goldisheavy

My thoughts exactly. I don't think placebo effect is fake or bad or anything like that. What is known as "placebo" is a natural healing effect that could be tapped into by various means. I look forward to more investigations. It's kind of odd how for a while the pharma industry thought of it as something that just gets in the way of research and has no other purpose. Talk about bias. We all see what we want to see, including the scientists.

Whatever we do, I don't think we should judge a man by his longevity. Quality is more important than quantity. The only way I would feel comfortable making a judgment on Dr. Glenn's death is if I had a great deal of context, at the very least, and preferably was there right before and during his death. If you want to criticize something, there are plenty of ways to go about it that do not involve picking on a dead man whom we barely know anything about and whom cannot now speak in his own defense. In my understanding KAP does not make any ostentatious claims. Please correct me if I am wrong. He doesn't have to be a saint. But how can anyone seriously have a problem with a man dying in his 60s? Many great people die in their 60s, so what? How is it better to lead a miserable life all the way to 90s? Can we instead criticize logical flaws in the doctrine or something like that? Criticizing a doctrine based on the time of passing of its founder seems a little loopy to me, unless you have pretty precise understanding of the circumstances involved and are willing to make them public too. What if, God forbid, you get hit by a brick tomorrow? What does that mean? Some Taoists would say you didn't work much on your destiny, but even then, it doesn't mean some of your other ideas were not good. I do not know any teacher, not even Buddha Gotama or Jesus, who were flawlessly good all around and utterly beyond reproach. I enjoy criticism, no doubt about it, but I don't like something that borders on rumor-mongering to pass for criticism. By all means, let's take apart Dr. Glenn's philosophy or something like that.

Do you believe that I can dream? Like if I tell you I had a dream and go on to describe it, would you tell me to go fuck myself because there is no evidence of it anywhere to be seen, or would you accept it? What would you do, honestly? What do you do? How do you react to people recounting dreams? What about feelings? If I say I feel weird, do you believe me? So if a taoist builds a boat, is it evidence of taoism? If a qi gong master makes a painting, can this be evidence of qi the same way that when a scientist makes a telescope it is evidence of science?

First of all, this will be different for different people. Some people have had excellent improvements in their health, and are going because of that. Others noticed better martial arts ability, and are going because of that. Still others noticed they enjoy life more and are going because of that. Others learned to perform some degree of magic and enjoy the enchantment it brings to life and are going because of that. Others noticed they have less anguish, and are going because of that. And so forth. Maybe some people can't even explain coherently why they are going along, or they don't even know why, never mind explaining. For example, if a bird sings, and you ask it, "Why do you sing?" What kind of answer do you think you will get? The bird will probably tell you to go away and won't give you a serious answer. Because singing is taken for granted, right? Thus it need no explanation. Explanation is needed for something strange or unusual, but from birds perspective, constant singing is neither strange nor unusual thus requiring no explanation. See, from your perspective it's weird and you feel like you have some right to demand an explanation. But the bird doesn't care about you all that much. Bird only knows its own world just like you only know your own world and don't care about the bird (you appear to be admitting only a passing curiosity). The bird is happy and you are happy. You don't want to go out of your way to accommodate the bird, because you are happy with your life. The bird, likewise, doesn't want to go out of its way to accommodate you either, since its happy with its life. Now tell me... is it possible to truly understand science if you come from a strongly faith-based background and you only have a passing interest in science? I say no. No way. A passing interest in science is not nearly enough to understand science. It's not even enough to prove that scientific method can be effective! Some of the scientific experiments are only accessible in very expensive and rare locations and unless you travel there and see the experiment for yourself, you are taking it on faith. The same is true here. Some experiences with qi are only possible if you travel somewhere, and this isn't possible when interest level is not beyond mere curiosity. An interesting question is why do you have faith in one thing but not another? Some things are easy to believe for you and you believe them right away, even though you weren't there and have no way to prove them. Other things you don't believe even if you see them with your own eyes in front of your nose! Why is that? Did you ever think about that?

