11-26-2005, 12:00 AM
"frothing bubbling babbling 'self' debate"
"Why dont you reread that whole section you wrote and ask yourself who is talking?"
why dont YOU ? then you might notice that I wrote all that as a scenario of what "COULD" happen "IF" one had a flyer. as-a-hypothetical-case. not as a statement of what is actually happening or has happened in either you or me. "IF" that "babbling" were taking place then it would be the flyer.
OR are you trying to suggest that only a FI would give a hypothetical example of how things might be if one was under the influence of a FI? that would mean we could not talk about this topic at all. That would be just Dumb!
--------------------------------
"Not even one little cavil? Im very relieved to hear that. So in foisting your true mind on your F.I., or in completely consuming it with your own essence, youre satisfied just to be itsummaster?"
No! not even a teensy-weensy cavil LOL. .: when you do it the FI ceases to EXIST! (in you) - and that is not a master-slave relationship..... although when you stop, it returns. that's why I said I did not put it forward as a solution.
*************
by analogy: ( for crocco too )
if you blow up a balloon and regard all the region of space inside the balloon as "Balloon" and press your finger into the side of it, then your finger now occupies some space, of what was formerly, "Balloon". your finger is a "Foreign Installation" to the balloon.
(though your finger is not foreign to itself)
If the balloon now expands again, "converting" the region of what was formerly "Foreign"(finger) into more "Balloon", it regains its proper shape and in no way can the balloon be construed as wanting or having a master-slave relationship with your finger! - yet "Balloonness" has been "given" to that "region" of space that was all "Finger"- there is no part of that region that is now not "Balloon"
your finger will, however, continue to exist, and can poke into the balloon again as soon as the pressure inside the balloon drops a bit again (or the finger can push a little harder- which, producing a similar visual effect, could easily be misconstrued as being the same thing, to the casual observer)
all until the balloon gets a hard outer coat that's just no fun to poke anymore.!
no "master-slave thing " it just wants to be a happy little balloon being the proper shape it was meant to be.
*************
you could argue that it is precisely the return of the flyer that "causes" me to stop (the experiment). That would imply that the flyer was in fact "stronger" than my experimental action, which would FURTHER imply therefore that it WILLINGLY retreated in the face of it in the first place SO AS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION that it was my action that "made" it (the FI) (temporarily) dissappear.
I could not know whether or not that was the case unless I knew the difference between my mind and the FI. And I do know this difference
perhaps it is because you don't know your own mind (because your FI has you so hopelessly caught) that you find it difficult to accept that anyone else can know THEIR own mind.
When you get rid of YOUR FI, Toltechie, you'll just KNOW the difference!
HOW do I know when it's my true mind?
well , you know when you're dreaming ( the ordinary kind, not the lucid or sorcery kind ) and you don't know you're dreaming, but when you wake up in the morning you DO KNOW that you're awake and that it WAS a dream?
well its THAT KIND OF DIFFERENCE IN AWARENESS that lets you know when you're NOT under the influence of the FI.
and when you ARE under its influence, you too Toltechie are just as f*&ked as the rest of us!
and NO the FI's influence is NOT continuous.
--------------------
"My humble opinion is that ones mind isnt something that can be invaded much less can it be converted into the mind of another entity. Manipulated, yes. The thoughts can indeed be lead as you have well illustrated in your cake story."
when one has been "Manipulated" into thinking 'foreign' thoughts by a 'Foreign Installation'
I described that as "invaded" (just different terminology - one's "mind" isn't a "spatial" "object" occupying "volume" so neither can it be "Manipulated" like a physical object, so in my "humble" opinion one's mind cannot be "manipulated" either)
and people have been known to have been "converted", say, into "muslims" or "christians" and other arbitrary "isms".
-----------------------
my argument doesn't show "how my predator is able to blur my clarifications to be meaningless."
re: [it *could* be the case]
(that ".. it is baiting [me] into considering an ongoing relationship with it.")
it COULD be" in the sense that
(1) " it COULD be.. IF I had a flyer"
NOT
"it COULD be " in the sense that
(2) "it could be ... but-i-dont-know-whether-it-is-or-is-not-the-case-(that it might be the FI's subtle doings)"
sense (1) does not logically necessarily imply that a FI is present
whereas
sense (2) does! because if FI were absent I would just KNOW it! And (2) could not logically be true.(*see above)
I meant (1) , in the sense that "for all you know " it "could" be the case. However I KNOW that it isnt.
further..
