Re: Betrayel

On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:54:47 +0100, one <[email protected]> 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.

### - wasn't gonna bother continuing, the levels of abuse being such that  
there's just no point wasting any more energy/time on something that  
people can't (or wont) see... ignorance being a good enough excuse to  
explain their low order of behaviour towards the OP - who needs to know  
more!

a couple of harmless slaps, however, seems to have roused you from your  
slumber enough to maybe sit up and be sober for few minutes, awake enough  
to perhaps hear what i was 'originally' commenting on, and why...





> 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.

### - it was me who raised that very point here in regards to the OP's  
original comments no? so of course am interested, am the one who  
brought-up the whole subject to begin with, the points i was raising not  
being particularly easy to understand, or accept, i attempted to set the  
conversation going by raising the idea that 'everyone' is a perceptive  
being to varying degrees; from a brain dead moron (literally) to an  
enlightened being (not so literally because language fails beyond a  
particular point of reason/rationality to adequately describe such beings,  
an enlightened state not being something that can be pinned down/defined,  
it's beyond words/definitions...




> 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.

### - have no problem agreeing with that statement, people do indeed  
experience a constantly shifting series of states of awareness & being, a  
particular collection/grouping of such states (and coping with them on a  
daily basis) being considered the normal/average response by averagely  
developed people, euphemistically called being: 'normal' = average  
responses to standard criterion, being the mark of so-called  
normal/average people...




> What then, is an unaltered state, could be a question.

### - we've agreed that it doesn't exist literally, awareness is  
constantly shifting, but for the sake of argument/debate let's say that  
the 'unaltered' state, in this instance, is that which is considered to  
represent the normal average response of the average man in the street to  
standard criteria...




> Is there a state beyond which there are no more states.

### - good question! if i'd seen this somewhere else i'd have quickly  
picked-up on such a searching question the same way i picked-up on the  
OP's question...



> 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.

### - this being my original question!




> Is there a point to WILD beyond imagination?

### - WILDing is, technically speaking, only a cultivated tool/vehicle  
whereby alternate states of awareness can be soberly probed/explored to  
one's heart's content, which, unlike the use of psychoactive substances,  
isn't artificially produced from without via chemicals or whatever, thus  
you 'could' call it tripping without the drugs (an amusing description but  
in this case an accurate one)





>> 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.

### - that was indeed my only objection... that something of potential  
import was being passed over/discarded for all the wrong reasons... that  
out of all the countless exchanges that passes for conversation in these  
groups, occasionally, even randomly, someone hits an astute point right on  
the head whether they realise it or not, and in this instance, with the  
OP, that's precisely what i was suggesting... my not caring how they  
arrived at it or even the language used, what they were saying/suggesting  
might have actually been quite close to the mark if/when perhaps viewed in  
a slightly different context...




>> 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.

### - have been around long enough to understand all that heh, but it's  
not what i expect, practice, or go out looking for, and several times i  
thus tried to ignore it and to steer the conversation back to being  
on-topic... when it became a game to just simply thwart my efforts,  
however, i lost interest, whoever these people were they clearly felt  
qualified to rubbish such ideas out of hand and ride roughshod over them,  
but were apparently not qualified enough to actually discuss it, and who  
would ever want to argue/debate with such people? not moi...

that situation has since changed, however, and, after a couple of  
adjustments, here we are back again discussing the 'original' i think  
fairly interesting topic of awareness in the human family...




>> 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.

### - well even if it's pissing rain you still have to get to wherever you  
were going? thus one can expect to get wet along the way and shouldn't  
resent it or be surprised by it, shit happens, it's how you handle it that  
counts ;)





>> 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.

### - my comments were addressed to those rubbishing the OP's statements  
out of hand, people who knew what i was talking about because they were  
dismissive of it, or didn't know anything at all about it but who might be  
open to learning something because advanced knowledge always comes out of  
intelligent debate regardless of which side of the argument they adopt...

being right or wrong (pro or anti) in a debate is totally besides the  
point, the only requirement being that one argues well for one's adopted  
pov and the best argument wins the day... which isn't final because  
tomorrow an even better, more persuasive argument, will likely arise, and  
thus knowledge advances in small steps...