Zhang, you were comparing two system and asking why are they different, right? At least that's how I understood it. Here's what I think about it. The reason is two-fold. What's the motivation? What's the perceived obstacle or deficit? In western magick motivation is to lead a more creative, more abundant and more enchanted/interesting life. The teachings of emptiness are strongly motivated by reducing suffering. Western magicians like to make stuff, because stuff is not evil. Stuff is not perceived to be an obstacle. Buddhists perceive stuff to be an obstacle and try to eliminate it. Hence monks have few possessions and clear their minds often. A guy like Frantzis probably is of a similar mindset. He probably perceives form as clutter and wants to unburden the mind from it. Western magician does not think form is burden... he/she thinks form is mostly pleasure, especially the right kind of form. So the goal is not to get rid of it, but to control forms in order to get consistently pleasurable ones. Some other schools maintain that forms are hopelessly unsatisfactory and the only worthwhile thing to do with form is to merge it back into formlessness. Another way to look at it is this. If you imagine a sphere of expressiveness, then our typical common man modality is to use positive intent to a medium degree. Western mages perceive that being able to use positive intent to a large degree will yield more control. That's why Bardon spends so much time with many focusing exercises. Focusing exercises increase mastery over structure in the mind, they summon shapes or hold mental postures for a long time and so forth and you get better at this activity as you practice. Defocusing exercises like Frantzis type stuff help with dissolution of shapes, with destructuring the mind. So you get better at that (naturally) as you practice that. When one has a lot of experience with structure-directed intent, one naturally begins to understand destructuring better as well, because it's two sides of the same coin. The reverse is also true. So ultimately, conceivably, both types of adepts can be close in abilities. The difference will then come from their values. What kind of life does one take to be ideal? Is life free from suffering ideal? Or is life full of meaningful suffering better? If you believe in meaningful suffering, then creativity is important. If you don't see any meaning in suffering and just want to eliminate it forever, obviously your methods will reflect that. Do you want to be a painter? Or do you want to put away the paints and forget it all? Ultimately there is no substantial difference between painting and abstaining from painting, however before you know this, you still have some relative preferences. Also, I have a strong feeling that Western magic lifted a lot of concepts from all kinds of places... in other words, I think Western magic doesn't exist as an indigenous unbroken tradition of its own. Maybe druidic magic can be like that, but we have lost it. I don't know this for sure. And my only understanding of Frantzis comes from what you type here, so please don't think I've read any of his stuff or watched many videos or anything like that. I'm just reacting to your words.

I see two other possibilities. That Guy might be uncomfortable that there are some people around who believe what is to his mind "nonsense". He's curious, how can anyone believe that? What kind of crazy are these folks? Let me talk to them. So maybe he's just curious to feel out the nature and character of our "crazy" or maybe he wants to dissuade us. Another possibility is that he has an intuition that maybe there is something to this Tao, qi, qigong, stuff, but he's a lazy ass and doesn't want to think on his own, and comes here, lays all the burden on us and expects us to do all the heavy lifting of changing his mind for him. It might be something other than laziness though. It could be fear. He might fear that if he even considers this seriously for one second, this will be completely incompatible with how a "sane" person should behave, and is totally intolerable. Then if he asks us to prove qi and we manage to convince him, it's not his fault. So all the blame for his insanity will then fall on us and he avoids responsibility.

