curtisdeltablues: > Damn my test proved that I don't know > how this is happening again! > It helps a lot to learn who to use the Enter key to break lines instead of using word-wrap.
> I don't know what I could be doing differently but I'll stay on it. It is no > small thing to attribute what I write to the person I am responding to. > Weird. > > I get you point about higher states and am open to the idea that there are > many states of mind we know little about. I haven't seen anything from guys > like Maharishi that would make me have to extend my model yet however. He > talked about the ability to know things that others were unable to understand > in lower states but didn't demonstrate anything that proved that. I mean I > could run his rap back in the day. It was a rap after all with a set of > phrases and its own internal logic and anyone could learn to do it. > > And even though I am not trained in the proper application of such terms, for > me it is a tool of compassion. It helped me get off some of my blame toward > Maharishi.(how much I succeeded in this is another area of disagreement for > us not doubt.) But for me seeing the old guy as having this kind of > programming that he couldn't stop softens my view of him and that works for > me. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > 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!" > > > > > >
