I think I know what is happening, this is a test.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > All this "you're an narcissist" "No you're a narcissist" talk
> > flying around does dilute the value of the term a bit.
>
> (Curtis, you just did it again--began your response *under*
> the attribution line.)
>
> I think the whole narcissism business applied to electronic
> forum participants is quite silly; you're only seeing one
> small "slice" of the whole personality.
>
> As to spiritual teachers, I'm not at all sure how well it
> applies to them either. "Internal certainty" of the type
> that motivates spiritual teachers may or may not have
> much to do with self-regard.
>
> Plus which--I know you won't agree with me on this--I do
> think there is such a thing as "higher" states of
> consciousness, which we don't understand well enough to
> relate to how personality manifests itself on the job, as
> it were. For all we know, a "higher" state may completely
> invalidate the diagnostic criteria.
>
> And finally, I think anyone who hasn't had professional
> training in psychological diagnosis, or anyone who has
> but who hasn't had personal interaction (preferably in a
> therapeutic context) with a subject, has no business going
> around slapping people with personality-disorder labels.
>
> That doesn't mean we have to refrain from describing and
> evaluating behavior we've witnessed, however, even on an
> electronic forum, or from speculating as to what's behind
> it in terms of the person's motivations. But that doesn't
> validate applying DSM-IV labels.
>
>
>
> >
> > When I came across this description applied to gurus (primarily to
> > Rajaneesh, secondarily to Maharishi) in a Secular Humanist magazine in the
> > late 80's or early 90's it helped me understand how some people could
> > function so differently. It also helps explain how people who come from
> > such a different internal place can have a profound effect on the rest of
> > us. That kind of internal certainty is foreign to people with a more
> > humble sense of self regard. If you don't buy into Maharishi's view of
> > himself as the person of the greatest importance in human history for
> > bringing out the knowledge of TM and sidhis, then the description of
> > narcissism helps explain the guy for me. And as we begin to understand
> > brain chemistry better we can perhaps develop a bit of compassion for
> > someone so compelled to have an inordinately high opinion of himself.
> >
> > On the other hand, there might be a bit of random haplessness to the whole
> > Maharishi deal. I mean how many other yogis who fell into such a fantastic
> > reception from the world could avoid thinking "damn, I AM da man!" So from
> > this perspective perhaps Maharishi was not a narcissist in the clinical
> > sense but more of an ordinary guy who rose the occasion of his celebrity
> > (his success surprising even him)whose personality got distorted by his
> > rockstar fame and fortune like many modern celebrities. Without a close
> > family to keep him real, and through the years ditching those who served
> > that function (buh by Jerry) he grew into a Seelisberg pampered little
> > prince. Not anything clinical really, but somewhere between the unhinged
> > and unchecked ego of a Jerry Lee Lewis and the wildly imaginative and
> > ambitions Richard Branson.
> >
> > Fascinating human story either way. I remember in India when he told us
> > "It was the greatest good fortune for all mankind...that I decided to come
> > out." He would certainly get a gold star in the self-esteem building
> > workshop for that one. But for my taste he could have dialed it back a
> > notch or 20.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > [I wrote:]
> > > > > > Nobody else has weighed in and said they don't think
> > > > > > Barry's a narcissist, so I guess everyone else agrees
> > > > > > with me...
> > > > >
> > > [Curtis wrote:]
> > > > > No, if no one weighs in it means that they agree with me
> > > > > and that makes ME the narcissist.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that the narcissist in this scenario
> > > > is the person who believes that everyone agrees
> > > > with them, whether they say so or not. :-)
> > >
> > > Yet another Barrygaffe. He's missed the obvious fact
> > > that Curtis and I were both saying "Everyone agrees
> > > with me." So Barry has just called Curtis a narcissist.
> > >
> > > (Or perhaps he did see that, and that's why he carefully
> > > deleted the attributions.)
> > >
> > > Funnier still, he doesn't realize I was parodying what
> > > *he* does--claiming everyone agrees with him whether
> > > they say so or not. Maybe Curtis was too. Hmmm...
> > >
> > > And all Barry can come up with in the way of
> > > demonization is the olde Black Knight sketch that's
> > > been invoked here many times, as if he thought it was
> > > a brand-new killer weapon.
> > >
> > > Particularly pathetic given how badly he lost on the
> > > "New Yawker" issue.
> > >
> > > But he's still unchallenged for the Master of
> > > Inadvertent Irony title.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Speaking of New Yawker Syndrome (which is another
> > > > word for obnoxious narcissism), it occurred to me
> > > > that we have a film example of its most distinct
> > > > pathology. That is, not *only* the need to turn
> > > > every human encounter into a fight, but also the
> > > > need to declare oneself the "winner" of each of
> > > > those fights. The NYN (New Yawker Narcissist)
> > > > never loses:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
> > > >
> > > > At least they never *admit* that they've lost. :-)
> > > >
> > > > "I'm invincible!"
> > > > "You're loony!"
>
