> > >
> > What Robin says is very clear to me, in fact what he says really
> resonates
> > with me because I have unconsciously followed it my whole life time and
> > this is the reason why I love him so much.
> >
> > What he says is not new to me, but the way he explains it is what's so
> > beautiful - that each one of us has a subjective sense of truth which is
> > biased and tinted. And that each one of us should constantly modify our
> > subjectivity, work on reducing this subjective bias so we are in tune
> with
> > the reality. That this is achieved by trying to get a feeling for what
> this
> > objective truth is, what this reality's judgement is for every argument,
> > for every incident that happens in our lives that challenges our
> subjective
> > sense of it.
> >
> > Most including you are so invested in one's subjectivity, in one's
> > subjective sense of self-hood that they don't let reality modify this
> > subjective sense of self thereby as Jason as said - killing the truth.The
> > only one can be true to reality is being always questioning one's
> > subjective biases, always remaining vulnerable, remaining vulnerable by
> > being free of any belief system including religion, Science or atheism
> that
> > obscures the truth.
> >
>
> Another bow, not necessarily for what you offered but how it was offered.
>

Once again - thank you laughinggull - I'm humbled - I'm a nice guy, am I
not :-)?

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
Quoting Robin making his distinction between the God idea and his idea of 
reality:


> "No, reality is just what supremely exists as The Real. I
> should go into what my definition is of what, for me, has
> replaced God. For me it is a living and providential
> intelligence that can only be caught in the stream of life.
> It is a context of intelligence, intention, purpose, and
> meaning: but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> mystical--innocence."


Me: Yeah, a "living and providential intelligence" that has the qualities of 
omnisubjectivity and it also caused our existence.

How could I have mistaken these qualities for the God idea?





>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
> > > to have a POV?
> > 
> > M: I agree, this is a central issue.  It is using a term which
> > has less emotional load than "God" (who would be such a dick
> > that they would not respect "reality" right?) and then
> > basically giving the word the same function and qualities of
> > what the term "God" usually refers to.  A form of concept 
> > smuggling.  
> > 
> > And it ignores the issues concerning how we can have
> > confidence that someone is speaking for it, he she, whatever.
> 
> Two sterling examples of how Curtis attempts to "kill"
> the truth, in this case the truth concerning the nature
> of Robin's theory (not the truth *of* the theory; Curtis
> refuses to come anywhere near trying to address that).
> 
> "Reality," as Robin is using the term, has some *but by
> no means all* of the functions and qualities of what the
> term "God" usually refers to. Robin has explained on FFL
> any number of times that he believes God used to be
> immanent in the world but no longer is; God is no longer
> accessible to human beings and has (inexplicably) left
> them to their own devices. God is not around to guide
> us to the truth. That's up to us now.
> 
> "Reality" cannot be said, in Robin's conception, to
> have taken on that function of God. But that does *not*
> mean, according to Robin, that we are helpless to
> discover the truth (or, in the postmodern view, that
> there is no truth to be discovered).
> 
> IOW, Robin has not engaged in "concept smuggling." Curtis
> accuses Robin of this to lead readers to think Robin is
> trying to put something over on us, to sneak God into his
> theory by simply referring to God as "Reality."
> 
> And yet Robin's *entire thesis* is based on the assumption
> of God's *absence*. There is no question whatsoever that
> Curtis is aware of this and is deliberately trying to
> "kill the truth," the facts concerning Robin's theory.
> 
> Here's Robin's response to the same accusation from
> Curtis's first attempt to dismantle Robin's theory:
> 
> "No, reality is just what supremely exists as The Real. I
> should go into what my definition is of what, for me, has
> replaced God. For me it is a living and providential
> intelligence that can only be caught in the stream of life.
> It is a context of intelligence, intention, purpose, and
> meaning: but one has to draw it out by existential--not
> mystical--innocence."
> 
> The term "Reality's POV" does not, of course, "ignore" any
> issues at all. To the contrary, it *raises* the issue of
> whether Reality can be said to have a POV.
> 
> Curtis wants readers to believe that all Robin has done
> is to make the claims that Reality has a POV and that we
> can know what that POV is without offering any support
> for them--that he has "ignored" the issues raised by
> those claims.
> 
> Curtis knows that is not the case. Again, Curtis has
> attempted to "kill" the truth, the fact that Robin
> has repeatedly--not just in this current exchange
> with Curtis but throughout his tenure on FFL
> (including in his extended conversations with Curtis
> last year)--addressed the issues raised by his theory.
> 
> > > I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth?  Robin accuses 
> > > Curtis of killing the truth.
> 
> Notice how Curtis goes all cutesy here rather than even
> attempting to deal with Robin's all-too-apt characterization
> of Curtis's M.O.
> 
> > M:  It is all in the choice of your round.  Truth has a particularly thick 
> > skin so only a magnum round for a high velocity penetration will work.  But 
> > don't try to use a 223 round because that doesn't have the spreading impact 
> > needed to stop truth in its tracks.
> > 
> > You need at least a 30/30 commonly used for deer hunting, but if you have 
> > something like one of those hand held cannons they use on big game in 
> > Africa, so much the better.
> > 
> > The truth doesn't end up with much edible meat anyway, so don't worry about 
> > blasting the shit out of it.  I have used some truth carcases for stock, 
> > but with all the little bullshit bones to strain out, 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2: One more question

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:36 PM, curtisdeltablues  wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn 
> wrote:
> >
> > It is true that I thought the fact that it was sent me personally, a
> violation. Â If you had responded to my forward with:
> >
> > 1) I have received personal email in the past, replete with nice and
> not-so-nice content
> > 2) I perceive Sal's email as a support to me and I recognize it was a
> slam on your post(s) on FFL
> > 3) My response would be to tell her "Bt" (or some such thing) and
> not give it much further thought
> >
> > I would have appreciated that kind of review. Â I was looking for
> objectivity. Â Of course, you have the right not to have responded, which
> you exercised. Â I felt badly about forwarding it to you. When I didn't
> hear back, I proceeded with moving the conversation to FFL, where I still
> believe it should have taken place in the first place, but that is my
> opinion. Â
> >
> > Thank you for working this out with me. Â Emily. Â
>
> M: I can see how that might have helped. I wasn't sure how to react, but
> not reacting had implications too. In retrospect it seems a little rude of
> me not to reply to you at all and I am sorry for that.
>
>
"I wasn't sure how to react" - It's a no brainer really, if Sal had used me
as an excuse in sending an email attacking Emily - this was a private email
mind you, I would have immediately apologized to Emily rather than
questioning her feelings, emotions, motivations online. Your actions show
that you were more interested in protecting yourself, or that you were
already pissed off at her, the fact that Sal uses the "harming of
employment opportunities" line as an excuse in her email, something that
you have always used in your cry wolf strategy to change context, obfuscate
truth, clearly points to some involvement on your part in Sal's email.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Mother, etc.

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM, laughinggull108 wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pam,
> >
> > There's a poster named Vaj who doesn't post here anymore - if he was
> around
> > he would told you a lot about how TM has caused all kinds of
> psychological
> > issues and such. Not sure what your background is.
> >
> > I believe he had a valid point, any spiritual practice can trigger a set
> of
> > metaphysical processes which induce mystical experiences. The ancient
> > wisdom of India identified two major paths - the path of yoga, the path
> of
> > perfection where one conditions the body, mind, senses so it's prepared
> to
> > accept this mystical descension. And then there is the path of tantra,
> the
> > path of love, surrender, trust, faith. The path of yoga shouldn't cause
> too
> > many issues unless there are some premature mystical experiences that
> have
> > been triggered because a yogi should have perfected his/her body, mind,
> > senses by then.
> >
> > Based on my experiences the majority of the problems can be caused by the
> > path of tantra since one who is the path of the tantra hasn't perfected
> > his/her body, mind, senses to sustain the intense transformation that
> > happens once the mystical experiences are initiated. However if the
> person
> > on the path of tantra or love is true to the core values of love, faith,
> > surrender, trust he/she can integrate the mystical energy without too
> many
> > issues.
> >
> > I can briefly detail my experiences because I belong to the latter path.
> I
> > didn't really perform any spiritual practices and I had two distinct
> phases
> > - a mystical ascension and then a mystical descension. The ascension
> phase
> > is when the body, mind and senses are somehow prepared to receive the
> > mystical energy - starting in 2002 I went through intense periods where I
> > encountered de-realization, de-personalization ranging from several days
> to
> > several weeks and a severe panic attack at the peak. Luckily I didn't
> know
> > anything about the labels assigned by psychiatry till after 4 years in
> 2006
> > when I ended up with a severe which caused me to end up in an emergency.
> > The physician informed me that I was just hyperventilating and prescribed
> > me Xanax which I duly threw it away. The main strengths of mine were I
> was
> > extremely introverted though I was in a cult I never fantasized on the
> > Guru, nor asked for any spiritual advice nor ever did I ever share my
> > experiences with anyone till 2009, except briefly with ex and others -
> > which I later regretted. I continued to do what I usually do - work,
> taking
> > care of the family, except for a period of 1 week in 2006 when I had to
> > take off from work. Starting 2009 is what I describe as mystical
> descension
> > - Unity - where, as in, in my case I felt the existence was pouring into
> me
> > - hence the term - "descension" - this caused much more upheaval that
> > anything - I have had 3 rounds of these and I believe I'm done - I'm very
> > centered,integrated and balanced. But I cannot completely rule it out
> > clearly but at this stage I know exactly what I need to do.
> >
> > So in a nutshell either perfect your body,mind, senses as in Yoga or have
> > total faith, surrender in the existence without fantasizing on any Guru,
> > religion, therapist, psychiatry, drugs as in case of tantra.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Ravi.
> >
>
> (Hands folded and deep bow) Ravi, I really dug this post. Thank you.
>

Thank you very much LG108, I'm humbled, there was no need for hands folded
and deep bow though - it's embarrassing considering I myself don't bow to
anyone, nor would expect anyone to and you are probably older than me.
Unless of course you were bowing down to the existence.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with your interpretation of his point
> 
> I did not "interpret" Robin's point. I quoted his point
> directly from his post.

M: As was mine.

> 
> > but we can let Robin decide if he cares to.
> 
> He doesn't have to "decide" anything, Curtis, he's
> already made the point. That's what I quoted, you see.
> 
> > Although he objects to my characterization of "likeability"
> > to describe the personality qualities he uses to determine
> > how aligned someone is to the POV of "reality" he clearly
> > does list the traits for both sides.
> 
> Well, I'm not going to quote Robin's refutation of this
> notion again; I'll simply ask readers to scroll down to
> the quote, which begins "WTF..."
> 
> Then readers can ask themselves why Curtis is reiterating
> his interpretation of what Robin has said after Robin has
> told him it's wrong.
> 
> I mean, how many ways are there to interpret "likeableness
> does not come in here" and "It is not a question of
> likeableness, Curtis"? Robin doesn't mention "personality
> traits."

M: I get it that you are unable to understand the distinction I am making.  
Perhaps Robin will. 


Robin:

> > > >  > > > SOMEHOW
Snip
 > > > accordance with the third point of view, it will mean that that person 
> > > > commands> > > > more support, poise, persuasiveness, innocence--and the 
> > > > other person, whose> > > > point of view begins to be in opposition to 
> > > > that third point of view, will
> > > > exhibit signs of resistance, pugnacity, defensiveness, aggression, 
> > > > violent> > > > subjectivity.>


 He's talking about how a person feels *in the
> moment*

Robin: "exhibit signs" 

M: He is talking about how the person appears to him.

 when they have an experience of accord, or lack of
> accord, with reality. This is entirely independent of
> their likeability or lack thereof as a person.

M:  This may actually be a revelation if you don't know that EXHIBITING signs 
of resistance, pugnacity, defensiveness, aggression and violent subjectivity 
make a person less likeable.

Now I understand you much better. 





> 
> > He has applied this criteria many times in our exchanges.
> 
> BTW, "criteria" is plural. The singular is "criterion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   It is part of the personal attack style that you are also a big fan of.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show
> > > > > > that they understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone
> > > > > > can offer answers to my objections that don't include an
> > > > > > assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but
> > > > > > actually sticks to the points themselves.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For the most part, the answers to your objections are
> > > > > simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't
> > > > > crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you
> > > > > genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because
> > > > > you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a
> > > > > potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the
> > > > > truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly
> > > > > suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for
> > > > > you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the
> > > > > truth.
> > > > 
> > > > M: Right, I am against truth and kittens.
> > > 
> > > Don't know about kittens, but truth has never been your
> > > friend as long as I've known you.
> > > 
> > > > > Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the
> > > > > irrelevance of Curtis's objections:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis?
> > > > > Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad
> > > > > hominem.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point
> > > > > in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long
> > > > > disquisition about how personal likeability is not
> > > > > necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if
> > > > > this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It
> > > > > had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had
> > > > > said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant.
> > > > 
> > > > M: And your attempt at bullshittery is equally jaw dropping
> > > 
> > > Well, let's see whether I was bullshitting.
> > > 
> > > > Robin making the point Judy missed:
> > > 
> > > No, Curtis, I didn't miss it, any more than I missed your
> > > objection to what you go on to quote, or Robin's response
> > > to your objection (which you do not, of course, quote),
> > > pointing out

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Oct 06 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Oct 13 00:00:00 2012
330 messages as of (UTC) Tue Oct 09 00:00:16 2012

26 Ravi Chivukula 
25 obbajeeba 
22 turquoiseb 
22 awoelflebater 
22 Emily Reyn 
21 Jason 
20 raunchydog 
19 authfriend 
18 Share Long 
16 laughinggull108 
16 curtisdeltablues 
11 Bhairitu 
 7 cardemaister 
 6 jedi_spock 
 6 doctordumb...@rocketmail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@".SYNTAX-ERROR.
 6 Michael Jackson 
 5 wgm4u 
 5 seekliberation 
 5 richardatrwilliamsdotus 
 5 Mike Dixon 
 5 "Richard J. Williams" 
 3 seventhray1 
 3 salyavin808 
 3 pamtaylor108 
 3 nablusoss1008 
 3 jr_esq 
 3 Robin Carlsen 
 3 John 
 2 wleed3 
 2 mjackson74 
 2 merlin 
 2 marekreavis 
 2 j_alexander_stanley 
 2 card 
 2 anartaxius 
 2 Alex Stanley 
 1 mainstream20016 
 1 feste37 
 1 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 1 Rick Archer 
 1 "shelley.fulcher" 

Posters: 41
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:

> No official prizes are awarded for length, quality, or speed.
> Anyone who reaches the 50,000 word mark is declared a winner.
> 
> Just thinkhad Robin waited three weeks before submitting
> his entry, he could have been a winner for once in his life.

Stupid mistake after stupid mistake after stupid
mistake from Barry. Can't he get some decent
geriatric care in the Netherlands?

Those posts would not, of course, have won the
contest unless co-authorship were permitted.
Barry's eyesight is getting so bad that when he
counted the words in the posts, he failed
entirely to notice that a good chunk of them were
his pal Curtis's.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> > 
> > I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
> > to have a POV?
> 
> M: I agree, this is a central issue.  It is using a term which
> has less emotional load than "God" (who would be such a dick
> that they would not respect "reality" right?) and then
> basically giving the word the same function and qualities of
> what the term "God" usually refers to.  A form of concept 
> smuggling.  
> 
> And it ignores the issues concerning how we can have
> confidence that someone is speaking for it, he she, whatever.

Two sterling examples of how Curtis attempts to "kill"
the truth, in this case the truth concerning the nature
of Robin's theory (not the truth *of* the theory; Curtis
refuses to come anywhere near trying to address that).

"Reality," as Robin is using the term, has some *but by
no means all* of the functions and qualities of what the
term "God" usually refers to. Robin has explained on FFL
any number of times that he believes God used to be
immanent in the world but no longer is; God is no longer
accessible to human beings and has (inexplicably) left
them to their own devices. God is not around to guide
us to the truth. That's up to us now.

"Reality" cannot be said, in Robin's conception, to
have taken on that function of God. But that does *not*
mean, according to Robin, that we are helpless to
discover the truth (or, in the postmodern view, that
there is no truth to be discovered).

IOW, Robin has not engaged in "concept smuggling." Curtis
accuses Robin of this to lead readers to think Robin is
trying to put something over on us, to sneak God into his
theory by simply referring to God as "Reality."

And yet Robin's *entire thesis* is based on the assumption
of God's *absence*. There is no question whatsoever that
Curtis is aware of this and is deliberately trying to
"kill the truth," the facts concerning Robin's theory.

Here's Robin's response to the same accusation from
Curtis's first attempt to dismantle Robin's theory:

"No, reality is just what supremely exists as The Real. I
should go into what my definition is of what, for me, has
replaced God. For me it is a living and providential
intelligence that can only be caught in the stream of life.
It is a context of intelligence, intention, purpose, and
meaning: but one has to draw it out by existential--not
mystical--innocence."

The term "Reality's POV" does not, of course, "ignore" any
issues at all. To the contrary, it *raises* the issue of
whether Reality can be said to have a POV.

Curtis wants readers to believe that all Robin has done
is to make the claims that Reality has a POV and that we
can know what that POV is without offering any support
for them--that he has "ignored" the issues raised by
those claims.

