Re: Betrayel

slider wrote:
> someone wrote:
>> % wrote:
>>
>>> everyone can be all or part of the total
>>
>> Moving the goal-posts, everyone
>> can do anything. Everyone is affected
>> by everything and when an example shows
>> how not everyone can nor does, then an other
>> example is given to suggest everyone would be if ...
>
>### - that wasn't at all my intension... 

Hello.
Reminds me of a song.

>the debate commenced re 'insane'  
>people possibly (or potentially) actually being nearer to an advanced  
>state of being than ordinary/normal folks

Not sure about any, debate, going on.

>> Mirrors may affect everyone.
>> Then again, some are unable to see, to know.
>> They can't see and don't know their own reflection.
>
>## - have already agreed that is true: that people's level of advancement  
>varies from not at all (commonly known as being normal) to that of a sage  
>or baba-type and beyond.

Okay.

>> Logically speaking, presumptions, axioms and such
>> allow for a conclusion to be valid without being sound.
>> Logical fallacies are known by logicians to include a few.
>
>### - true... but neither of us in this instance are even interested in  
>bringing such things into the debate as we've nothing personally to hide  
>or to hide behind; we're looking for clarity on the subject not to obscure  
>the issue, yes?

An issue taken was with using the word, everyone.

That, everyone, is affected by shrooms or acid,
other animals included. An idea being in terms of
having an experience of enlightenment as might
people who are diagnosed as having an illness.

Moving from having a mystical experience to,
any odd perceptual change, was a qualification,
along with, given a large enough quantity.

Whether mental illness is a prerequisite
was another theme, imo, which was why Tolle
and Chopra were mentioned as contrasting.

>> Epistemologically speaking, to know, without doubt,
>> everyone is or would be affected by a substance, a noun,
>> a thing, falls into a category of not being able to be.
>
>### - then 'Epistemologically' has to go out the window along with other  
>words/terms that obfuscate/cloud the issue, let's not get lost in clever  
>words & denial when the evidence is right before our eyes

What is before my eyes are words with meanings
that may differ from what is before your eyes.

To know, everyone, all animals, will be affected
by a substance, is a claim. It's a generality, imo,
and considered as a fallacy, generally speaking.
Sometimes a generality is called hasty.

Hyperbole can be a different rhetorical critter.

To qualify a statement, such as, all animals
with a functioning nervous system will, if they
happen to be alive, be affected by any substance,
is possible to make for example. And even if not alive,
their physical forms will still be affected. Period.

A drop of water will affect any thing.

>> Lots of people might insist, nouns exist.
>> Their definition of what existence is may vary.
>
>### - there's all kinds of reasons why some people might 'insist', but if  
>they can't back-up their argument(s) with cogent reasonings but insist on  
>sticking to them, then in reality they're only being evasive, and that  
>raises the question why: as in are they being dishonest for example, or  
>just don't know...

If science, mental illness, enlightenment, psycho-active chemicals
culture and such are the subject then, to say, everyone ...
sounds to me like either a false claim or hyperbole.

If accuracy is a question, 
to say, many or most
would be better, imo.

Simply for the sake of discussion.
Taint easy being a grammarian.

>> A state attained or obtained by some people
>> may be called mystical, ecstatic, religious, etc.
>>
>> Not everyone who takes mushrooms has a mystical
>> or religious type of experience nor becomes a sage.
>>
>> That was a point being made, until, far from being
>> a sage, a statement was made about effects
>> that, ahem, everyone will experience.
>
>### - that is correct... the experience will vary depending on the  
>personal evolution/state of mind of the participant, that's obvious... and  
>as such it was stated that an educated/disciplined person will likely have  
>a very different experience compared to someone less  
>educated/disciplined...

Set and setting were also included, as at Marsh Chapel.
Not all who were given psilocybin had mystical experiences.
And even those who did have such types, theirs varied.

Not all mental phenomena are necessarily good,
either for an individual nor a society.

>e.g., aldous huxley, a famous doctor and writer of books like brave new  
>world & doors of perception, took lsd many times and always had very  
>eye-opening experiences, enough to log/write about them in his book doors  
>of perception, his trained & disciplined mind allowing him to probe &  
>explore those altered states of awareness without becoming terrified or  
>losing his mind...

I don't know if he, always, had very eye-opening experiences.

