Jump to content
The Corroboree
GregKasarik

Transcendent Compounds - Hunger Strike for Religious and Spiritual Freedom - 2012

Recommended Posts

word ^ i love to trip but spare me the religiosity/spirituality/frothy emotional appeals ..

What say you Greg to people like myself who take these same psychedelics more in the spirit of Hunter S. than Ram Dass? what makes you think aligning your cause with these worn out ideas will be a boon and not a burden?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the equivalent of an Aboriginal person painting themselves white to buy alcohol in regions where they are prohibited from obtaining it. I think most people who are proud of, and comfortable with, who they are, would find doing such a thing distasteful at the very least.

or taking holy communion just to drink wine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you not been following the discussion?

 

I'm not 'projecting' anything you lunatic!

 

can't you see the condescension in your remarks chilli..?

& it seems once again you "assume" to know Gregs beliefs, because of some words he has uttered or wrote...you assumed I was a religious person not long back.

Work out the workings of your own mind, before you "assume" to know the workings of others.

Love to you, my poor confused brother...condescension is a rude trait, as my last statement shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be like allowing Muslims the freedom to choose not to drink alcohol, yet banning indigenous people from drinking it when they want to.

Oh..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chilli's remarks don't seem condescending to me. He could perhaps tone it down a little in the interest of avoiding this turning into a shitfight, but I think his remarks are born out of frustration. We are in a thread about "Religious and Spiritual Freedom", and chnt claims that Chilli is projecting because he interprets this thread as being about "religious and spiritual freedom". For me, that is a total facepalm moment, and while Chilli could have perhaps phrased his post in a more civil manner, I think his reaction was totally warranted.

If anyone is being condescending in this thread, it is Greg. He has resorted to what almost amounts to name calling to shut anyone down who disagrees with him, rather than clarifying his position or offering evidence or analogies that could possibly convince people that he is on the right track.

Everyone else has managed to have a discussion. And while some us are having strong disagreements, and there are positions that people have that I do not even slightly understand, we are still managing to explain what our positions are and perhaps some of us can find some common ground.

it seems once again you "assume" to know Gregs beliefs, because of some words he has uttered or wrote

If Greg's position is being misrepresented by some of us, then he is free to set us straight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Chilli said, criticism is actually a good thing. The reason I questioned Greg's ability to deal with people who disagree with him is because he's chosen to enter a venture that is inherently political. Working out who 'started it' or saying that we should all read between the lines better is irrelevant here. Greg needs to learn some diplomacy skills if he wants to have any success in this whatsoever. 90%+ of the people Greg encounters will think that he is crazy for what he is trying to do, and if he simply tells them that if they're not going to support him they should just go away, he's going to lose a lot of potential support. Just the fact that I was replying to this thread should have given him a clue that perhaps I was interested in what he is doing, and this would have been a good opportunity to present his case. He hasn't made any attempt to explain why his proposition does not discriminate against me as an atheist. Instead, he simply labelled me as being anti-religion, described my position as being "ideological purity" and my criticisms as being my "culture wars". I never brought up religion, he did. And he has not made any attempt to address my criticism that religion should be irrelevant in the discussion of allowing people to use these chemicals.

He has jumped head first into the political arena, and if this is the best he can do when he is confronted with criticisms, then he is doomed to fail.

 

I would have to agree with you Ballzac. By making a public spectacle like this and daring to represent the psychedelic community, Greg you need to be more open to other peoples opinions on the matter, especially those coming from intelligent and articulate members of this forum who probably have thought about this issue just as much as yourself. I personally see psychedelics as a spiritual gateway, but Ballzac's atheist perspective is not so uncommon amongst this community, and should thus be considered also.

At the same time I don't think a little bit of encouragement would go astray. It must be quite challenging when you put your physical well being on the line for a cause, only for the people you thought you were trying to represent shout you down. Heart and love seem to be at the center of the psychedelic mandala, so it would be nice if more of that was shown concerning this issue of a fellow member who is fighting a decent struggle for legalisation.