Curtis knows that is not the case. Again, Curtis has
attempted to "kill" the truth, the fact that Robin
has repeatedly--not just in this current exchange
with Curtis but throughout his tenure on FFL
(including in his extended conversations with Curtis
last year)--addressed the issues raised by his theory.

> > I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth?  Robin accuses 
> > Curtis of killing the truth.

Notice how Curtis goes all cutesy here rather than even
attempting to deal with Robin's all-too-apt characterization
of Curtis's M.O.

> M:  It is all in the choice of your round.  Truth has a particularly thick 
> skin so only a magnum round for a high velocity penetration will work.  But 
> don't try to use a 223 round because that doesn't have the spreading impact 
> needed to stop truth in its tracks.
> 
> You need at least a 30/30 commonly used for deer hunting, but if you have 
> something like one of those hand held cannons they use on big game in Africa, 
> so much the better.
> 
> The truth doesn't end up with much edible meat anyway, so don't worry about 
> blasting the shit out of it.  I have used some truth carcases for stock, but 
> with all the little bullshit bones to strain out, it is hardly worth the 
> trouble and certainly doesn't add more flavor than a well roasted duck 
> carcass.
> 
> Most of us dedicated truth killers are in it for the sport.  I've tried to 
> get the same satisfaction stalking and shooting it with a camera, but somehow 
> is just isn't the same. Plus I get paid one degree cooler in my future in 
> hell for each truth's foot I deliver to the big guy downstairs, and so far 
> I'm looking at eternity at a toasty but livable 83 degrees.  I figure with a 
> ceiling fan I'll be just fine and I'm pretty sure Walmart has a store down 
> there to sell me one once I arrive. Free refills at Hell's Starbuck too from 
> what i hear.  Those bastards are everywhere. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:46 AM, curtisdeltablues <
> > curtisdeltablues@> wrote:

> > > I believe you have missed a critical piece of his claim
> > > here though. The part I object to is not what you have 
> > > restated, but the part about reality having a POV and
> > > that this can allow us to go beyond subjectivity, or
> > > even the kind of objectivity you describe.

This is so muddled it's hard to grasp what Curtis is
trying to say.

He seems to be suggesting that since there is no such
thing as objective reality, we can never go beyond
subjectivity, much less beyond objectivity.

That doesn't make any sense, Curtis.

One would almost think Curtis hasn't bothered to read
Robin's posts. He certainly doesn't care about
representing Robin's theory and argument accurately.

> > > I will let Robin decide if what you
> > > have written fairly and concisely sums up his whole position.

I imagine Robin would simply refer folks to his posts
if they want to confirm the accuracy of a person's
summing up of his position.

> > OK I don't like it that my company has a holiday on
> > Columbus Day, but here I am with nothing much to do
> > today other than plans to go shopping, beach and
> > dinner later tonight so I will take a shot at this.
> 
> M: Your reluctance to spend time on this is noted.

Note that Curtis attempts to dictate his own context
for what Ravi just wrote. Ravi did not express 
reluctance to spend time on this, to the contrary;
he's willing to take some of his time off to take a
shot at it.

> > Well I don't know if I would necessarily define it as
> > reality's POV but let's go along with that. But I do
> > agree with that, that there is the reality's POV or the
> > truth and that we should strive to get a feel for the
> > reality's POV so we can reduce our subjective bias. I
> > don't think Robin ever says he has some special insight
> > into reality's POV - this is where you, Jason, Xeno and
> > others who attack him go so seriously wrong. 
> 
> M: If so you could be onto something.  But I believe you are
> still missing the intellectual move I object to in what
> Robin wrote.  He is juxtaposing my POV as deficient in this
> quality of reality attunement.

Not sure what Curtis is saying Robin is "juxtaposing"
Curtis's POV to. But it's understandable that Curtis
would object to Robin's perceiving Curtis's POV to be
deficient in its attunement to reality. But then there
are quite a few folks who have made the same
observation about Curtis. Why is this an "intellectual
move" on Robin's part?

But then Curtis goes on to say:

> But perhaps he is so humble that he has never achieved this
> himself either, but that he hopes it might be possible.

Achieved *what* himself either?

> I'll be interested to see if he responds to this for us
> to clarify.

Just read his posts. They're quite clear.

> He shows
> > he is sincere and dedicated to investigating what the
> > reality's POV is, in any given moment. Clearly reality's
> > POV is not as clear cut but the main thing is that one,
> > together with other's feedback,in a process of 
> > discovery,investigation, strive to get a feel for the
> > reality's POV.
> 
> M:  It seems like kind of an inflated way to describe what
> we all try to do here if your limited version of his claims
> is all he is claiming. I believe he is claiming more.

In his very first post in the thread--I believe you read
it, because you responded to it--Robin pointed out that
we were lousy at getting past our subjective biases, at
least partly because we don't think we *can* know reality's
POV.

He maintained we could, and that we could improve our
chances of getting "a feel for reality's POV," as Ravi puts
it, by going about it systematically. He then suggested a
series of seven steps he thought would be helpful in this
endeavor.

Again, Curtis's comment above doesn't make much sense.
What Ravi describes is "a limited version of his claims"
but it's "an inflated way to describe what we all try
to do here" if this "is all he is claiming"?

So is it inflated, or is it limited?

We'd have to know what the hell Curtis is talking about
before we could decide whether Robin was "claiming more."
More than what?

I think Curtis is just slinging words at us at this
point, whatever he can think of that makes it sound as
though there's something "off" about what Robin has
said, without worrying about whether he, Curtis, is
even being coherent, let alone whether he's reflecting
the content of Robin's posts accurately.

Maybe he's just tired.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poll Numbers- Obama played a dead opossum in first debate

[doctordumbass]

Doc sez, Obama was unprepared for the debate, because he was...oh, that's 
right, running the country. Hope he does better next time.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
>
> I love the following theory- Obama played a dead opossum in the first debate.
> 
>   Obama is no dummy.  Just days before the Oct. 3rd debate, the grim 
> prospects for Romney caused big Republican financiers to plan to give up on 
> Romney to instead divert money meant for Romney toward Republican 
> Congressional races.Obama wants fewer Congressional Republicans rather 
> than more following this election, to prevent increased opposition to his 
> plans for the second term.  
>   Romney's big first debate "win" re-inspired his financial backers to 
> re-commit their financial resources to Romney; and the Republican 
> Congressional races won't receive new funding, increasing the chances of 
> Democratic Congressional candidates, and improving Obama's chances of success 
> during his second term. 
> - Mainstream  
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to 
> > perform better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 
> > 
> > http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poll Numbers- Obama played a dead opossum in first debate

[mainstream20016]

I love the following theory- Obama played a dead opossum in the first debate.

  Obama is no dummy.  Just days before the Oct. 3rd debate, the grim prospects 
for Romney caused big Republican financiers to plan to give up on Romney to 
instead divert money meant for Romney toward Republican Congressional races.
Obama wants fewer Congressional Republicans rather than more following this 
election, to prevent increased opposition to his plans for the second term.  
  Romney's big first debate "win" re-inspired his financial backers to 
re-commit their financial resources to Romney; and the Republican Congressional 
races won't receive new funding, increasing the chances of Democratic 
Congressional candidates, and improving Obama's chances of success during his 
second term. 
- Mainstream  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to 
> perform better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> I disagree with your interpretation of his point

I did not "interpret" Robin's point. I quoted his point
directly from his post.

> but we can let Robin decide if he cares to.

He doesn't have to "decide" anything, Curtis, he's
already made the point. That's what I quoted, you see.

> Although he objects to my characterization of "likeability"
> to describe the personality qualities he uses to determine
> how aligned someone is to the POV of "reality" he clearly
> does list the traits for both sides.

Well, I'm not going to quote Robin's refutation of this
notion again; I'll simply ask readers to scroll down to
the quote, which begins "WTF..."

Then readers can ask themselves why Curtis is reiterating
his interpretation of what Robin has said after Robin has
told him it's wrong.

I mean, how many ways are there to interpret "likeableness
does not come in here" and "It is not a question of
likeableness, Curtis"? Robin doesn't mention "personality
traits." He's talking about how a person feels *in the
moment* when they have an experience of accord, or lack of
accord, with reality. This is entirely independent of
their likeability or lack thereof as a person.

> He has applied this criteria many times in our exchanges.

BTW, "criteria" is plural. The singular is "criterion."





  It is part of the personal attack style that you are also a big fan of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show
> > > > > that they understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone
> > > > > can offer answers to my objections that don't include an
> > > > > assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but
> > > > > actually sticks to the points themselves.
> > > > 
> > > > For the most part, the answers to your objections are
> > > > simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't
> > > > crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you
> > > > genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because
> > > > you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a
> > > > potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the
> > > > truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly
> > > > suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for
> > > > you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the
> > > > truth.
> > > 
> > > M: Right, I am against truth and kittens.
> > 
> > Don't know about kittens, but truth has never been your
> > friend as long as I've known you.
> > 
> > > > Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the
> > > > irrelevance of Curtis's objections:
> > > > 
> > > > Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis?
> > > > Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad
> > > > hominem.
> > > > 
> > > > It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point
> > > > in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long
> > > > disquisition about how personal likeability is not
> > > > necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if
> > > > this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It
> > > > had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had
> > > > said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant.
> > > 
> > > M: And your attempt at bullshittery is equally jaw dropping
> > 
> > Well, let's see whether I was bullshitting.
> > 
> > > Robin making the point Judy missed:
> > 
> > No, Curtis, I didn't miss it, any more than I missed your
> > objection to what you go on to quote, or Robin's response
> > to your objection (which you do not, of course, quote),
> > pointing out that "likeability" has nothing to do with
> > anything he's proposing:
> > 
> > "WTF does 'likeability' have to do with truth--except that it
> > is a better and more real and more satisfying experience when
> > one's first person ontology becomes more responsive and
> > affected by the POV of reality? Objectification of one's first
> > person subjective perspective is always available, Curtis--to 
> > everyone
> > 
> > "This [my theory] only has to do with the objectification of 
> > subjectivity, Curtis: likeableness does not come in here. It
> > may somewhere be a natural byproduct of something to do with
> > the effect of this theory in some way. But no, Curtis, get
> > rid of this likeableness thing. It does not enter into the
> > theory at all
> > 
> > "We are talking about first person ontology only. And first
> > person ontologies are not necessarily all attractive. It is
> > not a question of likeableness, Curtis; it is a question of
> > aligning oneself with something within reality which can
> > make one's subjective self more aware of where the truth or
> > reality of something is."
> > 
> > >  > >

[FairfieldLife] What's going on here?

[laughinggull108]

I'm not complaining, mind you, but today's "conversations" were actually quite 
refreshing, to say the least. Keep it up folks!

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, curtisdeltablues  > wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Robin's brilliance, intelligence >
> >
> > M: How about you Ravi, would you like to take a crack at expressing what
> > Robin's ideas are, if you understand them?
> >
> >
> What Robin says is very clear to me, in fact what he says really resonates
> with me because I have unconsciously followed it my whole life time and
> this is the reason why I love him so much.
> 
> What he says is not new to me, but the way he explains it is what's so
> beautiful - that each one of us has a subjective sense of truth which is
> biased and tinted. And that each one of us should constantly modify our
> subjectivity, work on reducing this subjective bias so we are in tune with
> the reality. That this is achieved by trying to get a feeling for what this
> objective truth is, what this reality's judgement is for every argument,
> for every incident that happens in our lives that challenges our subjective
> sense of it.
> 
> Most including you are so invested in one's subjectivity, in one's
> subjective sense of self-hood that they don't let reality modify this
> subjective sense of self thereby as Jason as said - killing the truth.The
> only one can be true to reality is being always questioning one's
> subjective biases, always remaining vulnerable, remaining vulnerable by
> being free of any belief system including religion, Science or atheism that
> obscures the truth.
> 

Another bow, not necessarily for what you offered but how it was offered. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Divine Mother, etc.

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Hi Pam,
> 
> There's a poster named Vaj who doesn't post here anymore - if he was around
> he would told you a lot about how TM has caused all kinds of psychological
> issues and such. Not sure what your background is.
> 
> I believe he had a valid point, any spiritual practice can trigger a set of
> metaphysical processes which induce mystical experiences. The ancient
> wisdom of India identified two major paths - the path of yoga, the path of
> perfection where one conditions the body, mind, senses so it's prepared to
> accept this mystical descension. And then there is the path of tantra, the
> path of love, surrender, trust, faith. The path of yoga shouldn't cause too
> many issues unless there are some premature mystical experiences that have
> been triggered because a yogi should have perfected his/her body, mind,
> senses by then.
> 
> Based on my experiences the majority of the problems can be caused by the
> path of tantra since one who is the path of the tantra hasn't perfected
> his/her body, mind, senses to sustain the intense transformation that
> happens once the mystical experiences are initiated. However if the person
> on the path of tantra or love is true to the core values of love, faith,
> surrender, trust he/she can integrate the mystical energy without too many
> issues.
> 
> I can briefly detail my experiences because I belong to the latter path. I
> didn't really perform any spiritual practices and I had two distinct phases
> - a mystical ascension and then a mystical descension. The ascension phase
> is when the body, mind and senses are somehow prepared to receive the
> mystical energy - starting in 2002 I went through intense periods where I
> encountered de-realization, de-personalization ranging from several days to
> several weeks and a severe panic attack at the peak. Luckily I didn't know
> anything about the labels assigned by psychiatry till after 4 years in 2006
> when I ended up with a severe which caused me to end up in an emergency.
> The physician informed me that I was just hyperventilating and prescribed
> me Xanax which I duly threw it away. The main strengths of mine were I was
> extremely introverted  though I was in a cult I never fantasized on the
> Guru, nor asked for any spiritual advice nor ever did I ever share my
> experiences with anyone till 2009, except briefly with ex and others -
> which I later regretted. I continued to do what I usually do - work, taking
> care of the family, except for a period of 1 week in 2006 when I had to
> take off from work. Starting 2009 is what I describe as mystical descension
> - Unity - where, as in, in my case I felt the existence was pouring into me
> - hence the term - "descension" - this caused much more upheaval that
> anything - I have had 3 rounds of these and I believe I'm done - I'm very
> centered,integrated and balanced. But I cannot completely rule it out
> clearly but at this stage I know exactly what I need to do.
> 
> So in a nutshell either perfect your body,mind, senses as in Yoga or have
> total faith, surrender in the existence without fantasizing on any Guru,
> religion, therapist, psychiatry, drugs as in case of tantra.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Ravi.
> 

(Hands folded and deep bow) Ravi, I really dug this post. Thank you.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Is this Emily?

[Emily Reyn]

Good one Jason; very funny.  And, I liked your choices on all the images. I 
must retire to objectively review the applicability of this to my character, 
but at first glance, the answer is Yes and No.  



 From: Jason 
To: "fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 12:58 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is this Emily?
 

  
 
 
    Is this Emily?
 
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Untiteled

[nablusoss1008]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poll Numbers

[doctordumbass]

Doc sez, Yeah, as a country we were at the top of our game after Bush, and 
before Obama was popularly elected; no terrorist attacks on US soil, economy 
roaring ahead, no deficit, and peace at last - NOT!

I'll agree with Maharishi on this one, when he said George W. Bush will open 
the gates of Hell. He did. Credit where credit is due, please. 

I figure the Republican arm of The One Party f*cked things up so badly, they 
get to sit out another one. Let's give the Democratic arm of The One Party, 
another go.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to 
> > perform better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 
> > 
> > http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html
> 
> 
> 
> Pew: Romney 49, Obama 45, hopefully Obama will lose, if not American will 
> definitely lose!! :-(
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is this Ann?

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason  wrote:
>
>
>
> Is this Ann?
Absolutely, except my ears are a little more rounded at the top.

Is this Jason, is this Jason?










>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

I disagree with your interpretation of his point but we can let Robin decide if 
he cares to.   Although he objects to my characterization of "likeability" to 
describe the personality qualities he uses to determine how aligned someone is 
to the  POV of "reality" he clearly does list the traits for both sides.  

