Campaign for Victorian Legalisation of Transcendent Compounds

[GregKasarik]

Another strange reply that really shows a fixation on the irrelevant. Do you feel the need to pick pointless fights with everyone you meet? Is this why you feel the need to end your posts with Peace?

‘Your’ “use of those very same compounds” may well be based on the religious use of those compounds by traditional societies. But my use is not! I truly do only follow my own path. The word “our” in your first sentence, perfectly illustrates how the whole paragraph is simply a ideological preconcieved (and probably slightly egotistic) opinion. I still don’t see how it could be used as a way of proving these psychedelics have a true religious significance to western culture.

Why do you think this is about "you", when clearly it is not. The original post and the ongoing discussion has been about people who use these compounds for religious purposes. The whole purpose of the original post was to inform people of my campaign for the legalisation of Transcendent Compounds, within a religious context, under Victorian legislation which guarantees religious freedom. If you don't use these for religious, or spiritual purposes that is fine, but that use falls outside the bounds of what I initially stated that I was trying talking about.

Within the context of demonstrating the validity of use to a court, several thousands of years of traditional use in other societies is a highly relevant detail, whether you think so, or not. Their traditional use is tied up inextricably with their entheogenic properties and their continued use for mystical practices. If you disagree, that is fine.

How would convincing people of the ‘accusation’ that the Islamic faith condones domestic violence against women be of any benefit to your apparent cause? I mean, theres plenty of worse injustices going on in the world because of ideological and religious beliefs.

I just feel there’s a less benign purpose for trying to demonize an individual religion which just happens to be unpopular within western society at the moment.

Unless you have another interpretation of the phrase "then you may beat them", I fail to see how you can conclude that the Quran does not condone Domestic Violence. To the extent that Islam is based on a literal reading of the Quran, then it follows that Islam will to condone domestic violence. Of course not all Muslims condone domestic violence. There are some amazing people, who are bravely working in those communities to tackle this issue. And in some parts of the world, that can mean getting one's self killed.

But if you seriously think that this Sura isn't used as a defence of DV by certain Muslims, then you have failed to join the dots. How do you think the original conversation with the girl got started? I find your tacit acceptance of Domestic Violence if it is promoted by the religious texts within "unpopular" religious minorities to be quite abhorrent.

Precisely one page on my entire site addresses the Quran. It is laughable and quite sureal that you should accuse me of "trying to demonize an individual religion". You might as well accuse me of trying to "demonize" heaven (or hell, although that would be ironic).

Well I think I was more or less inquiring, rather than accussing. But I can be more specific if you want. Are you affiliated with any religious group/s? Or is this whole thing completely your own personal journey for meaning?

Honestly, to me your general intelligence seems to surpass your life philosohies, which makes me a little suspicious.

Anyway the question probably wasn’t as “silly” as it first seemed. I mean what would I know about the techniques these cults use to brainwash vulnerable people and lets face it, what the fuck else is there in EAST warburton except for a scientologist recruiting center? lol.

There is a Buddist temple in clear view, right opposite the East Warburton East village. Since the 1860s there has been a huge Seventh Day Adventist presence, with their publishing house, and community centre and old hospital right in town itself. The entire shopping strip is chockablock full of businesses that cater to the new age, pagan and wiccan philosophies. Oh, and lets not forget the Presbyterian, Catholic and Anglican and churches here.

And you seriously try to smear me as a member of the scientologists? There is a single Scientology residence in the middle of the bush, more than 10 kms out of Warburton. It is so remote that I never even knew that it existed until you mentioned it.

The sad thing is that when you are busy slinging mud you are too lazy to bother getting your facts even remotely correct. If you did, you would know that the scientologists abhor drugs of any kind (despite LRH being up to his gills in them) and there is no way a scientologist would be promoting the legalisation of Transcendent Compounds. If one did, they'd be booted quick smart.

And yes, I am linked with a religious group. You can find their website here: www.infinitecolour.org.

Either way, you do sound like an interesting bloke to say the least. But your whole belief system seems to contradict it’s self more than even the mainstream religions do.

From anyone else, I'd look at that as an invitation for conversation. Unfortunately, you don't appear to do conversation, preferring instead the fine art of antagonistic ignorance and the flinging of random insults in order to create the maximum offense and distraction.

