The Case Against DMT Elves

[chilli]

I understand your intention, it doesnt change what kind of esteem you hold others in, that oppose your belief, it's always good to categorise and lump into groups i guess, easier to point the finger at the 'obvious' dissonance from mainstream ideas. Im obviously paranoid, it's just given your attitude which often appears sarcastic and condescending, this lighthearted comment is seen as in good humour whilst maintaining its patronising undertone. some kind of paranoic schizophrenic sixsth sense of assuming and associating past behaviours to current ones...

You don't know my beliefs and so you can hardly oppose them... almost all of your sentences so far have been spent propping up and slapping down straw men you have made. It would be interesting to trace back and see how much of what you're ranting about could actually be traced back to anything I have said.

I continue to be entertained by your perception of me as some kind of reductionist hard-boiled skeptic, when nothing could be further from the truth... is it purely social awkwardness, or is there some reason you continue to entertain these fantastical perceptions of me you have fostered? Perhaps it is some kind of guessing game?

(no I'm not being serious onemind, <-- its called sarcasm)

Do you switch to addressing onemind here, or am I to take it that you think I am him, and not just in your monistic ideas? In any case, given your many misunderstandings of what I have written I deduce that you have very little grasp of what sarcasm actually is, which would explain your clumsy use as well as your low estimation of it.

[Thelema]

I"m just busting to say it; DMT elves are Leibnizian Monads.

[The Dude]

You don't know my beliefs and so you can hardly oppose them... almost all of your sentences so far have been spent propping up and slapping down straw men you have made. It would be interesting to trace back and see how much of what you're ranting about could actually be traced back to anything I have said.

All I know is your dismissal of others beliefs, and your attitude. You may have a profoundly philosophical reasoning for auto-rejecting these... obviously SHARED ideas, had by many. As it is presented though it seems nothing more than the piggy backing onto status-quo mentality that fringe states of consciousness/reality are lumped into the insanity category and are not to be discussed, cuz we have the right rational model right here, no point even rebutting anything, cuz WE have the right model here.

You claim to be a seeker of truth with an open mind, and would find such pre set beliefs repugnant Im sure, why is it then that propositions fitting outside of your belief schema (such as possession) are automatically seen as repugnant also? You are reinforcing a pre-set belief, instead of flowing with the experience, you are redirecting that flow into your own constructs, instead of having the ocean itself mould who you are. Trying too hard to impose your personal order onto chaos... I do see the irony here of me saying that, however the way I see my 'order' of reality is always updated by my novel perceptions of it, and not limited to how i think it "should" be. Chaotic reality imposes its own natural order onto my person, not my personal desire of control imposes a fake sense of order onto the chaotic reality.

However if you have personal faith in your own personal order, you're not going to believe some preaching jesus-wannabe that's obviously insane. No point lowering yourself into the insanity level by even entertaining such notions, better not to talk to such people even. Laugh at them, and post up some emoticons to make them feel good... It's like giving a handicapped kid a biscuit to shut them up, maybe They like the biscuit but anyone with half a brain sees it as patronising. especially if the handicapped kid is an idiot savant that in one way or another has a much more 'direct' access to reality than the learned proffessor patting him on the head.

I continue to be entertained by your perception of me as some kind of reductionist hard-boiled skeptic, when nothing could be further from the truth...

Hard to see, when every one of my propositions of an interconnected reality and my 'proofs' of this, or rather experiences and examples that may be interpreted as such, are automatically rejected without any further discussion thereof. Higher Entities are laughed off entirely, From all evidence you provide you do indeed present the image of a "reductionist hard-boiled skeptic", when you seem to hold skepticism in such high esteem and not so much for idealistic creative thinking - as these tend to lead to paranoid delusions (is the common thinking, projected onto such altered states). I must over-assume what you believe and don't but you're not giving me much information to go on when you flatly reject any proposed notions of higher truths that other people bring up. Not that I care too much... unless you WANT to share, then it must not be that important either... but what are YOUR beliefs? could you please try to articulate something here so I know...

from what I've figured out (you think/believe/guess), the universe is infinitely complex and neither monistic or dualistic. (judging by your questioning of the coherence of the fusion of two belief systems) You can't figure out free-will or determinism but aren't convinced either way - from memory, probably go for free-will cuz that's the nice comfortable mindset to stay in. You believe in mystical experience (having had at least one), but fail to see the archetypal, symbolic architecture uniting all. What was this mystical experience about? if not revelation of unity - that seems most common.

