Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00340)

Hi.Paul.
----- Original Message -----
From: <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:19 AM
Subject: Theos-World More mistaken identity issues


> Y'all,
>
> There are multiple misreadings in play, and I don't see much point in
> continuing to correct them, since explanations can lead to further
> misreadings/explanations/misreadings, etc. But one last set of
> corrections before falling silent on this particular issue:
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
> > Hi Mic. The message below is the original message I wrote. I made
> it from my intelligence, my heart, and my conscience. It was not
> aimed at Paul (though I guess I can see why he might think it was,
>
> Terrie was more obviously targeted by your complaints about recent
> posts, but the books-recently-read thread was also complained about,
> so I defended it. That doesn't mean I took the entire post as
> targeted primarily at me, or even the other one which was more so.
> Both were rather scatter-shot.
>

Wry: Agreed.


> > Paul responded to my message with a weird accusation that it was
> what he called a "fourth-way" message, and I believe he even
> capitalized the words "fourth-way."
>
> No, I said that what you apparently wanted theos-talk to become was a
> Fourth Way list. You use the lingo.
>

Wry: Sorry. You need to be more specific, as I do not know what you are
talking about when you say "lingo", and others on here probably do not,
either.


> > He also said my message was inappropriate for this list.

>
> No, I said that the kind of tension you create is inappropriate
> here.

Wry: You do not know if it is appropriate or not, and, as I said before, the
tension is in you.

<That's something that transcends individual messages and
> underlies your entire presence here.

Wry: And you seem to be saying that this (if it is even true) is bad?

Of course, messages unread
> cannot create tension in the non-reader so many are exempt from the
> effect.

Wry: Real deep thinking. Maybe you can be exempt, too.
>
> > Also, I do not know what Gurdjieff group Paul is from,
>
> For the good reason that there's not one.

Wry: My intuition tells me differently.

>
> > but I was afraid people would think I am from his group, and I had
> to make it clear that I am not. Sorry to say this, Paul.
>
> One would think that after spectacularly and publicly misreading
> someone, you'd become a bit more reticent about venturing into the
> same territory again.

Wry: I am sorry and I was sincere when I appologized, but I am still very
actively wrestling with suspicions about you and one other person on here,
Terrie. It is not because you or this other person have left me challenging
messages or tried to thwart me. Bill and one other member has left me some
sort of nasty messages on here and some very nasty messages on another list,
but I have no such suspicions about them. Plus there are people on here I
don't particularly like and whose work is offensive to me, but I have no
suspicions about them, either. (Not that this proves that any of my
suspicians or not-suspicions are correct or incorrect.) Plus, I was glad
when you first came on this list and I have always sort of liked you, though
you are getting pesky and I have serious concerns after reading your recent
message about white water rafting and coming to realize that you have little
understanding of how to work with people in such a way that certain kinds
and qualities of ideas do not deteriate into wisps of almost nothing that
drift off into the nether. And I liked Brian also. Interesting that you
were not on here leaving messages in which you accused Brian or people
arguing about politics or accusing each other of racism and anti-semitism
and saying 'shut the ----up' of making people tense. ANYWAY, I have
defended Brian, as everyone on here knows.

>I've had only minimal contact with
> Gurdjieffians in person, and none online until recently. Am a
> complete beginner at dealing with the ideas practically.
> The "cutting down to size" routine is silly; I'm a total newbie and
> make no pretense of being anything else. (Or of being on
> a "spiritual path" as you suggest, as opposed to trying to see
> spiritual dimensions in life.)
>
> > And people change in relationship to my material. .Paul has left me
> a private email saying how much he learned about himself from the
> experience of my mistaking him for Brian,
>
> Not quite! How much I learned about how Brigitte and Daniel's
> appropriation of my books for opposed partisan agendas had obscured
> my own identity and intentions to people on this list.

Wry: acknowledged, though you did mention that the flap with me helped you
to realize this, or something to that effect.
>
> People who know me are more useful to learning about myself than
> people who plug an imaginary "K. Paul Johnson" into a story line of
> their own creation that would pretty much be the same whether or not
> I was incorporated into it. (Which is not aimed at Wry specifically
> but rather at online soapbox preachers generally.)
>

Wry: I believe you to be a good person and maybe we can figure out how to be
on here together. I am not always going to be so active on this list, as I
need to start spending more time on other projects.very soon. Anyone can
pretend they are anyone on here, though usually I am not suspicious of
people. I am not sure I took the right approach in accusing you in the way I
did, but I am not sure it was wrong (to take that approach) either. I will
try to leave more messages about the ethics of this etc. in the future, and
also go into some of the reasoning behind what I did and be a lot more
specific, but quite honestly, I am not looking forward to this and would
like to put it off for awhile. Wry

> Cheers,
>
> KPJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>