He has applied this criteria many times in our exchanges.  It is part of the 
personal attack style that you are also a big fan of.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show
> > > > that they understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone
> > > > can offer answers to my objections that don't include an
> > > > assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but
> > > > actually sticks to the points themselves.
> > > 
> > > For the most part, the answers to your objections are
> > > simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't
> > > crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you
> > > genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because
> > > you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a
> > > potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the
> > > truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly
> > > suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for
> > > you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the
> > > truth.
> > 
> > M: Right, I am against truth and kittens.
> 
> Don't know about kittens, but truth has never been your
> friend as long as I've known you.
> 
> > > Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the
> > > irrelevance of Curtis's objections:
> > > 
> > > Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis?
> > > Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad
> > > hominem.
> > > 
> > > It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point
> > > in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long
> > > disquisition about how personal likeability is not
> > > necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if
> > > this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It
> > > had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had
> > > said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant.
> > 
> > M: And your attempt at bullshittery is equally jaw dropping
> 
> Well, let's see whether I was bullshitting.
> 
> > Robin making the point Judy missed:
> 
> No, Curtis, I didn't miss it, any more than I missed your
> objection to what you go on to quote, or Robin's response
> to your objection (which you do not, of course, quote),
> pointing out that "likeability" has nothing to do with
> anything he's proposing:
> 
> "WTF does 'likeability' have to do with truth--except that it
> is a better and more real and more satisfying experience when
> one's first person ontology becomes more responsive and
> affected by the POV of reality? Objectification of one's first
> person subjective perspective is always available, Curtis--to 
> everyone
> 
> "This [my theory] only has to do with the objectification of 
> subjectivity, Curtis: likeableness does not come in here. It
> may somewhere be a natural byproduct of something to do with
> the effect of this theory in some way. But no, Curtis, get
> rid of this likeableness thing. It does not enter into the
> theory at all
> 
> "We are talking about first person ontology only. And first
> person ontologies are not necessarily all attractive. It is
> not a question of likeableness, Curtis; it is a question of
> aligning oneself with something within reality which can
> make one's subjective self more aware of where the truth or
> reality of something is."
> 
> >  > FORCE THAT THIRD POINT OF VIEW TO MAKE ITSELF EVIDENT TO US, KNOWN TO US. 
> > And
> > then to see which person seems to be making more contact with that third 
> > point
> > of view--given that it is, according to the hypothesis, the point of view of
> > REALITY. And if this third point of view is always extant in any given
> > interpersonal circumstance, then when it begins to have an influence, that
> > influence will be decisive, since if one of the two persons is more in
> > accordance with the third point of view, it will mean that that person 
> > commands
> > more support, poise, persuasiveness, innocence--and the other person, whose
> > point of view begins to be in opposition to that third point of view, will
> > exhibit signs of resistance, pugnacity, defensiveness, aggression, violent
> > subjectivity.>
> > 
> > M: He is using subjectively assessed personality traits all
> > of which are unlikeable as indications to a person's alignment
> > with reality.
> 
> No, he isn't. You've completely missed the point. See
> Robin's response quoted above (did you miss it when you
> read his post, Curtis?).
> 
> The rest of this is just Curtis expandin

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show
> > > that they understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone
> > > can offer answers to my objections that don't include an
> > > assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but
> > > actually sticks to the points themselves.
> > 
> > For the most part, the answers to your objections are
> > simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't
> > crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you
> > genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because
> > you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a
> > potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the
> > truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly
> > suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for
> > you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the
> > truth.
> 
> M: Right, I am against truth and kittens.

Don't know about kittens, but truth has never been your
friend as long as I've known you.

> > Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the
> > irrelevance of Curtis's objections:
> > 
> > Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis?
> > Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad
> > hominem.
> > 
> > It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point
> > in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long
> > disquisition about how personal likeability is not
> > necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if
> > this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It
> > had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had
> > said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant.
> 
> M: And your attempt at bullshittery is equally jaw dropping

Well, let's see whether I was bullshitting.

> Robin making the point Judy missed:

No, Curtis, I didn't miss it, any more than I missed your
objection to what you go on to quote, or Robin's response
to your objection (which you do not, of course, quote),
pointing out that "likeability" has nothing to do with
anything he's proposing:

"WTF does 'likeability' have to do with truth--except that it
is a better and more real and more satisfying experience when
one's first person ontology becomes more responsive and
affected by the POV of reality? Objectification of one's first
person subjective perspective is always available, Curtis--to 
everyone

"This [my theory] only has to do with the objectification of 
subjectivity, Curtis: likeableness does not come in here. It
may somewhere be a natural byproduct of something to do with
the effect of this theory in some way. But no, Curtis, get
rid of this likeableness thing. It does not enter into the
theory at all

"We are talking about first person ontology only. And first
person ontologies are not necessarily all attractive. It is
not a question of likeableness, Curtis; it is a question of
aligning oneself with something within reality which can
make one's subjective self more aware of where the truth or
reality of something is."

>  FORCE THAT THIRD POINT OF VIEW TO MAKE ITSELF EVIDENT TO US, KNOWN TO US. And
> then to see which person seems to be making more contact with that third point
> of view--given that it is, according to the hypothesis, the point of view of
> REALITY. And if this third point of view is always extant in any given
> interpersonal circumstance, then when it begins to have an influence, that
> influence will be decisive, since if one of the two persons is more in
> accordance with the third point of view, it will mean that that person 
> commands
> more support, poise, persuasiveness, innocence--and the other person, whose
> point of view begins to be in opposition to that third point of view, will
> exhibit signs of resistance, pugnacity, defensiveness, aggression, violent
> subjectivity.>
> 
> M: He is using subjectively assessed personality traits all
> of which are unlikeable as indications to a person's alignment
> with reality.

No, he isn't. You've completely missed the point. See
Robin's response quoted above (did you miss it when you
read his post, Curtis?).

The rest of this is just Curtis expanding on his already
refuted objection. I.e., it's more bullshittery.



> I pointed out that this causes two problems, it is another subjective 
> evaluation and none of these are epistemologically tied to someone being less 
> correct about something.
> 
> How do you evaluate a person's "innocence" and "poise" to indicate they have 
> more support of reality. 
> 
> This is such a key part of his system that he has used to evaluate posters 
> here that I question that you really gave his 3 posts a good read.  My guess 
> is that you were so keen to jump on the ad hominems you weren't paying 
> attention to how he structured his argument.  Your focus on that aspect of 
> the post in this and a previous post reveal

[FairfieldLife] Physical Therapist want for SunnyBrook Continuum of Care

[shelley.fulcher]

Are you looking to re-locate or do you know someone who is?
 
Join the SunnyBrook Continuum of Care

SunnyBrook is looking for a Full-time Physical Therapist for continuum of care 
in Southeast Iowa. 

Experience increased satisfaction in your career at SunnyBrook by applying your 
creative intelligence and leadership qualities to your occupation where you can 
effectively make a difference as a physical therapist.

"Work as part of a team in our therapy department. We provide P.T in home, 
skilled nursing facility, and we also provide in-patient and outpatient 
physical therapy services."

 

Join our fantastic SunnyBrook crew that provides a family of services with the 
highest quality care!
Candidate must be energetic with good organizational skills.
SunnyBrook Home Care offers a competitive salary and a comprehensive benefits 
package. Finder's fee offered for job placement.

Apply by sending resume with cover letter to:

SunnyBrook Home Care 
400 Highland, Suite 102 
Fairfield, IA 52556 
641-472-4808

Or apply on-line at:

https://www.sunnybrookhomecare.com/








Ideal Qualifications:
•   Candidate must be energetic with strong organizational and 
communication skills.
•   Responsible for planning treatments with a team approach for patients 
needing physical therapy.
•   Able to provide valid driver's license and automobile insurance for 
home visits.
•   Graduation from a school of physical therapy with a minimum of a 
Bachelor's degree.
•   Full-time position offered






Fairfield IA is a rural community (population about 10,000) in the Midwest, the 
Heartland of America. It boasts more restaurants per capita than San Francisco, 
offering ethnic food choices from around the world. We have a strong school 
system whether you choose private or public education, a community college and 
private college.  Among its broad assets, the town of Fairfield has many public 
facilities including an indoor/outdoor pool at the Parks and Recreation Center, 
a local award-winning farmer's market, and monthly Art Walk, and a brand new 
Arts and Convention Center that regularly features Broadway performers. 
Fairfield's Mayor,   Edward Malloy has been recognized by MSN.com as one of the 
15 greenest mayors and the City of Fairfield has received attention for the 
city's Sustainability Plan.
Fairfield's low crime rate, cultural diversity and commitment to holistic 
growth make it a safe and wonderful area to live and raise a family.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Poll Numbers

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to 
> perform better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html



Pew: Romney 49, Obama 45, hopefully Obama will lose, if not American will 
definitely lose!! :-(

[FairfieldLife] Gene or Buddy?

[card]

Just curious, who is youre (more) favorite drummer,
Eugene "Gene" Krupa or Bernard "Buddy" Rich?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar

[wgm4u]

Romney a liar? Here's proof it's just the opposite:  


Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax 
Plan
8:45 AM, Oct 8, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts
   

Last night, the Obama campaign blasted out another email claiming that Mitt 
Romney's tax plan would either require raising taxes on the middle class or 
blowing a hole in the deficit. "Even the studies that Romney has cited to claim 
his plan adds up still show he would need to raise middle-class taxes," said 
the Obama campaign press release. "In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein 
and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney's tax 
cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and 
$200,000."

But that's not true. Princeton professor Harvey Rosen tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD 
in an email that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his paper on Romney's 
tax plan:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Doctor Dumbass opines, Romney wants us to buy into his version of America, 
> where he will invade you if you don't, and maximize the profits of the 
> mega-rich at your expense, broadly speaking. 
> 
> When did the idea that the profits of the super-rich are sacrosanct, held to 
> a ~15% tax, come into being? Is that the biggest line of BS, or what? That is 
> Romney world, though. What ants we must seem to him, such an emperor of 
> industry - lol. The good doctor has nothing personal against him, but 
> Romney/Ryan running this country? Bad idea. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > This is an interesting analysis of what Romney was doing:
> > 
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-ritz/romneys-creationist-debat_b_1941995.html
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> > > > >Obama couldn't even look Romney in the eyes at the debate. He came off 
> > > > >as the failure he is and had to stand before 60 -70 million people 
> > > > >tuning in, without a teleprompter feeding him what he needed to say. 
> > > > >Obama couldn't bring up the 47% comment because Romney was right there 
> > > > >to counter him with the whole truth. That 47% thing is only effective 
> > > > >in a 30 second TV spot where it can't be challenged.
> > > > > Â 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > A lot of people are so shocked that Obama did so poorly in the debate.  
> > > > It's not so much the 'talking points', but more so with his body 
> > > > language.  He looked like a lost, confused, scared and embarrassed 
> > > > young boy.  I actually felt bad for him.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What's more shocking is that Republicans are just fine with Romney 
> > > telling 27 lies in 38 minutes. Do you realize how racially offensive it 
> > > is to refer to a black man as "boy?" I expected as much from Mike Dixon, 
> > > but not you. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321897 
> > > I'm not that happy with Obama's term in office either but I sure as hell 
> > > don't want that lying SOB Romney anywhere near the White House.
> > > 
> > > > I know it wasn't a good movie, but if you remember the movie Rocky 3 
> > > > where Rocky gets his ass beat, that's how I saw Obama.  The reason 
> > > > Rocky loses his fight is because he realizes his manager has carried 
> > > > him through all of his fights, ensuring he never faces any real tough 
> > > > opponents.  But then Rocky had to fight someone who is a real fighter, 
> > > > and he got destroyed.
> > > > 
> > > > Obama is very similar if you look at his whole life.  He was given a 
> > > > lot of ideology from other mentors and learned the art of public 
> > > > speaking.  But contrary to most people's opinion, he was never trained 
> > > > to debate.only to speak publicly with confidence, but with nobody 
> > > > arguing back or challenging him.  None of the jobs he ever had actually 
> > > > required him to 'produce' anything.  His time in the senate was only 2 
> > > > years, of which he was only 'functioning' about 7 months of that time.  
> > > > And then he got the Democratic nomination.  His debate with John McCain 
> > > > was a gimme.  Didn't take much to win that one, especially when 
> > > > everyone looked at McCain as a replica of GWB.  So Obama, in many ways, 
> > > > is the political equivalent of a Boxing "Paper Champ".  
> > > > 
> > > > And despite the fact I don't like this guy, I feel bad for him.  I 
> > > > don't really think it's his fault.  He had a lot of ideology fed to 
> > > > him.  He left college with the mindset that many college grads have.  
> > > > He left with the mindset that all the problems in America are so easy 
> > > > to solve with the absolutely perfect ideas that a

[FairfieldLife] Poll Numbers

[John]

Romney is ahead.  The people have spoken.  Obama is now on the spot to perform 
better during the next debate.  If not, his gig as prez is done. 

http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4-post-debate-survey-200329539--politics.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romney the war monger

[wgm4u]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Well I guess we all knew that but further evidence today during one of 
> his campaign stops where Romney said. "But when we look at the Middle 
> East today … it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is 
> higher now than when the president took office."
> 
> Or "I want my buddies in the military industrial welfare state to make 
> lots of money at the expense of American taxpayers." Romney is such a chump.

Takes one to know one!

[FairfieldLife] Bow and Arrows

[Jason]

 
 
Are there any more women in the forum?

[FairfieldLife] Is this Sal?

[Jason]

 
 
 Is this Sal?

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> 
> > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show
> > that they understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone
> > can offer answers to my objections that don't include an
> > assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but
> > actually sticks to the points themselves.
> 
> For the most part, the answers to your objections are
> simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't
> crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you
> genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because
> you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a
> potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the
> truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly
> suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for
> you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the
> truth.


M: Right, I am against truth and kittens.


> 
> Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the
> irrelevance of Curtis's objections:
> 
> Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis?
> Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad
> hominem.
> 
> It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point
> in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long
> disquisition about how personal likeability is not
> necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if
> this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It
> had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had
> said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant.

M: And your attempt at bullshittery is equally jaw dropping

Robin making the point Judy missed:




M: He is using subjectively assessed personality traits all of which are 
unlikeable as indications to a person's alignment with reality.

I pointed out that this causes two problems, it is another subjective 
evaluation and none of these are epistemologically tied to someone being less 
correct about something.

How do you evaluate a person's "innocence" and "poise" to indicate they have 
more support of reality. 

This is such a key part of his system that he has used to evaluate posters here 
that I question that you really gave his 3 posts a good read.  My guess is that 
you were so keen to jump on the ad hominems you weren't paying attention to how 
he structured his argument.  Your focus on that aspect of the post in this and 
a previous post reveals your subjective bias in all this.  You can't keep your 
eye on the philosophical ball if you sense a chance to insult.  Robin suffers 
from the same problem.

> 
> BTW, why is it that your spell-checker always misses
> "thoery" for "theory," Curtis? You started spelling it
> that way back in 2010. Maybe you've spelled it
> correctly on some occasions since, but a quick archive
> search shows 102 hits on the misspelling in your posts
> (of course, some of those are repetitions of the same
> quote over a number of posts in an exchange, but that
> still boils down to quite a few mispellings in the
> originals).
> 
> I don't believe you spelled it correctly once in your
> two posts to Robin in this thread, and you spell it
> incorrectly above as well.


M: That is all on me.  My brain has betrayed me even though my spell check does 
not correct this blunder either.  As a poor speller I rely too much on spell 
check.  But it has made me a better speller through quick feedback and your 
feedback should correct this problem.  Thanks for pointing that out.  



>

[FairfieldLife] Is this Ann?

[Jason]

 
 
    Is this Ann?

[FairfieldLife] Is this Share?

[Jason]

 
 
  Is this Share?

[FairfieldLife] Is this Emily?

[Jason]

 
 
    Is this Emily?

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:46 AM, curtisdeltablues <
> curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > Thanks for responding. Now I hope Robin will let us know if you nailed his
> > POV. Really I would just agree with what you said. (with the exception of
> > how you apply it to me of course.)
> >
> > I believe you have missed a critical piece of his claim here though. The
> > part I object to is not what you have restated, but the part about reality
> > having a POV and that this can allow us to go beyond subjectivity, or even
> > the kind of objectivity you describe. I will let Robin decide if what you
> > have written fairly and concisely sums up his whole position.
> >
> 
> OK I don't like it that my company has a holiday on Columbus Day, but here
> I am with nothing much to do today other than plans to go shopping, beach
> and dinner later tonight so I will take a shot at this.

M: Your reluctance to spend time on this is noted.

> 
> Well I don't know if I would necessarily define it as reality's POV but
> let's go along with that. But I do agree with that, that there is the
> reality's POV or the truth and that we should strive to get a feel for the
> reality's POV so we can reduce our subjective bias. I don't think Robin
> ever says he has some special insight into reality's POV - this is where
> you, Jason, Xeno and others who attack him go so seriously wrong. 

M: If so you could be onto something.  But I believe you are still missing the 
intellectual move I object to in what Robin wrote.  He is juxtaposing my POV as 
deficient in this quality of reality attunement.  But perhaps he is so humble 
that he has never achieved this himself either, but that he hopes it might be 
possible.  I'll be interested to see if he responds to this for us to clarify.

He shows
> he is sincere and dedicated to investigating what the reality's POV is, in
> any given moment. Clearly reality's POV is not as clear cut but the main
> thing is that one, together with other's feedback,in a process of
> discovery,investigation, strive to get a feel for the reality's POV.


M:  It seems like kind of an inflated way to describe what we all try to do 
here if your limited version of his claims is all he is claiming. I believe he 
is claiming more.

> 
> 
> >
> > What I respect about what you wrote is that you focused most of it on the
> > actual content of his POV and only took a whack at me after clearly making
> > your case for understanding his content. Thanks for that.
> >
> 
> I took a whack at you because based upon your actions, posts on FFL you
> haven't shown that you spend any effort to try to discover reality's POV
> and to reduce your subjective biases. Be it the case of your judgement on
> Judy, support of Barry or the recent incidents involving Emily. For
> example, when you attribute malice and hatred to Judy it doesn't reflect
> reality - because I have been reading Judy's posts for 2 years now and her
> posts are totally concerned with pointing out facts in a totally detached
> way, never has she displayed any bitterness,hatred or anger - so when you
> make such a harsh judgement I'm forced to take a hack at you because you
> seem so away from reality.


