Dimethyltryptamine and psychedelics

It does feel that way. Your higher self you, Dan, just trapped in a moment not here yet, or maybe it is here and that’s why the subconscious may be communicating with you vividly. :slight_smile: the subconscious is trying to direct you to it by keeping you on your own path.

To me, this is like spitting in the face of millions of years of evolution. What reason do you have to doubt validity of default sober perception? Why is it flawed? Because you can’t fly like a bat at night using echolocation? Because you did not evolve to see a UV light?
Humans evolved a unique enough awareness that enabled them to survive to this day. Other animals had a different evolutionary history and evolved other traits which enabled them to survive in their own niche. Repeat, different evolutionary histories, different survival strategies, and different evolved traits. Chemically altering your (human) brain is not going to make you tap into your inner bat sonar or whatever animal trait or sense you think is not activated by regular human perception. Because you’re not supposed to have it to begin with. By drugging yourself with psychedelics, you’re not even exposing yourself to external reality, so how can you even call it an exploration of reality when you’re not even engaging it.

You do explore external reality just through a different perspective/creativeness. You still have vision of it, the issue is of if one abuses psychedelics without any understanding of reality and how it functions along with self previous to their consumption.

We are nature conscious of itself, so doesn’t that Kind of defeat the argument of not supposed to be taking or having something? We may choose our own evolutionary path, that’s what consciousness literally is.

Psychedelics would be great in helping mankind connect with self and the inner aspects of mind but just have to be cautious and understand certain aspects of the mind and reality beforehand. They are powerful in helping with psychotherapy especially, due to the communication with the subconscious (higher or external self), consciously.

Our niche is expanding and so must our consciousness and creative ability, to survive and expand further.

Criticism isn’t disrespect and ingratitude, except to the narcissist by the yes-man. Quite the opposite is the case, just as you tell your friend what you think of their new song or outfit, both bad and good. You don’t look at millions of years of evolution and say it’s perfect and could not possibly be improved in the slightest - that would be to spit in its face.

What reason do you have not to doubt the validity of default sober perception, in the face of optical illusions, misunderstandings, limited faculties etc.? Our awareness is sufficient, that is all - and only for a limited time at that. When inspiration hits from nowhere, maybe even during a dream when the brain is on standby, or in the delirium of fever, which turns out to be valuable insight even once rational, awake and healthy again - is the value invalidated by virtue of one’s condition at the time it occurred? Were you not supposed to have it because you were not at the height of your default sober perception?

Every illusion, dream, hallcination, misunderstanding is really happening to you when it does, even if it’s not matching the default sober perception of reality. The ingredients themselves are always taken from reality, just reassembled in a new way that is necessary for both misunderstanding the world and re-imagining a better misunderstanding of it. Creativity doesn’t happen from sticking to the default sober perception of reality - sticking to the know and accepted is exactly how you don’t create. You need to pick it apart and stick it back together in a new way to innovate - even the picking apart itself, only to reassemble exactly how it was before is enough to humble someone who took everything for granted and accepted the normal failures and struggles of life without question. Only after this can someone appreciate how much of a slave they used to be - hence all the talk of freeing your mind after deconstructing your assumptions through whatever means. Critical thinking, meditation, somehow such healthy things can achieve the same or similar result as a drug trip - does the means really matter when one returns to normal afterwards either way? Was the monk not “supposed” to reach enlightenment? Was the mathematician spitting in the face of millions of years of evolution when they found a common assumption to be flawed? They’re all engaging reality - that’s the thing about reality, you can’t escape it. It’s not like the drug user disappears from reality, they experience the same reality as you do, but in a different way - (same ingredients, different cake) and ironically in doing so they expand their reality in ways that will never have even occurred to you because you were too rigid in your grip over what you want reality to be. You know it’s all in your head, right? Sober or not, sensation and interpretation is your mind, it doesn’t happen “out there”. Your reality is in your mind, you just evolved to be able to agree with others about what reality is in a useful way that would appear to be representative of something “out there” through its relative practical success, but which you can never directly confirm. Simple, healthy logic can get you to that basic philosophical consideration - you seem to be putting far too much stock into “that one way that everything is, sober people agree, end of conversation”. Philosophy 101 will highlight all kinds of things you can’t know that shake up the possibilities of what reality could be - I assume you are aware, being a member of this forum? Why is it wrong if you shake up reality in the exact same way through psychedelics?