This kind of stuff is not what you think it is. It's subject to one's emotions and intentions and to everything else within one's fluctuating living mind. The number of people who would have this ability is in the single units. And all it takes is a single arrow from a bow that was not anticipated, and the guy is dead. You can only stop that which you are aware of with this power. This kind of power is good if you take people by surprise and slaughter them one by one or 3 at a time, but if you're attacked by 500 people from all sides, chances are you will miss something or simply be overwhelmed. This kind of power is an art and is very psychological in nature. It's not like a tank that just works (to some extent) at all times. Like I said before, the person wants to be able to feel things, and thus cannot afford resting in an insensate state so cannot maintain permanent protection and MUST be vulnerable to enjoy life. And if you can't enjoy life, what are you fighting for? So if you're fighting, it means you have the capacity to enjoy life, and that means you are vulnerable as a general rule. So then yin-type invulnerability is a special case, subject to many conditions like all other phenomena. Imagine the best MMA fighter, and now imagine someone who is 100 times better. But out of an army of 15000 you only have 1 such warrior. Does this guarantee you a win against a 50000 army with a superior general who understands strategy and tactics better? Of course not! Please use common sense. This doesn't mean someone with very special abilities cannot exist.

There are two definitions of "authentic". One is, she has a historical lineage transmission. In that case, she probably is "authentic." The other is "wise." In that case, she is not authentic, because her speech is unwise. She's way too categorical, way too cut-n-dry for someone who should know better. Do you know what the 4 extremes are in Buddhism? The extreme position of considering something to exist (is), is one. Then to not exist (is not) is two, and then two combinations of those (both is and is not) and (neither is nor is not). Now authentic Buddhists understand that all phenomena are beyond the 4 extremes of existence, thus it is very deceitful to talk so simply and categorically to a person, without any nuance. There is grave danger in presenting selflessness as some kind of activity that removes ego! Selflessness is nothing like that, not even slightly. Selflessness in Buddhism is not an action, nor is it like draining, nor removing something, nor emptying out, nor like obliterating anything. To present some phenomenon, any phenomenon as a result of selflessness is utterly misguided, because all phenomena are already flawlessly selfless as is, at all times. Even the notion of selflessness itself is not quite correct, because it's not an actual reliable permanent delineation that you can trust at the ultimate level. But on a relative level you need a healthy strong ego. The point is simple. Real lamas, and by real I mean wise lamas and not just someone with a certificate from another lama, are very nuanced and subtle in how they talk about things. They don't make these categorical statements, especially not when they mean to help you or not when they didn't setup a proper context for making a categorical statement. This is the only hope! Because if her answer is even a little close to what you said, it is not a good one at all. Definitely not worthy of lama status. I'm explaining to you in some detail what's wrong with her statement so you can judge for yourself. It counts for a lot. But you're in a very vulnerable state now. Any figure of authority can deceive you easily. You have a weak spiritual immunity to bullshit yet. This will come with time. Indeed. Chuang Tzu is not something that can be understood well upon the first reading, or even upon the fifth reading. It's a text that you can read 100 times and still continue to gain new insights. Why is that? That's because most of it is in the form of good questions, either implied or explicit. Chuang Tzu makes hardly any assertions, if at all. Instead Chuang Tzu takes a look at what's commonly asserted by various people and has a good chuckle at it. Tao is a special concept meant for training the mind. Tao is not an actual object somewhere. Tao is not an essence of any kind either. Tao is just a way to hint at transcendence, but it's not even transcendence in and of itself. All this and I still didn't describe Tao. That's how it should be. I think if you read Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu, you'll begin to understand why the word "Tao" was invented.

