[continued from previous message]

Actually, what you just said was more about YOU.
You pull this same trick with virtually everyone you talk to -
trying to pigeonhole them with some amateurish "diagnosis"
or harsh judgment. It seems to be your primary MO.

It's not amateurish. I've walked the walk, not just talked the talk.
I come from experience and a lot of it ain't been pleasant but I know
who I am Dave which is more than I think is the case with you.

Know thyself wasn't a bad saying. You should make a start.

Let's see, the earliest book I read related to the subject that
influenced me was at around 14, when I read Demian by Herman Hesse,
at a time when that book seemed to parallel my own friendships
and experiences. My primary group of friends at that time was one
which in general regarded itself as being well outside all the
norms of society. In fact, it was almost like a small cult itself,
In truth, it wasn't very far outside the norms of society,
but that's how most of us perceived ourselves nonetheless,
and we self-identified as being more-or-less "outsider" individuals.

That was age 14.

See what I mean?

Yes. You ignored the substance of what I was talking about,
just to try to "enforce" your attempt at a put down.
That was a significant period of my life in condensed form.

No, you were insufferable arrogant. That's what I was pointing out
but you just didn't get it.

Self delusion. Can I suggest a movie for you? It's called "Revolver"
directed by the same guy who made Snatch, Buy Richie. It wasn't a big
success because it wasn't fodder for the masses and it took a good
deal of thought to figure out the ending, especially the Ray Liotta
character. The ending is particularly interesting. Yank it up on
pirate bay and have a gander.

It's all about self delusion and the effects of revelation on the
psyche. It's about "knowing thyself".

As an aside, that is also true right now of both you and Slider, thang.
Neither of you are truly very significantly outside the norms of society. >> >You just love to imagine otherwise and talk about it on and on.

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "...truly very
significantly outside the norms of society". Do you mean that
speaking about myself (slider can make his own noises) I *am* outside
the norms of society but I'm *not* significantly so, or that I'm not a
significant influence even though I'm outside of those undefined
norms? In any case, how would you know any of this? You know nothing
about me apart from what I post here. I tend to know a lot more about
you than you about me because you've spattered choice bits of your
actions in life all over the internet and interwebs.

In your case, I just meant that you're a successful businessman
with a long-term partner, property, children, grandchildren,
a high standard of living, etc. I don't need to know much more
to see that you're no real "outsider" in the social order.

I wouldn't have been successful if my personality wasn't the type
which would eat people for lunch, metaphorically speaking. And that
was long ago. I'm semi retired. The only property I have is the
non-taxable type, my own residence. I have the kids and they have
their kids but that doesn't take success it just took the evolutionary
act of fucking and then nurturing (my wife didn't work for 15 years
because of my old fashioned ideas).

Your view of me is superficial. I took what I wanted by gaining a
bachelor's degree and then changing sides and setting up as a
consultant armed with the knowledge of my previous employ. It was a
plan. It was subversive. Superficially it looked like I was one of
the herd but scratch the surface and my blood was green not red - I
needed to make a lot of moola and at age 42 I became, and remain,
completely debt free.

That was the plan. You can't do that without being a wolf in sheep's
clothing, wearing the suits, arranging the lunches, writing the papers
and arranging the gears in your own machine. Becoming beholden to no
one was the singularity for me. Placing all my assets in my wife's
name, decades ago, so that if I were sued or did something else the
assets could never be lost, was the Yale lock.

So, again, you have a superficial view of me. In this post, I'm
giving you a bit of a deeper look.

I'm trying to convince you that you need to follow the same path or
similar and the first step, which you have not yet taken, is to know
yourself, truly obliterate or try to obliterate your self delusions.

You might become a more likeable human being but in my case, I don't
give a fuck about that :)

This shows some poverty of logic. But grandiose people of your ilk
whose grandiosity is part of the psychological armour installed in
formative years often lack the capacity to reason.

LOL. I haven't said anything 'grandiose'. :)
My views are really more down to earth than anything else.

Your arrogance is grandiose. If you were pragmatic, you would temper
your comments.

