The case against the spirit world model of psychedelic action.

[The Dude]

The conclusions of science are never true. If they were how would new discoveries replace older outmoded ideas? - as is always the case in science. Scientific models are always an approximation of truth.

However! It seems that our left brain focus and materialistic fetishism has deified the scientific method as an ultimate authority on truth (though it never claimed to be) therefore, to a society imprisoned in materialistic thought informed by science, it is the science fiction that bridges the gap between the physical and spiritual, the mundane and the magical, the finite and the infinite, the defined and the indefinable, the possible and the impossible. The coming together of two diametrically opposed and irreconcilable (hence unexplainable) polarities = Paradox.

Fiction in general has a beautiful, "poetic" way of getting entangled with fact. "sometimes truth is stranger than fiction"

Where before our highest authority was the church, Satan would play tricks on you to deceive you and have you question the very fundamentals of reality and how it is perceived, now when our highest authority is scientific consensus it must be the most far out fringe possibility of this method of viewing reality that takes that leap of credibility into the impossible. (extra terrestrial/dimensional UFO's)

Burden of proof has no place in describing the ineffable mystery.

I like this quote towards the end of the paper (Williams 1902):

"Who calls the absolute anything in particular, or says that it is [this], seems implicitly to shut it off from being that". pp.379

 

How can the absolute prove itself to be anything but that? and to whom exactly does the absolute prove itself?

Rational investigation even admits this unexplainable paradox. Wave/Particle duality for instance where each behavior has it's own 'rules' yet the reality is both, depending on how you choose to view it. OR Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems on the rules of logic that are self referential and self contradictory and suggest there must be an irrational way we can recognise truth as logic and reason themselves fall short.

Interesting discussion as always. I found the original article to be overly reductionist and presumptuous in general. To me it seems like an attempt to rationalise and explain what must be quite the existential crisis for Mr. Kent. It was also thoroughly boring. I like how it fired up this discussion though.

Edited January 18, 2011 by The Dude

[synchromesh]

Unexplained cases are simply unexplained. They can never constitute evidence for any hypothesis.

Yet it's alright to pretend that something can't exist if it hasn't already been explained? Come on, you can't have it both ways...

Most UFO's are IFO's (identified flying objects).(Really? So what?) Such a hazy line between IFOs (which provide only data about the limitations of the reliability of eyewitness testimony)(?) and UFOs (which are alleged by ufologists to mark a potential breakthrough in human science)(?) is an appallingly weak basis for the foundation of the new would-be science of 'ufology'.

In the Carter-UFO and the astronaut-UFOs, it was the skeptics who investigated and solved the cases -- while ufologists assumed the cases were authentic until proven otherwise (and most still believe so).

Oh, yeah? Well, where are the results then?

And yet the rules of science are clear: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The thesis of ufology is an indictment against the ability of contemporary science to explain the Universe, and it must prove such an indictment as every other such proponent must prove it: the need for a modification of our current model of reality must be established beyond reasonable doubt.'

If ufology is the only threat to science, then I'm Daffy Duck.

Edited January 18, 2011 by synchromesh

[The Dude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odT4u0fyRmo

Lets suppose that everything is one, a single consciousness and all that (I know this to be the case ) then the only separation between us and any "autonomous" spirit or entity or whatever terminology works best for you is an illusory phenomenon. Paranormal activity would seem to dissolve this separation, any autonomy or chaotic free agency is the same as our own in this interconnected reality. Their autonomous action is only as autonomous as you are. They are interacting directly with you, the limits or dimension of which are dictated by your perception of self. Essentially it is just you interacting with you, from vastly different perspectives of you.

As the old oriental saying goes "when the student is ready, the teacher will come". It's that old paradox again which proves this to be the forever unexplained mystery, unexplained because those that would like the unexplainable explained to them (by someone of a scientific authority preferably), who require numbers and measurements, who demand a material proof of the immaterial, a tangible proof of the intangible will not reach a satisfactory answer; never seeing that, which due to their imposed filter of acceptable truth is beyond their ability to see.

Anyone who tries to suggest this impossible and unbelievable truth to be possibly believed will rely on subjective anecdotal evidence which may only be recognisable as truth if it resonates with ones own experience. Maybe quote a head scratching koan or some existential joke or pun, or an abstract symbolic interpretation that re-unites the material print with the spiritual thumb. To a non-initiate these paradoxical truths will sound vague and cryptic, only self evident to those other "crazy" people.

In a scientific or clinical trial the very need to prove such paranormal realities will collapse the experiment into a failure, as it seems the very meaning of these experiences is to understand the truth of the un-understandable, It is to recognise the ineffable mystery of knowing the unknown in it's infinitely varying forms as always beyond the intellects grasp. It is to give an emotionally charged intuitive kind of truth, a personal or transpersonal meaning to an individual or group, not to measure some physical phenomenon to make it known, which is the antithesis of dancing in the chaos of the unknown. ...Going with the flow of chaos and recognising its immanent unity through a non-intellectual sense of harmony or divine order.

What I find crazy and ironic is that the term for mentally wrong is applied to those who actively try to use their minds (including the "crazy" parts) by those who've vacated theirs and let it be used by others. Such an experience of material/spiritual unity will not present itself to one that's been told by science and the status quo of social norms to know better - and believes this, so is never "ready". Now we can also laugh at the irony of materialists in their personal delusion of having the correct Truth (with a capital T) missing out on such a large piece of the puzzle and calling us "crazy" from their limited vantage point.