M: We'll have to agree to disagree with most of that but I am digging your 
clarity on Robin's POV and we'll have to see if it holds up for him.  I was 
asking for someone to step up and articulate it outside the baggage of "me" and 
I appreciate your taking the time.  It is a good start and I hope others who 
see value in his POV chip in.




> 
> 
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, curtisdeltablues  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Robin's brilliance, intelligence >
> > > >
> > > > M: How about you Ravi, would you like to take a crack at expressing
> > what
> > > > Robin's ideas are, if you understand them?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > What Robin says is very clear to me, in fact what he says really
> > resonates
> > > with me because I have unconsciously followed it my whole life time and
> > > this is the reason why I love him so much.
> > >
> > > What he says is not new to me, but the way he explains it is what's so
> > > beautiful - that each one of us has a subjective sense of truth which is
> > > biased and tinted. And that each one of us should constantly modify our
> > > subjectivity, work on reducing this subjective bias so we are in tune
> > with
> > > the reality. That this is achieved by trying to get a feeling for what
> > this
> > > objective truth is, what this reality's judgement is for every argument,
> > > for every incident that happens in our lives that challenges our
> > subjective
> > > sense of it.
> > >
> > > Most including you are so invested in one's subjectivity, in one's
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Romney the war monger

[Bhairitu]

Well I guess we all knew that but further evidence today during one of 
his campaign stops where Romney said. "But when we look at the Middle 
East today … it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is 
higher now than when the president took office."

Or "I want my buddies in the military industrial welfare state to make 
lots of money at the expense of American taxpayers." Romney is such a chump.






To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Bhairitu]

On 10/08/2012 10:08 AM, turquoiseb wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 10/07/2012 11:18 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
>>> A new world's record.
>>>
>>> Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
>>>
>>> Impressive.
>> Maybe Robin is L Ron Hubbard reincarnated.  Probably not since their
>> lifespans most likely overlap.  As you may recall Hubbard wrote his
>> novels on an IBM Selectric with using a roll of paper instead of
>> individual sheets. :-D
> Both, in my opinion, could have used toilet paper,
> and thus saved the unnecessary step of publication. :-)

There apparently are some people under the illusion that if someone can 
"write a lot of words, they must be bright."  No, they just write a lot 
of words.  Or what I would call "verbal masturbation." I recall those 
gold covered books the TMO used to put out and trying to parse out of 
the pages of blather what they really wanted to say.  Apparently the 
delusion of verbosity is something that plagues TM'ers. ;-)

Speaking of "L Ron", "The Master" has also opened at the multiplex also 
owned by Cinearts across the freeway from their "art house". It's newer 
with decent seating so will see it there this week.

[FairfieldLife] Is this Raunchy?

[Jason]

 
 
 
 Is this Raunchy?

[FairfieldLife] Album review: Mark Knopfler's "Privateering"

[turquoiseb]

This has been a banner musical week for me. Getting to do three
"first-listen shooter" reviews of albums by three of the few Artists
Whose New Albums I'll Always Listen To No Matter What. First was Bob
Dylan's "Tempest," followed the same day by Ry Cooder's "Election
Special."

This one excites me the most, and I most look forward to writing it,
real-time, as I immerse myself in the sounds emanating from one of my
favorite musical voices, and guitar voices.

For those of you reading this in the United States, this may be as close
as you get to the experience of listening to it. I learn from the
MarkKnopfler.com website today that the album may never be released in
the US, for reasons wholy stemming from corporate greed. Your loss, my
gain.

1. Redbud Tree

Classic Mark Knopfler. A vignette from a past life, remembered and
retold by a master bard, practicing Castanedan recollection. The song
starts with simple acoustic guitar and simple percussion, and continues
with this until after the first chorus. Then Mark's guitar comes in. I
cried, to hear that sound again.

It's like when Jerry Garcia would interject one of his equally simple
but equally eloquent guitar lines into a Dead song. Like a Hemingway
paragraph or a trumpet solo by Miles Davis. Not a superfluous note, or
an off one. I'm going to enjoy this listen-through.

2. Haul Away

A sailors' ballad, appropriately intro'd by Chieftains-like uilleann
pipes. Mark sets sail on a privateering ship, and allows us to come
along.

3. Don't Forget Your Hat

I picture Memphis Minnie singing this one. Great slide guitar and harp
work.

4. Privateering

It's always a "tell" when an artist doesn't start the album with the
song that titles it. Thus I was waiting for this one with some
anticipation. I called it. On one level, it's another of Mark's
recapitulations of a past life. On another, it's a wry commentary on
what his life in this incarnation has been like as a rock star:

Yon's my privateer how trim she lies
To every man a lucky prize to every man a prize
I live to ride the ocean and the mighty world around
To take a little plunder and to hear the cannon sound
To lay with pretty women
to drink Madeira wine
to hear the roller's thunder on a shore that isn't mine.
Privateering, we will go
Privateering, Yoh! oh! ho!
Privateering, we will go
Privateering, Yeah! oh! ho!

5. Miss You Blues

A remininisence, nigh akin to Dylan's "Girl From The North Country."
Gone, but not forgotten. The only thing that remains is fondness, and a
wondering whether they've forgotten you, too.

6. Corned Beef City

First kick-out-the-jams serious rocker of the album. Can't write any
more about this one. Busy dancing.

7. Go, Love

The guitar phrase that opens the song explains it more than the words
do. This is a melancholy musing on one of those moments in the history
of a love affair that burns itself into your memory and haunts you for
decades afterwards. The leaving. The finding again. Or not. Magic,
either way.

8. Hot Or What

Classic Chicago blues, with good licks from Mark on guitar and Kim
Wilson on harp.

9. Yon Two Crows

More hauntingly beautiful uilleann pipes, segueing to acoustic guitar
and Mark's intimate, wrap-around voice. Hundreds of years of shepherds,
and the story's still the same:

What made you think
There'd be a living in sheep?
Eat, work, eat, work, and sleep

10. Seattle

A song about living with rain, and what that does to your head
sometimes. Living in the Netherlands, I can identify.

11. Kingdom Of Gold

As scathing and as cutting an indictment as any penned by Dylan or Ry
Cooder in their recent "political" albums, but more compassionate.

12. Got To Have Something

A song about what musicians really consider proper payment for playing
for non-musicians.

13.

Radio City Serenade

A love song of the best sort, for a woman who made an impression.
Whether it was a one-night-stand impression or a lifelong impression
really doesn't matter, only that she made it.

14. I Used To Could

That boppy, rockin', busking-in-the-Underground rockabilly sound that
first made Mark famous. Still works for me.

15. Gator Blood

Cajun cookin'...in music.

16. Bluebird

It's not often you hear a blues song that contains an accordion solo.
Even though I have somewhat of an aversion to the instrument, it's OK in
this case because after the next verse there's one of Mark's tastiest
short guitar solos ever.

17. Dream Of The Drowned Submariner

Stunningly lovely. Mark just has this knack of putting himself in the
minds of the people he writes about. Whether this is artistry on his
part or memory of his own past lives I would not venture to guess.
Either way, I just love it.

18. Blood And Water

Nothing to say about this one...it just doesn't rock me, except for the
tasty guitar licks, that is. H...come to think of it, they rock me
just fine.

19. Today Is Okay

Even if you're born under a bad luck sign, there are still good days.
The guitar riffs were created on one of the

[FairfieldLife] Is this Judy?

[Jason]

 
 
  Is this Judy?

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show
> that they understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone
> can offer answers to my objections that don't include an
> assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but
> actually sticks to the points themselves.

For the most part, the answers to your objections are
simply that your objections are irrelevant. It isn't
crystal clear whether they're irrelevant because you
genuinely haven't understood Robin's theory, or because
you were attempting to mislead and confuse about a
potentially extremely useful approach to getting to the
truth of a matter. Probably needless to say, I strongly
suspect the latter, given how disastrous it would be for
you for folks to have a reliable means to discern the
truth.

Robin illustrates (hyperbolically) the nature of the
irrelevance of Curtis's objections:

Robin: Is that our bus coming now, Curtis?
Curtis: I did so kill that mosquito, Robin. STFU. Ad
hominem.

It's not all that hyperbolic, actually. At one point
in their dialogue, Curtis went off on a long
disquisition about how personal likeability is not
necessarily an indication of trustworthiness, as if
this were something Robin had proposed. It wasn't. It
had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Robin had
said. Jaw-droppingly irrelevant.

BTW, why is it that your spell-checker always misses
"thoery" for "theory," Curtis? You started spelling it
that way back in 2010. Maybe you've spelled it
correctly on some occasions since, but a quick archive
search shows 102 hits on the misspelling in your posts
(of course, some of those are repetitions of the same
quote over a number of posts in an exchange, but that
still boils down to quite a few mispellings in the
originals).

I don't believe you spelled it correctly once in your
two posts to Robin in this thread, and you spell it
incorrectly above as well.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
> to have a POV?
> 
> I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth?

I think someone can brutalize, hide, usurp, overthrow, disrespect, avoid for a 
while, mock and deny truth. I am not sure about being able to kill it, it will 
still be there, somewhere, alive and kicking.

 >Robin accuses 
> Curtis of killing the truth.
> 
> 
> > ---  "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are working away here, Curtis, in your customary   
> > > fashion: from within the animus you have to the   
> > > metaphysical principle which has enabled me to suggest a 
> > >  possibility of human accountability that infuriates you 
> > >  and inflames your pride. And you attack me without any 
> > > willingness to even consider a single thread of   
> > > plausibility or meaningfulness in what I have said. This 
> > >  is a dead giveaway to your ultimate and hidden   
> > > metaphysical purpose: Kill the truth which you find   
> > > abhorrent and inconvenient to your way of living your  
> > > life. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are perfectly nonresponsive to what I have just  
> > > said, Curtis. Can you never deal with the truth except
> > > aslant, Curtis? You are not serious here, Curtis, 
> > > surely. You have become a devotee of Lawrence Krauss,  
> > > who has come under withering attack not just from  
> > > philosophers, but from fellow physicists (some of whom  
> > > are trained in philosophy, as Krauss is not) for his *A 
> > > Universe from Nothing*. This is a very stupid thing to  
> > > do, Curtis, trying to make FFL readers believe there is 
> > > a consensus about what nothingness is and what  
> > > nothingness isn't, and that the only persons who  
> > > disagree with you are benighted and antediluvian. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > But no, Curtis doesn't do this. If he has nothing to say 
> > > by way of retort, he just changes the topic, or 
> > > generalizes it out of all meaning and pertinence to what 
> > > was being discussed. You kill the reality, the momentum, 
> > > the context within which truth wishes to create the 
> > > necessary tension so an issue can be seen from various  
> > > points of view, Curtis. Once again you lead the reader  
> > > astray by simply turning away from what is being 
> > > said--this, after your vociferous protestations about my 
> > > ignorance, dishonesty, ad hominem arguments. Suddenly  
> > > just passive and deliberately irrelevant.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Again, you will never face a question or challenge  
> > > directly, Curtis. You will never let a question strike 
> > > against your consciousness. If you smell trouble, you  
> > > walk away, as you have right here. You have not begun to 
> > > address what I have said here. That is always revealing, 
> > > isn't it, Curtis? I cannot understand, in all the  
> > > quarrels you have had with various posters here on FFL, 
> > > why everyone who is normal, intelligent, and reasonable 
> > > can't see that you are a moral and intellectual--and 
> > > metaphysical--cheat, Curtis. > Why would I set myself up 
> > > for a takedown like this with you, Curtis? No, you are  
> > > consciously and compulsively misrepresenting me. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You would be asked to go to your room and STFU if you  
> > > answered like this at the dining room table, Curtis.  
> > > This is stupid, obstinate, and painfully obstructionist. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I am shocked that so many persons on FFL are intimidated 
> > > by your way of arguing that you just shut them up. You  
> > > would not have lasted around where I grew up, Curtis. 
> > > You would have been censured, and you would have felt  
> > > the ignominy of your false posturing. This is ruled out 
> > > of order, Curtis, for you to rule my question to you out 
> > > of order. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Go to your room, Curtis. WTF? This is getting strange. I 
> > > am surprised that those who love you have not told you  
> > > to just shut up. You should just shut up, Curtis. You  
> > > have nothing to say to what I have said here. You are 
> > > tediously the same, Curtis: You will never know what  
> > > it is like to find your ideas, your consciousness, 
> > > altered by some idea which is opposed to your sacred 
> > > beliefs, the beliefs which are tantamount to the 
> > > survival of your first person ontology. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are a primitive kind of thinker, Curtis--you do not 
> > > go near the elegance and musicality and loveliness of  
> > > what it really means to think about an idea. Too bad. 
> > >You are missing out on one of the great privileges of  
> > > being a human being. You should be Fidel's right-hand  
> > > man. You would do well reinforcing his socialist utopia 
> > > there in Cuba. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are terrified of bumping up against reality such 
> > > that reality might invade your consciousness, alter your 
> > > be

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:46 AM, curtisdeltablues <
curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Thanks for responding. Now I hope Robin will let us know if you nailed his
> POV. Really I would just agree with what you said. (with the exception of
> how you apply it to me of course.)
>
> I believe you have missed a critical piece of his claim here though. The
> part I object to is not what you have restated, but the part about reality
> having a POV and that this can allow us to go beyond subjectivity, or even
> the kind of objectivity you describe. I will let Robin decide if what you
> have written fairly and concisely sums up his whole position.
>

OK I don't like it that my company has a holiday on Columbus Day, but here
I am with nothing much to do today other than plans to go shopping, beach
and dinner later tonight so I will take a shot at this.

Well I don't know if I would necessarily define it as reality's POV but
let's go along with that. But I do agree with that, that there is the
reality's POV or the truth and that we should strive to get a feel for the
reality's POV so we can reduce our subjective bias. I don't think Robin
ever says he has some special insight into reality's POV - this is where
you, Jason, Xeno and others who attack him go so seriously wrong. He shows
he is sincere and dedicated to investigating what the reality's POV is, in
any given moment. Clearly reality's POV is not as clear cut but the main
thing is that one, together with other's feedback,in a process of
discovery,investigation, strive to get a feel for the reality's POV.


>
> What I respect about what you wrote is that you focused most of it on the
> actual content of his POV and only took a whack at me after clearly making
> your case for understanding his content. Thanks for that.
>

I took a whack at you because based upon your actions, posts on FFL you
haven't shown that you spend any effort to try to discover reality's POV
and to reduce your subjective biases. Be it the case of your judgement on
Judy, support of Barry or the recent incidents involving Emily. For
example, when you attribute malice and hatred to Judy it doesn't reflect
reality - because I have been reading Judy's posts for 2 years now and her
posts are totally concerned with pointing out facts in a totally detached
way, never has she displayed any bitterness,hatred or anger - so when you
make such a harsh judgement I'm forced to take a hack at you because you
seem so away from reality.


>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, curtisdeltablues  > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Robin's brilliance, intelligence >
> > >
> > > M: How about you Ravi, would you like to take a crack at expressing
> what
> > > Robin's ideas are, if you understand them?
> > >
> > >
> > What Robin says is very clear to me, in fact what he says really
> resonates
> > with me because I have unconsciously followed it my whole life time and
> > this is the reason why I love him so much.
> >
> > What he says is not new to me, but the way he explains it is what's so
> > beautiful - that each one of us has a subjective sense of truth which is
> > biased and tinted. And that each one of us should constantly modify our
> > subjectivity, work on reducing this subjective bias so we are in tune
> with
> > the reality. That this is achieved by trying to get a feeling for what
> this
> > objective truth is, what this reality's judgement is for every argument,
> > for every incident that happens in our lives that challenges our
> subjective
> > sense of it.
> >
> > Most including you are so invested in one's subjectivity, in one's
> > subjective sense of self-hood that they don't let reality modify this
> > subjective sense of self thereby as Jason as said - killing the truth.The
> > only one can be true to reality is being always questioning one's
> > subjective biases, always remaining vulnerable, remaining vulnerable by
> > being free of any belief system including religion, Science or atheism
> that
> > obscures the truth.
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Jason]

> ---  "Jason" jedi_spock@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity
> > to have a POV?
>
>

---  "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
>
> M: I agree, this is a central issue. It is using a term which has less
emotional load than "God" (who would be such a dick that they would not
respect "reality" right?) and then basically giving the word the same
function and qualities of what the term "God" usually refers to. A form
of concept smuggling.
>
> And it ignores the issues concerning how we can have confidence that
someone is speaking for it, he she, whatever.
>
> >
> > I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth? Robin accuses
> > Curtis of killing the truth.
>
> M: It is all in the choice of your round. Truth has a particularly
thick skin so only a magnum round for a high velocity penetration will
work. But don't try to use a 223 round because that doesn't have the
spreading impact needed to stop truth in its tracks.
>
> You need at least a 30/30 commonly used for deer hunting, but if you
have something like one of those hand held cannons they use on big game
in Africa, so much the better.
>
> The truth doesn't end up with much edible meat anyway, so don't worry
about blasting the shit out of it. I have used some truth carcases for
stock, but with all the little bullshit bones to strain out, it is
hardly worth the trouble and certainly doesn't add more flavor than a
well roasted duck carcass.
>
> Most of us dedicated truth killers are in it for the sport. I've tried
to get the same satisfaction stalking and shooting it with a camera, but
somehow is just isn't the same. Plus I get paid one degree cooler in my
future in hell for each truth's foot I deliver to the big guy
downstairs, and so far I'm looking at eternity at a toasty but livable
83 degrees. I figure with a ceiling fan I'll be just fine and I'm pretty
sure Walmart has a store down there to sell me one once I arrive. Free
refills at Hell's Starbuck too from what i hear. Those bastards are
everywhere.
>
>


  [air conditioning cartoons, air conditioning cartoon, air conditioning
picture, air conditioning pictures, air conditioning image, air
conditioning images, air conditioning illustration, air conditioning
illustrations ]



-

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

Thanks for responding.  Now I hope Robin will let us know if you nailed his 
POV.  Really I would just agree with what you said. (with the exception of how 
you apply it to me of course.)  