You laugh off such claims as higher selves and entities, with a sarcastic comment as the very first reply to one of the other 2 threads on the exact same topic ...unless I have no understanding of sarcasm. You continue this ugly attitude but try to show some kind of charm in it by the lame addition of emoticons.

So when are you NOT condescending in your dismissal of proposed ideas you have no way of "debunking" for the lack of a better term. These ideas are as debunkable as DMT elves.. give it a go Onemind.. err I mean IllegalBrain.

although you are much more articulate and witty in your remarks than anything onemind could dream up to say, by having you on the same side of the belief divide, I'll lump you together like you have me and shiva.

very convenient and dualistic, I see your individuality whilst at the same time will categorically call you a 1 or a 0.. dependent on where i draw this imaginary dividing line... right now you're on the other side - that's pretty certain.

Do you switch to addressing onemind here, or am I to take it that you think I am him, and not just in your monistic ideas? In any case, given your many misunderstandings of what I have written I deduce that you have very little grasp of what sarcasm actually is, which would explain your clumsy use as well as your low estimation of it.

Anyway, ...No I didn't get you two confused, if you failed to read the rest of my reply (not suprising), I later references oneminds obvious inability to see the sarcasm implied by my comment. If you don't see somebody using the inverted commas, especially physically as they talk to you, as a sarcastic use of the word, then shiiiit. maybe I have very little grasp of what sarcasm actually is. <--sarcastic again mufuka!

Sarcasm or for conviency's sake, either way the marking is to differentiate the fact that the use of the word is based on common convention not that the word actually represents the truth.. also implying convention to be incorrect. So using the markings is a method of actually poking fun at the use of the word, and at the rest of society continuing to use it in this way. Transcendence can get pretty crazy though. Beyond the "normal" limits of sanity that is true. so keep calling it "insane" if you must.

is it purely social awkwardness, or is there some reason you continue to entertain these fantastical perceptions of me you have fostered? Perhaps it is some kind of guessing game?

Your attitude is self-evident, whatever ideas about your intentions and beliefs are mere extrapolations of how you conduct yourself in what I thought might be a proper discussion. The association is automatic not really a conscious effort to guess who you are, just noting how you present yourself and what I've assumed about you from that. Don't pretend you never do that - it's automatic and everybody does.

Anyway.. if you're supposedly the opposite of a reductionist-hardboiled-skeptic, then my work here is done and I really can't be fucked trying to convince you either way - the work must be done personally, and self doubt is the biggest hinderance of all, good luck with it (and im sure you wish me good luck with my delusions ) I'll find more productive uses of my time. I figured that convincing one side of what the other side sees as self evident is as fruitless as patting your bros on the back for having all discovered transcendence, after finding it, it's what you do with it, and this whole past week or so, discussing random shit has been a long waste of time.

but it was all 'meant to be' <-- I believe it, but also find it hillariously amusing.

"There's no logic, no meaning,

No thinking, no reason behind it.

Just seems that words can't describe

How it seems if you just think about it."

so what have i learned? the same thing i learn every fucking time and then always forget, quit wating your time and do something with your life!!!

Aha will get right on it! ... ... Snap out of it!

I agree, discussing philosophy is for wankers... living a philosophical life on the otherhand is allgood.

[edit]...

back to this,

You don't know my beliefs and so you can hardly oppose them... almost all of your sentences so far have been spent propping up and slapping down straw men you have made. It would be interesting to trace back and see how much of what you're ranting about could actually be traced back to anything I have said.

