Split Personalities from Abuse

[Patrick]

Yes good question. If the majority of people think you are crazy, then you are.

That's only the way the majority of people seems to have defined what is crazy.
Have you ever seen a big group of people voting for an individual to be crazy?

We don't really know if there is something like crazy, or if this is only the state of being different.

So the Law of One is crazy too.

This would be a fallacy.

If we do not accept the meaning that the majority of people ascribes to words and concepts, then we will no longer understand each others. Semantic cannot be sidestepped.

So if the majority of people puts the Ra material and its followers in the crazy category, then my reply is not to tell them that they are wrong. My reply is telling them that I am glad that I am crazy then.

Regarding your question on voting, please rephrase it because I do not understand what you are asking.

[Agua]

Yes good question. If the majority of people think you are crazy, then you are.

That's only the way the majority of people seems to have defined what is crazy.
Have you ever seen a big group of people voting for an individual to be crazy?

We don't really know if there is something like crazy, or if this is only the state of being different.

So the Law of One is crazy too.

This would be a fallacy.

If we do not accept the meaning that the majority of people ascribes to words and concepts, then we will no longer understand each others. Semantic cannot be sidestepped.

So if the majority of people puts the Ra material and its followers in the crazy category, then my reply is not to tell them that they are wrong. My reply is telling them that I am glad that I am crazy then.

Regarding your question on voting, please rephrase it because I do not understand what you are asking.

To offer a different perspective:

I think we simply have to acknowlegde the fact that actually everybody has a different u derstandimg of certain words, especially in a spiritual context!

A nice example would be the term „awakened“, which is being used in a completely and actually rather opposite way to its actual meaning here.

Not sure, if you understand what I mean though...

[Patrick]

I think I do. Semantic is always important in any discussion. It's just a personal preference not to go against the flow as much as possible. I could very well reply to the majority that they are the crazy ones in my opinion, based on my own understanding of that word.

[Agua]

I think I do. Semantic is always important in any discussion. It's just a personal preference not to go against the flow as much as possible. I could very well reply to the majority that they are the crazy ones in my opinion, based on my own understanding of that word.

Well, I tried to point out, that you also have a tendency to use words in a completely different meaning than its original meaning.
That’s why I used the example.

Not sure, if you meant that with your reply.

[Patrick]

I think I do. Semantic is always important in any discussion. It's just a personal preference not to go against the flow as much as possible. I could very well reply to the majority that they are the crazy ones in my opinion, based on my own understanding of that word.

Well, I tried to point out, that you also have a tendency to use words in a completely different meaning than its original meaning.
That’s why I used the example.

Not sure, if you meant that with your reply.

If I do this, then semantic is even more important! I am sorry. I do look up definitions of many words and even often put those in my posts in order to increase clarity.

But the real issue could be that I am a French speaker, English not being my first language.

[tadeus]

If we do not accept the meaning that the majority of people ascribes to words and concepts, then we will no longer understand each others. Semantic cannot be sidestepped.

I agree to the need of the definition of words and concepts.

But the difference is how some words are defined.
The sentence with the voting should show, that there is not really a croud of people that will look at an individual and then performs a democratic voting if this individual is crazy.
There is at least always a single person that decides that another person is crazy.

When you have an outer view on such things, you will find the same principle in much definitions, that are official defined as "majority".
But when you analyze it, then you will see that this is only a fallacy.

There is a nice book, written by a psychiatrist: Irre - Wir behandeln die Falschen by Manfred Lütz . I don't know if it has been translated in english.
(Lunatics - We treat the wrong ones: Our problem is the normals - A light-hearted study of the soul)
It's really funny, but with a closer look it is not humoristic. He has written true things.


Besides - yesterday i have seen "normal" advertising on tel-e-vision after a longer time and i was scared, how crazy things are shown to catch the attention of the people.
At least the advertising was much more crazy then the film with superheroes, that was shown between the advertising.
When this shall reflect a "normal world", what is normal?

[Patrick]

I agree with you. I personally don't believe in "normality". This is why I have no issues being told that I am not "normal". I don't think anyone is "normal" and it's much better this way.

[Ohr Ein Sof]

Yes good question. If the majority of people think you are crazy, then you are. So the Law of One is crazy too. I am quite proud of being part of the crazy.

My craziness does not need fixing. The same goes for paranoia. If the person is ok with paranoia then there is nothing to fix either.

But I believe it is important to be truthful with the self. If you are crazy you need to recognize that. If you are paranoid you need to recognize that too.

If these things are fine as they are, then all is well.

If the majority of people think you are crazy then that is just what they "think"; if you think you are crazy, then you are crazy. People do not define you, do they? Otherwise, we would all be in trouble from those pesky gaslighters we encounter from time to time.

[tadeus]

I should not post this links, but there is now an official article in the Telegraph, about what is normally called mindcontrol.
(Because this are only links to the public mainstram press, there is no reason to censor it.)

Use of fear to control behaviour in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists
Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications

To ignore such thinks and keep believing in the existing structures is really crazy.
So just inform for yourself, get the statistical data and think about it.
Please do it not only related to Covid, do it for the financial system and history of your country too.
Everything is public, simple inform for yourself and don't believe talking heads on sceens.

[Patrick]

You don't need to convince me. Their tactics are plainly visible. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

[tadeus]

I only try to convice all, that the reality has more layers that need attention.