From: dicksilk@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 8:35:52 AM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
   > On 12/05/18 16:42, Richard Silk wrote:   
   > >    
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > You claimed that any sentence of the form "You " is false.   
      
   This is absolutely correct.  I did claim such, and it is true.   
      
   > I proved that was nonsense,   
      
   Only to yourself -- which I've tried to impress upon you is nothing more than   
   an admission of your failure to comprehend.   
      
   > using the sentence "You exist", and the rest    
   > has been you flailing around, using definitions of words which are    
   > entirely your own and changing the subject, simply to avoid admitting    
   > that you were wrong.   
      
   I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken ;)    
      
   Again, rather than discuss a topical idea, your approach has been to attack   
   your opponent, with a bunch of false "you  ad hominem type attacks.    
   STOP focusing on "me" and START focusing on the IDEA(s) presented, and MAYBE   
   "we" can achieve a better    
   output.   
      
   > > Your mind appears to be cluttered with a LOT of "gibberish" lately.     
   >    
   > All yours.   
      
   Again, your failure to comprehend in no way invalidates my presentation of   
   (any) truth (or lack thereof.)  So far, everything I've presented remains   
   unchanged / unaffected by any of your ad hominem attacks.   
       
   > Suggesting that someone having an OBE could drive safely, is dangerous    
   > nonsense.   
      
   ...Only to one who fails to comprehend that OOBEs are intrinsically safe.    
   They occur at a "higher" level of consciousness, and as such, offer the   
   perspective of being able to see "beyond / over" the mountain top.   
       
   > > 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.   
      
   > It was never there.  The opinion that continua are cool does not prove    
   > anything.   
      
   Denying your own admittance is only evidence of your own denial.  Being in   
   denial is NOT the same as swimming in a river in Egypt.   
       
   > > 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! :)   
   >    
   > Still avoiding the issue, I note.   
      
   Um, no... not at all.  You asked for proof.  I'm presenting a methodology /   
   protocol whereby you may be able to accept the understanding of "higher self"   
   *or* reject it.  However, only by accepting the concept that a "higher self"   
   exists can one then    
   understand the definition and mechanism of an OOBE, and only then can one   
   understand that it is safe, even while driving a car.   
      
   > > False.  Meditation is shown in countless experiments to have a nearly   
   instantaneous change upon brain chemistry and brain wave function.   
   >    
   > Notable changes to brain-wave function, *during meditation*, slight    
   > improvement in neurochemistry and general health outwith meditation.   
   >    
   > None of the researchers I am aware of have *ever* dared to even imply    
   > that meditation was a cure for "all personality disorders".   
      
   The beginning of any journey of any length begins with its first breath.   
      
   > > "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.   
   >    
   > No, I understand, and am entirely confident that you are wrong.   
      
   "You " is *always* false.  ***If it helps*** think of life as a binary   
   condition:  something either is (="1") or is not (="0.")  As long as "I am"=1,   
   "you are"=0, because "you are" is NOT equal to "I am" -- ergo, "you are" is   
   ALWAYS false.   
      
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > The issue was whether "[one] is what one thinks of others".  If I am    
   > looking at a person who I believe to be a Chinese woman, I do not become    
   > a Chinese woman.  Nor do I become a Japanese hermaphrodite, nor a    
   > "tranny".   
      
   PERHAPS I over-simplified my explanation.  Try this:   
      
   To be specific, if "one is" the person thinking another person is a Chinese   
   woman, then "one is one thinking of a Chinese woman."  One is what one thinks   
   of others.  This does not mean "one = others" (because that's a false   
   statement.)   
      
   > > 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."   
   >    
   > What you think of as "logical" thought processes leave a great deal to    
   > be desired.   
      
   I'll accept that (as other teachers have often written on my papers, "did not   
   show your work") sometimes my logic may escape the minds of others.   
      
   > That chain of reasoning is so flawed as to be worthless.   
      
   And yet, the answers I wrote on my math tests, of my own calculations, without   
   relying upon any others for the answers, were almost *always* correct,   
   regardless of whether or not I managed or failed to "show my work."   
      
   > >> So now you're agreeing that opinions *are* relevant.  Progress of a sort.   
   > >    
   > > That depends entirely upon at which level one exists:  does one consider   
   opinions relevant, or irrelevant?  It all begins with the individual.   
   >    
   > No, you just admitted that the opinions of the jurors matters.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)