Transcendent Compounds - Hunger Strike for Religious and Spiritual Freedom - 2012

[GregKasarik]

While Greg hasn't really put me in the mood to jump to his defense , I feel the need to point out that television sets have been around for a hundred years or so, and by your reasoning we either have to say that my big sony 1080p LCD screen is not a TV, or modify the original claim to say that some TVs have been around for 100 years.

 

Thanks for this. You've nicely highlighted the difference between the general and the specific and why a claim that Transcendent Compounds have been used since ancient times is not the same as the claim that all Transcendent Compounds have been used since ancient times.

I appreciate your input.

[GregKasarik]

I'll lend you something big... you can borrow my 100yr old 42" Panasonic Plasma...

I'm surprised no-one has seen the potential to turn this into a science versus religion debate..

 

Noooo!!!!

[GregKasarik]

@ chilli. Maybe I need to take a chill pill as well.

Given our unfortunate history, which dates back to the mess last year, I'd suggest that any post that includes the phrase "I think you are extremely arrogant" is asking for trouble. If you want to communicate, then go ahead. But if that is the case, don't sabotage your efforts with needless antagonism. indeed, I think I remember making a similar comment back then, as well.

Ballzac fairly much encapsulated why your objection to LSD being a Transcendent Compound is nonsensical. In this phrase, the general implies nothing about the specific. Saying that "guns have been used in wars for over 500 years" does not entail the claim that "every gun has been used in wars for over 500 years". Rather, It is the latter which entails the former. Similarly, the statement that "Golden Retrievers are used in duck hunting" is not rendered incorrect simply because Wonder Dog has never been near a hunt in her life. You might disagree, but you'd also be wrong.

I can see your point with respect to the way I express the safety of these compounds, but you have seem to have entirely ignored my stated reasons for chosing to express myself the way I have. More disturbingly, you still seem to be claiming that I am saying that these compounds are perfectly safe, despite the fact that I freely acknowledged that they are not. I am left wondering which part of " "So while they can't be regarded as perfectly safe (nothing can), decades of research clearly show that they fall within the acceptable limits of safety when compared with other activities that are legal within our communities." you did not understand.

I believe that the phrase, "psychologically safe in appropriate dose, set and setting", is a much better descriptor than "relatively safe", as it highlights the main reasons why people get into bad territory with these and allows me to educate on more than one level. I do abbreviate this to "psychologically safe", but in the same way as people talk about horse riding being "safe", rather than the absolutist meaning that you seem determined to impose.

Also, remember that part of what I need to do is to communicate an effective message in as short a time as possible. Modern media relies on sound bites and I need mine to be as memorable and easy to digest as possible. Tying myself in knots trying to communicate the intricate complexities of any of these compounds is a sure way to score an own goal. Yes, things get dumbed down more than either of us would like, but for a nightly news program, I have maybe four to six seconds to communicate the essence of my position and I need to do it both confidently and unambiguously. "Non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe" does what I want it to do and can always tag on "in appropriate dose, set and setting".

Can you imagine saying, "Non addictive, non-toxic and relatively safe" in an interview with one of the better interviewers, especially if they were hostile? It would be an invitation to being eaten alive. They would focus on that word "relatively", because it screams ambivalence, uncertainty and lack of confidence. At that point, you may as well kiss the interview good by as your message would be immediately lost as you were hoist high on the very rope that you had provided.

Now, if you happen to know any media professionals who would like to help me tailor my message, then I am all ears, but for now, I'm sticking with what I know.

Edited September 19, 2012 by GregKasarik

[chilli]

While Greg hasn't really put me in the mood to jump to his defense , I feel the need to point out that television sets have been around for a hundred years or so, and by your reasoning we either have to say that my big sony 1080p LCD screen is not a TV, or modify the original claim to say that some TVs have been around for 100 years.

 

You (and Greg on this point) are absolutely right (not that you need me to tell you).

Thanks for explaining in a way I was able to understand 'zac... I love being wrong!

Edited September 19, 2012 by chilli

[chilli]

@ chilli. Maybe I need to take a chill pill as well.

Given our unfortunate history, which dates back to the mess last year, I'd suggest that any post that includes the phrase "I think you are extremely arrogant" is asking for trouble. If you want to communicate, then go ahead. But if that is the case, don't sabotage your efforts with needless antagonism. indeed, I think I remember making a similar comment back then, as well.