You make a valid point. With all your disagreements you've made no effort to elucidate your position, as to why you have taken such a stance? I have no real idea about your beliefs because instead of offering any you merely knock others down.

In an attempt to understand why you have such resistance to commonly reported transcendental phenomenon, assuming you have yourself experienced them, I am taken back to my earlier mind expansion experimentation days when I too would doubt it all. The propping up and knocking down of straw men are reflections of my past self, as i used to interpret transcendence in such a reductionist way. If none of this applies to you in any way I'm assuming you've never had quite the same level of "mind fuck" or transcendental ego-dissolution as others reporting such strange occurences.

It's really retarded to go to such lengths explaining myself as to why I reckon nay-saying with no real substance is bullshit.

Edited November 27, 2007 by El Duderino

[chilli]

All I know is your dismissal of others beliefs, and your attitude.

You may have a profoundly philosophical reasoning for auto-rejecting these... obviously SHARED ideas, had by many.

As it is presented though it seems nothing more than the piggy backing onto status-quo mentality that fringe states of consciousness/reality are lumped into the insanity category and are not to be discussed, cuz we have the right rational model right here, no point even rebutting anything, cuz WE have the right model here.

propositions fitting outside of your belief schema (such as possession) are automatically seen as repugnant also

You are reinforcing a pre-set belief, instead of flowing with the experience, you are redirecting that flow into your own constructs, instead of having the ocean itself mould who you are. Trying too hard to impose your personal order onto chaos...

However if you have personal faith in your own personal order, you're not going to believe some preaching jesus-wannabe that's obviously insane. No point lowering yourself into the insanity level by even entertaining such notions, better not to talk to such people even. Laugh at them, and post up some emoticons to make them feel good... It's like giving a handicapped kid a biscuit to shut them up, maybe They like the biscuit but anyone with half a brain sees it as patronising. especially if the handicapped kid is an idiot savant that in one way or another has a much more 'direct' access to reality than the learned proffessor patting him on the head.

from what I've figured out (you think/believe/guess), the universe is infinitely complex and neither monistic or dualistic. (judging by your questioning of the coherence of the fusion of two belief systems) You can't figure out free-will or determinism but aren't convinced either way - from memory, probably go for free-will cuz that's the nice comfortable mindset to stay in.

You believe in mystical experience (having had at least one), but fail to see the archetypal, symbolic architecture uniting all. What was this mystical experience about? if not revelation of unity - that seems most common.

You laugh off such claims as higher selves and entities, with a sarcastic comment as the very first reply to one of the other 2 threads on the exact same topic ...unless I have no understanding of sarcasm. You continue this ugly attitude but try to show some kind of charm in it by the lame addition of emoticons.

So when are you NOT condescending in your dismissal of proposed ideas you have no way of "debunking" for the lack of a better term. These ideas are as debunkable as DMT elves.. give it a go Onemind.. err I mean IllegalBrain.

Your attitude is self-evident, whatever ideas about your intentions and beliefs are mere extrapolations of how you conduct yourself in what I thought might be a proper discussion. The association is automatic not really a conscious effort to guess who you are, just noting how you present yourself and what I've assumed about you from that. Don't pretend you never do that - it's automatic and everybody does.

With all your disagreements you've made no effort to elucidate your position, as to why you have taken such a stance? I have no real idea about your beliefs because instead of offering any you merely knock others down.

In an attempt to understand why you have such resistance to commonly reported transcendental phenomenon, assuming you have yourself experienced them, I am taken back to my earlier mind expansion experimentation days when I too would doubt it all. The propping up and knocking down of straw men are reflections of my past self, as i used to interpret transcendence in such a reductionist way. If none of this applies to you in any way I'm assuming you've never had quite the same level of "mind fuck" or transcendental ego-dissolution as others reporting such strange occurences.

Have a look at the small sample above of assumptions you have made about my beliefs, and then see if you can trace them back to anything I have said, without inferring or relying on what is 'self-evident' or your own undoubtedly stellar intuition... are any of these accusations/assumptions based on anything that is outside of your own head, such as something I have actually said for example? I know it is a radical idea, but give it a try it might help you understand others a bit better if you let them speak for themselves, instead of projecting your own runaway ideas about who they are and what they believe onto them.