An example - say I had a history of major fraud amounting to many
millions of dollars coupled with a personality profile which ranged
from narcissism through to antisocial (DSM V definitions). This would
be both significantly outside the norms of society and significantly
influential on the people who exhibit those norms of society. Yet, I
have never posted here about that, and in absence of my real name,
which you still do not know, you would have no possible means of
determining this significant extranorm history.

I don't know any of that to be true. Even if it was, it wouldn't
make you an "outsider" in the sense Slider means it.

I don't care how or what Slider means. That's irrelevant to me. He
lives his life and I live mine. I don't want to live like Slider and
I don't doubt he doesn't want to live like me.

I've told you how I live and a little of my provenance especially my
inner universe and my insight. You appear to have little insight and
a delusional inner universe. This can be cured but it will take
courage and a tolerance for psychic pain. Do you have what it takes?

And I didn't mean to say there isn't a single thing outside the
norm about either of you; I was speaking more generally.

You need first really to define what you mean by the "norm". In any
definition I'm outside it. I don't adhere to much at all about modern
society except for aspects which are clearly the backbone of existence
for us all, like for instance public libraries which I hold in greater reverence than fucking temples, mosques and churches.

Knowledge is my god. Libraries are my temple. That alone places me
outside of most definitions of the "norm".

In light of that hypothetical (it isn't true by the way) example, how
can you reason and then state that "Neither of you are truly very
significantly outside the norms of society"?

Well, don't get your panties in a wad. My "aside" was merely based
on what little I've heard from both of you. If you want to believe
you're far outside the norms of society, tell us how you think you are.

Panties in a wad? Lol. You wouldn't say that to me in RL Dave, I
guarantee it. Be polite.

And if you've heard "little" from us both, then you have a short
little span of attention and a predeliction for your own noise at the
expense of others'.

Again, define "norms" - I'll be happy to oblige you then.

Oh, but that's right, you don't want to reveal yourself in public.
Jesus. Why do I even bother?

Nope. My lifestyle is such that I don't want to be cattle. You can
break out of the herd too, but you first need to destroy your self
delusions. And the only way you can start on that rather difficult
path is to first recognise the fact that you *are* self deluded,
because, Dave, belive me, you are.

You have a mind, and as you keep saying, it's sharp. So use it
properly in future.

I only wish I more often had the chance here. :)

No comment. I expect this to have been meant in some derogatory
manner but I can't quite decypher it.

Here's a review of that book in case you never read it. As an adolescent, >> >for a couple of years, it was important to me.

http://www.mouthshut.com/review/Demian-Hermann-Hesse-review-umotorppo

In any case, I was largely done with being attached to a limited
self-concept like "outsider" by around age 18. And in the counter-
culture, it was almost like all the "outsiders" had themselves
become the true "insiders". The "freaks" were everywhere and the
irony of this wasn't lost on me. :) I was by then already more like
a "chameleon" who could be almost anything as needed (I could go
anywhere I chose, "inside" or "outside" or wherever), and I saw
myself as being something so flexible that I'd never do myself the
disservice of limiting myself to any labeling. Or so I believed...

What your limited intellectual capability is failing to show (you) is
that being an outsider is binary and a combination of genetic and
environmental influences. You either are, or you aren't.

Now you're talking complete shit. Environmental influences
can change dramatically. In my own life experience, in different
environments at different times, I've been both a persecuted outsider
and a privileged insider. More than once in each case.

Your own life experience is something you don't talk about and I
probably don't blame you because undoubtedly it led at least in part
to the dissolution of your marriage and all the heartache which would
have arisen from that.

I was speaking (jesus, do I really have to spell it out?) about
formative, childhood environmental influences. When those influences
become part of the pcyche because the psyche is forming in those early
years and can be, and is, molded by the environment. Don't be so
dense.

The child becomes the man or woman and the things which made that
child mold the adult and the adult's behaviour. There's no doubt
about this. You are who you are because of what happened in your
childhood. Me too. And slider. Chris. The things you think you
forgot in your childhood aren't forgotten at all. They're there, Jung
called the troublesome trauma-induced ones complexes - little half
formed personalities resulting from childhood trauma, things a child
perhaps shouldn't have witnessed or undergone because understanding
was beyond the child - which bubble up out of the subconscious ooze at
the worst of time, causing innocuous things like stuttering through to
full fledged dangerous things like outrageously risky behaviour and
the like.

