From: dicksilk@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 12:38:43 AM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
   > On 11/05/18 18:02, Richard Silk wrote:   
       
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > More gibberish.  I don't think you're fooling anyone.   
      
   Not intended to fool anyone, and not gibberish.  A moment only lasts as long   
   as one has reach to recover it, like a moving object, for instance.  One can   
   reach out to catch it, or miss it.  Reality changes the moment that 3rd OUT   
   turns into an error    
   leading to a home run for the opposing team.   
      
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > More gibberish.  I don't think you're fooling anyone.   
      
   Your mind appears to be cluttered with a LOT of "gibberish" lately.  You   
   really should see someone about that.   
      
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > Accusatory, perhaps, I'm calling you out on peddling dangerous nonsense,    
   > and I think I've made my point.   
      
   You've made your position clear -- however, proving a point is another matter,   
   entirely.  "Dangerous nonsense" is only your perception of what is actually   
   someone else's considered opinion.  I'm sure when Einstein suggested that   
   splitting the atom could    
   create a weapon of enormous power, his ideas would've been considered   
   "dangerous nonsense" by others less capable of comprehending his concept, and   
   even perhaps by some who *could.*   
      
   > > 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 :)   
   >    
   > Yes they are, and I note you're still avoiding any provision of proof.   
      
   You just accepted the existence of continua by agreeing that they're cool.    
   Proof was accepted within your agreement.  If you can't find it, I suggest   
   looking back through the discussions in order to find where you may have lost   
   it.   
      
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > This is a well-known phenomenon.  There is no reason to believe that    
   > it's the action of a (still undefined) higher self, nor that whatever    
   > process actually occurs would function during a dissociative experience    
   > - which is, after all, what we're concerned about.   
      
   Reason is what led Christopher Columbus to sail for India and (re-)discovered   
   North America.  His proofs were seriously wrong or grossly distorted.  He   
   thought the size of the Earth was smaller than it actually is.  Reasons and   
   proofs are nebulous, at    
   best.  If you're ever going to find "proof" or "reason" of the existence of   
   "higher self," you're going to have to find it within yourself.  No one can   
   *give* it to you.  I can spell it out, but you are still going to have to read   
   it, comprehend it, and    
   either accept or reject it for yourself.  Good luck! :)   
       
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > You're a little obsessed with semantics aren't you.     
   > I said "utter nonsense" because it's utter nonsense.    
   > Faulty brain chemistry cannot be cured by thinking happy thoughts.    
      
   False.  Meditation is shown in countless experiments to have a nearly   
   instantaneous change upon brain chemistry and brain wave function.   
      
   "Utter nonsense" means you (the reader) simply can't comprehend another's (the   
   writer's) thoughts.  Period.  The willingness to listen is the foundation of   
   understanding.   
      
   > > What if you were, in fact, looking at a Japanese hermaphrodite, or a   
   tranny?  The label of "Chinese woman" would be false.    
   >    
   > Irrelevant.   
      
   Why?  Because it proves your previous comments to be in error, or at least   
   seriously misguided?   
      
   > > One is as one thinks of others.   
   >    
   > Still nonsense.   
      
   Your comprehension problem is your own.  But let's try this one more time:   
      
   A criminal personality decides it would be a good idea to rob a bank, so he   
   robs a bank.  Where did the *idea* of a robbed bank come from?  Was it the   
   people who discovered the bank was robbed?  No!  It was from the mind of the   
   individual who decided to    
   rob the bank.  One is what one thinks of others, because what one thinks is   
   reality's source.  "Although My Reality begins with Me, I inherited My Reality   
   from My Father.  Such is My Reality."   
       
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)