It is interesting that you think my attitude is self evident, is your interpretation really so accurate? Have I given you enough information to make any of the (many) accusations you have made towards me? The problem, as I have explained numerous times already is that I do not reject those ideas or experiences, not even necessarily people's interpretations of them... you seem to have just inferred all that from a couple of remarks I made earlier... did it ever occur to you that I was playing devil's advocate back then? Your continued repeating to yourself of what you think I believe seems to be working, as you are apparently unable to dislodge any of the ideas you have formed about me from your mind.

For me, as with most 'discussions,' what has been most remarkable about this whole fracas is observing people and the way they react to things... specifically, your gross assumptions about my beliefs, your continued putting of words into my mouth, and your categorization of me based on what you imagine my beliefs about reality to be leave me not even beginning to want to engage you beyond anything but the most superficial remarks, as I have been doing.

I would love to make it easier for you and spell out my current beliefs in m ore detail, but I have purposefully avoided describing my own ideas because you seem to have already made up your mind about what they are... the Zen parable about the full cup springs to mind, as does Jesus' warning about casting pearls before swine. Basically, as soon as you started making unfounded assumptions and accusations about what my 'real' beliefs or 'self evident' motives and attitudes are, you lost me.

As always at this point, I sadly feel I need to reiterate that it is not your ideas I disagree with, but your method of interaction... do you actually read what I have written with anything else in mind other than how to best 'answer' me?

Edited November 27, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[The Dude]

Playing Devils Advocate is well and good if you have something to say, instead of just shutting down what others propose. Apart from re-iterating some of my ideas in other wording I havn't seen any original ideas from you really (re: this current Entity discussion). As you say you enjoy baiting and seeing the reactions you get, with cheeky remarks here and there, that for some reason have me thinking i must defend my position. .. fuck it. stop saying you agree as you clearly don't unless everything you say is bullshit for the sake of sparking some dissonance. Playing Devils Advocate here i take to mean disagreeing for the pure fucking sake of it.

anyway if i believe in my own model, i should take heed of my past synchronistic message to not get distracted by this bullshit, and only focus my attention on progressive and productive efforts. Why the fuck do i give a shit what you believe, i don't. I also do not understand sarcasm and everything you say is fully innocent and devoid of any piss-taking intentions...

<-- i hope these emoticons are getting through.

[edit] re: assumptions, it's cuz you have nothing to say yet insist on disagreeing, so for the sake of a good argument I give myself something to argue against. I can only assume as to why you disagree. I'm assuming you go with the flow of mainstream experience... which is the easiest way to go. Otherwise give me some other 'Aletrnative' reasoning for your disagreement, or I need to argue against what I guess is your position, as best I can, really its more like I'm talking to myself. Ranting on about how the mainstream has got it all wrong... fuck it I'm joining them, it's easier to stay silent and laugh at those voicing crazy ideas.

more edit, I know I'm taking this over association thing too far but I like this song I heard on the radio just now...

"I've been wasting my breath on you

Open minds will descent upon you

To those who understand, I extend my hand

To the doubtful I demand, take me as I am"

Edited November 27, 2007 by El Duderino

[The Dude]

"My Subconscious is trying to tell me something!!

That we're not really here

that this is imagined!"

Existential Metal. never figured out until recently just how esoterically inspired and trippy Metal actually tends to be. (apart from tool obviously).. Tune in to the right vibration and you will know that Divine Moments of Truth are happening all the time.

[edit]

...

I've raped this thread enough. I'll just edit this post some with yet another song lyric I feel like cross-refrencing with this whole train of thought I've been on.

"my generation don't trust no one, not even ourselves"

"you don't know what you are talking about" <-- I guess this means me.. fuck at least I'm trying to patch together this otherwise insane existence.

