gibran2, I think immaterial is a reasonable word to describe it. Intangible I think fits better.

in·tan·gi·ble
–adjective
1. not tangible; incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal or immaterial things; impalpable.
2. not definite or clear to the mind
3. (of an asset) existing only in connection with something else
4. incapable of being realized or defined

But personally "hyperspace," among many other things cannot be simply defined by a word, after all it is just speech.

Eschaton, I'm reading through your website, very interesting and informative, you have quite a dedication to produce so much information and pursue knowledge, I love to do that.

Intangible. Yes, I like it. Fits perfectly.

The “intangible realm”. Hmm… That will do quite nicely.

I’ll answer your question with a story followed by more questions:

Suppose you were walking down a familiar street one day, and suddenly, without warning, you were knocked to the ground, a bag was put over your head, and you felt the jab of a needle in your arm. You feel yourself rapidly drifting into unconsciousness…

After an indeterminate amount of time (since you have no way of knowing how much time passed while you were unconscious) you awake, still groggy and wondering what happened.

You find yourself in an unfamiliar far-away city. Maybe it’s Tokyo, maybe it’s Calcutta. You look around, trying to figure out where you are, still wondering how you got there. You wonder if you were kidnapped. People are streaming past you, indifferent to your predicament.

You’re confused, still trying to figure out what happened, when suddenly, without warning, you’re knocked to the ground, a bag is put over your head, and you feel the jab of a needle in your arm. You feel yourself rapidly drifting into unconsciousness…

More time passes, and you awake again. This time you’re right back where you started from – on the familiar street where this all began.

So what happened? Were you transported to another city? Or was it an elaborate stage set? Was the experience all in your head? Was it real?

How would you go about determining if what you experienced was real or not?

^^If I found who kidnapped me I could ask them. Or any other witnesses.

There was no evidence left behind, and no witnesses.

Interesting thought experiment!

Have blood work done to test for drugs.

No evidence! Neither inside your body nor outside.

There's always evidence. Doesn't mean you'll ever find it. But it doesn't matter. In this case I would just be flabbergasted and confused. No big deal doesn't change the nature of reality.

I agree completely. Your experience wouldn’t change the nature of reality.
And you’d be flabbergasted and confused, as anyone would be. Let’s assume you’re unable to find any evidence that would help you determine what actually happened.

Would you accept that the whole experience was real? That the city you “visited” was objectively real?

Or would you believe that you must have been drugged during the first altercation, and everything that followed was some sort of hallucination?

The place, in my opinion, is Eternity. When we dissolve our egos, time essentially ends and all that is left is "pure awareness" of the Universe as a totality. We experience an overload of input that results in our complete and utter shock, which, in my opinion, gives way to manifesting these entities (because we are not actually dying, the entities manifest themselves as our Shadow; that which is the part of our psyches that we deny, which includes our fear of death/dissolution). The entities definitely seem to "know" that we are bewildered and they revel in it, much the same way that animals take advantage of prey whom they know to be hurt (this brings to mind acute paranoid schizophrenia, of which phantoms are common). They seem to be doing some sort of "work" on us; that is, they are showing us things that we can't quite make sense of. They can be good or evil, depending upon set, setting, and temperament. Carl Jung believed they were Satan's "fallen angels" of the unconscious. They influence us through our unconscious, as I believe these entities very well could be our psyches response to such an overwhelming experience. Now, bear in mind, since I have been able to make more sense of the entity contact experience, I have seen "them" less and less. This leads me to the conclusion that people who become acquainted with the DMT state - such as shamans - they have the ability to not give into the entities distracting display and instead are able to "get down to business" per se. A shaman is able to shrug them off and experience mystical healing, which the entities seem to be guarding; knowledge of God/wholeness.

I don't know if you read my entities post, but the entities, to me, seem to be God's guardian angels; literally, they either grant you access or they just play with you. It all comes down to whether or not you are "worthy." They are the dogs at the door.

Biologically, such an experience would have great importance for a species that could take advantage of such states of consciousness. Our symbiotic relationship with Nature has been forged by instinct and this instinct is calling for the integration of our unconscious; both personally and collectively. The evolutionary purpose for this, it would seem, would be to help man reach psychic consummation, hence the talk of fallen angels and the like. We are bound to speak of metaphors when discussing such an ineffable subject, but I truly do believe that these states of mind exist for a reason and that shamanism, as a practice that predates civilization, is intrinsically tied to our evolution. Without the shaman actively releasing the contents of the collective unconscious, our species would be entirely in the dark, so to speak, as to our existential dilemma, which ironically, we have been entirely ignorant of because we have managed to stamp the shaman out. The office of the shaman, as the Man of Dissolution, is to remind us that Nature is Divine and to turn our backs on Nature is definite suicide; however, just like Christ, who knew that he was going to be murdered, we are supposed to make such a huge mistake in order reach subsequent understanding. "You don't know what you've got till it's gone."

The integration of the unconscious is what our evolution is all about. The entities seem to be the "workers" helping this take place, hence the accounts of small beings that litter our religions and mythologies.