So much secrecy... blah... First of all, yin and yang are not two different energies. They are different intent-directions. Yin absorbs or disperses while yang creates structure, brings forth, emits. But every time there is a manifestation of yang, there is also yin, because it's the same coin with two sides. You can't have one or the other. However, intent can focus on yin or on yang, or a combination, but it's a single meaning with a single "movement" of intent, and not one movement for yin and one for yang. Using energy is intentional. So if John Chang is absent-minded or distracted, he will not have any protection whatsoever, unless he did something very special with his habitual energies so that some things are no longer intentional but are automatic -- this could interfere with life on this planet though. Think about it. If his body absorbed all shock at all times, he would become numb. He'd lose feeling! That's definitely not good. With vulnerability comes feeling and with invulnerability comes inability to feel certain things. Now then, to invoke yin, you have to super-relax. You relax so much that the bullet relaxes, this is because the bullet is in your own mind too, and you can relax yourself outside your body. This is how you can sap energy from anything because all things, inside or outside the body are actually in the same place -- in the mind, and you can access them all equally well, only barring your self-limiting beliefs. You can also relax rigidity out of your surroundings, thus making them more fluid. In this case, you can see ghostly appearances because you just allowed your surroundings to show subtle phenomena that were previously suppressed by yang (also coming from you, at all times, habitually). Our minds give very strict structure to our environment due to overabundant yang intent. When intent becomes more yin, things begin to loosen up. Therefore "miracles" become easier to perform, but also ghosts and strange things can appear too, because the field around you becomes softer, less structured, more dynamic, more amenable to change. To give you another example. If you lift a weight and you mostly use intent to generate tension, that's yang. If you use intent to make the weight seem weightless, like you're not lifting anything at all, that's using the yin side to do the same thing (with some small amount of yang to do the movement... but yin is what drains the resistance from the environment). If you use yin you can lift, eventually, with training, even 10 tonns, and it will feel like a tennis ball, because using yin simply changes the meaning of weight. But with yang only you will hit a hard limit because subjectively there is a limit to the amount of tension you can cognise, while relaxation has no limit. Your environment exists the way it does due to an ongoing grant of energy from you. When you begin to withdraw that grant, that's yin. When you add to it, that's yang. There is a habituation to it, so the grant is mostly automatic and unconscious for most people. But some people can learn to feel themselves constantly granting the environment all its strength, and in that case, these people can also withdraw (stop feeding the world-appearances). It's like relaxing your muscle. If you understand that the body has some minimal amount of tension in it, even if you are totally relaxed, you understand habitual unconscious automatic grant of energy then. To revoke it is equivalent to stilling your heart or to relaxing your body beyond the usual level. If you contemplate the true nature of intent, all this will be obvious to you and more. Then you won't have to beg around anymore.

First of all, this lama is a fake one, no doubt about it, based on her approach. Real Buddhists understand that the truth is beyond the 4 extremes and act like it. They don't say stupid shit like "OBLITERATE YOURSELF MORON!!!" That's not Buddhism at all. On the flip-side your understanding of Taoism and especially of Chuang Tzu is just miserable, and thus you find yourself very affected by this woman. Tao is not something "permanent". Where do you get this from? Lao Tzu starts off this way, "I don't know what to call it, so I'll call it Tao." When you read Chuang Tzu, Chuant Tzu constantly says, read this very carefully, as if you are holding a hot iron ball, or as if you are walking on thin ice... meaning, do not grasp too tightly what is being said! All these pithy instructions must have went right over your head or something, because you seem to think you know what Tao is when even Lao Tzu didn't know what Tao was and was just speaking approximately. Chuang Tzu is damn careful not to say "and then you realize Tao". He always says things like, "and then you are very near Tao". He never says what is Tao and nor does he say "here it is, this is what happens when you realize it." Never. One would think the pithiness of this would be valuable, but apparently it goes over some people's heads. There is no solid difference between self and other. If you understand this, and as a Taoist, you should dispute the boundary between self and other, then you can see how improving yourself you improve all. Improving all you improve yourself. There is no contradiction and no problem. You can work for your own benefit, and as long as your understanding of yourself is expansive and wise, you will naturally benefit everything around you by benefitting yourself. The problem with ordinary people is that their self-conception is extremely narrow and constipated, thus when they benefit themselves they hurt everything around them. This is a result of polarizing self and other, of not truly understanding what it is you are. It's lack of self-knowledge. Kill the Buddha.

