Colin:> But surely this is the point, although you may have stated it
> unintentionally.
> Is Miller purely "the king" because so many teachers are blind. As Randy
> has said, most of this material is out there and has been for some time.
> The fact that Miller may be able to put it across better in person than
> in print does not disguise the fact that most of the concepts shouldn't
> be a surprise to most teachers. Their understanding of the concepts may
> improve after the workshop, but they should be aware of much of Miller's
> teaching beforehand.<
Sorry, but I'll have to elaborate into it (get your pillows ready):
For the modern world, it's not important to know what's right or wrong, but
what's CONSIDERED to be right or wrong. That's what Nietzche called
"ideology".
There are groups of people who are naturally elected to determine what's to
be considered right or wrong. Those groups will very often disagree on
important questions, and that disagreement will set the limits within which
"the rest" will be allowed to move ( in practical terms, it doesn't matter
how right a member of "the rest" or how wrong a "limit-setter" might be, as
what's important is what's CONSIDERED to be right or wrong. No one said life
would be fair ). In the American academic milieau, for instance, those
groups are represented by the "Ivy League" think tanks.
Those institutions will expand their ideological perspectives around through
their MBA, PHD, etc programs, creating "ideological representatives", a.k.a.
teachers and professors, at "not-as-important" colleges and universities.
Most students at both the think tanks and those other colleges and
universities will buy what they're sold, and then we have "sects". They
probably won't have a clue of the other sect's rationale, but they "know"
they can only be wrong (or they have to make their parents believe it was
worth spending their savings on tuition).
That ideological bias is made easier by another component: "democratism"
or: when the average rules! To me, freedom is great but democracy is
stupid. Unfortunately, we can't get the former without the latter ). The
fact that it's a "sect", with more members thinking likewise, reinforces the
impression that they can't be wrong, even if they don't know the opposing
point of view.
That's where Miller comes in: as he writes books ( what doesn't mean people
understand them ) that "set limits" and are read and respected by other
"limit-setters", and even people who didn't read or can't understand books
profit from his lectures and workshops, that's enough to create a "sect".
Randy has all it takes to be a "limit-setter", but he shouldn't expect the
same from those who were born or have decided to be "sect members". To do
what he expects, people would have to read Miller, UNDERSTAND his books,
AND... read other books, do research, etc, etc.
And he shouldn't be complaining about it. He should be doing what Miller
does, and that's completely fair: make money out of the average. The only
problem Randy has is his PR skills: he recognizes publicly his own
superiority in the singing field. That goes against "democratism": people
would have to recognize that some are not equal... and worse, are BETTER
than them. He's not supposed to do it before he wins the crowds and has his
own "sect". Then, as his sect members will think exactly like him, whenever
he says he knows something better than someone else his group will feels
represented in his alleged ( remember, universal rights and wrongs don't
exist anymore ) superiority: "democratism" remains untouched.
I hope those who made it to this point have enjoyed it! hehe
Caio
P.S.: Sources: Hitler's biography.
|