Maybe this whole reality is just a coincidence. Mere chance. Maybe in such a meaningless existence the spiritual experience is an evolutionary adaptation which just so happens to give us meaningless humans an imaginary purpose in order to reproduce and keep going in an otherwise apathetic existence that's pointless (how convenient!?). Maybe such experiences of "meaning" are a survival mechanism for the preservation of the species. Maybe the survival of the species is a mechanism for the preservation of meaning, that all happened by chance.

God is one being laughing at itself.

Edited February 11, 2011 by The Dude

[botanika]

The conclusions of science are never true. If they were how would new discoveries replace older outmoded ideas? - as is always the case in science. Scientific models are always an approximation of truth.

Fiction in general has a beautiful, "poetic" way of getting entangled with fact. "sometimes truth is stranger than fiction"

…now when our highest authority is scientific consensus it must be the most far out fringe possibility of this method of viewing reality that takes that leap of credibility into the impossible. (extra terrestrial/dimensional UFO's)

Burden of proof has no place in describing the ineffable mystery.

However! It seems that our left brain focus and materialistic fetishism has deified the scientific method as an ultimate authority on truth (though it never claimed to be) therefore, to a society imprisoned in materialistic thought informed by science, it is the science fiction that bridges the gap between the physical and spiritual, the mundane and the magical, the finite and the infinite, the defined and the indefinable, the possible and the impossible. The coming together of two diametrically opposed and irreconcilable (hence unexplainable) polarities = Paradox.

 

An approximation of the truth is far better than a complete distortion of the truth. Science is not perfect, it never will be and it openly admits so, but compared with religion, for example, at least it does evolve and is not afraid to do so. It’s far less absolute in its systems that spirituality. The scientific community, despite its own short term political issues, thrives on change. When you say ‘the burden of proof has no place in describing the ineffable’ do you mean there is no place for Hoffman, Schultes, Shulgin, Watts etc studying the scientific aspect of it? Chemistry, physics, geology and biology – the big 4 – have all helped me in describing and understanding the ineffable.

I think what you mention about science fiction is interesting as a bridge. Logic has its place and mythology has its place, not always polarized, quite often they overlap and influence each other. Mythology is a superb way to communicate and describe complex information simply and science not only recognizes this but uses it to great effect in its narration. I don’t know how much it works the other way though.

Ultimately I guess it’s about where it all takes us. Spirituality in many ways has separated and fragmented us from observable nature in the pursuit of a fantasy world of gods and self centered afterlife rather than living in harmony with nature and leaving it intact for the real life of future generations. Science too could be blamed for creating the nuclear bomb, cars and Lady Gaga. But the core of it is that scientific ideas tend to evolve and adapt more than spiritual ideas. IMO they are far less absolute over the long run.

‘Materialistic fetishism’ defines the whole human race. We cannot survive at all without technology – it is our unique ecological adaptation. Try surviving without it. We are just not biologically equipped for being ‘un-materialistic’. That line was drawn in the sand many eons ago and wasn’t pushed onto us by scientific authority. Ever since we started carving stone and walked upright out of Africa we sought out and adapted to the new. Novelty, innovation or adaptive ideas. That is exactly what nature does and exactly what science does.

[botanika]

Oh, yeah? Well, where are the results then?

 

Carter saw Venus and thought it was an alien. Common mistake. His wife saw a ghost too. Choose your illusion. Nothing wrong believing that UFO's are visiting earth Syncro, your in good company ;)

http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

[herbal_hindsight]

You can never remove those boundaries permanently, they are always changing and we are always adapting. The conditioning is what you make of it and much of that system was created by 'belief' or 'faith' in the first place. Psychedelics are not a reason to pull yourself into the supernatural faith of ghosts, UFO's and elves, they are a reason to think for yourself in enlightened rational wonder.

I totally disagree with this comment I think the moment you start to question the bullshit you have been brought up to beleive, is the moment you are starting to remove that boundary. Of course they can be removed... I live my life by an important rule... what can be made by man can be un-made by man.. it rings true in every aspect I have experienced it in!

Certain conditioning I am referring to mainly, are things like religion But once I started to properly question it; the boundaries dissolved and the truth was revealed... the biggest lie of them all.. religion - opiate of the masses.

Even rational thinking is argueable simply due to the fact that it depends on subjective thinking. The education of the individual creates their perception of the world and ALL education should be challenged... it is constantly evolving and so therefore so is rationality. Science will evolve if the minds of the masses allow it. Look at history particulary the influence religion has had on beleif. Religion was the first science and boy have we come a long way! Our current understanding of the universe is in it's infancy and will be totally different in even just a few decades as we unravel more and more of the biggest mysteries still yet to be solved!

A belief in the supernatural is perhaps the biggest 'boundary' of all in our current society because it bases belief ahead of truth. For example many lengthy and costly wars are fought over secular hatred.

My biggest problem with this statement is you are blaming the effect of many, lengthy and costly wars on beleif when in actual fact it's not the beleif of things that creates wars... people create wars... guns don't kill people; people kill people and despite the fact that religion [or simply beleif/faith] is one of the main causes of most of the worlds major wars throughout history, it doesn't mean it's the beleifs or faith that cause them. That's a massive cop out!

No offense, but your sounding evangelistic.

I'd have to honestly say this does offend me... I am rather disappointed in some of the opinions expressed on this forum and thought that it was a place where other open-minded individuals who aren't slaves to contemporary science can express their experiences, ideas and "beleifs" without being shot down using contemporary science...

