Community of Infinite Colour

[whitewind]

And I'm going to come back to the table with Greg, he's worked hard at trying to explain himself, and it is the season for love and forgiveness, after all. Greg, I don't believe by any means you are deliberately doing something wrong. I think you genuinely believe that this is the right thing, But behold Christianity, Jesus was a Great Man, no denying that, and look what Christianity has wrought over the past two millenia. Good, and Bad. So many Laws and Rules, an utterly devastating Us and Them mentality, and an almost complete inability to question oneself. You may think psychedelics will fix all that, but your path is perilously similar to so many that have gone before, and your own inability to question thoroughly what you are doing makes me question that even more.

[Foo]

Hating on something for simply being a religion seems narrow-minded to me.

Also there are many theorys that sugest that Jesus was no great man.

[FancyPants]

Just out of curiosity, eatfoo, do you have any links on those theories?

Also, just to clarify for myself at least (and possibly true of some others?) I'm not questioning Greg's motives out of any kind of pre-supposition of religion. In this and other threads I've said I support peoples' freedom to choose their own religion; it being a tool like any other (much as I might disagree with a shittonne of certain religions' tenets or requirements). BUT... AGAIN for clarification, I just see the utmost importance of Greg's attitude being vital for what he's doing to be a thing of great responsibility.

To say we're just questioning him because we're anti-religion or something is very misleading, and untrue (for me at least definitely). Bretloth's opinion I imagine is somewhat different, but that's OK too, he should be allowed to voice his concerns to what Greg's doing, because he's come from a different perspective. Greg should be prepared for this and respond with understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of others' perspectives.

If Greg can't handle criticism now; what's he going to be like when addressing a group of people following his principles? Some people feel like they need direction; some choose organised religion, some may choose Greg's Principles. In any case people who need direction are going to follow... often blindly... what they're told. Maybe some might need to criticise a particular aspect of Greg's Principles; will he be willing to listen? Will he take criticism, either constructively or not? HOW will he take it? If he is questioned in a formal context, this could very well mean something very important (either way) to the entheogenic community; perhaps make or break. Imagine if Charles Manson hadn't had LSD attributed to the mind fuckery he imposed on his "family?" Might LSD have been allowed to continue being used in psychotherapeutic settings? Who knows? And I'm certainly NOT comparing Greg with that psychopath; I don't know him well enough at all. But I hope my rambling point is seen, however garbled it came out lol.

Edited December 30, 2011 by FancyPants

[Dolos]

Greg should be prepared for this and respond with understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of others' perspectives.

 

And should that only apply to Greg? Not trying to offside with anyone here but I don't think he was given a fair go from the very start..opinions and minds were already made up from the moment he posted...had it have been me I wonder could I have just turned the other cheek...so to speak...

And I also would be interested in some links on your theory on Jesus as well eatfoo.... hasn't the man been crucified enough

[FancyPants]

Well no, you're right, it should apply to all of us. You're also right that it would seem that he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt. But I maintain his position (as one whose ideals others might follow) requires responsibility.

[chilli]

Jesus was pretty awesome, if a little idealistic.. love everyone, fuck the PTB and all that.

He can't be blamed for what others put on his lips after he died.

If the dude that started this thread wants to start a religion, well he should expect opposition! Yeah I had my mind made up pretty quickly too, because there's a lot of fake egocentric posers around that want to take naive people for a ride.. props for being skeptical.

Also, it seems to me that if someone is going to start a religion they don't scour internet forums looking for followers and talking themselves up. If they are the real deal people will want to listen without having to be informed of the fact that they are a mystic by the aspiring guru themselves.

Of course, there are a lot of people who talk themselves up and scour the internet looking for followers, but like I said there are a lot of phoneys around.

[Dolos]

Also, it seems to me that if someone is going to start a religion they don't scour internet forums looking for followers and talking themselves up. If they are the real deal people will want to listen without having to be informed of the fact that they are a mystic by the aspiring guru themselves.

Of course, there are a lot of people who talk themselves up and scour the internet looking for followers, but like I said there are a lot of phoneys around.

 

What makes you think Jesus wouldn't have utilized the latest technology of the day? He did send his apostles out to talk up him and his beliefs. How much easier and effective would their jobs have been with the Internet? Jesus could have walked on water and the world could have watched on youtube... This is after all a forum dedicated to entheogens and use of entheogens is a big part of what Greg is on about. Seems only fitting that Greg would post here. You are right of course when you say there are a lot of phoneys around and there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism towards most of what you find on the Internet. I am pleased that I am alive in this age for without the Internet I may have missed the wonderful world of entheogens.

