why is MelT hung up on strict definition?

gladly.
some folks dont yet.

must i? why must i? but really, my responce to this is; surely you can realise that in other words you are saying "dont make it about me", which in effect doesnt negate it being about you, and thus is just as effective as a reverse psychology comment that makes it about you, whether consciously or not. pedantically literal; "make it about"... ok, i'll refrain from writing three thousand words on that.

why be so shi~ average. why only shoot for the lowest comon denominator? ok, i realise this is potentially dangerous groud philosophically speaking. twatts like plato and nietsche espoused ideas of excelling human excellence, and look at the inequalities their philosophies were interpreted as advocating. but sure, why not reach a little. what's that great jesus quote?... "i have done all these things, but you will do more." or words to that effect. siddartha musta said somethin like that too right? or was he arrogant enough to say "i've reached the best, you cant beat what i've done, so aim for that but no higher because it doesnt exist". hmmmm?

shit yeah. its really just a matter of being articulate really. i mean, if you lack the language skills, the evolution of the frontal lobe, and so on, you'll be more likely to think that something is beyond comunication, but really, everything is comunication. the whole omniverse nothing but information being transmited.

so says the claim.

oh no~

oh phew. that restored the balance there. except, this whole right and wrong thing.... like folks would say "ach, he's a good lad, he knows right from wrong"... do i?! i dont know that i do, and almost feel compelled to claim to know that i dont know such a thing, and that there's far more intangeability to these concepts than would be claimed in a digital world of duality.

proclaim wha~ is that what i just did with my reply~ oh, you mean proclaim that to claim to be enlightened is not to be done... teehee.... sure... i'll let the cat outta the secret bag on this one. tis but me shakin foundations. challenging folks to be more secure, strengthening their self knowledge. like shaking/bending/breaking plants to make them stronger to carry more load. i had it done to me shitloads, n sure, while it's happening, its generally not pleasant until you learn to play the cards dealt differently, but it's what allows greater ease n grace later on, it builds the neuropathways to handle it, nearly always in quite unique ways (though very similar also). and it's not something that's a ggreat idea on it's own... there's gotta be support out there too. being an emitter of hardship for all isnt likely to be much of a boon for any. its like the small doseages of poison to build imunity. we live in an ocean of things pleasant for us, it is the flow into what fits comfortably. who decides how much hardship to administer? we sometimes learn the hard way. mistakes often teach us the greatest lessons. usually we only get such hard lessons because we werent paying enough attention to the easy lessons. i'm thinking broadly here to encompass as much as possible, but i cant help but think of the relevence of this for all inhabitants of this planet, most especially those who perpetrate the hardships upon the many with no concern nor compassion for the individual's sufferings. "shame on them" would be one responce to them, yet i feel there's just got to be a better thing to wish upon them. a bitch-slap wake up call?

nope, as the endless discussions on the topic here provide ample evidence of, it's meaning is stratified, scattered, and its just plain been made too big a deal of. i wouldnt (and choose not to) use the term generally because of the same reason i choose not to use the word god. you can never be certain the audience are interpreting it as intended. sometimes i revel in the ambiguity, but generally, no. best to use a descriptive phrase rather than a single word whose meaning can far to easily become misskewed, manipulated, alterd, fucked.

unambigious phrases like that.

oh thats a good belly chuckle.

... well, you have been spouting alot of officialness spirituality.

cats are a totally different legue, sport, thing, completely. cats know though. cats know.

k, i did have a jumbled paragraph here writen about seperationism basically, but instead i'll just write what i was first going to write (plus this extra intro obviously), yups, i got alot of that kind of thing from taoism. .... less IS more. obvious to see with folks who give often look happier than folks who take.

same motive. doesnt matter who that someone is.... i know that..... Inlakech (you are another myself).

i have always and will always look upon everything i do as survivng for ... for... an indefinately long long time. thats on many levels. it really stops one "from being a fucking waffle waitress"-Bill Hicks. even better than reading.

yup, well, aint that the buddhist way. kinda shut the fuck up about it n get on with it. no preachin, just being an example. i'd tell a buddhist story about that here, but dont know it well enough to do it justice. maybe someone else will.

gotta feel for the poor who are excluded from healing with those kinds of healers.

idk, your ego doesnt seem like it'd be satisfied with that. remind me, what's the definition of ego we're all working from here?

