--- 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. 

As is mine. Thank you for checking in, and correcting
me if I have misrepresented you or your position in 
any way. When I spoke of 'bot-like behavior, or the
use of "spiritual teacher schtick," I did not mean to
suggest that this is conscious. I think I even said
this at one point. 

> 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. 

And seemingly as real. 

> 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. 

As do I. I believe that the answers he gave to me in 
our short exchange were spontaneous, not "crafted" or
"thought through," as if they represented some kind
of strategy, and heartfelt. I think he believed every-
thing he was saying. 

But you can believe that and, IMO, still be delivering
schtick. 

> 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. 

Damn well said. I've missed that clarity here.

> We all suck at this as a natural tendency, myself included.

Add moi to that list. The game, as I see it, is becoming
more and more aware of our natural tendency to self-
deceive, and trying not to do it as much. 

> 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. 

Exactly. 

> This is how poetry and hypnosis works. 

Not to mention music, and the bardic tradition. 

> 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.) 

It certainly describes Fred Lenz well. That was his
whole schtick. And to echo your sentiments about this
not necessarily being a negative, shifting people's
attention with words (and possibly some Woo Woo under-
lying the words) was his *art form*. And he was WAY
good at it. He could take an audience of newbs who
walked in off the street and have them walk out of 
the talk in as shifted a state of attention as if
they'd dropped acid. 

But as you say, having *experienced* this, listening
to the person running this form, are you more likely
or less likely to *believe* him when he starts claim-
ing to know what reality is? Most people are more
likely to do this. 

> 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. 

As is mine. I've had a fair number of such experiences,
and given them considerable thought and inquiry in the
time since, and I don't know what they "mean" any more
than I did when I was having them. I used to think I
had a handle on that, but I was so much older then;
I'm younger than that now. :-)

> 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. 

That's it exactly. That's what I was reacting to. 

> 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. 

I would share this opinion. My only complaint is that
I don't think I've ever seen him interact with one
of these people *without* dropping into the schtick,
the form. 

> Maharishi certainly was never open to that kind of 
> dialogue and interaction.

Never. Neither was Fred Lenz. 

When it came to dancing -- even intellectually -- they
always felt the need to "lead." 

> 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. 

As do I, if he interpreted my recent comments as brushing
him off. I was brushing off the schtick. That I can, and
will, live without. If we could find areas of discussion
in which he doesn't drop into schtick -- as we did 
briefly agreeing when about the coolness of "Copper" -- 
I'd be very open to them. 

Thanks for the drive-by, and as I said before, the 
clarity. I've been missing that on FFL more than ever
this week. 


> --- 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