---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote:
"Visiting scholars"?? Of what? From where?
I know, right?! I mean, you don't have to be "visiting" in order to read the
Dear Dear FFL,
A Special Thank You to everyone who added in to this thread as it developed.
It was appreciated very much by several visiting scholars who came recently to
FairfieldLife looking in on this particular subject thread. You were very
helpful. Is always interesting to find the range of who the readers are of this
place. Best of regards to all my colleagues here, -Buck in the Dome
[ OM BTW, You can post an e-mail directly to Buck using the reply for this
post and then push the little rectangle on the top right of the text box that
comes up. Set the address there. ]
PostCharismatic Posts w/Turq's original about Lenz/Rama
w/ Melton's Intros
w/ comparative comment about succession and Boards
Turq's comment about NPD,
Ann's qualification of leadership and NPD
NPD and Charisma
What's a Saint anyway?
The Scholarly Consideration of Charisma,
Weber's Definition of Charismatic:
Graphing Data-pairs, Charismatics and Spiritual movements
In Graphing data-pairs of Saints and spiritual groups; along the path we all
long-timers had experience to some degree with ranges and distribution of
personality narcissism in spiritual people, from ordered to disordered and with
continuum of relatively saintly charismatic affect and the less than saintly
spiritual behaviors. In looking at spiritual leaders or looking at spiritual
groups historically I tend to draw back and place them on Cartesian paired-data
graphs working two types of relative scales to get a fix on the spirituality. I
find this works good as framework for placing any group or saint relatively.
Weber's definition of Charismatic can be one scale. There also comes a
calculus that can be seen through time with charismatics or their groups
(life-cycle) for instance if you plot transformative spiritual affective-ness
on one axis against the altruistic evolution of group organizational
development on another. Graphing like thus one can parse variously using
data-pairs of scale to sort them out relatively.
How many times do I have to tell you Bucko, there are NO SUCH THINGS AS
SAINTS. Get over it. Go stare your horse in the face, look in his eyes and tell
me this is not the most sublime, the deepest thing you will ever see.
Collecting the ashy crap emanating from some fake's toes or feet or whatever it
was you said you saw is downright creepy. Get a grip. For a farmer, you need to
get grounded again. I think you've flown off in the cornfields to somewhere
imaginary and strange.
Weber's definition of charismatic is good for purpose of discussion generally
and also for extending out to include the uncomfortable person who is
skeptically asking in unknowing disbelief, “what exactly's a saint?” I feel
that granting the spiritual consideration of charisma makes the whole
consideration of spirituality and charismatic leadership much more interesting
and also makes for a more interesting sense of history too if people will grant
for sake of discussion that charismatic saints do happen. Weber's definition
then begins to allow for further scholarly consideration of spirituality and of
even the saintly, if people will grant it rather than just being in a position
of contending and denying it.
Turq, separating the NP-Disordered as a consideration is just a scale with a
range and distribution of consideration around the real spiritual charismatic.
The Dis-ordered may just indicate bad nurture of upbringing or some bad nature
of dis-ease of genetic material otherwise and both may be independent of a
charismatic life of saintly-hood as a trans-formative affective energy field in
time. Bad nurture or bad nature may travel with charisma evidently as part of
the story. That is only human? The OEM of the human form does come with ego
included as part of the factory package on earth. That evidently can give us
all a lot to talk about and I appreciate your journalistic pursuit of the
-Buck in the Dome
"Weber, in an oft quoted passage, defined charisma as a certain quality of an
individual personality, by virtue of which [s/]he is set apart from ordinary
[people] and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least
specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not
accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as
exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a
I would suggest -- and in fact have, many times -- that a synonym for charisma
in many cases is Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
There is a weakness in many people and their basic *lack* of self confidence
and self awareness that makes them "easy prey" for those who have a surfeit of
it. They encounter someone who is so "taken with themselves" that they can
literally think of nothing and no one else and they project a bunch of
admirable qualities onto a disorder that is largely devoid of them.
Think about the arrival on FFL of someone who is as classic an example of NPD
as has ever existed. Some people saw the endless "But enough talking about
me...let's talk about me" drivel as what it was and lost interest, and some
looked at the same drivel and somehow projected greatness onto it.
To this day, the most dismaying thing about my entire experience at FFL has
been the fact that many people here were completely *unable* to recognize two
classic psychopaths -- Ravi and Robin -- when they encountered them. Instead
they admired them, became their groupies, and in one case actually created a
small cult following around them. That is worrisome, especially in a group of
people who claim to be "sophisticated spiritual seekers" who've been "on the
path" for 20-30 years. To have spent that much time theoretically studying the
psychology of enlightenment without being able to tell it from the psychology
of psychopathology is shocking.