Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
On Apr 6, 2011, at 11:28 PM, seventhray1 wrote: Thank goodness none of these attributes apply to you Vaj. That view from the top of the mountain must be awesome. Speak up. I can barely hear you ;-).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
On Apr 6, 2011, at 9:26 AM, turquoiseb wrote: I have no problem with many people, including myself, having accessed (either briefly or permanently) "different levels of awareness." I have seen absolutely no indication that these are anything BUT different levels of subjective awareness; that is, I have seen no indication that they improve any "operating" in the real world. And therefore Narcissistic Consciousness (NC) doesn't add anything to the world. It's a like Consciousness Cancer, the other "CC". We should consider adding a further state of consciousness, Narcissistic Consciousness, to our list: - Belief in a special Self that has special qualities and is worth cultivating. - Believe their own consciousness is special. - Love to talk about their own special Self or special state of consciousness - Despite years or decades of "spiritual practice" they are no more (or perhaps less) compassionate towards others beings. - Self cherishing - Self clinging - Blissful affect that is a central part of their lives. - Overly bound by spiritual concepts. - Overly bound by thought-free states or "silence". - Flat or aloof affect connected to meditation practice. - Inner states unconnected to positive outside actions or emotion. - Unable to read or sense the inner states of others outside the normal "circle of compassion" (spouse, loved ones, etc.).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
I'm interested, lurk. And what you say below is true enough. But that's the problem with most things people takes on faith, isn't it? There's bound to be some (many) pretty wild and crazy inconsistencies that nobody can explain away because, well, it's faith and generally you can't prove it. Doesn't stop people though~~sometimes just the reverse. I think we've all heard of a belief system called Christianity. Anyway, re the whole meditation trip, I've found I'm personally happier practicing those things which have proven themselves to work~~for me. Which isn't an especially high bar, really. Yoga passed, with flying colors. Meditation not so much, so after a while~~a pretty long while actually~~I stopped, after I came to the realization that whatever I was going to get out of it I had gotten. YMMV. Anyway, this is an interesting topic. On Apr 6, 2011, at 7:42 AM, seventhray1 wrote: I have also observed some real inconsistencies in the "unbeliever" outlook especially as it pertains to karma. In order to explain karma and it's long term ramifications I see the "unbeliever" introduce their own supernatural tenants. More later if anyone is interested.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
On Apr 6, 2011, at 8:42 AM, seventhray1 wrote: more particularly the Indian, or easter system of belief. So you still believe in the Easter Bunny?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
On 04/05/2011 10:03 AM, Vaj wrote: > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Peter wrote: > >> I also wonder if he had some sort of cognitive impairment the last >> 15-20 years or so. Things became progressively stranger and stranger >> as time went by. The rajas were really the final straw that destroyed >> any sort of credibility the TMO/MMY ever had. > > > It seemed to me to just be the same senile dementia so common in the > elderly. Possibly some depression as well, based on how he would fly > off the handle; really rather an irritable old man. Got to be a drag to preach immortality and have your body fall apart over a fondness for ice cream. Not unusual for Indians to have a tendency towards diabetes in old age. A little more care and he could have gone out winning! But that often means living a boring life (as Chopra put it).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > So true. My mother-in-law is a true narcissist and it is > really amazing. On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:14 PM, PaliGap wrote: > There's something about "mother-in-law" that generates that > perhaps. Second only to "stepmother" in terms of evilness. > My wife has big problems with her "mother-in-law". > For me, "my mother" is not the same person at all! > > "A police recruit is asked during an exam, 'What would you > do if you had to arrest your own mother-in-law?' He replies, > 'I'd call for backup.' lol...*very* funny! Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Sal Sunshine wrote: > From: Sal Sunshine > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists? > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 4:17 PM > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 12:07 PM, > turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- A few minutes ago, "authfriend" > wrote: > >> > >> OK, but I don't see why any of this requires > applying a > >> formal diagnostic label. And I think slapping a > label on > >> one's analysis has a tendency to make one think > the > >> analysis is more definitive than it may actually > be. > >> > >> Putting people in boxes is necessary for the kind > of > >> health-care/insurance setup we have, but it may > >> rigidify and limit understanding of the > individual. I > >> don't think any human being really *fits* in a > box. > > > > But a few hours earlier she wrote: > > > > "Does anybody here think this all is not the *perfect* > > > description of Barry?" > > > > And a little while after that she wrote: > > > > "But it's interesting: Curtis thinks you're a > narcissist, > > but Barry and I are not; I think