So then what approach should be taken for legalisation of psychedelics that respects both the spiritual/religious and secular elements of our community? Perhaps to look upon the psychedelic plants as an item of food or medicine? This then invokes the relevant governing administrations that limit and restrict what can be considered food or medicine, but could be workable. I think a fact that this forum for example particularly highlights that is in our favour, is that many of these compounds are derived from plants. By showing the wider community that these beautiful plants can bring much joy to people even without ingesting them is a positive step. So in this respect the approach of someone such as Torsten in the struggle for legalisation is to be applauded, and to a lesser extent all of us who grow these plants, take photos and engage in discussion.

For those people that do see these compounds in a secular light, how do you interpret the shamanic tradition? This seems to me to be our best argument, that they have played a central role in most cultures of the world for thousands of years. I interpret the shamanic tradition as spiritual, but perhaps it could also be interpreted as medicinal, in that healing is its central purpose. The acknowledgement of cannabis's potential for medicinal use and the recent JHU psilocybin trials for cancer suffers are perhaps steps towards legalisation via this medical-centered interpretation.

But ultimately it seems the shamanic tradition is both spiritual and medicinal, the two are not mutually exclusive. So maybe we just need to be more tolerant of others opinions? Back to square one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't you see the condescension in your remarks chilli..?

& it seems once again you "assume" to know Gregs beliefs, because of some words he has uttered or wrote...you assumed I was a religious person not long back.

Work out the workings of your own mind, before you "assume" to know the workings of others.

Love to you, my poor confused brother...condescension is a rude trait, as my last statement shows.

 

I'm not assuming anything, as you say yourself I am simply responding to what Greg has written. Greg has stated his beliefs and plans very clearly both here and on his website, so I don't need to assume anything about his beliefs as he has made them systematically clear. If he thinks I have made any wrong assumptions, why not leave that for him to say instead of jumping in with your own assumptions based on nothing anyone has said, but simply your own prejudice.

Sometimes it's hard not to come across as condescending to people who don't get it. I am sick of tone trolls who like to take offense and make a big fuss about the way something is phrased while ignoring or distorting the actual content and intent of the author. I am sick of people demonizing anyone who criticizes or says something 'negative' what is this turning into some fucking feel-good New Age commune?

I have actually been toning down what I feel like saying when I get comments like I did from chnt, and my 'lunatic' remark was meant lightheartedly. It pales in comparison to the number of times chnt has called me things like a stupid ignorant cunt, the way he constantly takes a condescending attitude towards me and feels the need like you to 'teach me' something and has made many erroneous assumptions and accusations. You don't see me crying about it and chnt can speak for himself so so just poke your nose out of it why don't you?

If I was to use my powers of 'lunacy' and attempt to 'read between the lines' I might think you were just trolling me in different threads because I didn't engage with the religious debate you seemed to want elsewhere. But that would be an assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the same time I don't think a little bit of encouragement would go astray. It must be quite challenging when you put your physical well being on the line for a cause, only for the people you thought you were trying to represent shout you down. Heart and love seem to be at the center of the psychedelic mandala, so it would be nice if more of that was shown concerning this issue of a fellow member who is fighting a decent struggle for legalisation.

 

I am encouraging Greg, but I don't think he stands up for the atheistic part of the community; while his fight might necessarily be fought, both legally and morally in his mind, according to his belief system, he shows little interest in the plight of those who don't understand the religious side of things. He's not bringing us into his cause; and we don't benefit from it. Instead he attacks us for not supporting him whole-heartedly, despite us having some serious reservations which he doesn't even acknowledge.

It's sad, I think there is a great deal of potential here, but we need to act and behave as a community (Greg included) and that may mean compromise from both sides.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know! Let's all take sides! :) (Joking—about how good guy vs bad guy, black and white thinking is what lies at the root of all these dramas people feed off)

Seriously though, is anyone else reminded of the Karpman Drama Triangle?