I guess I really can't say for sure how I would feel. I see your point though.

It reminds me of vivid dreams I was having last night. They felt totally real while I was having them even when I woke up I had to think about it to realize it was just dreams and the events never happened outside my dreaming brain.

Anyway I'm going to dip out of this thread as its getting off topic from things the OP wants to discuss. Actually wait I just noticed this:



Well if dmt and similar neurotransmitters are involved in our perception machinery then it makes total sense that alterations in their normal functioning would lead to altered states of consciousness. So its not so much that we evolved to experience these states. But rather these states induced by high levels or altered levels of these substances are simply the result of having a brain that can be altered. Our brain isn't a perfect organ (none are) we know it can be tricked deceived confused etc.

However I don't think the biological function of dmt is to have these intense trip like experiences, they don't offer strong enough advantages to be selected for via natural selection. Although similar states do lead to strong enough advantages to be selected for via natural selection but this is a complicated issue and I won't sum it all up now. The endogenous function of DMT is still largely unknown but more evidence is slowly gathering that its involved in sense perception. So if you take an unnatural amount of dmt exogenously you have altered sense perception.

Think about it this way. Serotonin is always going through your system. When you release a ton of it into your synapse by taking MDMA you experience a super serotonin level. Your brain didn't evolve to naturally experience that intensity it only happens when you take a drug. Its not good for the brain to always experience super serotonin levels either it can cause other problems. But the point is that it CAN happen and does happen when you take MDMA. It doesn't mean that your brain evolved to experienced MDMA trips though. You follow?



Just because a state of mind may be useful to the survival of an individual doesn't mean that it has any deeper meaning. Natural selection doesn't care if seeing pink elephants makes us happy (very crude example) only that the happiness and improved social interactions make us more likely to mate successfully and pass on our genes. This is very similar to the role of religions in holding societies and individuals together. Its comforting for people to believe in things even if they don't exist. In certain instances this has been an advantage and its why these ideas persist even if we know that many of them are totally nonsensical and man made.

I wasn’t asking what you’d feel, I was asking what you’d think, or more precisely, what you’d believe.

The scenario I provided is not at all similar to a dream. In the story, you are actually accosted – it’s not a dream or in your imagination. You are being asked to determine if an experience was real or not, and to explain how you would make that determination. At no point during or after the experience does it “feel” like a dream. The entire experience seems as real as your everyday reality.

I’m a bit disappointed that you’ve decided to bail out of the discussion as soon as you’re confronted with a difficult realization. (And you don’t know if the OP wants to discuss this or not unless you ask the OP, so don’t blame the OP’s desires for your decision to quit participating.)

Since you won’t answer this very straightforward question, I’ll answer it for you. (And the answers aren’t just for you, they’re for anyone.)

1 --- You can claim that the “visit” to the strange city was real. But other than your vivid subjective experiences, what proof do you have that it was real?

2 --- You can claim that the visit was a hallucination caused by the injection. You have no proof that the injection contained anything that would produce a hallucination. What would lead you to believe that it was a hallucination? The strangeness of it? The circumstances that led you to the “visit”?

3 --- You can claim that you simply don’t know if it was real or not. Your first statement suggests this would be your answer. This might be the most reasonable answer of all. But this answer would require you to acknowledge that there are experiences whose objective reality cannot be determined. (An acknowledgement that you’ve never made on this forum.)

Whatever your answer, in the end it all comes down to belief.

Good post. The website as a hobby has been a lot of fun for me. The sole purpose of it has been to build a consensus; hence why I have so many different things going on with it. I have so many sections to finish; I just hope I get the time. Nearly everything on there points to the same thing; the fact that we are all God (the Eternal Self of the Universe) and that our collectively shared experience is essentially God's persona. When we dissolve our merely subjective ego, we are able to experience our collective Self; hence why we have an experience that is entirely ineffable; we are presented with so much input that our minds literally dissolve. That is why I am leaning toward a schizophrenic model of the entities and the "realm" itself. I don't necessarily believe that what we are experiencing is necessarily "alien" as we would view it. It is Eternity, which is only accessible within our minds, hence Christ's teaching that the Kingdom of Heaven is within.

“Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful.” Aldous Huxley quoting Dr. C. D. Broad, 'The Doors of Perception'

Eternity is only available to those who seek understanding within themselves. In my argument, enlightenment is the experiential understanding of the boundary conditions of Eternity. Free will is a paradox; reality is both an illusion and "real." Time doesn't truly exist and yet it does to us biologically. These boundary conditions, I believe, are meant to serve as tools in our conscious awakening. If we can find that we are setting the trap that is catching us, then we may then transcend our materiality to contemplate the Eternal Universe. The entities seem to be the guardian denizens of this realm within our minds; they either grant us entry or they play with us, wondering what business we have trying to enter "their" domain. Whether or not this "realm" is autonomous doesn't really matter. In my opinion, Eternity/Nirvana is overlaid upon our reality; all we have to do is dissolve our ego to experience this. Hence why shamans have been having similar experiences for thousands of years; they are all tapping into the same collectively shared inner reality that we have come to call God.