==== I feel I should add this: Some things are subtle and are very easy to change. For these things, if you apply too much effort, you lend unnecessary strength to the very thing you're trying to change. In this case, reducing the effort will make change easier. Some things are gross and are very hard to change. In this case, if you try to solely rely on an effortless approach, you may also miss the mark, because your intent will lack the full heartedness (breadth and depth) that's necessary to change something gross. So it's possible to err by going with too much effort or with too little. In both cases the common pattern is this: When you are honest, change is as fast as it can be. When you are dishonest, change is slower than it could otherwise be. If you exaggerate something subtle, you lend it your own vitality and make it more vigorous and more resistant than it would otherwise be. But if you underestimate something truly pervasive, deep, entrenched, then your intent may take too long to mature to the proper level of fullness that properly matches the character and scope of what you're trying to change. And how can we know what's what? What's subtle? What's gross? Just how subtle something is? I can't think of any scientific way of knowing. This is why I think it's an art. You have to live your life with forbearance and resolve, and just keep at it, and eventually you will have the type of insight that will be effective for what you want to see or accomplish.

At the highest level of investigation there is no objective (and therefore no subjective either) reality. This "at the highest level of investigation" is important to keep in mind, because we don't investigate things usually. We just roll forward, habitually and effortlessly, and even our efforts arise in familiar patterns, effortlessly. More on this below. This is an error I talked about before. This error is a result of underestimating the phenomenal inertia. Just because something is amenable to change doesn't mean that same something is itching to change at your slightest whim. For example, we all know about water being able to cut stones, but... it's a slow process, yes? You can demolish a mountain with a long series of feathers, but can you imagine how long this takes? So the point is that while one can change anything, some things change faster than others and it's important to be honest about this, or you risk becoming a space cadet. Yes. Beliefs are not something trivial. They are, in some sense, more durable than mountains and rivers and our atmosphere. Beliefs can be changed, but if you don't want to go insane, or if you don't want to go too insane, the closer you are working to your core beliefs, the slower the change and the more delicate the process. Imagine doing an open-heart surgery on yourself while you are walking down the street -- that's kind of what it's like to be working on your own core beliefs. It's not for the squeamish. The difference between a spiritual person and a physicalist is that to a physicalist the principles, laws, theories behind the apparent reality are utterly bolted down and utterly independent of anything, and especially independent of our beliefs and our state of mind. A spiritual person doesn't perceive anything as independent or bolted-down, however, with this comes a danger. It's all too easy to mis-appreciate the nature of habit energies. Just because something is of the mind does not mean it's a joke or that you can, with trivial effort, overcome it. But the mind is strange. The belief-scape is not a uniform mass. It's weird and alive. So it's possible that you'll make gradual progress with quite some effort for years when suddenly a series of enormous changes will come together for you effortlessly and quickly. That's not impossible. It's also possible that you can experience your path to be fast and effortless. What I am saying though is that it's not a guarantee and it shouldn't always be taken for granted. It's important to have an honest appreciation for what we are facing. If I have some fear and if I were to have any hope of lessening it, I must be honest about the extent of that fear, I must see it honestly to my fullest ability, without exaggeration and without underestimation. I believe this is why it's an art and not a science. That's why when people talk about yoga science, I kind of cringe. From my perspective, while there are some science-like elements to my practice/life, I perceive it more of an art than science.

You obviously haven't understood Chuang Tzu then. Those Taoists who appreciate Chuang Tzu also understand non-monism of Tao. Buddhists love to think they are unique though. They'll be damned to admit someone or something might have a similar insight.

The last thing anyone needs is a dull regurgitations of facts like that. Yes, yes, of course you knew. That's irrelevant though and is not what I was hinting at. What do you admire about bears? Why are they your favorite? Why were you surprised and why did you think it was important to remember the feeling of surprise and to then type about it here? Obviously it's important because if it wasn't you'd either forget or not bother to mention it. I'm talking about "but". "But they were really brutal..." hmm.... But.... ?? Dig there. What do you expect from a bear dream? What does bear stand for, in your own mind? Don't give me any cheap answers please because this is not like a quiz. It's for you to find out; your own secret.

