Sunday Night Safran & Transcendent Compounds - 5th Aug

[CβL]

Most of my points were covered by shruman. The last point I can think to make is that you referred to the large number of intelligent people who used transcendent compounds (some paraphrase thereof). Bolstering your argument by referring to these groups of people (which includes us here) implicitly gives you a responsibility to respect their viewpoints. If you want to make an argument that suits only yourself, then you can only refer to the handful of people in your group.

As shruman has pointed out, you have stomped on our toes to make your argument.

[incognito]

Only if You haven't been laid in the last 12 months I guess.

[GregKasarik]

@ Shruman. I have no intention of getting into an argument that doesn't solve anything and only promotes needless discord. I freely admit that used in moderation, there don't appear to be any significant concerns with Ketamine use. If it weren't for the potential for physical harms, I wouldn't be too concerned about its potential for dependance. David Nutt's team initially classified it as a Class C drug for a reason.

This is my campaign. It is about what I am happy to push for and what I am prepared to defend. I don't use Ketamine and I don't recommend that others do. I am not going to bullshit and pretend otherwise. I am certainly not confident about Ketamine becoming freely available and not prepared to sacrifice all of my hard work with respect to those compounds that decades of research has demonstrated to be non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe in appropriate dose, set and setting. (Yes, they aren't perfectly safe. Cohen (1960) did say that the expected incidence of psychosis from the use of classical hallucinogens was probably about 8 in 10,000, but I am happy to defend this as being within the margins of acceptable risk in an informed population).

The recent research that I've seen all points to Ketamine being more dangerous than previously thought. If you have any scientific research to back up your claims about the safety of Ketamine and which might contradict what I've read, by all means send it my way. I'm always happy to be corrected, but I require scientific evidence. Don't expect me to change my mind about Ketamine simply on your say so.

With respect to alcohol, my claims of harm were all based on either peer reviewed research or police data as reported in the media. But don't just take my word for it. According to the 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey:

• 20.1% drink at levels that put them at risk of harm over their lifetime.
• 28.4% drink at levels that put them at risk of harm from a single drinking occasion at least once a month.
  

 

This is all I will say with respect to these compounds.

You disagree with my approach, which is fine. But as Whitewind pointed out, I have a strategy and I have a plan and I have the courage to move forward with it. I don't see you getting out into the public space, destroying you career in the process and taking heat in order to fight for what you believe in. Second guess me all you like from the safety of the bleachers, but don't get all precious if I don't change my strategy to suit your opinions. It is my neck on the line here, my integrity I have to defend and my door the police are going to come crashing through.

With respect to your "feedback", I'd have to say that was more akin to a hatchet job. Not only did you not have anything positive to say (remember the saying about catching more with honey?), but you also decided to include a snide and deliberately offensive comment about my apparent need for CBT. I can only assume that this was so you could resurrect the antagonistic attack dog bullshit of last year. You might notice that I have avoided these forums for the last six months, and now that I have returned (having fairly much exhausted all efforts to talk to the Government in the meantime), I have no intention of playing dysfunctional hate games. Don't expect me to respond further to any more obviously hostile "constructive criticism".

If you think I'm being too sensitive: Tough. Maybe re-read the irrational abuse I copped here last year and you'll get the picture. Remember it was I who had the fortitude, grace and presence of mind to invite Bretloth over to my place for a chat, even after his widely condemned "Community of Infinite Bullshit" post http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30465

The reality is that you and others have a difficult choice to make as I begin to ramp up my campaign to its "Grand Conclusion" later this year:

• You can support me, my team and my limited objectives.
• You can ignore me.
  
• You can do your best to hinder me and snipe from the sidelines.
  
• You can climb onto your own bandwagon (which would probably also entail elements of 2, or 3).
  

 

I hope that you will support my campaign, because if we can't win with demonstrably safe compounds, on something as fundamental and widely supported as religious freedom, in a state that guarantees that right by law, you'll never stand a chance with your grander objectives. A win gives you something to build upon. Failure condemns us all to another generation of persecution and could very well see me doing jail time on drugs charges. However, before you decide to ignore, or oppose me, I'd suggest that you remember the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately".

