Don't depotentaite the psychedelic?

[Febo]

Ref the research into the purposive (purposive ) use of psychedlics. Using a trip to work on something that began before the trip strikes me as an alternative to exploring one's inner being.
The psychedelic movement advertises "consciousness raising" and claims that only by "raising consciousness" will people want to change thier habits and save the earth etc.
Wouldn't it be better to use LSD for designing technical solutions to something like global warming? Apparently LSD is cut out for engineering. The radio said that we only have to deflect back 1% sunlight.
The fact is, spreading psychedlics more widely is only going to de-potentiate ie dilute them. So rather, while they still work, in this extraordinary moment of division, put them to work on what we really love, technology. Less soul, more steel. Concentration > Purpose > Movement.

[psygnisfive]

Uh.. Why can't psychedelics be used for multiple things simultaneously within society? And why would their increased use cause them to lose their potential?

[Febo]

Of course, you are right, I was just taking a stance. You see, if you follow some of the post-Jungian's like James Hillman, or the eco-psychologists, they claim that "the self" extends far beyond one's own ego-body and includes the earth/environment/community. I think they are quite right to say that it this this aspect of the self that requires most attention - ie the inner self is sick because the outer self has been neglected.

That's why I find Lorenzo's career change to podcaster inspiring.

There was another Lorenzo podcast about the fact the effect of drugs vary through time - one the one hand we get used to them chemically, on the other, our expectations alter our experience such that as a drug becomes more commonplace, so do its effects. Fascinating idea.

[max_freakout]

There was another Lorenzo podcast about the fact the effect of drugs vary through time - one the one hand we get used to them chemically, on the other, our expectations alter our experience such that as a drug becomes more commonplace, so do its effects. Fascinating idea.


Do you mean the one with Andrew Weil? He said some amazing things....

[psygnisfive]

Jungian psychology, like Freudian psychology, is pseudoscientific nonsense. Ramachandran, Sacks, Pinker, and Churchland are probably some of the only major cognitive scientists worth considering, since they, you know, actually look at what the brain does.

[Febo]

Jung is not about "what the brain does", he's about what the soul does, which is a very different matter.

[psygnisfive]

Jung is not about "what the brain does", he's about what the soul does, which is a very different matter.

Which is precisely the point. Talk of souls is pseudoscience.

[Febo]

Which is precisely the point. Talk of souls is pseudoscience.


Soul V Mind, science V psuedoscisnce. This is the kind of dualistic thinking Jung was critiqueing.

[Febo]

Jung introduced (or re-packaged I'm told) the idea that old problems can be solved by introducing a new dimension to the either-or dilemma-style formulation we habitually use. This formulation always requires us to opt for one thing and thus reject another, condeming us to this dualistic hell we live by. The new dimension which kinda dissolves this is to do with depth - recognising that even either-or problems have depth, have history. If they have history they must also have culture, and if culture, then imagination has a role in shaping the issues and problems around us.

Its the old "consciousness shapes reality" thing.

[psygnisfive]

Jung may have been critiquing it, but he's still wrong.

[Febo]

Jung may have been critiquing it, but he's still wrong.

You're touting another dualism. Jung is wrong and right. Just like McKenna and many others we talk about here are. He is, to paraphrase Neitzsche*, 'beyond right and wrong', and demonstrates that reality is most interestingly honoured as likwise. ....

<pst...> What kinda forum do you think this is? ;)

*sorry

[psygnisfive]

You're touting another dualism. Jung is wrong and right. Just like McKenna and many others we talk about here are. He is, to paraphrase Neitzsche*, 'beyond right and wrong', and demonstrates that reality is most interestingly honoured as likwise. ....

<pst...> What kinda forum do you think this is? ;)

*sorry

I tout no dualism at all. To rephrase a old saying, Jung isn't even wrong. His ideas He is not "beyond right and wrong" in any sense that Nietzsche meant the terms, because Nietzsche was talking about morality and the rational behind it in a metaethical sense. This is a different right and wrong, the right and wrong of truth and correctness. In a way, maybe you're right, tho. Yes, Jung is "beyond right and wrong", because what he says can never be judged right or wrong. It is wholly fantasy in every way and much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, his ideas are entirely dependent on faith and nothing more. Because of that, his ideas have no place in a community such as this, for I venture to say that very few people here are looking for faith, but knowledge and understanding.

[Little Elf]

What truth, and who needs it? I thought we were happy with being true enough.

Kurt Gödel
Apparently more important than Einstein and others yet I had never heard of this. But it sounds good to me

[psygnisfive]

What truth, and who needs it? I thought we were happy with being true enough.

Kurt Gödel
Apparently more important than Einstein and others yet I had never heard of this. But it sounds good to me

"True enough", perhaps. But what "true enough"? The "true enough" of faith is empty: You can have faith in anything, and thus it's fundamentally meaningless in any search for truth. If anything can be "true enough" then nothing is "true enough". "True enough" must have a meaning beyond just "what I want to believe at the moment" for it to have any meaning at all.

[Little Elf]

There are truths out there the termite mind of man are not ready for.:rolleyes:

[psygnisfive]

There are truths out there the termite mind of man are not ready for.:rolleyes:

Maybe so. But we'll never be ready if we don't atleast try to understand them. The species is still young, but only by striving that it'll grow.

I would rephrase an old joke about a staunchly religious fellow.