No-one has successfully disproven anything of supernatural/paranormal/whatever u like to call it... and anyone who sets out to do so is missing the point... the most beautiful thing in life is mystery... why do so many people want to destroy that? What do we have to gain from KNOWING IT ALL!!! Then what?

I think science can truly advance when it is properly challenged and the boundaries it puts up using it's current model of thinking of logistics are dissolved and new ideas are born!!!

Quantum mechanics/physics is doing just that but is still highly argued by many people.... next you will all be claiming global warming is real and that carbon tax is justifiable...

In saying that, I do strongly beleive we NEED to change our lifestyle and way of thinking up new solutions to maintain our current quality of life [let alone be able to expand it for everyone to enjoy globally at a low cost] but I don't and can't beleive that the industrial revolution has had such a massive impact on the earth that it can EXPLAIN the change in weather... climate change is very real and VERY natural... history has proven the cycles exist in nature... we think we are so smart and so powerful that it's our fault but I find this very nieve and a huge scam; much, much bigger than the millenium bug that was a claim falsely made by many of now rich people.

What people are forgetting is that science has the biggest boundary of all... political, religious, corporate and social influence... meaning there are people out there in positions of power who don't want certain discoveries to be made or to atleast be common knowledge and in terms of sustainable energy systems this is very true... why would the oil companies want governments to heavily invest in sustainable, and much cheaper sources of energy when they will lose massive profits...

WHY AREN'T WE UTILISING THE BENEFITS OF THE HEMP PLANT WORLDWIDE AND MAKING BETTER USE OF THE BIOFUELS WE CAN CREATE AS A RESULT... NOT HAVING TO ROTATE CROPS SEASONALLY, USE PESTICIDES OR HERBICIDES AND WASTES MEGA-TONS OF WATER

[LIKE ON CORN USED AS A BIO-FUEL AS AN EXAMPLE]

bad trips do exist, they're failed attempts, total or semi fuck-ups, happening mainly due to set & setting. the fact you don't accept the term is simply indicative of the wide range of approaches and point of views to psychedelic experience or was it just discussing semantics?

I didn't explain myself very well in this respect... what I mean to say is that bad trips don't exist in the sense that a particular tab of acid [if it's LSD] is not BAD... nor is a correctly identified psilocybin/psilocin mushroom a BAD mushroom... it's the individual which makes it bad... the tools are merely catalyts and when people refer to having BAD trips they tend to blame the substance and don't take a closer look at the true cause - set and setting... their own psyche.

I find it very disappointing and frustrating to see people continue to spread fear about psychedelics... they are not for everyone but many people throughout history and the modern age benefit hugely from them. Many people are able to live a stable, prosperous existance and continue to utilise what they have to offer.

A comment I'd like to make on Crick discovering the double helix of DNA the same day he was experimenting with LSD is that YES he was a very smart man and the LSD just unlocked more of his potential; allowing him to perceive the same questions he was asking from a different perspective and this is my argument for psychedelics... THEY REMOVE BOUNDARIES CREATED BY CURRENT MODELS OF UNDERSTANDING...

Imagine... if he had admitted he was tripping when he made that discovery; he would've been ridiculed and laughed out of a job and that discovery may still not have been made.

They are not the only way but they are a very powerful tool for many many people from all walks of life.

To deny people their use is to deny freedom of thought and expression! The basic human rights we all take for granted or to be honest don't truly have... if we did these substances wouldn't be made illegal.

The establishment don't want a world of critical thinkers who question the conditioning they have been exposed to throughout their life but the way I see it... questioning our current beleif systems is the only way they will evolve.

[herbal_hindsight]

Awesome The Dude!!!

SO WELL SAID!!!

[herbal_hindsight]

‘Materialistic fetishism’ defines the whole human race. We cannot survive at all without technology – it is our unique ecological adaptation. Try surviving without it. We are just not biologically equipped for being ‘un-materialistic’. That line was drawn in the sand many eons ago and wasn’t pushed onto us by scientific authority. Ever since we started carving stone and walked upright out of Africa we sought out and adapted to the new. Novelty, innovation or adaptive ideas. That is exactly what nature does and exactly what science does.

I have to disagree partly on this... you are completely dismissing many cultures worldwide which have survived for thousands of years without being technologically advanced... ok so your referring to ANY technology so therefore that could be defined as learning to manipulate nature for your own benefit [ie creating your own fire for warmth and to eat cooked food] but in terms of where technology has gotten us and where it is heading... I can live without a computer, I can live without a mobile phone, I can live without a tv and even a house - if society allowed me to live a nomadic existance... I think to say that ALL of humanity DEPENDS on technology is a ridicule... and a paradigm of thought we need to and more people are moving away from.... we take nature for granted and need to return to the garden of eden to realise the mistakes we have made over the last few centuries... everything in balance and in my opinion technology is going too far and creating a massive seperation

I personally think the fact humans have adapted it's surroundings to itself rather than adapt itself to it's surroundings is partly where we went so from!

We could learn so much from the indigenous cultures of the world so many are so quick to judge and call barbarians or primitives... they are a lot smarter than we are as they aren't the ones fucking up the planet!

Spirituality in many ways has separated and fragmented us from observable nature in the pursuit of a fantasy world of gods and self centered afterlife rather than living in harmony with nature

What spirituality are you referring to exactly? The only form of spirituality I have experienced and that I am aware of is the type that brings an individual CLOSER to nature and makes them realise the importance of the connection with nature... the total opposite of what you claim... SCIENCE is what has created a seperation; science is what has fucked up the planet... even if spiritual people are living in a fantasy world atleast they aren't destroying it.

[herbal_hindsight]

An approximation of the truth is far better than a complete distortion of the truth. Science is not perfect, it never will be and it openly admits so, but compared with religion, for example, at least it does evolve and is not afraid to do so. It’s far less absolute in its systems that spirituality.

This is another point I have to disagree with... you are placing religion and spirituality into the same meaning when it actual fact they are VERY VERY seperate... I am a very spiritual person but religion can go fuck itself... religion is a control mechanism used to control the masses into beleiving what whoever it is in charge wants you to beleive!

Spirituality is a very unique and individual experience that we all have taken a part in but not everyone will admit it or notice it's presence for that matter... it's acknowledging that there is something else much more powerful than ourselves in this universe of existance not going to a church every sunday to confess your weekly sins and pray to a male figure with a big white beard who you hope to visit when you die.

[synchromesh]

Carter saw Venus and thought it was an alien. Common mistake. His wife saw a ghost too. Choose your illusion. Nothing wrong believing that UFO's are visiting earth Syncro, your in good company ;)

http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

 

Oh, I thought you were talking about Buzz Aldrin and so on... Common mistake.

[herbal_hindsight]

Interesting discussion as always. I found the original article to be overly reductionist and presumptuous in general. To me it seems like an attempt to rationalise and explain what must be quite the existential crisis for Mr. Kent. It was also thoroughly boring. I like how it fired up this discussion though

Can't disagree with you there The Dude!

On both accounts...

[synchromesh]

Spirituality in many ways has separated and fragmented us from observable nature in the pursuit of a fantasy world of gods and self centered afterlife rather than living in harmony with nature and leaving it intact for the real life of future generations.

First of all, one does not need to believe in gods or an afterlife to be spiritual. And secondly, how do you know that it's a fantasy world?

Science too could be blamed for creating the nuclear bomb, cars and Lady Gaga. But the core of it is that scientific ideas tend to evolve and adapt more than spiritual ideas.

Just not enough to live with them...

‘Materialistic fetishism’ defines the whole human race.

Cultures? Yes... The entire human race? No!

We cannot survive at all without technology – it is our unique ecological adaptation. Try surviving without it. We are just not biologically equipped for being ‘un-materialistic’.

Try telling all of that to these guys:

That line was drawn in the sand many eons ago and wasn’t pushed onto us by scientific authority. Ever since we started carving stone and walked upright out of Africa we sought out and adapted to the new. Novelty, innovation or adaptive ideas. That is exactly what nature does and exactly what science does.

 

Technology

Tech-nol-o-gy n. According to Webster’s: industrial or applied science. In reality: the ensemble of division of labor/production/industrialism and its impact on us and on nature. Technology is the sum of mediations between us and the natural world and the sum of those separations mediating us from each other. it is all the drudgery and toxicity required to produce and reproduce the stage of hyper-alienation we live in. It is the texture and the form of domination at any given stage of hierarchy and commodification.

Those who still say that technology is “neutral,” “merely a tool,” have not yet begun to consider what is involved. Junger, Adorno and Horkheimer, Ellul and a few others over the past decades - not to mention the crushing, all but unavoidable truth of technology in its global and personal toll - have led to a deeper approach to the topic. Thirty-five years ago the esteemed philosopher Jaspers wrote that “Technology is only a means, in itself neither good nor evil. Everything depends upon what man makes of it, for what purpose it serves him, under what conditions he places it.” The archaic sexism aside, such superficial faith in specialization and technical progress is increasingly seen as ludicrous. Infinitely more on target was Marcuse when he suggested in 1964 that “the very concept of technical reason is perhaps ideological. Not only the application of technology, but technology itself is domination... methodical, ascientific, calculated, calculating control.” Today we experience that control as a steady reduction of our contact with the living world, a speeded-up Information Age emptyness drained by computerization and poisoned by the dead, domesticating imperialism of high-tech method. Never before have people been so infantalized, made so dependant on the machine for everything; as the earth rapidly approaches its extinction due to technology, our souls are shrunk and flattened by its pervasive rule. Any sense of wholeness and freedom can only return by the undoing of the massive division of labour at the heart of technological progress. This is the liberatory project in all its depth.

Of course, the popular literature does not yet reflect a critical awareness of what technology is. Some works completely embrace the direction we are being taken, such as McCorduck’s ‘Machines Who Think’ and Simons’ ‘Are Computers Alive?’, to mention a couple of the more horrendous. Other, even more recent books seem to offer a judgement that finally flies in the face of mass pro-tech propaganda, but fail dismally as they reach their conclusions. Murphy, Mickunas and Pilotta edited ‘The Underside of High-Tech: Technology and the Deformation of Human Sensibilities’ , who’s ferocious title is completely undercut by an ending that technology will become human as soon as we change our assumptions about it! Very similar is Siegel and Markoff’s ‘The High Cost of High Tech’; after chapters detailing the various levels of technological debilitation, we once again learn that its all just a question of attitude: “We must, as a society, understand the full impact of high technology if we are to shape it into a tool for enhancing human comfort, freedom and peace.” This kind of cowardice and/or dishonesty owes only in part to the fact that major publishing corporations do not wish to publicize fundamentally radical ideas.