[GregKasarik]

If Ayahuasca was allowed to be used in a religious context, what exactly would that entail? Surely it's not so simple to simply state that you are a registered Catholic (as it states on my birth certificate) and therefore it's okay to use it. I'm sure that the clergy might have something to say about the contextual use anyway, if they accept it as part of Catholic Doctrine, then perhaps they would want to control the use among the clergy.

This is incredibly restrictive and actually wouldn't help push the tolerance agenda forward at all! Instead it seems to aim control of it's use by the very people who may be least able to interpret the visions and emotional release in a useful context. I have known a lot of priests, i grew up in an extremely intolerant Roman Catholic society, and the use of psychedelics in this context is quite horrifying to me.

I think it would be utterly disastrous, in fact. Maybe it can work with limited, enlightened groups like Santo Daime - but those kind of groups are quite unusual and very different to the usual religious organisations that I know.

 

This is an excellent question and raises some very good points. Under Victorian and Australian law, the word "religion" does not entail membership with a particular organisation. Indeed, Section 14 The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006) (http://www.austlii.e...006433/s14.html) makes it clear that people have the right to practice their religion both as individuals and as a community. So under the Charter your rights to be a Christian aren't dependant on your membership of a particular Christian church. You can be Christian, or Fluffofian, or Trampolinian all by yourself and it is still just as illegal to discriminate against you, or interfere with your religious practice as it would be if there were ten million of you.

Remember that when I use the word "religious" I am not referring to "organised religion", but rather anything which meets the High Court's 1983, "Church of the New Faith v Commissioner for Pay-roll Tax (Vic)" definition:

• "First, belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing, or Principle; and second, the acceptance of cannons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief".

   

 

This definition is incredibly broad and would encompass many of those people who would normally regard themselves as "atheist", but who still have the nagging suspicion that something greater is lurking behind the scenes (ideas of Gaia, 2012, and "downloads" could all fall into this category).

Within this context, the "cannons of conduct" would simply refer to the actual use of Transcendent Compounds in order to more fully explore whatever "supernatural" element that a person might think is lurking out there. Obviously, such a definition isn't going to help Richard Dawkins (although he would still be free to use them to "explore" in the same way that a non-Christian is free to read the Bible to see if they think it makes sense), but I think that you'd find that it encompasses a surprisingly large segment of the wider Entheogenic community. These compounds are inherently anti-authoritarian and any religious organisation that tried to play dogma games, or unreasonably control access, is going to crash on the rocks of powerful individual mystical experience. I too grew up in the Catholic Church and am certain that the Pope would never allow something as destabilising as Transcendent Compounds to be allowed in his Church.

So, with respect to what "regulated access" would look like, I wouldn't be happy with any system that forced people to go through the gatekeepers of organised religion to obtain the compounds. As a mystic, I am in favour of the democratisation of belief and practice. I meant it when I said that "the first Disciple is always the first Heretic". My religious practice is highly individual and as I said during the interview, I think that everyone has to work it out for themselves. I prefer to use these compounds by myself, or with a couple of trusted friends at most and won't accept a situation where anyone else is forced into an environment with which they feel uncomfortable. Remember that "setting" is one of the three safety catchwords (the other two of course being "dose" and "set") and any legislation will need to recognise this.

I would suggest that regulated access would involve a process much like that which is currently in place to ensure safety with alcohol. People who wish to obtain the compounds would need to demonstrate that they are of good character and complete a course in which they were taught how to safely use the compounds and were perhaps required to demonstrate that they could use and administer them safely. While it might seem intrusive, it is similar in concept to the state requiring that priests to have a current "Working with Children" check before they minister to the kiddies.