Barry's a narcissist, > but > > you're not; you think Barry's not a narcissist (don't > know > > whether you think I am). Nobody else has weighed in > and > > said they don't think Barry's a narcissist, so I guess > > > everyone else agrees with me..." > > I think this was meant sardonically... > > > It seems that when Curtis describes Maharishi as a > > narcissist that's bad, and "putting people in boxes." > > But when Judy does it, it's OK. :-) > > > > Also, should we interpret her saying "I don't think > > any human being really *fits* in a box" and yet > claim- > > ing that someone she dislikes is a *perfect* > narcissist > > > > No kidding. If we were going to start banning > labels, > there'd be maybe 2 posts a year in here. > > Not to mention that it's idiotic to suggest that > what you think the standard is should apply to > everyone. Talk about narcissism! Now if > that isn't a perfect example I don't know what is. > Except for Dr. Pete, nobody in here > is a mental-health professional and thus needs > to watch what they say. (And even he probably > doesn't when he's not wearing his psychologist > hat.) This is all just conversation > for the hell of it. Judy often uses this technique > to try and control what others say. Let's hope > it doesn't work any better now than it has > in the past. > > Sal > > Now watch for Judy to suggest that the > "standard" I mentioned above is about the > lowest one she could imagine, and if people > can't even follow that...yada, yada, yada. :) > Or some other similar shaming technique. Everybody has a degree of narcissism which is healthy. People can have strong narcissistic traits but this is not considered pathological. A narcissistic personality disorder is pathological but NOBODY who posts here is even remotely close to exhibiting behaviors that would be indicative of a narcissistic personality disorder. Sure, some are more fascinated by themselves than others but it's all within normal limits. > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
--- On Tue, 4/5/11, wayback71 wrote: > From: wayback71 > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists? > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 4:18 PM > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > Peter wrote: > > > > Good points, Curtis. Despite what people have said > here, MMY did not have a narcissistic personality disorder. > I agree that he did become progressively narcissistic as the > decades rolled by. Really too bad. He was also so distant > and isolated from all except a few. I used to think this > distance was the result of his enlightenment. Now I realize > it was just his personality. I also wonder if he had some > sort of cognitive impairment the last 15-20 years or so. > Things became progressively stranger and stranger as time > went by. The rajas were really the final straw that > destroyed any sort of credibility the TMO/MMY ever had. > > Yes, they were the final straw. interesting idea > about the cognitive impairment. He did have that heart > attack (early 80's?) and was in the hospital and under > close supervision outside for about 6 months, I think. > And that can cause some cognitive impairment. He also > had diabetes and it might not have been > well-controlled. And maybe some dementia. I thought about dementia, but that usually shows up initially as short-term memory problems. With MMY it seems like his thinking became progressively more bizarre and out-of-touch with reality. If his intention was to spread TM he pretty much did everything to destroy its spread. Strange stuff. > > > > --- On Tue, 4/5/11, curtisdeltablues > wrote: > > > > > From: curtisdeltablues > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know > They Are Narcissists? > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 11:36 AM > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > > "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > All this "you're an narcissist" "No you're a > narcissist" > > > talk flying around does dilute the value of the > term a bit. > > > > > > When I came across this description applied to > gurus > > > (primarily to Rajaneesh, secondarily to > Maharishi) in a > > > Secular Humanist magazine in the late 80's or > early 90's it > > > helped me understand how some people could > function so > > > differently. It also helps explain how people > who come > > > from such a different internal place can have a > profound > > > effect on the rest of us. That kind of > internal > > > certainty is foreign to people with a more humble > sense of > > > self regard. If you don't buy into Maharishi's > view of > > > himself as the person of the greatest importance > in human > > > history for bringing out the knowledge of TM and > sidhis, > > > then the description of narcissism helps explain > the guy for > > > me. And as we begin to understand brain > chemistry > > > better we can perhaps develop a bit of compassion > for > > > someone so compelled to have an inordinately high > opinion of > > > himself. > > > > > > On the other hand, there might be a bit of > random > > > haplessness to the whole Maharishi deal. I mean > how > > > many other yogis who fell into such a fantastic > reception > > > from the world could avoid thinking "damn, I AM > da > > > man!" So from this perspective perhaps > Maharishi was > > > not a narcissist in the clinical sense but more > of an > > > ordinary guy who rose the occasion of his > celebrity (his > > > success surprising even him)whose personality got > distorted > > > by his rockstar fame and fortune like many > modern > > > celebrities. Without a close family to keep him > real, > > > and through the years ditching those who served > that > > > function (buh by Jerry) he grew into a Seelisberg > pampered > > > little prince. Not anything clinical really, but > somewhere > > > between the unhinged and unchecked ego of a Jerry > Lee Lewis > > > and the wildly imaginative and ambitions Richard > Branson. > > > > > > Fascinating human story either way. I remember > in > > > India when he told us "It was the greatest good > fortune for > > > all mankind...that I decided to come out." He > would > > > certainly get a gold star in the self-esteem > building > > > workshop for that one. But for my taste he could > have dialed > > > it back a notch or 20. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > > turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > > > Nobody else has weighed in > and said > > > they don't think > > > > > > > Barry's a narcissist, so I > guess > > > everyone else agrees > > > > > > > with me... > > > > > > > > > > [Curtis wrote:] > > > > > > No, if no one weighs in it means > that they > > > agree with me > > > > > > and that makes ME the narcissist. > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that the narcissist in this > scenario > > > > > is the person who believes that > everyone agrees > > > > > w
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
> On Apr 5, 2011, at 12:07 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- A few minutes ago, "authfriend" wrote: >> >> OK, but I don't see why any of this requires applying a >> formal diagnostic label. And I think slapping a label on >> one's analysis has a tendency to make one think the >> analysis is more definitive than it may actually be. >> >> Putting people in boxes is necessary for the kind of >> health-care/insurance setup we have, but it may >> rigidify and limit understanding of the individual. I >> don't think any human being really *fits* in a box. > > But a few hours earlier she wrote: > > "Does anybody here think this all is not the *perfect* > description of Barry?" > > And a little while after that she wrote: > > "But it's interesting: Curtis thinks you're a narcissist, > but Barry and I are not; I think Barry's a narcissist, but > you're not; you think Barry's not a narcissist (don't know > whether you think I am). Nobody else has weighed in and > said they don't think Barry's a narcissist, so I guess > everyone else agrees with me..." I think this was meant sardonically... > It seems that when Curtis describes Maharishi as a > narcissist that's bad, and "putting people in boxes." > But when Judy does it, it's OK. :-) > > Also, should we interpret her saying "I don't think > any human being really *fits* in a box" and yet claim- > ing that someone she dislikes is a *perfect* narcissist No kidding. If we were going to start banning labels, there'd be maybe 2 posts a year in here. Not to mention that it's idiotic to suggest that what you think the standard is should apply to everyone. Talk about narcissism! Now if that isn't a perfect example I don't know what is. Except for Dr. Pete, nobody in here is a mental-health professional and thus needs to watch what they say. (And even he probably doesn't when he's not wearing his psychologist hat.) This is all just conversation for the hell of it. Judy often uses this technique to try and control what others say. Let's hope it doesn't work any better now than it has in the past. Sal Now watch for Judy to suggest that the "standard" I mentioned above is about the lowest one she could imagine, and if people can't even follow that...yada, yada, yada. :) Or some other similar shaming technique.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
On Apr 5, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Peter wrote: I also wonder if he had some sort of cognitive impairment the last 15-20 years or so. Things became progressively stranger and stranger as time went by. The rajas were really the final straw that destroyed any sort of credibility the TMO/MMY ever had. It seemed to me to just be the same senile dementia so common in the elderly. Possibly some depression as well, based on how he would fly off the handle; really rather an irritable old man.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
Good points, Curtis. Despite what people have said here, MMY did not have a narcissistic personality disorder. I agree that he did become progressively narcissistic as the decades rolled by. Really too bad. He was also so distant and isolated from all except a few. I used to think this distance was the result of his enlightenment. Now I realize it was just his personality. I also wonder if he had some sort of cognitive impairment the last 15-20 years or so. Things became progressively stranger and stranger as time went by. The rajas were really the final straw that destroyed any sort of credibility the TMO/MMY ever had. --- On Tue, 4/5/11, curtisdeltablues wrote: > From: curtisdeltablues > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists? > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 11:36 AM > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "authfriend" wrote: > > All this "you're an narcissist" "No you're a narcissist" > talk flying around does dilute the value of the term a bit. > > When I came across this description applied to gurus > (primarily to Rajaneesh, secondarily to Maharishi) in a > Secular Humanist magazine in the late 80's or early 90's it > helped me understand how some people could function so > differently. It also helps explain how people who come > from such a different internal place can have a profound > effect on the rest of us. That kind of internal > certainty is foreign to people with a more humble sense of > self regard. If you don't buy into Maharishi's view of > himself as the person of the greatest importance in human > history for bringing out the knowledge of TM and sidhis, > then the description of narcissism helps explain the guy for > me. And as we begin to understand brain chemistry > better we can perhaps develop a bit of compassion for > someone so compelled to have an inordinately high opinion of > himself. > > On the other hand, there might be a bit of random > haplessness to the whole Maharishi deal. I mean how > many other yogis who fell into such a fantastic reception > from the world could avoid thinking "damn, I AM da > man!" So from this perspective perhaps Maharishi was > not a narcissist in the clinical sense but more of an > ordinary guy who rose the occasion of his celebrity (his > success surprising even him)whose personality got distorted > by his rockstar fame and fortune like many modern > celebrities. Without a close family to keep him real, > and through the years ditching those who served that > function (buh by Jerry) he grew into a Seelisberg pampered > little prince. Not anything clinical really, but somewhere > between the unhinged and unchecked ego of a Jerry Lee Lewis > and the wildly imaginative and ambitions Richard Branson. > > Fascinating human story either way. I remember in > India when he told us "It was the greatest good fortune for > all mankind...that I decided to come out." He would > certainly get a gold star in the self-esteem building > workshop for that one. But for my taste he could have dialed > it back a notch or 20. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > [I wrote:] > > > > > Nobody else has weighed in and said > they don't think > > > > > Barry's a narcissist, so I guess > everyone else agrees > > > > > with me... > > > > > > [Curtis wrote:] > > > > No, if no one weighs in it means that they > agree with me > > > > and that makes ME the narcissist. > > > > > > I suspect that the narcissist in this scenario > > > is the person who believes that everyone agrees > > > with them, whether they say so or not. :-) > > > > Yet another Barrygaffe. He's missed the obvious fact > > that Curtis and I were both saying "Everyone agrees > > with me." So Barry has just called Curtis a > narcissist. > > > > (Or perhaps he did see that, and that's why he > carefully > > deleted the attributions.) > > > > Funnier still, he doesn't realize I was parodying > what > > *he* does--claiming everyone agrees with him whether > > they say so or not. Maybe Curtis was too. Hmmm... > > > > And all Barry can come up with in the way of > > demonization is the olde Black Knight sketch that's > > been invoked here many times, as if he thought it was > > a brand-new killer weapon. > > > > Particularly pathetic given how badly he lost on the > > "New Yawker" issue. > > > > But he's still unchallenged for the Master of > > Inadvertent Irony title. > > > > > > > Speaking of New Yawker Syndrome (which is > another > > > word for obnoxious narcissism), it occurred to > me > > > that we have a film example of its most distinct > > > pathology. That is, not *only* the need to turn > > > every human encounter into a fight, but also the > > > > need to declare oneself the "winner" of each of > > > those fights. The NYN (New Yawker Narcissist) > > > never loses: > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno > > > > > > At least t
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Do Narcissists Know They Are Narcissists?
On Apr 5, 2011, at 10:36 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > All this "you're an narcissist" "No you're a narcissist" talk flying around > does dilute the value of the term a bit. Well, I know *I'm* not a narcissist~~ I'm much too evolved for that. > When I came across this description applied to gurus (primarily to Rajaneesh, > secondarily to Maharishi) in a Secular Humanist magazine in the late 80's or > early 90's it helped me understand how some people could function so > differently. It also helps explain how people who come from such a different > internal place can have a profound effect on the rest of us. That kind of > internal certainty is foreign to people with a more humble sense of self > regard. If you don't buy into Maharishi's view of himself as the person of > the greatest importance in human history for bringing out the knowledge of TM > and sidhis, then the description of narcissism helps explain the guy for me. > And as we begin to understand brain chemistry better we can perhaps develop a > bit of compassion for someone so compelled to have an inordinately high > opinion of himself. > > On the other hand, there might be a bit of random haplessness to the whole > Maharishi deal. I mean how many other yogis who fell into such a fantastic > reception from the world could avoid thinking "damn, I AM da man!" So from > this perspective perhaps Maharishi was not a narcissist in the clinical sense > but more of an ordinary guy who rose the occasion of his celebrity (his > success surprising even him)whose personality got distorted by his rockstar > fame and fortune like many modern celebrities. Without a close family to > keep him real, and through the years ditching those who served that function > (buh by Jerry) he grew into a Seelisberg pampered little prince. Not anything > clinical really, but somewhere between the unhinged and unchecked ego of a > Jerry Lee Lewis and the wildly imaginative and ambitions Richard Branson. > > Fascinating human story either way. I remember in India when he told us "It > was the greatest good fortune for all mankind...that I decided to come out." > He would certainly get a gold star in the self-esteem building workshop for > that one. But for my taste he could have dialed it back a notch or 20. Great analysis, Curtis. Sure does bring back some great mems! Sal
