Re: Betrayel

someone wrote:
> 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!
> 
yes , you are healthy enough to go kill ,
where did you find this , " shrink "
it wasn't in your pants was it