A man desires truth and understanding for all his life. In his youth, a friend says to him, "Friend, you want to understand yet you do not seem to be doing anything. Here, try this mushroom, it will open your eyes!" The man says in return, "No, I shall understand when I'm old enough to." Years pass and another friend says to him, "Friend, you want to understand yet you do not seem to be do anything. Here, read this text, it will open your eyes!" The man says it return, "No, I shall understand when I'm old enough to." More years pass and another friend says to him, "Friend, you want to understand yet you do not seem to be doing anything. Here, try this meditation, it will open your eyes!" The man says again, "No, I shall understand when I'm old enough to." The man dies, and the universe-made-manifest meets him and he says to the universe, "I have wanted understanding all my life. I waited until I was old enough to understanding, and never did you offer to reveal yourself to me! And now I am dead. Why?" The universe says to him, "I made three such offerings. First I sent you the mushrooms to thrust the truth upon you. Then I sent the scholar, to educate you to the truth through reason. Then I sent the yogi, to help you clear your mind so you may discover the truth yourself. Whenever I offered you insight you turned your back."

[max_freakout]

Which is precisely the point. Talk of souls is pseudoscience.

but he never claımed to be scıence!!!

So that makes just as much sense as sayıng that Eınsteın ıs pseudomystıcısm

[Febo]

It is wholly fantasy in every way and much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, his ideas are entirely dependent on faith and nothing more. Because of that, his ideas have no place in a community such as this, for I venture to say that very few people here are looking for faith, but knowledge and understanding.

Jung was the one who pointed out that science is also based on faith (ref McKenna's rap on the big bang being the limit case for plausibility) - everything is based on faith in this sense.
Given this precarious situation, Jung bases his method on is the accumulated experience of man. Contra science he refuses to dismiss religion, myth, alchemy, primitive society, the unconscious etc because he knows these things have had a universality and a history much wider and deeper than science (not denying science's validity). He realised than modern man had left himself high and dry by abandoning these foundations and sought to find a method to extract new meaning from them - and in that he did a fantastic job - I never thought I would ever get interested in something like the symbolism of Christianity.
I could go on and on ...

[Little Elf]

Synchronicities anyone?:)

[psygnisfive]

but he never claımed to be scıence!!!

So that makes just as much sense as sayıng that Eınsteın ıs pseudomystıcısm

Jung claimed to be describing how mind works. That's all that's relevant. That it is pseudoscience is what makes mre reject him.

[psygnisfive]

Jung was the one who pointed out that science is also based on faith (ref McKenna's rap on the big bang being the limit case for plausibility) - everything is based on faith in this sense.

Jung and McKenna are dead wrong on this one, but that's not surprising since neither of them actually know what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to science.

[Little Elf]

What truth, and who needs it? I thought we were happy with being true enough.

Kurt Gödel
Apparently more important than Einstein and others yet I had never heard of this. But it sounds good to me

$cience's core is based upon probability theory, PROBABILITY theory! If thats not risky I don't know what is.

A friend last night informed me of 'fuzzy set'? I don't know what it is, maybe someone else might...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set

[tuatara]

$cience's core is based upon probability theory, PROBABILITY theory! If thats not risky I don't know what is.

Science is founded on iterative hypothesis testing, especially through 1) the repeated observation of natural phenomena and 2) experimentation that tries to simulate natural events. In short, the core of science is the scientific method.

Probability theory is the foundation of statistics. Statistics is a branch of mathematical science.

Fuzzy sets are intriguing constructs but I am not sure how they fit into this discussion. If you find them interesting you might also like to investigate prototype theory of categories. Wikipedia provides a good starting place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Theory). For a more in-depth look try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on concepts (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/).


Peace,
Tuatara Hermit

[psygnisfive]

$cience's core is based upon probability theory, PROBABILITY theory! If thats not risky I don't know what is.

Quantum mechanics is not "science's core", it's a description of the behavior of subatomic particles. Furthermore, Einstein, and many theorists, believe that the apparent "randomness" of the quantum world is really built on an as-yet undiscovered deterministic process that has no randomness in it at all. Furthermore, the idea that something behaves randomly is an observed thing. If it is indeed true, then that's how it works, period, end of story. It's not a matter of "risky". Jumping off a bridge and hoping you land in a net that you don't know exists is risky. If quantum mechanics is really based in part on complex-valued probability theory, that's just how the universe works underneath.

If you mean something else than quantum mechanics then I cannot respond more fully, since you didn't specify what you mean.

[Little Elf]

Ah yes you have all got me there. I shouldn't be making this argument without first giving a shit for science. My apologies:o

[psygnisfive]

In short, the core of science is the scientific method.

What's interesting, as Kuhn (I think), Smolin, and others have noted, is that the scientific method really isn't the core of science, ultimately. Science, as practiced, seems ultimately to be about a set of community values, something along the lines of being open about how and what you do to discover new information, and being open about the ideas behind your methods, and being willing to discard what's demonstrably a bad idea.

[psygnisfive]

Ah yes you have all got me there. I shouldn't be making this argument without first giving a shit for science. My apologies:o

You shouldn't be making an argument without know what you're talking about is what the problem is.

[Little Elf]

no man I know enough to stay away from science

[psygnisfive]

no man I know enough to stay away from science

Then you should probably resign yourself never to talking about it ever again since you don't know enough about it to discuss it. I'm not a doctor so I don't talk about medicine. You're not even remotely familiar with science, so you shouldn't talk about it.

[Little Elf]

Anyone say horoscope? Pisces for the month

"Your home life and professional life both benefit from some quiet reflection, intuition, and an ability to bust through bureaucracy and red tape. You will also find that you are more social and a team player over the next few years. You can make a lot more money if you network with groups of people or start working over the Internet. A business partner might be just what you need to help you stay anchored and logical while connecting with all of these different groups of people. Regardless, becoming more of a "people person" could prove quite profitable over the next few years."

http://www.tomorrowsedge.net/pisces-monthly-astrology-horoscope.html

HMM Pisces are the buisness type I see... Can anyone say $cience?

