Psychonautica #21 OUT NOW [Archive]

Xochipilli2012

11-30-2007, 06:54 PM

Nice show guys!

A few points off the top of my head.

Isolation/Flotation Tanks

I lived in a meditation center with an isolation tank during the mid-80s and while mostly facilitated sessions, I did a few myself. It was a large coffin-like box filled with water and epsom salt. There was an air supply into the box, but so gentle as to be unnoticeable. The water was close to the temperature of the human body. The aim was to reduce sensory input-including proprioception (the sense of where we are in relation to gravity). I found the experience quite wonderful; I never got "bored." Most of the time I'd be in an altered, 'twilight' experience that was almost dreamlike. But...this particularly tank had a major drawback: water would condense on the underside of the lid and then drip down on one's face--quite shocking!

D.M. Turner and Ketamine

When you guys were talking about someone drowning in his bath tub under the influence of ketamine, I felt certain you were speaking about the author of The Essential Psychedelic Guide (http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/essential_psychedelic_guide/essential_psychedelic_guide.shtml), the most thorough book I have ever read concerning entheogenic combos, and Salvinorin (http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/salvinorin/salvinorin.shtml), D.M. Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._M._Turner) (erowid page (http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/turner_dm/turner_dm.shtml)). Read the memoriam entries as a cautionary exercise.

12 Steps of A.A.

It may be different in the U.K. where they might have 4 fewer steps, but A.A. in the states has the following 12:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

My mother is a recovering alcoholic with nearly 30 years of sobriety, and I've learned a lot about the 12 steps from her. The idea of a "higher power" or "god" is pretty flexible. There are atheists in A.A. who view their "higher power" as the best part of themselves. Max is right of the idea of turning over control to something 'greater' in a general sense, but I would argue that the real power in "the Program" (for the people for whom it works--which isn't everyone who tries it), is in the combination of steps, including making amends, taking personal inventory, and cultivating some sort of spiritual practice. The "turning stuff over to God" part is about recognizing the impotence of the egoic "I am in control of my life and I can drink if I want to" Self. To me it seems more about "surrender" or "going with the flow" than adopting or adapting to yet another external Control Agency.

max_freakout

12-01-2007, 09:30 AM

The following comment was left on the podcast, i thought id post it here instead of starting a conversation in the comments section........

Max, this is getting tiring...You just can't see how meditation or yoga could lead to some sort of psychedelic experience, yet you admit to not having the patience to even try. And you're really hung up on it. It's like being absolutely certain Citizen Kane is a shite film, but you've only seen the first five minutes and won't watch the rest.

Besides, you're assuming people who meditate or do yoga are doing it in order to achieve the same sort of experience YOU get when you trip. Their psychological experience may be a kind of psychedelic experience, but not the same as your mushroom or salvia experience, and for different purposes.

A person disciplines himself, attains a kind of breakthrough -- call it psychedelic, ego death, enlightenment -- and reaches a place where he can sit down and through meditation reach that same sense nearly immediately. No need to take anything, wait for the effects, and deal with any post-trip effects. Sounds pretty damn ergonomic to me, if one has the discipline and patience to work to that point.

max_freakout

12-01-2007, 09:35 AM

Isolation/Flotation Tanks

I lived in a meditation center with an isolation tank during the mid-80s and while mostly facilitated sessions, I did a few myself. It was a large coffin-like box filled with water and epsom salt. There was an air supply into the box, but so gentle as to be unnoticeable. The water was close to the temperature of the human body. The aim was to reduce sensory input-including proprioception (the sense of where we are in relation to gravity). I found the experience quite wonderful; I never got "bored." Most of the time I'd be in an altered, 'twilight' experience that was almost dreamlike. But...this particularly tank had a major drawback: water would condense on the underside of the lid and then drip down on one's face--quite shocking!

Thanx for that, did you ever fall asleep in the tank?

D.M. Turner and Ketamine

When you guys were talking about someone drowning in his bath tub under the influence of ketamine, I felt certain you were speaking about the author of The Essential Psychedelic Guide (http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/essential_psychedelic_guide/essential_psychedelic_guide.shtml), the most thorough book I have ever read concerning entheogenic combos, and Salvinorin (http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/salvinorin/salvinorin.shtml), D.M. Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._M._Turner) (erowid page (http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/turner_dm/turner_dm.shtml)). Read the memoriam entries as a cautionary exercise.

Ah thanx again, i didnt know who it was but i'll research that and comment on it in the future he sounds interesting

My mother is a recovering alcoholic with nearly 30 years of sobriety, and I've learned a lot about the 12 steps from her. The idea of a "higher power" or "god" is pretty flexible. There are atheists in A.A. who view their "higher power" as the best part of themselves. Max is right of the idea of turning over control to something 'greater' in a general sense, but I would argue that the real power in "the Program" (for the people for whom it works--which isn't everyone who tries it), is in the combination of steps, including making amends, taking personal inventory, and cultivating some sort of spiritual practice. The "turning stuff over to God" part is about recognizing the impotence of the egoic "I am in control of my life and I can drink if I want to" Self. To me it seems more about "surrender" or "going with the flow" than adopting or adapting to yet another external Control Agency.

I didnt know much about it i just had a vague idea, do you think this process is a good one for overcoming addiction?

Szifers

12-01-2007, 11:00 AM

Max, the question is: why are psychedelics superior to meditation and yoga.

That comparison is strange because meditation is a wilfully driven technique, but taking a psychedelic sacrament is submitting yourself to another force. They are different, parallel fields of behavior. You never have to choose between the two, so it's meaningless to compare their feasibility.

But if not in effectiveness, I think there is a fundamental difference in the content. If you are not mentally so inclined, it is extremely unlikely to see full blown hallucinations without using psychedelics. And most of us don't want to be so inclined. Hallucinations are concrete manifestations of the not-me. That's what "psychedelic" means. Making the mental to appear as the object of experience. That's what makes it possible to actually communicate with the transcendent and not just forcing our frameworks on it. That's what makes it possible to be parts of the whole. Recognizing that we do not create reality. There are things out there that are more fundamental than our reality and our identity. Connetion back to nature, connection back to the ancestors, entheogens are the original means to maintaining those connections. Which is quite obvious, as they are plants. They are nature. Not something that we made up.

Meditation and yoga are ways of behaving mentally, psysically, cultivating certain levels and dimensions of self control, focus or freedom. It's not a question of meditaiton vs. psychedelics, but a question of being for or against psychedelics. But who says that it would be better if there were no psychedelics? Everything has its own role and purpose.

Ostritt

12-01-2007, 12:40 PM

Hey Szifers, I agree with most of what you say. I would clarify though that from my position we do create our own reality, as in we are the ones labelling the subjective phenommena we come across and controlling how it affects our actions. I think you're right that when we take entheogens we are confronted with a higher consciousness that we must surrender to it and discard our frameworks in order to learn from it. However, I believe the point of this is to eventually reach this state of consciousness (and further) and know ourselves as the ultimate creators.

Also I would say that there are more similarities than you think between meditation and psychedelics. For example not all shamanic cultures have used entheogens, the San trance danced and experienced the same entoptic imagery and encountered the same entities that plant using shamans did and still do. I would say there is a fundamental link between the two and effectively they are a means to an end (very simplified I know) There can be no limit on the amount of roads to spiritual advancement...what if all the entheogens disappeared over night? Every substance that has psychedelic qualities I mean. Would this mean we just sit on the floor and give up trying to advance ourselves? I think the idea is absurd. Every person has the ability to reach whatever level of consciousness they seek given enough time and patience.

Ostritt

12-01-2007, 03:21 PM

max_freakout

12-01-2007, 06:10 PM

Max, the question is: why are psychedelics superior to meditation and yoga.

It seems to me, that for the purpose of attaining religious enlightenment, psychedelics are far more effective, they work much faster at bringing about the changes in consciousness, as i said in the podcast, it's largely a question of lightning path (to enlightenment) vs slow-path', highly risky path vs completely safe path

That comparison is strange because meditation is a wilfully driven technique, but taking a psychedelic sacrament is submitting yourself to another force. They are different, parallel fields of behavior. You never have to choose between the two, so it's meaningless to compare their feasibility.

Isnt taking drugs a willfully driven technique to some extent? What do you mean by 'parallel'? Im not comparing their feasability, im comparing their effectiveness for religiously altering consciousness in an individual

If you are not mentally so inclined, it is extremely unlikely to see full blown hallucinations without using psychedelics.

I agree, but i have never talked about 'seeing full blown hallucinations' as any kind of criterion for effectiveness, and i think even the word 'hallucination' is quite ambiguous

Meditation and yoga are ways of behaving mentally, psysically, cultivating certain levels and dimensions of self control, focus or freedom. It's not a question of meditaiton vs. psychedelics, but a question of being for or against psychedelics. But who says that it would be better if there were no psychedelics? Everything has its own role and purpose.

it is a question of meditation vs psychedelics, if we limit the context of the debate to the very narrow, specific goal of attaining a kind of religious enlightenment. It is very important to realize that whenever i am comparing meditation to entheogens, i am doing so purely in this context, meditation may well do all kinds of things that psychedelics may not do, but that is unimportant from my perspective, because there is just one issue, the issue of eliciting a permanent, transcendental change in consciousness

max_freakout

12-01-2007, 06:44 PM

Just to pick up a point in the podcast about self-control... I think it's a huge and gaping falsehood that because at one moment you think one thing and another at another moment implies that you are not in control. It may imply that sometimes you forget you are in control. You are always, always in control.

The pertinent question is, does this control which you are so sure you are in possession of, act across time? Or is it projected independantly at each moment? What is directly revealed to you by your experience is the immediate sense of freedom, in which your thoughts and actions are radically unrestrained in the present moment, to take this to the extreme, there is nothing stopping you from running and jumping out of the window right now, is there? So you are radically unrestrained in the present moment. But by implication, you will also be radically unrestrained in the moment 5 minutes from now. But if this is true, then you are utterly, profoundly powerless to control what you are going to think and do in 5 minutes from now? This is the essence of what is meant by 'no freewill' in the context of block-universe determinism. Your sense of freedom is projected by your ego, completely independantly, at each conscious moment.

The fact that you can decide not to smoke that cigarette even once, or realise that even though it may be difficult you have the ability to, demonstrates that you are the driving force. As I have said many times, it is impossible to prove that anything else is controlling you as you would never know if anything you said was true as it could simply be an illusion given to you by the puppeteer.