Ballzac fairly much encapsulated why your objection to LSD being a Transcendent Compound is nonsensical. In this phrase, the general implies nothing about the specific. Saying that "guns have been used in wars for over 500 years" does not entail the claim that "every gun has been used in wars for over 500 years". Rather, It is the latter which entails the former. Similarly, the statement that "Golden Retrievers are used in duck hunting" is not rendered incorrect simply because Wonder Dog has never been near a hunt in her life. You might disagree, but you'd also be wrong.

I can see your point with respect to the way I express the safety of these compounds, but you have seem to have entirely ignored my stated reasons for chosing to express myself the way I have. More disturbingly, you still seem to be claiming that I am saying that these compounds are perfectly safe, despite the fact that I freely acknowledged that they are not. I am left wondering which part of " "So while they can't be regarded as perfectly safe (nothing can), decades of research clearly show that they fall within the acceptable limits of safety when compared with other activities that are legal within our communities." you did not understand.

I believe that the phrase, "psychologically safe in appropriate dose, set and setting", is a much better descriptor than "relatively safe", as it highlights the main reasons why people get into bad territory with these and allows me to educate on more than one level. I do abbreviate this to "psychologically safe", but in the same way as people talk about horse riding being "safe", rather than the absolutist meaning that you seem determined to impose.

Also, remember that part of what I need to do is to communicate an effective message in as short a time as possible. Modern media relies on sound bites and I need mine to be as memorable and easy to digest as possible. Tying myself in knots trying to communicate the intricate complexities of any of these compounds is a sure way to score an own goal. Yes, things get dumbed down more than either of us would like, but for a nightly news program, I have maybe four to six seconds to communicate the essence of my position and I need to do it both confidently and unambiguously. "Non-addictive, non-toxic and psychologically safe" does what I want it to do and can always tag on "in appropriate dose, set and setting".

Can you imagine saying, "Non addictive, non-toxic and relatively safe" in an interview with one of the better interviewers, especially if they were hostile? It would be an invitation to being eaten alive. They would focus on that word "relatively", because it screams ambivalence, uncertainty and lack of confidence. At that point, you may as well kiss the interview good by as your message would be immediately lost as you were hoist high on the very rope that you had provided.

Now, if you happen to know any media professionals who would like to help me tailor my message, then I am all ears, but for now, I'm sticking with what I know.

 

Well! A sensible and reasonable response indeed! Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself.

Now allow me to explain why I said 'arrogant' and was surprised by your reaction...

The way I intended it to be taken was like this: 'Now it is no secret I think you are arrogant and foolhardy, but I concede that sometimes that is exactly the kind of person for the job.'

I'm glad we were able to resolve this amicably, it is refreshing! Peace Greg, I wish you best of luck, and hope the challenges you have set yourself will be fun and memorable and that somehow your campaign to legalize psychedelics for religious use will trickle down to help us poor irreligious heathens in the entheo ghetto! ;)

[chnt]

another mistaken factor, you have to join a religion/cult to support greg... this movement is about joining a cult, false.

baseball aka moneyball, superfunds for presidential campaigns, double speak in politics, religious preferences, the rules of society.

the rules are biased and immoral, but there they are solidified in society, if you want to get ahead you have to play the rules of the game.

greg has found spirituality with compounds, he is playing the game with the intention of creating a loophole for freedom of choice, that is the ONLY thing he is doing.

he is further extending the hypothetical loophole to anyone who chooses to use it, no strings attached.

he is also networking for support to help create a loophole for freedom of choice, is that wrong? does that not potentially benefit most people on this forum and a greater number that aren't on this forum?

what's the problem? is it perhaps the strings that you attach to greg that create the problem? it is a pretty common tactic to show someone a negative bias, and then to call them out for reacting negatively, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, these things can also largely be unconscious, sometimes when someone reacts negatively to you it is a good idea to try to reflect on why they may have reacted negatively, the key word here being re-act. what has happened since greg started posting here is that there has been a collective negative bias shown towards greg which has created a perpetuating cycle of negative bias

perhaps stop getting caught up in debating the lines and start trying recognising what is between and beyond the lines, it's not always so easy explaining things perfectly/in a way that everyone understands, that's where a mature attitude can filter through the words and look for deeper meanings. not trying to sound condescending faults i recognise in others i recognise in myself

[chilli]

another mistaken factor, you have to join a religion/cult to support greg... this movement is about joining a cult, false.

baseball aka moneyball, superfunds for presidential campaigns, double speak in politics, religious preferences, the rules of society.

the rules are biased and immoral, but there they are solidified in society, if you want to get ahead you have to play the rules of the game.

greg has found spirituality with compounds, he is playing the game with the intention of creating a loophole for freedom of choice, that is the ONLY thing he is doing.

he is further extending the hypothetical loophole to anyone who chooses to use it, no strings attached.

he is also networking for support to help create a loophole for freedom of choice, is that wrong? does that not potentially benefit most people on this forum and a greater number that aren't on this forum?

what's the problem? is it perhaps the strings that you attach to greg that create the problem? it is a pretty common tactic to show someone a negative bias, and then to call them out for reacting negatively, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, these things can also largely be unconscious, sometimes when someone reacts negatively to you it is a good idea to try to reflect on why they may have reacted negatively, the key word here being re-act. what has happened since greg started posting here is that there has been a collective negative bias shown towards greg which has created a perpetuating cycle of negative bias

perhaps stop getting caught up in debating the lines and start trying recognising what is between and beyond the lines, it's not always so easy explaining things perfectly/in a way that everyone understands, that's where a mature attitude can filter through the words and look for deeper meanings. not trying to sound condescending faults i recognise in others i recognise in myself

 

There hasn't been a collective negative bias. By far, most responses to Greg have been positive and supportive, so if anything the bias would be the other way.

If you read through the posts fairly, I think you'll find a mix of good and bad reactions from Greg as well as those who have criticized him, which mostly seemed to be resolving peacefully.

Arguments about who started an argument are inconsistent with your rejection of the idea that people can be blamed or held responsible for their actions. You say to look between the lines, yet you then draw all these neat distinctions, generalize and and oversimplify. Truly embracing nondualism requires a lot more work than that.

You say we should examine our own actions to find the answer for why others have reacted to us negatively, and then you tell us how Greg has had all these negative reactions since he started posting here. Wouldn't the same principle apply to Greg as well? By your reasoning the cause of what you deem a 'perpetuating cycle of negative bias' is actually Greg's actions, not the negative reactions of others.

It is cute that you say 'it is a pretty common tactic to show someone a negative bias, and then to call them out for reacting negatively, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy' in the middle of doing the very same thing yourself!

It saddens me that more people don't understand criticism is actually a good thing: ideas, theories or approaches should not be considered sound until they have shown they can withstand scrutiny or testing.

Wouldn't it be scary if we were part of a community where every response to everything anyone said or did was positive and approving?

Does no one else realize how extremely fucked up that would be?

[chilli]

from looking at other threads in which you have participated, it seems that you spend most of your time here trying to piss people off.

 

The only recent threads I can find where there is anything like that is ones featuring you, and a thread on Jesus. Unsurprisingly, both involve religion.

Looking over my last couple of hundred posts, by far the majority have been friendly, positive, helpful or lighthearted. Just for the record!

Edited September 19, 2012 by chilli

[space cadet swami]

It saddens me that more people don't understand criticism is actually a good thing: ideas, theories or approaches should not be considered sound until they have shown they can withstand scrutiny or testing.

 

constructive criticism is a good thing...but criticism presented with a touch of condescension is nothing but self aggrandisement.

[ballzac]

greg has found spirituality with compounds, he is playing the game with the intention of creating a loophole for freedom of choice, that is the ONLY thing he is doing.

he is further extending the hypothetical loophole to anyone who chooses to use it, no strings attached.

 

Regardless of what his ultimate goal is, if he is successful in getting the plants/chemicals legalised for religious purposes, then if he and I sit down and share a brew of ayahuasca, it would theoretically be possible for me to be arrested for breaking the law while he is left free because he chooses to describe his beliefs and practices as "religious". I would be equally hesitant to support any other action that proposed to grant rights to a select group of people. For example, I would not support campaign to allow white people, or heterosexuals, to use these chemicals.

what's the problem? is it perhaps the strings that you attach to greg that create the problem? it is a pretty common tactic to show someone a negative bias, and then to call them out for reacting negatively, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, these things can also largely be unconscious, sometimes when someone reacts negatively to you it is a good idea to try to reflect on why they may have reacted negatively, the key word here being re-act. what has happened since greg started posting here is that there has been a collective negative bias shown towards greg which has created a perpetuating cycle of negative bias

perhaps stop getting caught up in debating the lines and start trying recognising what is between and beyond the lines, it's not always so easy explaining things perfectly/in a way that everyone understands, that's where a mature attitude can filter through the words and look for deeper meanings. not trying to sound condescending faults i recognise in others i recognise in myself