Please don't hurt me, LOL. if science is your thing thats cool psygnisfive than roll with it. I can't, sorry. I just don't want to say this again: Different strokes for different folks.

[psygnisfive]

Little Elf, your comments have become a joke. I'm done with you.

[Little Elf]

Danke, thats all I could ask for:D

[tuatara]

Then you should probably resign yourself never to talking about it ever again since you don't know enough about it to discuss it. I'm not a doctor so I don't talk about medicine. You're not even remotely familiar with science, so you shouldn't talk about it.

Seems a little harsh. I would suggest that you talk about these topics more, Little Elf!

The trick to navigating topics you're not familiar with is to ask questions rather than making uninformed assertions. Seriously, you can make a really valuable contribution by asking questions. You seem suspicious of the theories of scientists, Little Elf. That's great! Seek clarification on the things that smell fishy. It gets everyone thinking and keeps us boffins honest!

[tuatara]

What's interesting, as Kuhn (I think), Smolin, and others have noted, is that the scientific method really isn't the core of science, ultimately. Science, as practiced, seems ultimately to be about a set of community values, something along the lines of being open about how and what you do to discover new information, and being open about the ideas behind your methods, and being willing to discard what's demonstrably a bad idea.

You're right. The nature of science is complex and contested. Another complication is the gap between our ideals of what science is and how it is actually practiced in labs around the world.

I really need to read more philosophy of science ...

[psygnisfive]

Seems a little harsh. I would suggest that you talk about these topics more, Little Elf!

It's not harsh. He doesn't know what sciences is or how it's done, he doesn't provide a clear example of what he thinks makes science faith-based. He's ignorant about the topic and shouldn't discuss it until he knows more about it, period. Otherwise his opinions are worthless. If he has a valid point to make, fine, but he doesn't. He's just repeating the same tired old anti-science diatribe that plagues so much of the psychedelic community (I'd wager good money that it's the segment that intersects with the new age community). It's ignorant and it's foolish and I'm fucking tired of it. They give us all a bad name and they're the reason noone takes psychedelics seriously. People like Little Elf are the reason psychedelics are ignored as insightful almost revelatory drugs by the majority of people. If it weren't for Little Elf and his kin, psychedelics would be more than just a drug that whacko new ager hippies take while searching in the astral plane for aliens to bring about the dawning of the age of aquarius. It's be a real tool for personal and social growth and for a whole number of other applications. But instead we get completely useless and empty theories about the End of Time and Hancocknian Atlantis and other completely useless and unfounded ideas. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of them all.

[tuatara]

It's not harsh. He doesn't know what sciences is or how it's done, he doesn't provide a clear example of what he thinks makes science faith-based. He's ignorant about the topic and shouldn't discuss it until he knows more about it, period. Otherwise his opinions are worthless. If he has a valid point to make, fine, but he doesn't. He's just repeating the same tired old anti-science diatribe that plagues so much of the psychedelic community (I'd wager good money that it's the segment that intersects with the new age community). It's ignorant and it's foolish and I'm fucking tired of it. They give us all a bad name and they're the reason noone takes psychedelics seriously. People like Little Elf are the reason psychedelics are ignored as insightful almost revelatory drugs by the majority of people. If it weren't for Little Elf and his kin, psychedelics would be more than just a drug that whacko new ager hippies take while searching in the astral plane for aliens to bring about the dawning of the age of aquarius. It's be a real tool for personal and social growth and for a whole number of other applications. But instead we get completely useless and empty theories about the End of Time and Hancocknian Atlantis and other completely useless and unfounded ideas. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of them all.

I am also concerned that wacky dead-end theories are overshadowing the things that are great about psychedelics and instead making the straights think us foolish folk. Try having a serious conversation with your boss (or your grandparent, or your local elected official) about self-transforming elf-machines* and 2012 prophecies. It's not going to happen. I do not think that this is "the reason" why psychedelics are considered socially unacceptable - that honour probably goes to the fact that these drugs help transform sleepwalkers into vibrant, critical, self-aware human beings who question and challenge the status quo - but I do think it's part of the problem.

I still think that our best hope for making it through these dark days is to present a united front. Forums like this are important because they promote discourse. This enables us to refine our thoughts while strengthening the bonds of our community. Let's pass the peace pipe and keep things friendly.

* I love that phrase. It conjures up such wonderful mental images.

[Ostritt]

I agree with you Tuatara, and you too psygnisfive, but I think that kind of aggression does just as big a disservice to our community as unfounded ideas. Imo the main problem many people have with science is the fact that it dismisses anything that doesn't fit into what is currently known for sure, that is until research furthers our knowledge the and barriers expand... ie with "junk DNA". I don't think this means the scientific method is inherently wrong, quite the opposite actually, but I do think it is a tool and should be seen as such by those practicing it. What we're left with is a plethora of phenommena that are classified as "supernatural" and either attributed to coincidence or simply said to be "not true". The problem with this is that when we take entheogens, meditate, trance dance or whatever, we as the perceivers often have the overwhelming subjective certainty that we are connected to something science does not yet understand. Then it really comes down to how much faith you have, not in a god or the validity of a methodology, but in yourself and the primacy of your own experience. I do agree that it's vital, especially in the current paradigm, to approach entheogens scientifically, but it's even more vital not to reduce their role as spiritual tools because science isn't quite sure what the spirit is or whether it exists.

