reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
No need to leave anybody alone, and your search of "balance" is appreciated.
There are, however, a few instances where your type of arguments do not try to debate, but rather explain away the sort of experiences I have shared,
in a way that seems contradictory: "the results are "interesting", and some are very useful, but it is all imaginary, delusional, quackery,
First of all, you mention the " desire of spiritual experiences": I assure you, my desires when I was 5, were not going very far beyond that red
tricycle I got for my birthday.
The fact is, and I have said this before, that LEGITIMATE experiences of the STILL "different" kind leave no choice to the person who goes through
them, and there are very definite ways in which THIS can be corroborated, whether the experience itself can be "proved" or not.
I have only shared SOME things, and will share a couple more, for EXPLICATIVE purposes only, so that others can begin to open themselves to THEIR so
far hidden potentials, which are continuously denied by the "establishment", and are still stubbornly rejected by so many others who otherwise would
admit to having many "unexplained" glances into the Human possibilities.
I think that even through this anonymous medium, I have demonstrated enough competence to be able to say the following:
Do you think that I have not asked, studied and researched many of the PSYCHOLOGICAL possibilities and putative explanations to the phenomena at
Do you think that I have not CONSIDERED in a very serious manner MANY MORE than just a few of the themes you bring up?
The serious, intelligent seeker will NEED to have answered these and much tougher alternatives TO HIMSELF, way before any of this can be shared or
even whipered in public.
I realize that there are many out there who speak the most unimaginable loads of trash, but when there is a possibility of a more serious and useful
confrontation, for the sakes of INFORMATION itself, the standards can and should be raised, and some doors LEFT OPEN, which would indicate, at the
very least, the necessary intellectual humility to get anywhere.
Lying or deluding others can be sustained up to certain point and can be done, but when when we talk about INFORMATION, which has always been my
declared purpose, there are only three possibilities:
1- You TRY AND ANALYZE the information, and share some or all results.
2- You try and analyze the information, and you DO NOT share or achieve the same results or conclusions.
3- You DO NOT try or analyze the information, and then emit (or not) not thorough enough judgments on the validity of the information.
When speaking with people of the first two categories, it is at least possible to confront ideas and impressions on an experiential basis.
When, however, people speak coming from the third group, as your analysis SEEMS to indicate, for you share no strictly personal-based impressions
whatsoever, it is impossible to engage in fruitful debate, for the core of the exchange will be based on the merit or less of information that, for
either side, remains an insuperable divide.
It would be like saying "Rome is an imaginary land", just because you have never been there. It is very real for the rest or few of us who live and