It just feels incrediblly backwards when it comes to developing a better understanding of the benefits psychedelics have on the human mind.

Ahh. There you go. Didn't take long did it?

I suppose it is always so much easier to try to trash other people's work rather than try to build your own vision for a better world.

Of course, as nothing you've actually said gives me any indication that you've even bothered to read, let alone understood anything that I've said, forgive me for not being particularly impressed.

Peace

 

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[SunChaser]

Another strange reply that really shows a fixation on the irrelevant. Do you feel the need to pick pointless fights with everyone you meet? Is this why you feel the need to end your posts with Peace? 

 

Your whole post seems like 'your' trying to get personal and pick a fight with me, rather than convince anyone of this belief structure you are apparently so passionate about.

btw, I write peace at the end of my posts, because that's what I'm looking for in life. Since you seem so interested to know.

Why do you think this is about "you", when clearly it is not. The original post and the ongoing discussion has been about people who use these compounds for religious purposes. The whole purpose of the original post was to inform people of my campaign for the legalisation of Transcendent Compounds, within a religious context, under Victorian legislation which guarantees religious freedom. If you don't use these for religious, or spiritual purposes that is fine, but that use falls outside the bounds of what I initially stated that I was trying talking about.

 

Again, feels like your the one making this about me. I was simply using myself as a example. I'm just seriously curious as to how you could possibly provide a court with indisputable evidence, that using psychedelic drugs is a religiously significant practice in modern day Australia.

Within the context of demonstrating the validity of use to a court, several thousands of years of traditional use in other societies is a highly relevant detail, whether you think so, or not. Their traditional use is tied up inextricably with their entheogenic properties and their continued use for mystical practices. If you disagree, that is fine.

 

Before Europeans arrived in Australia, if a aboriginal man committed a violent act against another, then the other men of the tribe would simply take him away from camp and spear him in the leg. Seems like it would be a fairly effective deterrent to me, although they haven't had much like convincing any court that it should be a legal practice today.

Unless you have another interpretation of the phrase "then you may beat them", I fail to see how you can conclude that the Quran does not condone Domestic Violence. To the extent that Islam is based on a literal reading of the Quran, then it follows that Islam will to condone domestic violence. Of course not all Muslims condone domestic violence. There are some amazing people, who are bravely working in those communities to tackle this issue. And in some parts of the world, that can mean getting one's self killed.

But if  you seriously think that this Sura isn't used as a defence of DV by certain Muslims, then you have failed to join the dots. How do you think the original conversation with the girl got started? I find your tacit acceptance of Domestic Violence if it is promoted by the religious texts within "unpopular" religious minorities to be quite abhorrent.  

 

Well I couldn't really give a fuck what the Quran says, just like I couldn't give a fuck about what the bible says. Not to mention it's an ancient text, written for an ancient people, then translated from a ancient language to a modern day language. Anyone who spends there time trying to interpret the words of these books is either just feebleminded or a bigot.

But I digress. All you have really done is made a few baseless accusations about my ethics, yet have completely avoided my original question. What possible relevance does this topic have in particular to your cause?

There is a Buddist temple in clear view, right opposite the East Warburton East village. Since the 1860s there has been a huge Seventh Day Adventist presence, with their publishing house, and community centre and old hospital right in town itself. The entire shopping strip is chockablock full of businesses that cater to the new age, pagan and wiccan philosophies. Oh, and lets not forget the Presbyterian, Catholic and Anglican and churches here.

And you seriously try to smear me as a member of the scientologists? There is a single Scientology residence in the middle of the bush, more than 10 kms out of Warburton. It is so remote that I never even knew that it existed until you mentioned it.

 

Why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of getting all defensive and start with the personal insults?

The sad thing is that when you are busy slinging mud you are too lazy to bother getting your facts even remotely correct. If  you did, you would know that the scientologists abhor drugs of any kind (despite LRH being up to his gills in them) and there is no way a scientologist would be promoting the legalisation of Transcendent Compounds. If one did, they'd be booted quick smart.