[Febo]

Imo the main problem many people have with science is the fact that it dismisses anything that doesn't fit into what is currently known for sure.

Agreed. The scientific method demands that a theory be publicly falsifiable, which is great for a certain range of phenomena only. (What if certain phenomena are fundamentally personal in nature?)

Fanatics of science often declare that anything that cannot be expressed as a falsifiable theory should not be discussed. This is where they go too far. They are proposing a desert for the imagination. Why, do they want to do that? What's the payoff?

The film Contact addressed the issue of science's lack of humility superbly imo.

[tuatara]

On the one hand I have tremendous respect for the scientific method. On the other I have issues with the integrity of particular scientists and major problems with the administrative and funding environment in which modern science is practiced. Science leaves all claims - including claims for the nonexistence of phenomena - open to criticism and possible overthrow. It's individual scientists that dismiss these things outright and a combination of economic and cultural pressures that encourage them to hold these prejudices.

It should be noted that, even in an ideal world, science will only get you so far. Think about the following questions: How should I live my life? How should I treat those around me? How should we behave as a society? How should I govern this country?

Science can not answer these questions. Sure, it delivers important information that will influence the answers, but science is silent on what should actually be done. For that we need to turn to philosophy, history and literature.

[dreamwithinadream]

the inner self is sick because the outer self has been neglected.

Actually, the whole point of Jung's book The Undiscovered Self is just the opposite: "It is unfortunately only too clear that if the individual is not truly regenerated in spirit, society cannot be either, for society is the sum total of individuals in the need of redemption."

[Febo]

Actually, the whole point of Jung's book The Undiscovered Self is just the opposite: "It is unfortunately only too clear that if the individual is not truly regenerated in spirit, society cannot be either, for society is the sum total of individuals in the need of redemption."

Good quote, Jung is insistent that everything starts with the individual's development. The point being made is slightly different however:
"Psychotherapy is only working on [the] inside soul. By ... not recognising that the soul is also in the world, psychotherapy can't do its job anymore. The buildings are sick, the institutions are sick, the banking system's sick, the schools, the streets-the sickness is out there."
- James Hillman, 'We've had a hundred years of psychotherapy and the world's getting worse'.

I believe this point applies not just to psychotherapy but to a degree to all forms of personal growth we engage in today. That's a sweeping generalisation but ...

[psygnisfive]

Tuatara: It's not that I think psychedelics are socially unacceptable. Indeed, I think the reverse is probably more true, or at least that most people don't care one way or another. But psychedelics-as-drugs are like most other drugs in how people think of them here, I believe. What I mean is that psychedelics are not accepted as having any potential, as doing anything interesting in the brain, etc. That's not a question of social acceptability, it's a question of pure facts regardless of whether or not it's legal to use them. And right now they're not seen as being interesting in that regard. They're just seen as drugs that make you see shit and worship flying saucers if you use too much.

[Ostritt]

That's true in a lot of places and it's what I think a lot of us are fighting against. On one hand I think the spiritual approach may be more helpful in encouraging people to see entheogens as sacraments. Neuroscience knows a certain amount, but they have no idea how the chemical reaction relates to the unique subjective response. As far as I know they don't know for sure what happens when psilocybin goes into serotonin receptors, they just know that it has a close interaction. Aside from that, it's the sheer paradigm busting joy of the entheogenic experience that convinces most people of its potential; it's a spiritual experience and can't be reduced to anything less than that. Imo we're spiritual beings and we respond to experiences that expand consciousness, not to information that tries to reduce what we've experienced.

[psygnisfive]

Neuroscience knows a certain amount, but they have no idea how the chemical reaction relates to the unique subjective response.

I'm going to tangentially comment on this.

I don't think that it's possible to say that _a chemical_ is responsible for _a subjective experience_. Everything I know about the brain leads me to believe that what's going on is that you've got these chemicals that activate particular parts of the brain. For chemicals like Methamphetamine and Cocaine they activate lower parts responsible for things like attention, alertness, sleep, etc. (Speaking of sleep, anyone see that research on "Orexin A" that seems to be necessary for wakefulness?). I would go on to hypothesize that if we could trace where psychedelics activate (or more specifically, where their receptors are concentrated), we'd find something much more insightful. Because, what I think is going on, is that these chemicals end up triggering parts of the brain responsible for higher cognitive functions. Where cocaine, meth, etc. seem to trigger low level behavioral things, psychedelics invariable have a much more cognitive aspect. Very few psychedelics have non-mental aspects, it's all mental cognitive stuff (whether it's simple visual or auditory disturbances to more magnificent things like metaphor and abstract reasoning). For example, I suspect that LSD might have some role in affecting long term potentiation in certain receptors in the brain. My reason for believe this is two fold: first, LSD is metabolized by the body something like two hours after ingestion but its effects are still fully present many hours later, which makes no sense if the effects were strictly caused by the chemical itself not some modification to neurochemistry, and second, the effects seem to be atleast in large part of the interconnectivity sort, in that you get synesthesia, metaphor, and improved abstract reasoning which all have to do with the interconnectivity of brain regions which is in part governed by long term potentiation. I don't think you can predict the content of an LSD trip, because I think the content derives from the content of your mind before the trip occurs, and trying to explain the content of the trip is like trying to explain the plot of a story by looking at the shape of the letters. No, I think understanding the drug will give you an ability to explain the kind of content you're likely to get (interconnectivity-related content, in the case of LSD), but not the content itself. So I think it's wrong to think of these drugs as causing particular experiences, rather, they create genres of experiences that depend on the regions of the brain that they're primarily active in.

