XPost: alt.support.depression, alt.support.schizophrenia, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: slider@anashram.com   
      
   On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:54:47 +0100, 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.   
      
   ### - 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...   
      
      
      
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)