Ah the incredible, intoxicating blend of Rory and Curtis's wisdom and brilliance.
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, genuineness. 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. > > > > > > > >