 

Yeah, we've all heard the gossip about the scientologist movie stars who give birth completely drug free. But at the end of the day, they are a secret cult, so most low ranking members probably don't know what there about.

Maybe it could just be addictive drugs there against. lol, or maybe, they might just use odd techniques into luring drug infested individuals to be cleansed at there peaceful residence in east warburton.

From anyone else, I'd look at that as an invitation for conversation. Unfortunately, you don't appear to do conversation, preferring instead the fine art of antagonistic ignorance and the flinging of random insults in order to create the maximum offense and distraction.

 

Well theres not much here that would give me a better prospective about your ideas.

I suppose it is always so much easier to try to trash other people's work rather than try to build your own vision for a better world. 

 

All I can see is a bunch of random religious beliefs  jammed into one belief, to perfectly fit a particular lifestyle. How is that a vision for a better future? After over 5 thousand years of affliction because of egotistic organized religions, I would have thought most of us would have learnt by now.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

Like wise.

Peace

Edited November 20, 2011 by jabez

[GregKasarik]

Jabez, I see no reason to continue talking to you and shall not be responding to anything else that you post on this thread. You are little more than an irritating and pointless troll.

You attempted to derail this thread with a series of baseless personal attacks including being anti-islamic, a scientologist, having less than benign purposes, being egotistical, being "incredibly backwards". And that is just your first two short posts.

I see no mention of my religious philosophy, let alone any attempt to grapple with it. Which is hardly surprising, because I know that you haven't actually bothered to examine it any any meaningful sense. How do I know this? Simply because, I am able to track the visitors to my site and so by looking back into the logs, I can easily see where you initially came into the site, checked out a couple of pages, including one on Sura 3:34 and left.

Hard to critique something that you were too lazy to engage with in the first place. Far easier to just make vague and unspecific attacks. That way you can play pretend, while you try and hide the fact that you really don't have the first clue about anything that I've written.

Despite all of your words, you don't actually have anything constructive to offer and what you post here is simply a reflection of who you are.

If anything highlights this, it is this quite remarkable quote that really sums up all you have to offer this world.

Well I couldn't really give a fuck what the Quran says, just like I couldn't give a fuck about what the bible says. Not to mention it's an ancient text, written for an ancient people, then translated from a ancient language to a modern day language. Anyone who spends there time trying to interpret the words of these books is either just feebleminded or a bigot.

 

So, even while you accuse me of being anti-Islamic on the basis of my objection to Sura 4:34 and its approval of domestic violence, you actually hold the view that the vast majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims are "just feebleminded, or a bigot".

So I suppose I shouldn't be too offended by your behaviour and attitude.

You just hate everybody.

[dionysus]

i think all this is unnecessary. it is all well and good to say you are religious and you want to use said chemical for religious reasons under a vague religious freedom law, but i think scheduling takes precedence. the chemicals you wish to make use of are schedule 9, which makes them prohibited. if they were allowed for some sort of medicinal use (including medicine for the spiritual rather than physical) they would be listed in (probably) schedule 4 or 8. you could realistically die in bourke street from starvation and not accomplish anything, as there are already very established laws that you would need to have changed in order for minimal people to exercise their rights under a young and vague passage of law. i am all for some positive progression of things, but spirituality and hunger strikes are not going to convince the Australian public anything needs changing, there is already too much spiritual diversity for the common person to accept.

[sapito]

Greg, I havent had time to read everything you have on your site so apologies if this is already covered but I have a question. Does this mean that if successful, people would still have to become members of your group to legally be able to use the compounds? Or could people freely use these compounds without joining yours or another group?

[ThunderIdeal]

heh, shouldn't you be asking dem gubment since they are the ones who decide these things?

(possibly i see your point sapito. greg becomes the gatekeeper to legal drugs and hence becomes our shot-tempered, sexually demanding overlord)

i like your work greg.

Edited November 21, 2011 by ThunderIdeal

[sapito]

heh, shouldn't you be asking dem gubment since they are the ones who decide these things?

 

who you talking to pop-eye?

Edited November 21, 2011 by sapito

[shruman]

Just been reading through your beginners guide & I find it pretty inaccurate & possibly dangerous.

I think you should realy make it clear that there is absolutely no way to tell how many mics are in your dose. Unless of course you have had it quantitavely analysed.