The above-remarked flight into idealism is not a new tactic of avoidance. Martin Heidegger, considered by some the most original and deep thinker of this century, saw the individual becoming only so much raw material for the limitless expansion of industrial technology. Incredibly, his solution was to find in the Nazi movement the essential “encounter between global technology and modern man.” Behind the rhetoric of National Socialism, unfortunately, was only an acceleration of technique, even into the sphere of genocide as a problem of industrial production. For the Nazis and the gullible, it was, again a question of how technology is understood ideally, not as it really is. In 1940, the General Inspector for the German Road System put it this way: “Concrete and stone are material things. Man gives them form and spirit. National Socialist technology possesses in all material achievement ideal content.”

The bizarre case of Heidegger should be a reminder to all that good intentions can go wildly astray without a willingness to face technology and its systematic nature as part of practical social reality. Heidegger feared the political consequences of really looking at technology critically; his apolitical theorizing thus constituted a part of the most monstrous development of modernity, despite his intention.

EarthFirst! claims to put nature first, to be above all petty “politics.” But it could well be that behind the macho swagger of a Dave Foreman (and the “deep ecology” theorists who also warn against radicals) is a failure of nerve like Heidegger’s, and the consequence, conceivably could be similar.

http://anarhija-blok45.net1zen.com/zerzan/sadrzaj/textz/html/Z_nihilists-dictionary.html

[botanika]

I totally disagree with this comment I think the moment you start to question the bullshit you have been brought up to beleive, is the moment you are starting to remove that boundary. Of course they can be removed... I live my life by an important rule... what can be made by man can be un-made by man.. it rings true in every aspect I have experienced it in!

Yes we all have our own experience. But how have you significantly un-made the physical or spiritual boundaries of our society? Nature doesn't unmake. It innovates. I question everything and try look at everything from every possible angle. I'm almost 40 but 'despite all my rage, Im still just a rat in a cage'.

Certain conditioning I am referring to mainly, are things like religion But once I started to properly question it; the boundaries dissolved and the truth was revealed... the biggest lie of them all.. religion - opiate of the masses.

Yeah I get ya. I went to a CE school. But no matter how hard you try, you will never free yourself of certain principles. You didn't dissolve anything but your own youth.

Science will evolve if the minds of the masses allow it. Look at history particulary the influence religion has had on beleif. Religion was the first science and boy have we come a long way! Our current understanding of the universe is in it's infancy and will be totally different in even just a few decades as we unravel more and more of the biggest mysteries still yet to be solved!

Exactly. Im sure that's what some of the first religous groups were - just organised sophisticated groups of people that observed and therefore were amazed and in wonder of nature. They didn't have hubble scopes and particle accelarators so they had to make do with nature deities. Science will evolve whether the masses 'allow' it or not. It's part of the social construct and as ancient as chipping flint into a point or following moon and fertility cycles. We didn't suddenly discover logic nor mythology. They don't need to be dissected or seperated but a proper recognition of where they fit would surely provide a more accurate dialogue.

My biggest problem with this statement is you are blaming the effect of many, lengthy and costly wars on beleif when in actual fact it's not the beleif of things that creates wars... people create wars... guns don't kill people; people kill people and despite the fact that religion [or simply beleif/faith] is one of the main causes of most of the worlds major wars throughout history, it doesn't mean it's the beleifs or faith that cause them. That's a massive cop out!

No but its certainly the system that procures, dispenses and profits from those beliefs and faith.

I'd have to honestly say this does offend me... I am rather disappointed in some of the opinions expressed on this forum and thought that it was a place where other open-minded individuals who aren't slaves to contemporary science can express their experiences, ideas and "beleifs" without being shot down using contemporary science...

Really sorry man, I never meant to offend you and no one here is a slave to science - what goes up must come down. Edited January 18, 2011 by botanika

[botanika]

the most beautiful thing in life is mystery...

Certainly the most beautiful thing in story telling...

why do so many people want to destroy that?

What do we have to gain from KNOWING IT ALL!!! Then what?

It could be argued that organised spirituality or religion destroys mystery by franchising it, taking away local cultural identity. Money. Sex... follow the trail. It's never about knowing it all. It's about putting bits of the present and past together to create novelty. That's how we adapt. The question, I think, is essentially, how well does the 'spirit world model' work for pyschedelics? Maybe it holds psychedelic study back. Or maybe its the cornerstone that holds it all up.

In saying that, I do strongly beleive we NEED to change our lifestyle and way of thinking up new solutions to maintain our current quality of life [let alone be able to expand it for everyone to enjoy globally at a low cost] but I don't and can't beleive that the industrial revolution has had such a massive impact on the earth that it can EXPLAIN the change in weather... climate change is very real and VERY natural... history has proven the cycles exist in nature... we think we are so smart and so powerful that it's our fault but I find this very nieve and a huge scam; much, much bigger than the millenium bug that was a claim falsely made by many of now rich people.

Come visit me in ancient china. I will show you the future.

A comment I'd like to make on Crick discovering the double helix of DNA the same day he was experimenting with LSD is that YES he was a very smart man and the LSD just unlocked more of his potential; allowing him to perceive the same questions he was asking from a different perspective and this is my argument for psychedelics... THEY REMOVE BOUNDARIES CREATED BY CURRENT MODELS OF UNDERSTANDING...

Well they distort, modulate and amplify understanding - creating some nice harmonics.