thats pretty much identical to how i throw myself into ridicule fro talkin about astrology. (except it wasnt directly debate that turned me, it was curiosity, and determined research so i could know the topic better than the "believers")

cool. do it with more unambigious phrases, n see if u can do it without ever using the word enlightenment. thats my request & suggestion. [edit~ yeah, i've already had one person send me a pm commenting on the worthy insights that have sprouted from this thread. satisfies my "achiever" anyways, how about you? ~/edit]

oh yeah, i forgot i already replied to the other post n pasted it here.

u-huh.

i dont know. what slight have i made against you? did someone say i did? i remember implying that you may have given the appearance of thinking i had, but that was as far as that went as far as i recall.

if it was face to face, rather than text, such issues are far less comon. but no, i didnt really think that. all in the spirit of weeding out the best merit through diologue.

hehe, nah... imagine this.... i'm stroling along, kicking autumn leaves, a grin between rosey red cheeks, and i'm humming "aint nuthing gonna break my stride, aint nuthin gonna slow me down, oh no..."

showing whats? oh yeah, that hypnosis tool.

yeah, i think this is maybe the point (as if i intended it to be so)...

i have. because i choose to keep sensitive spots switched on... not related to anything in this thread... ah, you guys probably know what i'm talkin about.

quite a declaration there. intentionally so dismissive of the internet?

 

hey... i started this thread and i dont remember making it about objecting to strict definitions.

 

thnx

no, i'm saying you'd be shit/average to merely try to copy someone else.

yes... thats where the "un" comes in. did u skim read it n miss that? knee jerk reaction... or are you merely agreeing with it... cos the way it was phrased made it seem like it was intended as counter.

heh, enlightnement is a word we are all way too hung up on and theres no way to gauruntee that if you get your definition right, theres not gonna be a billion other people who think you are saying something else. which is why i stand by my point... say it without that word. ... like all great Buddhas and even bodhisattvas i have known do.

unambiguous phrases like that

i hear what your saying but also reccognise the danger in it... some may take it not as intended... some may not realise the timeless manifestation, some may become confused and think that the toxins in them IS them, some may delude themselves that they are lofty, become arrogant.... do you see this?

lol, oh arent i?

i like not liking what others say, it confirms to me that i've not surrounded myself with yesmen. having said that, i like what you say.

u-huh. wisdom would dictate you accept the possibility that it is untrue. get some socrates in ye lad!

yay!

am i to take it from that statement that you renounce the properties of crystals.... i could go dig up the research done by IBM if you like.... or are you some great purveyor of higher knowledge on the matter....?

truth is a hypnosis trigger word. WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP! CLAP CLAP CLAP.... or whatever it is to get the readers of this to snap outta the trance that word has been putting them under.

so true. the word "truth" need never be said when truth is being expressed. the word "truth" is more often said when hypnosis or desperation to convince is at play.

heheh, n it wouldnt matter really wouldnt it. i take samadi to be part n parcel of what i associate with the word enlightenment. u can talk until the blue cows fly over a purple moon about the definition of enlightenment, its not going to change many peoples associations with that word. samadhi, intrinsically linked with enlightenment, having samadhi (at least what i associate with that word) would mean such things are like water off a ducks back.

oh... and you have a good purview of what is commonly accepted? idk how anyone can claim such when things are shifting so fast. the common view of today (if there even is such a thing at all) is not the common view of yesterday.

i mean, like... do you use gnosis and/or learning through osmosis? do you "see through the eyes of the ultimate observer" to know all? take an immediate census?

some say that if you deny something without being accused of it, you are guilty of it[/prod]

was that directed to who i think it was directed at?... no, you probably wont be able to guess who i think it was directed at. well if it was... yeah... quit holding your tongue for how you think melt will filter you! yeah, you know who i was thinking of even if you werent who melt ment. lol.