That's what I was talking about. Not adult shit that any adult can,
and should be able to, handle.

The only "complete shit" that's being spoken hereabouts is coming from
your mouth, so to speak. You need to wake up. You talk about
dreaming but you are dreaming right now because you live in a delusion
and the victim of that delusion is you (and possibly your ex-wife and
others).

Take it from me, you need to confront yourself. You'll feel a lot of
pain but at least you won't die with regrets.

It's not
something you read a book about, join a club to experience or as you
say above "being attached to a limited self-concept". If you're born
an outlier, or your childhood environment makes you one, you would
laugh at efforts to explore being such by one, like yourself, who
never can be one. Who thinks you can just dabble in being an outlier.

Well yeah there can be extreme cases where someone is born highly
unusual and their differences are reinforced by the social environment.
Sure. However, even such people can become accepted, successful figures >within the social order. As an example: Temple Grandin. I don't think
these kinds of extremes apply very well to either you or Slider
(nor to most people I've met who considered themselves "outsiders")

Temple Grandin, if I recall correctly, had some sort of cognitive
impairment? And got over it in times when such people were referred
to as "subnormal" and so on? If so, you're not within miles of what
the fuck I've been talking about. And don't group slider and myself
please, we disagree enough on things to be granted separate
consideration :)

The upper echelons of business and politics are full of highly
functional psychopaths - ie, those without much empathy. But they're
not outsiders either because there are a lot of them and they don't
ascribe to ever knowing themselves, they're just there to take what
they want regardless of pain inflicted.

Nope. Nice try, but I'm not cognitively impaired, not in the least.
Nor do I think I have any serious DSM V type personality disorder.

And my own experiences in "outsider contexts" go very far
from being mere "dabbling". I just didn't ever "hold onto" those >self-concepts or situations. And that's what I advocate, even to
those who experience them intensely: don't hold onto it.

Chris seemed to get what I was saying. :)

Again, recognise your self delusions by trying to get to the source
and then set about freeing yourself from them as a first step to true
personal freedom.

You discredit yourself by silly arguments like the above. An example
presently in my city is a trial of a young woman of above average
intellect who lured a disabled boy into her home and killed and buried
him. She had always wanted to experience the thrill of killing a
human and wanted to achieve this by 25. While this is part of the
criminal milieu and a clearly dysfunctional mind, this person is a
true outsider, probably genetic but if not, environmental in
childhood.

Again, not really an "outsider" - at least, not in the sense
Slider means. An outsider isn't someone who's dysfunctional
of fucked up. I agree that that example above is more of a
"true outsider", and yet it is certainly not any kind of
desirable state is it?

No, not at all. If I had the chance I'd eradicate this woman purely
for genetic reasons - there is a good chance her disorder is due to
genetic misalignment and she needs to be precluded from breeding. Her
jail term should do that but in the US she would be executed, which
isn't a bad thing.

She is a true outsider but not at all free from her own delusions and
she's sick minded - a violent psychopath and a real wolf in sheep's
clothing.

You seem to imply this person had no choice to be otherwise.
If so, I would also question that.

Genetic and environmental. Here's a link.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-03/inside-the-house-of-horrors-where-aaron-pajich-was-murdered/9116738

Note her letter to Freddy Krueger "You see I have not had the best
childhood, I know that many will have had worse". But that needs to
be combined with a genetic legacy to become as lethal as this young
woman became.

As a side note, if she hadn't been caught, she would have killed many
more until she was caught.

The physicist Richard Feynmann in my view was an outsider
- he swam against the current and never metamorphosed into one of the
club.

Not really a great example either. Feynman eventually became a
well-accepted insider. I've read Feynman biographies, btw.

So have I, especially those referring to his lovely wife who died very
young. His wife recognised the fact that he was an outsider and she
was always gently chiding him to be cognizant of that fact in his
dealings with people.


