Question
John
I thought I had already asked a question, maybe you simply didn't feel
comfortable answering like Nick Kemp often doesn't.
Here it is again with another.
1 That may be an old article but it is the link you arrive at from
the CURRENT product page for Magical Rapport, cost $69.97. It says on
the page -
Last Updated: May 7, 2006 at 2:00 AM
http://essential-skills.com/site.php/spgs/read/product_page1/
Is this "out of date" stuff what the DVD is based on or have I got the
wrong link from somewhere?
How valid is the (rapport) product in the light of you new research
into the conscious mind?
2 You have said elsewhere "Outside of conscious awareness is not
'the' unconscious mind."
If it is not the unconscious mind then where is it?
--
John
Tom Vizzini
"John" <67vnue6o@knwfv> wrote in message
news:shsep39s8t5ao5d4u...@4ax.com...
> >Sorry your post is still asks no questions on the topic presented.
>
> I thought I had already asked a question, maybe you simply didn't feel
> comfortable answering like Nick Kemp often doesn't.
Or maybe it was again buried inside of a thread of flames that I don't read.
Or it could be a week where I don't read here. Or it could be that your
questions are notuing more than leadning flame bait.
You want a question answered...ask one that does not have a presupposotion
in it.
>
> Here it is again with another.
>
> 1 That may be an old article but it is the link you arrive at from
> the CURRENT product page for Magical Rapport, cost $69.97. It says on
> the page -
>
> Last Updated: May 7, 2006 at 2:00 AM
> http://essential-skills.com/site.php/spgs/read/product_page1/
>
> Is this "out of date" stuff what the DVD is based on or have I got the
> wrong link from somewhere?
>
> How valid is the (rapport) product in the light of you new research
> into the conscious mind?
It is still completely valid. The roll of the unconscious mind has nothing
to do with the Magical Rapport product. Pulling one sentence out of a full
page of text to make a point is a pretty weak debating technique.
>
>
>
> 2 You have said elsewhere "Outside of conscious awareness is not
> 'the' unconscious mind."
>
> If it is not the unconscious mind then where is it?
...Uh...outside of conscious awareness does not mean there is an all knowing
unconscious mind. If you are really open to it why not play with this idea.
It is nowhere.
If you really want a discussion....How about proving to me that there is an
unconscious mind.
Tom
Tom Vizzini
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:O-KdnYGvBfBQ6wra...@comcast.com...
>
> "John" <67vnue6o@knwfv> wrote in message
> news:shsep39s8t5ao5d4u...@4ax.com...
> > >Sorry your post is still asks no questions on the topic presented.
> >
> > I thought I had already asked a question, maybe you simply didn't feel
> > comfortable answering like Nick Kemp often doesn't.
>
> Or maybe it was again buried inside of a thread of flames that I don't
read.
> Or it could be a week where I don't read here. Or it could be that your
> questions are notuing more than leadning flame bait.
>
>
damn my typing suck more than usual today
John
It is hardly 1 sentence, it is the 2nd of 7 steps to achieving Magical
Rapport.
"Second, train your unconscious to observe what our conscious mind
cannot. Through several techniques that we teach , the unconscious
mind gets trained to pick up minute bio responses. These are responses
that are not only seen but felt. The second part of that is to
calibrate to those responses and what they mean."
Surly the strategy does not work if a step is missing. You and
Hellbrat are always saying it is critical to follow the 3D Mind
process as given, is that not true here?
>> 2 You have said elsewhere "Outside of conscious awareness is not
>> 'the' unconscious mind."
>>
>> If it is not the unconscious mind then where is it?
>
>...Uh...outside of conscious awareness does not mean there is an all knowing
>unconscious mind. If you are really open to it why not play with this idea.
>It is nowhere.
>
>If you really want a discussion....How about proving to me that there is an
>unconscious mind.
My God talking to you is frustrating.
Look, I fully agree with you, I also believe there is no such thing as
the unconscious mind that is all knowing OK. So asking me to defend
this is pointless because I don't believe it.
I am on you side on this. If you want an argument you will have to
look for somebody else.
Now you said the certain things are "Outside of conscious awareness".
Since it is possible for them to enter consciousness at some late date
I am simply asking if you have a name for this place where they are?
--
John
Tom Vizzini
"John" <67vnue6o@knwfv> wrote in message
> Surly the strategy does not work if a step is missing. You and
> Hellbrat are always saying it is critical to follow the 3D Mind
> process as given, is that not true here?
her eis the problem I have with you John. You already have an answer that
you want in mind. My answer stays the same. The unconscious mind is not an
important part of the process.