 

oh, very sorry you took that from it.

i would strictly define it, but that would kinda undermine the premis of the thread.
... and i've got a new favourite quote of the moment i'm going to brandish like a shiney new toy:
"If you can prove to me that there's a proven definition of proof, I'll prove to you that you can't come up with a proven definition." - bkadoctaj.
not to mention the rest of the discourse already occured in the thread.

it's to question and explore.

not to object.

theres a big difference.

ps-i don' "need" t' do nuffin. ;D

 

threatened???

bwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, nyehheeeh ehhhheheheh ahaha ahhhohoho ho hoho ho ho ho hah ahhahahahahah hahahahahaha. ow ow... to funy ohwwhahahahahahahaha! ahheheehehh hhwhhehehe hee heeh ho hoahhah. whooooooohyee..

k, i dont recall saying that, if i did, excuse my shit use of this intolerable language. my point was.... and is.... there's still more that can be learned. once you become a buddha, you dont stop learning. information doesnt suddenly and permenantly become a one way street emitting from the person like a creator/emitter only.

well... thats not really what im saying, but sure. yeah. if you wanna only follow in the footsteps of another.... you are a shitbrained moron. own paths. did this guy you wanna follow say that too? was siddartha the first? is that what the religious doctinised versions of buddhism teach? i'd take a quick peak into jain and hindu to wake up outta that delusion.

i know thats not likely what you're saying, i'm just trying to make sure sufficient info on this is getting out there to stop people misinterpreting and using this thing they label as "enlightnment" the same way some people use "god", as an off switch in their heads.

get your own supreme understanding. anything less is selling yourself short and putting yourself in a glass prison.

no i'm not. i'm speaking of how i perceive the people i have known. get it right please... or your "enlightnement" isnt much use then is it.

do i need to? sorry, i didnt realise it was a requisite. were you there listening to the historic buddha figures every word? no, i thought not... you dont know either then ... do you.

well yes, it would have been if i said it like you've interpreted it.

ok, lemme put this clear for you:

FUCK TRADITION.

FUCK TRADITION.

FUCK TRADITION.

FUCK TRADITION.

FUCK TRADITION.

FUCK TRADITION.


k?

k.


[edit- appologies to any stereotypical taureans or capricorns for whom tradition is likely something you respect and hold very dear. i'm aquarius sunsign n am all for the new and innovative, which tradition inhibits, restricts and stands in the way of. blanket-ly speaking]

as it's my choice to get preachy over this.

there once was a fella who realised his job wasnt helping the situation in the world, so he quit it and tried to figure out a way to make the world a better place... all the ideas he came up with were too big for him to initiate with his current resources, so he went for a walk along the beach to clear his head n see if he could think up something else... it wasnt working though, he was getting more and more depressed as all the ideas to fix all the world's problems seemed so big he couldnt do a thing.. then he saw a woman throwing things into the sea. as he got closer he saw that she was throwing starfish back in the sea that had been getting washed up up the shore and were drying up in the sun. he realised what she was doing, and walked up to her and asked, "what's the point? you can't possibly save all of them, it doesnt make a difference, the waves will keep coming, washing more starfish upon the shore." she looked at him for a moment, then picked up another one, threw it into the sea and with the most beautiful smile he had ever seen, she said "made a difference to that one".

yeah, because allegedly, it's ineffable. by definition.

i've read enough to know there are numerous differing takes on it.

FU~ oh i've done that.

perhaps the most rediculous claim i've ever heard. all this can be misunderstood. misunderstandings have happened, and in all likelihood will happen again.

this much is more worthy of being called true.

as with all experience. particularly the "peak" ones.

cool, i'd love to read that. please do it.

we are?

oh i suppose we are now.

what's the something?

vague again... what's the particular?

yep, now we've been outting that, it may likely occur less, or at least more people see through it.

should raise an alarm bell in the person being questioned really.

now see here.. this is the thing... people say i'm enlightened. often with a sence of camaraderie(sp?), "we are enlightened". now i cant say for sure if i measure up on the three things above, mainly because 1 & 2 are too vague for me to practically utilise as a measure, and three, knowing that although there is an apparent permanence aquired/transmuted into my being, there is also much transitory imerpmanence. and even if it did seem like a rock solid steady bedrock, i'm still not certain i could claim it as permanent, knowing all is animate, all is transitory, and even the eternal changes eventually. other people say i'm enlightened, people say that if you are enlightened you know you are, we'll i've thought i was, thought i knew i was, and then gone on to see beyond that.

though yeah, i accept, this is possibly in some part large or small, due to my reluctance to accept any singular meaning to anything anymore. (you should see my artwork)

that's the bit that sits too snugly next to the off switch. i think i might have been you, melt, that spoke of this in a meditation guidance thread. about not switching off awareness. it's like. while what you may be saying is entirely true on one level, if interpreted to have ment those things on another level, it becomes a dangerous untruth, a delusion, to some.