If you can say now, i will never smoke a cigarette again, then in one hour from now, say fuck it i really need a cigarette im going to smoke one, you are perfectly displaying your ego's complete powerlessness to exert control across time, because acts of control, such as 'quit smoking forever' or 'light up a cigarette' are only projected from the present moment, they cannot be projected across time.

this is why, as i understand it, the 8-steps involves recognising that I am not in control, and then praying to the real, hidden cross-time controller to please help me out as i am powerless to do it myself

So really is that something that will help people live together on this planet?

Hopefully :)

Or do we need people to stop taking the ideas of others as their own and learn to create their own ideas?

What has creating ideas got to do with it? Who takes the ideas of others as their own? :confused:

It's a question of awareness and inner strength. Nothing saps inner strength more than the assertion of powerlessness. Of course, if you convince yourself you are powerless that is what you will experience. If you realise that you aren't powerless, that no one else is in control except for you, then you can make that your reality and move forward. The assertion that you are powerless in itself makes you an impotent puppet.

If it was true that you were powerless, and true that self control is a paradoxical strange-loop of logical impossibility, wouldnt it be worth knowing this? To what extent are you in control of your life? To what extent do factors beyond your control affect the way you think and act in the world?

That brings me to another question about ego death theory. How does Hoffman jump from the crisis point of "ego death" to "we're powerless puppets?" I've read it a few times and it seems to be a non-sequitur. I don't think it stands up as a theory; when I read it I see it as an elaborate trip report posing as a theory. I.e "when I had a crisis moment in a trip and felt my ego died (even though I was still perceiving it die?) I got the sensation that in my reality I was being controlled by something else. Fair enough. The problem lies in then saying "in ultimate reality, we are all controlled by puppets."

As i said before, it is the egodeath experience which reveals to you the true nature of self-control, what Hoffman has done is to recognize this and create a theory of religion out of it.

The only thing you can say for certain is that you are the creator of your own subjective experience. You label, you decide based on those labels.

How do you create your experience? Do you have the power to change it?

Certainly I agree that many people live within the barriers of culture and entheogens destroy those barriers. How does this have anything to do with fatalism?

As Mckenna said, of all the barriers, the ego is the final barrier, and ego is the sense of cross-time control

"Ideology is only going to get in your way. Nobody understands what is happening...no one understands what is happening. So forget ideology...just deal with the raw data and trust yourself... Nobody is smarter than you are - and what if they are? What good is their understanding doing you? ...transcend and mistrust ideology - go for direct experience. What do you think when you face the waterfall? What do you think when you have sex? What do you think when you take psilocybin? Everything else is unconfirmed rumour, probably lies." Terence McKenna

:)

What is happening is utterly mysterious, but it is my personal contention that the heart of this mystery is ego death, that is not an ideology it is an experience

Ostritt

12-01-2007, 08:10 PM

Good reply, but what I'm maintaining is that yes I am in control of my choices across time. If I say now "I will never smoke another cigarette" and truly choose not to, I will never smoke another cigarette. Even if the temptation is there I will say "no, I decided to do this when nicotine wasn't influencing how my body feels and I will stick to it". If I decide to it's because I've changed my mind based on whatever new information or motivations have come to me since I made the first declaration. If I knew that me smoking one more would cause an earthquake then even if I really wanted one obviously I would overcome the sensation and not. If I decided that when I said that I hadn't thought of how nice it is to smoke on pills, then I may change my mind.

I think that even saying you will surrender to this higher power and acting under that reality is an act entirely of your own making, you never stop making the choices even if you live under the illusion that your choices are coming from somewhere else. Does time even exist? As far as I know it's a fact that time and space are actually the same thing, which has the implication that everything is happening all at once. You are a different person from one moment to the next, but it is you who is changing yourself based on your surroundings and the ideas you attach to them. This stance has nothing to prove, it's simply a statement of what appears to be. Where you need proof is when you say there is a higher entity that is seperate to you an autonomous in itself that is controlling you. It is impossible to prove that this entity or beneficial god exists because if it is the one in control then it could make you think whatever it wants. Even the proof could be an illusion if you found it.

In what ways do you think the assertion of powerlessness can help heal the planet? I ask because when I think about that I imagine people losing all responsibility for their own actions and sitting around waiting for this deity to do everything for them.

I'm not an alcoholic (I don't drink at all actually) and have never dealt with addiction, but I side firmly with the southpark episode about the AA and believe that this assertion of powerlessness is an illusion. Perhaps that's why LSD had a 50% (or higher maybe, I've read different figures) success rate treating alcoholism after a single or only a few sessions while the AA has a very low success rate (I've read 10% but I don't know exact figures) I'd say this has to do with the fact that a person will confront and deal with their addiction head on instead of creating a reality in which the addiction controls them.

#8#

12-01-2007, 09:32 PM

Howdy Max, et. al.,

I put up the comment before about how the debate is verging on the tiring, Citizen Kane, etc., and didn't check this until after I'd egotistically followed up on my own comment. I don't think this is not a worthwhile subject, but the debate has some fairly tight parameters right now which don't really make sense to me. So I want to try out another analogy that might better represent this disparity between entheogens and yoga/mediation:

Say you have a nail that needs to be pounded into some wood. You can eventually push it through with your hand or some other implements, but it'll be difficult. So you find a rock. That's much more ergonomic, fast, and functional. It does the job quickly and efficiently. But if you had the patience and discipline, you might forge a hammer. Sure, it'll take longer, but when you're done, you have a hammer, which is more ergonomic than a rock and more useful as a ready tool.

But I still think that entheogens and mediation are essentially used for similar yet different purposes and ends. And I think the one can support the other.

I'm fairly new to Psychonautica and just recently caught up, but I also commented on this subject for Psychonautica #12:

I've been on both sides of this meditation/entheogen coin. The two things you gain through forcing yourself to sit and meditate, if nothing else, are discipline and the chance to work on patience, and those are skills you can take with you after you're done. It's not easy because it's not supposed to be easy.

But I think a useful way of looking at mediation is as a kind of martial art (something else I'm experienced with). One thing that sometimes occurs during competition/performance, after many years of intense training, is a kind of peak experience, where time seems to slow and you seem to be able to predict your opponents moves before they even think of them, and then easily overpower or out-perform your opponent. It's almost as if you're leaving your skin and watching yourself from behind. Many well-trained athletes describe such peak experiences. The breakthrough in meditation, for lack of a better way to put it, is something akin this (at least in my experience), but far better. One thing I discovered when experiencing something like a meditative peak is that was when I focused on the blissed-out feelings (which were very specific), they slipped away. When I let them sit there, they intensified. The euphoria was quite focused; it had a certain structure and tenor.

I didn't meditate until after I'd had some psychedelic experiences, and when I had those experiences, they were done on my own, sometimes with one friend, in very controlled settings, for the sole purpose of consciousness exploration. Those were fantastic experiences that disclosed, for me, ways of pattern-recognition and connection. I feel like those experiences may have primed me for what I experienced in my meditation practice. The peak I experience in meditation is similar to the peaks I've experienced with mushrooms, but are much more introspective, internally expansive, and just cleaner in a way—there's nothing going on in the body that my mind doesn't control. It's definitely closer to mushrooms than anything else I've tried (although I've not tried DMT). However, I never gained the kind of recognition-expansion from meditation that I did from mushrooms or LSD.

This is what leads me to see both a disciplined meditation practice and selective entheogenic use as mutually supportive. I think one can boost the other, but too much stock in one can negatively effect how you experience the other. I'll qualify that, because someone who only meditates will certainly experience something on amanita muscaria:

Meditation can prepare one to more fully explore and appreciate an entheogenic experience, and especially be aware of one's own state of consciousness during that experience, and entheogens can prepare one for recognizing altered states of consciousness one may achieve through a meditative practice.

However, it's important to first see them as synergistic; if a meditator doesn't expect much from entheogens and/or isn't open to how they can enhance a meditative practice, they won't help; and if a psychonaut finds meditation just a slow, plodding way to a psychedelic breakthrough, mediation won't open itself up to the entheogenic experience.

Lastly, though, the meditation experience tends to be stickier. If you have a full-on entheogenic experience, it takes a lot to recall it; you need to record it, get as much down as possible, and hope it stays. You can go back to it, but it takes a bit to make the experience translate into long-term personal transformation. This isn't so much the case with meditation. Yes, it takes longer to get to some kind of ego-melting place, but the discipline engendered through that practice also prepares your consciousness to accept and integrate the experience. But again, different ends, different purposes.

Long comment, I know.

London Eye

12-02-2007, 08:47 AM

It seems to me, that for the purpose of attaining religious enlightenment, psychedelics are far more effective, they work much faster at bringing about the changes in consciousness, as i said in the podcast, it's largely a question of lightning path (to enlightenment) vs slow-path', highly risky path vs completely safe path

Religious enlightenment? Can you show me this religious enlightenment? Point to it, define it?

Of course you can't, then how can you measure (for that is what you are doing) which method is better, worse, faster, slower moreergonomic? It may be that religious enlightenment, if such a thing even exists might have a quality which means that it must be experienced over a number of years, we cannot say since we can't define it.

But those who speak of enlightenment have often done so without use of entheogens. I have never heard of anyone saying they took an entheogen and became enlightened and here's how to do it.

The above statement you make, Max, is conjecture, you cannot substantiate any claim that entheogens are better or more effective at producing a "religious enlightenment" which cannot be defined. And neither can Hoffman, which is why his work is more and more starting to sound like zealotry. Surely you can see this Max?

London Eye

12-02-2007, 08:58 AM

Top answer Ostritt. I am in control of my life, we are all in control of our lives and conspiracy theories and ego-death theories seem to suggest the same thing that the all the other, which spirituality can integrate into the material realm via meditation and an understanding of the personal I, the external I, the personal we, the external we turns into the frightening spectre of "YOU ARE BEING CONTROLLED" that conspiracy theories and theories of YOU do not exist, there is a block deterministic universe and you are just a cog in the wheel.

I find this view quite sad and not borne out by experience, but it seesm to be symptomatic of a society that needs to have someone in control, because the idea that each one of us is 100% responsible for our own lives is scary for some to accept. But it is the most empowering and life-affirming choice you can make, the understanding that you can control your life and make it exactly how you wish, and that somehow it happens when you align yourself with your external envirnoment, surrender to it, but not in a negative fearful way, but in a loving way, to move with it, to dance with it.

