*> the overuse of spiritual jargon.* *>* Speaking of jargon, what is "spiritual"? From what I've read, spiritual means believing in spirit beings. Just explain it without the jargon. Thanks.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:45 AM, TurquoiseB <turquoi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Michael's story about a Death Watch, Southern-Style really inspired me > this morning. It "reached me." It got me interested in the characters and > the scenario and how things were gonna turn out...even though that was a > little telegraphed by the title. :-) Being me, I started thinking about > this in terms of some recent posts that have discussed the writing of > stories about spiritual experience. Some of the tales of power I've read > from seekers on many paths "reached me," and some didn't. In some cases > there was too much "Look at me" in the tales I didn't like, too much > attention-seeking on the part of the storyteller, and that -- for me -- is > a bit of a turnoff. But more often in the tales I didn't like, the issue > was language, and in particular the overuse of spiritual jargon.Jargon has > its uses. If you're dealing with a concept that really doesn't much exist > for most of the people in your audience, it's fine IMO to give it a name. > The first time a spiritual teacher does this, he or she also gives a talk > about what that name or term *means*. If it's a term that comes up in his > or her teaching often, over time the students no longer need the > explanations or definitions every time they hear the term. They hear > "karma" and *don't* hear in their heads "Huh?" They begin to hear "karma" > and immediately associate the term with everything they've been told about > it by their teacher. Nothing wrong with this so far, IMO.It's when the > students go out and try to talk to non-students that the issue of Jargon As > A Second Language comes up. If these same students try to give a lecture or > write a story that is peppered with the jargon they've come to be so > familiar with that they don't even *notice* when they're using it, then > they often "lose their audience." If every other word is "karma" this, or > "dosa" that, or "purusha somethingorother," all interjected with no > definitions of the terms, IMO the storyteller is *limiting* his audience. > And in most cases, "losing them." They've been *excluded*, because they > don't know the jargon the writer is using. Michael's tale wasn't > exclusionary; it was inclusive. He used ordinary language, the way he heard > it spoken around him at the time, and he used it well to weave a story that > said "Ya'll come on in, now. Sit yerselves down while I make us some > icetea." One of the things I'm most grateful to the Fred Lenz - Rama guy > for is for his command of the English language and how to use it. He taught > that skill explicitly in his talks to his students, and he demonstrated it > in his own public talks. Some of Rama's students liked the talks he'd give > where he got into really esoteric or occult shit, subjects that really did > require some jargon and were obviously "only for my students." I liked his > "intro lectures." The esoteric talks, given to students who all knew Jargon > As A Second Language, were great because he could skip the definitions and > use just the jargon as "shorthand," and as a time-saver. He could get into > some really, really interesting subjects in these "just for students" > talks. But it was the "intro lectures" that were High Art. There, he'd get > into the *same* interesting subjects, only this time using metaphors like > going to the movies and going to work and stuff like that, things that > people knew and identified with. His "intros" were in almost all cases > jargon-free, and that's what's so interesting in retrospect. He didn't > *need* the jargon to discuss these same interesting subjects -- he found a > way to do it *without jargon*, and in language that actually "reached" the > people he was talking to. There are legitimate uses for spiritual jargon. > But if you use them in your writing, you're limiting your audience. I guess > that's all I'm saying. By relying on jargon that they don't explain, some > writers are IMO being more than a little elitist in their approach. They > are expecting their audience to know all these jargon words and > buzzphrases, and respecting them so little that they don't even bother to > translate them back into English as they go. I think that's rude. When I > encounter seekers and teachers from spiritual traditions I haven't > encountered before and they start talking in non-stop jargon, I have a > little trick that I sometimes do. After a particularly long jargonfest, I > stop them and ask them politely, "Could you repeat that in English, without > using any jargon or buzzwords this time?" You'd be amazed at how many > actually CAN'T. Some actually get angry, and accuse me of asking them to (a > literal quote I've heard several times) "Speak down to the level of my > audience." What made them think they were "above" them in the first > place?If you're talkin' neuroscience to a bunch of neuroscientists, you can > get away with using a lot of neuroscience jargon. No one in the audience > feels "left out," because they understand it all. But if you talk to the > same audience and start peppering your talk with, say, Jyotish jargon > buzzwords that they don't understand, they're going to start fidgeting in > their seats and looking at you like you're crazy. That's what being in the > listening or reading audience of a person using too much jargon *feels* > like. The speaker or writer has *excluded* them. If you're a neuroscientist > purposefully trying to communicate to *only* neuroscientists, that > exclusion is cool. But if you're a writer or speaker trying to convey some > spiritual experience to your audience, theoretically to inspire them, is > excluding a certain percentage of them really what you want to do? * > >