At the end of the day, any solution will need to balance the competing needs of people like us to be able to access these compounds freely with the State's need to demonstrate to a fearful public that any changes in law aren't going to unleash Armageddon. Bismark said that "politics is the art of the possible" and any successful outcome is going to have to entail compromise. Unless we are prepared to recognise and accommodate the legitimate fears of the political class, I doubt that anything we attempt will ever be successful.

Edited August 13, 2012 by GregKasarik

[chilli]

As Greg seems to have ceased communicating with me directly, I will refer to him in the third person.

Something about all this has never sat right with me, and these last couple of posts by Greg have made me really worried about the nature of 'his' campaign and it's 'Grand Conclusion'. My suspicions that this is quickly turning into a big Gr-ego trip are being confirmed.

I hope he doesn't do anything too stupid. He certainly hasn't shown much respect for this community except for those who unquestioningly defend him and confirm him in his apparent desire to be some kind of a martyr.

What worries me even more is the almost religious, blind devotion some here have shown to him and demanded of the rest of us.

I hope I am wrong, but that's how I feel.

Edited August 13, 2012 by chilli

[GregKasarik]

As Greg seems to have ceased communicating with me directly, I will refer to him in the third person.

Something about all this has never sat right with me, and these last couple of posts by Greg have made me really worried about the nature of 'his' campaign and it's 'Grand Conclusion'. My suspicions that this is quickly turning into a big Gr-ego trip are being confirmed.

I hope he doesn't do anything too stupid. He certainly hasn't shown much respect for this community except for those who unquestioningly defend him and confirm him in his apparent desire to be some kind of a martyr.

What worries me even more is the almost religious, blind devotion some here have shown to him and demanded of the rest of us.

I hope I am wrong, but that's how I feel.

 

Chilli. I haven't ceased communicating with you. I am not sure why my not responding to one post that basically said Shruman +1 can be considered to have ceased communicating. Although, now that I am responding to that post, I would point out that in interview with John Safran, I did make a qualified statement about Transcendent Compounds saying that they were "psychologically safe in an appropriate dose, set and setting".

Lets face it. Something about me has never sat right with you. You judged me early on and never really liked me, what I stand for, or had any intention of supporting anything I do. You've been suspicious about me all along and there isn't really anything that I can do that is going to change this. If I succeed, you'll keep on predicting eventual doom. If I fail, you'll tell everyone how you were right all along.

Still, I'm fine with that. If it weren't you, it would be somebody else and every Roman General's Triumph had a slave to whisper "All glory is fleeting". You are certainly right to worry that my ego might get the better of me, but right now, I think you see problems where there are none.

Be honest. I'm never going to win with you. If I said "our" campaign, you'd attack me for claiming to represent people who didn't agree with me. I could have said "the" campaign, but then you'd give me a hard time for making it seem like I was the only show in town.

Frankly, I would love this to be "our campaign, but until others step forward to help in a meaningful way, it is and will remain "my" campaign. I made it clear that I was on the activist's path last year. You, or anyone else wanting to make "my" campaign "our" campaign, has had since then to get in touch. Several did and have offered some useful suggestions (such as the outstanding idea that I connect with John Safran). But none are insisting that I change my entire game plan to suit their whim, which seems to be what you and others mean when you demand that I "respect" your views.

I'm an open book. Everyone knows who I am and can find out quite a bit about me on the Internet. But who are you, chilli?

On the internet nobody knows you're a dog. I see no particular reason to bend to the will of someone who hides behind a firewall and lacks the courage to even use their real name. Like any good soldier, I'll ignore grand ideas and second guessing from the anonymous armchair generals back home. Instead, I'll trust those who are invested in my success and who are prepared to join me in the trenches, share the risks and watch my back.

While I'm certainly not the master of my own life (too poor for that!), it has never been in my nature to sit back placidly and wait for the hammer to fall. I have never had any tolerance for injustice and it has never occurred to me to put the values of others ahead of my own. It is not in my nature to subordinate my will to the mob. Maybe I'm arrogant. Maybe I'm egotistical. Maybe I'm not a team player. But maybe this is precisely what is needed in the difficult days ahead. For better or worse, this is who I am and this is the cup I have chosen.

I do have something planned for later this year and you are right to be concerned: I am going to be doing something really stupid and possibly quite dangerous.

But not as stupid and dangerous as my life before "coming out" and standing up for what I believe in: Skulking about in the shadows, lying about who I was and pretending to be something I am not, all the while afraid that the people with guns were going to bust down my door, destroy my life and persecute me for being me.

Instead, I've been able to destroy my life on my own terms!

Yes, there are lots of people cheering me on. Perhaps they are happy to see someone doing something (anything!) at last. But there is a big difference between electronic good vibes and meaningful, real life assistance when it is needed most.

The truth is that I can't do this on my own. Without the real world support of brave people, willing to stand resolute and undaunted beside me, nothing I do will free any of us from the yoke of tyranny and persecution.

[chilli]

You encourage me to 'be honest,' and urge me to admit to things i have already openly stated! Apart from that, your last post is a refreshing change of attitude, the signs of a latent martyr complex are still there, but I appreciate and laud your use of irony and self-deprecating humor.

In no way do I expect you to change your plans for me or anyone else, and I am not demanding anything. Do what you want, but if you claim to be doing this on behalf of ethnobots, I think you would do well to expect and pay more serious attention to criticism. Instead of seeing people who question your methods or motives as incorrigible enemies, perhaps it would be wise to take what they say seriously rather than just writing it off as some kind of personal attack. Who knows, some of those you perceive as your enemies may be supporters with a few things they need to get off their chest first or feel like they are being listened to. With some of the things you are doing I think you should expect to be mistrusted, I just think you need to learn to take it in your stride.

Who am I? The people who have earned my trust know me, and the ones who don't... well, they haven't earned the privilege yet Seriously though, I am quite cautious with my personal identity on the internet and this is the approach I like best, as I value my privacy and have had some run ins with weird types. I respect and admire people who use their real identity, but I like to think ideas and arguments should be appraised on their own merits, so it is irrelevant who I am in rl.

Personally, I admire some of what you are doing, and have stated so publically. I admire your courage and willingness to take risks, but I have misgivings about how your actions will play out in reality, and how they will affect the rest of us. Don't take it so personally, I am merely stating my perspective and it is different from yours, believe it or not that could actually be a good thing.

It is your attitude and not your actions that perturb me. If you had the same philosophy and praxis but a different temperament you might find you get different reactions. But it seems to be the nature of aspiring religious leaders to demonize opposition, flatter followers and glorify themselves, and as much as I wish it wasn't so, in my estimation you are following the pattern in typical fashion. Oh, and of course they always want money or as you call it 'meaningful, real life assistance'

I am not unconditionally against you Greg, and you are wrong that I would twist whatever you did in order to complain about it. If you were a touch less defensive I think we would get along just fine, but instead you seem to enjoy playing the martyr and dismissing any and all criticism of as the mindless attacks of mindless cowardly internet lynch mob, or the envious twittering of slaves about the brave Roman Generals (that was bad, even for you )

Anyway, I love being wrong about people and ideas! If you succeed I will happily tell everyone how wrong I was, and if you fail I will be very sad.

Edited August 15, 2012 by chilli

[r2pi]

Speaking of getting things off one's chest...

"Transcendent Compounds" -- I really dislike this term. "Transcendent," with "entheogen," assumes a particular mode of usage and a particular outcome, thereby devaluing other approaches or uses. (And incidentally the compounds don't transcend anything; the experience they facilitate may. So really they are transcendence-enabling compounds.) Also in common with "entheogen", the coining of a new word smacks of an attempt to place certain users on a pedestal above others. And, the use of the word "compound" instead of "drug" or "substance" also sticks out like a sore thumb as a method to try to dodge bad press.

In reality there is nothing wrong with the term "psychedelic drug". Any criticism the term might draw should not be run away from-- instead, it should be taken as an opportunity to correct some misconceptions.

Edited August 16, 2012 by r2pi

[CβL]

For you Greg: your writing belies what you daren't admit swirls in your mind - a decidedly adversarial approach to people you disagree with.

The point here, of course is not just to brag, in an entertaining way about how I managed to defeat the fearsome PRC. Rather, it is to highlight the difference between claims of belief about how the world is and claims regarding the actual reality of the world. While it is a subtle relationship, there is not necessarily a direct correlation a belief about the world and the actual state of the world.

 

That is from your own website. There's more to life than "winning arguments". (I will admit here, that I have big trouble with this myself). What is arguably more important, is the ability to engage in constructive communication. That is precluded by trying to win. Personally, I like to create mutual understanding between whoever I converse with. This is my ideal, and I can only try to embody it.

The thing about transcendent compounds or entheogens that I think we could all agree on, is that they can allow us to learn (through various approaches) things we did not know about, or realize beforehand. So then why, are your principles in such a form so as to preclude the possibility of someone discovering alternate truths? Without a meta-analysis of belief systems from some lofty plane, it's almost impossible to see that there are multiple, complete belief systems (= the truths I speak of).

Just as a recap, a logic system is

complete if it describes everything

consistent if it has no contradictions.

A truth is a decidedly amibiguous thing without reference to its context. There are many semi-distinct levels of truth, I can elaborate if anyone wants some concrete examples.

One special result of logic, is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The result it presents is that a formal logic system cannot be both complete and consistent. Your logic system aims for completeness, which it therefore does at the expense of consistency. Language, while not being a formal logic system; comes close enough as the underlying concepts (all, any, a, for each, can, cannot, is/are, is/are not, exists, does not exist etc) are the same. Language's main benefit in this respect is to allow ambiguity. By using language, a contradiction can be hidden through selective interpretation of ambiguity.

The point of this little excursion is to show that by attempting completeness, you have to sacrifice truth (= lack of contradictions). If you want truth (as you claim to do), then you can't have completeness. I haven't quite figured out whether or not embracing contradiction is a good idea. To someone who didn't know Zen that well, they might think of it as an example. Actually the idea in Zen is to use koans (= paradoxes) to "unask the question" (= reject one of the premises of the paradox). The idea is to resolve contradictions by regression, not to disable the logical ability of your mind by flooding it with mutually exclusive beliefs (thereby creating a "state explosion").

So what I propose as a better solution that can encompass just about (who has been missed?) everyone (which any proper solution should), is to just allow a small, consistent framework, for people to use entheogens in a constructive manner, where critical thinking and constructive communication is encouraged, and accepting dogma is not.

I predict you will disagree, and say something about how your solution has been thoroughly thought out, and that there's only a few things that are bad, but they're actually not bad after all, and it's actually near-perfect. I leave this here as I hope I will be wrong. Maybe you will even find it?

Edited August 16, 2012 by CβL

[GregKasarik]

The Uncertainty and Divine Principles point to the fact that no system can ever be "complete". "The Truth is not out there". In a metaphysical sense, completeness is only obtained through omniscience and omniscience is a logical impossibility. If god can never know if god is God, how the hell can you, or I ever "know" anything? I am quite familiar with Godel and now that you've made the link, I can see that the Divine Principle could perhaps be thought of as the theological equivalent of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

The Spiritual Principle is an argument against the very concept of dogma. In stating that "the first Disciple is always the first Heretic" it acknowledges that any spiritual "truths" are almost certainly going to contain contradictions and will lie beyond anyone's ability to effectively communicate:

 

"From this, it can be seen that it is effectively impossible to ever fully communicate any genuinely spiritual experience, or understanding to another. Irrespective of how much I attempt to communicate my spiritual journeys to another, they simply will not understand them as I do. Any attempt by me, or another to create a group of people who believe as I do will flounder on the rocks of misunderstanding as my “disciples”, inevitably fail to appreciate the complexity and subtlety of my experience and baulk at the contradictions inherent within my message. They will inevitably become Heretics."

Finally, the Reality Principle (Science is Truth), contains a section headed "The Importance of Critical Thinking", in which I say:

 

"Where there are deceived, there is a deceiver. While deliberate deception of this kind is clearly a violation of the Ethical Principle, and is something to be avoided, there are often cases in which the deception is not deliberate, as the person genuinely believes the misinformation that they communicate. For example, I would suggest that most people reading the Christian Gospels would hold that Jesus genuinely believed that what he was communicating was the truth as he knew it.

 

In situations like this, the ability to think critically and to adequately weigh up information is crucial to ensuring that deception, either deliberate, or accidental is nipped in the bud. For example, while Jesus clearly seemed to believe the message that he put across, his legacy has been one of deception and lies. If nothing else, his claim that some of the people that he spoke to would still be alive at the time of his return (Matt 16:28) should clue anybody into the fact that his claims were fundamentally wrong. Either that or we have at least one 2000 year old person living on this planet and if it is the case that such a person exists, then we should ask that they step forward and then scientifically examine their claims to living to such a great age."

Are The Principles perfect? Well, no. Clearly if for no other reason than I appear to have explained them so poorly.

But, they are an embodiment who I am (and I am far from perfect) and of the sort of world that I would like to live in: "I aim to promote a community of thinkers, who recognise that the the only truth is that there can never be certainty and who respect the rights of each person to believe what makes sense to them."

[CβL]

Your two statements: "god can never know if god is God" is something that directly contradicts "that the the only truth is that there can never be certainty".

So it's demonstrated that your principles are imperfect via (at least this one) inconsistency. So I restate my original question:

So then why, are your principles in such a form so as to preclude the possibility of someone discovering alternate truths?

The only way that someone can engage in critical thinking within your religion, is to reject at least one of your principles (on account of their inconsistency).

So this gives two options, which are then ramified:

A] They reject at least one of your principles:

A.1) By having the principles be able to be rejected without compromising membership (hence what is the need for them in their current state?)

A.2) By them leaving your religion.

B] They believe them all

B.1) Hence eliminating critical thinking

So that gives 3 ramified options. Take your pick...

[GregKasarik]

OMFG!! Are you serious? And you say you don't care about "winning arguments"?

This has to be about the shoddiest bit of thinking that I have seen in a while. I say that the only truth is that there is no truth and you get hung up on the fact that the statement is itself a contradiction.

Newsflash!! We already knew that!

Don't you realise that the statement that "god can never know if god is God" is entailed by the statement that the only Truth is that there is no Truth? There is no contradiction and both arise from the simple observation that omniscience is a logical impossibility and that omniscience is precisely what is required for god to know if god is God, or for anyone to know "Truth".

It would seem that you are a person who is constitutionally incapable of dealing with contradiction. How about we run with "The only Truth is that there is no Truth with the exception of logical, mathematical and definitional truths and of the truth contained within this statement, namely that there is no Truth (with the exception of the exceptions contained within this statement)". There we go. Contradiction removed and god still can't know if god is God.

So I take option four. Problem solved.

You seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that the Principles are some sort of ultimate guide to the universe and that I insist that everyone believes them and follows them without thought. They aren't. They never have been. They never will be. Rather they are a scaffold that people can use on their own journey of exploration. If someone wants to change them, who am I to complain? Certainly I'll argue for retention, but its their understanding of reality that they need to figure out, not mine. Perhaps you should re-read "The Spiritual Principle"? (http://www.kasarik.com/The-Spiritual-Principle.php).

Of course other people are going to come up with "alternative truths" (Although in terms of logic, they are going to have a hard time refuting the Uncertainty and Divine Principles). It is part of being human and only to be expected. Afterall, the Psychological Principle does state that "Your reality is TRUTH", so I can hardly expect the Principles to make sense, to or resonate with everyone. For example, every monotheist already believes that god can know if god is God, even if the only counter that I've heard involves begging the question (ie God can know because he is God).

Dogma is the enemy of the Infinite. The Infinite exists (even only as a concept), whether we like it or not, but Dogma arbitrarily asserts that only a fraction of it is worthy of exploration. About as far as I get into "Dogma" is the Ethical Principle "Act with Empathy" and that is because have no interest in exploring the darkness that inhabits our souls and believe that anyone heading down that path will find nothing but misery. I suppose that you could call the Reality Principle "dogma" if it floats your boat, but by then you've fairly much redefined "dogma" to refer to any belief, and should feel obliged to attack Dawkins for promulgating his own dogma, which looks very similar to the Reality Principle.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if people join my "religion", or not. Half the problems that I've encountered on this forum are because people like you are incapable of separating the word "religion" from your pre-conceptions and experiences of "organised religion". Its like you are channelling Hitchens, or something and it is abundantly clear that you have no interest in actually understanding anything I've written. With you, it is clearly about "winning arguments".

I already know I'm selling something that very few people want to buy. Most want to flee to unthinking certainty, whether it is that of a Sky Cat, atheism, or spirit beings, or whatnot. I only offer an eternity of not knowing WTF is going on. I find that exciting, but am smart enough to recognise that many find it terrifying. Personally, I'd hate it if my ideas ever became an organised religion, that people had to adhere to on pain of sanction, injury, or death. Rather, I hope that they will percolate throughout our culture and that the Uncertainty Principle, or something like it will become the vaccination against all forms of bigoted certitude, be they theistic, or atheistic, scientific, or superstition, rational, or irrational.

I really have no desire to continue this "conversation". Certainly, if you have any questions about anything I've written then ask, but I've had enough of this triumphalist bullshit, where you seem more interested in demonstrating your own cleverness (Exhibit A: "Ramified") than you are in demonstrating that you've understood anything I've written. Hint: When an author has to continually tell you that they didn't write what you thought they wrote, it is a fairly safe bet that you've misinterpreted it. Even more so, when it has previously been understood perfectly well by hundreds of others.

That gives you 2 options, entirely lacking in ramification. Take your pick.

[CβL]

All I can say mate, is good luck - you'll obviously be reliant on that.

You have categorically confused my point, which I made the effort of making concise. You seem to think you plugged up the holes, leaving "god still can't know if god is God." - yet you still treat this statement as truth despite the secondstatement explicitly denying this the possibility of truth. That is my point, which you missed entirely.

Greg's reply saved in white under this for posterity.

OMFG!! Are you serious? And you say you don't care about "winning arguments"?

This has to be about the shoddiest bit of thinking that I have seen in a while. I say that the only truth is that there is no truth and you get hung up on the fact that the statement is itself a contradiction.

Newsflash!! We already knew that!

Don't you realise that the statement that "god can never know if god is God" is entailed by the statement that the only Truth is that there is no Truth? There is no contradiction and both arise from the simple observation that omniscience is a logical impossibility and that omniscience is precisely what is required for god to know if god is God, or for anyone to know "Truth".

It would seem that you are a person who is constitutionally incapable of dealing with contradiction. How about we run with "The only Truth is that there is no Truth with the exception of logical, mathematical and definitional truths and of the truth contained within this statement, namely that there is no Truth (with the exception of the exceptions contained within this statement)". There we go. Contradiction removed and god still can't know if god is God.

So I take option four. Problem solved.

You seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that the Principles are some sort of ultimate guide to the universe and that I insist that everyone believes them and follows them without thought. They aren't. They never have been. They never will be. Rather they are a scaffold that people can use on their own journey of exploration. If someone wants to change them, who am I to complain? Certainly I'll argue for retention, but its their understanding of reality that they need to figure out, not mine. Perhaps you should re-read "The Spiritual Principle"? (http://www.kasarik.c...l-Principle.php).

Of course other people are going to come up with "alternative truths" (Although in terms of logic, they are going to have a hard time refuting the Uncertainty and Divine Principles). It is part of being human and only to be expected. Afterall, the Psychological Principle does state that "Your reality is TRUTH", so I can hardly expect the Principles to make sense, to or resonate with everyone. For example, every monotheist already believes that god can know if god is God, even if the only counter that I've heard involves begging the question (ie God can know because he is God).

Dogma is the enemy of the Infinite. The Infinite exists (even only as a concept), whether we like it or not, but Dogma arbitrarily asserts that only a fraction of it is worthy of exploration. About as far as I get into "Dogma" is the Ethical Principle "Act with Empathy" and that is because have no interest in exploring the darkness that inhabits our souls and believe that anyone heading down that path will find nothing but misery. I suppose that you could call the Reality Principle "dogma" if it floats your boat, but by then you've fairly much redefined "dogma" to refer to any belief, and should feel obliged to attack Dawkins for promulgating his own dogma, which looks very similar to the Reality Principle.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if people join my "religion", or not. Half the problems that I've encountered on this forum are because people like you are incapable of separating the word "religion" from your pre-conceptions and experiences of "organised religion". Its like you are channelling Hitchens, or something and it is abundantly clear that you have no interest in actually understanding anything I've written. With you, it is clearly about "winning arguments".

I already know I'm selling something that very few people want to buy. Most want to flee to unthinking certainty, whether it is that of a Sky Cat, atheism, or spirit beings, or whatnot. I only offer an eternity of not knowing WTF is going on. I find that exciting, but am smart enough to recognise that many find it terrifying. Personally, I'd hate it if my ideas ever became an organised religion, that people had to adhere to on pain of sanction, injury, or death. Rather, I hope that they will percolate throughout our culture and that the Uncertainty Principle, or something like it will become the vaccination against all forms of bigoted certitude, be they theistic, or atheistic, scientific, or superstition, rational, or irrational.

I really have no desire to continue this "conversation". Certainly, if you have any questions about anything I've written then ask, but I've had enough of this triumphalist bullshit, where you seem more interested in demonstrating your own cleverness (Exhibit A: "Ramified") than you are in demonstrating that you've understood anything I've written. Hint: When an author has to continually tell you that they didn't write what you thought they wrote, it is a fairly safe bet that you've misinterpreted it. Even more so, when it has previously been understood perfectly well by hundreds of others.

That gives you 2 options, entirely lacking in ramification. Take your pick.

Edited August 31, 2012 by CβL

[chilli]

'the the only truth is that there can never be certainty'

are you certain this is true?

*edit Does anyone else think the symbol of Greg's religion looks like a symbol for a grumpy face?

Edited September 1, 2012 by chilli

[space cadet swami]

^^^no to both...

[goneski]

My main two concerns about Greg's religion / philosophy / whatever you wish to call it:

1) People will see it as just a flimsy excuse at legalising drugs / 'transcendental compounds' / whatever-the-hell thinly veiled by the umbrella of 'religion' and attempting

to gain the same privileges afforded to religious organisations

Or

2) People will see it as some messed up drug-taking cult, conjuring up images of Charles Manson, for example.

This is not how I view it, just how I fear the general public tend to view such things.. And in general, the more you attempt to systematise it,

the more people will view it as such.

I personally have mixed views about what Greg has to offer, which I'm far too lazy to elaborate on at the moment. But I will say I applaud him for

being open, honest and sincere.

I don't believe I'm attempting to 'channel Hitchens' or anything, but I will argue that words such as 'religion' tend to gain a dominant meaning (monotheism, organised,

belief in the supernatural, faith, etc) within a certain time period. This is how language works, funnily enough.. To attempt to obtain legal usage of psychedelics under

the guise of religious freedom and then to criticise the dominant meaning of religion comes across as dubious (refer to 1 above).

I know you can attempt to gain the same rights as other religions whilst not actually being a religion in the traditional sense (I'm all for people redefining things), however

I think a lot of people will view this with a heavy dose of suspicion and skepticism..

Edited September 2, 2012 by SYNeR