Ah the incredible, intoxicating blend of Rory and Curtis's wisdom and

It's all about the rapport - you hear you FFL bitches, it's all about
rapport, it's all about the feel good factor - come on let's start this
from today - Barry, Share, Ravi, Mean girls - you listening?

To hell with truth - welcome dishonesty, hypocrisy, all kinds of
mood-making masking religious delusional beliefs, fuck authenticity,

Dawn of a new era on FFL?

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:01 AM, RoryGoff <roryg...@hotmail.com> 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.
> > >
> >

Reply via email to