[Foo]

Just out of curiosity, eatfoo, do you have any links on those theories?

Also, just to clarify for myself at least (and possibly true of some others?) I'm not questioning Greg's motives out of any kind of pre-supposition of religion. In this and other threads I've said I support peoples' freedom to choose their own religion; it being a tool like any other (much as I might disagree with a shittonne of certain religions' tenets or requirements). BUT... AGAIN for clarification, I just see the utmost importance of Greg's attitude being vital for what he's doing to be a thing of great responsibility.

To say we're just questioning him because we're anti-religion or something is very misleading, and untrue (for me at least definitely). Bretloth's opinion I imagine is somewhat different, but that's OK too, he should be allowed to voice his concerns to what Greg's doing, because he's come from a different perspective. Greg should be prepared for this and respond with understanding, tolerance, and acceptance of others' perspectives.

If Greg can't handle criticism now; what's he going to be like when addressing a group of people following his principles? Some people feel like they need direction; some choose organised religion, some may choose Greg's Principles. In any case people who need direction are going to follow... often blindly... what they're told. Maybe some might need to criticise a particular aspect of Greg's Principles; will he be willing to listen? Will he take criticism, either constructively or not? HOW will he take it? If he is questioned in a formal context, this could very well mean something very important (either way) to the entheogenic community; perhaps make or break. Imagine if Charles Manson hadn't had LSD attributed to the mind fuckery he imposed on his "family?" Might LSD have been allowed to continue being used in psychotherapeutic settings? Who knows? And I'm certainly NOT comparing Greg with that psychopath; I don't know him well enough at all. But I hope my rambling point is seen, however garbled it came out lol.

 

sadly i do not. Was quite some time ago i read them.

But they made alot of sence.

my Fav is that jeasus was a crazy begger. If you take away the opinion of the writers, his story seems pretty comparable.

Also all the buhdist influence theories. One of wich is that Jeasus might just be the jewish re-telling of the buhda. It was food for thought at the time.

[chilli]

My point wasn't to do with the technology, more the talking themselves up part. Then again the Apostle Paul did quite a bit of that, but look what he started!

Nah, I just don't like the long-winded, self-justifying rants in response to other people's angry rants, maybe because it reminds me too much of myself.

I agree with an earlier post that said all the OP's talk seems focused around justifying himself to others and promoting his ideas in which his ego seems heavily invested.

And yeah, I think getting angry at religious people is warranted a lot of the time. Even if they don't commit crimes like the more extreme cults, in my experience even relatively benign religious groups can cause a great deal of emotional and psychological trauma to people, and it is a very unrecognized and insidious kind of abuse.

What makes you think Jesus wouldn't have utilized the latest technology of the day? He did send his apostles out to talk up him and his beliefs. How much easier and effective would their jobs have been with the Internet? Jesus could have walked on water and the world could have watched on youtube... This is after all a forum dedicated to entheogens and use of entheogens is a big part of what Greg is on about. Seems only fitting that Greg would post here. You are right of course when you say there are a lot of phoneys around and there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism towards most of what you find on the Internet. I am pleased that I am alive in this age for without the Internet I may have missed the wonderful world of entheogens.

 

[7baz]

ok time for me to pitch in.....

greg......

you are going to have to accept the fact.. there is nothing you or i can do to change the world we are in.

we already know what's wrong with the world.

we already understand the corrupt lies , all the disinformation , most importantly we already understand why and how.. the false ego.

we already know the political system has to collapse , the monetary system etc etc.

we already know and understand the term of "drug" and how it can help us , heal us , give us insights into what life really is , and give us a better understanding of ancient civilisations.

the only thing that's going to change this world in which you and i and everyone else reading this thread has no control over is a MASS CHANGE IN HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.

this cannot be done by a religion , cult , leader , spiritual concept and so on.

no matter how many drugs we take , we share , we find , we explore.. it will not change the world we live in now..

but yes we can all agree it will certainly steer us into the right direction.

and it cannot happen overnight , in a year , heck even a decade.

it is the effect of modernisation and the events that unfold in our world , wars , revolutions , teaching people what's right and wrong and why.

there is really nothing we can do to change it , let nature take its course.

in due time as more people wake up and see how we have all been lied to , manipulated and the whole damn world is being misled by a greedy few... we will know when that day comes and we will see big changes in our world.