I especially liked the McKenna quote at the end, which sums it up for everyone ie Your findings are revelation, they are personal to you. They are right. To take any word of anyone else as truth above your own is to give your power away to give the other your power.

So take everything with a pinch of salt and enjoy your existence :)

London Eye

12-02-2007, 09:05 AM

If you can say now, i will never smoke a cigarette again, then in one hour from now, say fuck it i really need a cigarette im going to smoke one, you are perfectly displaying your ego's complete powerlessness to exert control across time, because acts of control, such as 'quit smoking forever' or 'light up a cigarette' are only projected from the present moment, they cannot be projected across time.

So what do you say of the person who stops smoking/drinking/drugs/meat and never starts again? Are they in control?

As i said before, it is the egodeath experience which reveals to you the true nature of self-control, what Hoffman has done is to recognize this and create a theory of religion out of it.

You do not sit around and think up a religion intellectually. To even equate Hoffman's theories with religion is wrong. Religion is the ineffable and can only be felt. Theorizing is for philosophers and philosophers are not mystics.

How do you create your experience? Do you have the power to change it?

Yes. You have total control about how you feel about something and yiou can change that anytime you want. Feeling is not subject to a block deterministic universe.

What is happening is utterly mysterious, but it is my personal contention that the heart of this mystery is ego death, that is not an ideology it is an experience

If it is an experience it is your experience and thus is personal to you but is not THE way since nothing can be THE way :)

max_freakout

12-02-2007, 09:26 AM

Religious enlightenment? Can you show me this religious enlightenment? Point to it, define it?

I have done many times already, it is a kind of 'coming to terms with' determinism, accepting your powerlessness in the face of it. What do you understand by 'enlightenment'?

Of course you can't

Well i just did :p

, then how can you measure (for that is what you are doing) which method is better, worse, faster, slower moreergonomic? It may be that religious enlightenment, if such a thing even exists might have a quality which means that it must be experienced over a number of years, we cannot say since we can't define it.

I did define it in one sentence, what basic enlightenment consists of, and i think the evidence speaks for itself that entheogens are the authentic tools to deliver it, i cant explain it any more clearly than i already have

But those who speak of enlightenment have often done so without use of entheogens. I have never heard of anyone saying they took an entheogen and became enlightened and here's how to do it.

Who are these people who 'speak of enlightenment'? You certainly dont need entheogens to speak about enlightenment :confused:

The above statement you make, Max, is conjecture, you cannot substantiate any claim that entheogens are better or more effective at producing a "religious enlightenment" which cannot be defined. And neither can Hoffman, which is why his work is more and more starting to sound like zealotry. Surely you can see this Max?

I HAVE DEFINED IT!!!!! It is a very basic concept

and the evidence speaks for itself of the re;lative efficacy of meditation vs entheogens, it is very clear to see that meditation does not lead to satori transformation of conscoiousness except in very very rare circumstances

max_freakout

12-02-2007, 09:34 AM

So what do you say of the person who stops smoking/drinking/drugs/meat and never starts again? Are they in control?

it int their own level of control power that is responsible for them quitting, as this is demonstrably impossible, because you cannot guarantee that you wont change your mind about it 5 minutes from now, they were 'destined' to quit whenever they did

To put it in extreme terms, you cannot know that you wont go insane in 5 minutes from now, the persistence of the illusion of reality is entirely provisional, and when you are insane you completely lack control power over yourself

You do not sit around and think up a religion intellectually. To even equate Hoffman's theories with religion is wrong. Religion is the ineffable and can only be felt. Theorizing is for philosophers and philosophers are not mystics.

So all of the thousands of schools of theology around the world are just wasting their time then? :confused:

Can a person not be a philosopher and a mystic? :confused:

Is theology a bankrupt academic discpiline then? And all the famous theologians, like thomas aquinas, st anselm
m etc etc, were full of shit were they :confused:

Yes. You have total control about how you feel about something and yiou can change that anytime you want. Feeling is not subject to a block deterministic universe.

How does feeling escape block deterministic time? If everything is determined, then what you are going to be feeling in 5 minutes is already fixed into your future, how do you know this isnt the case?

If it is an experience it is your experience and thus is personal to you but is not THE way since nothing can be THE way :)

I have already said, there is not ONE way of having a particular experience, because experience is entirely subjective and relies on the experiencer to exist

dopefiend

12-02-2007, 09:40 AM

First of all, I wanted to say how much I enjoyed this show- the Seeker is a great guest, he always makes for an interesting show. You should get him to register here man, be interesting to get him involved in these discussions too.

The other thing I wanted to say is that, Max, you seem to be opposed to the idea that one can be a psychedelic thinker without actually taking psychedelics. If there really is a crisis looming for humanity, all it would take to bring about a paradigm shift is for people to start thinking differently. While psychedelics were a big factor in changing my own perpective, I have never experienced ego-death, and I use psychedelics very rarely. I think you'll find that a significant proportion of listeners to psychonautica have never taken psychedelics, and I know Lorenzo has said that he receives emails from people like that. That doesn't mean they're unable to appreciate that we need to change things if we want this world to make any sort of change for the better.

To clarify, let's look at what psychedelics do to a person:

They put you more in touch with nature / the planet / Gaia

They make you realize that we are all connected on some level and every action of every person creates a ripple effect across the whole of humanity

They enlighten you to the concept of a guiding spirit- call it God or whatever you like, call it loss of free will or acceptance of a higher power, it's basically the sense that everything that happens has a purpose and that even seemingly meaningless little occurences are part of some sort of plan, leading us to a common cause or end.

They lift the curtain on consensus reality, making us realize that global politics/tabloid news/slavery to work/the daily drudge of life is, as Terence said, "a shabby lie". It can easily be changed by altering your perspective. In this sense, that "higher power" or God is within us all.

Every single one of these things can be achieved without psychedelics. Some people may find it harder than others, some may need to meditate in silence for twenty years, while some may have a mystical experience while climbing a mountain or something. Some may reach that realization through a sudden change in life, like losing a loved one, or their job, or going through another crisis like a hurricane or a terrorist attack. Some don't even need a mystical experience: they can simply change their mind, and that CAN happen overnight.

You kept dismissing the Seeker's point that Tai Chi or yoga are just as beneficial as psychedelics because you were focusing on the chemistry of the whole thing. But no-one really understands chemistry, even the most accomplished chemist. It's a science that's built on constants, and it supposes that conditions are always the same, but there are many fluctuations in real life, and many things that chemistry cannot explain.

If novelty really is increasing, if there really is a "quickening" going on in the years running up to 2012, then who's to say that people's ability to escape consensus reality without psychedelics won't increase as well? Sure, the psychedelically enlightened people, and the yogis and gurus who have achieved enlightenment through other means are the vanguard of this movement. It's our job to make the transition smoother: we can set out these ideas and provide a routemap for people who might not be able to assimilate what's happening to them. But we're no better than people who come to enlightenment through other means, and our means are no more or less ergonomic than theirs.

If we're all connected, and our connected being is a part of that guiding spirit I talked about earlier, then we're all being guided, and we'll all reach the same point, whether we survive 2012 or not!

max_freakout

12-02-2007, 09:47 AM

Good reply, but what I'm maintaining is that yes I am in control of my choices across time. If I say now "I will never smoke another cigarette" and truly choose not to, I will never smoke another cigarette. Even if the temptation is there I will say "no, I decided to do this when nicotine wasn't influencing how my body feels and I will stick to it".

And what if you say you will never smoke again, and then actually do smoke at some point? This is more-often-than-not the way it is with me when i try to quit weed, the will is strong but the flesh is weak

I think that even saying you will surrender to this higher power and acting under that reality is an act entirely of your own making, you never stop making the choices even if you live under the illusion that your choices are coming from somewhere else.

You never stop feeling like you are making choices, but your attitude with regard to your own control of your decision-making changes very profoundly

Where you need proof is when you say there is a higher entity that is seperate to you an autonomous in itself that is controlling you. It is impossible to prove that this entity or beneficial god exists because if it is the one in control then it could make you think whatever it wants. Even the proof could be an illusion if you found it.

But there is no autonomous entity controlling you, the point of the block-universe model is to realise that your future thoughts and actions already exist, just as your past thoughts and actions exist, every moment, past and future, exists for itself on your worldline

In what ways do you think the assertion of powerlessness can help heal the planet? I ask because when I think about that I imagine people losing all responsibility for their own actions and sitting around waiting for this deity to do everything for them.

The problems with this planet are all implicitly tied up with the notion of control, it is the people who think that they control the planet who are fucking it up for the next generation, the truth is, noone is in control of the planet, and if we could realize this then every problem would be solved because we would see that the only problems exist in the human mind, not in external reality, and those problems precisely are misattribution of controllership-status

I'm not an alcoholic (I don't drink at all actually) and have never dealt with addiction, but I side firmly with the southpark episode about the AA and believe that this assertion of powerlessness is an illusion. Perhaps that's why LSD had a 50% (or higher maybe, I've read different figures) success rate treating alcoholism after a single or only a few sessions while the AA has a very low success rate (I've read 10% but I don't know exact figures) I'd say this has to do with the fact that a person will confront and deal with their addiction head on instead of creating a reality in which the addiction controls them.

LSD is bound to work better than AA, because LSD is in effect a 'hands-on' version of AA, a high dose of LSD forces an encounter with the existential despair of timeless determinism, and this encounter has a kind of 'automatic' effect of causing the individual to reconcile with the higher control-source

max_freakout

12-02-2007, 10:07 AM

First of all, I wanted to say how much I enjoyed this show- the Seeker is a great guest, he always makes for an interesting show. You should get him to register here man, be interesting to get him involved in these discussions too.

The Seeker is London eye!!! He is a keen poster here!

The other thing I wanted to say is that, Max, you seem to be opposed to the idea that one can be a psychedelic thinker without actually taking psychedelics.