<- thats a funkin guhroovy line that does have the right appearances. but again... i'd be a fool of great magnitude to ignore the potential for misinterpretation. the things ascribed.... "humans are naturally violent" "these mood swings are me"... shit like that.

and if some are deluded, then everyone's collective consciousness if muddied.

so to hell with the rest of them eh?

there is the school of thought that teaches all will come to learn in the right time. a very "let it happen" wisdom. which is great... it lets the best be seen in people. i just push for the balance to that, in that it doesnt necessarily mean we do nothing. much thanks and praise have i received for my efforts in pro-actively (and just actively) assisting others.

yeps, its been an enjoyable trip catching glimpses of each other between the bushes, shrubs and trees, along these near parallel roads. seems there's less foliage now. glad we kept driving.

well there is definite effects... forget the image of hocus pocus healiers and all their garb that is too novel for you to accept at this moment. the studies have been quite conclusive, beyond the mere data on the properties, off interactions with bio feilds (to be relevent). as for the ascribed effects... who knows. another's intuition is something i have learned to reserve my dismissiveness upon. i personally don't use chrystals as the first thing i reach for to heal myself or others for the idea that if it is something you need to return to for more, then it's not really a healing, just a temporary patch job. having said that... keeping a rose quartz next to the computer sure helps prevent unduely long peroids without breaks. wouldnt mind getting some amethyst some time too.... clear n energise the crown chakra. but yeah... all the better if you never use/need a chrytal ever.
am i to assume you've done study into chrystals since you appear to have claim to your dismissive air of authority on the matter?
supreme knowledge or not, there's always more to learn. geology is fascinating stuff. especially how earth seems to throw up different types of chrystals through the years... like supposedly (hope i get which names right) lapis lazuli is a relatively new stone, only showing up just in the past few years (decades?).
like astrology, i used to claim it was utter bunk until doing hundreds (thousands?) of hours of research into it. first twigged onto crystals from the book "the mystery of the crystal skulls". i think theres a documentary of the same.

amen. [again ]

hypnosis

oh cool, disagreements are allowed. i was beginning to wonder. thnx for that. my learnings have been so brash and indiscriminate as to source, i often get in a muddle as to the historical roots of things. i struggled with the concept of samadhi at first, thinking it was like ignorance, which i utterly detest wherever i find it. i think the "ignorance is bliss" might have originally been ment as akin to samadhi (maybe. wild speculation). did i do my bit on how i percieve the distinction earlier? ignorance adores unawareness, abhors awareness. samadhi adores awareness, abhors unawareness.

someday u might find, most people are saying and thinking things like oneness, unity, ... n stuff. might be a wake up that proclaiming things from past experience is a projection into the present to create more of the same. might be. i am working on this concept too. difficult to reconcile that what you might be doing on one hand is projecting the very crap you would like to see less of, and on the other hand what might be simply denial and/or lying about the current state of affairs. difficult to reconcile.

there was some great stuff on that in some of those books (hehe, other people will be reading that and thinking... "what books?") and also in the bagavad gita. necience n such. check it out for yourself: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/ best online book ever... you neednt really read even one word... it has audio! still dont think i've read the first chapter... i was more interested in the third (and later the second) which was concerned mainly with understanding.

i stand by my prod, regardless of ageist ridicule.

u know i will.

 

it gets penetrated and challenged all the time. i was just laughing at the choice of word.... "threatened".

with how you worded it, it was as funny to me as the idea of a cloud being threatened by a plane flying through it. [edit , and much funnier yet still further]


ok, for those who are really interested in this might like to read through the pm conversation me n melt have been having.... you'll have to excuse the editing (or lack of), and repetition. ... and probably many bits missing too, since it was all taken from one person's inbox.
=

LOL! I'm sure.

Yes, I get the above, but the problem is still the same - and it may simply be that we're at cross-purposes. I'm not saying that there is a strict definition of 'Thatness', I'm saying that within a full experience of Thatness (enlightenment) there is a common understanding. I get the impression that your objection is that you think I'm trying to define the indefinable, when I'm saying that enlightenment has particular contents which can be described very well and tha are key markers for the state, I'm not even attempting to describe Thatness.