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

[continued from previous message]

And you call yourself an iconoclast? HA! Christ, that shit's
nearly a license to pen us all up in ROBO WORLD. :)

No, you take a look at how you sound sometimes when you say for
instance you read certain books and were across entire themes and
genres by age 14. Here's what you said:

"Neither of you have said a word about it that seemed even slightly
interesting in all the years I've been listening to you yammer.

Let's see, the earliest book I read related to the subject that
influenced me was at around 14, when I read Demian by Herman Hesse,
at a time when that book seemed to parallel my own friendships
and experiences. My primary group of friends at that time was one
which in general regarded itself as being well outside all the
norms of society. In fact, it was almost like a small cult itself,
In truth, it wasn't very far outside the norms of society,
but that's how most of us perceived ourselves nonetheless,
and we self-identified as being more-or-less "outsider" individuals.

That was age 14."

Now, how condescending, pompous and *grandiose* is that?

Allow me to conduct a brief thought experiment and create for you
an alternate world where they caught every creative person on earth
who had "the conviction of having some great (but unrecognized)
talents or insights" BEFORE that person actualized any important
discovery or contribution, and simply... diagnosed them out of it.
:O

Is that just an exaggeration? Or is it dangerously close to potential >realities actually possible under DSM 5?

You really have a thing against modern psychiatry don't you? Or is it
against modern psychology? Do you tend to confuse the two?

"Mr. Feynman thought he had another brilliant idea today. Up his meds."

You have considerable room for improvement and should not cast stones >> >> >> when abiding in a house of glass. But, then, so do I. And Slider.

None of us could ever be improved by anything like this, obviously. :) >> >>

Like what? My observations about your motivations? It was meant in a
curative fashion. If you didn't take it that way, your loss.

It's so terribly arrogant to act like you can "cure" virtual strangers
on the net, especially given how about half of DSM is barely less
pseudo-scientific than some cults, even with qualified practitioners.
If you need proof, merely notice how many times it's been seriously
revised in the last 30 years. Then add in that you're not qualified.

Pot. Kettle. Black. And after many years of seeing your words I can
interpolate thank you very much.

DSM is pseudo scientific? Are you kidding? You must be.

Here's a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

Here's an extract:

"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is
published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and offers a
common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental
disorders. It is used, or relied upon, by clinicians, researchers,
psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies,
pharmaceutical companies, the legal system, and policy makers together
with alternatives such as the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and
Behavioural Disorders, produced by the WHO.[1]"

So, a document "barely less pseudo-scientific than some cults" is used
by actuaries in major global insurers, clinicians, drug regulators,
lawmakers and judiciary etc etc. Who to believe? Dave, in all his
grandiosity, or the global insurance industry and all the others cited
in the Wiki article.

Hell, I'll go with *you* Dave ;)

Okay. Let's look at a few things from that article.

The original version of DSM listed homosexuality as a 'sociopathic >personality disturbance'. That diagnosis held until 1974.

Hey up until about that time homosexuals were considered fair game
even by the police, who in Adelaide would tend to beat them up, throw
them in the river and let them drown.

I tend to think that the violence against homosexuals had a genetic, survival-oriented basis - homosexuals don't procreate therefore are
not only useless for the survival of the species but are dangerous for
the survival of the species. For DSM originally to evaluate
homosexuality as a personality disturbance is not too far removed from
what society thought of people like Kevin Spacey at the time.

So what? Castaneda would have been tortured to death by the
Inquisition 400 years ago. Big deal. Things change.

I graduated from high school in 1973. If any of my high-school
friends or classmates were homosexual then they were all still
officially sociopaths. Since even by low estimates about 3%
of the population is gay, if I had 300 people in my high-school
graduating class, about 9 of those people were 'gay sociopaths'.

Even after they stopped calling them sociopaths they still kept
saying they had "identity conflicts". They were still arguing
about homosexuality in DSM-III in 1980. Not until 1987 was
homosexuality completely removed from DSM-IIIR.

So what? There are still plenty of people, brainwashing
notwithstanding, who think that homosexuality is not only perverse but dangerous. Right or wrong, you judge. At least DSM has moved and
evolved with the times and with contemporary science, which once put
Galileo under permanent house arrest for heresy.