Im not opposed to that, i know several people who think on a mystical level without ever taking drugs, what i am opposed to is the idea that transformations of consciousness can be elicited reliably without taking drugs, i see this as senseless, we have a tool available to all of us which actually works, and yet many people insist on diminishing the value of entheogens and promoting alternative techniques which are much less effective

i am a psychedelic thinker because i took drugs, the drugs changed the way i think, it is that change that i am talking about

If there really is a crisis looming for humanity, all it would take to bring about a paradigm shift is for people to start thinking differently. While psychedelics were a big factor in changing my own perpective, I have never experienced ego-death, and I use psychedelics very rarely. I think you'll find that a significant proportion of listeners to psychonautica have never taken psychedelics, and I know Lorenzo has said that he receives emails from people like that. That doesn't mean they're unable to appreciate that we need to change things if we want this world to make any sort of change for the better.

Psychedelics were a factor in changing your perspective, that is all i am saying, psychedelics transform people's perspective. If people dont want to take drugs that is their path, but the thing which initiially led me to this line of debate was being repeatedly told that psychedelics dont/cant cause permanent changes

To clarify, let's look at what psychedelics do to a person:

They put you more in touch with nature / the planet / Gaia

They make you realize that we are all connected on some level and every action of every person creates a ripple effect across the whole of humanity

They enlighten you to the concept of a guiding spirit- call it God or whatever you like, call it loss of free will or acceptance of a higher power, it's basically the sense that everything that happens has a purpose and that even seemingly meaningless little occurences are part of some sort of plan, leading us to a common cause or end.

These ^ 3 points are all perfect metaphors for what egodeath theory is claiming, entheogen determinism and determinism-transcendence.

They lift the curtain on consensus reality, making us realize that global politics/tabloid news/slavery to work/the daily drudge of life is, as Terence said, "a shabby lie". It can easily be changed by altering your perspective. In this sense, that "higher power" or God is within us all.

Exactly! It is too easy and meaningless to say "I am God", it is much more relevant to say "in a sense, I am God"

Every single one of these things can be achieved without psychedelics. Some people may find it harder than others, some may need to meditate in silence for twenty years, while some may have a mystical experience while climbing a mountain or something. Some may reach that realization through a sudden change in life, like losing a loved one, or their job, or going through another crisis like a hurricane or a terrorist attack. Some don't even need a mystical experience: they can simply change their mind, and that CAN happen overnight.

You kept dismissing the Seeker's point that Tai Chi or yoga are just as beneficial as psychedelics because you were focusing on the chemistry of the whole thing. But no-one really understands chemistry, even the most accomplished chemist. It's a science that's built on constants, and it supposes that conditions are always the same, but there are many fluctuations in real life, and many things that chemistry cannot explain.

If novelty really is increasing, if there really is a "quickening" going on in the years running up to 2012, then who's to say that people's ability to escape consensus reality without psychedelics won't increase as well? Sure, the psychedelically enlightened people, and the yogis and gurus who have achieved enlightenment through other means are the vanguard of this movement. It's our job to make the transition smoother: we can set out these ideas and provide a routemap for people who might not be able to assimilate what's happening to them. But we're no better than people who come to enlightenment through other means, and our means are no more or less ergonomic than theirs.

If we're all connected, and our connected being is a part of that guiding spirit I talked about earlier, then we're all being guided, and we'll all reach the same point, whether we survive 2012 or not!

As i have said before, i feel that entheogens are the authentic, effective tool for spiritual transformation, they may not be the only tool, but they are the only tool that works reliably based on everythig that i have read and experienced, and if it is our intention to smoothen the transition into the spiritually transformed future, we must recognize this point. That is my opinion, the seeker has a different opinion, and it all makes for interesting debate

dopefiend

12-02-2007, 10:09 AM

Yeah but Max, you denigrate everybody who doesn't take psychedelics when you say that psychedelics are "more ergonomic". They worked for you and me, but for some they don't.

And the very fact that I haven't experienced ego-death, yet I've come to the realizations outlined in ego-death theory would support my view that you don't need to go through a psychedelic crisis experience to make those realizations, don't you think?

Ostritt

12-02-2007, 10:33 AM

Why does it matter if everything is happening at once and the infinite amount of decisions I've made have already happened? What matters is that they happened because me, my spirit, chose for them to happen. Also LSD forces an encounter with the existential despair of timeless determinism is a very sweeping statement to make. Perhaps it was like this for you, or anyone who goes into a trip with their reality set to ED channel. If I went up to someone who just came out of an acid trip and said "hey man, how was that enounter with the existential despair of timeless determinism?" they would look at me very strangely. I think it's more likely that they would say something about how they had no idea there was such a microcosm inside their own minds. I don't think you'll find any spiritual teacher on the planet who will sit down with a student with a clipboard and go through to see if their enlightenment experience was ligitimate based on a few bullet points. We don't even define our egos in the same way so how can we all talk about ego death? You may be able to define your own experience based on someone else's parametres, but you can't define any of ours.

London Eye

12-02-2007, 11:33 AM

Hey Max,

Gonna try a point-by-point answer to your previous replies. Here goes:

Seeker:Religious enlightenment? Can you show me this religious enlightenment? Point to it, define it?

Max: I have done many times already, it is a kind of 'coming to terms with' determinism, accepting your powerlessness in the face of it. What do you understand by 'enlightenment'?

The point is, Max, you haven’t done that at all, you are just saying (believing) you have. Since religious enlightenment cannot be defined, since it is ineffable, to say you can point to it reveals the absurdity of the statement. Because “religious emlightenment” like “god” or like “aliens control the universe” are all unfalsifiable statements, you can say anything you like about these things and no one can prove you wrong, so you can continue to say it is so, when logic shows this statement to be unverifiable. So, you have not defined religious enlightenment at all, indeed you or anyone cannot, and it would be fair of you to at least admit this point and the reasoning that goes with it.

Max: i think the evidence speaks for itself that entheogens are the authentic tools to deliver it, i cant explain it any more clearly than i already have

If anyone starts a sentence with “the evidence speaks for itself” a little light flashes in my brain (metaphorically of course!). If the evidence could speak for itself it would. It does not, so it can’t. The evidence is debatable and is being debated. There is no need to make definitive statements like the above since it does not allow for balanced reasoning.

There is evidence that entheogens can be beneficial to humans. There is also evidence that they can be of no use and further evidence that they can be harmful. Thus they are may not be stable avenues for achieving optimal human functioning with accurate repeatable use.

The potential is there for some use, but on a far more modified version than Hoffman’s or any one theorizer. I’d prefer to stick to scientific assessments of what is going on in the psychedelic state than listen to the work of a man steeped in christian mysticism with no understanding of eastern techniques and of many other avenues for optimising human functioning, making people happy and able to lead fulfilling lives.

Seeker: The above statement you make, Max, is conjecture, you cannot substantiate any claim that entheogens are better or more effective at producing a "religious enlightenment" which cannot be defined. And neither can Hoffman, which is why his work is more and more starting to sound like zealotry. Surely you can see this Max?

Max: I HAVE DEFINED IT!!!!! It is a very basic concept

You have? Then rush along to the Nobel committee and tell them that you have done what no other human being in the history of civilisation has done and that is to have defined religious enlightenment. You can of course point to it and say “this is it” can’t you? Otherwise what you are doing is pointing to a metaphysical statement and saying, this is enlightenment. You must see the fallacy of your contention here Max. I can say “god is a spaghetti monster” and insist that I have defined god and get very insistent when people say I have not, but nevertheless it is not “defined” in the strict sense of the word.

You have not defined the thing, you have defined the statement. Religious enlightenment is [this] is not a definition of the thing but of the statement, the significance of the words.

"The next statement I make is a lie. I am lying" the confusion lies in the semantics, making "statements" and "lying" into things. the same with saying you can define "religious enlightenment". It has not been done.

To reiterate, ego-death is a theory trying to intellectualise enlightenment, which anyone with even the faintest understanding of spirituality knows cannot be done, since how can the all be defined by a finite deterministic machine such as the human brain.

Max: It is very clear to see that meditation does not lead to satori transformation of consciousness except in very very rare circumstances.

Starting sentences with “it is very clear” is another flashpoint. It is not very clear or else we would not be debating this. And where does the term satori come from? From an LSD trip? Or from several hundred years of practising techniques which lead to transformative states, through meditation and acts of will over the body. "Except in very rare circumstances" is another unqualified statement. Do you have a list of the "very rare circumstances" or are you just saying "a few" without really knowing. In these types of conversations it is incumbent on everyone to be as clear and definitive as they can. Thus I would have to ask which rare circumstances and for you to give details or else to not make such a woolly statement ;)

Anecdotal evidence would suggest otherwise, as many people have meditated for many years and it would not still be so popular unless it had very real benefits to humanity.

Max: To put it in extreme terms, you cannot know that you wont go insane in 5 minutes from now, the persistence of the illusion of reality is entirely provisional, and when you are insane you completely lack control power over yourself

So who wants to be insane, and who would advocate insanity as a beneficial tool of transformtion? To be sane is then to be in control of your body and mind. Who would not want that? You seem to be suggesting this is an illusion to be shorn off. So you seem to be saying “the sane world is a delusion, let’s all go insane and then we’ll be better” and that's what Hoffman seems to be advocating.

I think most people would say. “Nah”

London Eye

12-02-2007, 11:33 AM

Seeker: You do not sit around and think up a religion intellectually. To even equate Hoffman's theories with religion is ludicrous. Religion is the ineffable and can only be felt. Theorizing is for philosophers and philosophers are not mystics.

Max: So all of the thousands of schools of theology around the world are just wasting their time then?

No, they are not. Where they understand that the truth cannot be brought into words, it can only be hinted at then they are justifiable. But the only true knowledge comes from the individual’s personal relationship with the internal/external world and experience of the ineffable. It is only in the west that this obsession with working it out intellectually becomes a problem.

Max: How does feeling escape block deterministic time? If everything is determined, then what you are going to be feeling in 5 minutes is already fixed into your future, how do you know this isnt the case?

I don’t know this for sure, and neither do you. What I’m saying is your (Hoffman’s) contention that there is no free will is a theory, it has no way of being proved therefore to present it as a fact is at best misleading and at worse downright dangerous.

I mentioned the Matrix film to you Max, and maybe someone can remember but in the 3rd one the idea of the block deterministic universe, the matrix program crashes because of the one thing that cannot be subject to determinism – love.

Love can be seen as god, the creative principle, the creator of the machine. So I don’t know that no-free-will isn’t the case, but neither do you. The difference being I am able to concede that I don’t know, where you and Hoffman are ABSOLUTELY sure you are right. Can you not see where the problem lies, max?