> >
> >If you really want a discussion....How about proving to me that there is
an
> >unconscious mind.
>
> My God talking to you is frustrating.
>
> Look, I fully agree with you, I also believe there is no such thing as
> the unconscious mind that is all knowing OK. So asking me to defend
> this is pointless because I don't believe it.
So I guess I have lost your point. Do you have one? Why are you looking on
my site for references to the unconscious mind and what does that have to do
with a post you already agree with?
What does any of that possible have to do with Rapport? You are splitting
your ideas into two different directions.
Pick one.
>
> I am on you side on this. If you want an argument you will have to
> look for somebody else.
>
> Now you said the certain things are "Outside of conscious awareness".
> Since it is possible for them to enter consciousness at some late date
> I am simply asking if you have a name for this place where they are?
It is real easy....Lets change the words to make it easier on you. Think in
terms of focus. Focus is not an on/off switch. It has varying degrees. You
can focus on the computer screeen yet still kntice what is going on around
you in the room. If someone walked in, you would notice.
The entire room was not in your unconscious mind while you were reading. It
was still there but was assigned a lower level of focus. The movement or
sound alerted you to something else in the room. If it was normal or
expected most likely there was not a big shift in focus. If it was
unexpected or unsusual there would have been a bigger shift of focus.
Easy enough....
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
>"John" <67vnue6o@knwfv> wrote in message
>
>> Surly the strategy does not work if a step is missing. You and
>> Hellbrat are always saying it is critical to follow the 3D Mind
>> process as given, is that not true here?
>
>
>her eis the problem I have with you John. You already have an answer that
>you want in mind. My answer stays the same. The unconscious mind is not an
>important part of the process.
That may be true and you still haven't explained how a product that
you have on sale on your website can work when 1 step in a sequence of
7 steps is missing.
What would one be expected to do here, miss it out completely, do
something else instead? It's your product therefore the answer must be
in your mind not mine.
At last, we are getting somewhere I think.
So what you are saying is that all the mind is in a conscious state
with some parts in focus and some not, yes?
So are these varying levels of focus discrete, or even binary or are
they continuous, in your opinion?
So if there was a fact I know that I know but cannot recall this would
be deeply out of focus whilst things in my peripheral awareness like
the bum ache I am suffering in this chair at the moment are more in
focus?
--
John
Tom Vizzini
"John" <67vnue6o@knwfv> wrote in message
> That may be true and you still haven't explained how a product that
> you have on sale on your website can work when 1 step in a sequence of
> 7 steps is missing.
Is it missing? No. Now instead of training the unconscious mind we just
train the mind. Not missing. I am still not sure whay this is important to
you but I can tell you that it is not something that will be in the new
model of rapport we bring out or teach at this moment. It does fit the model
that we have available now and does generate some interesting results.
> >
> >The entire room was not in your unconscious mind while you were reading.
It
> >was still there but was assigned a lower level of focus. The movement or
> >sound alerted you to something else in the room. If it was normal or
> >expected most likely there was not a big shift in focus. If it was
> >unexpected or unsusual there would have been a bigger shift of focus.
>
> At last, we are getting somewhere I think.
>
> So what you are saying is that all the mind is in a conscious state
> with some parts in focus and some not, yes?
I would not even use the word conscious. That would presuppose that thre is
something other than conscious and I am not sure that is true either.
>
> So are these varying levels of focus discrete, or even binary or are
> they continuous, in your opinion?
They are fluid. More like a weather system than anything else. The weather
today depends on your focus. In Florida it is sunny but it is snowing in
California. The weather also depends on your outcome. If you want to snow
ski you would not percieve the weather in Florida as very good.
>
> So if there was a fact I know that I know but cannot recall this would
> be deeply out of focus whilst things in my peripheral awareness like
> the bum ache I am suffering in this chair at the moment are more in
> focus?
The simple answer is yes. While you focus on your ass you most likely will
not be able to recall the fact. When you set up the necessary states in
motion to recall the fact a new weather system will form and you will be
able to recall the fact. It might mean you get off your ass and give it a
break so that your mind will be more plastic and be able to form the new
system.
qwerty
> "John" <67vnue6o@knwfv> wrote in message
>
> news:shsep39s8t5ao5d4u...@4ax.com...
>
> > >Sorry your post is still asks no questions on the topic presented.
>
> > I thought I had already asked a question, maybe you simply didn't feel
> > comfortable answering like Nick Kemp often doesn't.
>
> Or maybe it was again buried inside of a thread of flames that I don't read.
Hey gnr, Vizzini lies again.
Please share your counter to that. Thanks.