I believe you have missed a critical piece of his claim here though.  The part 
I object to is not what you have restated, but the part about reality having a 
POV and that this can allow us to go beyond subjectivity, or even the kind of 
objectivity you describe. I will let Robin decide if what you have written 
fairly and concisely sums up his whole position. 

What I respect about what you wrote is that you focused most of it on the 
actual content of his POV and only took a whack at me after clearly making your 
case for understanding his content.  Thanks for that.




  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, curtisdeltablues  > wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Robin's brilliance, intelligence >
> >
> > M: How about you Ravi, would you like to take a crack at expressing what
> > Robin's ideas are, if you understand them?
> >
> >
> What Robin says is very clear to me, in fact what he says really resonates
> with me because I have unconsciously followed it my whole life time and
> this is the reason why I love him so much.
> 
> What he says is not new to me, but the way he explains it is what's so
> beautiful - that each one of us has a subjective sense of truth which is
> biased and tinted. And that each one of us should constantly modify our
> subjectivity, work on reducing this subjective bias so we are in tune with
> the reality. That this is achieved by trying to get a feeling for what this
> objective truth is, what this reality's judgement is for every argument,
> for every incident that happens in our lives that challenges our subjective
> sense of it.
> 
> Most including you are so invested in one's subjectivity, in one's
> subjective sense of self-hood that they don't let reality modify this
> subjective sense of self thereby as Jason as said - killing the truth.The
> only one can be true to reality is being always questioning one's
> subjective biases, always remaining vulnerable, remaining vulnerable by
> being free of any belief system including religion, Science or atheism that
> obscures the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > creating penis-envy, chin-envy there Barry
> > > baby? Or is this paucity of words reflective of your usual paranoid,
> > > delusional,narcissistic fantasies? Anyway we had a lot of fun today
> > making
> > > fun of you Barry baby - are you going to comment about that or not? I'm
> > > sure you are on a walk with your dogs, furiously thinking of a post -
> > > please pay attention to the dogs needs Barry and don't forget to practice
> > > the silence of the Church that you frequently hallucinate about.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:18 PM, turquoiseb  > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A new world's record.
> > > >
> > > > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> > > >
> > > > Impressive.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:52 AM, curtisdeltablues  wrote:

> **
>
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > Robin's brilliance, intelligence >
>
> M: How about you Ravi, would you like to take a crack at expressing what
> Robin's ideas are, if you understand them?
>
>
What Robin says is very clear to me, in fact what he says really resonates
with me because I have unconsciously followed it my whole life time and
this is the reason why I love him so much.

What he says is not new to me, but the way he explains it is what's so
beautiful - that each one of us has a subjective sense of truth which is
biased and tinted. And that each one of us should constantly modify our
subjectivity, work on reducing this subjective bias so we are in tune with
the reality. That this is achieved by trying to get a feeling for what this
objective truth is, what this reality's judgement is for every argument,
for every incident that happens in our lives that challenges our subjective
sense of it.

Most including you are so invested in one's subjectivity, in one's
subjective sense of self-hood that they don't let reality modify this
subjective sense of self thereby as Jason as said - killing the truth.The
only one can be true to reality is being always questioning one's
subjective biases, always remaining vulnerable, remaining vulnerable by
being free of any belief system including religion, Science or atheism that
obscures the truth.



>
> creating penis-envy, chin-envy there Barry
> > baby? Or is this paucity of words reflective of your usual paranoid,
> > delusional,narcissistic fantasies? Anyway we had a lot of fun today
> making
> > fun of you Barry baby - are you going to comment about that or not? I'm
> > sure you are on a walk with your dogs, furiously thinking of a post -
> > please pay attention to the dogs needs Barry and don't forget to practice
> > the silence of the Church that you frequently hallucinate about.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:18 PM, turquoiseb  >wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > A new world's record.
> > >
> > > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> > >
> > > Impressive.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> 
> I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
> to have a POV?

Think of it as a metaphor. There's a sense in which it
isn't (according to Robin), but that sense is pretty
abstract, and it's not essential to grasping the
fundamentals of Robin's theory. If you take it too
literally and concretely, you'll miss the point.

Example:

Curtis claims Sal's email to Emily was merely "expressing
an opinion like we do here all the time."

Emily (and I, who also read the email) say it was
shockingly angry and nasty, and completely uncalled-for.

For those who haven't read the email, is there a way of
determining which of these two POVs is more accurate,
more realistic? Robin believes there is.

> I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth?  Robin accuses 
> Curtis of killing the truth.

That is, of course, a figure of speech, not to be taken
at all literally. In Curtis's case, it means he obscures,
obfuscates, attempts to make the truth inaccessible (in
general; not just with regard to Robin's theory about how
to know reality's POV).

Robin was doing two things in his post: He was exposing
Curtis as a morally corrupt intellectual fraud; and he
was using Curtis's fraudulent attempts to attack Robin's
theory not just to explain the theory but to demonstrate
its validity.

The quotes you provide do almost nothing to show the
substance of what was going on in the exchange between
Curtis and Robin. For any particular quote to make
sense, you'd have to have seen what Robin was responding
to from Curtis and to have followed the course of
Robin's argument, starting with Robin's first post in
the thread.

All one can really tell from the quotes you provided
is that Robin was berating Curtis for his behavior
(and you chose them to show that specifically, as if
there were nothing more to Robin's post).
 
But there was much, much more to the exchange than
that.



> > ---  "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are working away here, Curtis, in your customary   
> > > fashion: from within the animus you have to the   
> > > metaphysical principle which has enabled me to suggest a 
> > >  possibility of human accountability that infuriates you 
> > >  and inflames your pride. And you attack me without any 
> > > willingness to even consider a single thread of   
> > > plausibility or meaningfulness in what I have said. This 
> > >  is a dead giveaway to your ultimate and hidden   
> > > metaphysical purpose: Kill the truth which you find   
> > > abhorrent and inconvenient to your way of living your  
> > > life. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are perfectly nonresponsive to what I have just  
> > > said, Curtis. Can you never deal with the truth except
> > > aslant, Curtis? You are not serious here, Curtis, 
> > > surely. You have become a devotee of Lawrence Krauss,  
> > > who has come under withering attack not just from  
> > > philosophers, but from fellow physicists (some of whom  
> > > are trained in philosophy, as Krauss is not) for his *A 
> > > Universe from Nothing*. This is a very stupid thing to  
> > > do, Curtis, trying to make FFL readers believe there is 
> > > a consensus about what nothingness is and what  
> > > nothingness isn't, and that the only persons who  
> > > disagree with you are benighted and antediluvian. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > But no, Curtis doesn't do this. If he has nothing to say 
> > > by way of retort, he just changes the topic, or 
> > > generalizes it out of all meaning and pertinence to what 
> > > was being discussed. You kill the reality, the momentum, 
> > > the context within which truth wishes to create the 
> > > necessary tension so an issue can be seen from various  
> > > points of view, Curtis. Once again you lead the reader  
> > > astray by simply turning away from what is being 
> > > said--this, after your vociferous protestations about my 
> > > ignorance, dishonesty, ad hominem arguments. Suddenly  
> > > just passive and deliberately irrelevant.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Again, you will never face a question or challenge  
> > > directly, Curtis. You will never let a question strike 
> > > against your consciousness. If you smell trouble, you  
> > > walk away, as you have right here. You have not begun to 
> > > address what I have said here. That is always revealing, 
> > > isn't it, Curtis? I cannot understand, in all the  
> > > quarrels you have had with various posters here on FFL, 
> > > why everyone who is normal, intelligent, and reasonable 
> > > can't see that you are a moral and intellectual--and 
> > > metaphysical--cheat, Curtis. > Why would I set myself up 
> > > for a takedown like this with you, Curtis? No, you are  
> > > consciously and compulsively misrepresenting me. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You would be asked to go to your room and STFU if you  
> > > answered like this at the dining room table, Curtis.  
> > > This is stupid, obstinate, and painfully obstructionist. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2: One more question

[curtisdeltablues]

I've gotten plenty of them through the years.  Sometimes I respond and 
sometimes I don't.

I might have felt exactly as you did about the content if it had been sent to 
me, with the exception of thinking that the email made it worse than a post on 
FFL.

I would prefer those kind of opinions to be private without all the pile-ons it 
excites on the board. When straightening out animosity the board muddies the 
waters and makes it harder to get to understanding.  YMMV

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Oh, one  more thing:  
> 
> Re:  this question:
> 
> If I had authored such an email to you personally, as comment on a post you 
> thought you were sending within the appropriate context on FFL and as humor, 
> would you have just written it off as generic "criticism?"
> 
> M: See, written communication can come off harsh. 
> 
> E:  You didn't answer my question.  I am actually curious about this.  
> 
> 
> 
> From:Emily Reyn 
> To:"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent:Monday, October 8, 2012 10:29 AM
> Subject:Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of 
> Smoothing Things Out
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Curtis:  Thank you for taking the time to respond.  Emilina (thank you 
> for allowing me to steal the name for this exchange - I still like it) has 
> left on more important matters, but sent me a short note to inform me that I 
> will be wearing the sparkly gold shorts at the next rehearsal.  She informs 
> me that I will look better in them than you - although she acknowledges that 
> it would be funnier to see you wearing them.  
> 
> Yes, we are now "cool," from my perspective - cool as cucumbers (Damn! 
>  There I go with the snarkiness again).  I looked that word up - defined as 
> "sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner."  Sometimes, yes, 
> this is true, but no harm intended.  Emilina has also told me she is 
> considering you for a job in sales - if you send a picture of yourself in a 
> suit to her P.O. Box in the Cayman Islands, it could be a lucrative move for 
> you.  (Is this snarkiness, also?) 
> 
> Honestly, I have heard what you said; in part, because I sat on the other 
> side of the room and evaluated the situation from a different perspective. 
>  I am actually pretty rough on myself, and try to be honest, so I do not 
> worry about questioning my own motives or behaviors.  I don't expect 
> perfection out of myself any longer.  
> 
> I have briefly addressed a few of your comments below.  I have only one 
> question, also included below under E2.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:35 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of Smoothing 
> Things Out
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > MEMORANDUM 2 - GORY DETAILS
> > 
> > To and Re:  Curtis, gentle reader on FFL 
> > 
> > Note:  There are many who won't be interested and who won't likely 
> > understand this post - those who were involved in it may.  You kinda had 
> > to be there and be square. 
> > 
> > From:  Emilina, HR Department 
> > 
> > Re:  Situational Gory Details
> > 
> > I, Emilina, sequestered myself in our corporate board room with Emily over 
> > the last several days and interrogated her on the facts of her suspect 
> > character, her suspect motivations, and, in general, her flippant manner. 
> >  My goal was to be "fair" to Curtis, one of our exalted lead actors, an 
> > angel within our department, a steadfast example of "lightness and being" 
> > in all his doings.
> 
> M: This is the "you" I know.  Snarky.  I get the snark and am not 
> completely clear on why you would write this.  It makes me scratch my head 
> a bit and then move on.
> 
> To assist me in this arduous task, I meditated every moment I could on the 
> pictographs shown below (hope it comes through) - drawn by the ancients long 
> ago and located in Utah, along the Calf Creek Falls trail, within the Grand 
> Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Utah (designated by Clinton). 
> > 
> > Now, Emily was recalcitrant and downright unreasonable in the face of my 
> > interrogation and kept making fun of my new outfit. I, Emilina, finally 
> > threw up my hands in disgust and turned the whole memorandum over to Emily 
> > to finish.  (I reserve the right to make closing remarks.) I, Emilina, 
> > have little faith re: Emily's memory and technical internet skills to piece 
> > this together.  I am depending on Curtis, with his excellent memory, 
> > resulting from either years of meditating or simply good genetics, to 
> > correct or ignore any errors of inconsequence, grammatical and otherwise, 
> > as we all know Emily needs more of both (meditation and good genetics). 
> >  May the force be with you as you review the..GORY DETAILS...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Ravi Chivukula]

Oh dear Share - there's nothing for you to say sorry to me and seek my
forgiveness :-), thank you I'm glad you loved the photos. Now do you love
Robin and Judy - that's the main thing..LOL..

Love,
Ravi

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Share Long  wrote:

> **
>
>
> I'm sorry.  Please forgive me.  Thank you.  I love you.  And your photos
> (-:
>
>   --
> *From:* Ravi Chivukula 
> *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Monday, October 8, 2012 1:28 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View
>
>
> Robin's brilliance, intelligence creating penis-envy, chin-envy there
> Barry baby? Or is this paucity of words reflective of your usual paranoid,
> delusional,narcissistic fantasies? Anyway we had a lot of fun today making
> fun of you Barry baby - are you going to comment about that or not? I'm
> sure you are on a walk with your dogs, furiously thinking of a post -
> please pay attention to the dogs needs Barry and don't forget to practice
> the silence of the Church that you frequently hallucinate about.
>
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:18 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
>
> **
>
>  A new world's record.
>
> Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
>
> Impressive.
>
>
>
>
>   
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
> 
> 
> I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
> to have a POV?


M: I agree, this is a central issue.  It is using a term which has less 
emotional load than "God" (who would be such a dick that they would not respect 
"reality" right?) and then basically giving the word the same function and 
qualities of what the term "God" usually refers to.  A form of concept 
smuggling.  

And it ignores the issues concerning how we can have confidence that someone is 
speaking for it, he she, whatever.

> 
> I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth?  Robin accuses 
> Curtis of killing the truth.

M:  It is all in the choice of your round.  Truth has a particularly thick skin 
so only a magnum round for a high velocity penetration will work.  But don't 
try to use a 223 round because that doesn't have the spreading impact needed to 
stop truth in its tracks.

You need at least a 30/30 commonly used for deer hunting, but if you have 
something like one of those hand held cannons they use on big game in Africa, 
so much the better.

The truth doesn't end up with much edible meat anyway, so don't worry about 
blasting the shit out of it.  I have used some truth carcases for stock, but 
with all the little bullshit bones to strain out, it is hardly worth the 
trouble and certainly doesn't add more flavor than a well roasted duck carcass.

Most of us dedicated truth killers are in it for the sport.  I've tried to get 
the same satisfaction stalking and shooting it with a camera, but somehow is 
just isn't the same. Plus I get paid one degree cooler in my future in hell for 
each truth's foot I deliver to the big guy downstairs, and so far I'm looking 
at eternity at a toasty but livable 83 degrees.  I figure with a ceiling fan 
I'll be just fine and I'm pretty sure Walmart has a store down there to sell me 
one once I arrive. Free refills at Hell's Starbuck too from what i hear.  Those 
bastards are everywhere. 
  



> 
> 
> > ---  "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are working away here, Curtis, in your customary   
> > > fashion: from within the animus you have to the   
> > > metaphysical principle which has enabled me to suggest a 
> > >  possibility of human accountability that infuriates you 
> > >  and inflames your pride. And you attack me without any 
> > > willingness to even consider a single thread of   
> > > plausibility or meaningfulness in what I have said. This 
> > >  is a dead giveaway to your ultimate and hidden   
> > > metaphysical purpose: Kill the truth which you find   
> > > abhorrent and inconvenient to your way of living your  
> > > life. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You are perfectly nonresponsive to what I have just  
> > > said, Curtis. Can you never deal with the truth except
> > > aslant, Curtis? You are not serious here, Curtis, 
> > > surely. You have become a devotee of Lawrence Krauss,  
> > > who has come under withering attack not just from  
> > > philosophers, but from fellow physicists (some of whom  
> > > are trained in philosophy, as Krauss is not) for his *A 
> > > Universe from Nothing*. This is a very stupid thing to  
> > > do, Curtis, trying to make FFL readers believe there is 
> > > a consensus about what nothingness is and what  
> > > nothingness isn't, and that the only persons who  
> > > disagree with you are benighted and antediluvian. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > But no, Curtis doesn't do this. If he has nothing to say 
> > > by way of retort, he just changes the topic, or 
> > > generalizes it out of all meaning and pertinence to what 
> > > was being discussed. You kill the reality, the momentum, 
> > > the context within which truth wishes to create the 
> > > necessary tension so an issue can be seen from various  
> > > points of view, Curtis. Once again you lead the reader  
> > > astray by simply turning away from what is being 
> > > said--this, after your vociferous protestations about my 
> > > ignorance, dishonesty, ad hominem arguments. Suddenly  
> > > just passive and deliberately irrelevant.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Again, you will never face a question or challenge  
> > > directly, Curtis. You will never let a question strike 
> > > against your consciousness. If you smell trouble, you  
> > > walk away, as you have right here. You have not begun to 
> > > address what I have said here. That is always revealing, 
> > > isn't it, Curtis? I cannot understand, in all the  
> > > quarrels you have had with various posters here on FFL, 
> > > why everyone who is normal, intelligent, and reasonable 
> > > can't see that you are a moral and intellectual--and 
> > > metaphysical--cheat, Curtis. > Why would I set myself up 
> > > for a takedown like this with you, Curtis? No, you are  
> > > consciously and compulsively misrepresenting me. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You would be asked to go to your room and STFU if you  
> > > answered like this at the dining room table, Curtis.  
> > > This

[FairfieldLife] Learn about Einstein and God!