Max: And what if you say you will never smoke again, and then actually do smoke at some point? This is more-often-than-not the way it is with me when i try to quit weed, the will is strong but the flesh is weak

And what if you never smoke again? The will is stronger than the flesh, it just seems to be weaker and lack of practise makes it so. It takes active practise. To me, psychedelics can be passive, because you are no doing anything it is all happening to you. In fact it can be a two-way thing, but meditation, hypnosis techniques, these all put you in control and exercise your power over the real world you experience in real-time.

London Eye

12-02-2007, 11:39 AM

Max: The problems with this planet are all implicitly tied up with the notion of control, it is the people who think that they control the planet who are fucking it up for the next generation, the truth is, noone is in control of the planet, and if we could realize this then every problem would be solved because we would see that the only problems exist in the human mind, not in external reality, and those problems precisely are misattribution of controllership-status

It could also be that the problems lie in people not accepting responsibility for the fact that they are responsible, that they are in control, and reliniquishing control to outside influences.

LSD is bound to work better than AA, because LSD is in effect a 'hands-on' version of AA, a high dose of LSD forces an encounter with the existential despair of timeless determinism, and this encounter has a kind of 'automatic' effect of causing the individual to reconcile with the higher control-source

“is bound to” ???? Why bother having experiments at all when the answers are so obvious, Max. Come on, LSD has been shown to work in some cases. AA works for some others in other cases. We need to experiment more. Or are you suggesting that all addiction treatment should be constructed according to what you think is bound to work?

Max: If people dont want to take drugs that is their path, but the thing which initially led me to this line of debate was being repeatedly told that psychedelics dont/cant cause permanent changes

I don't think anyone here is saying psychedelics don’t cause changes, But those changes can be negative as well as positive and many people will simply not want that kind of change.

Why do you think psychedelics are not that popular compared to cocaine and alcohol (and please don’t say it’s a conspiracy)

People prefer the effects of alcohol and cocaine to change their brain states. Who’s to say they are wrong. Oh the thought police have arrived “you might think you enjoy alcohol and charlie, but we are here to tell you that for the good of the fatherland, you must stop taking them and now consume only DMT twice a day. Then you will be healed and free to do what you want in a non-free universe, which is nothing of course, since you are not free”

Max: As i have said before, i feel that entheogens are the authentic, effective tool for spiritual transformation, they may not be the only tool, but they are the only tool that works reliably based on everythig that i have read and experienced, and if it is our intention to smoothen the transition into the spiritually transformed future, we must recognize this point. That is my opinion, the seeker has a different opinion, and it all makes for interesting debate

I also think they are an effective tool for changing psychological states and working on them. But to smoothen the transition to a spiritually transformed future? That comes from us learning how to live alongside each other, learn from each other, accept each other’s differences, see our similarities and not try and impose our worldviews on anyone. We all have some portion of the truth and as long as whatever technique we use we are doing the above, then we are making progress.

Live the life and love it, that is all there is to it :)

London Eye

12-02-2007, 01:20 PM

Hi all,

Just listened to the podcast again and I'm afraid I didn't explain NLP very well, so hopefully will get a chance to start a thread on it here.

Also the other point I'd like to concentrate on is Ostritt's point about the paradigm shift and what we need to do to make it come about. of course, in a deterministic universe, we would not have to do anything since it is already predetermined ;)

But in the individual state all we can do is try to get to a point where our actions stem from a very real understanding of who we are (this continual moment-to-moment illusion which nevertheless can be traced to a point of birth) and how we relate to all which is not us, our external environment and I feel that when enough people do this, the paradigm shift will happen.

The point I made about unconscious responses being worse is the feeling I get that sometimes action by itself is not necessarily beneficial. For example, you can see injustice, get very angry, go and attack those you feel are responsible and in doing so inititiate a whole other set of negative circumstances, creating more anger from your opponent, who may then carry that anger into committing more of the very injustices you were trying to stop.

Revolution Now! is the clarion call of the west. Bigger, faster, stronger, MORE!!! Alot of the political activist movement seems to me stuck in this loop of unconscious acting out of anger, even that which is perceived as righteous anger can be just unconscious anger disguised.

Maybe what the some people need is to learn the value of patience. I think this is especially so in the west. When one acts from a place of consciousness and awareness, one's actions elicit far more radical change, change that is harmonious.

There does seem to be an urgency to the planet's and humanity's predicament. There is an element of inevitablility to the transformation, the monumental change, the sense of a fated series of events of a destiny to fulfil, but I would contend there is also another undetermined, unverifiable, undefinable, ineffable quality which is totally original and cannot be grasped at, but which we all seem to be part of, the true I that is not I, which will have a say in what happens over the next few years, including this 2012 tipping point worldview.

In human terms this is the quality that allows us to act in unique and original ways, that throws a spanner in any attempt to externally control it. This quality is the thing in control and it belongs to all of us. And thankfully no one person, or school, or government will ever be able to define it, much less manipulate it.

But we all use it in totally unique ways all the time. Realising this, truly from the heart and not theorising it, is the way to self-mastery and a goal to be sought for everyone, since that is fulfilling our potential. I see the urgency for people to learn these techniques, from simple breathing techniques, to various physical exercises and diets that can help. I do not see how giving everyone an heroic dose of psilocybin will effect that transformation. You can't force drugs down people's throats for the revolution. All you can do is show people what works for you and the techniques most people can most easily mimic and learn from will be the ones they use. Many people try psychedelics and get nothing out of them and some might even be permanently damaged. So if creating a better society is our aim then whatever techniques people WANT to use and like using are the ones that are most ergonomic.

Let the people decide :)

TirikiteToker

12-02-2007, 01:34 PM

So many well-expressed opinions already on this thread, so I just wanna say quickly "The Seeker speaks the truth!" Thanks brother.

Ostritt

12-02-2007, 01:46 PM

Amazing posts Londoneye, my neck was sore from nodding :D. To reiterate, I believe the paradigm shift has to happen 6 billion times, because we will not be able to live in a loving and free world until each person comes from a loving and free state of being. One of the benefits of meditation (or through an entheogen inspired experience) is that you come from a state of "being" rather than a state of doing. For example you are love, you don't do loving things to be love, you do them because that is what you are. When you come from this state doing something not loving is antithetical to who you are. Tied into this is the idea of thought, word, deed all being in harmony, or mind, body, spirit all being in harmony. I actually have a tattoo of a triskele so that I never forget this! :rolleyes:

The statement that "we're all one" isn't just a metaphysical or scientific statement, for me it's another way of saying we are each experiencing equally valid realities. If you really understand this then you know that no one is really guilty of anything, ever, because they are simply doing what's right within their reality. This isn't to say we should let violent criminals walk free, it's just not practical and would betray ourselves. But I believe they are damaged people who need to be healed and not punished. Whose to say I wouldn't have raped someone had I had a bad childhood or lived in a ghetto?

I believe there is only love and fear and all emotions are varying degrees of these. Of course there has to be fear for love to exist, but this does not mean we have to experience fear if we want to experience love. It just means that it exists, period. So for me the paradigm shift is moving from being fear to being love. As a race, we say we want to be loving and free (even crazy extremists claim this in some way). Hence, everything we do should serve us given what we say we want to be. Unfortunately it doesn't, because we allow culture to keep us in fear and science to tell us we are nothing.

Londoneye outlined what I think are the problems with ED theory very succinctly above and I don't really have anything to add, except that I still don't think I've really understood how Hoffman hopes to unite people and inspire love with it. As I said earlier, I see it as a trip report disguised as a theory. Sometimes after debating on this forum I play an instrument or meditate a bit just to remind myself that the beautiful, subjective experience of living is what it's all about, not metaphysical conjecture. I honestly believe that an internet page that just says "love yourself because you are infinitely beautiful" would do humanity more good than pages of dense conjecture, which is why I've been so vocal in this debate. :)

max_freakout

12-02-2007, 06:35 PM

Yeah but Max, you denigrate everybody who doesn't take psychedelics when you say that psychedelics are "more ergonomic". They worked for you and me, but for some they don't.

The evidence for my assertions comes from far wider than just you and me, i have seen for myself what psychedelics do to many people, and their potential has been fully recognised by many people. I can hide behind a Terence Mckenna quote: "there are 2 types of people, psychedelic and clueless". If you havent had a psychedelic experience, then you don't know what the psychedelic experience is. This isn't a question then of 'working' for a person, it is that it shows a person that it exists

And the very fact that I haven't experienced ego-death, yet I've come to the realizations outlined in ego-death theory would support my view that you don't need to go through a psychedelic crisis experience to make those realizations, don't you think?

You absolutely don't have to go through a psychedelic crisis, that is obvious, as you can see from the vast number of examples you can find (for example on erowid) of people having had near-death experiences, extreme traumas, addictions, spontaneous spiritual experiences (ie through meditation), or any kind of life-changing event, and who have subsequently recovered and reorientated their view of reality as a result of the experience.

But psychedelics are the most ergonomic means of triggering the required experiences, for many reasons, such as they do not tend to harm the body (as many near-death experiences, addictions etc. do), they do not require years of practise to use (as meditation arguably does for this specific purpose). And most importantly in my opinion, from my point of view is the fact that with psychedelics it is all so beautiful and magical

max_freakout

12-02-2007, 06:38 PM

I honestly believe that an internet page that just says "love yourself because you are infinitely beautiful" would do humanity more good than pages of dense conjecture, which is why I've been so vocal in this debate. :)

lol in that case Ostritt you need to check out this website:
http://www.o-i-l.net/

which is made by a very good friend of mine and Seekers (and she also knows Paddy) :D

But as for me i just can't get enough of all these dense conjectures :cool:

max_freakout

12-02-2007, 06:47 PM

“is bound to” ???? Why bother having experiments at all when the answers are so obvious, Max. Come on, LSD has been shown to work in some cases. AA works for some others in other cases. We need to experiment more. Or are you suggesting that all addiction treatment should be constructed according to what you think is bound to work?

it's all about statistical efficacy ;)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD

One study concluded, "The root of the therapeutic value of the LSD experience is its potential for producing self-acceptance and self-surrender,"[37] presumably by forcing the user to face issues and problems in that individual's psyche. Many believe that, in contrast, other drugs (such as alcohol, heroin, and cocaine) are used to escape from reality. Studies in the 1950s that used LSD to treat alcoholism professed a 50% success rate,[38] five times higher than estimates near 10% for Alcoholics Anonymous.

