Back atchya Rory. You are in the right place in FF. Even on the coldest Winter day it is warmer than on FFL! Thanks to your friend for giving you the heads up on my post.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > >
