Jump to content
The Corroboree

starling

Members2
  • Content count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

1 Follower

About starling

  • Rank
    Psychonaut

Previous Fields

  • Climate or location
    Brisbane

Recent Profile Visitors

635 profile views
  1. Well, I really don't know what to make of this. So basically, because I offered some advice on writing poetry, based off what I've found to be true, and then payed you a compliment (and woodwoman) I get called a twat? This is indeed a very bizarre place. And for the record Wert, I was asked to give my reasoning on why I don't go in for psychotropic drug usage and the culture that goes along with it. I said I'd rather not, because the post would simply be deleted--which kind of did happen, it got moved to degenerated and I got a week long ban, despite the fact that I made no personal attacks and got called a trolling wanker who has probably shoved too much DMT up his ass--by the very people who sought clarification on the issue, no less. So basically, I got a ban for giving my reasoning on a subject I was asked to give. Honestly, this site is totally fucked. The supposed open-mindedness that is espoused is pure bullshit, because being open minded and censorship cannot, and do not, coexist. And I was censored for giving an opinion. And now you call me a twat for paying you a compliment and trying to help you out with poetic forms. Well, fuck this place. You are all useless degenerate drug addicts who have fucked yourselves up so much that you have not only lost the ability to think, or create anything interesting, but can no longer participate in standard intellectual discussions or even basic social conventions based on mutual exchange in any way. You are, quite simply people, the walking fucking dead. And such people are not worthy of my time. Good luck with it all Wert.
  2. after white power comments made at dimebash,
  3. starling

    rants

    I haven't picked on anyone--and I have no idea who it is who has been though the toughest time of their lives. I didn't refer to anyone specifically as troglodytes (some of the). As for the wheelchair thing, I'm afraid you've completely lost me. I legitimately have no idea what, or who you're talking about--and as for having faked respect for this person, well I'm sorry but that just leads me into deeper confusion. At no point did the issue of wheelchairs come up from what I can see--when did that happen? Look, I'm sorry you don't aqgree me with me but please, let's not go off the deep end here. You can't accuse me of being insensitive about things if I am not even made to understand what those sensitive issues are--I was not even made aware of them. Did I miss a post somewhere? Frankly, I think this a pretty low blow--I would never willfully mock anybody over any kind of illness, especially not a disability, and I certainly wouldn't revel in someone's misfortune. Again, I don't know what you're referring to, and resent the implication that I would resort to such tactics immensely. And let me just add--not one single person has addressed a single point of my argument, after having berated me to clarify my position. Instead, I get victim mentality passive aggressive bullshit. Finally, learn to read a sentence--the comment about the silver jewelry was written in passive voice. It's not directed towards an poster. It is hypothetical. I will post it again, verbatim: But if you're sitting around drubbed out of your skull in some filthy shag-carpeted rat's nest, watching the curtains move, thinking about nature,gins of the universe, life and everything, while you're wearing silver and semi-precious stone jewelry sourced from mountain top mines ( the most environmentally deleterious type conceivable) and taking about how it's all got good 'Energy'. then please--give me a fucking break. Because you're the punchline in a bad joke about hypocrisy that I'm tired of hearing.
  4. starling

    rants

    Address my points, or don't address me at all. In any case, I have procrastinated long enough today.
  5. starling

    rants

    A) I don't understand your first question. If you'd understood the context of my original statement, you'd know that I was referring to the speaking in riddles thing. Well, you see that's where you're wrong--because my opinions were immediately met with childish derision and name calling, and apart from your post, none have evolved beyond that thus far. If there's anything comforting to be taken away from it, it's that these people are doing the work for me, so to speak. Why so passionate? I wouldn't say I'm overly robust about it. I am a combination of bemused, irritated and vindicated. The combination of all three isn't entirely unpleasant, surprisingly. C) I'm sure that's true, but I'm also sure that my better and most rational posts have been deleted in the past because they didn't tow the voodoo line. They were devoid of vulgarity and petty name calling, I assure you. D) Don't post naked statements--that is, statements such as those you have given to the effect of psychotropes having helped the development of the human intellect. I will peruse these if you provide them, but I will not consider any anthropological or sociological articles. I want to see nueropsych./neureomed papers, with some hard data, complete with methodological explanations. E)Yes, out of step with evolution. This is the simplest point to make, and here's why: Social evolution isn't material evolution. Cactacea developed complex compounds as a means of deterring things from eating them. It's that simple. Have you ever noticed that they are, generally, completed covered in vicious spines, also? When you eat a cactus, you are doing precisely the opposite of what that organism intends you to do to it. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any cactus fruit which is toxic. That's because cactacea want things to eat their fruit, and therein disperse seeds, sending out their genetic codes further and further. That's how it's meant to go down. Not only do these organisms not know the spirit exists, they don't know human beings exist, that a concept of the spirit exists, and they evolved long before the concept of this relatively modern shamanistic bullshit ever entered existence. I believe that's checkmate. F)What is an accurate translation of a spiritual experience? Now, that is something I cannot answer. However, fortunately, I don't need to answer it, because the way that psychotropic compounds work on brain chemistry is relatively well understood. It's not magical, ethereal--it's chemical. Material. Observable. It's not voodoo. And why is it, then, that if the spirit is unique, that these supposed spiritual experiences are so very, very similar between cases? That is not what you'd expect to see if the spirit were indeed unique between cases. Isn't it more likely that, say, these compunds are working on the brain in the same way, and it is the brain itself being affected, not the spirit? G) You are correct--I cannot either clinically disprove, or prove, that psychotropic substances either reduce or creative output, such a study never would, nor should, gain approval. I would certainly argue that they don't, given that drugs have ruined more actors, writers, and musicians than probably any other force in existence. In fact, if you read poe, Let me ask you this; if psychotropic drugs really do unlock creative potential, then why isn't everyone on this forum a creative genius despite indulging in said portent-unlocking substances routinely? I will tell you why--because a creative genius, or just a creative person in general, will produce good Art whether they ever indulge in psychotropes or not.How do you account for the level of creative mediocrity and indeed abject failure within this culture? Probably the biggest clue for me is the uniformity and banality of the Art produced --it's almost completely homogenized and utterly devoid of any truly enlightening, interesting or otherwise poetic thought at all. And since you've sighted poe, let me just point out that the more addicted he became to opium, and the more he consumed, the more facile and shambolic his writing became. Ditto the Ropmantics who did the same thing. Now, let me just lay down the killstroke on this thing once and for all: Guess who didn't do any kind of drugs and is considered the most important modern artist and spatial genius of the last century? None other than Salvadore Dali. He is actually famous for saying, in fact, I don't do drugs. I am Drugs. There is absolutely no evidence that Dali ever took LSD, mushrooms, cacti, or anything else other than Hash in very small quantities. And he is the greatest surrealist who ever lived. So no, I don't buy this idea that Drugs do boost or otherwise unlock creative potential, but I certainly believe they can nullify it. H)Actually it's rare for people to become addicted to psychedelics even in a psychologically-dependant way. I think you'll find that most people on this forum have a healthier attitude toward psychotropics than the average drug user (like yourself getting drunk to be DRUNK); and considering that you've decided to pick a bone with us, I'll use us as example. Just because YOU like to shut down in YOUR way in YOUR chosen method, doesn't make YOUR way the ONLY way. I agree with you 100%, and that's why I went to great lengths to reiterate that I have no problem with people doing any kind of drug in any moral sense. Boot smack through your tearduct, I don't care. That's actually why I cited the example of my own drinking habits--I'm saying I'm not better than anyone else when it comes to indulging in recreational drugs. But here's what I don't do--make up completely bullshit reasons to excuse or otherwise hide the fact that I do my drug because I like the way it feels, and that's it. I Have no excuse to offer, and do not feel obligated to give one. And that's the real reason behind the use of psychtropes--people like the experience of tripping. That's it. That's why they do it. And I have no problem with that whatsoever. Maybe if you were an Indigenous Brazilian living a traditional lifestyle in the Amazon basin doing ayahuasca, then yeah--you've got a case to make. But if you're sitting around drubbed out of your skull in some filthy shag-carpeted rat's nest, watching the curtains move, thinking about nature,gins of the universe, life and everything, while you're wearing silver and semi-precious stone jewelry sourced from mountain top mines ( the most environmentally deleterious type conceivable) and taking about how it's all got good 'Energy'. then please--give me a fucking break. Because you're the punchline in a bad joke about hypocrisy that I'm tired of hearing.
  6. starling

    rants

    Well, it's also a site dedicated at least partially to biodiversity, sustainable crops and fruiting cacti. So there's a lot here for me to like.
  7. starling

    rants

    Well you'll have to take my word for it that I'd never put DMT in my ass. Or anything else of that nature because I'm not a depraved fiend. Though I have little doubt that a forum which contains a poll measuring whether or not people approve of other people fucking themselves with cacti (with most being in approval) does naturally attract social detritus of the kind you mention. Being buddhist doesn't grant me superiority, but not being ripped out of frame every other week (day?) on psychotropic chems probably gives me a bit of an edge, I'd wager. I actually listed what my problems with the culture here are, only one member has so far written back anything even remotely intelligent in way of a rebuttal. Just to bring you up to speed, I'm at this point a snooty self-righteous fail law student with a superiority complex who is very much like a buddhist DMT shelfer. And a wanker, too. Lets keep the ball rolling--have you got anything else?
  8. starling

    rants

    Well, as long as they keep out the riff raff, that's the main thing.
  9. starling

    rants

    Yeah, fuck starling man. Total snoot. He can fuck right off to his ha ha's, pinot noirs and painting romantic oils from his terraced villa. Ban! Ban! Ban!
  10. starling

    rants

    Ok how about this then:
  11. starling

    rants

    If I get to be anybody...can it be deadpool? ok, I really have to do some work.
  12. starling

    rants

    Firstly, thankyou for responding in a way unlike some of the addled troglodytes in this forum, it is appreciated, and now we have something of substance to discuss--but again, I'm not on the clock. I do wish people would stop referring to my legal studies. They have no bearing on or relation to what's happening here. I'll give you my thoughts on your points in a few hours, I have to see a man about a dog.
  13. starling

    rants

    Rather paranoid, wouldn't you say? And why is there a need for such a protocol anyway? What perversity is it that's underwriting this process that needs to be hidden? Sounds callow and cowardly to me. And I hope you believe me when I tell you this--I do not give a single atom of fuck what this cat thinks about anything at all, certainly not enough to try and break riddles, anyway. When you talk to me, you talk plainly, and you talk honestly, or we don't talk at all. You seem to be under the delusion that I'm somehow obligated to enter the labyrinth--I'm not. What's more likely is that I'll just start knocking down the walls.
  14. starling

    rants

    I'm not on the clock, sallubrious. Ignoramus is your word, not mine. It's also unlikely I'll ever 'present anything in court'. I won't be specialized in the way you're thinking. It could happen, theoretically---but it's very unlikely in the Rumpole-of-the-bailey type way you're imagining. Moreoever, I don't like your line of reasoning. Speaking in riddles is only interesting if said riddles are intelligible. And what is the point of speaking in riddles, anyway? Why should I be bothered to try and decrypt a riddle, the ultimate point, or humor of which might not be of interest or value to me once decypted? I'm sorry, I'm not going to take a kind of Pascal's wager on that one, I'm afraid. If I miss some comic genius or nuggets of genius along the way that's on me I suppose.
  15. starling

    rants

    Since you're unwilling to elucidate, sure, I'll give the gist: A) The idea that psychotropic compounds exist as a kind of psychopharmacological medicine chest to be dipped into by human beings as modicums for said human beings to explore spiritual dimensions is very silly shit--completely out of step with evolution. Psychotropic compounds do not unlock some secret portent of consciousness, creativity, or anything else. They merely elicit delusions which are misinterpreted as spiritual experiences, or are otherwise imbued with mystical explanations/significance which are/is nonsensical. C) Said adherents to this line of thought are probably addicted to the highs given by said compounds, and the whole spirituality thing is just a means of excusing said addiction--or perhaps legitimizing this. D) Rather than increasing intellectual capacity, or otherwise allowing intellectual potential to be realized, said compounds actually reduce the positive intellectual outcomes of imbibers. E) Said compounds are often inherently psychologically harmful, and pretending they aren't is dangerous, self-serving, and irresponsible.
×