"For example, with LSD a threshold dose for most people seems to be about 50 millionths of a gram."

Do you have evidence for this statement?, I'm certain a threshold dose is much less. & Erowid agree with me they state a threshold of 20 mics: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml

"Despite the fact that a standard “tab” is traditionally 100 millionths of a gram, it is best to see if the lower dose is all that a person needs. "

What do you mean by 'traditionaly'?, & where do you come up with these figures? this flies in the face of all the information I have seen.

"My maximum dose is 400 millionths of a gram of LSD and this is because I find that it gives me everything that I need for a good trip, with lots of potential for connection with the Divine. I could go higher, but have yet to see the need. Most people I know never go beyond 200 and one person I know is happy to stay at 25."

Once again just wondering how you come up with these figures?, DO you have access to a GCMS or HPLC?

"Assuming that each drop contained a 100 millionths of a gram, which seems to be standard, these people were each taking massively more than anyone in their right mind should, unless they have specific goals in mind and are an experienced tripper."

I think your standard based on these assumptions has no basis in reality & could be dangerous.

A little food for thought:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_article3.shtml

Edited November 23, 2011 by shruman

[GregKasarik]

@ Shruman. Thankyou very much for the feedback. I've run this past a number of people and none of them have provided me with this sort of quality criticism that this kind of thing really needs. These are very good points and ones that I will certainly making changes to the guide.

The information that I am going on is purely based on my own reading and personal experience. I initially used the word "tab" when describing my use of acid and from what you are saying should probably go back to that nomenclature. You are correct that I don't have any real idea of how much lsd is actually in the acid that I use and my guide should be more reflective of this.

Are there any other criticisms that you would make of the guide? If you could fine tooth comb it, that would be great! :-)

@ Sapito. Given how powerful these compounds can be, I am not in favour of them being freely available to everyone. We don't need to go any further than the stupidity of our drinking culture to know that some people will engage with the compounds like idiots and potentially ruin it for us all. Hence my call for "regulated" access. I don't want a return to the backlash of the sixties and another forty years wandering in the wilderness of illegality.

What this regulation would look like is largely up to the government and it would be impossible of me to give a definitive picture of what it will look like. I would suggest that it might involve a registration system, much like that seen with professional bodies, such as psychologists and doctors. I would expect that substances would be obtainable through the pharmacy system, or registered growers. At this stage, I am happy for a very conservative system to be put in place, as I am confident that with time we can demonstrate our maturity and the fact that the world won't end simply because Transcendent Compounds are more openly available.

I would certainly not want to be the only person with the right to use these. That would go against the very concepts of religious freedom that I am fighting for. If noting else, it would be too much hard work and distract me from what I enjoy doing.

Having said this, my philosophy, with its Uncertainty Principle would probably be appropriate for many who are seeking to understand the universe on their own terms, but who recognise that within an Infiniverse their answers can only ever be provisional. There is a reason I call myself "Herder of Cats". :-)

@ dionysus. You may be right and my quest may be doomed from the start. However, I know that unless I try, I will be doomed anyway. I'd rather go down fighting for my freedoms and it wouldn't be fun if it were easy. Why am I here, if not to fight for what I believe?

I disagree that the rights granted in the Charter are simply a "vague passage of law". These rights are about as specific as you could want and are directly based of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not only that, but section 7 specifically says that where there is a conflict between the desires of the government and a human right, the government has an obligation to ensure that the minimum incursion against those rights is evident in law.

As a legally, historically, sociologically, philosophically and theologically legitimate form of religious practice, the government is required by section 7 to negotiate a solution that meets both my rights to obtain and use the compounds and their concerns that they might be abused if too freely available

The schedules are irrelevant in this context, if only for the fact that they are political, not medical documents and that the classifications have no reflection on the actual safety and use of any of the substances under discussion. In its communication with me, the government has certainly claimed that the scheduling of the compounds reflects their danger, and that refusing regulated access is for "health and safety reasons", however given that Transcendent Compounds are non-toxic, non-addictive and psychologically safe in appropriate dose, set and setting, this is clearly an untenable argument. If this were to go the the Supreme Court, the Victorian Government would have to demonstrate how regulated access would lead to health dangers. Given the evidence on the ground, particularly with respect to experiences of UDV, Santo Diame and the Native American Church, the government would find it impossible to make any worthwhile case.

