Psiloman

In a teleonomic and anthropocentric universe , yes. Teleonomic: Having an explicit purpose. Meaning "having a reason of existence, part of a greater plan". Many (if not all) religion worldviews are teleonomic. Also human creations are teleonomic, for example a clock you have, your pc your car, built to serve a purpose. Its the way we think, i guess and its rather difficult for one to distance himself/herself from such a concept. Anthropocentric : Human as the center, more or less. A rather old anthropocentric idea that highlights this concept rather humorously (nowadays) was the geocentric system of the universe, that everything revolves around Earth, in other words US (us, not U.S. as it happens nowadays ). A rather nice anecdote: I was hanging out with a friend of mine enjoying some fine seafood on a seafront shop and looking at seaguls and other birds of the sea. We had been in a discussion of evolution ,of teleonomy etc. So i asked the person to imagine the evolution of the seaguls if we were to be extinct by rise of water bodies of our planet. He gave me more or less an anthropomorphic and anthropocentric view where seaguls would have developed "talking abilities"/telepathy propably building sky cities and also developing hands. I gave him a senario where Earth would have been flooded and islets of land would only remain, seaguls there could be lighter and more slender , with bigger fat ration, more adjusted to longer travel to find the islets. In the first view , my friend "humanised" the seagul,providing not an "evolution" senario but more of an "anthropomorphic ancescion" senario ("ascencion",going upwards of course always with anthropocentric criteria -opposable thumbs, logic, speech-, have a look at how "evolution" is portrayed in popular culture for example "evolved aliens" being superior, or Xmen...Noone would would be enthusiastic with an Xmen that has sicle cell anemia,but...that too is evolution and selection in some countries with malaria). Its rather common to think this way, my version might have seemed less exotic , and if we had other people with us they would have urged me to drink MORE ouzo because they would assume that my imagination was lacking and we would have to fix it or else i would be a total bore.Certainly this was not a battle of wits, or a device to "correct" my friend (he was not wrong, we just had different standpoints), but more of an illustration of thoughts, him being a musician ,me being a biologist. I am not sure that universe is teleonomic ,let alone anthropocentric. I can certainly see how amazing it is we have found rather interesting plants with rather interesting molecules, although it might have not been put there/so widesptrad for us to find. This remains though only a philosophical question unless it colors the purpose of those substances, in a sense that if abudance means "being there to be found" then this might insert a "telos" , an "end purpose" of them, whereas i tend to lean more on "its what you make of them, its the human that defines the telos -hence the use the practicality and the meaning-. The above, do not nullify the possible uses of such substances : it just seperates the possible use from the origin. Ah, here is the thing with research and politics of research. First of all as ethical commities stand, under no way he would be allowed to put the people attending in "physical danger": yes, psychedelics are not famed to kill people by distrupting their physiology to such a degree that could kill them (there are exceptions to this, vasoconstriction of some compounds) , but the commity will want to know how you are going as a researcher to take care of a blood pressure spike or something that potentially could harm someone. For better or for worse, they will not give you the money needed or the approval needed if you dont hook up people in devices monitoring vital functions and if you do not have on hand personel ready and able to intervene in a medical emergency. This means hospital, they would never have approved an "in nature" protocol and to tell you the truth i wonder how "in nature" or how easy it would be if still the "hooked up to monitors" had to apply. The second point here as why not nature and why not in conjunction with teachings of meditaion, yoga or any other form of "setting a path" would be that for data to be meaningfull -and propably publishable in a peer-reviewed community- one factor at a time should be changed. This is not always easy, for example isnt a factor the hospital setting? Of course, and a charged one, hospitals are not renowned to be visited while in good health or in nice times, so this could color the experience. Still, introducing a "path" or any other variable strengthens the question "was it DMT as a purely pharmacological action to be accounted for the results? Was it that it was given a context to act upon (the path)? Was it increased suggestibility that did it?". Hence such results would be rigorously questioned by peer community and also it might not be so satisfactory for the researcher himself/herself if at one point he/she thinks that the amount of variables introduced could skew the results. Conducting research is not only difficult because people will not give you the permission to carry it our or because grants may be lacking, its also difficult because one has to conform a)to an ethics commity, b )to some criteria of conducting meaningful research. While a) might be a bit dubious as to what ethics might be ,we could have a whole discussion on human ethics here -a long standing philosophical issue-, B ) on the other hand has rather good reasons for existing , the method of conducting a research is one developed after long trials and errors. Of course, psychedelics and psychoactives in general have the rather interesting but rather hindering -in such cases- characterists of being very influenced if not dependand on "set and setting". While an antinflammatory could be investigated easily with such a protocol, psychoactives pose extra challenge (for example see the discussions in the scientific community of employing an ACTIVE "placebo" when conducting studies with psychedelics). The above of course are not stating that Grof's way was not successful or promising, they just state why Strassman might have followed the road he has followed. Personally i think -which has been said in the psychedelic community many times i think, maybe by Grof or Stolaroff- that such substances are better acting when incorporated to a path. It need not be "spiritual", in the form of "spiritual belief", the path signifies targeted intention having a goal or a teleonomy or at least consciously walking a "road". In other words, less formal, such substances might be more productive if one is already walking towards a destination. He is like black 80% cocoa chocolate: Can seem bitter at first, but you know you will love it in the end, smothered by it and lick your lips,smack them and come back for more. Its called , Dirty Love ( i can so much , imagine Chef from southpark singing along)

For me ,its a false dichotomy that is partly excused because people have this kind of fear for a)"synthetic substances, b )"drugs" both in the "illegal psychoactive" meaning and "pharmaceutical" meaning. It goes without saying that there are many endogenous or natural compounds that if i administer them to you i can cause enough deviation in the physiological "modus operanti" of your body. Cortisone, testosterone,domoic acid,strychnine,iodine,table salt,sugar,insulin,adrenalin, hell even water can be used to such an effect. Heh, for example insulin shock therapy was rather interesting, rather dangerous and rather natural. Here if one makes another subdivision on the above, disagreeing that the substance apart from natural must also have a high therapeutic index (i.e. drop the natural poisons from the list,also dropping non ordinary doses of anything for example water) where ED50 would be the dose needed for effects of the substance, then it will signal that it is "yet another subdivision" with no real substance except getting a meaning across : that there are simply some substances believed to be endogenous that one has no second thoughts using because "they are natural" or "they are present to the body" as if this guarantees lack of side-effects or any danger or them being arbitrarily better than others. If the original quote alludes to DMT, then one must take into account strassman's work as well: the commentary on the longterm effects of the DMT experience (i think even to his disappointment he didnt find any longterm positive effects), the thing that endogenous DMT is abit of a controversial issue let alone the whole pineal story. As far as the last statement is concerned strassman has made Cottonwood Research Foundation to research the whole endogenous hallucinogen (look at the project list). Propably DMT exists in human body, but in WHAT concentrations? This could make a whoooole lot of a difference in its action in physiology as endogenous vs as externally supplied in doses that brain concentrations could reach values orders of magnitute higher than "normal DMT levels" (if present). Here we revert back to an insulin megadose or a cortisone megadose kind of concept. They can be more easily qualified that quantified, given that they are the...definition of "subjectivity"! Still, my criteria might be like that : a) How big/meaningfull is in everyday life: its of no use being a king in an alternate dimension and here being a psychiatric ward inmate. b ) The effect on the person : Its of no use/limited use if it makes the person malfunction ,such as being paranoid, withdrawn etc. c) As an adjunct or direct consequence of point "a", being able to stand in sober thought and reality checks. If i want to go a bit more "general" on the issue, as a rule of thumb, i think that first of all a "spiritual truth" or "meaning" must not be detrimental to the person or to others in the long term (for example an existensial crisis might be fruitfull in the longterm whereas rather worrying in the shortterm). If it helps or helps one go forth, then its a good indication that the "truth" or even better its "intergration" is on a nice track. On the other hand, does it really matter? Belief is something that is not famous for "being checked and proving correct". Belief is something you have, so just make sure you enjoy it and you dont go completely malfunctional on it in everyday life.

My take on it : To judge if it matters or not, one has to view not the belief (or lack of) but the actions that stem from it. This may be more influenced by the personality of the one experiencing it ,rather than the belief itself -but here one can raise the question if belief in something is "indicative" or a "predictive/predisposing element" of character. To simplify it: One can consider the "advice"/"meaning" of what the "entities" show one way or another. If one believes them as externally real will he/she be more prone (or predisposed) to act according to them with less questioning of the course of action about to be taken, than one who doubts they are externally real?I am afraid of the possibility a believer might be more prone to question less, hence be more of a "follower". Is it that bad to "follow"? Not when the advice is nice and can lead to fruitful results, but its even better in my book to think twice generally before acting out on whatever an "entity" shows or whatever the "meaning" of a psychedelic experience might be. I do not say that a hardcore believer in voices/entities will follow whatever he/she is shown without critical thinking, but as i see it even non-believing people tend to be amazed by the "exotic" the "unknown" the "novel" thus tempted that what they came in contact with might be followed as if its some sort of "wise sage" : let alone people that believe 100% that they just made a "dimensional contact" or whatever else that breaks the mundane of everyday life.

Something akin to this: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html'>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Generally its good to keep in mind those: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Its funny how often we use them

For anyone that is interested i attach the fulltext article. thearticleinquestion.pdf

Personally, im generally "not too sure" about anything. I view this not as a viewpoint of "dreaded insecurity about everything" and certainly not as a "laudanum for questions". I view this as a realistic approach whereas i try to find everything i can and how it relates to me ,as a life path. On the god spot, im not too sure (hehehhe) , but i think the brain is the first place i would start looking about the notion of "god" or of "the otherside".Now there could be many arguments even Russel Teapots (heh google) , one could even "remove the subject from the realms of analysis" so it stays safe from inspection. Either way, if one will get anxious or passionate about defending or fighting an idea , depends on what he/she has invested on it. I do not feel the existence of a god or an otherside or an exotic theory a prerequisite to my happyness. In the past i may have crusaded about some ideas, but i saw that one does not need to crusade he/she can release his/her ideas and discuss them in a non prosylitising way. The ones that can hear and discuss them ,will do so : arguing also shows critical thinking if its done without a vested interest or without a predetermined "end point" (or else its a crusade agaist the crusade masqueraded like an inquiry). Interesting discussion... It also has to do with what one thinks of a religion : i know non religious people that i cant stand them for a moment, and i know highly religious people that happen to be in my inner circle of close friends. Depends one what does with belief. For the time being im looking around for schematics of a transcranial magnetic stimulation device (erm...the worst terms seem to get the best of good ideas re: god helmet, people like po(o)p science simplifications),seems doable from a hardware point of view, although one should take great care with stimulation of the brain. All in all an interesting idea ;)

There is also some evidence that piracetam (and aniracetam) modulate AMPA receptor (positive allosteric modulation) ,although i do not know what plasma levels are required for such an action. Its actions seem to be diverse in the bibliography ,although many doctors argue that it does nothing for the longterm. Personally i stand in between : its not "godsend" as people would expect with smartdrugs, its not useless on the other hand. On another note notice that the latest trends incorporate methylphenidate and modafinil in the "smart drug" category? People seem to be drawn toward "quick fixes",hence a "smartdrug" that you can equivocally "feel" , and "feel" as "enhancing" for many is a winner although not so inline with smartdrugs original definition. May revive dead neurons?! Generally reviving dead things is difficult let alone a neuron...I would be extremely interested to see the original article where the conclusion was drawn from. Do you happen to have it on hand?

Fucking Hell Mutant! Im speechless ,its considered quite of a feat! Could you please try pollinating it by dropping some pollen on the stigma? It might not be self-fertile but its worth a shot! Bravo once more! Any observations on the plant? Any wild guesses/ educated guesstimations on what made it flower?