 

As Chilli said, criticism is actually a good thing. The reason I questioned Greg's ability to deal with people who disagree with him is because he's chosen to enter a venture that is inherently political. Working out who 'started it' or saying that we should all read between the lines better is irrelevant here. Greg needs to learn some diplomacy skills if he wants to have any success in this whatsoever. 90%+ of the people Greg encounters will think that he is crazy for what he is trying to do, and if he simply tells them that if they're not going to support him they should just go away, he's going to lose a lot of potential support. Just the fact that I was replying to this thread should have given him a clue that perhaps I was interested in what he is doing, and this would have been a good opportunity to present his case. He hasn't made any attempt to explain why his proposition does not discriminate against me as an atheist. Instead, he simply labelled me as being anti-religion, described my position as being "ideological purity" and my criticisms as being my "culture wars". I never brought up religion, he did. And he has not made any attempt to address my criticism that religion should be irrelevant in the discussion of allowing people to use these chemicals.

He has jumped head first into the political arena, and if this is the best he can do when he is confronted with criticisms, then he is doomed to fail.

[ballzac]

I love being wrong!

 

That's great, because I love being right! Maybe we can do it again some time

[whitewind]

I want to wade in here but don't have much time to make my point or use diplomacy, suffice to say I don't think Greg is supporting the community as a whole because of the premise he is working on is using existing laws to show a loophole to make it acceptable for a section of the community in one state to use these substances legally whereas I would like to see a change in the laws to make it acceptable for everyone to use these substances legally in all states.

Whether one might lead to another is a matter of hot debate, perhaps we should be using Greg to highlight the unfairness of the law in favour of religious practice and beliefs as well as the unfairness of the law against psychedelic drug use? Should we all band together and protest alongside Greg, but with different banners?

[space cadet swami]

isn't somewhere to start, better then nowhere..?

It is the law that gets broken with the use of entheogens, so that makes it the law that needs to be addressed.

When applying this in a legal matter, isn't it a "loophole" you're looking for..?

& if you can find & exploit the loophole, then ultimately the issue has to be addressed...either to close the "hole", or open it wider by arbitration of a whole new law/laws.

[qualia]

i just hope you make it past 3 days before the cops come and haul you away

[chnt]

so basically what you're saying ballzac is that, in the event that there was this loophole, and you managed to get caught using/possessing say some mushrooms, you would rather be prosecuted and potentially end up with a criminal record, rather than taking advantage of a loophole?

people are getting too caught up in beliefs.

[Acacia King]

Dude! Well done. Don't listen to any of the nay sayers. It takes bold people like you self to illicit change in this world. My hat is off to you. I hope you inspire others to do what they can to bring about change in regards to sacramental use of substances.

There is no religious freedom or freedom at alll for that matter when the government decides what you are allowed to put in your own body.

I wish I could afford to come down and stand by your side for this. Keep us updated on your progress with the Victorian Government.

[ballzac]

so basically what you're saying ballzac is that, in the event that there was this loophole, and you managed to get caught using/possessing say some mushrooms, you would rather be prosecuted and potentially end up with a criminal record, rather than taking advantage of a loophole?

 

I don't know. Are you suggesting I feign a belief in God to take advantage of a loophole? Isn't that concept as offensive to the people who have a 'genuine' belief in God as it is to the people who have to hide their true beliefs to avoid discrimination?

[chilli]

Who cares maaaan, all that matters is you get to do the drugs broooo.

Edited September 20, 2012 by chilli

[chnt]

who said anything about belief in god?

many things in life can be offensive to many people, if you want to live your life in a way that causes no offense to others... how would that even work?

people that are offended can simply get the fuck over it or continue to take offense, it's not your problem.

some american pundits were having a go at obama for using the superfund system to aid his campaign even though he said it's wrong, while i take issue with various attitudes taken by obama, i dont take issue with that because regardless of whether you believe superfunds are a good thing or lead to corruption and a whole bunch of other shit... if you dont use one to aid your presidential campaign there's no point running for presidency.

beliefs aren't the issue here, the issue is freedom of choice, regardless of your beliefs, if you choose to use certain compounds this can potentially benefit you.

