Separate point: please give citations or descriptions for the techniques you used and why you expect them to work. Also please provide evidence for your claim that it reliably gives people deep experiences.
Before I put the text online, I’ve spoken this text to about 80 people—mostly in groups, but also individually. Most were friends, so universally positive feedback wasn’t surprising. But some cried, and many more had tears in their eyes. Several have used copies of the text to speak it to friends, and reported back that they got very positive feedback too. And perhaps most importantly, almost everybody I’ve met again after reading the Sermon to them has spontaneously reported that it resonated with them and they’ve been thinking about it since, been more awestruck by the sight of the night sky etc.
I should say this mostly wasn’t your familiar atheist Sagan-savvy crowd and many of the thoughts I used were actually new to them. I expect less intense responses from people who already know about stellar nucleosynthesis etc. Also the personal (especially one-on-one) delivery is surely more intense than doing it via a YouTube video.
Among the techniques I used, I believe the repeated use of “here” and “now” is the most important, because that is what makes the story feel real and personal. From mindfulness, I stole observation of the body as a technique for getting people into the present moment. For the language to be hypnotically suggestive, it needed to be an unbroken story (no sudden jumps between topics), contain no surprising assertions that break suspension of disbelief and use sensory modalities that dominate mental processing for most people (i.e. no smell or taste). And what the text does is that it reframes the listener’s identity, while getting around ego boundaries by avoiding the first and second person singular and using the first person plural exclusively.
If this reply does not satisfy you, please pose more specific questions.
I was expecting it to return to more specific sensory experience at the end. I’m not sure whether that would have been an improvement, but I think it’s something I would have liked.
Separate point: please give citations or descriptions for the techniques you used and why you expect them to work. Also please provide evidence for your claim that it reliably gives people deep experiences.
Before I put the text online, I’ve spoken this text to about 80 people—mostly in groups, but also individually. Most were friends, so universally positive feedback wasn’t surprising. But some cried, and many more had tears in their eyes. Several have used copies of the text to speak it to friends, and reported back that they got very positive feedback too. And perhaps most importantly, almost everybody I’ve met again after reading the Sermon to them has spontaneously reported that it resonated with them and they’ve been thinking about it since, been more awestruck by the sight of the night sky etc.
I should say this mostly wasn’t your familiar atheist Sagan-savvy crowd and many of the thoughts I used were actually new to them. I expect less intense responses from people who already know about stellar nucleosynthesis etc. Also the personal (especially one-on-one) delivery is surely more intense than doing it via a YouTube video.
Among the techniques I used, I believe the repeated use of “here” and “now” is the most important, because that is what makes the story feel real and personal. From mindfulness, I stole observation of the body as a technique for getting people into the present moment. For the language to be hypnotically suggestive, it needed to be an unbroken story (no sudden jumps between topics), contain no surprising assertions that break suspension of disbelief and use sensory modalities that dominate mental processing for most people (i.e. no smell or taste). And what the text does is that it reframes the listener’s identity, while getting around ego boundaries by avoiding the first and second person singular and using the first person plural exclusively.
If this reply does not satisfy you, please pose more specific questions.
I was expecting it to return to more specific sensory experience at the end. I’m not sure whether that would have been an improvement, but I think it’s something I would have liked.