Yes, i meant more "a way" rather than the more stiff "the way". See, the way you put it with the orange example i agree, in the sense that method of approach is indeed the cornerstone in the whole experience : my qualms were mostly on the "tight schedule" of regular psychedelic ingestion for some months, some people have done it with no -what would be perceived as ill effects- (some others were initiated in other cultures at a quite young age, i think some even around 8 y.o.) but still some people might still exhibit "ill effects" if they take that frequency of use as "a given". Depends on the person , depends on the approach. Personally i dont know what to make of both this and the "factual knowledge" transcended via levitation,telekinesis or any form of "energy" that seems to be supernatural having of course as a comparison what we know so far. Personally i have see some quite amazing things which i do not know if they were self-suggestion, but still they worked : I used to do free style kung-fu and the "Sensei" (i dont know if thats the word, anyway the teacher) also gave us Chi Quong lessons. Surely i could "feel" what he said i was supposed to feel ("energy wise") although that is not what i focused on, i mean i wouldnt focus on if it is indeed "life energy" or if it is something else, i would just use it and see where i could go from there without any "ties" to any eastern philosophical system. We discussed it very much with Sho (the teacher, he was Malaysian) and we arrived to the conclusion that it is irrelevant when we discuss about it to fuss over if indeed its "my way" or "his way" as far as the theory is concerned: He believed it in apochryphal tones ,i considered it in a naturalistic way, we could have our beer together discussing it and we both knew that one way or another it was of use.Surely this was not an obstacle in building a relationship of trust and mutual "teaching" where each one of us could share with others knowledge from one's field.Discussion could go both ways even for herbal medicine where i would capitalise on the biological aspect and he would capitalise on energy aspect, so after the discussion at least we knew each other's points irrespectively if we embraced it or not (well, now THATS magic, it doesnt happen frequently and thus can WOW people ;).) It might have been physics (at an instictive level) combined with suggestion and self-suggestion, it might have been some kind of energy or whatnot, still it was applicable and you could also put on a "Sho" with it (heh, that was his saying). Still , limitations applied : He used to also ask the question in his classes "What would you do if a guy with a machete tried to give you a full frontal attack?" which the class usually tried to answer as "i would do this and that, disarma this way etc", to which he would reply "I would run like hell" showing both the limitation (well, he couldnt melt the machette with an eyesight or pull a jedi mind trick on the thug trying to off him) and that sometimes the wisest course of action was to either run away, or if you were locked in inevitable combat threatening your life to even fight what would be considered "dirty" if the other person have had you in a corner and it was either "dead or alive" for you. Pretty "down to earth" things in other words, from a person that apparently could harness what it was he was harnessing, and could also put a rather short lived fight -for the opponent- when physical contact was unavoidable. Anyway ,got carried away there. Interesting phenomena, and as i said i dont know what would make out of them. It would really please me if i could find a person that could perform them and let me study the behaviour of the force behing it, not in a "dismissive way" (read : trying to PROVE a fraud, this could be fraudulent as well if i set my perception only on trying to find the "cheat") but in a way that i would first want to make sure that indeed what we are seeing is happening, and then study the nature of it. For example if telekinisis is concerned i would try to find first if it indeed takes place ,so as to have a starting point and then try to unravel what nature is the force: for example can magnetic shielding stop it? Can other conditions influence it? What kind of materials as susceptible to it? Now ,that would make a rather interesting and fascinating study. I dont know, some people would be quick to dismiss it. I cannot say i put "belief" in such situations, i mostly put "consideration" and a joyful-playful "investigational" spirit. Now ,thats not too bad if one has "scientist" cariquatured in his/her mind as humorless,stiff,boring,no-play creatures. Not all of them are ;) "True" ones are not, because investigation comes with doubting (even self-doubt) and requires a certain amount of playfulness even withing the "rigidity" of a well defined academic protocol for fruition. Its more like a balance, or if you preffer the term a "holistic approach". I strive for it, its too early though to judge if i am getting close. Anyway i think the conversation has "strayed" a bit, still interesting though.

