Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]

on the subject of lie-detector violence

From: domainremoved <Chelsea>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 15:44:16 -0800

Dear Menlo Park City Council,

I understand that some concerns have been raised on the subject of abusing
lie-detector machines, and I would like to offer you my professional
opinion as a holistic counselor.

It is not possible to know someone else’s mind, only your own. Using a
lie-detector machine to violate the privacy of another human being’s
subjective experience is an act of barbaric violence, due to the intention
to penetrate the inner world of another human being against their will.
The human body is sensitive to intention. Due to the biology of belief, if
a human being is fooled into believing that it is possible to know the
thoughts of other humans through the use of a machine, damage may result,
as the feelings and beliefs of an intact boundary system for one’s mind is
imperative for mental health.

I do not have a boundary of “no-mind.” The idea of “I am not my mind,” is
a way to stop making an identity out of your thoughts, because in my belief
system, a human being is more than just their mind; a human being has
several components, and their mind is only one of them. When a human being
is trapped in mind identification, they may forget their body and their
spirit (witness). Repeating the mantra, “I am not my mind,” is a way to
move attention out of the realm of thoughts and into the realm of
witnessing thoughts; it is simply a way to move your attention into a place
that is more balanced and less top-heavy. “I am not my mind,” does not
mean you have disowned your mind as not yours, it means you have chosen to
avoid making an exclusive identity out of only your mind while you forget
to be present in your body.

When a person claims to have read the mind of another person, they are
speaking to their own subjective experience, and there is nothing to
confirm this unless the person whose mind they read willingly volunteers
that information, and then it is their choice to share that moment of their
subjective inner world with others by speaking their mind; there is no
violence in this, as it is the free will choice of the person to confirm or
deny whether their mind was read, and to keep their privacy intact. People
do this with people they work closely with all the time, “You read my
mind! I was going to ask you to do that!” and they are not damaged by
volunteering that they were on the same wavelength as this other person.
When a person claims to have read the mind or overheard the thoughts of
another person, they are speaking to their own subjective experience of
what their imagination has brought to them, and it is nothing more than
their imagination until it is confirmed by the person whose thoughts they
supposedly overheard.

Reporting that you have heard the voice of another person in your mind is
reporting your subjective experience. In the same way that a person does
not preface every statement with, “In my experience…” or, “What I think
is….” or “It seems to me….” or “From my viewpoint….” or “What I believe…”
it is not necessary to preface a statement about hearing the voice of
another person in your mind about being a purely subjective experience,
because that is all it ever could be. People receive accurate information
about reality through the irrational, artistic, subjective realms of their
mind, in the same way that a dream can provide omens or clues about the
deeper inner-workings of relationships with others, and this dream is not
literal or objective or fact-based, but a mirage of subjective feelings,
the imagination conjuring the voice of another person in your mind pay
provide realistic clues about real life events without actually ever
portraying the truth of that other person’s inner subjective world.

Anyone who goes out of their way to prove the contents of another person's
mind is pursuing a path of madness and seeking nothing but damage. This
type of activity is not only violent and invasive, but a complete waste of
time when more pressing issues are at stake, such as child safety. In my
opinion it is dysfunctional to prioritize an identity crisis over child
safety. Between 100,000 and 300,000 children are sold into sexual slavery
every year in this country, and there now exists a technology that could be
used to locate and rescue them right now. Let's get this show on the road,
and dismiss the paltry and feeble efforts of the human traffickers to
terrorize us into inaction with proposals to enter an identity crisis about
our conditioned minds.

Respectfully yours,

Chelsea Wright
Received on Sat Dec 16 2017 - 15:48:19 PST

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]

Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)