I think you are trying way too hard. Lucid dreaming is very easy. You don't need any particular technique. What you need is intent and faith. You intend to recognize your dreams as dreams, and you do. You have faith in this, and do not doubt it. Having no doubt doesn't imply a constipated frame of mind where you cannot ask questions about your ability, but it means being certain that sooner or later, by hook or by crook, one way or another, mysteriously or logically it all works out exactly how you intend it. It's like a floor below which you cannot fall down. That's faith. Above this floor there can be all kinds of activity and possibility, but not below. So once you decide to get lucid, there is no chance that you won't. The only variable is how you will get lucid, exactly when, under what circumstances, etc... but not whether or not you will. This understanding that once you decide something there is no more "whether or not", that's the floor of faith and we all have faith in something. You step into the street even though a meteor can fall any second and kill you. That's faith. You draw breath even though there may be poison in the air. You just assume the air is good and generally it is good -- that's faith. You step forward even through the earth might split open at any time, that's faith. You use faith at all times. You can't choose not to have faith, your only choice is what you have faith in, the object of your faith. But you always have some faith and faith doesn't need to be cultivated, it's always yours. You might want to change it. For example, if you have faith in others but not in yourself, you might want to change that, etc... So if you want (genuinely) to be lucid, you will be and in short order too, no doubt about it. There is no need to struggle too much. Just take some actions and watch it happen without worry. Leave your heart open to the possibility, that's all. As long as the door is open, it walks in. It being anything you invite with your intent. Knowing this without effort and without big wobbles is faith and faith comes from understanding that you can't fall below the ground and that you use faith every second of every day as is. Hope this helps.

I like this technique. Many of the best techniques are very simple and do not depend on strenuous effort or concentration of any kind. What's there to say that hasn't been said yet? A common error about mind is to assume that mind is only that which is flighty and very changeable. Mind can also be very stable and harder to change than moving a mountain. People take their experiences and draw a line through them. On one side of the line they group all the flighty and non-obviously-public phenomena, on the other side the put all the phenomena that are effortless and spontaneous and that have a good degree of durability. They call one side of this "mind" and the other side of this "physical". I believe that in reality it's all mind. Mind is a smooth range that covers the entire phenomenal spectrum and not just a section of that spectrum that seems/feels close to our head or whatnot. Then if you understand mind in this way, it becomes obvious how you can develop a new way of being in the world. The world no longer has to be something you merely follow. You can create upon it now. You now have more options. People observe some constraints in daily life. For example, if you release a cup from your hand, it falls downward and not up. That's an example of a constraint. When you begin to understand that life is a dream, what changes is how you think about these constraints. In the first case you think they are solid, unchangeable, built-in, pre-existing, absolute, self-existing, independent of you, permanent, etc. In the second case you see constraints as something that is optional (but may have a lot of inertia to overcome), that is dependent (on you), that is temporary, that is instantiated anew every second, and so forth. This changes your relationship to the perceived constraints. You no longer feel victimized by constraints, and you feel that constraints are more like paints that you can paints with, or if you like, you can just observe what is already painted without actively repainting what you see, you have options. To make this powerful, you should keep it honest. If something has inertia, admit it, don't lie to yourself. Some people think that if everything is mind, everything is flighty, and that's not true, or at least, not always true, or often false, etc. Honesty will give you real power because you'll neither overestimate constraints nor underestimate them and your creativity and authority with regard to them will be genuine and effective.

It's all on the surface here. You like polar bears, but when you see how brutal they can be, you act surprised. This is why you had this dream. You don't understand what you like and why. You need to contemplate it. This dream calls your attention to this aspect of the bear you've been ignoring. When the "but" goes away, then you understand. If you just read your own post, you can understand 75% of what you want to know. Do you ever bother to read your own posts?

Yes. I think that's exactly what life is, except it's not lucid. Most of the time we spend in waking consciousness we don't think, "I am dreaming", thus we are not lucid. We are actually asleep. If you erase the boundary between dreams and waking, then you have a different kind of life. This can be a scary thought though.