VRP-triangle.gif

Edited by chilli
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg is obviously on his own journey though he believes that the endpoint of that journey will benefit the Australian entheogenic (god within) community. The debate should not be about about changing his journey to suit everyone's ideals as this is impossible to achieve and only serves to distract Greg's real journey. The debate should be about whether we as a group wish to support a brother on his journey to achieve what he believes is his right and pave the way for legitimacy of the entheogenic community. Personally I side with the self exploration side of this community. This is also the reason why I don't wish Greg to alter his journey to suit mine.

Safe journey brother and stay well.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then what approach should be taken for legalisation of psychedelics that respects both the spiritual/religious and secular elements of our community?

 

I think talking medicinally is a much better approach than using religion. It still unfairly restricts the use of the plants, but it does so by giving all people some rights, rather than some people all rights. I think this is a much fairer approach. However, for this to apply to drugs other than cannabis, the medical efficacy would have to be demonstrated.

I think the simplest thing each of us can do is being 'out' about our hobbies. The people who support prohibitive drug laws are all around us. The majority of exposure these people have to drug us is what they see in the media, and it gives them a very slanted view of what using drugs is all about, and what sort of people are interested in using them. The overwhelming majority of all drug users are otherwise law-abiding citizens, and constructive members of society. Most people I have met who are interested in what Greg calls "transcendent compounds" are very good people, very intelligent, and usually very interesting people to talk to. Making people aware of your hobbies where possible can, I think, make some way into changing the public perception of drug use. This can also be as simple as things like adding your favourite plants/chemicals to your 'likes' on facebook, lol.

Maybe there is some action that could be taken similar to what Greg is doing but in a secular (which means independent of religion, and not without religion) way. However, I find it unlikely that either will have a huge amount of impact, and I suspect Greg's approach will have more chance of success than a secular approach.

For those people that do see these compounds in a secular light, how do you interpret the shamanic tradition?

 

I don't really know enough about shamanism to give an informed opinion, but I see it as being a paradigm within which certain things are explained. The spirit world is a model that describes what can be seen by humans under some circumstances, and this model is used to propose methods of solving problems, such as illness. It isn't a question of what is real, but instead what is the most useful model for helping solve these problems. One difficulty in working this out is that there isn't a huge amount of research into shamanic methods, including the use of psychoactive plants, and their efficacy. But I find it highly unlikely that shamanic approaches to medicine would be anywhere near as effective as western medicine when it comes to things like cancer, heart-attacks, stroke, etc. but I would not be surprised at all if shamanic methods are more effective at treating some things like mental illness.

**********************

I think people there is a lot of confusion about what atheism actually is. Anyone who isn't convinced by claims that a deity exists is an atheist. That isn't the same thing as saying that there is no God. It also doesn't have anything to do with hating religion, as has been implied in this thread. I dislike a lot about a lot of religions, but I have no problem with more sophisticated views like some deistic and pantheistic interpretations of God, and from what I remember of reading Greg's site, his interpretation is one of the more reasonable ones. But unless/until someone can provide some means to convince me that this/these gods exist, I remain an atheist. That is all it means.

There is also this strange notion that atheists do not belief in spirituality. If you are talking about believing that spirits of the dead can communicate with the living or anything like that, then it may be a different story (although just because you don't believe in a deity does not mean you can't believe in ghosts), but in this context we are talking about spiritual experience, which I think is something that any thinking atheist, particularly anyone who has used psychedelics, would acknowledge is a real element within the sphere of human experience, and many actually promote the value of these experiences. Sam Harris is a good example.

I've thought a lot about the possibility of the existence of God, or gods, and I have had many experiences that seem to suggest that it is a real possibility, but I don't think it's possible to have conclusive evidence that can prove, or disprove, its existence. These are profoundly 'spiritual' experiences, but they cannot change the fact that I am an atheist. Now some people may say that these are, in fact, the very types of experiences that would be covered by the changes that Greg wishes to achieve. But wouldn't it be pretty strange for me, as an atheist, to try to defend my use of psychedelics in a court of law on the grounds that I was using them for religious purposes?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is this turning into some fucking feel-good New Age commune?