>> Even in a set and setting predisposed to afford
>> such a type of experience, not all people will.
>> Some might have a horrible experience.
>
>### - also agreed... the fact remains, however, that everyone experienced  
>'something'

Not sure what the point is at this point.

>> When a so-called, individual, is already at
>> an ecstatic state, to then presume a substance,
>> a mushroom or an acid, will have an effect
>> can be done, even though it does not.
>
>### - this is where we came unstuck... because clearly it DID affect him  
>else how could he remark/observe that it gives people little siddhis? 

Still not sure what the point is
in terms of mental illness, etc.

He also remarked, iirc, that God 
came to a materialistic culture in the form of LSD
because that was how they could identify.

Many so-called delusional people might identify
with being God and, if they gain a following
draw the attention of an establishment.

Back in the daze of war before a generation transformed
there were generals who said they had to destroy
a village in order to save it. 

Could God have arrived just in time
in the form of a window pane or
a dab of orange sunshine
micro-dot or blotter.

>the  
>fact that he wasn't moved to have even greater experiences only being a  
>testament to 'his' level of personal advancement, the remark 'little'  
>suggesting he knows of something much greater and so wasn't that impressed  
>by it... if it hadn't affected him at all he wouldn't have been able to  
>discern what it did compared to what he knew

Reminds me of being in an ocean
and saying everyone is affected by water.

A minnow seeks answers and finds an old wise whale.
He asks the whale about the water and gives her a drop.
She says, it gives fish wetness. The minnow is happy.

>> Neem Karori Baba was reported to have been
>> unaffected by a substance. To know what it does
>> does not entail being affected by it.
>
>### - changed 'unaffected' to 'unmoved' and we'd be back in agreement,  

Okay.

>clearly it affected him just like it affects everybody else, 

Clearly, it did not. Ram Dass was astonished. 
It affected Baba, basically, not at all. 

Some people experience enlightenment after great depression,
e.g. Tolle. Some people might meditate for years until, suddenly,
there, whatever it is, appears, e.g. Siddhartha. Techniques vary.

Some people can't cope with their states of consciousness
given their culture and are institutionalized, tagged, sick, unwell.
Some are called gurus, draw a crowd and get rich.

>only that was  
>nada to him, him basically commenting: yeah, yeah, i see what it does and  
>why you're all so impressed with it and the 'little powers' it affords  
>people like you, but in my world that's nothing really compared to  
>something even greater...
>
>little siddhis only proving a 'glimpse' of what's out there waiting for  
>us...
>
>and that's precisely my point: things like that do indeed provide a  
>'glimpse' of incredible possibilities,

For some people, some times.

> but only a glimpse not the whole thing...

Some glimpses are of heavens, some of hells. Affects vary.
Those who enter a heaven might be healed.

To say, everyone will experience an effect, says something.

>> When some body is already moving at light speed,
>> that body is immediately where it is seen to be going
>> by viewers who view it as going some where.
>
>### - if you've grasped any of the above then we've passed all that now...

So far, what I've glimpsed is, you seem to be saying
everyone is affected by taking psycho-active chemicals.

>> Statements were made about other people,
>> e.g. Tolle, Chopra. To miss a point is possible.
>> People who were diagnosed as being ill.
>>
>> Whether a necessary predisposition exists
>> in order to arrive at a place of no place
>> might place a body in the physical.
>>
>> Some people might insist they are bodies.
>> Other people may say they have bodies.
>>
>> What is called, mental illness, varies
>> as it is defined and redefined by cultures.
>
>### - that was my point too and we basically agree on that: that what some  
>people 'call' mental illness might not be illness at all, strange things  
>happening to 'reason' once we venture beyond it's limits... thus most  
>instruction is to move beyond that of reason altogether into the  
>silence/non-egoic state of being, iow: to turn all that nonsense 'off' and  
>to perceive accordingly...

About the only disagreement we have
is the use of words, e.g. everyone, always.

To say, most people will be affected by mushrooms
or by acid, and there's no telling how, could be said.

Given a set and setting, some body with schizophrenia
might hear the voice of God and that'd be great.

For such a so-called, individual, to then begin
to have an experience of grandeur may pose a problem.

How ought people who are different from Joe Normal
who watches sports or thinks his nation state
of mind is the best be treated.

Is Mr Normal more sane, 
thinking his, country
or his team is the best.

