> > All this "you're an narcissist" "No you're a narcissist" > > talk flying around does dilute the value of the term a > > bit. > > authfriend: > (Curtis, you just did it again--began your response *under* > the attribution line.) > Notice how Judy uses the Enter key to break lines? When a respondent does that, it's easy to respond because the lines all have a left angle bracket indicating each line. Now look at yours below - it's a mess.
> 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. > >