civilisations rise and fall and has done so since the beginning of our time.

i have spent the last ten years of my life understanding this damn world we live in and how it came about and why we are the way we are.

i have seen zietgiest , kymatica and literally hundreds of docos. ( we use this docos to make our own conclusions and not fully rely on such materials. )

while i admire your knowledge and in fact i admire many people on this forum , many intelligent beautiful people here.

i have learnt the hard way it is pointless in trying to do anything dramatic.. ok i acquired all this wonderful knowledge.. fuck me now what ?

i tell you now what... all there is for me to do is go on living , enjoying life , making new friends , trying new things , exploring my mind in new ways.

all that knowledge is almost fucking pointless , yes sure i can make the cops jobs a lil harder , i can exercise my rights , i can chose what to believe in and not to believe in.

but all for what ??? so i can sleep better at night and breath a lil better ?. im going to die one day you know ? and rest assured im not taking nothing with me or all this knowledge.

we are all going to die and no one knows what happens after we die , when it comes to the grand scheme of things we dont know shit about science , the universe , shit we still dont even fully understand the human brain let alone the soul.

what you are trying to achieve here greg is the very thing we are all trying to escape from.

we dont want new religions and cults and theories and concepts and ideas and facts we already know.

dont do it !!!!!!

the divine to me is , live , enjoy life ,meet may people along the way , explore as much as possible until the day you die and be ready for the next mysterious journey of the unknown.

what i am trying to say is...

stop worrying about everyone else.

put down your robe , have a beer , smell the roses and live it up.

there is nothing you can do to change human consciousness on a collective level.

each and everyone of us are capable of logical and critical thinking and we will know when the time arrives.

let each of us be the fate of our destiny.

peace.

Edited January 3, 2012 by 7baz

[FancyPants]

^^^ I disagree

I have (just) enough faith in humanity that we'll come around for that massive shift in consciousness; but I don't think that's going to happen on a grandscale level unless a (or many) special person inspire this change in others. But again, such people must be extremely pure with extremely pure motives (and able to handle the intense responsibility) to make this shift RIGHT. Any advance of such without a pure and solid foundation, is only going to crumble and destroy the remaining hope we have left.

[Psylo]

there is nothing you can do to change human consciousness on a collective level.

 

Do you mean that Greg specifically can't, or that the change itsef is improbable ? If the latter, then I would disagree... human conciousness is being mass manipulated each day with shallow & meaningless media, consumerism & entertainment, and nobody (generally speaking) is giving a damn about being sucked into the vortex of stupidity. You will start to see statistics in 10 years that lean heavily towards a society of barely literate, socially weak mental invalids that couldn't thnk for themselves, and reied heavily on Twitter & facebook for stimulation.

At least Greg's proposal is about self-exploration, something mostly lacking in people <40 y/o (again, generally speaking). Take away the comparative angle of CIC being faith-based, and its a pretty solid grounding for our future. Its a shame that no one's around to practice it en masse.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Psylo Dread

[chnt]

ok time for me to pitch in.....

greg......

you are going to have to accept the fact.. there is nothing you or i can do to change the world we are in.

we already know what's wrong with the world.

we already understand the corrupt lies , all the disinformation , most importantly we already understand why and how.. the false ego.

we already know the political system has to collapse , the monetary system etc etc.

we already know and understand the term of "drug" and how it can help us , heal us , give us insights into what life really is , and give us a better understanding of ancient civilisations.

the only thing that's going to change this world in which you and i and everyone else reading this thread has no control over is a MASS CHANGE IN HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.

this cannot be done by a religion , cult , leader , spiritual concept and so on.

no matter how many drugs we take , we share , we find , we explore.. it will not change the world we live in now..

but yes we can all agree it will certainly steer us into the right direction.

and it cannot happen overnight , in a year , heck even a decade.

it is the effect of modernisation and the events that unfold in our world , wars , revolutions , teaching people what's right and wrong and why.

there is really nothing we can do to change it , let nature take its course.

in due time as more people wake up and see how we have all been lied to , manipulated and the whole damn world is being misled by a greedy few... we will know when that day comes and we will see big changes in our world.

civilisations rise and fall and has done so since the beginning of our time.

i have spent the last ten years of my life understanding this damn world we live in and how it came about and why we are the way we are.

i have seen zietgiest , kymatica and literally hundreds of docos. ( we use this docos to make our own conclusions and not fully rely on such materials. )

while i admire your knowledge and in fact i admire many people on this forum , many intelligent beautiful people here.

i have learnt the hard way it is pointless in trying to do anything dramatic.. ok i acquired all this wonderful knowledge.. fuck me now what ?

i tell you now what... all there is for me to do is go on living , enjoying life , making new friends , trying new things , exploring my mind in new ways.

all that knowledge is almost fucking pointless , yes sure i can make the cops jobs a lil harder , i can exercise my rights , i can chose what to believe in and not to believe in.

but all for what ??? so i can sleep better at night and breath a lil better ?. im going to die one day you know ? and rest assured im not taking nothing with me or all this knowledge.

we are all going to die and no one knows what happens after we die , when it comes to the grand scheme of things we dont know shit about science , the universe , shit we still dont even fully understand the human brain let alone the soul.

what you are trying to achieve here greg is the very thing we are all trying to escape from.

we dont want new religions and cults and theories and concepts and ideas and facts we already know.

dont do it !!!!!!

the divine to me is , live , enjoy life ,meet may people along the way , explore as much as possible until the day you die and be ready for the next mysterious journey of the unknown.

what i am trying to say is...

stop worrying about everyone else.

put down your robe , have a beer , smell the roses and live it up.

there is nothing you can do to change human consciousness on a collective level.

each and everyone of us are capable of logical and critical thinking and we will know when the time arrives.

let each of us be the fate of our destiny.

peace.

 

it seems as though some people are missing the point of this and/or reading too much into certain aspects.

this is a fight against oppression, a fight for more freedom, this is not about starting a new religion/cult.

stop reading too much into the cult aspect, think about the actual goal, which is freedom to use entheogens without the risk of persecution, that is it, that is all it is, the cult is just a catalyst for this change to occur, it is just a medium in which people can freely use entheogens without persecution, do i need to say it again? that is all it is, nothing more, there is no worshipping, especially in groups, there is no mass, there are no rules, there is nothing, just a medium.

while i agree that generally, none of us can really change anything, that is no reason to give up and not try, it's no reason to be happy with the state of the world, it's definitely no reason that, should we choose to use entheogens or any other "drugs" for that matter, that we have to do so content with the risk of legal and social persecution.

"stop worrying about everyone else.

put down your robe , have a beer , smell the roses and live it up."

that is complete bullshit, how can you seriously say that to another person? if you want to deny all the oppression, injustice, war, famine, etc etc etc, then that is your prerogative, but it's extremely naive and inconsiderate to think that others should deny it too, and to top it off, you say have a beer, a fucking beer, alcohol, the saviour of the fucking world, if only everyone had a beer, or 10, surely the world would be a far far greater place. surely mental illness would disappear, and there would be no aggressive behaviour, and everyone in the world would interlock arms and sing this:

"each and everyone of us are capable of logical and critical thinking and we will know when the time arrives."

yeah ok.

notes: deny in this context is not the same as in the context of a holocaust denier, but rather, like ignoring your house is on fire while you're sitting outside on a deck chair, sipping your beer...

[7baz]

"each and everyone of us are capable of logical and critical thinking and we will know when the time arrives."

yeah ok.

notes: deny in this context is not the same as in the context of a holocaust denier, but rather, like ignoring your house is on fire while you're sitting outside on a deck chair, sipping your beer...

 

there is a fine line of difference between a human being who enjoys one beer drinking it for the taste and being responsible and knowing what he or she is consuming.... then idiots who go out to get drunk drinking as many beers as possible.

this isnt about the beer or what i drink.

yeah i know.. beer , poison for the mind.. and you think the water you drink is any healthier or the foods you consume from your local coles and safeway is any better ? all GM crap thats tasteless sitting in storage for 2 months almost about to go off.

how can you say im denying anything ?

greg knows whats going on , i know whats going on , you know whats going on.... there is nothing here to suggest , imply or come to any conclusion im denying anything.

i hate the laws , i hate how society is , i hate the fact we have so many sheep and people asleep , i hate the fact so many people are blinded by the false ego.

i hate the fact we have these ridicullus set of laws in our existence that shouldnt have ever happened.

there is nothing in existence saying we must have a constitution.

no one owns any land , nor anyone has any right to sell anything from earth , we dont own it , no one does.

it was created to be shared equally.

all we can do is tell our families , tell our friends , tell those whom we know.. thats the right way to go about it.

not some bullshit lets do it my way theories because i know its the right way and everyone else is wrong.

we should never ever lead people into blind submission of authority by suggesting ones own principles that has no right or wrong.

in other words , we cant argue greg is right , nor can we argue he is wrong.

its what the fuck we are all trying to escape from and have been trying to escape from since the beginning of our time.

[chnt]

once again you've missed the point.

i cant be fucked writing an essay in response to this, maybe later

[chnt]

"all we can do is tell our families , tell our friends , tell those whom we know.. thats the right way to go about it."

so your way is the right way, but...

"not some bullshit lets do it my way theories because i know its the right way and everyone else is wrong."

i see.

[Dolos]

it seems as though some people are missing the point of this and/or reading too much into certain aspects.

this is a fight against oppression, a fight for more freedom, this is not about starting a new religion/cult.

stop reading too much into the cult aspect, think about the actual goal, which is freedom to use entheogens without the risk of persecution, that is it, that is all it is, the cult is just a catalyst for this change to occur, it is just a medium in which people can freely use entheogens without persecution, do i need to say it again? that is all it is, nothing more, there is no worshipping, especially in groups, there is no mass, there are no rules, there is nothing, just a medium.

while i agree that generally, none of us can really change anything, that is no reason to give up and not try, it's no reason to be happy with the state of the world, it's definitely no reason that, should we choose to use entheogens or any other "drugs" for that matter, that we have to do so content with the risk of legal and social persecution.

"stop worrying about everyone else.

put down your robe , have a beer , smell the roses and live it up."

that is complete bullshit, how can you seriously say that to another person? if you want to deny all the oppression, injustice, war, famine, etc etc etc, then that is your prerogative, but it's extremely naive and inconsiderate to think that others should deny it too, and to top it off, you say have a beer, a fucking beer, alcohol, the saviour of the fucking world, if only everyone had a beer, or 10, surely the world would be a far far greater place. surely mental illness would disappear, and there would be no aggressive behaviour, and everyone in the world would interlock arms and sing this:

"each and everyone of us are capable of logical and critical thinking and we will know when the time arrives."

yeah ok.

notes: deny in this context is not the same as in the context of a holocaust denier, but rather, like ignoring your house is on fire while you're sitting outside on a deck chair, sipping your beer...

 

Well said chnt...well said...we need a round of applause emoticon...but I'll give you one of these instead couldn't have said it any better.....

[GregKasarik]

What do you consider a "fool"? And why are their opinions invalid on an open forum?

I consider the wilful ignorance demonstrated by their use of the word "cult" to be foolish, along with their irrational focus on it. Like many words in English, it has more than one meaning. Indeed, so stark is the difference between these two meanings that Wikipedia has entries for each:

Cult (Modern sociological usage): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

Cult (Religious Practice): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_(religious_practice)

Conflating the distinct meanings of the word cult is akin to me arguing that my workplace is infested by rodents, because each desk has a mouse on it and everyone knows that mice are rodents.

Any argument that relies on this kind of technique is at best foolish and worst deliberately dishonest.

Why do you consider the questioning of (A/)God to be appropriate, yet the questioning of your character, not?

I'm not attacking you; I'm merely trying to take in what you're putting out there (because as you say, we don't know you in person so we're only going off what you give us) and decide for myself where you're coming from, and what the possible repercussions might be. What's so "annoying" and wrong about wanting to see all parts of the person whose ideals one is supposed to follow? Why don't you admit that such a role is deservedly open to criticism?

I have no problem with people questioning my character. Indeed, I encourage and expect it. The simple expedient of Googling my name comes up with a couple of hundred hits, which include responses to newspaper articles, discussions on other forums, replies on Yahoo Answers and of course, my own website. I have been active on the Internet for nearly two decades and some of the entries (such as this: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~blackrat/) date from the mid nineties.

Given this wealth of information, I would also suggest that anyone doing who wishes to question my character has ample information to do so and should bring more to the table than unfounded assertions, that amount to little more than slander and prejudice. If my character is as dubious as these people have asserted, it shouldn't be too hard for them to come up with numerous concrete examples to back up the claims.

The internet has a long memory (something which some people here would probably be advised to remember) and if anyone believes that anything that I have ever said is indicative of the sorts of character flaws of which I have been accused, then I encourage them to post them here for all to see.