[Ostritt]

I don't think they cause the experiences because they can be achieved through other means such as physical exertion or meditation. What I was trying to say was that even if we knew exactly what areas were being activated and when, we wouldn't be able to understand how it feels unless we took the same substance. Even then, we would only know how it feels to us. Do you see the brain as the receiver of consciousness or the generator?

[psygnisfive]

I don't think they cause the experiences because they can be achieved through other means such as physical exertion or meditation. What I was trying to say was that even if we knew exactly what areas were being activated and when, we wouldn't be able to understand how it feels unless we took the same substance. Even then, we would only know how it feels to us. Do you see the brain as the receiver of consciousness or the generator?

To be quite frank, what you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with psychedelics and everything to do with the age old philosophy of mind.

In answer to your question, all evidence points to the brain as the physical substrate on top of which the mind runs. The simple fact that you can alter a persons cognition and consciousness by messing with their brain shows very well that at least part of consciousness is bound into and dependent upon the brain.

[Little Elf]

2 people can receive the same slate of conscious if only for the moment the waves roll by...

[psygnisfive]

2 people can receive the same slate of conscious if only for the moment the waves roll by...

What are you talking about, Elf? Your words are empty and meaningless.

[Febo]

2 people can receive the same slate of conscious if only for the moment the waves roll by...


Ref the preceeding post, I don't think this is meaningless, and it highlights contrasting styles towards the psychedelic and, in my opinion the virtues of the poetic over the theoretical-informational.
Ponder what might be meant by "the waves" ...

[psygnisfive]

Ponder what might be meant by "the waves" ...

The point is that if he meant something in particular then he should have just said what he meant, not used metaphor to cloak his meaning in pseudo-intellectual drivel.

[Febo]

The point is that if he meant something in particular then he should have just said what he meant, not used metaphor to cloak his meaning in pseudo-intellectual drivel.

On the contrary. Metaphor is an invitation to think or dream or whatever for oneself. It is no less valid than some kind of "exposition" from an "expert".

[VictoriaPandora]

Weird, I totally understood what the Elf meant, it didn't even come across as metaphor to me at all.

[psygnisfive]

On the contrary. Metaphor is an invitation to think or dream or whatever for oneself. It is no less valid than some kind of "exposition" from an "expert".

Wrong on the first count, sort of wrong on the second. Nevermind that he wasn't using metaphor at all.

[Febo]

Do tell then victoriapandora.

[Febo]

Wrong on the first count, sort of wrong on the second. Nevermind that he wasn't using metaphor at all.

Ah, the smell of napalm in the PM. I love it too!

[Little Elf]

laughing is the point you see:D

[psygnisfive]

laughing is the point you see:D

Laughing.. at you?

[VictoriaPandora]

Originally Posted by Little Elf
2 people can receive the same slate of conscious if only for the moment the waves roll by...


OK, I read it this way... life can be a blank slate or it can be a full slate. I think we do various practises to erase some of that chalkboard. But see I am so literal really that now looking again, I suppose he may have meant "state."

Either way 2 people can share a frequency which is made of waves. Sine waves are my favourite, sawtooth my least favourite. But all of them can be shared.

Is that metaphorical? To me it is a reality. But then you know the old saying, Illusion is a Reality.

Don't forget what the point of this forum is though. I, for one, have exactly zero interest in word games.

[psygnisfive]

OK, I read it this way... life can be a blank slate or it can be a full slate. I think we do various practises to erase some of that chalkboard. But see I am so literal really that now looking again, I suppose he may have meant "state."

Either way 2 people can share a frequency which is made of waves. Sine waves are my favourite, sawtooth my least favourite. But all of them can be shared.

Is that metaphorical? To me it is a reality. But then you know the old saying, Illusion is a Reality.

Don't forget what the point of this forum is though. I, for one, have exactly zero interest in word games.

You're worse than he is. You make even LESS sense. Firstly, explain how you "share a frequency" or "share a wave". Second, frequencies aren't made of waves, they're properties of waves.

[Febo]

Can't you see?
My butterfly stomach
Growls growls
I drank a jar of coffee
Then i took some of these
And now i'm totally wired.
Life leaves you surprised.
Slaps you in the eyes
if i was a communist
A rich man would bail me.
The opposite applies.
The morning light
Another fresh fight
Another row
Right right right right
And i'm totally wired.
You don't have to be weird to be wired
You don't have to be an american to be strange
You don't have to be strange to be strange
You don't have to be weird to be weird.
I'm totally wired.
My heart and i agree.
and I'm always worried.

[psygnisfive]

Can't you see?
My butterfly stomach
Growls growls
I drank a jar of coffee
Then i took some of these
And now i'm totally wired.
Life leaves you surprised.
Slaps you in the eyes
if i was a communist
A rich man would bail me.
The opposite applies.
The morning light
Another fresh fight
Another row
Right right right right
And i'm totally wired.
You don't have to be weird to be wired
You don't have to be an american to be strange
You don't have to be strange to be strange
You don't have to be weird to be weird.
I'm totally wired.
My heart and i agree.
and I'm always worried.

That's quite pretty, rather. In a queer anti-formal sort of way.

[Little Elf]

Alien nation
Mothers against drunk driving
Petrol Fuel Gas station
Dairy poo poo Beratahaznah
Bees oh a hiving
Hand me a flotation
Fairy dust in the fanny
Nah Nah Nah Nah
Art against the machination

[psygnisfive]

Alien nation
Mothers against drunk driving
Petrol Fuel Gas station
Dairy poo poo Beratahaznah
Bees oh a hiving
Hand me a flotation
Fairy dust in the fanny
Nah Nah Nah Nah
Art against the machination

This better not be the shut-down code to my mental software. If my mind erases itself because of you ...