Perhaps some are far worse,
more dangerous than sports fans
or patriotic people.

To say the average person is crazy
might have rhetorical value, to make a point.

To wear a suit and tie a cloth around the neck, to
chase after a hill of beans and make a scene seem
as if that's the goal, a fancy car, new tennis shoes.

>> With a form of ego-loss, some non-dualists may speak,
>> knowing full well how such talk doesn't go to show
>> others who think, feel and/or know, they are.
>
>### - yeah well, it's assumed before we even started that we're not at all  
>interested in such people and their obviously petty problems & evasions...  
>people can learn to talk the talk fairly easily enough, but if that's all  
>they can do and they can't also walk the walk, then it will quickly emerge  
>in conversation that that's the case, there's no need to go looking for  
>it...

What the walk is, how to act, in public,
given one's culture, is able to determine sanity.

Rules tend to be rules. 
They're not all the same.

>> Once upon a time, an individual arrived at a point
>> where there was no individuality and he appeared
>> to be as it were God. Paranormal activities were a
>> common enough manifestation of his, siddhis.
>>
>> Ram Dass was impressed. His guru was God
>> as far as he was concerned at the time. Baba
>> had the answers Richard was looking for.
>>
>> When he was ready, his guru appeared.
>> The guru knew where he was the night before,
>> thinking about his mother who had died, etc.
>>
>> He was above being affected by mushrooms, acid
>> and other substances known to have an effect
>> on most mortal men and women.
>
>### - this is all just your personal interpretation, no?

Reading words written in a book, Be Here Now,
suggested to me he was unaffected by LSD. 
He was also telepathic. He was able to sit the sit, 
and be, there, and then for a spell. The magic worked.

Some people like siddhis, magic, shamanism, etc.
Some have been diagnosed using various DSMs.

Some take substances so they are able to function
in the society in which they happen to live. Some stop
taking the, meds, and trip out, time and time again. 

An interpretation of mine is how chemistry is curious.

Chemicals are able to affect states of consciousness
some of the time, yet perhaps not all of the time.

> that there's a  
>narrative running in the background here, some kind of mystical storyline  
>that proposes to explain everything to the man in the street, other  
>interpretations exist however; that baba wasn't unaffected by it, he just  
>wasn't that impressed and considered it to only produce little siddhis not  
>actually worth bothering with compared to what 'he' was aware of... that's  
>what comes across in his remarks regarding it anyway, as such he passes  
>judgment on it and finds it wanting, which was what richard wanted to know

To quibble over words can be what makes a conversation.

Taoism reminds me of how ways are ways, names name,
and which one is, always, could be a question to remain.

Cross-posting into several groups at once happens.
Who posts in return and what the topic is may vary.

>> Within a philosophy called Daojia, a parent
>> as it were of Zen, a phenomenon called
>> immortality may occur. Transcending,
>> as if in a butterfly dreaming it was
>> an other more than Zhuangzi.
>>
>> When an individual is no longer an individual,
>> to be affected by what effects a substance has
>> might be subjected to words. Ore knots.
>
>### - so that's what you're going on then huh, this narrative?

If Baba was already beyond being affected, 
then he wasn't affected. A saying is said about fish
and water. Also referred to is air, to the birds.

>in which case i'd have to suggest that you've misunderstood it then  
>because what am suggesting doesn't actually conflict with any of that...  

Okay.

>my original point that maybe not all mental illness is actually mental  
>illness except in the minds of western science etc, 

I am able to agree totally. 

>such is their  
>narrative on the subject, a completely dismissive one: 

You appear to presume a so-called, western science
and a group with minds, a they or a them, exist.

>that madness is  
>madness and that's it, 

Maybe some practitioners think as such.
I'd like to think it's an over-generalization.

>it not being in their limited wordy vocabulary to  
>admit of there being anything else...

Probably some physical-materialists don't have an ability
to go beyond their mortal frames of brain waves.

>whereas, otoh, someone who's not quite right in the head, reason-wise,  
>might actually be closer to that something else than a normal/average  
>person by dint of their 'reason' NOT having such a complete grip over  
>their perception...

Sounds like it's time for, someone, to grab a beer!

>thus some of the things they perceive could well be correct albeit  
>garbled, although a psychiatrist would likely never be able to agree with  
>that...

I was told, after seeing a shrink,
that I was fit for duty!

- thanks again! Cheers!