If these compounds were like beer, without any entheogenic properties, then I wouldn't have a chance. In fact, I wouldn't even be bothering and I wouldn't bother using them. But being entheogenic, their use (in my case anyway) is inseparable from their religious use. Thousands of years of history and the experiences of millions of people worldwide back me up.

Similarly, the fact that the Charter is only a recent document is not an issue. This is what I would regard as a "metalaw", in that its stated intent and purpose is to provide a minimum framework for all other laws to operate within. When other laws are found to be in contravention of this law, it is the other laws that are required to change, not this law. Of course, the government can change this law at any time it wants, but in doing so, they would be acknowledging that they are turning their backs on one of the greatest and most ancient ideas of human history, the right to religious freedom.

The government's recent review of the legislation provided a number of recommendations for the legislation, none of which included abolishing it entirely, or neutering it beyond recognition. While I am not sure of which recommendations the government will implement, I am confident that any changes to the law will not adversely impact on the Charter's requirements in this case.

In any case, even if they rescinded the Charter in its entirety, I wouldn't stop my struggle. I'm in too deep and the personal consequences have been to high to even considering backing out now.

[CβL]

Without having read much of your stuff... I think you would be best to develop a more integrative approach to your religion (which it is indeed, as you have inherent doctrines). You're trying to compete with already established religions. I think it's extraordinarily doubtful that you will gain much if any ground without being derided for being a cult (if it's organized, moves quickly, and is hard to comprehend - then to perhaps 80% of people it is automatically a dangerous cult).

By discussing and constraining what god may or not be, you have already alienated many people who hold steadfast preconceived notions of what a god can be. That could be 10-50% of the population excluded from the start.

I think you would do well to dissociate your personal beliefs from the religion you are trying to create. I.e. I think that any new religion that is not mutually exclusive to existing religions will fare far better than one that is mutually exclusive (whether or not it's explicit or implicit).

Lastly, I cannot stop seeing your logo as a sad/shroomed-out face. I bet this is the case with many other people, who may load a first encounter with negative connotations.

I would remove/relocate the ellipse.

[dionysus]

I'm sorry if you thought my last post was meant as derogatory by the way, it wasn't. if i didn't agree with a lot of what you say why would i join such a forum as this instead of a regular gardening forum?

i do however think the current government would not in fact consider preventing you from using such entheogens as a violation of your human rights but more for your protection. this would make convincing them a schedule change was necessary near impossible and mean the laws would still apply, however misguided they may be. for so long they have been misinformed and regularly uninformed (requiring imagination to kick in) that they simply believe that they are indeed harmful. i once saw a room full of people (my self included) passionately deny that a regular drinking straw could be stabbed through a raw potato, some people passionate enough to bet money on it. after the lecturer demonstrated that the straw could indeed penetrate the potato some people still took a a few minutes to believe and this was with a very clear physical demonstration. proving that peyote use or similar is physiologically safe in the long term may be rather easy (whith huichols coming to mind that lived to 105+) but where is the evidence that using many different entheogens regularly is comparatively safe in the long term? in my opinion, there is going to be doubt in peoples mind about the safety and legitimacy of such use until more evidence of long term safety in western culture and a wider body of evidence in general has been brought in to the fold. the problem with this, is, westerners have a very young history with such things.

also, i am concerned for your safety if you follow through with your hunger strike. with so many more apparent violations of human rights around the world (take your pick) 1 guys hunger strike against a widely held opinion may not gather the momentum you hope. i admire your willingness to fight for your rights as a human, but i certainly don't think this is the right manner or even current political climate to attempt such things. perhaps if you are willing to go to such extremes you can traval to/live in the czech republic, brazil or canada (assuming my current knowledge of over seas laws pertaining such things is accurate) for times of the year or annually as part as a quasi-sacred pilgrimage.

whatever you do, good luck anyway.

[SunChaser]

It would be nice if you had more detailed information on the exact laws you are claiming give you the freedom to practice your religious beliefs and how you actually intend to carry it out.