:P

[VictoriaPandora]

You're worse than he is. You make even LESS sense. Firstly, explain how you "share a frequency" or "share a wave". Second, frequencies aren't made of waves, they're properties of waves.

Psygnisfive, without being crude or anything...just how long HAS it been since you got laid?

Anyway, I won't taint Lorenzos part of this forum with anymore of this.

"It's all stuff".

[psygnisfive]

Psygnisfive, without being crude or anything...just how long HAS it been since you got laid?

Oh very mature, bravo.

Personal attacks: For when your arguments have been demolished but you just can't shut your mouth.

What's next, hm? What, is my penis small? Am I insecure about balding? Am I a fatty-fatso? Hm? C'mon.

[Febo]

That's quite pretty, rather. In a queer anti-formal sort of way.
Totally Wired by The Fall c1980

[max_freakout]

Oh very mature, bravo.

Personal attacks: For when your arguments have been demolished but you just can't shut your mouth.

What's next, hm? What, is my penis small? Am I insecure about balding? Am I a fatty-fatso? Hm? C'mon.


dude dont be a hypocrite, you have called me a 'jerk' and Ostritt 'stupid', you are no stranger to mounting personal attacks :rolleyes:

[Ostritt]

Pygnisfive you said this wasn't actually metaphor:

2 people can receive the same slate of conscious if only for the moment the waves roll by

Metaphor is a combination of two otherwise unrelated subjects/concepts that has the effect of creating a new meaning that may not have been possible without the combination. It doesn't have to be "A cat is a galaxy", it represents a whole host of literary techniques. It is a way of expanding language, leaving behind the normal limitations inherent in prose in order to express abstract meanings that would be either too clumsy or impossible to express otherwise. I read that as "two people can experience exactly the same level of awareness if they are both subject to exactly the right conditions." He took the idea of waves, which are transient and unpredictable, and applied it to shared consciousness.

Febo said "Metaphor is an invitation to think or dream or whatever for oneself" which you dismissed very abruptly. He is actually right in that a metaphor has no fixed definition; each individual perceives it differently and while some interpretations may be more convincing than others based on the available evidence, none are necessarily correct. I study English literature at one of the best universities in the world so I probably know more about this than you, though I would never condemn someone's ideas so heartlessly. I can't believe that you are surprised when people attack you personally when you're so consistently arrogant and dismissive. Just relax.

[max_freakout]

http://egodeath.com/images/egodeatharticle/4PuzzlePieces.jpg

[psygnisfive]

Metaphor is...

Don't get me started on what Metaphor is. I've taken entire courses on language and metaphor. From Ricoeur's perspective, which I generally follow, metaphor is the use of signs in a way that creates a conflict between the literal meaning of the signs, forcing the reader to search for an abstract sense in which the conflict doesn't exist, thus revealing previously unnoticed similarities between the things. Febo's words don't (for me atleast) illicit any abstract way in which the words make sense, and so as far as I can tell it's not metaphorical. Perhaps it's symbolic, but symbolism isn't metaphor.

[psygnisfive]

dude dont be a hypocrite, you have called me a 'jerk' and Ostritt 'stupid', you are no stranger to mounting personal attacks :rolleyes:

I don't base my arguments on you being a jerk, however. If I say you're a jerk, it's cursory to my response to your arguments. Victoria, however, made no response, she simply insults. I don't go around and simply call people assholes, I actually hear what they're saying and respond to it. If they behave in a way thats assholish I'll say so, but I don't simply go around saying "You're an asshole!". It's not hypocritical to criticize Victoria's response. I asked very clear and simple questions and her response was not "I meant such-and-such", her response was "You need to get laid." That's a complete non-response. It's a dodge, and it's rude and childish.

[Ostritt]

I'm not familiar with Ricoeur's philosophy, but what you described seems to be quite similar to what I said. I said that when these two otherwise unrelated elements are combined a novel form arises from them, you said "forcing the reader to search for an abstract sense in which the conflict doesn't exist". Your definition is perhaps more succinct in that I didn't clarify that this third form has to be coherent in some way to be used as a communicative tool. In poetry, however, it is possible to deliberately create a disjointed metaphor that gives no closure; that in itself can be a device. Or, to rephrase, you force the reader to search endlessly until they give up. Although now that I think about it I'm not sure if this is actually feasible in practice as the reader will most likely find a meaning that is at least loosely applicable just to get on with things. I'm a bit busy right now but in the next few days I'll keep an eye out for a good example and post it.

[psygnisfive]

If there's no abstract connection then it's simply not a metaphor is what I'm saying. And I see no abstract connection, I just seen meaningless text.

[Ostritt]

Yea I could see how you see that, no offense to the writer but it wasn't very well written. I'm talking about what I think he meant to say (and what would have come out had the word order been clearer)

Originally Posted by Ostritt View Post
I don't think they cause the experiences because they can be achieved through other means such as physical exertion or meditation. What I was trying to say was that even if we knew exactly what areas were being activated and when, we wouldn't be able to understand how it feels unless we took the same substance. Even then, we would only know how it feels to us. Do you see the brain as the receiver of consciousness or the generator?


To be quite frank, what you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with psychedelics and everything to do with the age old philosophy of mind.
In answer to your question, all evidence points to the brain as the physical substrate on top of which the mind runs. The simple fact that you can alter a persons cognition and consciousness by messing with their brain shows very well that at least part of consciousness is bound into and dependent upon the brain.


