--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
> Jesus, Barry, CHANGE THE DAMN RECORD. How many times do we have to
read this same rap from you?

Pay attention, folks. This is the sound of someone panicking. :-)

She knows that she cannot compete on a spiritual playground in which the
players have to talk about their personal experience (she has none), and
well (she can't write worth a damn, and is actually *afraid* to try,
because that will open her up to criticism she cannot abide). Besides,
she's afraid to compete on a playground in which the goal is to PLAY,
not "win."

Expect more of her stuck-in-her-head BS, folks. You ain't gonna get no
personal experience stories from her, for what should be obvious
reasons. The person who tries to present herself as an "authority" here
1) never met Maharishi, 2) never became a TM teacher, 3) never did shit
for the TM organization or to spread its teachings, 3) has rarely ever
left her tiny apartment in New Jersey and thus 4) has nothing to write
about, 5) if she were able to.

In other words, expect more of the same -- the venom of an angry old
woman, lashing out at the world because *she* wasted her own life in the
pursuit of pettiness.

Others here probably have stories of their actual experiences, because
they had some. I look forward to hearing them...

>  Since no one followed up on this post, I guess I will, and comment a
bit on why I suspect they didn't. It's all about "content."
> If you worked in the world of Internet, you'd probably have caught
wind of a major debate/discussion that's been taking place there. Many
are concerned over statistics that show that the websites that get the
most "hits" are all about either searching for Other People's Content
(Google, Yahoo, Baidu, Wikipedia) or "aggregating" Other People's
Content (Upworthy, Jezebel, Reddit, Digg). Since the name of the game in
making money from the Web is number of hits, and since the world really
doesn't need more search engines, this means that most of the "creative"
energy of developers tends to get channeled into sites that actually
display no creativity. All that they do is aggregate facts, gossip, and
news factoids about celebrities or those who want to take advantage of
this fascination with the ephemeral to become celebrities and
regurgitate it. The only real "creativity" displayed by these sites is
in their Subject lines, which are carefully crafted to entice people to
click on them and thus register another "hit."
> Suffice it to say that there is a "class war" going on between these
"content disseminators" and the people who actually WRITE (or produce
music or video), and thus become "content creators." To be honest, there
are some sites like Huffpost, Salon, Slate, and a few others that *do*
provide a forum for content creators and pay them for it, but all you
have to do is look at the degradation of Huffpost over the last couple
of years to realize that their content articles are now the minority of
what they post, and the fluff articles with snappy Subject lines are now
the majority. And because these sites are *businesses*, and trying to
make money, it is likely that this business model will prevail -- after
all, you don't have to pay anybody much of anything to redistribute an
article, and you *do* have to pay someone to create original content.
> I'm rapping about this because I think there is a parallel to this
phenomenon on Internet talk forums. Perhaps it's because people have had
their attention spans shortened from reading so much fluff, perhaps it's
because they are just caught in their own narcissistic business model
and trolling for as many "hits" as they can rack up, and possibly it's
because they really can't think of anything original and creative to
say. Whatever the reason, there is a strong lack of any *original
content* on these forums. They consist primarily -- like the more
mainstream content aggregator sites -- of people reposting something
they found elsewhere, then arguing about it.
> Nowhere do you see this more than in the so-called "spiritual" talk
forums. Pay attention sometime, and see for yourself whether I'm correct
about this. *Most* of what you read on such forums consists of stories
about spiritual teachers or "saints" that in many cases the person
writing *never even met*, or regurgitated writings from so-called
"scriptures" or books written about (rarely by) these other teachers.
Occasionally someone posts a "personal experience story," but even then
the events being written about tend to be set far in the past -- people
write about some great experience they supposedly had twenty or thirty
years ago around some supposedly charismatic teacher.
> But almost no one writes about the spiritual experiences they have on
a daily basis.
> Go figure. It's almost as if most of the people writing to these
forums don't *HAVE* any here-and-now, in-the-present spiritual
experiences. Almost as if.
> Why I wrote the post this one is a followup to is that I was trying to
rap about the "high" that you can get from writing creatively, and in a
spiritual context. I was hoping to maybe inspire others on FFL to do a
bit more of that kind of writing, if they had it in them. The lack of
response would seem to indicate that -- sadly -- most folks here *don't*
have it in them.
> So I'll try again, as is my wont in a bit more in-your-face manner.
> What's up with having paid your "spiritual dues" for twenty to forty
years and *having nothing to say about your everyday spiritual life*?
Doesn't that strike you as more than a little SAD? Is the only source of
inspiration in your life stories from 20-30 years ago, or stories that
you read in some scripture or book about someone you never even *met*?
> As for *arguing* about these things, give me a break. How can anyone
consider someone who never *met* a certain spiritual teacher
"authoritative" about what he or she taught? That's like believing you
can look something up on Wikipedia and be an "expert" about it.
Similarly, how can anyone criticize the few here who *do* write
creatively about their own experiences from time to time when *they
never have*.
> The *priorities* on these spiritual forums sometimes dismay me. People
who tend to be narcissistic and wordy and who post a lot get considered
to be "authorities," when in reality many of them never met the
spiritual teachers they're supposedly authorities about. Some of them
have never had any significant spiritual experiences *of their own*, and
are posing authoritatively about things they've only heard about or read
about. Go figure.
> Me, I'd rather read about people's first-hand experiences. It's not
necessary to "understand" these experiences, or even to have theories
about what they were and what caused them -- the writing process is,