The empirical evidence.. that is repeated observations of synchronistic mirroring of thoughts is happening way too fucking often, either there is a link, or my subconscious is THAT good at guessing whats about to happen in my immediate environment, either way i reckon its pretty fucking eerie AND cool, when browsing random text i would read a word in synch with a radio presenter saying it, or would even be looking up a band/musician just before it gets announced. Or I'm trying to remember a word and the radio would remind me.

I'm reminded of some 'crazy' lady they were mocking on the chaser that had some spirit guides help her remember her shopping list.. ummm that sounds pretty crazy, associating an internal memory to an outside source... hmmm wait a second, heres a novel idea, well not really, the brain is a receptor to a Signal.. that is not personally owned, merely interpreted subjectively. Most people just claim their thoughts as theirs, some believe in a collective mind and some anthropomorphise and characature their thoughts, call this insanity, maybe closer to lonliness and personalising regular thoughts - like talking to yourself (like the majority of my posts here seem to be).

I've figured out that the radio and television is most prominent in Spot-On to the second synchronising of my thoughts cuz they're my only friends. However 'telepathic' experiences have been had with people too, not just inanimate objects.

Edited November 27, 2007 by El Duderino

[chilli]

re: assumptions, it's cuz you have nothing to say yet insist on disagreeing, so for the sake of a good argument I give myself something to argue against. I can only assume as to why you disagree. I'm assuming you go with the flow of mainstream experience... which is the easiest way to go. Otherwise give me some other 'Aletrnative' reasoning for your disagreement, or I need to argue against what I guess is your position, as best I can, really its more like I'm talking to myself. Ranting on about how the mainstream has got it all wrong... fuck it I'm joining them, it's easier to stay silent and laugh at those voicing crazy ideas.

Why do you think that because I haven't shared my ideas with you, I have nothing to say? Are you so far from wisdom that you equate knowledge with talking?

You say that unless I explain myself to you, you will choose a category of belief for me and unless I give you an alternative viewpoint you have to make one up because you need something to argue against... If that satisfies some sort of compulsion in you then whatever, but like you say it's more like talking to yourself, but hey at least everyone gets to hear what you think.

Maybe you should think about whether you are just acting like a dumb idiot, instead of continually reinforcing your own misconceptions by repeating your crooked assumptions like a mantra and pumping up your ego by passing off such puerile talk as deep understanding.

Edited November 27, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[-YT-]

Um not sure what this is about hehe but interesting point you make about equating wisdom/knowledge with talking, which seems to be all that most do these days heh heh

[The Dude]

interesting point .. about equating wisdom/knowledge with talking, which seems to be all that most do these days heh heh

shutup YT you talk too much!

IB. so you'll admit to not sharing any ideas. Yet you.. either as devils advocate, or because you Actually disagree, shut down these alternative theories about what's going on in consciousness / existence. The theories being common, and commonly mistrusted, simple nay-saying adds nothing new to the conversation.

I'll make a Giant assumption again, based on the collective information I remember about you...

I have a feeling you believe existence and consciousness (peception of it) are inderpendent entirely whereas i propose a continuum of consciousness and reality as one. Point is.. I have points, what have you said? You voice disagreements with no evidence of any personal experience. Not to sound like a know it all, but don't be talking of things you know nothing about. Unless you have personal anecdotal evidence of such entities being bullshit, how can you reject others proof that says otherwise...

To attempt an understanding as to why your alleged contact with the transcendental other (or whatever you consider mystical experience to be) left you unbelieving I can only look back on my own experiences of self doubt. Doubting the 'other' 's intimate connection to your personal self is doubting an extension of yourself and self doubt essentially.

Since you havn't really let us know about your mystical experiences, I'm assuming it's all talk

Talk is for chumps anyway, over trying to explaining shit that's unexplainable.

Edited November 28, 2007 by El Duderino

[chilli]

Since you havn't really let us know about your mystical experiences, I'm assuming it's all talk

Talk is for chumps anyway, over trying to explaining shit that's unexplainable.