[chilli]

who said anything about belief in god?

 

Greg.

beliefs aren't the issue here, the issue is freedom of choice, regardless of your beliefs, if you choose to use certain compounds this can potentially benefit you.

 

It is not about freedom of choice regardless of beliefs! Greg is campaigning to allow people with certain religious beliefs to be afforded rights the rest of us do not have. Have you not been following the discussion?

[chnt]

no he isn't and do you know his perspective on "god"?

greg is campaigning to create a loophole allowing people who use certain compounds legal sanction. you are projecting beliefs and opinions about religion onto what he is doing.

Edited September 20, 2012 by chnt

[chilli]

no he isn't and do you know his perspective on "god"?

greg is campaigning to create a loophole allowing people who use certain compounds legal sanction. you are projecting beliefs and opinions about religion onto what he is doing.

 

I'm not 'projecting' anything you lunatic! The 'loophole' is for religious use, this is the crux of Greg's campaign. Here are Greg's own words on the matter, I have put the relevant parts in bold:

The use of Transcendent Compounds is an ancient and valid form of religious and spiritual practice... there can be no legitimate reason for prohibiting their use within religious and spiritual frameworks.

Religious freedoms are protected within the State of Victoria by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006). Greg Kasarik has been directly lobbying the Victorian Government for around 18 months in order to ensure that these protections are formally extended to persons who use Transcendent Compounds as a part of their religious practice.

The demands are simple: "That the Victorian Government provide regulated access to Transcendent Compounds for religious and spiritual purposes, as per their obligations under sections 7 and 14 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006)".

This action is intended to pressure the Government into complying with the law and to provide an opportunity to educate the wider public about the reality of Transcendent Compounds and the fact that their use is a safe and appropriate form of religious, spiritual and mystical expression.

[chnt]

yes that is what he said, you've done a good job at looking at the words, but you dont seem to be able to look beyond them.

you are getting too caught up in the words, you cannot separate religion (catholicism, christianity, islam, etc) from "religion", from spirituality.

why am i a lunatic? because i am able to separate cultural meaning from ideas and concepts? i thought that was creative intelligence

nothing in those words you posted mentioned anything about god either, once again do you know his perspective pertaining to "god"?

Edited September 20, 2012 by chnt

[chilli]

yes that is what he said, you've done a good job at looking at the words, but you dont seem to be able to look beyond them.

you are getting too caught up in the words, you cannot separate religion (catholicism, christianity, islam, etc) from "religion", from spirituality.

 

Looking 'beyond the words' is not my responsibility. If Greg has some other agenda beyond what he has stated the campaign to be about, he can talk about it. Otherwise, I'll stick to what he actually said, instead of what you think he really means.

why am i a lunatic? because i am able to separate cultural meaning from ideas and concepts? i thought that was creative intelligence

nothing in those words you posted mentioned anything about god either, once again do you know his perspective pertaining to "god"?

 

I called you a lunatic for what I thought were obvious reasons, which have nothing to do with how creatively intelligent you think you are. You denied that Greg's campaign is about rights for those with religious beliefs, when that is exactly what it is about. Even though Greg has explicitly stated his campaign is to gain rights on religious grounds for use of psychedelics, you deny it is the case and tell me I am projecting these ideas onto Greg! I called you a lunatic because that seems crazy to me.

nothing in those words you posted mentioned anything about god either, once again do you know his perspective pertaining to "god"?

 

Aside from that fact that religion implies beliefs about God/god(s), Greg does explicitly talk a lot about God/god on his website. I am aware of his beliefs about God/god, but it makes no difference. It doesn't change the fact that he is the one who brought beliefs about God/god into the equation, and that is what you originally asked about.

Edited September 20, 2012 by chilli

[ballzac]

What you seem to be implying, chnt, is that we should all pretend to be religious to take advantage of a potential loophole that may allow the use of some drugs for religious people. I'm sorry, but "No".

That's the equivalent of an Aboriginal person painting themselves white to buy alcohol in regions where they are prohibited from obtaining it. I think most people who are proud of, and comfortable with, who they are, would find doing such a thing distasteful at the very least.

All I can go by is the actual requests that Greg says he has made. If these requests are strategic and his agenda is not entirely as stated, then that's for him to work out by himself. But if I were to support a cause, I would have to agree with the premises of the cause as stated, and if you read the thread title, you will see that this cause very specifically singles out people who use these chemicals as part of their religious practice.