Pandora, humans and al kinds of animals have eaten psychedelics for many millions of years. Birds are likely constantly a bit high if they can manage. A lot of their foods are the sort of poisons that bring about trips.

Maybe humans attained conceptual consciousness because of psychedelics. The use of them in ancient tribes is so widely documented it seems to have been almost the rule. Maybe we are doing so bad as a society because we’ve banned their use.

Certainly the discoveries done on LSD are interesting. The most famous example is DNA. Francis Crick used it in his research.

And this is my position before this drug, that one should only use it for research or other holy matters. Ive used it twice, and it was remarkably interesting what I could find out about my own mind. Id not use it for recreation.

Yes, I also meant to bring up the point that maybe Pandora has it backwards - instead of seeing psychedelics as an afront to evolution, one could just as easily argue that we evolved to be able to have a psychedelic experience upon ingesting certain substances - and as with substances like DMT, we already produce it naturally. What is the issue with being induced to produce what we already produce within our evolved brains? Pandora’s PC assumption assumes too much: an analogy might be the schoolboy understanding that “bacteria are bad”, when we live symbiotically with bacteria: there are bacteria that produce certain effects and others that produce others - perhaps dependent upon one another, but definitely embedded in a complex ecosystem of their own. The good and bad effects are so mixed up within the whole gestalt that it’s dishonest to force a good/bad dichotomy from bacteria except in edge cases that are more to do with quantity than which bacteria they are. And oh yeah, we are 10 times more bacteria than we are human, in order to be human at all… In just the same way, it’s unscrupulous to divide all the chemicals that effect the brain sternly into polar absolutes of good/bad when they exist along a spectrum just as bacteria do. Reality isn’t black and white, a drug induced exploration of colour is no different from any other exploration of it - you balance the quantities of everything on your “bad side” just as you do on the “good side” and it’s actually all good, all harmonious with our astounding evolution, and all healthy. I’m reminded of a kid who just won’t eat his broccoli.

This is the same way that psychotics experience reality, same reality perceived differently, in their own head (which they come believe to be the ultimate source of it). What you’re really doing is trying to normalize (justify) psychosis.
And it’s easy to hide it behind art, as it is one of the venues that has openly embraced it (I’m not counting religion here and other subtler forms).
The starting point comes in believing that reality is really all in one’s head, and can be manipulated (created) by mind/brain manipulation. The person then becomes convinced of delusional ideas such as consciousness existing before matter and not the other way (mind being the ultimate cause of everything). Enter psychosis. Once one is convinced of this as a fact, magical and special things start happening to him. The reality now speaks to him and him only, through symbols, images and patterns. He’s now a special person living in a special universe, and having a special relationship with it. Much better than being exposed to harsh elements. This is a shortcut to the promised land of milk and honey. This is also a cheap and quick fix. (emphasis on being cheap)

Timothy Treadwell thought so too, until he was proven wrong.

I believe that drugs could be a possible source of religions. But the mindset of the drug user itself has not changed.

. If everybody was doing drugs, nothing would ever get done.

Holy matters?

Like…desecration? Because that’s what it would be.

Perhaps I am psychotic? Is that an implication that you are entertaining? I don’t believe I am, I think that whilst it’s scientific fact that reality is all in one’s head and I realised this before taking any drugs except alcohol, the difference between what you describe as psychotic and what isn’t, is in the recognition that there are limits on what the mind can control and what it cannot. Just because it’s all in your head, doesn’t mean you can control everything that’s going on in your head. The apportioning of this control, and how much of it is you and how much isn’t, is the difference between the psychotic and non-psychotic.

