Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: palliative pull of the repulsive was Pragmatic Presupposition

Expand Messages
  • Nina
    ... discusson. ... Huh, yes, they do! Knowing the history of that word really lends another layer to the way glamour is presented today... particularly
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "texasbg2000"
      <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
      > <murrkis@y...> wrote:
      > > > Charisma is repugnant or at least repellent to me because it
      > > > influences the mind. I think ideas should be considered
      > regardless
      > > > of personality. Lawyers of great charisma get off criminals.
      > > > Religious leaders just outright lie and get by with it.
      > > > If anyone out there has ever been sucked into a deal
      > > > with someone who knew you were doing the thing they wanted
      > > > for the wrong reasons then you understand. Why blame the person
      > > > who is seeking comfort for themselves by screwing you? It is
      > > > like blaming an animal for wanting to eat you. Why not look
      > > > at the personal magnetism, catalogue it as undesirable, and
      > > > set up a signaling system in yourself to be repelled
      > > > by the pull when you feel it? I felt that pull in this
      discusson.
      > > >
      > > > I heard Ram Das on tape once and was amazed at the
      > > > convincing tone he took when speaking. He was talking about
      > > > his guru's magic. F. Lee Bailey, the attorney, looked into a
      > > > tv camera and said, "I don't believe Jim Baker (the Evangelist)
      > > > took one thin dime", and I believed him for an instant.
      > > > It is a form of propaganda.
      > > >
      > > > The bad thing in this is that it is misuse of the gift of
      > > > communication. What could have been done with that gift was not.
      > > > Thanks for asking,
      > > > Love
      > > > Bobby G.
      > >
      > > Hmm, well, just to be sure I understood what charisma
      > > means, I looked it up. I think it is interesting to note
      > > that there is a definition (personal attractiveness that
      > > enables you to influence others), but it is the 'related
      > > terms' at the bottom of the page that seem to indicate
      > > the flavorings this word, charisma, can carry.
      > > Thus, the repulsion.
      > >
      > > http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/charisma
      >
      > Nina:
      > That is quite a list of related terms. They remind me of
      > the archaic meaning of the word "glamour".

      Huh, yes, they do! Knowing the history of that word
      really lends another layer to the way 'glamour' is
      presented today... particularly 'false glamour' or
      'camp glamour'... in instances where glamour is
      consciously taken on as a mask.

      It is interesting how even when one doesn't intellectually
      or consciously make those connections to archaic meanings,
      those meanings still have a resonance. Astounding!

      What fun, thanks, Bobby!

      > > Have you ever noticed that what you resist persists,
      > > and even grows in power?
      >
      > Yes.
      >
      > >
      > > Looking at the trail of this conversation, I see that
      > > when Bobby G. steps forward to disprove the theories
      > > around the will to comfort, that his opponents (jus'
      > > lahk in foobahl, man!) step forward out of the cyber
      > > abyss to prove and reprove. The more Bobby G. attempts
      > > to disprove, the more the opponents prove and reprove.
      >
      > I take your point here, Nina.
      >
      > > That's a really interesting foundational piece to
      > > the role charisma might play in 'convincing'...
      > > that when one recognizes the appearance of charisma
      > > in another, that it is only one's own charisma reflected...
      > > like the moon reflecting the light of the sun...
      >
      > That follows nicely from what you say above.
      >
      > >
      > > Repulsion is a flavoring, charisma is 'the way things are'.
      >
      > I think it is useful to understanding to be
      > repulsed by charisma. It allows one to look
      > behind the cloak and not led around by the nose.

      Oh yes, agreed about looking behind the cloak and
      not being led around by the nose. I guess I wouldn't
      use the word repulsed; perhaps personally I would use
      the word 'recognition'. Actually, charisma and its
      relative, glamour, are wonderfully playful embodiments;
      I can't find anything inherently wrong with those
      embodiments. The trick is not avoiding them, but
      understanding them as 'play'...

      > > Charisma, lol, is another tool to comfort. Which, btw,
      > > you seem to be avoiding like a locust plague. :)
      >
      > I cannot see how it is a tool for the person
      > being influenced if they are misled. The anticipated
      > comfort may not be experienced
      > so the comfort of believing it will,
      > is canceled by the disappointment.
      >
      > I avoid it in myself as well as others. I
      > do not like to influence people.
      >
      > And I don't like to influence myself either, whatever that means.
      > Maybe it is overthinking an issue.

      The key to 'being misled' is that one doesn't
      realize one is being misled. In that, there can
      be the comfort of ignorance. Also, a person can be
      blinded by their desire for comfort, such that
      one is more easily misled.

      At any rate, comfort may be canceled by the
      realization that one has been misled, but the
      desire for comfort is not canceled by such a
      realization.

      Here is another way of thinking about charisma
      and glamour: shamanism. Essentially, shamanism
      is a manner of connecting oneself or another
      to an overlooked or under-realized aspect. It is
      influence, but not necessarily of a political
      sort. (I sense you are thinking of a political
      influence...)

      Also, I think of your paintings and where they
      take the person who looks upon them... that is
      a sort of influence, if only by sharing out your
      perspective and making it available for another
      to 'take on'. Passive or active, it is influence.

      In fluence... In fluid ence... essence of fluid...
      that's an interesting word... flowing like water.
      Can it be contained? By what means? And to what
      degree? Or, does it flow freely, like water
      through my fingers? Or may I drink it in, like
      water from a cup?

      Or, is it more like the air we breath, and the
      fluidity of our breaths, moving in and out, not
      just within my body, but yours... we all breath
      the same air, and so, we are all arising from
      that same influence... how can I say I do not
      like to influence others? I am part and parcel
      to that influence...

      > > Ok, I'm mainly just pulling your chain (no, it isn't
      > > repulsive to me), so I'll step down now and let you
      > > 'take it away!'
      >
      > Well I always like talking to you. I guess because you
      > like to think laterally and keep a good humor.
      >
      > Charisma is a burr under my saddle. TV ads that command me
      > to do as I am told in a tone intended to stimulate cause me to
      > disrespect the participants.

      I see what you're saying. Still, in the broader view,
      charisma is no biggy...

      > The tendency to be sucked in by false gurus
      > can be canceled if we recognize that
      > tendency in ourselves and develop the
      > sense of discomfort when we feel
      > charisma or undue persuasiveness.

      Hmm... I can see that (the tendency towards)
      'excessive application of charisma or undue will
      towards persuasiveness' might rebound into
      feelings of discomfort or repulsion, but
      I'm not following that one should develop
      the sense of discomfort one feels in
      recognizing that tendency. Quite the opposite -
      I say recognize away, but develop a broader
      sense of how this figures into the big picture,
      rather than condemning it, and reinforcing that
      condemnation with feelings of discomfort.
      Ah, am I tending towards comfort? Lol...

      What is all this worry about getting sucked
      in by false gurus? ;) I say, let's apply one
      of Frankl's logotherapy techniques:

      What's the worst that could possibly happen
      by getting sucked in by a false guru? Flesh
      that out fully, put yourself in it (eek,
      shamanic!), and then ask the question:

      How bad can this be?

      > > big ole OM
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.