Imagine... if he had admitted he was tripping when he made that discovery; he would've been ridiculed and laughed out of a job and that discovery may still not have been made.

Because as you said, Crick was a smart guy, he knew fine well not to say that to anybody because he himself could not prove pyschedelics were primarily responsible for the discovery. He didn't turn into Tim Leary.

To deny people their use is to deny freedom of thought and expression! The basic human rights we all take for granted or to be honest don't truly have... if we did these substances wouldn't be made illegal.

The establishment don't want a world of critical thinkers who question the conditioning they have been exposed to

 

Unfortunately they were made illegal for civic values rather than personal. Kesey didn't help. But it sucks, it's beyond even human rights that a plant can be illegal.

Edited January 18, 2011 by botanika

[botanika]

First of all, one does not need to believe in gods or an afterlife to be spiritual. And secondly, how do you know that it's a fantasy world?

 

No of course not. Spirituality can be anything at all. I was just talking to a giant flying purple squid wearing a jumpsuit the other day about it. You do believe me don't you?

Cultures? Yes... The entire human race? No!

Try telling all of that to these guys:

 

There is no part of the human race that doesn't express culture. The tree people still use technology and materials. No one is free from that sucker. A couple of cultures get away with blatent nakedness but no one succeeds without using some sort of objects and tools. We all seek novelty.

Edited January 18, 2011 by botanika

[Teljkon]

sdfsdfs

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[synchromesh]

No of course not. Spirituality can be anything at all. I was just talking to a giant flying purple squid wearing a jumpsuit the other day about it. You do believe me don't you?

Whatever. One could just as easily say the same thing about materialism.

There is no part of the human race that doesn't express culture.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that every culture has techno-fetishism in them!

The tree people still use technology and materials. No one is free from that sucker. A couple of cultures get away with blatent nakedness but no one succeeds without using some sort of objects and tools. We all seek novelty.

The Kombai know nothing about novelty or materialism. Their best "technology" is the stone axe, and the only reason they use it is to survive.

But isn’t technology essentially neutral? Technology has values embedded in it. By technology, I mean systems of technology, as opposed to tools. There is a certain distancing in modern technology, a certain coldness, a certain kind of standardization, inflexibility, and dependence on experts is another of its values. But with a simple tool, you can more easily imagine a state of rough equality, where people are not dependent on experts. That’s the best way to read society: look at its technology, and you can tell what its dominant value is.

http://voidmanufacturing.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/primitive-green-an-interview-with-john-zerzan/

[synchromesh]

Ultimately I guess it’s about where it all takes us. Spirituality in many ways has separated and fragmented us from observable nature in the pursuit of a fantasy world of gods and self centered afterlife rather than living in harmony with nature and leaving it intact for the real life of future generations. Science too could be blamed for creating the nuclear bomb, cars and Lady Gaga. But the core of it is that scientific ideas tend to evolve and adapt more than spiritual ideas. IMO they are far less absolute over the long run.

 

Hey santiago, where are ya? I think I found out what's causing the Crop Circles!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8118257.stm

[botanika]

The Kombai know nothing about novelty or materialism. Their best "technology" is the stone axe, and the only reason they use it is to survive.

But isn’t technology essentially neutral? Technology has values embedded in it. By technology, I mean systems of technology, as opposed to tools. There is a certain distancing in modern technology, a certain coldness, a certain kind of standardization, inflexibility, and dependence on experts is another of its values. But with a simple tool, you can more easily imagine a state of rough equality, where people are not dependent on experts. That’s the best way to read society: look at its technology, and you can tell what its dominant value is.

http://voidmanufacturing.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/primitive-green-an-interview-with-john-zerzan/

 

I'm sure the Kombai experience novelty and materialism. They are not static and neither is their complex environment around them. There is always some form of innovation or response to environmental innovation and the Kombai are not exempt from that. Like any society there are going to be members of that tribe that possess certain objects and others that don't. Some of their objects are highly colourful, artistic and could well be considered fetish. I know what you mean though, that they don't have the same degree of materialism as say a person from Brentwood in California has and there is a rough equality - particularly due to their isolation and abundance of food. It's a matter of degree and environmental constraints. But my point before was simply that humans do not and cannot survive without some kind of 'modification of nature' - whether it be rudimentary tools or full blown down town Tokyo and its technology. Whether building a tree house or space shuttle, the core ingenuity is the same despite a vastly different scale and outcomes. Trying to bring it back on topic, maybe in the same way it would be difficult for us to evolve out of 'tool use' perhaps the same could be said about spirituality, so there is a case for using the spirit world model (because it is an archaic common language of symbols) and science does not have to be abandoned in that pursuit. The core of both spirituality and science is still imagination and wonder. I agree with Kent overall but as someone else said, he kind of takes away the artistic expression in it all. It's like he's describing a painting as just brush strokes and canvas (which of course is true) when the picture can be intepretted in many different ways. Maybe everyone here believes elves and spirits are completely real. I don't and not many of my friends do, but that doesn't mean they dont have value as mythological or creative symbols. It's really a minority that turn it inward and often the true nature of those sorts of abusive cult leaders (eg Manson Family) are blown out of proportion.

[synchromesh]

"Science without religion spirituality is lame, religion spirituality without science is blind."

- Albert Einstein

I've gotta get back to packing for Rainbow Serpent man. I'll talk to you again next week. Ciao.

[botanika]

I've gotta get back to packing for Rainbow Serpent.