If you were an alcoholic with a desire to recover, which odds would you prefer?

I don't think anyone here is saying psychedelics don’t cause changes, But those changes can be negative as well as positive and many people will simply not want that kind of change.

It is neither positive or negative, it just is what it is, it makes no difference if people want it or not

Why do you think psychedelics are not that popular compared to cocaine and alcohol (and please don’t say it’s a conspiracy)

Obviously because cocaine and alcohol are recreational drugs

People prefer the effects of alcohol and cocaine to change their brain states. Who’s to say they are wrong. Oh the thought police have arrived “you might think you enjoy alcohol and charlie, but we are here to tell you that for the good of the fatherland, you must stop taking them and now consume only DMT twice a day. Then you will be healed and free to do what you want in a non-free universe, which is nothing of course, since you are not free”

that is an absurd mis-apprehension of everything :p

max_freakout

12-02-2007, 06:57 PM

#8#

12-02-2007, 10:57 PM

Ostritt

12-02-2007, 10:59 PM

London Eye

12-03-2007, 05:48 AM

Seeker, why do you keep on dogmatically repeating all this stuff about ineffability? Why do you believe so strongly that transcendental truth must be ineffable? What if it was partly ineffable, but largely describable? You asked me about defining enlightenment, but it was a loaded question, because before you even wanted a definition of enlightenment from me you had already decided that there wasnt one, and therefore any definition i gave is ultimately doomed to being labelled as 'false' by you because according to your 'version' of higher truth, enlightenment is totally impossible to define. That is a very unscientific way of proceeding imo. I was suggesting a definition of enlightenment, in good faith, to you which makes a lot of sense to me, and you discounted its validity before i even said it.

Could you perhaps assume that there might at least be some way to construct a verbal theory of enlightenment? Or are you attached too strongly to the concept of absolute ineffability?

Max, I'm not dogmatically repeating anything. Dogma is attached to faith. I am showing, by reason alone that it is, by definition, impossible to describe or define the absolute and it is not my theory, it is supported by logic. To define means to make an impression upon. If you have made a definition of something then there must, by logic, be something upon which it has been defined. So the definition, by definition, is incomplete.

There are problems with the semantics, but I'm not asking you to believe anything, I'm asking you to show you recognise pure reason and logic. To deny that means that YOU are being dogmatic. It would be like me saying 2+2=4 and you saying "ah, man you're just being dogmatic". You can get all philosophical about whether 2+2=4 everytime blah blah, but on language and mathematics that is understood by most other humans, 2+2=4 and "that which cannot be described" (the meaning of ineffable) by definition cannot be described.

How can that which is everything be described by a finite component of the everything? Can you not see how this is logically impossible?

To deny this is to deny reason and thus to end this thread since if we cannot agree on reason and logic then we are not dealing here with a search for truth, but something different.

max_freakout

12-03-2007, 04:02 PM

Max, I'm not dogmatically repeating anything. Dogma is attached to faith. I am showing, by reason alone that it is, by definition, impossible to describe or define the absolute and it is not my theory, it is supported by logic. To define means to make an impression upon. If you have made a definition of something then there must, by logic, be something upon which it has been defined. So the definition, by definition, is incomplete.

There are problems with the semantics, but I'm not asking you to believe anything, I'm asking you to show you recognise pure reason and logic. To deny that means that YOU are being dogmatic. It would be like me saying 2+2=4 and you saying "ah, man you're just being dogmatic". You can get all philosophical about whether 2+2=4 everytime blah blah, but on language and mathematics that is understood by most other humans, 2+2=4 and "that which cannot be described" (the meaning of ineffable) by definition cannot be described.

How can that which is everything be described by a finite component of the everything? Can you not see how this is logically impossible?

To deny this is to deny reason and thus to end this thread since if we cannot agree on reason and logic then we are not dealing here with a search for truth, but something different.

there is no 'logic' whatsoever in the assertion you are making, you are just repeating something that you fervently believe to be true, if it were a logical argument, you would be able to PROVE what you are saying, and you certainly havent done that or there would be nothing to debate, nothing i could say would stand up to a logical proof, so in particular this comment is highly misleading:

How can that which is everything be described by a finite component of the everything? Can you not see how this is logically impossible?

logically impossible? :confused:

and anyway, you twisted what i was saying, i never mentioned 'the absolute' :confused: i am just saying that there might indeed be a simple and straightforward definition of what it means, in a practical sense, for an individual to be enlightened

if this is logically wrong then please show this to me by means of a logical argument

max_freakout

12-03-2007, 04:10 PM

I'm still curious why it is you think what meditators are working towards and what get are the same thing. And we still haven't heard from anyone who has significant experience in both (from what I can tell), so there's no baseline. It's like two people from the U.K. arguing what Canada and Tasmania looks like, yet both of them have only been to one of the places.

I dont think that at all, as i know from experience that many psychedelic explorers are not 'working towards' anything, and then the discoveries they make are the 'falling over backwards' that kmo mentioned on his recent podcast on this topic

However i do think that many meditators are consciously working towards a goal that they could get much quicker and easier using psychedelics, this brief quote from wikipedia's page on meditation shows exactly what i mean:

The benefits of the practice can engender a higher state of altered consciousness

Exactly as M. hoffman was saying in psych13, both meditation AND psychedelics can do precisely this, but psychedelics do it much quicker, (create temporary and permanent, vertical shifts in consciousness)

max_freakout

12-03-2007, 04:25 PM

Thanks for that website Max, touche! :D I'm all for metaphysical debate as well, but my problem is when words such as ergonomic and valid get thrown around and make it seem as though Hoffman has cracked open life, the universe and the psychedelic experience. I personally don't think that with the narrow parametres of our language we can create a definition of enlightenment, especially considering that everyone has their own model of reality and each person's definition is valid for them and them alone. I agree that we can give a definition we think is valid and say why, but as soon as we say that others should live by this definition or their enlightenment is somehow false because they haven't lived up to XYZ rules we become like the religions and governments who suppress us. Our conversations in previous forums demonstrate that almost everyone one of us has a different definition of "ego". What does this say about a theory about ego that claims to be the single valid explanation of enlightenment?

I was listening to the final part of Mckenna's 'history ends in green' lecture, and he said something which totally epitomises the definition of enlightenment i am going by on here,

he said that following egodeath, ego is still present because every person needs some ego just to survive, but now it the ego is perceived as tao, that is, it has realigned itself so it sees itself as 'going along with' the flow of the river instead of pushing the river as it felt it was doing prior to egodeath

it is the very end of that lecture series, and it entirely fits with what i am suggesting is actually meant by 'enlightenment'

and by this definition, 'ego' can very simply be defined as 'that which believes it is in control of an indiidual's thoughts and actions' (at least this is what it is prior to egodeath, it is this sense of being in control which 'dies')

it may well be true, that we all seem to have different definitions of what an ego is, but it may also e true that if we really discussed it with each other using precise terms, we may realise that our definitions are not so different after all

The Seeker

12-03-2007, 07:18 PM

'Ego' can very simply be defined as 'that which believes it is in control of an individual's thoughts and actions' (at least this is what it is prior to egodeath, it is this sense of being in control which 'dies')

it may well be true, that we all seem to have different definitions of what an ego is, but it may also e true that if we really discussed it with each other using precise terms, we may realise that our definitions are not so different after all

Hi there,

Posting as The Seeker now so...

Max, how can you say that "that which believes it is in control" is a precise definition? You've got the word belief there for a start. It is a statement that cannot be falsified therefore it cannot be grasped. It is not a precise definition, it is saying it is something like this, but not actually pointing to it. So it is not a definition, it is a subjective description.

I'm having trouble with the notion that you and others put forward that ego is "this". The above description does seem to be close to what the ego might be. But we can't prove it either way. As I keep on saying it is metaphysical conjecture since we cannot point to the ego, it is a notion, an idea for the moment. This may change but for the moment there it is.

Religious enlightenment is such a nebulous idea the point I was making is that it cannot be defined in anything resembling science. The onus is not on me to prove your assertion false, since you have not made a falsifiable statement. You have pointed to an idea called religious enlightenent and then said that it is akin to Hoffnman's ego death theory. So it is nothing more than a subjective evaluation. That doesn't mean it is not important, just not what you are suggesting it is, ie. a provable thing.

You cannot support your idea of ego this with any evidence other than to say it is so and then you want me to show you what religious enlightenment is or prove you wrong. I don't get this at all :confused:

Religious enlightenment is not a clearly defined term, neither is ego death. If it were you would have been able to show using reason and logic, what these things are, but how can you or anyone prove an idea, since an idea is a concept not a thing?

That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to prove anything, all I'm saying is that enlightenment cannot be intellectually grasped and neither can ego-death. You can talk about it forever, write tomes and wax lyrical, but none of it is fact so no one is obliged to treat it as anything other than metaphysical philosophy which is what it is.

It really does puzzle me why you can't see it. I'm not saying ego death theory has no value. If you attach value to it then that is fine.

But to say that ego death is enlightenment has no basis in fact and is in my view an attempt to add a cultural legitimacy to a writer's own theory. The only way to prove it would be to find someone who is enlightened (where would you find one, how could you prove it?) and then make them undergo an ego death experience (how would you know if was an ego death factor 9 or 10?) and ask them if they are the same.

This is the only hypothetical way you could equate the two.

But in my reading of what constitutes a fully realised human being I find the notion of comparing someone who has what might be described as a mind-blowing ego death experience with someone who demonstrates their spiritual advancement from day to day (evidence I have seen, eg someone like Amma) as highly misleading and demeaning to authentic spiritual seekers.

How can you on any level compare someone on a mind-blowing trip with someone who has demonstrated love and devotion over many years?

I think a much longer discussion of what is commonly understood by spirituality and enlightenment is needed.

I look forward as ever to you response :)

max_freakout

12-04-2007, 07:18 AM

Awesome no more confusion as to who you are..... :cool:

I am arguing against the idea that enlightenment is 'in principle' totally ineffable and indefinable, as i have come to believe that there is actually a very simple definition of what it is

but it is more complicated than that i can see, as i am certainly not meaning to equate what happens to a person after egodeath as being in the state of consciousness that someone like Amma is in. There seem to be 'degrees' of enlightenment, and i am only talking about the most basic degree, the immediate transition from an egoic worldmodel to a skeptical transcendent worldmodel

For the record, here is one of hoffman's most important statements on the issue:

The newly enlightened person, agnostic or atheistic only hours earlier, now understands what those Hindus meant by Brahman and Atman. He knows not only that something exists that can be called "God", he knows what it is and that he is a part of it and it a part of him.