MelT[/QUOTE]

You can indeed supplant your chosen term for it with Thatness (or suchness or any one of the other many terms) as they all mean ineffable and indescribable, just in the same way that yours does. Just because it's apre-existing term within the traditions doesn't mean it's a set definition.

I still think that you're sissing the pont too Knowledge, not state.

MelT[/QUOTE]

TBH I have no idea.

Mule? Hmmm....I'm not really sure. I've always gone with the most proof in everything. If I get proof that I'm wrong in things then I adopt that view instead.

I've got an idea that might help solve some of this, I'll punt it to you on the thread - but any other ideas you think we should cover regarding all this? If you'd like to take it in any particular direction that you think people might find helpful or interesting?

MelT[/QUOTE]

yeah, so... you stubbornly stick to the proof thing.

Yeah, proof over conjecture every time. If there is no proof then I leave it on a shelf where it can be further prodded over time to see if it's grown any.


>>>there was a thread i started, i think i just posted a link to a video... i imagine it should soften my hardline stance on use of the word. u seen it? think i called it something to do with clarity. the haeglin and lynch talk.>>

I watched it, but I've got to be honest, I think Lynch is a misguided idiot who has accrued far more reputation than he deserves. He knows naught of naught, but can do the spiel that everyone hopes to hear. I find him embarrassing to watch, a bit like Leary.

Anyway, I just had a look at the thread and I don't think we're getting much interest now, so I'll ask here instead. I know there's the whole proof and tradition barrier between us, but, do you think on the whole that you're equating enlightenment with (I've wrestled with the words for this overnight and still can't seem to nail it) a 'kind sage' attitude? That if someone can display spirituality and some knowledge of esoteric things, is relatively good and helpful, then they're 'enlightened beings'? Are you thinking along the lines of a more english version of the term, enlightened, not eastern? Then a wise sage, who is not realised in the classical sense, might still be called enlightened in terms of his demeanour? Am I closer? Does this allow a broader meaning to the term?

I'm trying to think of more subjects we can argue about. If you think of anything you'd like to go for, just let me know.


MelT








however...

a concept which i rejected long ago, has just proven itself in ways that would take too long to explain and not sure i'd do it justice trying, the concept being, some information is best presented in the right order, somethings taught before the student is ready (sufficient prior teachings) could be harmful.
i think its easier to understand why such a notion is worth rejecting, freedom of information and all that, and the dangers of manipulating and witholding information. but having seen various events, i see now why some came up with the idea. an extension of the "noble lie", as per lies of omission(sp?), another particulalry hard to swallow bitter pill.
anyways, i bring it up, seeing it in part on the whole enlightenment thing.





if anything i write here u think should be out in the threads for the benefit of everyone, feel free to copy n paste to a quote.




i'm all for letting it go where it goes. confidence/faith in us.[/quote][/QUOTE]

Lynch though...shudder.....

Yes, I understand what you're saying completely. However, there are some words that don't have many meanings, and cases where to have many meanings would be confusing. If we used the word 'dangerous' and watered it down to have various levels of meaning from 'grossly dangerous' to 'you might get a paper cut from it',then the power fo the word is diminished and people wouldn't know to what level they should shy away from something that is dangerous.

But that's real world stuff. If we apply this to the path then it become a problem. The thing is that the event of realisation is just the first step in becoming permanently enlightened (ie, to have permanent mental access to the state). Once someone has the first few decent preliminary events, they then move into other kinds of practices that will turn it into full enlightenment. To do this they use not meditation as you know it, but instead focus on certain aspects of the reality they've accessed in the enlightenment event. If they've experienced the wrong reality, or it's incomplete, then they can't move on very quickly, if at all.

If they haven't really reached enlightenment by the standard definition, then they'll be unable to turn it into a full state, because the techniques wont work for them. If they don't understand reality in a particular way, then nothing works. It's a self-levelling practise, because only thinking about reality in that one specific way will create the effects we're talking about. I know Blisses are passe, but anyone who is realised can raise a deep bliss literally in a second by just thinking about reality correctly. It gets to a point where you can't avoid being in bliss when you're aware of reality on a continual basis. It's actually a pain in the bum sometimes, quite debilitating on occassion. Even thinking about it now to try and write, I have to keep stopping to let it pass so I can type again. A particular, precise understanding of reality, which is eventually turned into a non-conceptual precise understanding.