How does this not have anything to do with psychedelics? Let me rephrase - I was saying that, because there is proof that the same imagery, motifs and ideas occur in human consciousness whether through trance dancing, meditation or entheogens, I see entheogens as a facilitator rather than a generator of altered states. Something goes into the brain and elicits a response because it has a chemical reaction. You can say that this interaction will cause hallucinations or 'religious experiences' but it is impossible to predict each one individually or even if someone will have the expected experience or just freak out instead. Even with the God Helmet which stimulates certain parts of the brain, or Leary's psilocybin experiments, it was shown that the individual has to be open to the experiences otherwise they simply won't occur so it's more complicated then simply pressing a button to elicit an experience. What I was saying is that even with the same areas stimulated (by an entheogen) you get responses as different as indifference and shamanic ecstacy. Both brains are receiving the same dose of substance X, which is working on the same parts of the brain, but both consciousnesses are experiencing different things.

Also, just because consciousness interacts with the brain and is affected when the brain is stimulated does not mean it necessarily originates there. Even if the brain is a 'filter' and consciousness exists independently, it would still be subject to the structure of the filter while it is in the human body. This hasn't been proven either way but a lot of people are convinced that consciousness is not generated by the brain simply because of their own intuition or faith (usually based on personal experience and confidence in the validity of their own perception). Science simply doesn't understand this faith and it can't be explained adequately, it can only be felt. Personally, I get tired of thinking about 'how' because it is so incredibly boring to dwell on compared to the sheer ecstacy of being alive.

[dreamwithinadream]

First
I've taken entire courses on language and metaphor.


Wow. all i have to say to that is lol.

Second



Jung claimed to be describing how mind works. That's all that's relevant. That it is pseudoscience is what makes mre reject him.

i think all little elf meant by saying "i know enough to stay away from science" is that too much blind faith in science can lead people to do silly things like reject the work of one of the most brilliant and important thinkers ever because it was "mere pseudoscience." just remember psyg: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle. call jung's work what you want, but the fact is that you are ignorant to a plethora of valuable insight into the human psyche if you simply reject him because of your inability to entertain a thought without accepting it. maybe you should take an "entire course" on opening your mind a bit.

[psygnisfive]

Yea I could see how you see that, no offense to the writer but it wasn't very well written. I'm talking about what I think he meant to say (and what would have come out had the word order been clearer)

I'm quite the fan of Derrida and Ricoeur, and tho I don't agree with everything he says, I'm going to have to comment that you can never know what someone intends to say, and so incorporating intent into meaning is sort of impossible.[/QUOTE]

Actually I address the issue at length here:

http://www.wellnowwhat.net/transfers/Language_and_Meaning.pdf

[psygnisfive]

i think all little elf meant by saying "i know enough to stay away from science" is that too much blind faith in science can lead people to do silly things like reject the work of one of the most brilliant and important thinkers ever because it was "mere pseudoscience." just remember psyg: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle. call jung's work what you want, but the fact is that you are ignorant to a plethora of valuable insight into the human psyche if you simply reject him because of your inability to entertain a thought without accepting it. maybe you should take an "entire course" on opening your mind a bit.

In order for it to be valuable insight, I'd have to accept it. Since I don't accept it, I'm not ignorant of any valuable insight, because Jung's work is thus not valuable insight.

Furthermore, being open minded does not mean "accepting everything", it means being open to the possibility that ideas other than my own could be right. In that case, I am open minded, and have looked at Jung's ideas, but have concluded that they simply happen to not be right.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm closed minded. It could just mean you're wrong.

[Ostritt]

you can never know what someone intends to say

I know that, but I believe I have an idea of what his intended meaning might have been. It seemed to hold different meaning for different people, but poetry is not science and doesn't need to adhere to one set of meanings. On a seperate note, I get the feeling you're not a fan of art for art's sake. Am I wrong?

[Febo]

post removed

[Little Elf]

In order for it to be valuable insight, I'd have to accept it. Since I don't accept it, I'm not ignorant of any valuable insight, because Jung's work is thus not valuable insight.

Furthermore, being open minded does not mean "accepting everything", it means being open to the possibility that ideas other than my own could be right. In that case, I am open minded, and have looked at Jung's ideas, but have concluded that they simply happen to not be right.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm closed minded. It could just mean you're wrong.

You just countered your position of what open mindedness is, making you not open minded.

I would in fact see it that everything is possible, therefore everything is 'right' if it can be put into language. Especially if it can be put into language.

[Little Elf]

I mean of course we are all closed minded to what we don't know, but to belligerently disregard information that is available is a bit close minded IMO. Which is not what I was getting at with science, I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I guess I meant I know enough to not look for more of it. This sounds close minded as well, so I probably mean to say not to go looking for more of a scientific perspective as that is surely close minded. Sincere apologies psygnisfive for of course nothing makes sense once it is out there in print. Which is why I proposed we should just laugh this silly mess off. The height of health is celebration, lets stop beating around that bush, and do something about it!:rolleyes: maybe not roll your eyes, but roll something:D

[psygnisfive]

You just countered your position of what open mindedness is, making you not open minded.

How did I do that? By saying you're wrong? Being open minded does NOT mean saying someones right or saying you don't know, it means being open to the possibility. I am open to the possibility, it just happens that you're wrong. If it turned out you were right, I would accept that as well. If you were right and I STILL refused to acknowledge it, then I would be closed minded.

but to belligerently disregard information that is available is a bit close minded IMO.

I don't care about your opinion, however.

[Greenking]

"True enough", perhaps. But what "true enough"? The "true enough" of faith is empty: You can have faith in anything, and thus it's fundamentally meaningless in any search for truth. If anything can be "true enough" then nothing is "true enough". "True enough" must have a meaning beyond just "what I want to believe at the moment" for it to have any meaning at all.