"baiting someone into considering an ongoing relationship" is ambiguous:
it could mean;
(3) baiting someone into considering "entering into an" ongoing relationship
OR
(4) baiting someone into considering "maintaining an" ongoing relationship that is already in place
I was merely pointing out, by my use of "..I already had* that..." [in a) of my last post] that the FI would not be doing (3).
and that "..already had*.." implies that IF EITHER (3) or (4) were correct, the usage of the word "could" could only be refering to a (4)-type structure. which precision cannot be applied until the ambiguity in your statement is made explicit so as to render (3) and (4) in the first place.
my argument doesn't show how my predator is able to blur my clarifications to be meaningless;
on the contrary
it shows how YOUR preditor is able to blur your meaning [(3)or(4)?] to be subtlely ambiguous and
prevent you from noticing your sentence's semantic ambiguity by deletion.
And furthermore, once you DO notice it, Your FI will, if you let it, trivialize this "unimportant" difference in meaning, it is "hair-splitting", "profitless", "not-worth-paying-attention-to".
But it is precisely in these types of fine differences , these "hairline cracks" that the FI uses to leverage us.
"from small acorns, giant oak trees grow" and "a small leak can sink a battleship" etc.
If you want to know WHY the FI is SO much more proficient than us (initially) at this battle, its because we tend to couch our thoughts in words whereas the FI is not thusly hampered: it knows and works with meaning directly. Meanings which we couch in our own native languages: French, Greman, etc.
We have language barriers, the flyers do not.
But we can do this too.
its the difference between moving the assemblage point with Ritual and incantation and moving it directly by wordless INTENT.
The fact that you yourself did not notice this ambiguity in your reply was probably due to YOUR FI deliberately blurring your thinking to convince you that my statements are all due to a FI, thereby making it less likely that you will consider them from any point of view other than
"your own " (which is really your FI's point of view- which you are defending vigourously - remember your FI is very subtle)
-------------------------------------------------------
I suggested the term "bargaining" as a better alternative to "baiting", because it better represents the hypothetical situation under discussion.
"baiting" is something you do to lure something INTO a trap
"bargaining" is more like what you do when you're ALREADY IN a trap and the trapper comes along.
and with regard to the FI:
"baiting" is something it might do TO GAIN a hold over us.
"bargaining" is something it might do to get us to allow it TO STAY.
"Soyou bought the bargain instead of taking the bait? Well, thats completely different"
I did neither:
Your post:
" I think it much more likely and in fact very beneficial and educational to us all, to observe how your flyer has revealed a very subtle and divisive strategy."
you seem to be clinging to the assumption (as true) that it is my FI that speaks, and doing all your interpreting so as to conform to that assumption. Obviously you may do so if you wish, but even you must concede, that my ability to sense my own mind outranks your ability to claim that it is not my true mind that speaks. Though you may not want to admit that since it would mean that it is quite possible that you are, quite simply, wrong!
your use of the term "observe how... " linguistically presupposes everything that follows it, in particular that it "is" "my flyer" that is using this "strategy"
I think we could all learn from your FI's subtle use of NLP techniques to presuppose whatever it is that it doesn't want questioned.
but it IS so WONDEFULLY "beneficial and educational" to "observe how" your flyer has skillfully used language and twisted it to make it seem that what I originally proposed was in fact the machinations of a flyer, of which I am a hapless victim, and not in fact the free choice of a free being.
also notice how your Flyer continues to side with you (same old strategy) by holding up "Freedom" as a worthy goal and yet sabotaging all your attempts in that direction by labelling all freedom as illusory.[while swearing blindly that "we must be dedicated and have unbending intent toward freedom"]
and by passing on such "self-sabotaging" thought patterns would also have everyone else enclose themselves in a prison of their own making! get lost!
i.e. when you finally get free of your flyer, how will you know that its not just your FI making you falsely think that you're free so as to have you even more cosily enslaved?
----------------------------------------
here's a question:
after you have set up dreaming ( or indeed while you are lucid dreaming) where is the FI's influence then huh? huh? where?
----------------------------------------------------------
"By playing the part of the one who would deliciously accept such an agreement, it is baiting you and us to form an agreement with it."
S1:="It would in effect entail my True mind's being instantly overrun once again by the Flyer"
"Study this last phrase carefully. It is a good example of the FIs skillful use of words to create powerful subliminal suggestions. NLP most expertly applied!"
2 questions:
A) what "agreement" do you think MY flyer (presupposition) is trying to get YOU (Toltechie) to form with it? precisely?