I tend to find meaning and also enjoy myself immensly in what other people find "dry logic". I tend also to enjoy stories a lot and even make some of my own! It depends what i want to do with the data. Sure, i can be taught "ethos" through a story ,look at Aesop for example . Still if i want sometimes to implement the data , i would really appriate if the person -lets take an example from this forum's thematology- told me if the "chemical analysis on X plant" he did was fictional or indeed took place. Why so? Because in the case it is fictional i can still enjoy it, but if i want to work with this plan i'd rather have hard data on my hands for it, or if there are no data thats a good start to start unearthing them. Here, many people barricate themselves in dichotomies, meaning that they kind of imagine the storyteller "always imaginative" and the "logic guy" alwas "dry". It aint so ;) Richard Evan Schultes, a logic guy, used to work with plants that he was first acquainted with them through the stories of the locals , and mind you locals did not talk in percentage numbers or chemical structures of phytoconstituents but of myths, gods, spirits etc. So he listened to them, he listened to stories, i can bet he enjoyed them, he had stories himself to tell also (search about his blowpipe fetish ;) ). Of course, when he sent back samples of the plants or fired up his lab machines to find out what the plants have in, he didnt stick to the story in the sense of "Basify,pull thrice with dichloromethane and the immaterial spirit of Ganzu the Great Serpent of the Sapphire Sea is isolated in a 500 mg quantity". That wouldnt quite cut it , would it? I dont think i am "special" but i seem to enjoy both ,each one on its own. Is is too hard for other people? Am i...that "special" that i can enjoy both for its own qualities? I dont think so . Its more a matter of choice, its more a matter of not having as a preset that logic is "dry" and not having as a prerequisite that someting must be sprinkled liberally with "mystery-i-cant-get-it-it-surpasses-everything-i-can-possibly-explain" for it to be magnificent and awe inspiring (for example i find the....fully explainable photosynthesis in a "dry" biochemistry book utterly wild and fascinating on par with a brilliant sci-fi story !) Interested in that. Like which factual rules were transcended? Depends! This "recipe" is not a cure-all! For some it might mean loosing the marbles ala "greengrocer-chased-by-CIA" style, for others it might mean their visual field goes haywire with HPPD-like symptoms. For some it might work : others though would say that "follow and you shall see" has worked for any religion so far, muslims see a paradise full of rice and virgins, christians see how christ has risen, Cthulhu followers have seen the tentacles and Pastafarians have been touched by His Noodly Appendage, Oh bless his Holy Soy Sauce and Meatballs of Mercy ;) They might support diametrically different to each other positions but each of them "has seen" and his/her experience was perceived in the spectrum of "correct" to "undeniable". I do not doubt for a moment that you have seen it yourself and that you feel that "following a diet and ingesting regularly psychedelics" is indeed the way! I doubt that this could be everyone's way or that this could work for everybody : and if it doesnt work for them it wont mean that "apparently they are doing something wrong". It might mean that the above pertains to your experience and cannot be easily generalised. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I still think though that the whole discussion grounds might need redifinement. For example are we trying to reach a practical conclusion? Are we discussing for ...enjoying the discusion? Bot are ok in my book and are not mutually exclusive. On the discussion : i enjoyed reading castaneda and i took it as a story. If i thought there were some lessons in "ethos" i took them ,a story doesnt have to be real to teach (we all know Le Petit Prince didnt really exist still ,so much meaning)). Personaly though, and this is by no means universal opinion or whatever, i wouldnt take Castaneda's work as an "accurate deptiction of rituals and beliefs" of the tribes he portrays through Don Juan. Eitherway, i enjoyed the books if thats what the question is about