Not sure what kind of mystical experiences you have had, but mine were ineffable and even if they could be easily described and communicated that is no reason to say that they should be and certainly not with someone with your pesky attitude... and yet you mention something similar yourself immediately after implying that my experiences are not valid because I haven't discussed them with you.

Your continued attempts to alternately draw me out and impute your ideas to me are not only transparent but I assure you entirely counter productive.

[The Dude]

Ultimate reality is never fully explained and the eternal mystery is by its very definition "inexplainable" but it is at least attempted. When such attempts at an explenation are rejected i like to see some kind of validation for said views, otherwise it seems appropriate to call it an automatic assumption with no consideration given to the idea, no doubt produced by a type of "rationality indoctrination", where such things are heresy to the beleif system.

hehe and don't ever believe I don't have an influence on you. the very fact you reply says otherwise. It's all productive in some way, at least my opinions are voiced and some part of something might make a subliminal impression to only later be realised as actually meaning something that you might understand.

My Faith in what i've seen to happen and continues to happen, and is happening always, makes me think you're ignorant for not seeing or believing it.

Your Faith in what you've seen to happen and repeatedly proven to be the reality, makes you think I'm ignorant for believing in any of my 'delusions'.

It's all good, we chose our own path of illusion. Some book written by some guy that turned out to be a fraud said something about choosing the path with heart. The 'truth' of the book and what happened is disuputed but the message breaks through the illusion set by the narrative. (like real life)

Edited November 28, 2007 by El Duderino

[mu!]

Existential Metal. never figured out until recently just how esoterically inspired and trippy Metal actually tends to be. (apart from tool obviously).. Tune in to the right vibration and you will know that Divine Moments of Truth are happening all the time.

And then you go watch This Is Spinal Tap and laugh at all those 'divine moments of truth'

[Sparkster]

And then you go watch This Is Spinal Tap and laugh at all those 'divine moments of truth'

haha, I got that on DVD not so long ago. Classic.

[chilli]

Ultimate reality is never fully explained and the eternal mystery is by its very definition "inexplainable" but it is at least attempted.

To attempt to explain something that is inexplicable seems not only arrogant, but also basically pointless.

When such attempts at an explenation are rejected i like to see some kind of validation for said views

*sigh* Even if this imaginary disagreement was real, it strikes me as very silly to keep harking back to it over the course of so many posts... are you really so petty?

hehe and don't ever believe I don't have an influence on you. the very fact you reply says otherwise.

I don't think I ever suggested you don't have an influence on me, but I certainly don't mind whether you do or don't... is that another paranoid delusion coming to the fore?

I keep talking because I have a morbid fascination with how much longer you will drag this out... and I genuinely hope that the light will switch on and you will have a eureka moment where you realize how many dumb things you have said.

It's all productive in some way, at least my opinions are voiced

You seem to ascribe undue importance to the voicing of your opinions.

and some part of something might make a subliminal impression to only later be realised as actually meaning something that you might understand.

What point have you made that you think I don't understand?

My Faith in what i've seen to happen and continues to happen, and is happening always, makes me think you're ignorant for not seeing or believing it.

Sorry for shouting but I have protested in my inside voice so many times already:

WHAT DO YOU THINK I DON'T BELIEVE IN, AND HOW DID YOU GET THIS IDEA?!

[chilli]

And then you go watch This Is Spinal Tap and laugh at all those 'divine moments of truth'

Yeah, but this one goes up to 11.

[The Dude]

Actually have something Real to do today. I'ts interesting you say you reply to see how long this can go on for, strange indeed. I don't suppose there'll be any eureka moment. is this self doubt? or skepticism of possibly me seeing "the" way? I think so cuz you're arguments are unconvincing at this early stage. I don't really feel like being a smug know it all that disagrees for the sake of it at many an opportunity and doesn't even remember it.. or maybe even the definition of disagreement. No point going back and collecting examples of them for you now, that would show a level of commitment to convincing you you are wrong, that I'm not prepared to undertake just for the pure sake of it.