B) could you parse, deconstruct and analyse sentence S1 for me. I don't see any "powerful subliminal suggestions" therein. Take S1 apart with a fine comb and explain its expert use of NLP
*** That would be REALLY helpful to all of us. ***
-------------------------------------------------------
Do you really think that a FI could not tell you the EXACT opposite of what it IN FACT wanted you to agree TO?
And would "disagreeing" with the FI therefore be a path to freedom? (I dont think so)
there are two usages of the word "agreement" here:
one is A1:
"agreement" as to the truth or falsity of various statements (which may or may not be the FI's )
and the other is A2:
the "agreement" to let the FI IN in the first place! it is this latter type which we must undo and unconditionally disagree with. (different type from A1)
however, if you unconditionally and unthinkingly disagree with all A1 (on the grounds, for example, that it as a FI which utters them), the FI can just play polarities (better than you?) and "reversedly" walk you right back into A2.
---------------------------------
"You are treating the flyer as if it is some alienated complex of your psyche which you can just reclaim as yourself."
And you are treating it as if it isnt!; - every thought that you have, every feeling that you feel is an event or process within your own psyche.- regardless of its "origin".
"I cant help speculating, however, that what is in parentheses is in reality a special message form your predator to mine"
You speculate this crazy type of "special communication" because it is in conformity with your assumption that I am ruled by my preditor and that therefore everything I say to you is in fact coming from my preditor and must be "dissagreed" with because "agreements" with the preditor are dangerous.
maybe you'll be wearing the tinfoil helmet next to prevent my preditor from sending mind-control rays into your head !
I would say "listen to what your preditor is telling you" but you'd probably say that that was a command from my preditor for you to acquiess to yours.
so I could say: "don't listen to your preditor" but you'd probably say that that was a hypnotic command given in the negative for the same purpose .
I could frame it "positively" and say: " listen to me" but you'd say that it was only my predator talking.
you, in complete unwitting obedience to your predator, are interpreting everything I say to conform to what you already have accepted from your predator.
Your predator has tricked you into thinking that you are battling to get rid of your predator. Whereas "your" actions against it are really its actions, and they have no more chance of getting rid of your preditor that howling at the moon!
In response to this your predator will make you think that THAT was just my predator, so as to reinforce your belief that the actions you take are yours and that your predator is not directing either your acts or your interpretations.
a warrior takes responsibility for himself. "nobody is doing anything to anyone"- Don Juan.
take full responsibility for your own mind Toltechie.
To Freedom!
"Why dont you reread that whole section you wrote and ask yourself who is talking?"
why dont YOU ? then you might notice that I wrote all that as a scenario of what "COULD" happen "IF" one had a flyer. as-a-hypothetical-case. not as a statement of what is actually happening or has happened in either you or me. "IF" that "babbling" were taking place then it would be the flyer.
OR are you trying to suggest that only a FI would give a hypothetical example of how things might be if one was under the influence of a FI? that would mean we could not talk about this topic at all. That would be just Dumb!
--------------------------------
"Not even one little cavil? Im very relieved to hear that. So in foisting your true mind on your F.I., or in completely consuming it with your own essence, youre satisfied just to be itsummaster?"
No! not even a teensy-weensy cavil LOL. .: when you do it the FI ceases to EXIST! (in you) - and that is not a master-slave relationship..... although when you stop, it returns. that's why I said I did not put it forward as a solution.
*************
by analogy: ( for crocco too )
if you blow up a balloon and regard all the region of space inside the balloon as "Balloon" and press your finger into the side of it, then your finger now occupies some space, of what was formerly, "Balloon". your finger is a "Foreign Installation" to the balloon.
(though your finger is not foreign to itself)
If the balloon now expands again, "converting" the region of what was formerly "Foreign"(finger) into more "Balloon", it regains its proper shape and in no way can the balloon be construed as wanting or having a master-slave relationship with your finger! - yet "Balloonness" has been "given" to that "region" of space that was all "Finger"- there is no part of that region that is now not "Balloon"
your finger will, however, continue to exist, and can poke into the balloon again as soon as the pressure inside the balloon drops a bit again (or the finger can push a little harder- which, producing a similar visual effect, could easily be misconstrued as being the same thing, to the casual observer)
all until the balloon gets a hard outer coat that's just no fun to poke anymore.!
no "master-slave thing " it just wants to be a happy little balloon being the proper shape it was meant to be.
*************
you could argue that it is precisely the return of the flyer that "causes" me to stop (the experiment). That would imply that the flyer was in fact "stronger" than my experimental action, which would FURTHER imply therefore that it WILLINGLY retreated in the face of it in the first place SO AS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION that it was my action that "made" it (the FI) (temporarily) dissappear.
