--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > I was so much older then; I'm younger than that now. :-)>
That says it all! Thanks for the response and many excellent points. I suspect the written word gives us all a shift of our functioning that would occur in conversation. I believe that being a prolific writer on boards like this can narrow that gap a bit. I found our offline live chats to be the same guy as you are when you write. But I think it takes practice and a desire to show up as your actual self here. And having lived in altered states from meditation for years, I also understand how squirrelly that can be. We all repeat what works for us, don't we? > --- In [email protected], "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 [email protected], "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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. > > > > > >