BTW IllegalBrain, I like to create totally imagined situations in my head where i start disagreeing with projected aspects of my self for some kind of personal entertainment, as this is all an argument in my head and nobody (in these THREE threads) has doubted the alleged strange phnomenon experienced in higher states of consciousness - promting me to attempt a needed clarification offering MY perspective of the pitfalls of experiencing transendence. If you cannot identify with these apparent problems of unnacepting the 'other' in any of the ways it can be made visible to you (as tediously detailed in the various reply's) then obviously none of this applies to you and you can ignore it.

Your lack of substance in writings (on this topic) so far have prompted me to believe you are a simple nay-sayer with no grounding in evidence (consensus opinion or anecdotal experiences), and there is no point talking of personal experience <-- really the only kind - and the only way to understanding transpersonal mysticism. Anyway obviously we here don't want understanding, just a fruitless argument... so i think it's your turn, cuz this is so excitiiing seeing how far this goes.

[edit] sorry in advance for thread rape, this is bound to be.... infinite, I don't think this 'argument' if it even is that anymore, would ever end cuz of some huge ego problems... come to think of it I'll end this now, feel free to bait me as you please IB.

Edited November 28, 2007 by El Duderino

[Yeti101]

Well I never saw any elves - I've never been a big entities person. But I have had one totally profound experience that left me with a very clear idea on the structure of the universe: time as a vector really made sense to me in hyperspace or the tesseract-field or wherever I was. The point is I experienced something in such a strong way that I can't doubt it, even if I don't always have the words to explain it. I think some people feel the same way about elves and fairies and dare I say it, various religious figures.

Is the universe really like that? I don't know, and I suspect neither does anyone else here, despite their claims to the contrary. I have no idea what getting shirty with each other because a clash of egos turned an interesting conversation into a metaphysical pissing contest is supposed to acheive, but it has made for a great read.

[mu!]

I have no idea what getting shirty with each other because a clash of egos turned an interesting conversation into a metaphysical pissing contest is supposed to acheive, but it has made for a great read.

you must be new here

[chilli]

If you cannot identify with these apparent problems... then obviously none of this applies to you and you can ignore it.

Eureka! You are right that it doesn't apply, but it is difficult to ignore because you keep addressing me by name and saying "this is obviously what you think... and if you say you don't, but you fail to explain to me what you do think, then you obviously have no knowledge or experience" The comparison to a televangelist is sounding more and more applicable.

you are a simple nay-sayer with no grounding in evidence (consensus opinion or anecdotal experiences)

So that is what you consider evidence? This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Groundskeeper Willie is being accused of carjacking:

Prosecution: "...isn't that right 'Carjacker Willie'?

Defence: "Objection your honour!"

Judge: "Well, it characterizes the defendant as a carjacker, so I'm going to allow it."

That is exactly what it feels like having this discussion with you.

sorry in advance for thread rape

You should put that in your signature.

I don't think this 'argument' if it even is that anymore, would ever end cuz of some huge ego problems... come to think of it I'll end this now, feel free to bait me as you please IB.

Well, you have obviously proven yourself to be the bigger man with the smaller ego by ending this first... congratulations, and thank you because I simply couldn't bring myself to do it regardless of how hard I tried.

Don't you feel so much closer to me than you did before, though? Isn't that a nice feeling?

Ah, bask in the warming glow of human warmth.

Edited November 29, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

wow, i havent been on this forum for ages, saw this thread and it sounded interesting.. started reading at the first page and it was getting into some good stuff about the plausibility of xD beings and what they may be up to and etc... i go to the recent posts thinking 'great, this looks like a good discussion, i wonder what all the new talk is about', maybe i can learn something and contribute something... but no! argh! its ole brain fighting with dude about fighting about fighting about how large is ones head penis when one is fighting about fighting about nothing and who started this fight anyway?!