I was halfway through my second stint in college by then.
So about the time I was heavily getting into lucid dreaming
all these Neanderthals finally became willing to stop
calling homosexuality some kind of mental illness.

I, I, I. Don't you ever remove yourself from your own ego? It's
always all about you. That's unhealthy. It's probably a disorder
(lol).

Thomas Szasz argued mental illness was a myth used to disguise
moral conflicts. And sociologist Erving Goffman said that
mental illness was merely another example of how society labels
and controls non-conformists.

Tell that to the victims of violent psychopaths or schizophrenics with
knives trying to kill their delusional enemies, and sometimes
succeeding.

What a load of bullshit. You are definitely an anti-vaxxer type, a
flat earther. Wake up to yourself.

Those are extreme positions, yet they point out the clear danger
inherent in trying to "diagnose" anyone you conflict with or
in using "diagnosis" as a weapon to shut down non-conformity
or anything out of the ordinary.

So why quote extreme positions in relation to a manual which is used
by literally millions of medical specialists and psychologists the
world over? Shouldn't you, of all people, be avoiding extreme
positions?

A 1974 study showed that DSM-II was an "unreliable diagnostic tool."
It found different practitioners using DSM-II were rarely in
agreement when diagnosing patients with similar problems.
The authors reviewed 18 major diagnoses then concluded "there are
no diagnostic categories for which reliability is uniformly high."

We're up to DSM V now Dave, things have changed.

This was the state of "mental health" by the mid-1970's,
pretty much covering the entire time when I was growing up.

So what? That's like the ice ages, the dark ages, ancient history.
We're in the third millenium now.

One question: if in the name of "mental health" our so-called
professionals could wage a veritable "war on all gay people",
then who the fuck else might they mistakenly persecute?

Heh. There are a lot of normal people who would volunteer to be foot
soldiers in such a war. Look at the vehemence directed at Kevin
Spacey, the fucking mongrel predatory gay cunt who sticks his hand
down young men's trousers and ruins them for life.

At the end of the day we're all in the same boat and it's as leaky as
hell. You would do well Dave to recognise that fact. Call it
personal growth.

Mistaken assumption: that I didn't realize that long ago.
And knowing the boats are leaky doesn't mean you have the 'cure'.
I've aspired practically forever to what *I* consider personal growth.

But it's only you we're discussing and your ailment, if it can be
called that, is so out there, so prominent, that merely bringing you
around to realisation would be sufficient to start the curative
process. We'll start with those feet of clay, move up to the
achilles, and then onwards till we reach the crest of your cranium :)

None of that seems grandiose or delusional, does it? :)
You imagine "curing people" as a form of aggressive attack.

Yep, I was having a shot at you, personally. Why not? You specialise
in it and your grandiosity begs for it in return.

Perhaps the most unassuming of all here is Chris who, admirably, tries >> >> >> to mellow things out.

You've attacked him viciously and absurdly several times too.

I wouldn't say absurdly. Actually, I wouldn't say viciously either.

I would, and did say both. As for absurd, you'll attack people over
almost anything, from merely being on Facebook to getting a little
bit into baseball. Absurd is pretty accurate. :)

But the world needs a little tweaking now and then (heckamighty, that
sounds a bit ... grandiose). In your case, if you go on the attack
(passive aggressive notwithstanding), expect to be attacked (perhaps a
little more overtly).

I'm starting to wonder if you even understand what passive-aggressive means.

Oh, I do, I do. It's sullen resistance to logic for instance as
opposed to actual aggression which is striking out physically at the
thing which is presented to you in your face which causes enormous
cognitive dissonance which can only be relieved by violence.

You're the passive aggressive type. You'll sulk and use weasel words
and what you think is subtlety to show your belligerence.

He gave as good as he got and that too, for both "sides", was
ultimately positive.

He doesn't hold grudges. Nor do I. I don't think I can say that for
you.

See, I don't think you can say *anything* "for me". Nothing could be
more arrogant or less respectful of others' lives than believing you
can 'speak for them'. And no one else here attempts to do that nearly
as often as you do.

