Re: Betrayel

one wrote:
> 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!
> 
you type funny