I could not know whether or not that was the case unless I knew the difference between my mind and the FI. And I do know this difference
perhaps it is because you don't know your own mind (because your FI has you so hopelessly caught) that you find it difficult to accept that anyone else can know THEIR own mind.
When you get rid of YOUR FI, Toltechie, you'll just KNOW the difference!
HOW do I know when it's my true mind?
well , you know when you're dreaming ( the ordinary kind, not the lucid or sorcery kind ) and you don't know you're dreaming, but when you wake up in the morning you DO KNOW that you're awake and that it WAS a dream?
well its THAT KIND OF DIFFERENCE IN AWARENESS that lets you know when you're NOT under the influence of the FI.
and when you ARE under its influence, you too Toltechie are just as f*&ked as the rest of us!
and NO the FI's influence is NOT continuous.
--------------------
"My humble opinion is that ones mind isnt something that can be invaded much less can it be converted into the mind of another entity. Manipulated, yes. The thoughts can indeed be lead as you have well illustrated in your cake story."
when one has been "Manipulated" into thinking 'foreign' thoughts by a 'Foreign Installation'
I described that as "invaded" (just different terminology - one's "mind" isn't a "spatial" "object" occupying "volume" so neither can it be "Manipulated" like a physical object, so in my "humble" opinion one's mind cannot be "manipulated" either)
and people have been known to have been "converted", say, into "muslims" or "christians" and other arbitrary "isms".
-----------------------
my argument doesn't show "how my predator is able to blur my clarifications to be meaningless."
re: [it *could* be the case]
(that ".. it is baiting [me] into considering an ongoing relationship with it.")
it COULD be" in the sense that
(1) " it COULD be.. IF I had a flyer"
NOT
"it COULD be " in the sense that
(2) "it could be ... but-i-dont-know-whether-it-is-or-is-not-the-case-(that it might be the FI's subtle doings)"
sense (1) does not logically necessarily imply that a FI is present
whereas
sense (2) does! because if FI were absent I would just KNOW it! And (2) could not logically be true.(*see above)
I meant (1) , in the sense that "for all you know " it "could" be the case. However I KNOW that it isnt.
further..
"baiting someone into considering an ongoing relationship" is ambiguous:
it could mean;
(3) baiting someone into considering "entering into an" ongoing relationship
OR
(4) baiting someone into considering "maintaining an" ongoing relationship that is already in place
I was merely pointing out, by my use of "..I already had* that..." [in a) of my last post] that the FI would not be doing (3).
and that "..already had*.." implies that IF EITHER (3) or (4) were correct, the usage of the word "could" could only be refering to a (4)-type structure. which precision cannot be applied until the ambiguity in your statement is made explicit so as to render (3) and (4) in the first place.
my argument doesn't show how my predator is able to blur my clarifications to be meaningless;
on the contrary
it shows how YOUR preditor is able to blur your meaning [(3)or(4)?] to be subtlely ambiguous and
prevent you from noticing your sentence's semantic ambiguity by deletion.
And furthermore, once you DO notice it, Your FI will, if you let it, trivialize this "unimportant" difference in meaning, it is "hair-splitting", "profitless", "not-worth-paying-attention-to".
But it is precisely in these types of fine differences , these "hairline cracks" that the FI uses to leverage us.
"from small acorns, giant oak trees grow" and "a small leak can sink a battleship" etc.
If you want to know WHY the FI is SO much more proficient than us (initially) at this battle, its because we tend to couch our thoughts in words whereas the FI is not thusly hampered: it knows and works with meaning directly. Meanings which we couch in our own native languages: French, Greman, etc.
We have language barriers, the flyers do not.
But we can do this too.
its the difference between moving the assemblage point with Ritual and incantation and moving it directly by wordless INTENT.
The fact that you yourself did not notice this ambiguity in your reply was probably due to YOUR FI deliberately blurring your thinking to convince you that my statements are all due to a FI, thereby making it less likely that you will consider them from any point of view other than
"your own " (which is really your FI's point of view- which you are defending vigourously - remember your FI is very subtle)
-------------------------------------------------------
I suggested the term "bargaining" as a better alternative to "baiting", because it better represents the hypothetical situation under discussion.
"baiting" is something you do to lure something INTO a trap
"bargaining" is more like what you do when you're ALREADY IN a trap and the trapper comes along.
and with regard to the FI:
"baiting" is something it might do TO GAIN a hold over us.
"bargaining" is something it might do to get us to allow it TO STAY.