I mean can't you see and understand the general mistrust from thousands of years of horror borne from religious bastardry? Which is precisely why I said earlier that even if YOU YOURSELF remain free from egotistical power issues, won't ever mean that your words aren't possibly going to be bastardised also. That's a huuuuuge responsibility!

Yes it is a huge responsibility. But beyond the simple expedient of laying a foundation that is true to my hopes and aspirations and the better parts of my nature there is little that I can do to prevent my message being used as a vehicle of evil. To be honest, it is almost certain that someone, somewhere, will pervert my views and cause considerable harm to others. I cannot control the actions of others: These people will act badly irrespective of whether or not I say my piece but if people and culture recognised that "The Truth is not out there" they are less likely to fall prey to the evils of certitude and intolerance that poison the world.

I'm also sick and tired of the persecution that we all suffer in pursuit of meaning, purpose and wisdom. I'm done with hiding. I'm done with pretending to be someone I am not. I intend to ensure that the lofty ideals of religious freedom spouted so freely by politicians are the benchmark by which their policy is set.

FWIW, my remark about "role playing" was more an amusing observation than accusation. Like I said, my mind's not made up yet.

 

I know. It was particularly funny in light of my personal belief that there is a high probability that we are living in a Matrix-like environment of one sort, or another.

[Seldom]

tell us your secrets morpheus ^

[GregKasarik]

You realise, Mutant, that Greg is saying there must be NO GENUINE/TRUE/INEFFABLE deity? Why are machine elves from D all part of Terrence McKenna's spread psychedelic entheogenic experience, but whatever genuine deities YOU hallucinate are true?

The very nature of his principles is divisive; some are going to believe that an encounter (however it came about via drugs, starvation, meditation, piety etc) with a deific being is REAL; while some are just going to shrug off the experience as false.

Where is the individual human perception in all this? If, Greg, you can't even take that into account with criticism, how can you reasonably expect to take your Word out there in order to better help people when you're not even listening to other people's perceptions in the first place?

 

If I've understood you correctly, I'd say that "other people's perceptions" are something that I do discuss in considerable detail.

As a mystic, I view subjective experience of the Divine as essential for understanding the Divine and talk about it here: http://www.infinitecolour.org/index.php/rational-belief-in-god/62-belief-in-god-why-dawkins-is-wrong. I also address the issue of personal perception and experience when I discuss the importance of Transcendent Compounds to Community of Infinite Colour: http://www.infinitecolour.org/index.php/transcendent-compounds/58-transcendent-compounds-and-community-of-infinite-colour

You are correct in identifying the tension between subjective experience and the logic entailed by the Divine Principle. On one hand we have the personal experience of the Infinite found within the Transcendent experience, while on the other we have the inescapable conclusions of impersonal reason.

That some people, such as I, interpret our experiences as an indication of an underlying Divine reality, while others do not is to be expected and celebrated. It is a reflection of who we are and of our different journeys. The Psychological Principle (http://www.infinitecolour.org/index.php/the-principles/54-the-psychological-principle) states, "Your "reality" is TRUTH", by which I mean that there is no avoiding the perception that what you believe about the world has a particular truth value and that this perception will override the beliefs of others.

In linking the Divine and Psychological Principles, you can recognise that your "TRUTH" is simply a belief and that it is irrational for you to hold that your beliefs are a necessary reflection of any underlying reality. This creates a contradiction, but no more so than many other beliefs. For example, I can believe that Julia Gillard is the best person to lead the Labor Party right now, while recognising that it isn't necessarily so.

Religious beliefs have a peculiar psychological stickiness to them and are highly resistant to change, especially as a person gets older. Even though the Divine Principle is a logical truth, the Psychological Principle teaches us that it would be foolish to expect people to simply abandon their old ways of thinking and to discard their conceptualisations of an absolute monotheistic, omniscient, deity. Our beliefs regarding the Divine are not particularly logical and there are any one of a number of defences by which one can hold onto an illogical belief. One of the more common of these is to assert that God is not bound by "human logic", but this is simply begging the question (i.e. asserting your conclusion as one of your initial premises). It also absurdly implies that the less sense something makes, the greater its truth value.

When I started down this path, I had hoped to find some as yet undiscovered proof of the existence of such a being and never in my wildest imaginings contemplated doing exactly the opposite. In reaching where I am today, I know how difficult it is to shed a lifetime's worth of indoctrination and assumption.

As I say: "Ultimately it is up to each of us to make sense of the world and we can only do so by listening to our hearts, imposing reason on our thoughts and engaging with the experience of the spiritual journey." The Principles endeavour to provide a framework within which this can be done.

