From: dicksilk@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 2:28:25 AM UTC-5, David Mitchell wrote:   
   > On 13/05/18 23:07, Richard Silk wrote:   
   > >>>    
   > >> 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. >   
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > No, the case is proven by the phrase "You exist" which is undeniably    
   > true, to the extent that you had to resort to gibberish to try to    
   > disprove it.   
      
   False:  "you exist" is at *best* undefined.  "You existed" is correct.  "You   
   exist" is unproven.  You could be dead for all I know.  The moment of time in   
   which "you exist" is already gone, as the Eternal Now is not only infinite but   
   finite as well.  "   
   You is finished."   
         
   > > ...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.   
   >    
   > Which you have repeatedly stated, and failed to prove.   
      
   An assertion is an assertion, and exists as such until successfully defeated:    
   my assertion remains as firm as a steel sword.   
       
      
   > If you think otherwise, provide a logical argument which proves that,    
   > based on what I said.   
      
   I'm not going that damned far in reverse.  Moving on.   
      
   > > 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.   
   >    
   > Still avoiding the issue.  Still making assertions without any shred of    
   > proof.   
      
   To re-state your issue (as I understand it): "OOBEs while driving is unsafe"   
      
   I've not avoided it whatsoever.  OOBEs are intrinsically safe.  Driving   
   *period* is unsafe, by comparison.  In THAT regard, doing *anything* while   
   driving (including "living") is unsafe by association, I'll concede that point   
   as logically true (safe    
   OOBEs (1) and unsafe driving (1) = 1.  1 AND 1=1.  Safe and unsafe = unsafe.    
   1 and 0 = 0.)   
      
   Of course, if one wishes to debate the safety of OOBEs in the light of astral   
   combat, then one needs to go into a *much* deeper discussion regarding astral   
   combat, and THAT would be grounds for a whole new post / topic.   
      
   However, OOBEs while driving may actually make driving safer, as the higher   
   self is helping guide the vehicle.  I realize that's a slightly different   
   premise, so if you'd like to hash that one out, go for it.   
      
   > > The beginning of any journey of any length begins with its first breath.   
   >    
   > More fake profundity.   
      
   Whether it's truly profound, or falsely profound, it is still nonetheless   
   truth.   
      
   > You may as well argue that because I can jump a foot into the air, I can    
   > jump to the moon.   
      
   In a zero-gravity environment, that *is* true.  However, as we are *not* in a   
   zero-gravity environment (or, are you presently in orbit?) then it's *not*   
   true.   
      
   > Thinking happy thoughts will not cure all forms of personality disorder.   
       
   I suppose there *may* be fundamentally happy psychos in the world.  Can you   
   cite any to support your claim?  If psychoses resulted in people being happy,   
   the entire world population would be psychotic by now.  Of course, Muslims   
   already are psychotic,    
   but they're *typically* full of hatred for non-Muslims.  Genocidally so, in   
   fact.   
      
   > > "You " is *always* false.   
   >    
   > Demonstrably untrue.   
      
   If the understood subject of your above statement is "I am" "Demonstrably   
   untrue" then that would be true.   
      
   If the understood subject of your above statement is "You are" "Demonstrably   
   untrue" then that would be false.   
      
   If the understood subject of your above statement is "Your thought is"   
   "Demonstrably untrue" then that would be also be false, as we've already   
   covered previously.   
       
   > > 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.)   
       
   > Then why did you repeatedly make it?   
      
   Your failure to comprehend is beyond my limits regarding the exercise of free   
   will.  One is what one thinks of others.  One is not "others", as one is one.   
      
   > > 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."   
   >    
   > Not correct in this case - not even a valid form of reasoning.   
      
   No one ever said your reasoning (or lack thereof) has to be an identical match   
   with my own.  I am *nearly always* internally correct, although there is some   
   *slight* wiggle room for directional change.  If external opinion differs, it   
   is certainly free    
   to do so, but even attempting to say "you are wrong" is a false, ad hominem   
   attack.   
      
   > > We are discussing "truth" -- when a jury of 12 members sentence an   
   innocent man to death, truth is not being served, therefore, others do not   
   define "truth" -- they either recognize it, or fail to recognize it.  The   
   Truth (that someone else killed    
   another person) has not been changed one iota.   
   >    
   > No we aren't, we're discussing opinions, and their relevance.   
      
   Without backtracking:   
      
   Opinions and their relevance are not necessarily truth, although opinions and   
   relevance truly exist.  (False truly exists, ironically, even though that   
   which is false does not truly exist.)   
      
   > >> Don't be so modest, this is Grade A BS.   
   > >    
   > > At least quality is recognized √  :)  But what is light, if not the   
   fruit of darkness?  What is darkness, if not the womb of light?  What is plant   
   life other than life from high grade manure?  BS contains LOTS of truth --   
   it's up to the squirrel to    
   ferret out the golden kernels of life-sustaining corn from the field of death.   
   >    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)