Max, how can you say that "that which believes it is in control" is a precise definition? You've got the word belief there for a start. It is a statement that cannot be falsified therefore it cannot be grasped. It is not a precise definition, it is saying it is something like this, but not actually pointing to it. So it is not a definition, it is a subjective description.

Thhe reason i think tis definition works is because the sense of controllership is so undeniably familiar to everyone, everybody feels as if they wield the power of control as they progress through time. It isnt a solid object that can be pointed to, it is a sense, or a feeling, that every sane person has, as you sit there reading this post, you have the innate power to stop reading at any time and go and do something else, as you continue to read, you do so because you are 'choosing' to do this as opposed to the infinity of other potential courses of action available to you. It is a description of a subjective feeling, which i hope everyone can agree on, 'I' feel like 'I' am the source of my actions.

This feeling of controllership is revealed to be logically incoherent (it is infinitely regressive, the controller controlling itself) during the breakthrough mystical experience, as one enters unity consciousness and realizes that he is not a separate self, no separate self, and no freewill, are equivalent to each other, no freewill is implied by no separate self.#

instead of saying 'believes' i could just as easily have said 'feels oneself to be' or 'takes it for granted that'

I'm having trouble with the notion that you and others put forward that ego is "this". The above description does seem to be close to what the ego might be. But we can't prove it either way. As I keep on saying it is metaphysical conjecture since we cannot point to the ego, it is a notion, an idea for the moment. This may change but for the moment there it is.

It isnt important what ego is, what is important is what an individual thinks of himself as, ie what i think my intrinsic nature is, i think the notion of control cannot be separated from my notion of myself, it is a fundamental aspect of my existence that i feel myself to be in direct control

This isnt aiming at a true definition of ego, it is however aiming at a true definition of what it means to be basically enlightened. According to wikipedia:

Enlightenment broadly means the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception

If wikipedia is allowed to define enlightenment in simple terms, then so am i :)
and what i have come to believe is that this 'new wisdom' is the wisdom of no freewill

Religious enlightenment is such a nebulous idea the point I was making is that it cannot be defined in anything resembling science. The onus is not on me to prove your assertion false, since you have not made a falsifiable statement. You have pointed to an idea called religious enlightenent and then said that it is akin to Hoffnman's ego death theory. So it is nothing more than a subjective evaluation. That doesn't mean it is not important, just not what you are suggesting it is, ie. a provable thing.

I have no interest in science, mystical enlightenment is a million miles from the domain of scientific exploration, this is not a scientific theory, it is much more like a set of definitions like you find in a dictionary, there is no onus on anyone to disprove the dctionary definition of a word is there? I did not say enlightenment is 'akin to' anything, i am saying that it is a dogmatic assertion that enlightenment cannot in principle be defined, something which you might read in 'Spirituality for dummies', but that it is not true, enlightenment, as it says on wikipedia, is a clarified perception which is attained following the integration of new, transcendental wisdom.

I never said it was provable, the concept of provability is irrelevant to this debate imo you cant 'prove' either way, it isnt that kind of debate

max_freakout

12-04-2007, 07:18 AM

You cannot support your idea of ego this with any evidence other than to say it is so and then you want me to show you what religious enlightenment is or prove you wrong. I don't get this at all :confused:

i never asked you to prove me wrong, i merely disagreed with your assertion that enlightenment was necessarily indefinable, and that hence any theory about it was doomed to be wrong, i think that kind of mentality shoots any debate in the foot before it has even started.

I am precisely repeating Mckenna's notion of ego being perceived as tao following egodeath, it is a radically new way of looking at the world, in light of religious experience

Religious enlightenment is not a clearly defined term, neither is ego death. If it were you would have been able to show using reason and logic, what these things are, but how can you or anyone prove an idea, since an idea is a concept not a thing?

i am suggesting a clear definition of religious enlightenment, and i am not the first person to suggest this definition, so i disagree that it is 'not a clearly defined term'. It is perhaps part of the fallacy of non-drug spirituality that there is such a strong insistence that enlightenment cannot be defined

That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to prove anything, all I'm saying is that enlightenment cannot be intellectually grasped and neither can ego-death. You can talk about it forever, write tomes and wax lyrical, but none of it is fact so no one is obliged to treat it as anything other than metaphysical philosophy which is what it is.

Why do you think enlightenment cannot be intellectually grasped? You spoke of 'reason and logic' yet i havent seen one single logical argument from you to backup your assertion. and what you are saying renders the whole debate pointless, you dont need to argue with any particular point i make, as you write off everything i say with one swift move when you declare the topics we are speaking about to be fundamentally off limits to intelectual debate, yet you never backup this declaration with solid proof, you just repeatedly declare it to be so because that's the dogma you have been brainwashed with

i am suggesting that there is no problem to discussing the meaning of enlightenment, otherwise in wikipedia's enlightenment page it could just say "well we can't have an article abut this subject as it is ineffable"

of course it does not say this in wikipedia, there is a long and interesting article about enlightenment, it does, i admit, offer many differing suggestions about what enlightenment is, but imo they are all compatible at the core

It really does puzzle me why you can't see it. I'm not saying ego death theory has no value. If you attach value to it then that is fine.

But to say that ego death is enlightenment has no basis in fact and is in my view an attempt to add a cultural legitimacy to a writer's own theory. The only way to prove it would be to find someone who is enlightened (where would you find one, how could you prove it?) and then make them undergo an ego death experience (how would you know if was an ego death factor 9 or 10?) and ask them if they are the same.

i have never said that egodeath is enlightenment, enlightenment rather follows a sucessfully integrated egodeath

But in my reading of what constitutes a fully realised human being I find the notion of comparing someone who has what might be described as a mind-blowing ego death experience with someone who demonstrates their spiritual advancement from day to day (evidence I have seen, eg someone like Amma) as highly misleading and demeaning to authentic spiritual seekers.

so you are saying entheogens are not an 'authentic' path, what a load of rubbish :confused:

And i never compared entheogen users to avatars like amma, it is 2 different things, it is commonly held of amma that she was 'fully enlightened since birth', well when did she have a chance to commit years to authentic spiritual seeking? She didnt, and it is a fallacy to suggest that this is the only way to become enlightened, imo it is a very unlikely means to achieving this transformation of consciousness, you'd be much better off with the drugs

How can you on any level compare someone on a mind-blowing trip with someone who has demonstrated love and devotion over many years?

^ this leads us right back to the fallacy that spiritual methods which take years and years (if ever) to change consciousness are somehow more 'authentic' than entheogens, there is no comparison to be made imo, entheogens work very fast indeed, no other method works anywhere near as fast, and they are just as authentic as any method. enlightenment is fully accesible to anyone, all the time, it isnt something hidden in years of painstaking practise

The Seeker

12-04-2007, 08:49 AM

I am precisely repeating Mckenna's notion of ego being perceived as tao following egodeath, it is a radically new way of looking at the world, in light of religious experience

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao" (Tao Te Ching). Max, I am not saying anything other than speaking from the position of actually having studied some of these texts which you like to refer to constantly. Maybe try reading the tao te ching or even Alan Watts and maybe you'll see I'm not saying this to avoid debate, but to give you a clearer understanding of why enlightenment cannot be clearly defined only hinted at.

i am suggesting a clear definition of religious enlightenment, and i am not the first person to suggest this definition, so i disagree that it is 'not a clearly defined term'. It is perhaps part of the fallacy of non-drug spirituality that there is such a strong insistence that enlightenment cannot be defined

You might be suggesting it, but I don't hear any takers for your theory. It is not based on even the slightest understanding of spirituality. So non-drug spirituality is a fallacy, eh? Now you sound like a one-dimensional drug bore – on salvia :D

Why do you think enlightenment cannot be intellectually grasped?

I've explained it enough times Max. Maybe my explanations are no good. Best you actually try and read from some spiritual masters and texts who say the same thing, such as the upanishads, the dhammappada or the tao te ching. Your answers reveal your ignorance of the understanding of spirituality and the concept of enlightenment and even of these texts. But, please, if you feel the need to use your years grasping at something that cannot be grasped, have fun. It's your choice. Just don't expect many takers, especially among those who have experienced psychedelic breakthroughs AND the discipline and profound understanding of meditation and the spiritual path.

You spoke of 'reason and logic' yet i havent seen one single logical argument from you to backup your assertion.

You're not looking very hard then and I think you like to use sweeping generalisations far more than I do. One single logical argument :confused:

And what you are saying renders the whole debate pointless, you dont need to argue with any particular point i make, as you write off everything i say with one swift move when you declare the topics we are speaking about to be fundamentally off limits to intelectual debate, yet you never backup this declaration with solid proof, you just repeatedly declare it to be so because that's the dogma you have been brainwashed with

What renders the debate pointless is your inability to concede a point when it has been reasonably shown to be false, which surprises me. This is not a contest, it is a debate. No one gets brownie points for being right. Let's try and collaborate to arrive at some truth.

Dogma that I've been brainwashed with? Look in the mirror mate! I'm doing nothing of the kind. I'm showing you why a particular assertion you have made (enlightenment can be grasped intellectually) is wrong and I have given reasons and logical ones and given examples to back them up. You have ignored them all and seem to be taking offence that I could point out an error in your assertion. That has all the hallmarks of an ego that has identified itself with a mental concept. So Max, how did that ego death make you a spiritually enlightened person again? I'm saying Hoffman is talking out of his pompous arse (i've been reading the ego-death website and that's how he comes across to me) and his megalomaniacal theories are not going to gain ground because they have no truth to them, they are unfalsifiable and they seem to be more to do with his own misreading of ONE religion, namely Christianity, without even a minimal understanding of eastern techniques and religions.

i am suggesting that there is no problem to discussing the meaning of enlightenment, otherwise in wikipedia's enlightenment page it could just say "well we can't have an article abut this subject as it is ineffable"

....

of course it does not say this in wikipedia, there is a long and interesting article about enlightenment, it does, i admit, offer many differing suggestions about what enlightenment is, but imo they are all compatible at the core

You've answered your own question there. Lots of SUGGESTIONS of enlightenment and IN YOUR OPINION they are all compatible. But no clear definition (because one can't be given). Yet you and Hoffman still say you can say exactly what enlightenment is and, moreover, you say that the ego death experience in the psychedelic state is the same as enlightenemnt, without even being able to clearly define what enlightenment is.

i have never said that egodeath is enlightenment, enlightenment rather follows a sucessfully integrated egodeath

So Max, have you had a successfully integrated ego death? Are you enlightened?