 

Enjoy it!

[mutant]

OK - I will not be quoting anything for now... Will try something different today....

POINTS FOR MAKING THIS THREAD MORE INTERESTING

1st

MAKE IT PERSONAL

Don't just say the commonest shit about materialism and how scientific minds are bashing the controversial. First of all, I am all for controversial ideas and I get this -naysaying- all the time from science-obsessed cunts when discussing them, only they're saying I am the charlatan. Calling them science-theists would suit them nicely.

So tell us about you or you're just shooting blank words IMO :

1. what did you believe [spirituality, god] before you saw the spirits on psychs. Or did you always see them?

2. when exactly did you believe, how exactly psychedelic or otherwise experiences shaped you in wondering if some of this is actually real? Why did it have so much impact [reference with live, memories, personal sensitivities, afterglow, REALITY etc]

3. do you have encounters in sober life?

4. How old are you and how long have you been a believer?

etc.

yeah I know you don't want to answer all this. But the spirits genesis and etiology are in those answers and then some more.

I have long tried to speak about a different, more personal way of talking and also understanding the other, but in general none have payed attention or wanted to try it or even agree. I have told you again: reports without knowing anything about the reporter say nothing. Especially controversial reports about spirits seen on psychs being experienced as real external forces and by sobering up still believed to be external...

Dude's arguements [how ever good as arguements] are an example of general and impersonal [but throwing some nameless arrows ... ouch! this one must have been aiming at me!] arguement that will eventually have the discussion be a collection of monologues at the end and we don't want this dude, right?

The opposite of this is herbal who at least tell us about himself and his catholic background he needed to undo.

[bTW, you know, I didn't have to undo any religious conditioning, my parents were not openly atheists, but they were not religious by any term, so no wonder I am a strong atheist, been like that for 20 years or so... ]

Ok, for very practical reasons we theoretically divide active discussers....

botanika and santiago and me are naysayers

dude , herbal and others are 'believers'.

Ok, so we have X, a believer. He says this and that, he says he has experienced these spirits LOTS of times and even in groups of people etc etc. I DON'T GIVE A CRAP! [dont get this wrong]

You're not convincing me and I am not trying to either. I can find lots of this stuff and wild stories in any fucking psychedelic related forum or site. What I need to know is WHO ARE YOU? WHY ARE YOU LIKE THAT? WHAT MAKES ME DIFFERENT THAN YOU? what makes you 'spirit positive' and me 'spirit negative' ? Thats the hot questions, dudes!

1. is it I havent yet eaten a 'big' dose?? [the microdot back in 2001 was pretty strong though and during my bad trip in an awful bad setting I could not get out of, the voices I heard AKA a temporary psychosis were fucking convincing, but even during the time I knew I had not suddenly gained the ability to read peoples or spirits minds... it was still lived through as a bad trip. Could it be more believable in a positive setting were not bad trip would occur? Who knows... I doubt that...

2. is it I am such a strong atheist and sceptic? is it I have so much analytical thinking?

Maybe you find this stupid, but this is what I find important.

For example, I remember a respected member in a similar debate saying : "you have to do large doses for a large period of time [like 2 years I think] to see it" . I think it was folias and I think he was talking about how he first came to experience them and believe them - the spirit world.

This is a nice proof that spirits are totally illusions. Long term abuse of psychedelics is no set for proof of strange ideas and theories. Too many psychs can cause illusions in healthy people, go figure what a mentally unstable person can see or experience.

2nd

Not all naysayers are science whores. Because lots of my ideas conflict not only with scientific consensus but also to the way academia, peer review and scientific theism function, I really have polemic views for those who can't argue or prove anything without using the safety blanket of science proof.

Thankfully, even if botanika flirts a bit with the science-whore style, he is obviously not one of them. He doesn't shy away from giving politically incorrect answers and that's the best thing a sceptic can be to avoid being a science whore or science theist: being politically incorrect.

3rd

This is a lot about theism-atheism really. I used to be an agressive atheist towards what I considered stupid beliefs, organised religion being the first paradigm of protostupidity. I am not like that any more. I truely disagree with hardline atheists that bash any kind of religion. I do hate monotheism, but still believe monotheism can help people too, as can many forms of religion and spirituality. Maybe we disagree with botanika a bit on that.

So that's what changed my views: religious or otherwise spirituality [in the same category in my eyes] however illusional or stupid may it seem to me or the most sceptics, it CAN help people.

Most people [not here though] I am sure would find my obsession with cacti & fungi stupid or at least weird so...

I lack that kind of spirit/god need and that creates interesting questions in me:

rahli says: rationalists might be missing some shits by this denial of theirs

I am wondering: if other people's god spot / god module [the brain part that generates all illusions and god feelings etc] can generate feelings of an external parallel world, spirits, etc, then what would my god module generate if activated.

To which I reply, so far, and this is my so far consensus only:

I need not spirits or other external stuff to have an apocalypse/epiphany about the nature of the world, myself, love, purpose, unity, everything.

Even if I can understand the usefulness or reasons behind what I understand as wishful-believing in spirits in other people, I really cannot see or imagine the concept we're debating playing any positive role in my own life. If you got any idea of an application fire away.

So god module functions outside the metaphysical realm too.

*********

sallyfying PS:

OH. I HAVE said that seeing Sally D as a strict, mysterious female spirit [well this works if you're a guy anywayz, not sure about a girl though, as girls can be quite competitive in general] can help understand and navigate the sally realm best But in reality, sally D , the godess, is only salvinorin playing with our head.