elves shmelves. extradimensional beings dont wear silly hats. if you get hats, your subconscious is doing a reducing valve stunt on a phenomena with no handles you can grasp. i guess there always has to be some handles, plus they make more colourful stories that way, which is crucial to a good life, but unfortunately the real cosy, easy handles are where is where saps like kent get their reassurance from.. "oh its got THOSE handles, sweet, i can write this off as some jungian archetypal construction of the subconscious mind and still eat shit for breakfast". in cases of xD perception of sensual contact without a 4-dimensional interaction (ie. recordable, equally 'real' to not-vibrationally-altered-by-drugs-or-advanced-yoga people around you) the sensuality (i mean that literally) is mostly a constructed experience, from fragments of cognitive stuff that your brain digs up and plasters onto the deeply foreign xD territory that it is suddenly supposed to map for you. the more raw you can get with your mind, the more of the essential you perceive, ie. the less familiar it becomes. eventually i think these beings will come across as energy matrices of information and entity, an impression of 'other' intention and affective awareness (made up term, i'm meaning like the impact force of awareness in quantum colocation). whether or not you see rapacious crocodiles or cheesy leprechauns is the construct part, the feel of the other consciousness is the authentic part?

actually i think i'd like people better if i could see past their stylized flesh puppetry and perceive raw matrices of energy (probably look a bit like an alex grey painting), and hear them as modulated gibberish that nonetheless transmits a wide band of soul knowledge and tricky little games, but no such luck, without the spice, its all pretty lumpy and chunky... low rez reality.

[Yeti101]

you must be new here

Shit mu. , you caught me out - I didn't really join before most of you, I traveled back in time and hacked Torsten's server to make it look that way.

[phloom]

whether or not you see rapacious crocodiles or cheesy leprechauns is the construct part, the feel of the other consciousness is the authentic part?

actually i think i'd like people better if i could see past their stylized flesh puppetry and perceive raw matrices of energy (probably look a bit like an alex grey painting), and hear them as modulated gibberish that nonetheless transmits a wide band of soul knowledge and tricky little games, but no such luck, without the spice, its all pretty lumpy and chunky... low rez reality.

here here, though I would be a confused little chap if my normal mode of perception was replaced entirely by this 'direct' perception. Ever get that feeling your body is made of soft rubber?

took a low res photo while taking a n~D walk ;)

[mutant]

bump! awesome thread

[Yeti101]

Yeah, especially the first page

[drgibbon]

I know this thread is old, and I only skimmed the Kent article (and the thread), but;

"The sensation of seeing aliens, elves, or being in the presence of God(s) is not unique to DMT users. Otherwise sane people who have never tried DMT report these sensations all the time, and it is generally treated as a sign of psychosis (see separate topic on Charles Bonnet Syndrome CBS). However, recent research has shown that by stimulating parts of the temporal lobe you can reliably reproduce the feeling of being in the presence of God (also known as "seeing the light," "feeling enlightened," or having a "religious epiphany"). It is an innate human sensation -- just like the feeling that "I'm being watched right now" is an innate human sensation -- we just don't catalog it as such because it is relatively rare, happening perhaps only once in a lifetime to those who do not artificially stimulate themselves, perhaps never in a lifetime."

is an extraordinarily weak argument. The brain is always being chemically stimulated, it runs on chemicals, and (according to Strassman) DMT is endogenous in humans. Being able to stimulate a part of the brain to give an "enlightenment experience" doesn't disprove anything, it just shows how a part of our brain works. You can stimulate the brain to give the sensation of colours (and probably objects if you knew how), that doesn't mean colours/objects don't exist (although they might not). And in the case of religious experiences, we've really got nothing to verify against. If someone is seeing a golden dinosaur in the street, but no one else sees it, yea it's probably not there..

But if someone thinks they are experiencing another dimension, connection with God, etc, there is no way for an observer to verify that, because they cannot possibly know with certainty that other dimensions/God/whatever don't exist. They might believe that, but there really isn't any way to tell if our 5 senses are capable of "picking up" all that is out there. I mean if I have an old radio that picks up only AM band, that doesn't mean FM band doesn't exist, it's just not built to receive it. Now that doesn't mean that ZM band exists.. but it doesn't mean it doesn't either.. ;)