No shit? I think this is hilarious! I fucked countless women upon women in my dreams. I've never had any police. I go anywhere and the first woman that shows up is beautiful and I fuck her immediately, even in the bus or anywhere whatsoever. There may be others there or no others it doesn't matter one bit. What's interesting is that in my dreams if I want to fuck someone, they automagically want to fuck me too, so it's magically always mutual. Almost always. I think there has been one exception. I haven't dreamt of police at all. Now that you mention it though, I wouldn't be surprised if I started dreaming of some police too. I wonder how I shall cook them in my dreams? Shall I boil them? Shall I ice them? Shall I transport them into space? Embed them into my body? Embed myself into their bodies? The possibilities are endless. Good old flying away works too. I could also become a ghost/invisible, whatever. If you can imagine it, I can do it in a lucid dream.

I could almost agree to this, but there is one hitch. Liberation is not something that can be easily lost. If something is easily lost, it's not liberation but a fleeting condition. The nature of Nirvana in Buddhism is that it's not fleeting, so it's kind of special in that way.

I think this would be a fair and acceptable simplification of what I said, but not exactly what I said. So to use your language, a lion's soul may become human-like in due time, maybe. And maybe that's necessary for that lion to be liberated. But maybe for another lion it's not necessary. Liberation works in inconceivable variety of ways due to unique mentality affecting various sentient beings. I would say that while it's possible that a sentient being who perceives oneself to be a lion goes through a phase of perceiving oneself to be a human, it's not the only one possible way. It's also possible that some humans may need to perceive themselves to be lions before they can be liberated. Don't take my word for any of this though. I suggest to investigate this matter yourself to the best of your ability and see what makes sense to you. Are you assuming that humans are wiser and more compassionate than lions? I would investigate this assumption before I reincarnated as anything.

I don't consider you to be a troll. I believe you are genuine and truly have this question on your mind. I hope you still feel welcome here.

I appreciate your agreement Stig. I think I've benefited as well.

To me it's not a question of "what if". "What if" is a valid question if there is only one right way to think, and then our belief frameworks are contenders for this one "right belief framework". Since I believe in multiple viable, useful, actionable alternatives, "what if" is just not the right question. Maybe a better question is not "What if the scientist is right?" But, "What if the scientist's belief framework is better, more interesting and leads to a better life?" Not that it's inherently right, but that it's more preferable to some other, say mine, framework. I may, but that's a cheap question. I prefer to elucidate if possible, especially if the conversational partner is genuinely curious. My goal is to enlighten rather than to pin you down into a logical corner and show my superiority. I believe my way of life is a good one, but not to the exclusion of other possibly good ways of life. I'm open to making improvements to my beliefs. I've changed some of my core beliefs since being born here in Earth, and I think it's possible I will change again. I don't change randomly though. I have a way of evaluating things, taking them for a spin, see if the results are good (and I have my own definition of what's good, btw, which is leaning to more personal empowerment and less toward empowering a convention of some kind). I don't like black-or-white thinking myself. I think polarizing reality into "it's clearly this and obviously not that" is a narrow-minded and naive way of thinking. I don't like to be bored. Don't want my life to be boring, and I think this does reflect on my informational field.

In my opinion, while there is some of that, we should let "That Guy" attack us. I definitely intend to let him attack me. What I want is That Guy being honest, and if politeness inhibits what he says, I don't want that. Obviously I don't want him to be too violent, but I accept some degree of verbal violence as part of That Guy's honesty and true character. Let him question us. If our beliefs and wisdom is worth even a single grain of salt, surely we can tolerate it? Of course we can. I know I can. Let the skeptics do what they will. If we try to impose overly restrictive conversational guidelines on people, we won't have a real conversation. We'll have a polite bullshit pretense that passes as a conversation, but we won't be touching our hearts together.