==========

In any case, this is the only forum these kind of discussions took place so herbal, don't feel bad that 3 cunts, me santiago and botanika are naysaying. Be proud as we naysayers are.

Know what you are and why. It would be just great if we just understood each other a tiny bit more!

cheers

PS2: Reply for ThunderIdeal: harmreduction for whom/from what? well mostly for stupid people/kids who might willfully believe the advertisement of McKenna et al, that they will melt in a world of exciting spirits and mechanical elves if they take a ridiculously big dose of psychs. How's that?

Edited January 24, 2011 by mutant

[santiago]

i have a friend who has lost a finger, even though that finger is gone he suffered before he lost it a bit of mild arthritis, this caused his joints some pain especially in the cold....so now many years after losing this finger every now and again he can ''feel'' that missing finger....arthritis and all, every now and again he actually forgets he has lost that finger and can still feel things.

now this friend isnt anything special, he is perhaps 1 of millions of subjects to have lost certain body parts and then suffer from a phenomenon called phantom pain, now phantom pain i wont really get into as it is easily searchable but its basically still retaining some sense of feeling in a body part which has been removed, simply the body part doesnt actually exist anymore so the sense of feeling which is experienced by amputees, or people who hav e lost body parts must be percieved by the brain right??

im sure there are many medical people who can explain this but apparently the feeling can be so real that pain can be felt, itching...arthrits etc, so let me put this from another angle, if the brain can actually be fooled by itself, putting yourself in first person view as an amputee etc...if your own brain can fool yourself into having a limb that is physically not there then what else is the human brain capable of fooling itself into spiritually, let alone physically....do phantoms exist, i say no, do phantom limbs exist i say yes, whats in the middle is what we are arguing about.

explain to me what it means to a human brain fool itself into thinking it has a missing arm, yet also on the next page fool itself into thinking there is a UFO or a ghost and ill sleep a little better at night.

[The Dude]

It seems the greatest illusion the brain can come up with is that we've got it all figured out, or that we can figure it all out even. I used to be agnostic until I experienced gnosis. I used to discount faith until I knew. Belief? Well.. in the same way I believe gravity holds me down. I just KNOW what I experienced and use the general terms that we've built as an empirical consensus of the phenomenon, like the term "gravity". Spirits are a convenient way to describe this connection to the divine/the universe. They are gods angels/demons, and I am god. They are not external at all, nothing is. I think science proves that with its model/myth of quantum mechanics.

Are people who believe the world is round just "round earth theists"? After receiving evidence that the world is round, you cannot believe the deluded flat earth society anymore. And when they ask how do you know, you can tell them to go search for the sun at the end of the horizon and when they reach their end at the beginning of their journey they'll laugh at their prior "skepticism" which doubts it's own ability to find out even.

I can only construct arguments because the confounding of ones own personal belief structures can only be experienced... personally. My idiosyncratic synchronicities and telepathic "out there" experiences only make sense to me, you would easily pick apart my personal experience as wish fulfillment and selective association of someone who wants to believe (maybe that is the case? Maybe wanting to see the connection allows it to be seen. Maybe wanting to be disconnected, causes the disconnection).

The only proof needed is your own personal experience of what is truth. As far as arguments go, this is inherently a circular argument as any attempt to prove the phenomena is plainly conjecture and open for discussion (ad infinitum) the actual answer is for you to see yourself. I get over this tired old cliché but... "Nobody can be told what the matrix is, you need to see it for yourself"

Edited January 25, 2011 by The Dude

[mycophage]

Great article (I agree entirely), and some interesting discussion.

In my opinion, psychedelics allow us to perceive reality with a different lens; a different point of view on the "objective" reality we cannot perceive directly.

However - the value of this is not that it exposes a more authentic view of reality than we are accustomed to seeing with our ordinary brain chemistry - to believe that the hallucinatory projections we see are real is to miss the point entirely. This is where people with impoverished faculties of reason err - and it's easy an easy error to make, but that doesn't excuse those making it for believing in witchcraft and superstition. Whether you think elves are real because you took drugs or because you have a mental disorder, the outcome is the same: you're wrong.

The real value, to me, of such experiences are to show us how far from any objective truth our day to day lens is: how full of assumptions, and how reliant on shortcuts and approximations in our brain's sensory apparatus. In truth, much of our day to day experience is an elaborate - and generally extremely effective - hallucination which throws up recognisable, useful and rich approximations (images, sensations, certainties) based on the very limited and often erroneous data about the world our brain has access to. Optical illusions exploit this, and provide some insights into the hidden limitations of our senses.

These evolutionarily selected, reliably helpful hallucinations (which generally provide a very good model for understanding "objective" reality) are so convincing it's easy to equate them with what is *actually* going on under the hood. Psychedelics replace these with other hallucinations, ones which were less likely to help our ancestors evade predators and find food; we often find the world they transport us to infused with (more of) our own subconscious projections - but conversely, they also strip away other subconscious projections we too easily take for granted. That is to say they can, like optical illusions, unravel many of the assumptions our brains make for us, and let us gain insights (if we are careful about the conclusions we draw) about how our senses construct the world around us in day to day life.

I personally find this a fascinating domain, and one in which very real advances are being made right now. If you're interested in this stuff, try reading some of the many interesting books on these emerging topics in science: "The Brain That Changes Itself", "The Feeling of What Happens", etc.