And i never compared entheogen users to avatars like amma, it is 2 different things, it is commonly held of amma that she was 'fully enlightened since birth', well when did she have a chance to commit years to authentic spiritual seeking? She didnt, and it is a fallacy to suggest that this is the only way to become enlightened, imo it is a very unlikely means to achieving this transformation of consciousness, you'd be much better off with the drugs

Which is why so many psychedelic trippers turned to meditation to better integrate their experiences and conscious exploration. Oh yes, I forgot, you think they're all cowards, it couldn't possibly be because they get to lead more fulfilling lives that way. As far as I'm concerned, and many others, the suggestion that drugs offer the only true path (which is what you are suggesting it seems) is misinformed, irresponsible and even dangerous. But it doesn't worry me as most people know that anyway, fortunately many of them seasoned trippers. Entheogens can be useful, I have always said that. but they are not the most important thing, but in that respect you can only realise that with the passage of time.

This leads us right back to the fallacy that spiritual methods which take years and years (if ever) to change consciousness are somehow more 'authentic' than entheogens, there is no comparison to be made imo, entheogens work very fast indeed, no other method works anywhere near as fast, and they are just as authentic as any method. enlightenment is fully accesible to anyone, all the time, it isnt something hidden in years of painstaking practice

This is utter bollocks, unsubstantiated tripe mate. You know nothing of meditation, you have not listened to anything I have said with my admittedly limited knowledge, that you can make permanent positive changes in your life in a matter of weeks (and with NLP, hypnosis even in a matter of minutes) all of these methods far more stable and safe and effective than entheogens. But I forgot, stable and safe are just so unmacho :rolleyes: You don't seem in the least bit concerned for the welfare of people who might suffer as a result of entheogen use. If you're not denying that dangers exist (which you frequently do with the words "so negligible as to be irrelevant" – very compassionate and spiritually enlightened!) then you seem to suggest that the scary path that risks insanity is the only authentic path. Which, again, few people are buying, so why flog a dead horse?

You keep referring to "years of practice". Are you so indisciplined? Can entheogens make you less impatient? NLP can, hypnosis can, meditation can. The passage of time can. Seems to me that because of your perceived failure with the discipline required for meditation you feel the need to state how entheogens are the authentic path and meditation is inauthentic.

Anyway, it's very clear now that, unless others pitch in, this thread will go round in circles. I speak it like I find Max. I've tried to present a logical coherent argument, you seem to have come back with a lot of offensive comments, about meditation especially, you have taken offence rather than deal with points calmly and objectively. Now, tired from repeating the same points and finding them ignored, I've taken offence myself and launched a few pointed comments of my own. But hopefully there is at least some semblance of a coherent argument.

It does seem that, as KMO pointed out, that we are talking at cross purposes. After posting this I read the post before your last one, and I found myself agreeing with some of the points (but not the one about defining enlightenment). So maybe I'll try again after you respond to this.

Still look forward to you responding to this, but doubting very much that this thread is gonna progress into some resolution without the contribution of Xochipilli2012 and company. We'll see :)

Ostritt

12-04-2007, 09:29 AM

I'm just watching from the sidelines because everything has been said very succinctly and I wasn't sure how much I could add :) I'm more versed in "New Age" spritual texts (a lot of which are firmly based on Eastern teachings) so I can't add to the Tao ideas. I've written pages on what I think are the gaping metaphysical fallacies inherent in ED theory so I won't really go into it again.

I would just add that as I believe we are limitless spirits, saying that entheogens are the only ergonomic way to achieve enlightenment goes against what we are. Max I've asked this heaps of times but I don't think I've gotten an answer: What if all the plants and substances were to disappear overnight? Would we be doomed to purgatory?

I'd also like to stress, again, that Hoffman's idea that meditation is some arduous 40 year long campaign to eventually have some kind of full blown psychedelic visionary experience is quite simply ignorant. As I argued in the meditation thread, it is the journey that has value and the fact that meditation allows you to live the highest vision of who you decide to be on a daily basis.

Max I think part of what Seeker is arguing when he says that enlightenment can't be defined (maybe not, but it's what I'm arguing) is that you, Hoffman, the Pope, Jesus, no one, is in any position to define someone else's enlightenment. You can define yours, that's it. Also imo the idea that it can be defined in this limited language is flawed as well. I define my ego as Everything that Is, so how can that die even for a moment? Certainly I can shed the cultural boundaries, linguistic and moral frameworks I went in with, but the idea that I have to go through this very specific formula where I think I'm dead, then am miraculously revived and start praying to a benevolent god because I'm powerless is quite simply ridiculous within my reality. I've had experiences that changed my life completely and permanently in which I was confronted the ineffable, but there is no way I'm going to discard those experiences because I didn't think I was about to die and then realise I lived in a determinist universe. Actually it was kind of the opposite. Just because ED as defined by Hoffman happened to one person or even a group of people doesn't make it "the way things ultimately are."

What lies closer to my heart is the fact that I don't think Hoffman's theory can help people reclaim their dignity and beauty and realise that they have the power to change the world for the better. This isn't some naive, nebulous hope for the future, it's what needs to happen very soon. For me, ED theory is and always has been a glorified trip report, carefully clothed in unverifiable metaphysical conjecture and a grating tone. Peace!

max_freakout

12-04-2007, 12:07 PM

I would just add that as I believe we are limitless spirits, saying that entheogens are the only ergonomic way to achieve enlightenment goes against what we are. Max I've asked this heaps of times but I don't think I've gotten an answer: What if all the plants and substances were to disappear overnight? Would we be doomed to purgatory?

No they are the most ergonomic way

and i spent heaps of time answering that second question on the podcast ;)

If all humans disappeared overnight, would all the mushrooms be condemned to purgatory? :confused:

I'd also like to stress, again, that Hoffman's idea that meditation is some arduous 40 year long campaign to eventually have some kind of full blown psychedelic visionary experience is quite simply ignorant. As I argued in the meditation thread, it is the journey that has value and the fact that meditation allows you to live the highest vision of who you decide to be on a daily basis.

It is never referred to as any kind of fullblown psychedelic visionary experience, so this is not 'Hoffman's idea'. A few people have claimed that meditation can lead to a kind of psychedlic experience (some people on this thread have made that claim) but not Hoffman. It is not about having a particular experience necessarily, it is crucially about transforming one's worldmodel

Max I think part of what Seeker is arguing when he says that enlightenment can't be defined (maybe not, but it's what I'm arguing) is that you, Hoffman, the Pope, Jesus, no one, is in any position to define someone else's enlightenment. You can define yours, that's it.

I am assuming there is only ONE enlightenment, because i assume there is one ultimate truth

Also imo the idea that it can be defined in this limited language is flawed as well. I define my ego as Everything that Is, so how can that die even for a moment?

But you, just like everybody else, is having an experience of 'being a person', one person among the many people walking around, over whom YOU uniquely possess control. You are reading this right now, from the point of view of ONE person, do you agree with that?

max_freakout

12-04-2007, 12:44 PM

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao" (Tao Te Ching). Max, I am not saying anything other than speaking from the position of actually having studied some of these texts which you like to refer to constantly. Maybe try reading the tao te ching or even Alan Watts and maybe you'll see I'm not saying this to avoid debate, but to give you a clearer understanding of why enlightenment cannot be clearly defined only hinted at.

Dude i've studied all the books, extensively, and i know all the issues and the arguments. In particular i have specialised in the Hindu and buddhist conceptions of 'self'. I do not see anything in your arguments that gives concrete backing of this particular assertion, why should it necessarily be impossible to give a formal account of enlightenment?

You might be suggesting it, but I don't hear any takers for your theory. It is not based on even the slightest understanding of spirituality. So non-drug spirituality is a fallacy, eh? Now you sound like a one-dimensional drug bore – on salvia

You know that's not true i told you many people have responded positively to the whole idea, in particular one listener from U75 who you will hopefully be hearing on the podcast soon.

And anyway, as i have said before on the podcast, I think ego death theory maps perfectly onto everything Mckenna said, about stoned apes, about DMT, 2012 etc with a few small exceptions. People are far more willing to listen to what he said than Hoffman, he has WAY more 'cred' among psychonauts than Hoffman

I've explained it enough times Max. Maybe my explanations are no good. Best you actually try and read from some spiritual masters and texts who say the same thing, such as the upanishads, the dhammappada or the tao te ching.

I already have, i've studied it and written essays on it, i want to hear YOUR explanation!

hat renders the debate pointless is your inability to concede a point when it has been reasonably shown to be false, which surprises me. This is not a contest, it is a debate. No one gets brownie points for being right. Let's try and collaborate to arrive at some truth.

what has reasonably be shown to be false? :confused:

Dogma that I've been brainwashed with? Look in the mirror mate! I'm doing nothing of the kind. I'm showing you why a particular assertion you have made (enlightenment can be grasped intellectually) is wrong and I have given reasons and logical ones and given examples to back them up.

Please explain to me, clearly and logically, what your argument is

So Max, have you had a successfully integrated ego death? Are you enlightened?

I dont know about 'sucessfully' :D but the realest thing in the world to me, is ego death

This is utter bollocks, unsubstantiated tripe mate. You know nothing of meditation, you have not listened to anything I have said with my admittedly limited knowledge, that you can make permanent positive changes in your life in a matter of weeks (and with NLP, hypnosis even in a matter of minutes) all of these methods far more stable and safe and effective than entheogens.

As you must have realised by now, i am not in any sense talking about 'permanent positive changes', i am talking about a radical transformation

But I forgot, stable and safe are just so unmacho :rolleyes: You don't seem in the least bit concerned for the welfare of people who might suffer as a result of entheogen use.

Would you say then that people should not use entheogens because they cause people to suffer? Of course you arent

If you're not denying that dangers exist (which you frequently do with the words "so negligible as to be irrelevant" – very compassionate and spiritually enlightened!) then you seem to suggest that the scary path that risks insanity is the