If someone has just had a glimpse then they've still had a wonderful, life-changing event, don't get me wrong - but that does tend to fade over time and samsaric reality rises for them in just the same way as before. It becomes a past memory of an event, rather than an ongoing state of access.

MelT[/QUOTE]

u at least look at it on the shelf though right... tell me please you do at least that much right? there are likely many truths out there that are yet unproven right? and so, wouldnt it be great to be on the bleeding edge (n i thought enlightenment was all bout the bleeding edge) without having to deal with the BURDEN of proof?

n please be sure, i'm not advocating blind belief or gulability by any measure.

Of course I continue to check things I agree tehre are many truths about many things. But for one to be enlightened requires that they know one particular thing, and continually apply it directly to their waking reality.

yeah, it's haegle and the other scientist i was mainly interested. but what did you think of the wordage around what enlightenment is as in the film, that was the point i brought it up.

No, I found that to be just his way of trying to assert wisdom that he doesn't have. Indirect projection.

>>Anyway, I just had a look at the thread and I don't think we're getting much interest now, shit were you only in it for the attention!?

LOL! No, of course not. I thought the whole point was to discuss our ideas so that we could provide two sides to the coin? In particular, I want to show that with just a little bit of research anyone can discover for themselves what we're talking about and thus reduce claims of enlightenment of people who have no idea what it is. Who wants to be a big goldfish in a small pond? I've got a life!

so I'll ask here instead. I know there's the whole proof and tradition barrier between us, i see no barrier. but, do you think on the whole that you're equating enlightenment with (I've wrestled with the words for this overnight and still can't seem to nail it) a 'kind sage' attitude? um, possibly. i dont consider it an intrinsic defining quality if thats what you are getting at. but then... its not a word i use knowing the numerousity of meaning applied, as has been my point all along, and ever strengtheningly the more i inspect it.

And this really is our sticking point. The 'other meanings' for the term enlightenment came along after it was coined and reflect other things. As I said, say the enlightenment of a sage is not enlightenment, but anyone is at liberty to use it to describe them because moden english has given it a broader context. Originally it had one meaning, whcih it stillholds today, that's the one I'm gong with.

Are you thinking along the lines of a more english version of the term, enlightened, not eastern? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!? YOU'VE BEEN HARBORING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR MANY MEANINGS ALL THIS TIME AND THIS IS THE FIRST YOU BRING IT UP?!? if it was at all possible to waste time, you achieved it. did you not realise you had given absolutely no clear indication that you accept that there is more than one meaning!? until just then of course.

Steady now. See above. That english - and new agers - have usurped the meaning to cover whatever they please is neither here nor there. Enlightened in the sense of being wise is not enlightenment. It is mere subsequent adoptation of the term from another language. If we use the more correct word 'realisation' as its alternative then all the other meanings that english has placed on the idea of enlghtenment disappear. A wise sage would not be realised. If anyone wants to claim enlgihtenment in the english version of the word it's just not realisation.

The problem is that the claimants on GC aren't just using it as a general term for wisdom, if they were I'd give them less flack. What they're saying is that they are enlightened in the traditional sense, not just 'a bit wise'.

>> Then a wise sage, who is not realised in the classical sense, what's the classical sence? might still be called enlightened in terms of his demeanour?might indeed, i've seen it and i'd call you out if you claimed you've never seen it be used as such too. Am I closer? to what? Does this allow a broader meaning to the term?this question baffles me in its possible implications. do you think i was striving for a broader meaning? my approach has been for clarity. clarity for the reader.

Me too, hence clarity of definition. Yes, I did think you were striving for broader meaning, by not allowing the term to have a set definition.

MelT[/QUOTE]

 

AND SO IT CONTINUES IN PUBLIC!

yeah, i pretty much knew that was your take on it too. there was a cannabis documentary i saw recently i think it mighta been "in pot we trust" (?), that ended on a line carrying the sentiment: more people should have controversial ideas, because people always challenge you to go away and check and it causes you to learn more whether the idea was right or wrong or other. and learning is good for people.

check. at least i think it likely. heehee... remind me... what's 'normal'? like the conventional mundane status-quo?
right.

oh phew/hooray/halelujia! i thought all that "supreme knowledge" stuff was gonna be a ceiling! if the mdma experience can be likened to the bliss, then the full on heroic dose of psilocybin is like the........ well, its as close to a ceiling as i can imagine just now. muchness beyond the conveyable.

yes, eerily familiar.