 

Guess im in the wrong place.... B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam Harris is a good example.

 

And is due to release a book on this very topic.

This is the heart of the issue, IMO. It's possible to be a secularist / atheist who does not believe in the spiritual world ,but does believe in spiritual experience and hence may support Greg's cause.

However, when you start trying to exploit religious loopholes to gain access to psychedelics, of course people are going to associate you and your beliefs with the supernatural, transcendental etc..

And of course people are going to object to the exclusivity of the rights you're attempting to obtain.

This is where the objections on here appear to stem from and why a well-established position/argument and clarity are needed.

Demystifying this should a high priority, IMO.. and pointing out that non-believers should be entitled to seek the same kinds of spiritual experiences as the religious within differing contexts.

But this also opens a whole other can of worms.

I do think if it was stressed that people can and should be entitled to spiritual experiences regardless of their (non)-belief system, it would have the potential to open the floodgates and spark

debate into the legalisation of these substances for everyone.

As it stands though, it seems once the religious are afforded some right, it becomes deeply embedded and enshrined in the legal system and culture, sending society down a path which makes it harder for those feeling

marginalised. History repeating itself, basically.

Edited by SYNeR
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it's hard not to come across as condescending to people who don't get it. I am sick of tone trolls who like to take offense and make a big fuss about the way something is phrased while ignoring or distorting the actual content and intent of the author. I am sick of people demonizing anyone who criticizes or says something 'negative' what is this turning into some fucking feel-good New Age commune?

 

I think if you wish to not come across as condescending, then maybe you should consider using emoticons more in your statements...I would offer this advice to all. Chilli it wasn't that long ago you were having a go at T about the trolling on twitter...not that long back. So I am a little confused about your "feel good" statement.. :scratchhead:

so so just poke your nose out of it why don't you?

 

That's not a stutter I hope.. :P (just kidding).. Don't feel nervous mate, I'm not trying to do anything more then point out the condescending notes in your statements.

If I was to use my powers of 'lunacy' and attempt to 'read between the lines' I might think you were just trolling me in different threads because I didn't engage with the religious debate you seemed to want elsewhere. But that would be an assumption.

 

I'm glad to see you still believe we were having a religious discussion. I wouldn't want to assume that maybe you caught on to what I was really talking about.

Chilli...on a serious note, this attacker/attackee, or aggressor/victim game you play is concerning mate.

What's wrong with a feel good community brother..? Let's all stand together, regardless of our beliefs & let's show each other the respect we deserve...without the condescension.

Embrace the community as you would wish it to embrace you... :wub:

Edited by space cadet 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:wub: :wub: :wub: c'mon folks, Group hug :wub: :wub: :wub:

 

Edited by eatingsand
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have not read the rest of the thread yet.....i just want to know if you have eaten yet greg, i bet you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you wish to not come across as condescending...

 

That is your error: I don't care if you think I'm condescending. I don't care what you think at all and don't plan to engage with you any further because all I have seen from you so far is pompous, vacuous trolling.

Maybe you are well meaning and genuine, and just a little confused, in which case that is sad but not my problem. I'm afraid I don't have the energy or inclination to spend more time giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I have found with certain kinds of people it is just an endless cycle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have not read the rest of the thread yet.....i just want to know if you have eaten yet greg, i bet you have.

 

Maybe you should read the thread before making pointless comments.

As a staunch atheist the idea of supporting a religious approach to drug law reform makes me quite ill. However, I have been doing exactly that for many years. Why? Simply because we live in a society where religion has a lot of power and influence. That's why laws were made to guarantee religious freedom and which is why the big religions are so quick to dismiss any small religious groups as cults, as these could undermine the power of the religions. So by supporting drug law reform or even just individual rights via religious channels achieves two things.