Anyway, from what I can see from the Commonwealths Constitution, I don’t actually think it gives you the freedom of religion. But rather states that the government cannot make laws to specifically impose or prohibit a person’s religious belief.

Obviously I’m not any kind of expert on the law. But I think the government could simply argue that when it comes to drug laws, it’s for the safety of the community and has nothing to do with prohibiting people’s religious practices.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116

Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

The Victorian charter of human rights actually does look a lot more promising. Although, Wouldn’t the federal government have laws that prevent state laws from being in direct conflict with the commonwealth?

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 14

Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief

14. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief

(1) Every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including-

(a) the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice; and

( the freedom to demonstrate his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, either individually or as part of a community, in public or in private.

(2) A person must not be coerced or restrained in a way that limits his or her freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.

 

Also considering some bloke just had to pay out 50 grand to clear his name for falsely being accused of importing MDMA. It would probably be a logical conclusion, that even if in theory this could work, it just wouldn’t be financially possible for any average person to actually get to argue it in court.

It is an interesting theory. But your site seems to be void of any scientific evidence of the claims you are making about these substances, nor do I see any detailed description of the actual laws you claim give you the right to use these substances, or how you intend to go about proving it. Which makes it hard to comprehend this as a serious attempt to change the drug laws and to me, personally appears to me to be more about you wanting to control vulnerable individuals.

But, that’s just my opinion.

Peace

[shruman]

"The most frequently used Entheogen is cannabis and people need to be aware that its active compound, THC can be quite addictive, especially if used as an escape, rather than as an adjunct to spiritual growth."

I wouldnt use the A word, I would scrap the use of the word addiction in relation to cannabis throughout your website. I would say "may cause psychological dependence" & I think it's important to emphasise the difference between psychological dependence & physical dependence. I'm not aware of any hard evidence that clearly shows cannabis to cause physical dependence or addiction (in the strict sence of he word).

I have'nt spotted any other factual inaccuracies on your begginers tripping page.

I think it could'nt hurt to show a little of your reasoning, alot of people might just right off what you say but if you show (instead of expect people to look) there is scientific reasoning behind your thoughts it would make it that much harder to ignore.

[GregKasarik]

Without having read much of your stuff... I think you would be best to develop a more integrative approach to your religion (which it is indeed, as you have inherent doctrines). You're trying to compete with already established religions. I think it's extraordinarily doubtful that you will gain much if any ground without being derided for being a cult (if it's organized, moves quickly, and is hard to comprehend - then to perhaps 80% of people it is automatically a dangerous cult).

By discussing and constraining what god may or not be, you have already alienated many people who hold steadfast preconceived notions of what a god can be. That could be 10-50% of the population excluded from the start.

I think you would do well to dissociate your personal beliefs from the religion you are trying to create. I.e. I think that any new religion that is not mutually exclusive to existing religions will fare far better than one that is mutually exclusive (whether or not it's explicit or implicit).

Lastly, I cannot stop seeing your logo as a sad/shroomed-out face. I bet this is the case with many other people, who may load a first encounter with negative connotations.

I would remove/relocate the ellipse.

 

Even if successful beyond my wildest dreams, Community of Infinite Colour is a project of generations, not years. The reality is that I have already been accused of aiming to set up a cult to control people (you don't need to go beyond either of the threads that I've started on these boards). There isn't a heck of a lot that I can do about that, except for taking it in my stride and not allowing it to distract me from my goals. I know why I am doing this, even if others don't and I am not going to allow myself to become distracted by the harping of strangers.

While it is not immediately obvious from the website as it stands, the content is actually part of two separate books that I am writing concurrently, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that what I believe about the Divine does not end up becoming some sort of religious dogma.

The first, to be called "The Book of Infinite Colour" will be the founding document for Community and contain the Principles, Community specific material and the section on the rational belief in god. The second, to be called "The First Heretic" will contain my speculations and musings on the Divine. In this case, the First Heretic will actually be the book, as it can only ever contain the most superficial explanation of my conceptualisation of the Divine, but never any of the really funky stuff that blows my mind, but which evaporates on contact with language. Frankly if anyone thinks they believe what I believe, they have missed the central point of the Principles. If they believe it based on the fact that I believe it they are morons.