Still though, those pink elephants however real are not going to trump over you or trump over the one who perceives them as real*. On the otherhand objectively real elephants (or transsubjectively if we want to knit pick on terms) can surely trump over you and they will leave evidence of it : if the body is shipped away to a foreign land for an autopsy ...well the corononer can prossibly tell you have been trumped over by a real elephant ,even if he/she had just been sent the body with no details. However "fluid" the reality, i think we are just playing here, we are entertaining philosophy for the sake of it : none of the people talking here is going to try to pass through a concrete-steel enforced wall, full speed ,on the ground that "reality is what you make of it" or "reality is so fluid i can call it fiction". Why? Well because the hard objective reality of the wall will meet the soft and fluid theories (and body) of the person attempting the feat and...in an almost fascist way impose its hard "truth" : that of broken bones, broken nose, bleeding or concusion. I dont thing anyone here will argure that they can pass through walls, i mean not "theoreticaly" as if we are in a "Fringe" episode, but practically. The value of truth? Hmm...Depends : While i enjoy storytelling and knowing that something is fabricated doesnt subtract from enjoying it ,there are cases where i would like to know what really happens/has happened,even in the sense of approximate reality ,at least the person giving me the data regarding them as correct to the best of his/her knowledge. I wouldnt fuss over a fairytale,i like them, i woudl fuss over though an anthropological/ethnological study that is fabricated. Going into more "science grounds" ,there i like my data to be sincere since i want to utilise them for practical purposes hence there is no room for fabricating. I would rather have wrong but sincere data, i can accept a miscalculation its a bit more difficult to accept a fabrication. *Depends though on how one ACTS on their beliefs. If for example,and lets take an extreme one, a person suicides because -archetypal paranoia- "CIA is after them,reading their thoughts" ,the end result might be the same as for a person that INDEED CIA was after him and commited suicide. The implications and consequences are real in both cases although in the first it might be brighter than the sun the fact that CIA has no reason to chase erm...your greengrocer that the most suspicious and daring thing he ever did in his lifetime was...sell you Australian olive oil telling you its Greek olive oil, which we all know is a National level threat, and the most secret thing he ever layed his hands on was his grandmothers secret cookie recipie Hmmm...Depends though on what the cookies have as a filling ;) What are we really arguing about here? And as fabrications go, if i lied to you about lets say your "significant other's" ehm.."activities" not including you (heh, yes lets go a bit for something more personal/emotional here) or lied to you about money or your health, would you let me of the hook if i played the "reality is fiction,its fluid" card? Or if a person doesnt come through a trade in this website (lets say you send him money for cacti, to take an example already having taken place),could the person play that card? If -for arguments sake- the person REALLY believed he/she kept his part (whereas for an external observer he/she didnt) ,would it make it "true" and put you to rest that indeed you received the part of the trade you were promised? I dont think you would be very happy or very convinced Why so though? What are the implications of all of the above?

By the way its also a "cultural" issue i think. For example i have even noticed differences of how the "major cannabis scene" is different in Greece and in England. In Greece it seems as if the scene is more "anxious",more tied to "magia" (a version of "being cool"), and it seems to revolve more around cannabis itself rather what it might enable you to do. In England things seemed more relaxed, and cannabis -which appeared to be plenty, not as if procuring...uranium ,with long waits and shady people- seemed to be used more as an adjunct to activites. So the differences might not be so much as a "class diffence" but cultural difference.

From what i have seen : a)They were snorting it alone in parties b)they were snorting it with friends in parties c)Some of them were snorting it alone in their home d) They were snorting it in clubs ,sometimes in combination with other substances e)Others were injecting it, IM usually, either alone or with friends, some at parties at secluded rooms,some at home. Some were withdrawn, some were dancing,some were talkative, others were silent. To put it in short,before the list runs out of alphabet letters to mention each and one case, i have seen the same pattern of use around as with most substances. I havent noticed anything "out of the *drug world* ordinary" as far as dissasociatives are concerned. Come to think of it, i also knew people in England that used Amanita muscaria at parties in small doses akin to a relaxant (see :alcohol). I mostly mention this for other people ,mutant you know of this effect of muscaria, since it seems that muscarias have a rather bad reputation "online". I have seen also DXM making its rounds usually in cough syrup form. Propably the most "exotic" dissasociative i have seen was a small batch of MK-801 from some...lab fellows that more or less kept it in a small group due to shortage -hmm if they had more ,would they dose the world with it ? ;) -

Depends! When i was in England and ketamine was making its rounds ,it was very very sought after by many people.People used to buy it ,bring it in parties, usually insuflating it.People that had ketamine for sale had quite some customers.

A note: i have met quite a lot of people that have no prefference (meaning feel them both compatible) that even sometimes use them together. Actually i have met more people that use both "classes" than people who preffer one over the other. Personal i havent seen any difference and ...it wouldnt surprise me if its not as clear cut as "People that can fit their prefference within a single class". What else,btw, do you think that the term "classix" encorporates except "classic" in the sense of "studied for a long time as model serotoninergics"?Is it a class based on time? What flavor does this word have,in what way are they "classic"? Sometimes it seems as if the weight of the term "classic" ( or the term "disso" if you have it well established in your "life dictionary"/"world view") might overshadow the items each term tries to describe or may "insinuate" far more than each item belonging to it, really is.