Thread: Re: Shocking and definitive proof of what dreams really are Started by FrankDiMeglio

Dave makes a good point, JJ. Your interpretation of Frank's work is very nice, if not exactly profound (as you repeatedly said, any accomplished LD'er has bumped into the concepts to which you assume Frank is referring). But, as I asked earlier, are these actual interpretations of Frank's ideas, or are they attachments of your own ideas to whatever of Frank's pronouncements they best adhere? Yes, an interesting conversation can be had about those attachments, but you might do better to acknowledge and build upon your own insights rather than imagine that Frank is onto something deep and meaningful, if only we could decipher it.

Truly, through Dave's (and your) words, I have come to believe that Frank's posts were generated by an actual guy named Frank, but I also tend to believe that his personal issues tend to eclipse his intellect. When a schizophrenic genius makes a startling discovery, the discovery is obvious in spite of its poor delivery -- saying something is hidden within the delivery may be a positive, hopeful thing to do, but unfortunately what's there is probably all of it.

As an aside, I still do not understand why Frank refuses to directly answer any of our questions, or even refer to them. You'd think he'd at least poo-poo our naïveté.

Some small things as long as I’m here:

Originally Posted by JJFrank

As I mentioned before, I often engage schizophrenics in dialogue. It is seldom two-way. I am ok with that. I don't know why.

Then it is not a dialogue. I’ll say here though that I accept and respect your experience with schizophrenics, and be assured that I am not questioning your wisdom regarding them.

Anyone can hear that Frank has a strong need to be identified as the author. This is typical of schizos. Most of us take self-identification for granted. It is normal. It is reality. We do not realize that our self identification is merely an elaborately constructed illusion that helps us operate in the "real" world. We say things like the "real world" as though it is something concrete, but it is not. It only seems concrete because we have comrades who believe in the same reality and they help us sustain it. Schizos do not have this group validation so they are constantly attempting to establish it. Frank's dismissal by those who do not understand him is the reason he does this.

There is quite a bit of philosophy here that I don't agree with. This is normally fine, but you've presented it as truth, so I feel a need to counter. For instance, the real world has yet to be proven -- or even effectively described -- by anyone as something other than "concrete." Just because it's fascinating or philosophically fashionable to call it all an illusion doesn't mean it really is. That Frank’s (we assume) broken perceptions and self-knowledge has left him unable to identify the "real world," or his place in it, sort of implies that there is a real word to which he longs to be a part, doesn't it? And no, I for one do not find self-validation or confirmation of my place in the real world through group validations. I do not count on comrades to share my belief that, say, jumping off a cliff will kill me, in order for it to be "real."

What Frank is saying is very simple. I think that Frank is saying it because he believes that it will help people to connect to his reality. He feels very disconnected. He is trying to connect. It is very difficult to be in an awareness that isn't the norm. Frank is so far gone from our reality that he seems insane. A person like yourself from 2014 would seem insane to a person from 1914. Imagine telling a person from 1914 that men would be marrying men legally or even that women would vote!

You may have that half right. Yes, he may be looking to get people to understand him -- indeed, he is obviously doing that. But, as Dave already said above, common sense perception of insanity hasn't changed much in the last century.

Though I understand your point, keep in mind that folks like Oscar Wilde would have been quite receptive to the concept of gay marriage a century ago (yes, there were gay people and long-term gay relationships in 1914, and everyone knew that -- they just didn't care to discuss it openly). Also, in the US at least, by 1914 women were already well on their way to voting, and any thoughtful person asked at the time wouldn't have questioned such a prospect. Women’s suffrage -- and women as equal beings in general -- was a concept that had been batted around for at least a century by 1914. Noise about women’s equality began with the industrial revolution and the rise of democracy, both of which came long before 1914. I know this is just a bit of nit-picking, but it does go to your point: we are physically the exact same people that we were a century ago, and we reacted the same then as we do now to revolutionary pronouncements. We also knew then that those pronouncements or discoveries were valid fairly quickly: it did not take a century for Einstein to change the world, for instance, or for it to accept the existence of (Hawkings’) black holes.

The rest of your interpretations I think are worth discussing, though -- or perhaps because -- I really see no revelatory things in what Frank said, and it would take quite a discussion to convince me that Frank is a misunderstood Stephen Hawkings!

At the risk of sounding unoriginal, I agree with quite a lot of what Sageous said. I do, however, think, and I hope I'm not sounding too insulting when I say this, that we are overestimating the profundity and intellectual content of Frank's ideas. Unfortunately, JJ, while your translating has made Frank's supposed revelations more legible, they contribute nothing to helping me actually understand what the poor guy is saying. The few bits I can get out of it seem to point to dreams having a hidden message and leading to some realization of truth about the universe, such as Reality is not real and how dreams are uber important or something similar. Unfortunately, he makes up his own terms and the terms he uses that do exist seem shoehorned in to make his ramblings sound more scientific.

That's not to say that there isn't anything of merit to be discussed here. Its just that, his ideas are so poorly formatted that its hard to actually argue about........ whatever this actually this. Indeed, we've spent more time trying to work out what he's even saying, than we have talking about these apparent insights. As such, I'm convinced he's either a bot or a troll. And if he is a real human, then, quite frankly, I feel sorry for him.

In light of some new information, I owe Frank an apology. Frank is a real person, not a bot or a troll. Sorry, Frank, for thinking your are a bot. Maybe you see though, where that idea came from. From your nonresponsivness to our questions, which you reply to only with same copy/pasted text. So again, sorry.

Suppose I owe you an apology too, then. Sorry, Frank. But please help us to actually understand this.

Sorry, but the last post was deleted. I'm not comfortable with members discussing other members in this fashion. This is not a thread about Frank and his percieved illness. There is a new thread by Frank, and if you guys wish to continue discussing his ideas, not his person, you are welcomed to do so there.

Or here, but not discussing his person. Thank you, and sorry about that.