You are not the first person to say that the Symbol of Life looks like a sad face and probably won't be the last. However, it is a symbolic and mystical expression of the reality that underlies the Principles, and is here to stay. The three distinct features of the symbol (sentience, meaning and purpose) each emerged during a series of transcendent experiences over an 18 month period. Interestingly, after the emergence of the first two features, that there was more to come. The final feature, of the ellipse provided the capstone to which nothing more could be added. The significance of the last feature (namely the emptiness outside of it), which represents "Wisdom" actually came to me during my Socratic meditation and was more due to a heightened awareness of what the symbol represented, rather than an addition of any sort.

So, sad shroomy face, or not, The Symbol of Life is here to stay and is heaps better than at least one other particularly macabre one that I can think of. I think that with familiarity the shroomy face will most likely disappear.

I'm more worried about what some religious fundamentalists will say when they realise that there is snake in there.

[GregKasarik]

I'm sorry if you thought my last post was meant as derogatory by the way, it wasn't. if i didn't agree with a lot of what you say why would i join such a forum as this instead of a regular gardening forum?

i do however think the current government would not in fact consider preventing you from using such entheogens as a violation of your human rights but more for your protection. this would make convincing them a schedule change was necessary near impossible and mean the laws would still apply, however misguided they may be. for so long they have been misinformed and regularly uninformed (requiring imagination to kick in) that they simply believe that they are indeed harmful. i once saw a room full of people (my self included) passionately deny that a regular drinking straw could be stabbed through a raw potato, some people passionate enough to bet money on it. after the lecturer demonstrated that the straw could indeed penetrate the potato some people still took a a few minutes to believe and this was with a very clear physical demonstration. proving that peyote use or similar is physiologically safe in the long term may be rather easy (whith huichols coming to mind that lived to 105+) but where is the evidence that using many different entheogens regularly is comparatively safe in the long term? in my opinion, there is going to be doubt in peoples mind about the safety and legitimacy of such use until more evidence of long term safety in western culture and a wider body of evidence in general has been brought in to the fold. the problem with this, is, westerners have a very young history with such things.

also, i am concerned for your safety if you follow through with your hunger strike. with so many more apparent violations of human rights around the world (take your pick) 1 guys hunger strike against a widely held opinion may not gather the momentum you hope. i admire your willingness to fight for your rights as a human, but i certainly don't think this is the right manner or even current political climate to attempt such things. perhaps if you are willing to go to such extremes you can traval to/live in the czech republic, brazil or canada (assuming my current knowledge of over seas laws pertaining such things is accurate) for times of the year or annually as part as a quasi-sacred pilgrimage.

whatever you do, good luck anyway.

 

I didn't take your comments as being derogatory. They reflect quite a well voiced opinion and needed to be said by someone.

I disagree that the current government believes that the bans are in place for health and safety reasons. I have spoken to a number of politicians over the years and invariably, it is not my health and safety that they are worried about, but a potentially adverse reaction by the voters who might then toss them out.

You are correct that there isn't any long term research to demonstrate the safety of taking numerous Transcendent Compounds over many years, but there certainly isn't any to suggest that it is dangerous to the health, which means that the government will be unable to prove their claim of adverse health risks. When this eventually gets to court, the Government cannot rely on assertions based on nothing but moral panic and speculation. Instead they will need to demonstrate that their claims of harm have basis in fact and demonstrate that those harms are sufficiently dire to warrant the total ban on these compounds. Given that alcohol is the current standard, to make assertions based on speculation. Instead they will need to demonstrate a real and present danger that will accrue to those who use them, this will be impossible. In addition, even if it could be demonstrated that these compounds might cause some people long term harm, they would still need to demonstrate that this harm is unreasonable, when compared to other potentially dangerous activities, such as horse riding, playing football, or even joining the Army.

There is a real chicken and egg problem with respect to the whole issue of the legalisation of Transcendent Compounds for religious use and my ability to move "Community" forward. If I go out into the world and proclaim my philosophy, I run the risk of being arrested for incitement to break the law, because while they are not necessary to understanding the Principles, they certainly allow one to experience their reality in a way that cannot be done through simply reading about them, or engaging in years of deep meditative practice.