after all, an avenue for trying to figure these things out for oneself.
> But the *lack* of such writing -- and yes, here on Fairfield Life --
strikes me as being a strong parallel to the larger Internet phenomenon
of "content disseminators" vs. true "content creators." When posters go
years and even decades without being able to write even a single post
about their own spiritual experiences, I am tempted to believe that they
*haven't ever had any*.
> But I could be wrong about this. If I am, don't try to argue with me
with more stuck-in-your-head intellectualisms. That doesn't "prove"
shit. If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is write about a
few of your recent personal, subjective spiritual experiences and post
them to this forum. If you can't, I don't see how you can possibly have
a problem with me and other people assuming you don't have any.
>  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "TurquoiseB" wrote:
> >
> > Since Michael got me thinking about the writing thang again, I
> > I'd try to start a thread *about* writing, and hope that it doesn't
> > devolve into mere ankle-biting.
> >
> > Writing is a Class I narcotic.
> >
> > If you can get into the flow of it, it's a more powerful high than
> > street drug you can name. I've tried many of them in my day, so I
> > with some experience on this subject. :-)
> >
> > And the "high" comes -- at least for me -- from a phenomenon I call
> > "reversing the flow." It's IMO what artists do that transforms what
> > do from mere doing into art.
> >
> > Most of our lives we spend "taking in" the flow of life. We are
> > bombarded by so many sights, sounds, and experiences. They flow
> > seemingly from "outside" of us *into* us, where we process them
> > and physically and turn them into our perception of reality. And we
> > turn them into our philosophy about life, whether we think of it in
> > those terms or not. Each of these experiences *shapes* us, *colors*
> > and transforms us in many ways.
> >
> > And ALL of these experiences are still floating around in our brains
> > somewhere, ready to be accessed if we can only find the key to get
> > into them. For me, one of the mechanisms that provides that key is
> > writing. When I sit down and try to write about a past spiritual
> > experience, often magic happens and it becomes a present spiritual
> > experience.
> >
> > When you find the key to these formative spiritual experiences in
> > brain, you can allow them to "come out," and express themselves in
> > writing. And that process feels very much to me like "reversing the
> > flow." Instead of "taking in" the experiences the world has
> > you, you get to "send them out" instead. You get to feel the same
> > energies, but now flowing *from* you back out into the world they
> > from. It's a real rush.
> >
> > Trying to capture the elusiveness of a very high alternate reality
> > of attention in words, it's as if the only way my brain can
> > that is by putting me *back* into that same alternate reality state
> > attention. And the wonderful thing is that it's *still there*. By
> > writing about it I can pull that state of attention into the
> > "put it on" like a suit of clothes, and "wear" it again while
> > the story.
> >
> > It's just the damndest thing. It's pretty much my favorite thing
> > days, now that I've kinda weaned myself from chasing gurus.
> >
> > One of the most fun things for me, which you don't get to see often
> > on this forum because I don't post those kinds of writing here, is
> > write characters. What makes that fun is that I do a kind of mental
> > trick when I do so. I "put on" the character, assume their identity,
> > "wear" them for the duration of the story or scene I'm writing.
> >
> > That's what made the writing of the two scorpion stories in Road
> > Mind so much fun for me. The first one came out fairly
> > during that short "time window" after an experience where you can
> > remember it clearly. The event in question had been a particularly
> > powerful desert trip with Rama, and I was still reeling from it, so
> > so that I wasn't sure I still had an "I" to reel. I had actually
made an
> > audio tape of some of the things said on that trip, and after
> > transcribing it I knew I wanted to turn it into a story, but every
> > attempt to start writing it failed until I hit upon a quirky idea.
> >
> > Why not tell my story from someone else's point of view? Tell about
> > same events, but "as seen by" someone else. And so, being me, I
chose an
> > Anza-Borrego Desert scorpion as my narrator. I tried to imagine what
> > would be like to be a wise-ass scorpion living in Carrizo Gorge, and
> > "put on" his mindset. Then I managed to "wear" it while writing the
> > story. The whole story, as it turned out, because it all came out in
> > short burst of binge-writing. And man! was that FUN. What a high --
> > being not only someone else, but someone not even of your species.
> >
> > Unfortunately, both in real life and in my story, the evening didn't
> > turn out so well for my narrator-scorpion. He got smushed. And on
> > level I missed him, because I'd had so much FUN being him. Then,
> > later, when I was struggling to find a way to *end* Road Trip Mind,
> > Native American girlfriend read the first scorpion story and said,
> > should write about him again." That idea stuck in my head, even
though I
> > had killed him off in the first story.
> >
> > So I just reincarnated him. The last story in RTM is written from
> > point of view of his next incarnation. Talk about FUN! I was sitting
> > there in a Santa Fe bar laughing out loud as I got to be him again,
> > that story just came out, again all in one session of binge-writing.
> > What a high. I think the waitress thought I was high on something.
> >
> > And I was. I was high on writing.
> >
> > Which brings me back to the original subject. *Can* we think of
> > not only as a way to capture and convey spiritual experience to
> > but as a *spiritual experience in itself*? I think we can.
> >
> > Musicians certainly do it. Painters are famous for doing it. Both
> > of artists have a long history of talking about the experience *of*
> > composing music, or creating a painting. Well, I'm just suggesting
> > writers can, too.
> >
> > Good spiritual writing (and probably good writing, period) is IMO
> > achieved by getting the fuck out of one's own way. The more *self*
> > you've got "in the way" when you reverse the flow, the less able you
> > to write effectively. To allow the creative flow *to* flow, you've
> > got to drop being a self, and just be.
> >
> > It sounds like work, but it isn't. It's a real high. And unlike
> > not only is the first one free, all the subsequent ones are, too.
> >

Reply via email to