Re: Betrayel

slider wrote:
> one wrote:

>> 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? 

Looks like it was. 

Christ, or cosmic, consciousness may help some people heal.

>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...

Sounds good.

>> 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...

A so-called normal average response 
of the average man in the street to a flag
that represents his nation state of mind 
may differ from a sports fan.

Stereotyping people might be what he does as well.

>> 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...

My first response cross-posted in this thread
was about mystical experiences, e.g. Marsh Chapel.

>> 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!

My objection was a simple point, everyone,
will not have a mystical experience. 

Why that got complicated is curious.

>> 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)

Techniques can and do work sometimes.

A feature of Taoism may be how 
they don't necessarily always work.

>>> 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...

What was being pointed out in the first few responses was
a type of counter-point to statements made and, this being
Usenet, there were no holds barred, as is not unusual.

Often that's how a conversation goes. 
A statement is made. A point is questioned.

If everyone always agreed there'd be little point
other than preaching to a choir sewing two speak.

>>> 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,  

I don't see any posts as being 
a game to just simply thwart your efforts.

Posters pointed out how what was being said
was not entirely accurate from the beginning
of the thread. Being rude and crude appears
to be a common mode of what occurs.

>however, i lost interest, whoever these people were they clearly felt  
>qualified to rubbish such ideas out of hand and ride roughshod over them,  

Sounds over-dramatic to me.

>but were apparently not qualified enough to actually discuss it, and who  
>would ever want to argue/debate with such people? not moi...

To want to argue/debate suggests what is about you
or what you can be about rather than discussing or
having a conversation, no matter how rude it gets.

Nedd, kami, %, David, liam et al can be fun
to converse with which reminds me of how to converse
might suggest an obverse type of a coin having sides.

Most if not all have at least four
and if an edge is one makes five.

>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...

Whether what is seen as mental illness might, at times,
be a door, a Way, to heal so-called others, a shaman may.

Such a Way reminds me of a tale in the Zhuangzi.

What would happen if, everyone, had Christ
or cosmic consciousness for example.

Would society crumble, nation states of mind vanish.
Imagine no religion, no money, and peace for a spell.

>>> 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 ;)

Back in the 90s, after arriving for the second time in Usenet,
what was going on, I thought, was very, very funny. Flames
and calling people names, as rude and crude as could be, etc.

Very refreshing!

>>> 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...

To argue can be fun.
To discuss without cussing as well.

>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...

When winners exist, losers exist
which sounds kinda like a game.

Accuracy is an other game that forms its elves.

- thanks again! Cheers!