If I move forward with the legalisation of Transcendent Compounds, I run the risk that my underlying message will get lost as people focus on the "drugs", to the exclusion of my real intent.

I've thought about it long and hard and couldn't figure out which way I should jump, but my decision was largely made for me, when I began to oppose the silly Federal legislative proposal earlier in the year. From there, things have flowed largely in the direction of arguing for the legalisation of the Compounds and endeavouring to establish an environment where I can freely discuss my full beliefs, philosophy and practice, rather than going out into the public pointlessly hamstrung by obnoxious legal impositions.

Whether this is the best way forward is debatable and next time around I will undoubtedly try something different, but for the moment my feet are firmly on the path in front of me.

With respect to the hunger strike, I honestly don't know of what else I can do. These compounds have been illegal since before I was born and during that time thousands of people have argued highly articulate defences of their relegalisation. All have been ignored. In engaging in a solitary hunger strike, I am hoping to make it clear how important these are to not only myself but to thousands of other Australians.

In all honesty, while I would hope for support from members of the Entheogenic community, I don't want huge demonstrations or to create massive disruption. Up until now, I have deliberately taken a softly, softly approach, because I am wanting to work constructively with the Government, rather than antagonistically. Ideally, I would just like to be allowed to quietly and legally do my own thing, but it seems that without presenting some sort of reason for the government to take me seriously, they will happily spend years ignoring me, just as they have all of the other very sensible people who have campaigned for similar rights over the years. Worse still, now that I am known to the authorities, they could simply monitor me and arrest me at their leisure. I'm not too concerned, or needlessly paranoid about this possibility and don't believe it likely, but I can't discount the possibility that if they felt that they could safely make an example of me, they might not be tempted.

If nothing else, I will be able to counter the rather offensive claim that my entire philosophy is an excuse for the hedonistic pursuit of my "fix". I have fasted for up to eleven days previously (one day for each of the Principles) and in publicly fasting (AKA hunger strike) I will be doing something that most people could never do and demonstrating that I am serious in my beliefs and intent. While I will certainly look to push the limits, I have no intention of doing myself long term harm, although this possibility can never be discounted.

We all need to decide for ourselves what matters most to us and what sacrifices we are prepared to make in pursuit of the goals that give our lives meaning. Rightly, or wrongly is my cause and this is a sacrifice that I am prepared to make.

I know that even saying this will sound preposterous to many, but this is my life and my reality.

[GregKasarik]

"The most frequently used Entheogen is cannabis and people need to be aware that its active compound, THC can be quite addictive, especially if used as an escape, rather than as an adjunct to spiritual growth."

I wouldnt use the A word, I would scrap the use of the word addiction in relation to cannabis throughout your website. I would say "may cause psychological dependence" & I think it's important to emphasise the difference between psychological dependence & physical dependence. I'm not aware of any hard evidence that clearly shows cannabis to cause physical dependence or addiction (in the strict sence of he word).

 

I was reluctant to use the word "addiction", if for no other reason than the fact that the word "addiction" is not used within the DSM-IV, which as you would know uses the word "dependence". The reason that I used it in this case is because I used the same term when discussing the fact that Transcendent Compounds are "non addictive" and I was trying to maintain the same terminology throughout.

Having seen the sentence by itself I think that you are right in thinking that I shouldn't say that it is "quite addictive". In doing so, it makes it sound like heroin, which given that it is arguably less addictive than caffeine is certainly not the case. Once again, thanks for your input. Looks like I have a quite a few changes to make! :-)

I have'nt spotted any other factual inaccuracies on your begginers tripping page.

 

Thank god!

I think it could'nt hurt to show a little of your reasoning, alot of people might just right off what you say but if you show (instead of expect people to look) there is scientific reasoning behind your thoughts it would make it that much harder to ignore.

 

This is sort of a "so much to do, so little time", kind of thing. I'm largely doing all of this by myself and am having difficulty covering all of the bases. I had thought to link through to wikepedia, as I don't have free access to the journal articles that I would need to cite as evidence of my claims regarding Transcendent Compounds and neither would most of the people who access the site.