I can only read what you type and that says a lot about you. I'm not
speaking for you, I wouldn't dream - I'm addressing you directly and
trying to point out just how condescending and ridiculously self
aggrandizing you are, sometimes, in fact, a lot of the time. You have
what we call in Australia "tickets on yourself".

When you realise this, you will be on the way to a new and improved
Dave.

What I see is that any views you adopt of me are distorted and
rooted in your incessant combativeness, which clearly has little
to do with me, since that same tendency has been displayed with
every other person I've ever seen you talk with here.

Well, you make me a bit combative actually. I don't like
patronisation and nor does the population at large. You do it all the
time. You talk down. Try talking equally and see the change in
reception and response.

Here's a book I've just uploaded for you - a nice amalgam of Buddhism >> >> >> and psychoanalysis to fill that nasty empty void we all have. The
writer is a psychiatrist who is also an accomplished Buddhist...

https://ufile.io/rjlo6

Excerpt:

"In the Tibetan tradition of Buddhism, those moments of unknowing when >> >> >> the mind is naturally loosed from its moorings are said to be special >> >> >> opportunities for realization. During orgasm, at the moment of death, >> >> >> or while falling asleep or ending a dream are times when the veils of >> >> >> knowing are spontaneously lifted and the underlying luminosity of the >> >> >> mind shines through. But we have a powerful resistance to experiencing >> >> >> this mind in all of its brilliance. We are afraid to let ourselves go >> >> >> all the way. To set ourselves adrift requires a trust that for most of >> >> >> us was lost in childhood."

Yeah, Buddhism and psychoanalysis. Like I've never read any Buddhism.
Like it's still the dark ages and all we need is yet another cult. :)
I experience this "mind adrift" all the time. Like... yesterday most
recently. I don't need a guide. And if I did, it's sure as hell not you. >> >>

See you took that little gesture as an attack on your self as well.
For someone as well travelled along those esoteric paths you still
have a very fragile ego.

Another one of your presumptions. Actually, I'm well-traveled and
well-read enough on 'esoteric paths' by now that my knowledge of
that stuff is borderline encyclopedic, and for that very reason
such material is the LAST thing anyone should ever recommend to me.

Try it, you might like it. It's much better than anything *you've*
ever uploaded here for the common good. Oh that's right, you haven't.

Most of the stuff I've uploaded has been on topic.

What books have you uploaded? I recently uploaded half a dozen books
on lucid dreaming. I do that sort of thing as a bit of a service to
you all here. What do you do except talk?

If you like, I can upload the DSM V and the Handbook. Want them?

Are you so damn tired of life and the world that you think there's
nothing new left to experience? Or it's not worth re-experiencing old
things to see if you can look at them in a different way?

LOL. Those attacks are idiotic.

But possibly accurate.

You really
think, grandiosely, that you have a "borderline encylopedic" knowledge
of all things esoteric when that's patently untrue, a complete lie?1

These thoughts are symptomatic. You have serious issues.

Your thoughts are symptomatic of being a serious asshole. :)
It's not grandiose if it's true. I spent decades studying all mannner
of esoteric materials.

And you worked simultaneously and bore and raised children and had
them schooled and clothed and fed and paid the mortgage and took loans
and dressed for the office and competed and all of that stuff? While
you spent decades studying all manner of esoteric material?

How on earth did you manage all that without losing stuff on the way?

I have personal friends today who have not only already recommended
(and gifted me with) numerous similar books, and personal friends
who even *practice* similar strategies. :) You do not know me nearly
well enough to make any suitable recommendations of that nature.

How do you know it's "similar" if you haven't even read the preface?
Ridiculous and illogical. And I don't know if it *is* suitable for
someone like you with the delusions of grandeur you experience,
however there's only one way to find out.

For someone like you however, even if you grudgingly did obtain some
benefit from it, you would almost certainly not acknowledge same. That
would expose yourself and that's not to be permitted. That would also
demonstrate your incompleteness as a human.

You admit below that you haven't even read this book yourself.

I've never read Castaneda. My father apparently did but he was always
looking in the wrong places for meaning when it was right in front of

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)