"Soyou bought the bargain instead of taking the bait? Well, thats completely different"
I did neither:
Your post:
" I think it much more likely and in fact very beneficial and educational to us all, to observe how your flyer has revealed a very subtle and divisive strategy."
you seem to be clinging to the assumption (as true) that it is my FI that speaks, and doing all your interpreting so as to conform to that assumption. Obviously you may do so if you wish, but even you must concede, that my ability to sense my own mind outranks your ability to claim that it is not my true mind that speaks. Though you may not want to admit that since it would mean that it is quite possible that you are, quite simply, wrong!
your use of the term "observe how... " linguistically presupposes everything that follows it, in particular that it "is" "my flyer" that is using this "strategy"
I think we could all learn from your FI's subtle use of NLP techniques to presuppose whatever it is that it doesn't want questioned.
but it IS so WONDEFULLY "beneficial and educational" to "observe how" your flyer has skillfully used language and twisted it to make it seem that what I originally proposed was in fact the machinations of a flyer, of which I am a hapless victim, and not in fact the free choice of a free being.
also notice how your Flyer continues to side with you (same old strategy) by holding up "Freedom" as a worthy goal and yet sabotaging all your attempts in that direction by labelling all freedom as illusory.[while swearing blindly that "we must be dedicated and have unbending intent toward freedom"]
and by passing on such "self-sabotaging" thought patterns would also have everyone else enclose themselves in a prison of their own making! get lost!
i.e. when you finally get free of your flyer, how will you know that its not just your FI making you falsely think that you're free so as to have you even more cosily enslaved?
----------------------------------------
here's a question:
after you have set up dreaming ( or indeed while you are lucid dreaming) where is the FI's influence then huh? huh? where?
----------------------------------------------------------
"By playing the part of the one who would deliciously accept such an agreement, it is baiting you and us to form an agreement with it."
S1:="It would in effect entail my True mind's being instantly overrun once again by the Flyer"
"Study this last phrase carefully. It is a good example of the FIs skillful use of words to create powerful subliminal suggestions. NLP most expertly applied!"
2 questions:
A) what "agreement" do you think MY flyer (presupposition) is trying to get YOU (Toltechie) to form with it? precisely?
B) could you parse, deconstruct and analyse sentence S1 for me. I don't see any "powerful subliminal suggestions" therein. Take S1 apart with a fine comb and explain its expert use of NLP
*** That would be REALLY helpful to all of us. ***
-------------------------------------------------------
Do you really think that a FI could not tell you the EXACT opposite of what it IN FACT wanted you to agree TO?
And would "disagreeing" with the FI therefore be a path to freedom? (I dont think so)
there are two usages of the word "agreement" here:
one is A1:
"agreement" as to the truth or falsity of various statements (which may or may not be the FI's )
and the other is A2:
the "agreement" to let the FI IN in the first place! it is this latter type which we must undo and unconditionally disagree with. (different type from A1)
however, if you unconditionally and unthinkingly disagree with all A1 (on the grounds, for example, that it as a FI which utters them), the FI can just play polarities (better than you?) and "reversedly" walk you right back into A2.
---------------------------------
"You are treating the flyer as if it is some alienated complex of your psyche which you can just reclaim as yourself."
And you are treating it as if it isnt!; - every thought that you have, every feeling that you feel is an event or process within your own psyche.- regardless of its "origin".
"I cant help speculating, however, that what is in parentheses is in reality a special message form your predator to mine"
You speculate this crazy type of "special communication" because it is in conformity with your assumption that I am ruled by my preditor and that therefore everything I say to you is in fact coming from my preditor and must be "dissagreed" with because "agreements" with the preditor are dangerous.
maybe you'll be wearing the tinfoil helmet next to prevent my preditor from sending mind-control rays into your head !
I would say "listen to what your preditor is telling you" but you'd probably say that that was a command from my preditor for you to acquiess to yours.
so I could say: "don't listen to your preditor" but you'd probably say that that was a hypnotic command given in the negative for the same purpose .
I could frame it "positively" and say: " listen to me" but you'd say that it was only my predator talking.
you, in complete unwitting obedience to your predator, are interpreting everything I say to conform to what you already have accepted from your predator.
Your predator has tricked you into thinking that you are battling to get rid of your predator. Whereas "your" actions against it are really its actions, and they have no more chance of getting rid of your preditor that howling at the moon!
In response to this your predator will make you think that THAT was just my predator, so as to reinforce your belief that the actions you take are yours and that your predator is not directing either your acts or your interpretations.
a warrior takes responsibility for himself. "nobody is doing anything to anyone"- Don Juan.
take full responsibility for your own mind Toltechie.
To Freedom!