[salyavin808]

Find out what Einstein thought about god for only $3,000,000!

http://rt.com/art-and-culture/news/einstein-god-letter-bible-915/

Or read it online:

"For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the 
most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and 
with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me 
than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better 
than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by 
a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them," one of 
the world's most brilliant minds wrote.



I've always thought the same thing as what Einstein did about god 
and religion, I must have an amazing mind.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ravi's Narcissistic Indulgences Part 108

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:10 AM, raunchydog  wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > My pictures of bad boy Ravi - Ravi Yogi - Kali's Pimp & the good boy
> Ravi -
> > the nerd Ravi RChivukula. Please feel free to choose your favorite and
>
> > totally spoil with me your attention and love and I will duly return the
> > favor.
> >
> > http://flic.kr/p/dhKyhR
> >
> > Love,
> > Ravi
> >
>
> Dear Ravi, cutie patootie, Nerdy Good Boy Ravi is too sexy for his shirt.
> http://youtu.be/39YUXIKrOFk
>
> Ravi Kali Pimp needs to ditch the Ralph Lauren T-shirt and get wasted.
>

Thanks dear Raunchy - love it :-),  thank you for the video and the picture
:-)


>
> [image:
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t6A_NaUus-g/TrOBNjWz4VI/Bwg/UMMx_vsqQq4/s400/grunge.jpg]
>
>
>  __._,
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2: One more question

[Emily Reyn]

Oh, one  more thing:  

Re:  this question:

If I had authored such an email to you personally, as comment on a post you 
thought you were sending within the appropriate context on FFL and as humor, 
would you have just written it off as generic "criticism?"

M: See, written communication can come off harsh. 

E:  You didn't answer my question.  I am actually curious about this.  



From:Emily Reyn 
To:"FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent:Monday, October 8, 2012 10:29 AM
Subject:Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of Smoothing 
Things Out



Dear Curtis:  Thank you for taking the time to respond.  Emilina (thank you for 
allowing me to steal the name for this exchange - I still like it) has left on 
more important matters, but sent me a short note to inform me that I will be 
wearing the sparkly gold shorts at the next rehearsal.  She informs me that I 
will look better in them than you - although she acknowledges that it would be 
funnier to see you wearing them.  

Yes, we are now "cool," from my perspective - cool as cucumbers (Damn!  There I 
go with the snarkiness again).  I looked that word up - defined as "sarcastic, 
impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner."  Sometimes, yes, this is true, 
but no harm intended.  Emilina has also told me she is considering you for a 
job in sales - if you send a picture of yourself in a suit to her P.O. Box in 
the Cayman Islands, it could be a lucrative move for you.  (Is this snarkiness, 
also?) 

Honestly, I have heard what you said; in part, because I sat on the other side 
of the room and evaluated the situation from a different perspective.  I am 
actually pretty rough on myself, and try to be honest, so I do not worry about 
questioning my own motives or behaviors.  I don't expect perfection out of 
myself any longer.  

I have briefly addressed a few of your comments below.  I have only one 
question, also included below under E2.  








From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:35 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of Smoothing 
Things Out



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> MEMORANDUM 2 - GORY DETAILS
> 
> To and Re:  Curtis, gentle reader on FFL 
> 
> Note:  There are many who won't be interested and who won't likely understand 
> this post - those who were involved in it may.  You kinda had to be there and 
> be square. 
> 
> From:  Emilina, HR Department 
> 
> Re:  Situational Gory Details
> 
> I, Emilina, sequestered myself in our corporate board room with Emily over 
> the last several days and interrogated her on the facts of her suspect 
> character, her suspect motivations, and, in general, her flippant manner.  My 
> goal was to be "fair" to Curtis, one of our exalted lead actors, an angel 
> within our department, a steadfast example of "lightness and being" in all 
> his doings.

M: This is the "you" I know.  Snarky.  I get the snark and am not completely 
clear on why you would write this.  It makes me scratch my head a bit and then 
move on.

To assist me in this arduous task, I meditated every moment I could on the 
pictographs shown below (hope it comes through) - drawn by the ancients long 
ago and located in Utah, along the Calf Creek Falls trail, within the Grand 
Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Utah (designated by Clinton). 
> 
> Now, Emily was recalcitrant and downright unreasonable in the face of my 
> interrogation and kept making fun of my new outfit. I, Emilina, finally threw 
> up my hands in disgust and turned the whole memorandum over to Emily to 
> finish.  (I reserve the right to make closing remarks.) I, Emilina, have 
> little faith re: Emily's memory and technical internet skills to piece this 
> together.  I am depending on Curtis, with his excellent memory, resulting 
> from either years of meditating or simply good genetics, to correct or ignore 
> any errors of inconsequence, grammatical and otherwise, as we all know Emily 
> needs more of both (meditation and good genetics).  May the force be with you 
> as you review the..GORY DETAILS..

M:  Are you perhaps having a little too much fun with this? 
E2:  Not too much fun in my world - but fun, yes.  
> 
> Note:  Below are subjective cut and pastes from posts that occurred from 
> September 14 through the 18th (subsequent to the FFL Games post) in mostly 
> chronological order.  Curtis, I had no idea we'd done so much heavy and hard 
> emotional work together.  I am really impressed.  Perhaps you can clarify a 
> few things. I'm leaving the door open for you..
> 
> 
> From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, September 14 through the 18th, 2012 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann  "I'm not going to shut 
> up; it's my turn!"
> 
> 
> CURTIS:  Emily IMO likes stirring the pot here and watching what 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar

[Richard J. Williams]

doctordumbass:
> Romney wants us to buy into his version of America, 
> where he will invade you if you don't, and maximize 
> the profits of the mega-rich at your expense, 
> broadly speaking. 
> 
Broadly speaking, it's no fun being poor, so it makes
a lot of sense to make money and save. With so much
resources and freedom in the U.S. every citizen should 
be wealthy.

Romney wants to reduce the size of government and bring 
the income tax down by reducing the national debt. With 
a smaller government, people won't have to pay so much 
income tax. Lot's of people, probaly you among them, 
pay zero federal income tax.

I'm opposed to  most forms of taxation, but I'd probably 
vote for a flat tax that goes to make America safer.

Romney's plan is to improve the economy so everyone has 
a good-paying job, so that everyone can pay for their 
own expenses, and not be dependent on the gov for their 
health care or for food and shelter. 

That's the ticket: more money in the pockets of everyone! 

The more money you have, the more you can help yourelf, 
your own family and other people. That's the plan I'm 
voting for. 

These 'rich people' helped others:

http://tinyurl.com/8hhpjbk

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar

[Richard J. Williams]

jr_esq:
> Further, if Romney said many lies during the 
> debate, it's time to disclose them.  If that's 
> the case, Romney could be finished by the time 
> the next debate starts.
>
Only if you think the debates would change the 
election results.

 
Rasmussen Tracking:
General Election: Obama 48, Romney 48
October 8, 2012

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar

[Richard J. Williams]

> > Go fuck yourself, Mike. You racist sack of shit.
> >
Mike Dixon:
>  I'll make an attempt to Fuck myself if you'll get
> legitamtely raped and have a free Obama abortion...
>

  

"The Iraq campaign was won and beginning to be
wound down when he took office, and he himself
surged more troops in Afghanistan..."

'The 10% President'
The annotated Obama: How 90% of the deficit
becomes somebody else's fault
Wall Street Journal:
http://tinyurl.com/8uwlrmp 

> >
> > Monkey see, Monkey do? Raunchy, don't you
> > see the racism in what you just said? Howard
> > Cosell almost lost his job for making a similar
> > comment.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2: GORY DETAILS of Smoothing Things Out

[Emily Reyn]

Dear Curtis:  Thank you for taking the time to respond.  Emilina (thank you for 
allowing me to steal the name for this exchange - I still like it) has left on 
more important matters, but sent me a short note to inform me that I will be 
wearing the sparkly gold shorts at the next rehearsal.  She informs me that I 
will look better in them than you - although she acknowledges that it would be 
funnier to see you wearing them.  

Yes, we are now "cool," from my perspective - cool as cucumbers (Damn!  There I 
go with the snarkiness again).  I looked that word up - defined as "sarcastic, 
impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner."  Sometimes, yes, this is true, 
but no harm intended.  Emilina has also told me she is considering you for a 
job in sales - if you send a picture of yourself in a suit to her P.O. Box in 
the Cayman Islands, it could be a lucrative move for you.  (Is this snarkiness, 
also?) 

Honestly, I have heard what you said; in part, because I sat on the other side 
of the room and evaluated the situation from a different perspective.  I am 
actually pretty rough on myself, and try to be honest, so I do not worry about 
questioning my own motives or behaviors.  I don't expect perfection out of 
myself any longer.  

I have briefly addressed a few of your comments below.  I have only one 
question, also included below under E2.  








 From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:35 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of Smoothing 
Things Out
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> MEMORANDUM 2 - GORY DETAILS
> 
> To and Re:  Curtis, gentle reader on FFL 
> 
> Note:  There are many who won't be interested and who won't likely understand 
> this post - those who were involved in it may.  You kinda had to be there and 
> be square. 
> 
> From:  Emilina, HR Department 
> 
> Re:  Situational Gory Details
> 
> I, Emilina, sequestered myself in our corporate board room with Emily over 
> the last several days and interrogated her on the facts of her suspect 
> character, her suspect motivations, and, in general, her flippant manner.  My 
> goal was to be "fair" to Curtis, one of our exalted lead actors, an angel 
> within our department, a steadfast example of "lightness and being" in all 
> his doings.

M: This is the "you" I know.  Snarky.  I get the snark and am not completely 
clear on why you would write this.  It makes me scratch my head a bit and then 
move on.

To assist me in this arduous task, I meditated every moment I could on the 
pictographs shown below (hope it comes through) - drawn by the ancients long 
ago and located in Utah, along the Calf Creek Falls trail, within the Grand 
Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Utah (designated by Clinton). 
> 
> Now, Emily was recalcitrant and downright unreasonable in the face of my 
> interrogation and kept making fun of my new outfit. I, Emilina, finally threw 
> up my hands in disgust and turned the whole memorandum over to Emily to 
> finish.  (I reserve the right to make closing remarks.) I, Emilina, have 
> little faith re: Emily's memory and technical internet skills to piece this 
> together.  I am depending on Curtis, with his excellent memory, resulting 
> from either years of meditating or simply good genetics, to correct or ignore 
> any errors of inconsequence, grammatical and otherwise, as we all know Emily 
> needs more of both (meditation and good genetics).  May the force be with you 
> as you review the..GORY DETAILS..

M:  Are you perhaps having a little too much fun with this? 
E2:  Not too much fun in my world - but fun, yes.  
> 
> Note:  Below are subjective cut and pastes from posts that occurred from 
> September 14 through the 18th (subsequent to the FFL Games post) in mostly 
> chronological order.  Curtis, I had no idea we'd done so much heavy and hard 
> emotional work together.  I am really impressed.  Perhaps you can clarify a 
> few things. I'm leaving the door open for you..
> 
> 
> From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, September 14 through the 18th, 2012 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann  "I'm not going to shut 
> up; it's my turn!"
> 
> 
> CURTIS:  Emily IMO likes stirring the pot here and watching what 
> happens.  She did it often and well.  She is a student of the personal 
> dynamics here and I seriously doubt she would object to this characterization 
> of her. When she included Judy she knew exactly what the Judy package comes 
> with.  I believe that she hoped for a little Judy/Sal smackdown in return for 
> Sal's critical email.  And NO she didn't say this herself, but that doesn't 
> mean that the reason she gave isn't also true.  It just may not be the 
> complete list of motivations for why she chose YOU.
> 
> EMILY:  Take 2:  Yes, I like to comment when the spirit hits me - stirring

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Jason]

I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity 
to have a POV?

I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth?  Robin accuses 
Curtis of killing the truth.


> ---  "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > You are working away here, Curtis, in your customary   
> > fashion: from within the animus you have to the   
> > metaphysical principle which has enabled me to suggest a 
> >  possibility of human accountability that infuriates you 
> >  and inflames your pride. And you attack me without any 
> > willingness to even consider a single thread of   
> > plausibility or meaningfulness in what I have said. This 
> >  is a dead giveaway to your ultimate and hidden   
> > metaphysical purpose: Kill the truth which you find   
> > abhorrent and inconvenient to your way of living your  
> > life. 
> > 
> > 
> > You are perfectly nonresponsive to what I have just  
> > said, Curtis. Can you never deal with the truth except
> > aslant, Curtis? You are not serious here, Curtis, 
> > surely. You have become a devotee of Lawrence Krauss,  
> > who has come under withering attack not just from  
> > philosophers, but from fellow physicists (some of whom  
> > are trained in philosophy, as Krauss is not) for his *A 
> > Universe from Nothing*. This is a very stupid thing to  
> > do, Curtis, trying to make FFL readers believe there is 
> > a consensus about what nothingness is and what  
> > nothingness isn't, and that the only persons who  
> > disagree with you are benighted and antediluvian. 
> > 
> > 
> > But no, Curtis doesn't do this. If he has nothing to say 
> > by way of retort, he just changes the topic, or 
> > generalizes it out of all meaning and pertinence to what 
> > was being discussed. You kill the reality, the momentum, 
> > the context within which truth wishes to create the 
> > necessary tension so an issue can be seen from various  
> > points of view, Curtis. Once again you lead the reader  
> > astray by simply turning away from what is being 
> > said--this, after your vociferous protestations about my 
> > ignorance, dishonesty, ad hominem arguments. Suddenly  
> > just passive and deliberately irrelevant.
> >  
> > 
> > Again, you will never face a question or challenge  
> > directly, Curtis. You will never let a question strike 
> > against your consciousness. If you smell trouble, you  
> > walk away, as you have right here. You have not begun to 
> > address what I have said here. That is always revealing, 
> > isn't it, Curtis? I cannot understand, in all the  
> > quarrels you have had with various posters here on FFL, 
> > why everyone who is normal, intelligent, and reasonable 
> > can't see that you are a moral and intellectual--and 
> > metaphysical--cheat, Curtis. > Why would I set myself up 
> > for a takedown like this with you, Curtis? No, you are  
> > consciously and compulsively misrepresenting me. 
> > 
> > 
> > You would be asked to go to your room and STFU if you  
> > answered like this at the dining room table, Curtis.  
> > This is stupid, obstinate, and painfully obstructionist. 
> > 
> > 
> > I am shocked that so many persons on FFL are intimidated 
> > by your way of arguing that you just shut them up. You  
> > would not have lasted around where I grew up, Curtis. 
> > You would have been censured, and you would have felt  
> > the ignominy of your false posturing. This is ruled out 
> > of order, Curtis, for you to rule my question to you out 
> > of order. 
> > 
> > 
> > Go to your room, Curtis. WTF? This is getting strange. I 
> > am surprised that those who love you have not told you  
> > to just shut up. You should just shut up, Curtis. You  
> > have nothing to say to what I have said here. You are 
> > tediously the same, Curtis: You will never know what  
> > it is like to find your ideas, your consciousness, 
> > altered by some idea which is opposed to your sacred 
> > beliefs, the beliefs which are tantamount to the 
> > survival of your first person ontology. 
> > 
> > 
> > You are a primitive kind of thinker, Curtis--you do not 
> > go near the elegance and musicality and loveliness of  
> > what it really means to think about an idea. Too bad. 
> >You are missing out on one of the great privileges of  
> > being a human being. You should be Fidel's right-hand  
> > man. You would do well reinforcing his socialist utopia 
> > there in Cuba. 
> > 
> > 
> > You are terrified of bumping up against reality such 
> > that reality might invade your consciousness, alter your 
> > beliefs, shape you, influence you in any way. I see this 
> > most vividly and disappointingly, and shockingly, in  
> > your heated exchanges with other posters here on this  
> > forum, Curtis. You don't fight fair--but you know this. 
> > 
> > 
> > No, Curtis, I am just tracking what the inner person  
> > Curtis is doing when he pretends to be arguing honestly 
> > and sincerely--which you never are, Curtis. Not these  
> > days, anyhow. Not in hand-to-hand fighting. T

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2012 11:18 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > A new world's record.
> >
> > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> >
> > Impressive.
> 
> Maybe Robin is L Ron Hubbard reincarnated.  Probably not since their 
> lifespans most likely overlap.  As you may recall Hubbard wrote his 
> novels on an IBM Selectric with using a roll of paper instead of 
> individual sheets. :-D

Both, in my opinion, could have used toilet paper,
and thus saved the unnecessary step of publication. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> 
> This question of whether or not any man can claim to be 
> representing the POV of Reality, is central to my life.  
> I have a lot of skin in this game.  