I read the death section of Timothy Treadwell’s wiki and am not sure of the parallel you’re trying to infer. Being mauled to death by a bear is no proof that sense information doesn’t appear to enter through your sensory organs, that the information isn’t carried electrically to the brain and it isn’t decoded and constructed into reality only once it gets there. I would think you have to be psychotic to think your experience of reality is direct, or that your experience is a perfect replica of its apparent cause. The common assumption is that the sense data is the result of a prior interaction with noumena “out there” before it is translated into a phenomenological represenation in your mind. The final result is the cessation of mind interpretation of sense data (death) either way, and neither disproves that all reality is in your head.

Again, I figured all this out way before I tried psychedelics - and I’m glad I did, because the experience was enriched by this understanding. This is just philosophy - I don’t think you should be trying to pathologise and compartmentalise fact just to concur with the crudeness of your argument.

Not true. Especially not when it comes to stimulants, which are routinely responsible for super-human levels of getting things done.

Also, nobody is advocating a continuous life-long drug trip as far as I know. At least I’m only advocating that recreationally psychedelics can be beneficial outside of “getting things done”, in much the same way as sleep, contemplation, relaxation and leisure activities can be a beneficial complement to “getting things done”. Doesn’t even have to be regular or frequent, and of course it is optional - but those who opt out have no authority on what the experience is like and what it can do for you in the positive sense in just the same way as anything in life. Allow me to lecture you all about what it is like to be a woman. How you speak of desecration reminds me of primitive religious ideas that males had about menstruation.

The subconscious did come before… reactions and single cell organisms still instinctually reacted with other things to bring more causation. Consciousness came out of that. The first reaction of two or more variables is what started it all, is that not instinct or subconscious?

Reality doesn’t speak to any one person only. That’s your own assumption.

You said,

You’re idolizing it into an ultimate source of reality, when it’s just another element in a causal chain. It’s not eternal and timeless, and it did not start objective reality.

Today’s science is also (and to the excitement of those secretly seeking reprieve) advertising the possibility of nonsense like holographic universe and cosmic telepathy. The real answer and the cause, of course, is in one’s mind (and altering of the mind is usually involved). And the real indisputable evidence is either just around the corner or observed only under special (or arbitrary) conditions.

Except objective reality was caused by the subconscious/unconscious. A series of reactions of which instinct plays a role. Which the subconscious is a another stepping stone… it’s even observable in micro single cell biology. If two things mix and it’s a reaction through nature then that shows that nature is instinctual/subconscious. Everything is energy and responds.

If energy slows its vibration by reaction or from a cause and makes a gas which gasses form other things from reactions, eventually leading to life or consciousness then that should tell you that the unconscious/consciousness is from the beginning. A mineral/gas can’t feel, but they may react but it has no concept of time. If something reacts, is that not a form of unconscious or an instinct? Stimuli leads to more stimuli which creates complex life.

Since the unconscious do not have a perception/differentiation of or between time then there is no matter of it being “how long”, it happens and that’s that. It is what it is.

Its quite simple, Pandora -
in order to see how the mind works, you have to see how it errs. LSD and other psychedelics show you what happens when the mind is deranged.
They do so in specific ways. LSD is a non emotional observation of different shortcircuits between senses and cortexes. Its absolutely dangerous, but that is warranted when a culture stagnates, because this stagnation is very much more dangerous, it is what causes genocides and pestilences. You know this Im sure.
Psychedelics are a key to grease the wheels of hell, if you know what I mean,
They too have to turn. Otherwise society becomes stuck in that precise bit you don’t want to get stuck in.

So, Athens has its ways with them as well as any old culture that is worth remembering.
If it is not used to ends like these and used for personal entertainment, debasement is pretty much certain.

Shamans can’t be idle.