I’m not about to read 81 post right now but having eaten the head & tale I can say Psygnisfives point here pretty much sums that discussion up.

I disagree with you Little elf in your view of “Everything’s possible”.
I have crackheads down the street that force me to be belief your wrong. They are on another planet man. lol

As much as I could write a page right now on this topic, Id like to hear Febo’s side on his quote “The fact is, spreading psychedlics more widely is only going to de-potentiate ie dilute them.”

Because I just don’t agree with you.:D


So if everyone on earth got stoned at the same time(hypothetically speaking) we wouldn't see a difference? I call that earth changes

Peace & Love

[dreamwithinadream]

In order for it to be valuable insight, I'd have to accept it. Since I don't accept it, I'm not ignorant of any valuable insight, because Jung's work is thus not valuable insight.

thank you for proving my point.

[Ostritt]

psygnisfive: You can have faith in anything, and thus it's fundamentally meaningless in any search for truth.

Is it? You make no distinction here between personal truth and truth that can be objectively proved in a lab. If I have faith in my own strength and that faith in itself gives me strength, then hasn't it proved to be true? It's simply another way of creating your own reality. If I act on the faith and it dictates what I do, then it is my truth. I think if you understood the translinguistic emotions that the word 'faith' seeks to capture, you wouldn't say it was meaningless in the search for truth.

Also I would say that by saying something like "I don't care about your opinion" you are being closed-minded because you are assuming there is nothing Little Elf knows that you don't, no insight he may have gained that you haven't, no emotion or situation he understands better than you. He obviously understands how to treat people with respect better than you do, so what does that say?

Little Elf: therefore everything is 'right' if it can be put into language. Especially if it can be put into language.

I don't understand how you went from "everything is possible" to the above quote. It seems to be a complete non-sequitur. By right do you mean true? If so then the statement is false...

[psygnisfive]

thank you for proving my point.

You keep thinking that. You and Ostritt should get along quite well. You both think that telling yourself lies and making stuff up is a brilliant source of knowledge.

[esse.b]

oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh handbags at 10 paces :D

hahahahahahahaha

come on guys, this is a friendly place......no need to get too heated here.

everyone's entitled to THEY'RE opinions and beliefs.

make love not war guys and gals......peace.

[Febo]

Id like to hear Febo’s side on his quote “The fact is, spreading psychedlics more widely is only going to de-potentiate ie dilute them.”

Because I just don’t agree with you.:D
So if everyone on earth got stoned at the same time(hypothetically speaking) we wouldn't see a difference? I call that earth changes
Peace & Love

Well, don't take my musings seriously.
The thought came from a Lorenzo Podcast by Weil who pointed out that in former times coffee and tobacco were psychedelics. This seemed to fit in with the unsolved McKenna conundrum as to why the DMT/shroom experience has not left a blazing trail in history. It seems to be the case that drugs act differently in different times. Coffee and cigs are no longer psychedlics. Weil seemed to be suggesting that this happened as they became more widely used. Likewise, maybe shrooms only became potentiated when we bacame detached from the earth in this modern-western-rational way we all keep banging on about.
So anyway, you caught me out in my unjustified imuptation of a causal connection between the widening use of a drug and its de-potentiation.
However, I do still agree with those that say that drug use is only ever going to be truly useful if it is directed towards something real.

[Ostritt]

telling yourself lies and making stuff up is a brilliant source of knowledge

What lies are we telling ourselves? Regardless it doesn't really matter, the forum was a lot more enjoyable before all the narciness so I'm happy just to forget about it.

Febo, the psychedelic experience has left a blazing trail across history, just because mainstream Western history doesn't recognize its importance doesn't mean it had no impact. There are the Eleusinian Mysteries, the origin of Hinduism, Cave Art, possibly many neolithic and paleolithic structures, DNA was unlocked when Crick was on LSD, the peace movement in the 60s. You should read Supernatural if you're interested, Hancock explores it in quite a bit of detail.

Also caffeine and nicotine aren't psychedelics :confused:

[Greenking]

the psychedelic experience has left a blazing trail across history, just because mainstream Western history doesn't recognize its importance doesn't mean it had no impact. There are the Eleusinian Mysteries, the origin of Hinduism, Cave Art, possibly many neolithic and paleolithic structures, DNA was unlocked when Crick was on LSD, the peace movement in the 60s. You should read Supernatural if you're interested, Hancock explores it in quite a bit of detail.

Also caffeine and nicotine aren't psychedelics :confused:

Great points. Totally agree, obviously.

Febo, you weird lookin thing you.
I thought that was a valid serious question to ask.
Anyway,
You can say coffee & cigs had a bigger impact in the past, Sure. I’ll give You & Weil that. But it doesn’t mean they contained psychoactive chemicals. Like Weil said drugs aren’t bad or good. I believe its all in the person also. Psychedelics alone were proven to help patients with disorders, many things for that matter. So I think spreading them with care, love & responsibility…I couldn’t see how this would dilute its power but only elevate consciousness.

Spread peace

[esse.b]

Regardless it doesn't really matter, the forum was a lot more enjoyable before all the narciness so I'm happy just to forget about it.


thats what im saying....well said ostritt.

this shouldn't be a place for arguments (every other forum does that perfectly well) next thing ya know it'll be your mum's this and your dad's that :)

discussion's and debate's are great but IMO this has gone beyond that :(

lets do as ostriit said and leave it at that.

what does every one else think???

peace guys....hit a spliff/bong/bag and chillax :D