As do I. The mere Subject title implies many things
that I do not hold to be true, as baseline assumptions.

First, that there is such a thing as Reality, singular.
Bt. My experience has taught me that there are many, 
all with equal validity. Second, that such a "Reality" 
could be sentient, and capable of holding a point of
view on its own. Double bt. Third, that a human 
being could possibly "know" what such a singular POV 
might consist of. Triple bt. 

> My current view is that people who claim this ability 
> are a real block to a discussion of ideas between people.  

I'd go further. I'd suggest that people who claim that
this is even a valid question to "debate" as if it were
a discussion that could be "won" are an obstacle to 
useful knowledge about the nature of life. :-)

> As soon as someone claims this upper hand, and humans 
> have claimed this often, it breaks down secular discussion 
> of ideas based on their own merit rather than based on 
> their claim that their subjective opinion is somehow 
> more than that, and not up for discussion.
> 
> You asked me to somehow argue you out of this idea if 
> you were wrong about it, to lead you to the Curtis 
> approved promise land.  

Exactly. Those who claim to "know" assume that those
who don't quite...uh...agree with their assertion *also*
believe that they "know," and will argue their "knowing" 
just as furiously as they do. In assuming this, they miss 
(IMO) the Whole Fuckin' Point.

> But that is not an option and I wouldn't presume to 
> have this ability. It is enough that we both got to 
> state our cases to the best of our ability.

Anyone who pushes for more is IMO a fanatic "trying out"
for the position of tyrant.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Bhairitu]

On 10/07/2012 11:18 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
> A new world's record.
>
> Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
>
> Impressive.
>
>
>
>

Maybe Robin is L Ron Hubbard reincarnated.  Probably not since their 
lifespans most likely overlap.  As you may recall Hubbard wrote his 
novels on an IBM Selectric with using a roll of paper instead of 
individual sheets. :-D

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2: DETAILS of Smoothing to Curtis

[curtisdeltablues]

Much appreciated Share.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Hey Curtis, taking this opportunity to finally tell you how much your posts 
> mean to me.  This one and also your posts to Robin and Judy.  When I read 
> your words it's as if my whole brain settles down, gets clearer and more at 
> peace.  I know sometimes you get triggered which is totally understandable 
> on FFL.  But I'm still grateful to you for what these settling kinds of 
> posts do for me.  Especially when, as Ann says, the s--- flies (-: 
> 
> I hear from my Mom that the cold weather finally hit the DC area.  Stay 
> toasty.
> 
> 
> 
>  From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 10:35 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of Smoothing 
> Things Out
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > MEMORANDUM 2 - GORY DETAILS
> > 
> > To and Re:  Curtis, gentle reader on FFL 
> > 
> > Note:  There are many who won't be interested and who won't likely 
> > understand this post - those who were involved in it may.  You kinda had 
> > to be there and be square. 
> > 
> > From:  Emilina, HR Department 
> > 
> > Re:  Situational Gory Details
> > 
> > I, Emilina, sequestered myself in our corporate board room with Emily over 
> > the last several days and interrogated her on the facts of her suspect 
> > character, her suspect motivations, and, in general, her flippant manner. 
> >  My goal was to be "fair" to Curtis, one of our exalted lead actors, an 
> > angel within our department, a steadfast example of "lightness and being" 
> > in all his doings.
> 
> M: This is the "you" I know.  Snarky.  I get the snark and am not completely 
> clear on why you would write this.  It makes me scratch my head a bit and 
> then move on.
> 
> To assist me in this arduous task, I meditated every moment I could on the 
> pictographs shown below (hope it comes through) - drawn by the ancients long 
> ago and located in Utah, along the Calf Creek Falls trail, within the Grand 
> Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Utah (designated by Clinton). 
> > 
> > Now, Emily was recalcitrant and downright unreasonable in the face of my 
> > interrogation and kept making fun of my new outfit. I, Emilina, finally 
> > threw up my hands in disgust and turned the whole memorandum over to Emily 
> > to finish.  (I reserve the right to make closing remarks.) I, Emilina, 
> > have little faith re: Emily's memory and technical internet skills to piece 
> > this together.  I am depending on Curtis, with his excellent memory, 
> > resulting from either years of meditating or simply good genetics, to 
> > correct or ignore any errors of inconsequence, grammatical and otherwise, 
> > as we all know Emily needs more of both (meditation and good genetics). 
> >  May the force be with you as you review the..GORY DETAILS..
> 
> M:  Are you perhaps having a little too much fun with this? 
> 
> > 
> > Note:  Below are subjective cut and pastes from posts that occurred from 
> > September 14 through the 18th (subsequent to the FFL Games post) in mostly 
> > chronological order.  Curtis, I had no idea we'd done so much heavy and 
> > hard emotional work together.  I am really impressed.  Perhaps you can 
> > clarify a few things. I'm leaving the door open for you..
> > 
> > 
> > From: curtisdeltablues 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, September 14 through the 18th, 2012 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann  "I'm not going to 
> > shut up; it's my turn!"
> > 
> > 
> > CURTIS:  Emily IMO likes stirring the pot here and watching what 
> > happens.  She did it often and well.  She is a student of the personal 
> > dynamics here and I seriously doubt she would object to this 
> > characterization of her. When she included Judy she knew exactly what the 
> > Judy package comes with.  I believe that she hoped for a little Judy/Sal 
> > smackdown in return for Sal's critical email.  And NO she didn't say this 
> > herself, but that doesn't mean that the reason she gave isn't also 
> > true.  It just may not be the complete list of motivations for why she 
> > chose YOU.
> > 
> > EMILY:  Take 2:  Yes, I like to comment when the spirit hits me - 
> > stirring the pot?  (Alright, just with you, if you say so) and otherwise, 
> > no more than anyone else. Yes, I will agree that I have studied the 
> > personal dynamics here to some degree and tested them to other degrees. 
> >  But, considering it's been about a year and a half, I've been kinda slow 
> > about it, don't you think?  I didn't bring any pre-conceived notions to 
> > the table - had never heard of FFL.  Didn't even realize Fairfield was in 
> > Iowa at the beginning and had no knowledge of Maharishi, the Domes, or his 
> > University.  I thought I'd dropped into on

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

I was just taking a shot at asking you to articulate his POV here because of 
your history with him.  I am hoping someone takes me up on it to promote more 
discussion from another POV than my own.

But I certainly understand why you might not be interested, and especially not 
here.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > As a professional writer Barry may be more aware than you are of programs 
> > that automatically count the words on a page.  For me it would involve 
> > cutting and pasting them into a Word Doc which counts them, but Barry may 
> > not even need to do that depending on how he reads FFL.
> 
> Of course I know he didn't count them all one by one, of course there are 
> ways to plug something into a program and have it calculate exactly what 
> Barry calculated a la computer technology.
> > 
> > I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show that they 
> > understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone can offer answers to my 
> > objections that don't include an assumption about my personal motivation 
> > and flaws, but actually sticks to the points themselves.
> > 
> > Are you up for that Ann?
> 
> Given the right circumstances and in my own way I could engage Robin on all 
> sorts of levels and about any number of subjects. His way of posting with you 
> and between you two is different from how I would choose to interact with 
> him. First, I would not find this forum conducive to the kind of interaction 
> I would favour. Second, only a fraction of who Robin is can come through in 
> this manner. So no, I am not "up for" the type of back and forth dialogue 
> that I have read here between you two. I think these dialogues are lively, 
> intelligent and revealing but I prefer a scenic bike ride over bouncing 
> around in bumper cars.
> 
>   Did you understand Robin's points well enough to express it more concisely? 
>  Do you believe that someone can reliably express "reality's POV"?
> 
> I am not sure why you are asking me these questions because they have nothing 
> to do with my post to Barry this morning. My issue was with Barry's knee jerk 
> response which came across as neither thoughtful or considered or even fair 
> with regard to Robin's post. I might even disagree with every single word 
> Robin wrote but that still would have nothing to do with how I felt about 
> Barry's reaction which stood alone as a fact unto itself. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A new world's record.
> > > > 
> > > > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> > > > 
> > > > Impressive.
> > > 
> > > You counted them all. If you didn't read them you sure know how to miss 
> > > the boat. Barry thinks (giving him the benefit of the doubt), "Let's see, 
> > > I'll count the words, not read them and then use 14 ill-chosen words of 
> > > my own to show how idiotic I really am." Go pick up some dog poop, fish a 
> > > cat out of the canal or hire another hooker,  these activities are 
> > > apparently much more worthwhile in your addled world. You don't have to 
> > > read Robin's posts Barry and I am sure you did not so how could you 
> > > possibly, even remotely, say one valid thing about it? You couldn't and 
> > > you didn't. Just because "War and Peace" was a long book does it make 
> > > Tolstoy insane?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> As a professional writer Barry may be more aware than you are of programs 
> that automatically count the words on a page.  For me it would involve 
> cutting and pasting them into a Word Doc which counts them, but Barry may not 
> even need to do that depending on how he reads FFL.

Of course I know he didn't count them all one by one, of course there are ways 
to plug something into a program and have it calculate exactly what Barry 
calculated a la computer technology.
> 
> I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show that they 
> understood it better than I have.  Perhaps someone can offer answers to my 
> objections that don't include an assumption about my personal motivation and 
> flaws, but actually sticks to the points themselves.
> 
> Are you up for that Ann?

Given the right circumstances and in my own way I could engage Robin on all 
sorts of levels and about any number of subjects. His way of posting with you 
and between you two is different from how I would choose to interact with him. 
First, I would not find this forum conducive to the kind of interaction I would 
favour. Second, only a fraction of who Robin is can come through in this 
manner. So no, I am not "up for" the type of back and forth dialogue that I 
have read here between you two. I think these dialogues are lively, intelligent 
and revealing but I prefer a scenic bike ride over bouncing around in bumper 
cars.

  Did you understand Robin's points well enough to express it more concisely?  
Do you believe that someone can reliably express "reality's POV"?

I am not sure why you are asking me these questions because they have nothing 
to do with my post to Barry this morning. My issue was with Barry's knee jerk 
response which came across as neither thoughtful or considered or even fair 
with regard to Robin's post. I might even disagree with every single word Robin 
wrote but that still would have nothing to do with how I felt about Barry's 
reaction which stood alone as a fact unto itself. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > A new world's record.
> > > 
> > > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> > > 
> > > Impressive.
> > 
> > You counted them all. If you didn't read them you sure know how to miss the 
> > boat. Barry thinks (giving him the benefit of the doubt), "Let's see, I'll 
> > count the words, not read them and then use 14 ill-chosen words of my own 
> > to show how idiotic I really am." Go pick up some dog poop, fish a cat out 
> > of the canal or hire another hooker,  these activities are apparently much 
> > more worthwhile in your addled world. You don't have to read Robin's posts 
> > Barry and I am sure you did not so how could you possibly, even remotely, 
> > say one valid thing about it? You couldn't and you didn't. Just because 
> > "War and Peace" was a long book does it make Tolstoy insane?
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> As a professional writer Barry may be more aware than 
> you are of programs that automatically count the words 
> on a page.  For me it would involve cutting and pasting 
> them into a Word Doc which counts them, but Barry may 
> not even need to do that depending on how he reads FFL.

For me it's an add-on utility that counts words in
selected panes of Web pages and totals them. A friend 
at IBM wrote it for me. 

> I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's theory to 
> show that they understood it better than I have.  

I'd like to see someone try to explain it, period.

You'd think that some of Robin's fans here, whom it
would embarrass thoroughly to admit that they hadn't
read every word of the novel-length discussion, would
be happy to provide the rest of us with a Cliff Notes 
version. 

If they can't, I don't see how can continue to call
him "brilliant" and all those other complimentary
things they say about him. I'd say that this is the 
perfect opportunity for them to demonstrate how much 
they've learned from the master. Failure to do so
might imply that they don't read his shit, either.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason"  wrote:
>
> 
>  
> > 
> > ---  turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > A new world's record.
> > > 
> > > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> > > 
> > > Impressive.
> > >
> > >
> ---  awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > You counted them all. If you didn't read them you sure  
> > know how to miss the boat. Barry thinks (giving him the  
> > benefit of the doubt), "Let's see, I'll count the words,  
> > not read them and then use 14 ill-chosen words of my own  
> > to show how idiotic I really am." Go pick up some dog  
> > poop, fish a cat out of the canal or hire another hooker, 
> > these activities are apparently much more worthwhile in  
> > your addled world. You don't have to read Robin's posts 
> > Barry and I am sure you did not so how could you possibly, 
> > even remotely, say one valid thing about it? You couldn't 
> > and you didn't. Just because "War and Peace" was a long  
> > book does it make Tolstoy insane?
> > 
> >
> 
> Hey Ann, you sound like a little girl 'defending' her drunk 
> father after he crashed his car against a tree.

Funny you should say that. My father was an alcoholic, albeit a very high 
functioning one, CEO of the second largest food company in the world, and one 
day well after his retirement I followed him home in my car and he was driving 
drunk. Not only did I take his keys away from him for days but I videotaped him 
drunk so he could watch it the next day. I finally had to give him back his 
keys a few days later when he threatened to call the police on me. So don't 
talk to me about enabling or making excuses for drunks, you know nothing of 
what you speak.  I confronted my father's alcoholism every day of my life so, 
as others are wont to say here, STFU.
> 
> Can't you just admit that you fell for this crappy gag and 
> wasted years of your life on it?  We all did.  Even Barry 
> was a "bug eyed cult zombie" in the 1970's

And if you had any analytic skills or sense of logic you might re-read your 
statement above and realize it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my 
reaction to Barry's inane statement. Get a brain, get a grip and get real.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Contracepting. The world's #1 evil!

[Bhairitu]

On 10/08/2012 03:54 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
> This is a must see. A favourite bit of of mine is the idea
> that there isn't a world population problem because we
> could all fit in a piece of land the size of Texas. Huh?
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/08/contraception-makes-unattractive-turns-men-gay-bestiality-and-murder-_n_1947457.html?utm_hp_ref=uk#slide=1614799
>
> Who knew?
>
>

I'm sure Texans would love 7 billion people living in their state. :-D

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2: DETAILS of Smoothing to Curtis

[Share Long]

Hey Curtis, taking this opportunity to finally tell you how much your posts 
mean to me.  This one and also your posts to Robin and Judy.  When I read your 
words it's as if my whole brain settles down, gets clearer and more at peace.  
I know sometimes you get triggered which is totally understandable on FFL.  But 
I'm still grateful to you for what these settling kinds of posts do for me.  
Especially when, as Ann says, the s--- flies (-: 

I hear from my Mom that the cold weather finally hit the DC area.  Stay toasty.



 From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 10:35 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2:  GORY DETAILS of Smoothing 
Things Out
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> MEMORANDUM 2 - GORY DETAILS
> 
> To and Re:  Curtis, gentle reader on FFL 
> 
> Note:  There are many who won't be interested and who won't likely understand 
> this post - those who were involved in it may.  You kinda had to be there and 
> be square. 
> 
> From:  Emilina, HR Department 
> 
> Re:  Situational Gory Details
> 
> I, Emilina, sequestered myself in our corporate board room with Emily over 
> the last several days and interrogated her on the facts of her suspect 
> character, her suspect motivations, and, in general, her flippant manner.  My 
> goal was to be "fair" to Curtis, one of our exalted lead actors, an angel 
> within our department, a steadfast example of "lightness and being" in all 
> his doings.

M: This is the "you" I know.  Snarky.  I get the snark and am not completely 
clear on why you would write this.  It makes me scratch my head a bit and then 
move on.

To assist me in this arduous task, I meditated every moment I could on the 
pictographs shown below (hope it comes through) - drawn by the ancients long 
ago and located in Utah, along the Calf Creek Falls trail, within the Grand 
Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Utah (designated by Clinton). 
> 
> Now, Emily was recalcitrant and downright unreasonable in the face of my 
> interrogation and kept making fun of my new outfit. I, Emilina, finally threw 
> up my hands in disgust and turned the whole memorandum over to Emily to 
> finish.  (I reserve the right to make closing remarks.) I, Emilina, have 
> little faith re: Emily's memory and technical internet skills to piece this 
> together.  I am depending on Curtis, with his excellent memory, resulting 
> from either years of meditating or simply good genetics, to correct or ignore 
> any errors of inconsequence, grammatical and otherwise, as we all know Emily 
> needs more of both (meditation and good genetics).  May the force be with you 
> as you review the..GORY DETAILS..

M:  Are you perhaps having a little too much fun with this? 