[GregKasarik]

Out of curiosity, do you consider me as one of those fools? Who else of us here would you consider to be fools?

 

No. I certainly don't consider you as one of those fools. I do think that you've misdiagnosed what has happened on this thread, but you seem to be coming from a position of openness and concern, rather than a simple blanket condemnation and intolerance.

In hindsight, I would probably say "foolish", rather than fool, as I am open to the possibility that those who continued to post the sorts of comments that I quoted previously are otherwise quite sensible and simply got a bit carried away in the moment.

Disagreeing with me doesn't make you a fool, any more than agreeing with me makes you smart. Group think is just as bad as knee jerk condemnation.

[GregKasarik]

I think that Greg getting attacked in this thread is to a large extent his own fault. This is due to him failling to clearly communicate his intentions while getting drawn into one debate after another. Its really funny and sad at the same time.

What I see on the site are some philosopical musings of one person. It hasn't been indicated that these are central tenents of a religion so I just take them to be some philosopical musings. Personally they are not to my philosopical and literary taste but hell they are only one persons musings why take them so seriously.

After all philosophy itself can be a long drawn out discusion with many points of disagreement. I must admit though that Greg himself appears at times to take these philosopical musings and principles over-seriously thereby contributing to accusations of egocentricity and cult leadership.

Persons who wish to use componds within religious/spiritual contexts should be allowed to do so under the human right of religious freedom. Getting this past the government is frequently a difficult task as can be seen in the history of the Brasilian government with Santo Daime. One of the fears that authority contends with is the fear of open slather irresponcible drug-taking when deciding issues in this area..

 

In many ways I agree with your assessment. As you have recognised, the Principles are "philosophical musings", rather than a coherent theology. Indeed their existence obviates the need for such. If I had come here and presented these as simple philosophical musings and pointed out how they are just as applicable to atheists as theists, I doubt that I would have run into the sorts of hostility that I have encountered. Maybe I'll try that next time I live through this life and see how it turns out.

For me, the Principles are inextricably tied into my practice as a mystic and have arisen within the context of that journey, so it is natural for me to present them and to discuss them as a religious, or spiritual philosophy. While I could downplay, or ignore this aspect, I know that doing so would inhibit my ability to express myself fully and communicate effectively.

Even if I had come here and posited these within a secular paradigm, it wouldn't change the fact that I honestly believe that something like the Principles are needed if we are to ever escape the evils of certitude that shackle humanity to killing each other over dogmatic assertions that lie beyond anyone's capacity to delve.

Irrespective of how I framed my musings, there would be some who felt that I took them "over-seriously", which is fair enough. But I think people take sport, iPhones, celebrities, fashion, getting laid and reality TV way too seriously. Personally, I would rather devote myself to a vision for a better world, rather than just a better haircut.

[GregKasarik]

In that each individual is approaching and perceiving deific truths in his own formula, his own way. In the end, the person should be seeking not the most "genuine" form/approach to god, but the form/approach that suits him and his needs best. How can it be more individual than that?

This is a fair summation of my philosophy.

from what I understand greg is psychedelic and theologic activist, and I see the attacks quite unfound

 

Again true.

And thank you for expressing that insight.

[GregKasarik]

I didn't bother downloading this, largely because I think it's bullshit. I was brought up in religion, and I have no instinct for faith whatsoever. I think it's intellectual laziness coupled with fear. Overcome your fear and use your ability to reason, and any leanings towards religion don't just fade away, they actually become rather repulsive.

 

I disagree with this assessment. Not only are these views completely unsupported by any kind of research, but it also puts you in the untenable position of claiming that some of the worlds greatest minds have been incapable of reason.

I don't fault you for expressing these opinions, as they have become depressingly common currency amongst atheists the world over. They are routinely trotted out by atheists and demonstrate and appalling lack of understanding of the spiritual journey and a disappointing lack of empathy towards the other. They make as much sense as when theists claim that atheists "hate god", or "want to live in sin", are "selfish" or "have no morals" and arise out of a similar desire to engage in stereotypical denunciation of one's opponents, rather than intelligently engaging with their stated positions and reasons for behaving as they do.

I would suggest that religious belief is a complex psychological phenomena that cannot be simple irrational response to a fear of death. From my own perspective, I have never been particularly afraid of death and as a philosophical Rationalist, I challenge anyone to seriously claim that I am unable to use my "ability to reason".