1) it reforms the law and puts a chink in the absoluteness of drug law [eg once the Native Americans had the right to use peyote it was considerably easier to get the same rights for the UdV in terms of ayahuasca].

2) is actually undermines the authority and control of the main religions and hence brings more individual freedoms to more people [eg in australia there is no legal definition of religion that requires a minimum number of members. So any group can form an association, set out a charter of spiritual concepts and then defend these before the law. Religious freedom in this concept is the thin edge of the wedge, with the broad edge being individual rights].

I see these two as win/win outcomes. It might not get me what I really want, but the goal of total personal sovereignty I really have is currently less attainable than the religious freedom option, which is well within our grasp. Once the fight for religious freedom is won I will be the first to abandon it in favour of the original goal.

I am talking here purely in legal terms. Obviously there are many people who already ignore the laws and take whatever freedom they see fit to consume these plants and drugs, but that has nothing to do with the legal situation itself.

Greg is not a cult leader and never will be. he is way too abrasive for that and does not have the extreme charisma required to be such a cult leader. Greg is just passionate about this issue and after a lot of legal research [much more than any of you have done] he feels the path he has chosen is the one with the greatest potential for 'some' change. It is an approach that has worked in many other countries and Greg has modified it to apply to the legal situation in his state and this country. I think it is sad that rather than people supporting him in principle we are all trying to stop him from doing things. I feel that as long as he is not doing damage to the overall cause then doing something is a fuckload better than doing nothing, which is what most of the people knocking him are doing.

There is a fine line between helping greg become polished in his arguments and on the othe rhand simply being demoralising. Right down to the arrogance of ridiculing him about his eating without taking the time to even read what he has planned and when.

There are people here who are helping greg with the reality of what he is facing, by letting him practice his presentation and debating skills. There are others who have concerns about his preparedness, which has resulted in a very detailed and well thought out plan - including the knowledge that he can at least last a substantial part of the preposed hunger strike period. But there are some people who should show some respect to someone who is doing a hell of a lot more for the cause than they ever have.

I am not saying I agree with Greg's plans, but I am becoming pretty disgusted at the way he is being treated here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is sad that rather than people supporting him in principle we are all trying to stop him from doing things.

 

I think it is sad that you actually wrote that. I see Greg getting a lot of support, even from those who disagree with him. I also do not see anyone trying to stop him from doing things, let alone everyone.

The very mild flaming on this thread was dying down and differences were being resolved before chnt, spaceboy and now you stirred things up again, defending Greg against imaginary enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not just referring to this thread, nor really to you. As you know, many people dont get to page 3 to see how it all worked out in the end. santiago could even read to post #3 it seems.

A lot of what i see in his threads are people who make no effort for the cause while wasting plenty of his time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your position on this, Torsten, and why you feel it is a cause worth supporting. But I have to disagree with you strongly on the appropriateness of the responses he has received. Every person who is opposed to the premise of the action he is taking initially wished him luck in this and praised him for actually doing something about it. Rather than accept the moral support from those who will not support him in any practical sense, he has basically said that if you're not with him, you're against him. He then made accusations of this being about "culture wars" and "objecting to anything relating to religion and spirituality", which indicated that he either did not understand the criticisms, or is intentionally polarising the issue.

You're right that he is actually doing something, while most of us sit back and do nothing, but that doesn't give him a free pass to be arrogant and condescending to everyone who disagrees with him. The "with us or against us" attitude can be a clever political move when you already have overwhelming support. When a country is attacked and 80% of the population are in favour of retaliation, it can be used to coerce most of the other 20% into supporting the cause. But when you have

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah pretty pointless i know T, i just saw that the thread had degenerated to drivel pretty quickly and couldnt be bothered reading that, i just wanna know if he has eaten yet, that was pretty much the basis of his idea right.....im assuming like most ppl their ideas are bigger than their actions thats why i added "i bet he has".....possibly pontless to you but not to me out here judging whether to take him seriously or not :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×