> 
> Note:  Below are subjective cut and pastes from posts that occurred from 
> September 14 through the 18th (subsequent to the FFL Games post) in mostly 
> chronological order.  Curtis, I had no idea we'd done so much heavy and hard 
> emotional work together.  I am really impressed.  Perhaps you can clarify a 
> few things. I'm leaving the door open for you..
> 
> 
> From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, September 14 through the 18th, 2012 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann  "I'm not going to shut 
> up; it's my turn!"
> 
> 
> CURTIS:  Emily IMO likes stirring the pot here and watching what 
> happens.  She did it often and well.  She is a student of the personal 
> dynamics here and I seriously doubt she would object to this characterization 
> of her. When she included Judy she knew exactly what the Judy package comes 
> with.  I believe that she hoped for a little Judy/Sal smackdown in return for 
> Sal's critical email.  And NO she didn't say this herself, but that doesn't 
> mean that the reason she gave isn't also true.  It just may not be the 
> complete list of motivations for why she chose YOU.
> 
> EMILY:  Take 2:  Yes, I like to comment when the spirit hits me - stirring 
> the pot?  (Alright, just with you, if you say so) and otherwise, no more than 
> anyone else. Yes, I will agree that I have studied the personal dynamics here 
> to some degree and tested them to other degrees.  But, considering it's been 
> about a year and a half, I've been kinda slow about it, don't you think?  I 
> didn't bring any pre-conceived notions to the table - had never heard of FFL. 
>  Didn't even realize Fairfield was in Iowa at the beginning and had no 
> knowledge of Maharishi, the Domes, or his University.  I thought I'd dropped 
> into one of those aforementioned parallel universes, if you must know.   
> 
> I was in an emotional and off-guard state when I initially sent you the email 
> - you know this is the truth.  You also know I was asking for "review" as 
> that was in the subject line.   Old news now, but I most certainly did *not* 
> hope for a Judy/Sal sm

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Robin's brilliance, intelligence >

M: How about you Ravi, would you like to take a crack at expressing what 
Robin's ideas are, if you understand them?









creating penis-envy, chin-envy there Barry
> baby? Or is this paucity of words reflective of your usual paranoid,
> delusional,narcissistic fantasies? Anyway we had a lot of fun today making
> fun of you Barry baby - are you going to comment about that or not? I'm
> sure you are on a walk with your dogs, furiously thinking of a post -
> please pay attention to the dogs needs Barry and don't forget to practice
> the silence of the Church that you frequently hallucinate about.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:18 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > A new world's record.
> >
> > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> >
> > Impressive.
> >
> >  
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[curtisdeltablues]

As a professional writer Barry may be more aware than you are of programs that 
automatically count the words on a page.  For me it would involve cutting and 
pasting them into a Word Doc which counts them, but Barry may not even need to 
do that depending on how he reads FFL.

I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show that they understood 
it better than I have.  Perhaps someone can offer answers to my objections that 
don't include an assumption about my personal motivation and flaws, but 
actually sticks to the points themselves.

Are you up for that Ann?  Did you understand Robin's points well enough to 
express it more concisely?  Do you believe that someone can reliably express 
"reality's POV"?




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > A new world's record.
> > 
> > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> > 
> > Impressive.
> 
> You counted them all. If you didn't read them you sure know how to miss the 
> boat. Barry thinks (giving him the benefit of the doubt), "Let's see, I'll 
> count the words, not read them and then use 14 ill-chosen words of my own to 
> show how idiotic I really am." Go pick up some dog poop, fish a cat out of 
> the canal or hire another hooker,  these activities are apparently much more 
> worthwhile in your addled world. You don't have to read Robin's posts Barry 
> and I am sure you did not so how could you possibly, even remotely, say one 
> valid thing about it? You couldn't and you didn't. Just because "War and 
> Peace" was a long book does it make Tolstoy insane?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] >> VEDIC ORGANIC AGRICULTURE << STARTING 20. OCT 12

[merlin]

>>  VEDIC ORGANIC AGRICULTURE << STARTING  20. OCT 12

DEAR MEDITATOR,

I HAVE BEEN VERY PLEASED BY THIS COURSE.
ITS NOT ONLY AGRICULTURE,
ITS MUCH MUCH MORE I EXPECTED >>>

FOR ME PERSONALLY ITS A TECHNIQUE  TO DEVELOP 
NOTHING LESS THAN TO BE IN TUNE WITH ENLIGHTENMENT

BUT IN THE SAME WAY ITS ALSO A TECHNIQUE TO 
LET GROW THE HEALTHIEST FOOD IN YOUR GARDEN
FOR YOURSELF,
OR ON FIELDS, TO FEED THE WORLD . . .

>AGREE  CULTURE<  MAHARISHI SAID,
>AGREE WITH THE CULTIVITING INTELLIGENCE<

JAI GURU DEV



MAHARISHI VEDIC ORGANIC 
AGRICULTURE AND GARDENING

Key to Global Sustainability 
(16-Lesson Course with Drs Peter and Susie Swan)
20 October – 3 November 2012
This is a course for those who love Maharishi’s knowledge—it extends the 
knowledge of the Self deep into the field of agriculture and the environment, 
showing that every aspect of the environment is actually the same in structure 
and function as the Self of everyone.
http://www.tm-savez.hr/wpa2012.html



    E  N  j  O  Y    

[FairfieldLife] Re: Memorandum Part 2: GORY DETAILS of Smoothing Things Out

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> MEMORANDUM 2 - GORY DETAILS
> 
> To and Re:  Curtis, gentle reader on FFL 
> 
> Note:  There are many who won't be interested and who won't likely understand 
> this post - those who were involved in it may.  You kinda had to be there and 
> be square. 
> 
> From:  Emilina, HR Department 
> 
> Re:  Situational Gory Details
> 
> I, Emilina, sequestered myself in our corporate board room with Emily over 
> the last several days and interrogated her on the facts of her suspect 
> character, her suspect motivations, and, in general, her flippant manner.  My 
> goal was to be "fair" to Curtis, one of our exalted lead actors, an angel 
> within our department, a steadfast example of "lightness and being" in all 
> his doings.

M: This is the "you" I know.  Snarky.  I get the snark and am not completely 
clear on why you would write this.  It makes me scratch my head a bit and then 
move on.


 To assist me in this arduous task, I meditated every moment I could on the 
pictographs shown below (hope it comes through) - drawn by the ancients long 
ago and located in Utah, along the Calf Creek Falls trail, within the Grand 
Staircase - Escalante National Monument, Utah (designated by Clinton). 
> 
> Now, Emily was recalcitrant and downright unreasonable in the face of my 
> interrogation and kept making fun of my new outfit. I, Emilina, finally threw 
> up my hands in disgust and turned the whole memorandum over to Emily to 
> finish.  (I reserve the right to make closing remarks.) I, Emilina, have 
> little faith re: Emily's memory and technical internet skills to piece this 
> together.  I am depending on Curtis, with his excellent memory, resulting 
> from either years of meditating or simply good genetics, to correct or ignore 
> any errors of inconsequence, grammatical and otherwise, as we all know Emily 
> needs more of both (meditation and good genetics).  May the force be with you 
> as you review the..GORY DETAILS..

M:  Are you perhaps having a little too much fun with this? 

  

> 
> Note:  Below are subjective cut and pastes from posts that occurred from 
> September 14 through the 18th (subsequent to the FFL Games post) in mostly 
> chronological order.  Curtis, I had no idea we'd done so much heavy and hard 
> emotional work together.  I am really impressed.  Perhaps you can clarify a 
> few things. I'm leaving the door open for you..
> 
> 
> From: curtisdeltablues 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, September 14 through the 18th, 2012 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Eastwooding: PS to Ann  "I'm not going to shut 
> up; it's my turn!"
> 
> 
> CURTIS:  Emily IMO likes stirring the pot here and watching what 
> happens.  She did it often and well.  She is a student of the personal 
> dynamics here and I seriously doubt she would object to this characterization 
> of her. When she included Judy she knew exactly what the Judy package comes 
> with.  I believe that she hoped for a little Judy/Sal smackdown in return for 
> Sal's critical email.  And NO she didn't say this herself, but that doesn't 
> mean that the reason she gave isn't also true.  It just may not be the 
> complete list of motivations for why she chose YOU.
> 
> EMILY:  Take 2:  Yes, I like to comment when the spirit hits me - stirring 
> the pot?  (Alright, just with you, if you say so) and otherwise, no more than 
> anyone else. Yes, I will agree that I have studied the personal dynamics here 
> to some degree and tested them to other degrees.  But, considering it's been 
> about a year and a half, I've been kinda slow about it, don't you think?  I 
> didn't bring any pre-conceived notions to the table - had never heard of FFL. 
>  Didn't even realize Fairfield was in Iowa at the beginning and had no 
> knowledge of Maharishi, the Domes, or his University.  I thought I'd dropped 
> into one of those aforementioned parallel universes, if you must know.   
> 
> I was in an emotional and off-guard state when I initially sent you the email 
> - you know this is the truth.  You also know I was asking for "review" as 
> that was in the subject line.   Old news now, but I most certainly did *not* 
> hope for a Judy/Sal smackdown.  I am almost honored to think you thought I 
> was calculating enough in the moment to put together a "list" of motivations. 
>  Note to self:  Calculate your moves in the future - no more off-the-cuff 
> responses. 

M:  Do all our motives have to be conscious and calculated?  I take you at your 
word that you didn't have that thought but I also know that you don't invoke 
the name of Judy as a peacemaker around here.

Or maybe you do.  Maybe you see her as a person you trust here and wanted her 
opinion and didn't know that she would take this ball and run with her favorite 
themes on FFL.  

But when 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar to Ann and Raunchy

[Share Long]

Yeah, the Saturday workshop exceeded my expectations which were pretty high.  
Plus a great group of people from FF and beyond.  Then Sunday morning I had an 
individual session with John.  I'm so different than when he came to FF in the 
spring!  More settled, I'd say.  Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how life 
unfolds both on FFL and in 3D world, s--- flying or not (-:

Full circle, yes.  Actually I joined FFL between John's 2 visits in the 
spring.  Probably means something but don't know what.  My sense of it is some 
karma from previous life with this particular group of people, maybe from 
Atlantis.  Just an intuition.  


Raunchy, I LOVE that song, thanks for posting.  Rock on!




 From: awoelflebater 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 8:57 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar to Raunchy Mike and everyone
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.  Please forgive me.  Thank you.  I love you all.
> Share

The course was good on the weekend? You seem to have come full circle. When you 
first appeared at FFL you wrote this many times. I hope you can maintain your 
equilibrium over the next few days/weeks as the gritty reality of FFL sets in 
again. This forum can be useful as a testing ground: can one stay focused and 
committed to upholding one's integrity and search for truth here, even as the 
s--- flies. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: raunchydog 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2012 7:11 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> >
> > Raunchydog, the correct *racial* epithet is *boy*... just *boy*. "Hey boy, 
> > I'll give you a quarter if you'll bust up that chiffarobe." Even in the 
> > South, African-Americans know the difference between being called *boy* and 
> > being told you are acting like a *little boy*. Of course someone suffering 
> > from paranoia(smoking too much weed) might insinuate they are one in the 
> > same. The Obama campaign, in it's *Chicago style*,would definitely make use 
> > of that, since they seem to encourage the thought process that if you are 
> > against Obama, you must be racist. Just ask the Clinton's. The race card is 
> > not just Chicago, it's Democratic!
> > 
> 
> You hold all the race cards in your lily white hand and you're dealing from 
> the bottom of the deck trying to put a happy spin on your behavior. You 
> intended to demean the president by referring to him as a boy. I don't play 
> cards with racists. Go iron your sheets. 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: raunchydog 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2012 9:48 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Romney is a Liar
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Thinking more about it, and if I recall it correctly, seekliberation
> > > seems to have the a Romney bias.  Nothing  wrong with that, but I guess
> > > under those circumstances, you will try to slip in something demeaning
> > > about your opponet when you can.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps my mistake was assuming that seekliberation was trying to make a
> > > more objective analysis of the debate.
> > > 
> > > As I said before, I thought Obama looked tired.  And yes, I would say
> > > that Obama sometimes has a "boyish" look about him, in terms of being
> > > relatively young.
> > > 
> > > And of course many times the term "boyish" is used to describe the
> > > appearance of individuals.  Earlier this week the WSJ described the
> > > current CEO of Tyco of having a "boyish" appearance, and I agreed with
> > > that.
> > > 
> > 
> > So in thinking about it, Steve, do you agree or not agree that in the 
> > context seekliberation and Mike used the word "boy" they intended to demean 
> > President Obama or were they just ignorant of using a racist dog whistle? 
> > BTW "boyish" is not even in the ball park as a comparison.
> > 
> > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
> > > lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"
> > > seekliberation@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > A lot of people are so shocked that Obama did so poorly in the
> > > > > debate. It's not so much the 'talking points', but more so with his
> > > body
> > > > > language. He looked like a lost, confused, scared and embarrassed
> > > young
> > > > > boy. I actually felt bad for him.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > RD: snip Do you realize how racially offensive it is to refer to a
> > > black
> > > > > man as "boy?" I expected as much from Mike Dixon, but not you.
> > > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Jason]

What a moron you are, Robin.  Darwin is not a 'materialist', 
but is a 'naturalist'.  Maintain the distinction between the 
two.

There is no such thing as 'neo-darwinism'. Darwin's 
discovery is not an "ism".  Science is a methodology, a tool 
to understand the empirical laws of nature.

In fact there is no contradiction between Darwin and 
vedanta.  They are on two parallel tracks.

You pepper your points with "accusations" about the motives 
of Curtis.  This is one trick you have been playing all 
alont since you came here.

Darwin is *not* a materialist.  Darwin was a scientist and a 
naturalist.

You don't seem to understand the process of science itself. 
 Unlike religion, Science has self-correcting mechanisms. 
It's an open ended structure were new data is added theories 
constantly refined.

Darwin never wanted his theory to become a dogma.  He 
himself once said that 'if you come up with something better 
then discard it'.  Paleontaology, genetics, bio-chemistry, 
study of ecosystems all have added credence to Darwin's 
theory.  Renowned biologist Theodonius Dobzhansky states, 
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of 
evolution." 

Modern biology is evolutionary biology and if you take away 
evolution, there is no biology.

You are in the same boat with that other moron Barry who 
also thinks of science as an "ism".


---  "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> How to Know Reality's Point of View: Robin's Response to Curtis, Part 2 of 3
> 
> (continued from Part 1)
> 
> 
> 
> ROBIN2: I am sure there have been a hundred books written 
> by professional philosophers in the last twenty years to  
> the effect: *Why Materialism Cannot Possibly Be True*. One 
> of the most distinguished philosophers in the world--by  
> every consensus--who is an avowed atheist--has a book 
> coming out this month (Thomas Nagel again) titled *Mind  
> and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception  
> of Nature Is Almost Certainly False*.
> 
> Did you notice that subtitle, Curtis? Some think Nagel the 
> greatest living philosopher--and he is an atheist as you  
> are. And he has just smashed to pieces your assumption  
> about reality and philosophy and nothingness.
> 
> CURTIS2: No he hasn't, that is a book title. He isn't  
> going to overturn Darwin's evolutionary thoery with a  
> book. And I might agree with him depending on how he  
> defines his terms concerning materialism. He has to make  
> his case.
> 
> ROBIN3: He is saying that your basic assumptions--about  
> what is real, what materialism can explain and what it  
> cannot explain, the limits of Neo-Darwinism, the origin  
> and nature of consciousness--ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE.  
> Did you hear that, Curtis? The book comes out here in  
> Canada on October 15. I will be reading that book. And I  
> can assure you that what I say here will be most certainly 
> proven to be true. Shall we bet on it, Curtis? Nagel is  
> not going to say that God exists--he cannot bear that that 
> could be true. But he is going to demonstrate that the  
> models for understanding human beings, consciousness, and 
> reality promulgated by Patricia and Paul Churchland are 
> "most certainly false". You will not become a convert to  
> the Nagel view; I doubt any Neo-Darwinian Materialist will 
> be--they will say that Nagel has betrayed the cause of  
> evolution and science and neuroscience. This will HAVE to 
> be your verdict too, Curtis. But who knows? Maybe if you  
> write to him as you have written to me--and you would be  
> forced to if his ideas are as interesting and provocative 
> as mine are:)--he might rewrite his book, because that is 
> exactly what he should do if he hears from you the way I  
> am hearing from you, Curtis. Thomas Nagel's book will most 
> certainly challenge the hysterical metaphysic of your  
> first person ontology, Curtis.
> 
> 
> 
> (continued in Part 3)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to Know Reality's Point of View

[Jason]

 
> 
> ---  turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > A new world's record.
> > 
> > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> > 
> > Impressive.
> >
> >
---  awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> You counted them all. If you didn't read them you sure  
> know how to miss the boat. Barry thinks (giving him the  
> benefit of the doubt), "Let's see, I'll count the words,  
> not read them and then use 14 ill-chosen words of my own  
> to show how idiotic I really am." Go pick up some dog  
> poop, fish a cat out of the canal or hire another hooker, 
> these activities are apparently much more worthwhile in  
> your addled world. You don't have to read Robin's posts 
> Barry and I am sure you did not so how could you possibly, 
> even remotely, say one valid thing about it? You couldn't 
> and you didn't. Just because "War and Peace" was a long  
> book does it make Tolstoy insane?
> 
>

Hey Ann, you sound like a little girl 'defending' her drunk 
father after he crashed his car against a tree.

Can't you just admit that you fell for this crappy gag and 
wasted years of your life on it?  We all did.  Even Barry 
was a "bug eyed cult zombie" in the 1970's