 

I would go one step further and say that reason is an essential component of informed theistic belief. One of the Principles is called "The Paradox of Disbelief". It asserts that "

Belief without disbelief is merely uninformed superstition." This is one that I haven't gotten around to writing about, but its basic premise is that unless one is conversant with the reasons why a person should not believe something, then any proclaimed belief is merely uninformed opinion. Despite their many flaws (most obviously the fact that their attacks are only really effective against fundamentalist monotheisms), I actively encourage people to read Dawkins, Hitchens and writers, who are critical of theism. In doing, so they can understand the reasons why they should reconsider their belief. If after taking the time to understand the arguments in those books, they are still of the mind to believe in a Divine reality, then they can consider themselves to do so from an informed, rather than superstitious, perspective.

 

 

 

Similarly, I would encourage you to engage with the reasons why people might hold to theistic beliefs. I have an entire section that discusses "Rational Belief in God". In particular, I have my own theory of belief, which I discuss here: http://www.kasarik.com/The-Ways-of-Belief.php.

 

 

[GregKasarik]

And I'm going to come back to the table with Greg, he's worked hard at trying to explain himself, and it is the season for love and forgiveness, after all. Greg, I don't believe by any means you are deliberately doing something wrong. I think you genuinely believe that this is the right thing, But behold Christianity, Jesus was a Great Man, no denying that, and look what Christianity has wrought over the past two millenia. Good, and Bad. So many Laws and Rules, an utterly devastating Us and Them mentality, and an almost complete inability to question oneself. You may think psychedelics will fix all that, but your path is perilously similar to so many that have gone before, and your own inability to question thoroughly what you are doing makes me question that even more.

 

I am not convinced that Jesus was a "Great Man". I think that any honest appraisal of Christian History would have to award that accolade to St Paul, who was the one who seems to have formulated the basis of what we now regard as Christian theology and who gave it life outside of the Jewish sphere. If one reads the Gospels, one can easily discern the reason for the very real criticisms of Christianity. Despite his generous side and genuine goodwill towards the downtrodden, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, with a bad temper. He believed that the world was about to end within the lifetimes of those he was addressing (Matt 16: 28) and that anyone who didn't follow him would be cast into a fiery hell for eternity. (Matt 10:14-15). With people's eternal souls at stake, much Christian history has involved "destroying the village in order to save it".

I'd suggest that while Jesus and I are both mystics, we are about as dissimilar as two dissimilar things in a pod. If my ideas became as entrenched as those of Jesus, it is a certainty that someone would fuck it up for everyone at some point and do something horrendous in my name. But I'm not going to stop proclaiming my message of rationality, tolerance and empathy for others, simply because someone, somewhere and sometime is bound to twist my words into poison.

 

"

 

The Psychological Principle teaches us that not all people who embark on this journey will adopt the viewpoints entailed by The Principles. For some, the truth that other people will believe things that make sense to them will be lost along the way, as people fall victim to their own egos, fears and prejudices. Many will become caught up in the power and reality of their experiences and their certitude and own sense of Righteous Purpose will ensure that they forget that no glimpse of the Infinite can ever be the Infinite. Many will seek to impose their spiritual “truth” on others, thereby promoting intolerance and adding to the misery of the world."

 

http://www.infinitecolour.org/index.php/transcendent-compounds/58-transcendent-compounds-and-community-of-infinite-colour

In any case, blaming Jesus as personally responsible for all of the evil committed in his name is pointless. Each of us bears full responsibility for our actions and among other things, there is no evidence that he was an anti-Semite.

I don't believe that psychedelics will "fix" anything, or claimed any such thing. What I have asserted and continue to do so is that that Transcendent Compounds are a valid part of spiritual and religious practice and that they are an important, but no compulsory aspect of religious practice for those who identify with Community of Infinite Colour (see the above link). There are no easy fixes, but that doesn't mean that each of us shouldn't take personal responsibility for making sure the world is a better place.

What I object to in this commentary is that you make assertions without providing any examples to back them up. You gratuitously assert that I lack the "ability to question thoroughly what doing", but give no clue as to why you believe this is so. What have I said that has given you this opinion and why? It is just as annoying and pointless as when you claimed in an earlier post that you "would like to discuss the principles", despite having made absolutely no attempt to do so.

I am sure that you are wanting to engage with me on good faith, but without concrete examples to illustrate your position, I am at a loss to understand why you would believe such a thing and unable to even begin to respond adequately.