Hey, Curtis! Long time! I have been refraining from reading FFL to rest, recuperate, and assimilate, but a friend gave me a heads-up that you had "uncloaked" with a message that he felt I should read, and a link to it, I just read it and must say I greatly appreciate your clarification -- and no apology needed, my friend. Thank you so much.
Yes, to me, rapport is what it's all about, if at all possible. But I have perhaps gotten rather soft from being here in Fairfield, where love is tangibly everywhere. Well, that and not enough exercise, of course. See you around sometime, I hope! All glory to Guru You! ;-) *L*L*L* R. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Rory: > Curtis, of course -- can tell with such utter > > > > certainty that my entire spiritual life has been phony. > > From another post: > ...Now it appears you may somewhat agree with > > Curtis, who saw me as a Neurolinguistic-programming, form-running > > charlatan. > > > Me: > I wanted to drop in to comment on the idea that I think of Rory as a phony or > a charlatan. I do not. My view of people who have the kind of experiences > that Rory has shared is more nuanced than that. > > My current perspective involves how our brains communicate within itself, and > how some wires get crossed (think synesthesia between senses as an example, > hearing colors). My current belief is that this can result in experiencing > subjective experiences as if they are as as compelling as our external > reality. I am not making a case for this being a defect, because it can be a > source for profound creativity. So let's take Rory as charlatan off my table. > I believe he is sincere from the limited contact I have had with him. > > But, just as with Maharishi, that doesn't mean that I hold his > epistemological conclusions as valid. I do not. My question is about how we > deal with this kind of subjective knowledge. I am skeptical that it provides > an insight into "reality" that bypasses any of our other methods of > verification of ideas which may or may not include the methods of science. I > rate all our subjective experiences the same as any other hypothesis that > needs further study taking into account the human tendency to conflate our > enthusiasm for an idea for the likelihood that it is true. We all suck at > this as a natural tendency, myself included. > > As for the language form used, my point concerned the use of language that is > coming from a trance state and is meant to shift the state of the listener > from sensory based to internal connections based. This is how poetry and > hypnosis works. I consider my ability to ride this wave and to generate these > waves of language myself to be at the center of my creative ability with > language, so it is not a negative on its face. > > The problems I see comes when we confuse this kind of language with the style > we use to convey concrete meaning. That causes problems when the person using > this language form claims to be telling us about how reality really is. (I'm > looking at you immolated Maharishi.) This type of language was described by > Grinder and Bandler the founders of NLP when they did their modeling of the > hypnotherapist Milton Erickson and their perspective has influenced my own > about how this language form works. The rest comes from my own experiences > teaching TM and then doing NLP therapy for people after leaving TM as well as > an analysis of my own creative songwriting process. > > So what is the difference between when Bob Dylan does this and when a > "spiritual" teacher does it? When you ask Bob Dylan what it "means" he says, > I don't know, that is up to you. Figurative language is a launching pad for > internal abstract thought. When you ask a spiritual master what he "means" he > might tell you that when you are in his state of consciousness you will fully > understand. I reject the many imbedded premises in this statement. Would Rory > answer this way? I don't know, I forget most of what I read from him when we > were interacting here. My view of spiritual experiences is an evolving one as > I gather more data on how our brains function. > > Most of what I remember about Rory is that he uses a style of reframing > language as a type of verbal jiu jitsu. By this I mean when people attack > him he refers to them as a part of himself attacking himself. Although I > don't doubt this emerges from his internal experiences, it is also embedded > in a philosophy and web of beliefs about the world that I do not share. I > think it is a really good linguistic coping strategy for the projectile > attacks that this place is full of. It works on many different levels for him. > > So why the drive by today? Because I like Rory and don't want to let an > impression remain that I think of him in such a negative way. If he expressed > it all as art rather than philosophy I would just appreciate him as I do the > rest of my wacky artistic buddies. He is a really creative guy and I value > that. But when it is expressed as philosophy I like to show where I am > drawing my lines to distinguish my beliefs from his or anyone else who > expresses a "spiritual" POV. I don't share the confidence "spiritual" people > do in their assumptions or conclusions and enjoy expressing my evolving POV. > (Or at least I used to here.) > > Another big plus in my mind about Rory is that he values rapport here as I > do. I remember our interactions very positively. He came off as willing to > interact with someone skeptical about his conclusions about his own > experiences. Maharishi certainly was never open to that kind of dialogue and > interaction. > > So "respect" Rory. You are interpreting your experiences in life just as I > do. I may not share your conclusions, nor you mine. The fact that we looked > beyond that to have some interesting discussions here makes you a bro in my > book. If I came off as harsh toward you in the past, I apologize. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > Ha! You crack me up, Ravi. I love how you -- and apparently > > > > Judy, and Curtis, of course -- can tell with such utter > > > > certainty that my entire spiritual life has been phony. > > > > > > I never suggested that, Rory, nor did I say I could > > > tell anything about you with anything like "utter > > > certainty." I really don't appreciate your claiming > > > otherwise. > > > > I said "apparently" in your case, Judy, as it did appear that way to me. > > You may have meant it differently, of course, but "phony as a three-dollar > > bill" sounded pretty certain to me. I didn't register your saying anything > > like, "Well, I don't know for sure, of course, but at the moment it appears > > to me that ..." etc. Again, I am only "claiming" how it appeared to me. If > > you meant otherwise, I am sorry, and thank you for clarifying. > > >
