XPost: alt.support.depression, alt.support.schizophrenia, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: being@apolka.sign   
      
   slider wrote:   
   > someone wrote:   
   >> % wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> everyone can be all or part of the total   
   >>   
   >> Moving the goal-posts, everyone   
   >> can do anything. Everyone is affected   
   >> by everything and when an example shows   
   >> how not everyone can nor does, then an other   
   >> example is given to suggest everyone would be if ...   
   >   
   >### - that wasn't at all my intension...   
      
   Hello.   
   Reminds me of a song.   
      
   >the debate commenced re 'insane'   
   >people possibly (or potentially) actually being nearer to an advanced   
   >state of being than ordinary/normal folks   
      
   Not sure about any, debate, going on.   
      
   >> Mirrors may affect everyone.   
   >> Then again, some are unable to see, to know.   
   >> They can't see and don't know their own reflection.   
   >   
   >## - have already agreed that is true: that people's level of advancement   
   >varies from not at all (commonly known as being normal) to that of a sage   
   >or baba-type and beyond.   
      
   Okay.   
      
   >> Logically speaking, presumptions, axioms and such   
   >> allow for a conclusion to be valid without being sound.   
   >> Logical fallacies are known by logicians to include a few.   
   >   
   >### - true... but neither of us in this instance are even interested in   
   >bringing such things into the debate as we've nothing personally to hide   
   >or to hide behind; we're looking for clarity on the subject not to obscure   
   >the issue, yes?   
      
   An issue taken was with using the word, everyone.   
      
   That, everyone, is affected by shrooms or acid,   
   other animals included. An idea being in terms of   
   having an experience of enlightenment as might   
   people who are diagnosed as having an illness.   
      
   Moving from having a mystical experience to,   
   any odd perceptual change, was a qualification,   
   along with, given a large enough quantity.   
      
   Whether mental illness is a prerequisite   
   was another theme, imo, which was why Tolle   
   and Chopra were mentioned as contrasting.   
      
   >> Epistemologically speaking, to know, without doubt,   
   >> everyone is or would be affected by a substance, a noun,   
   >> a thing, falls into a category of not being able to be.   
   >   
   >### - then 'Epistemologically' has to go out the window along with other   
   >words/terms that obfuscate/cloud the issue, let's not get lost in clever   
   >words & denial when the evidence is right before our eyes   
      
   What is before my eyes are words with meanings   
   that may differ from what is before your eyes.   
      
   To know, everyone, all animals, will be affected   
   by a substance, is a claim. It's a generality, imo,   
   and considered as a fallacy, generally speaking.   
   Sometimes a generality is called hasty.   
      
   Hyperbole can be a different rhetorical critter.   
      
   To qualify a statement, such as, all animals   
   with a functioning nervous system will, if they   
   happen to be alive, be affected by any substance,   
   is possible to make for example. And even if not alive,   
   their physical forms will still be affected. Period.   
      
   A drop of water will affect any thing.   
      
   >> Lots of people might insist, nouns exist.   
   >> Their definition of what existence is may vary.   
   >   
   >### - there's all kinds of reasons why some people might 'insist', but if   
   >they can't back-up their argument(s) with cogent reasonings but insist on   
   >sticking to them, then in reality they're only being evasive, and that   
   >raises the question why: as in are they being dishonest for example, or   
   >just don't know...   
      
   If science, mental illness, enlightenment, psycho-active chemicals   
   culture and such are the subject then, to say, everyone ...   
   sounds to me like either a false claim or hyperbole.   
      
   If accuracy is a question,   
   to say, many or most   
   would be better, imo.   
      
   Simply for the sake of discussion.   
   Taint easy being a grammarian.   
      
   >> A state attained or obtained by some people   
   >> may be called mystical, ecstatic, religious, etc.   
   >>   
   >> Not everyone who takes mushrooms has a mystical   
   >> or religious type of experience nor becomes a sage.   
   >>   
   >> That was a point being made, until, far from being   
   >> a sage, a statement was made about effects   
   >> that, ahem, everyone will experience.   
   >   
   >### - that is correct... the experience will vary depending on the   
   >personal evolution/state of mind of the participant, that's obvious... and   
   >as such it was stated that an educated/disciplined person will likely have   
   >a very different experience compared to someone less   
   >educated/disciplined...   
      
   Set and setting were also included, as at Marsh Chapel.   
   Not all who were given psilocybin had mystical experiences.   
   And even those who did have such types, theirs varied.   
      
   Not all mental phenomena are necessarily good,   
   either for an individual nor a society.   
      
   >e.g., aldous huxley, a famous doctor and writer of books like brave new   
   >world & doors of perception, took lsd many times and always had very   
   >eye-opening experiences, enough to log/write about them in his book doors   
   >of perception, his trained & disciplined mind allowing him to probe &   
   >explore those altered states of awareness without becoming terrified or   
   >losing his mind...   
      
   I don't know if he, always, had very eye-opening experiences.   
      
   >> Even in a set and setting predisposed to afford   
   >> such a type of experience, not all people will.   
   >> Some might have a horrible experience.   
   >   
   >### - also agreed... the fact remains, however, that everyone experienced   
   >'something'   
      
   Not sure what the point is at this point.   
      
   >> When a so-called, individual, is already at   
   >> an ecstatic state, to then presume a substance,   
   >> a mushroom or an acid, will have an effect   
   >> can be done, even though it does not.   
   >   
   >### - this is where we came unstuck... because clearly it DID affect him   
   >else how could he remark/observe that it gives people little siddhis?   
      
   Still not sure what the point is   
   in terms of mental illness, etc.   
      
   He also remarked, iirc, that God   
   came to a materialistic culture in the form of LSD   
   because that was how they could identify.   
      
   Many so-called delusional people might identify   
   with being God and, if they gain a following   
   draw the attention of an establishment.   
      
   Back in the daze of war before a generation transformed   
   there were generals who said they had to destroy   
   a village in order to save it.   
      
   Could God have arrived just in time   
   in the form of a window pane or   
   a dab of orange sunshine   
   micro-dot or blotter.   
      
   >the   
   >fact that he wasn't moved to have even greater experiences only being a   
   >testament to 'his' level of personal advancement, the remark 'little'   
   >suggesting he knows of something much greater and so wasn't that impressed   
   >by it... if it hadn't affected him at all he wouldn't have been able to   
   >discern what it did compared to what he knew   
      
   Reminds me of being in an ocean   
   and saying everyone is affected by water.   
      
   A minnow seeks answers and finds an old wise whale.   
   He asks the whale about the water and gives her a drop.   
   She says, it gives fish wetness. The minnow is happy.   
      
   >> Neem Karori Baba was reported to have been   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)