Re: Betrayel

slider wrote:
> someone wrote:

>> Whether all people who have what is called schizophrenia
>> or some people would be able to have more lucid dreams
>> and contribute to a culture sounds like a fine topic.
>
>### - i think so too... but that's only one example because the overall  
>premise included 'other' kinds of mental illness too as thus 'potentially'  
>being closer to an altered state on a daily basis compared to the average  
>man in the street, that being my whole point from the start but which you  
>were refusing to even hear without continually changing the subject, there  
>being nada about what am suggesting that warrants such evasion, and which  
>cued my objection to you screwing around for nada...

Sorry about your agenda being derailed. It was unintentional.
There was no, refusal, to hear what you wrote, nor evasion.
You are projecting, imo, on to words seen on screnes.

As for a conversation,
I might like to say, at this point, to continue,
that to say the average man in the street
is what constitutes an unaltered state
suggests many connotations
and permutations to me.

My guess, at this point, is that you are uninterested
in discussing to a fine point what constitutes an altered state
as well as who is the average man in the street.

If so, skip the next two paragraphs.

The so-called average man in the street, imo, experiences
many altered states from when awakening to returning to
a state of unconsciousness. Throughout the week he goes
from state to state naturally as the days unfold.

What then, is an unaltered state, could be a question.
Is there a state beyond which there are no more states.
Does a state of cosmic or, as the OP may state, Christ
consciousness exist. And can people who are or have
been diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses be
more near to such an ultimate state than so-called
others, like the average man in the street.

Is there a point to WILD beyond imagination?

>that what the OP originally said/suggested was indeed a generalisation,  
>but that doesn't detract from its content being interesting and/or  
>containing a facet of truth, and didn't deserve being slammed out of hand  
>(unnecessarily rudely i might add)

Agree.

>i mean, what gives you (or anyone come to that) the right to punch people  
>in the face for something they're saying or commenting on like that??  

Usenet newsgroups tend to grant such a right. Trolling,
flames and w'hat knots basically are par for the course.

>especially if what they're saying/suggesting has some merit to it!?  
>(merit, you've just agreed, would be nice)

Some people don't understand how social media 
may not be the best place to publish thoughts
in terms of going without what goes with
posting material in groups, especially 
unmoderated Usenet groups.

>no, it was done out of something 'other' than rational debate, it was done  
>out of cruelty and spite tinged with personal hatred and in my book that  
>kind of bs is bang out of order, especially when the OP is from my group  
>and is being attacked for what is ultimately a fairly intelligent  
>comment/observation (we deal in 'all' subjects here at alt.dreams  
>castaneda, everything in this world & beyond is part of life so no subject  
>is taboo, indeed one has to cover everything that is/exists or it's  
>clearly not complete)

Cross-posting may invite more comments.

- thanks! Cheers!