Im not with the ones who see the light with lsd or with any drug. The light is pretty obvious out there in the Big Dipper, the Pleiades, Sirius… these deep-light pools in the sky. Where light is somehow fresher than anywhere else.

Psychedelics don’t show you astronomical gamma tracings though, they show you your own physiology.

And if your physiology is such that it sees not the light but the dank alone, then a quick derangement may produce a natural perception of the Light, and one shall be redeemed. If one manages to not become addicted to substances and rather ride out the conflict of the habitual corpse of Saturn and the new born Dionysus. As this no drug will tell you - the prize is not in the awareness of the light but in the same things life was always about in the first place. What the light grants is a true enjoyment of them, a bit of eternity in every act of nourishment or replenishment, - the awareness of karma as translation into chi, the occult.

Couldn’t agree more.

You don’t needs drugs to understand evolution and the process of increasing complexity, so the real motive may lie elsewhere. What you are trying to do is regress and then put emphasis on that lower state as a superior one. This is also a common element in many spiritual and religious circles, a returning back to lower state, like downgrading to previous operating version. (And LSD experience does mimic undeveloped brain) So, okay, we were all babies at one point, does it mean a baby’s brain is superior? To me, that’s what you’re saying, and the same thing that many religions are also saying. Wanting to be like a baby and see the world as a baby does. (This is your conclusion). Reaching out to drugs betrays your motives.

. Your methods are flawed. By (literally) drugging the population you would enable others to have more control. It may lead to peace, yes, but in the form of slavery.
Is this what you want? If you want this, then you also want NWO.
icebreakerideas.com/wp-content/ … 63x375.jpg

Also, there is a fine line between courage and stupidity. I see people do all kinds of stupid stuff, like jumping from building to building or taking selfies at the top of buildings, or having wild animals as pets, or eating tide pods, etc., thinking they are being cool or courageous, when it’s just plain stupidity, as far as I’m concerned. If you think self-mutilation is being courageous, or something spiritual, then go ahead. You won’t be the first one. Or the last.

Don’t talk about self mutilation when the very air we breathe, kills us.

Life is based off of things “killing” us, which psychedelics do not do.

We’re drugs that consume other drugs to expand further. I don’t see how that’s hard to admit. Good and bad in everything, you’re just being the extreme side of another extreme side, which I plan to stay in the middle.

Speaking of “your methods are flawed”, Pandora’s own understanding is one-dimensional.

Superiority and inferiority need to apply to a specific measure - e.g. the question “who is the most superior human?” is close to meaningless. There are things that adults do better than babies, but the reverse is also true - as much as we gain with age, so much is lost. Imagine being able to get some of it back to complement the benefits you’ve gained with age. So even if we do accept the daily mail’s premise (great source by the way, that paper is biased to the point of absurdity) that LSD mimics the undeveloped brain, we see that there can be something to gain as soon as we see things in more than one dimension. Only when thinking in such narrow terms can drug-taking be thought of as self-mutilation… It’s like saying taking Penicillin to cure a bacterial infection is self-mutilation because it’s derived from fungus, and fungi like mold grow when living things rot.

On the subject of “drugging the population”, or allowing them to try psychedelic drugs legally in non-hysterical terms, it’s much more likely for the ones who do experiment to gain control. If any retreat into them as a psychological crutch, they are more likely to be controllable, sure - but I don’t think anybody’s advocating that. The mindset of those against drugs is such a perfect example of why drug experience is important, it’s so ironic that people with this mindset are so dead-set against the very thing that would so neatly enable them to see past it.

Yeah technically we are just ongoing chemical experiments.

There is nothing chemical that should be illegal just for it being a chemical that has a reaction it causes.
Maybe doing certain things under the influence of this reaction should definitely be prohibited.

I remember one person killing himself in a store I was in by jumping on top of a mother with a baby carriage from the third floor of the galleria. Fuxck.
He was probably on prolix.

In more ways than one as well, in the form of inter-relating forms of energy/matter.