Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra
On Dec 28, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Emily Reyn wrote:
While Axis II persons may not kill you, others often feel like dying
being in their (even digital) presence.
Dear Vajradhatu, what does this mean to you? Are you talking about
a scenario where an NPD, for example, has so "consumed" another
person, that said person cannot exist without the NPD?
No, I'm merely pointing out the fact that many clinicians who work
with Personality Disordered patients will tell you that these are
often not people who would do harm to themselves or to others but
they've gotten to the point where the strength of their personality
disorder spills over into relationships and causes considerable
discomfort for those around them. One of the most widely acknowledged
"unbearable" PD's is Borderline Personality Disorder ("Borderlines"),
which can be so bad that some therapists simply cannot handle them
and it's hard to find people who specialize in this disorder. When
you'd meet such a person in real life, you'd simply avoid them or
stop associating with them, if you could. But in internet life, esp.
on unmoderated lists, such persons can really wreak havoc. And
they're usually clever enough to tiptoe around the edges of rules.
Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra
Dear Robin, This is just awesome !!! Let's see what the reaction of the people who pride on their intellectual honesty react to this. Love, Ravi On Dec 28, 2011, at 7:11 AM, maskedzebra wrote: > Dear Barry, > > You have decided that the best course of action at this point is to argue > that I am insane, or at least, suffering from some mental disease. I don't > believe you are sincere in this; that the context of your own experience when > you describe me as emotionally disturbed and delusional does not have a > natural or truthful correspondence (one with the other). In other words, > Barry, you are lying. Of course it is always theoretically possible that I am > all the things you say I am: a person out of his mind and deeply troubled. > However by the subtext of your posts along this theme, you are, essentially, > giving me a clear bill of health. > > You see, if I believe (or anyone believes) someone is psychopathological, > then this means that the sense they are ill, disordered, and unstable takes > precedence over any other consideration: for example, that we don't like what > they say about us, that we don't like what they say about certain people we > ourselves like. Once we believe in the diagnosis of mental illness as the > explanatory basis of their behaviour we are in this very determination freed > of any personal reaction to what they might say that is unflattering or > critical about ourselves or other persons. If I believe someone is suffering > from hypomania or paranoid schizophrenia then whenever that person (the > would-be patient) turns his attention on us and, for example, tries to > analyze us, or challenge us, or even appeal to us, we are unable to > essentially focus on what they are saying independent of our experience that > this is an insane person. > > So, then, we don't take it personally. And this sense of detachment born of a > spontaneous and indefeasible perception of their abnormal mental state will > be present in whatever we say about them to another person. We reject the > objectivity, the appropriateness, the truthfulness of what they say, not out > of personal pique or animus, but because what they say (or write) is > inextricably bound up with their pathology; therefore it cannot touch us, > because by definition their words and feelings have their origin in something > very far away from truth. > > So, in order for me to trust in the honesty and good faith of what you have > said about me, Barry, I must detect some, however oblique and implicit, > sympathy for me, since, if I am as alienated from my true self as your > diagnosis suggests, then what motivates all that you say about me arises from > this perception of how my words do not bear any correspondence, or little > correspondence, to reality, to what actually is the case. > > Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very letter to you > affects you primarily in only one sense: "Robin thinks he is saying something > important and significant here, but all that I can detect—quite innocently, > quite unmistakably—are symptoms of a serious mental disorder." Which entirely > spares you the discomfort or unpleasantness of wondering whether what I am > saying has any truth value in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can > perhaps speak truth; but the context within which he does this will always > upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not be a context of > normality surrounding those accidental truthful remarks. > > There cannot be any other possible interpretation than the one I have given > in this post, Barry: You are not bothered or angered or frustrated or > inconvenienced whatsoever by all that Robin has said in his enumerable and > wordy posts. Because what comes through to you is a psychological context > which gives his posts a quite different meaning than the one he, Robin, > assigns to them. That meaning is driven home to you, and it amounts to: This > guy is truly insane. I can't even separate what he says from what he is, and > what he is simply extinguishes any coherence or truthfulness in what he posts > at FFL. > > Well, Barry, is there any proof at all that your Amsterdam posts of December > 28, 2012 fulfill this logical and common sense criterion? If they do, I must > be even more mentally deranged than I already am, because it is my distinct > and overpowering experience that you are not at all convinced in the truth of > what you are saying. Not in the least. > > There is not even any sense of sincerity, of the real person Barry showing > his feelings, his real experience of himself, his own existential self. The > posts you have written today, Barry, serve only one very obvious agenda: to > ventilate your antipathy towards this Robin guy, to cast aspersions on him, > to retaliate against the critical mass of skepticism and doubt about your own > integrity as a human being (based on some o
Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra
While Axis II persons may not kill you, others often feel like dying being in their (even digital) presence. This incongruence is rather common in your interactions here IMO and makes me wonder how reliable your experience of third person perspectives is. Dear Vajradhatu, what does this mean to you? Are you talking about a scenario where an NPD, for example, has so "consumed" another person, that said person cannot exist without the NPD? > > From: Vaj >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 7:30 AM >Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked >Zebra > > > > > >On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:11 AM, maskedzebra wrote: > >Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very letter to you >affects you primarily in only one sense: "Robin thinks he is saying something >important and significant here, but all that I can detect—quite innocently, >quite unmistakably—are symptoms of a serious mental disorder." Which entirely >spares you the discomfort or unpleasantness of wondering whether what I am >saying has any truth value in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can >perhaps speak truth; but the context within which he does this will always >upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not be a context of >normality surrounding those accidental truthful remarks. >> > >[huge snips on both ends] > > >You're missing, either deliberately or through ignorance, the vital difference >between different psychiatric diagnostic axes. Because of this confusion, >you're referring to Axis I disorders, major mental disorders, when Barry is (I >believe) referring to Axis II disorders: personality disorders. While Axis II >persons may not kill you, others often feel like dying being in their (even >digital) presence. This incongruence is rather common in your interactions >here IMO and makes me wonder how reliable your experience of third person >perspectives is. > > >That's not to say you haven't crossed the line at times. Seeing demons inside >people would likely be an Axis I disorder, but you do claim this no longer >happens. So we're back to the above. > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra
On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:11 AM, maskedzebra wrote: Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very letter to you affects you primarily in only one sense: "Robin thinks he is saying something important and significant here, but all that I can detect—quite innocently, quite unmistakably—are symptoms of a serious mental disorder." Which entirely spares you the discomfort or unpleasantness of wondering whether what I am saying has any truth value in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can perhaps speak truth; but the context within which he does this will always upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not be a context of normality surrounding those accidental truthful remarks. [huge snips on both ends] You're missing, either deliberately or through ignorance, the vital difference between different psychiatric diagnostic axes. Because of this confusion, you're referring to Axis I disorders, major mental disorders, when Barry is (I believe) referring to Axis II disorders: personality disorders. While Axis II persons may not kill you, others often feel like dying being in their (even digital) presence. This incongruence is rather common in your interactions here IMO and makes me wonder how reliable your experience of third person perspectives is. That's not to say you haven't crossed the line at times. Seeing demons inside people would likely be an Axis I disorder, but you do claim this no longer happens. So we're back to the above.
[FairfieldLife] A Christmas Letter to Barry Wright from Masked Zebra
Dear Barry, You have decided that the best course of action at this point is to argue that I am insane, or at least, suffering from some mental disease. I don't believe you are sincere in this; that the context of your own experience when you describe me as emotionally disturbed and delusional does not have a natural or truthful correspondence (one with the other). In other words, Barry, you are lying. Of course it is always theoretically possible that I am all the things you say I am: a person out of his mind and deeply troubled. However by the subtext of your posts along this theme, you are, essentially, giving me a clear bill of health. You see, if I believe (or anyone believes) someone is psychopathological, then this means that the sense they are ill, disordered, and unstable takes precedence over any other consideration: for example, that we don't like what they say about us, that we don't like what they say about certain people we ourselves like. Once we believe in the diagnosis of mental illness as the explanatory basis of their behaviour we are in this very determination freed of any personal reaction to what they might say that is unflattering or critical about ourselves or other persons. If I believe someone is suffering from hypomania or paranoid schizophrenia then whenever that person (the would-be patient) turns his attention on us and, for example, tries to analyze us, or challenge us, or even appeal to us, we are unable to essentially focus on what they are saying independent of our experience that this is an insane person. So, then, we don't take it personally. And this sense of detachment born of a spontaneous and indefeasible perception of their abnormal mental state will be present in whatever we say about them to another person. We reject the objectivity, the appropriateness, the truthfulness of what they say, not out of personal pique or animus, but because what they say (or write) is inextricably bound up with their pathology; therefore it cannot touch us, because by definition their words and feelings have their origin in something very far away from truth. So, in order for me to trust in the honesty and good faith of what you have said about me, Barry, I must detect some, however oblique and implicit, sympathy for me, since, if I am as alienated from my true self as your diagnosis suggests, then what motivates all that you say about me arises from this perception of how my words do not bear any correspondence, or little correspondence, to reality, to what actually is the case. Do you understand me, then, Barry? It means that this very letter to you affects you primarily in only one sense: "Robin thinks he is saying something important and significant here, but all that I can detectquite innocently, quite unmistakablyare symptoms of a serious mental disorder." Which entirely spares you the discomfort or unpleasantness of wondering whether what I am saying has any truth value in and of itself. I suppose a demented person can perhaps speak truth; but the context within which he does this will always upstage that truthfulness; or at least there will not be a context of normality surrounding those accidental truthful remarks. There cannot be any other possible interpretation than the one I have given in this post, Barry: You are not bothered or angered or frustrated or inconvenienced whatsoever by all that Robin has said in his enumerable and wordy posts. Because what comes through to you is a psychological context which gives his posts a quite different meaning than the one he, Robin, assigns to them. That meaning is driven home to you, and it amounts to: This guy is truly insane. I can't even separate what he says from what he is, and what he is simply extinguishes any coherence or truthfulness in what he posts at FFL. Well, Barry, is there any proof at all that your Amsterdam posts of December 28, 2012 fulfill this logical and common sense criterion? If they do, I must be even more mentally deranged than I already am, because it is my distinct and overpowering experience that you are not at all convinced in the truth of what you are saying. Not in the least. There is not even any sense of sincerity, of the real person Barry showing his feelings, his real experience of himself, his own existential self. The posts you have written today, Barry, serve only one very obvious agenda: to ventilate your antipathy towards this Robin guy, to cast aspersions on him, to retaliate against the critical mass of skepticism and doubt about your own integrity as a human being (based on some of your posts:and the animus behind these posts preceded my coming onto FFL) that has gathered over the course of the last several months. I notice a flatness of affect, (thus a disengagement of the heart), an intellectual sterility and dogmatism, and an entirely dissimulated conviction in what you are saying. I don't believe you, Barry; and
