From: dicksilk@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 3:03:03 AM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
   > On 10/05/18 00:07, Richard Silk wrote:   
   > > On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
   > >> On 09/05/18 16:16, Richard Silk wrote:   
   > >>>    
      
   > Gibberish.  You clearly exist at the time at which you are reading this text.   
      
   Can one freeze a moment beyond its own Planck unit?  "You exist" is false,   
   while "You existed" is reasonably true.  "One exists" is reasonably true,   
   while "I am" is *always* true.   
       
      
   > > You wrote a response.  Your higher self (mind) directed your lower self   
   (body) to comply, et voilà!   
   >    
   > So how does "higher self" differ from normal consciousness, the "me"    
   > which wrote the response?   
      
   Higher self is that which imagines itself, and yet is unlimited by any   
   boundary of imagination.  It is like the genie *apart from* the bottle.  The   
   lower self is like the bottle / vessel / body which the higher self directs.    
   Still, they are both "one,"    
   even though one is infinite and the other is finite.   
      
      
      
   > > While I welcome your genuine questions regarding OOBEs / astral body   
   projections, and even to some extent your skepticism, this is not a group for   
   troll posting, but rather for people who have genuine interest in the subject   
   matter.   
   >    
   > So now you're claiming I don't?   
   > Look at my previous posting history here.   
      
   I'm presenting the opinion that your approach seems more accusatory and of   
   denial than anything else.  I don't focus to the point of dwelling on the   
   past.  The present is far too real and the future is always imminently here.    
   Meanwhile, I'm beginning to    
   feel we may have beat this *particular* subject to the point of a dead horse.   
      
   > >> Claimed without proof.   
   > >    
   > > What, exactly, do you wish proof *of*?  Proof of mind?  Try this:  put a   
   bullet through your brain, and see if you can still post a reply.   
   >    
   > Proof that there is a "higher self", which isn't just a [relabeling] by    
   > you, of normal consciousness.   
      
   If one accepts that consciousness exists, what difference does it make how one   
   labels it?  There is *clearly* a continuum, and a point at which, when above,   
   consciousness is self-aware, and which at a point below, it isn't.  While   
   sleeping, I have    
   periods during which I'm not aware of anything, aware that I'm dreaming, or   
   later aware that I have been dreaming.  Continua are cool :)   
      
   > >>> The physical body still drives the car.  It's what the lower body is   
   trained to do.  The mind has sufficient resources to take a "quick trip" but   
   only when it judges the "safe path" actually exists.   
   > >>   
   > >> So *you* say.   
   > >    
   > > Are you here to cast aspersions, or to gain understanding?  If you have no   
   desire to understand, you're clearly wasting your time.  There are far better   
   places (with MUCH larger audiences) to troll your skepticism elsewhere.   
   >    
   > I'm here to ask you to explain yourself, not an unreasonable request of    
   > someone who claims to have answers.   
      
   Having delivered pizzas for over 20 years, I can reasonably say I'm fully   
   experienced with the process of casting one's mind forward to envision a   
   scenario while the body is *practically* autonomously driving the vehicle.  I   
   was *constantly* asking    
   myself: "How did I just do that?" and "How did I get here?" -- Patterns can   
   become so ingrained that even the most complex routes can be driven nearly   
   blindfolded, although I was never stupid enough to try such a thing.  I   
   *believe* I was training myself    
   to take snapshots of the road ahead, laying those "snapshots" into that part   
   of my brain that controlled the driving, while the rest of me consulted   
   address, delivery time, calculated other deliveries, best approach and   
   departure, potential change, tips,    
   etc.  After having made a few of these calculations, I then returned to take   
   another set of snapshots of the path ahead.  Only if another vehicle was   
   approaching, or the weather was *exceptionally* fierce, did I focus more   
   intently upon the road.   
      
   > >>> Your failure to understand is not my responsibility.  Loving one's   
   enemies is not wishful thinking:  it's an actual action with consequences,   
   with direction and purpose.   
   > >>   
   > >> Let's clear this up, are you actually claiming that "loving one's   
   > >> enemies" is a cure for any form of personality disorder?   
   > >    
   > > If / when properly used, yes.   
   >    
   > Utter nonsense.   
      
   That phrase, "utter nonsense," only indicates one has failed to attain the   
   level required for understanding, or indeed, failed to obtain it altogether.    
   Astronomers failed to understand heliocentrism and labeled it "utter nonsense"   
   until Newton finally    
   proved with calculus how it was true.  Even then, it took until Einstein to   
   figure out that spacetime is curved, and was able to accurately calculate the   
   orbit of Mercury.   
      
   Try it this way:  Imagine yourself (oneself) as the positive tip-end of a   
   simple, standard, AA battery.  All one emits are positive electrons.    
   Everything else is a negative condition.  When one is in the position of   
   positive truth (love) all else is    
   false hatred.  Practice that for a few days, and let me know what you've   
   observed as a result.   
        
   > >>> That's *your opinion.*  What one may consider "ill-considered," another   
   may have actually thought through with careful reasoning, analysis, and   
   deduction.  One is not what others think of one.  One is what one thinks of   
   others.   
      
   > > Who is it that emanates the "idea" of "woman", or "Chinese"?  Would the   
   Chinese woman exist if you were not thinking of her?   
   >    
   > Of course she would.   
      
   What if you were, in fact, looking at a Japanese hermaphrodite, or a tranny?    
   The label of "Chinese woman" would be false.  One is as one thinks of others.   
      
   If one hates Japanese hermaphrodites with a passion, one is passionately   
   hateful.  That does NOT make the Japhrodite passionately hateful.  One is what   
   one thinks of others.  At the core of what *most* people most often think of   
   others is the concept of "   
   different," therefore, others are "different" rather than "same."   
      
   > > To be clear:  if one thinks "you are an idiot" *then one is* the person   
   *thinking* the concept of idiocy.     
   >    
   > Which is, obviously, not the same as being that concept.   
      
   Example:  If I think "You are an idiot" then I am the idiot for thinking that.   
      
   > If I think of a cat, I don't *become* a cat, I'm just thinking of one.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)