I believe that to attempt any true "scientific" understanding of this experience, i.e., through numbers and reductive models, is pointless. All we have are vague metaphors. What we need to be doing is building a consensus; not going back and forth over what metaphors are more "appropriate." We are bound to talk of paradoxes and lose ourselves in idiosyncratic esoterica; however, this is ultimately necessary. We must realize the utter futility in trying to explain away our experiences. Then, and only then, may we realize the true subjectivity of these experiences and then we may realize their sheer Universality. I prefer the Jungian model because I know that he experienced schizophrenia and he wrote openly about the entities that he encountered within his psyche. His metaphors, in my opinion are about as refined and dead-on as anything I have ever read.

"In so far as analytical treatment makes the "shadow" conscious, it causes a cleavage and a tension of opposites which in their turn seek compensation in unity. The adjustment is achieved through symbols. The conflict between the opposites can strain our psyche to the breaking point, if we take them seriously, or if they take us seriously. The tertium non datur (there is no third) of logic proves its worth: no solution can be seen. If all goes well, the solution, seemingly of its own accord, appears out of nature. Then and then only is it convincing. It is felt as "grace." Since the solution proceeds out of the confrontation and clash of opposites, it is usually an unfathomable mixture of conscious and unconscious factors, and therefore a symbol, a coin split into two halves which fit together precisely. It represents the result of the joint labors of consciousness and the unconscious, and attains the likeness of the God-image in the form of a mandala, which is probably the simplest model of a concept of wholeness, and one which spontaneously arises in the mind as a representation of the struggle and the reconciliation of opposites. The clash, which is at first of a purely personal nature, is soon followed by the insight that the subjective conflict is only a single instance of the universal conflict of opposites. Our psyche is set up in accord with the structure of the universe, and what happens in the macrocosm likewise happens in the infinitesimal and most subjective reaches of the psyche. For that reason the God-image is always a projection of the inner experience of a powerful vis-a-vis (face to face)." Carl Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections; Late Thoughts

It IS good to see you again, but the quote you attributed to me was actually Saidin’s (too many nested quotes!)

If I understand some of what you’ve written, you’re suggesting that “we” (=God) experience our lives over and over again, for all eternity. This is an interesting idea, but I don’t understand what drew you to it.

Why the same lives over and over, rather than eternally new and different lives?

If the experience felt real and it wasn't a dream then by default there is evidence it was real. Doesn't mean it was definitely real. But it sounds pretty real I dunno I didn't experience it.

The first thing I would do if I suspected being drugged is have my urine and blood collected and analyzed. I would look for scars injuries witnesses etc. But you said there is no evidence. So I can't really know all I have is my memory, which can also be studied as evidence but again you said there is no evidence so I can forget that.

But that doesn't imply the information doesn't exist. It just implies that my senses are too limited to figure it out. Thats not a big deal. Courts have to deal with these situations all the time. Humans are limited.



Well this is what I would say I don't know I can't claim to know things I can't know.

Of course there are situations where objective reality cannot be determined by a single human being who has no evidence beyond his own memory. I would be insane to think otherwise. That's why I stress objective evidence. You are saying there is no objective evidence which is impossible. There is ALWAYS information and evidence but that doesn't mean I as the human in the situation could ever figure it out.




Jung was schizophrenic? I never heard that. If he was why are you taking him so seriously? Schizophrenia is a psychosis people who go through it are prone to delusions and hallucinations.

So you’re saying that if something that isn't a dream feels real then the feeling serves as evidence that it is real? I never imagined that I’d see such a statement from you. If this is what you believe, then why all the criticism directed toward those who believe some of their DMT experiences are real?


You say there is ALWAYS evidence. I don’t see how this can be. Evidence can be destroyed. If all evidence in a particular case can be destroyed, then there is no evidence:

If I write a message on a piece of paper, and then burn the paper, where is the evidence of the message?

If a computer stores a random number in RAM and is then turned off, the number is lost. Where is the evidence of the number? (If there was evidence in such a case, data encryption would be useless.)

Because we are all part and parcel of the One - the Monad - we live our lives anew, infinitely. This is because, in my opinion, that when we die, we come to a consummation of consciousness in which we finally grab hold of our divinity and this is immediately followed by the existential decision toward forgetting everything in order to do it all over "again." God wills himself, i.e., we are God and we will ourselves. God "spoke" to Moses on Sinai, "I am that I am." When this statement is viewed in the context of our recent scientific discoveries, a startling realization dawns upon consciousness. Our sciences have only numerically proved what mystics have been saying for thousands of years. This tautological metaphor is painfully clear when viewed from a mystical perspective; it is the "that art thou" of the Hindu religion. We are all encompassing reality. We cannot delineate ourselves from Eternity, hence enlightenment is the realization that trying to "do" anything is utterly futile; one can only stand in awe of the eternal process of ineffable grandeur. Zen paid particularly close attention to this point; Alan Watts put it perfectly, "we are It."

Because we are part of an eternal process which is incalculably old in terms of the mere human life, we are by disposition completely and utterly unaware of our true existential purpose because we cannot delineate ourselves - that is objective ourselves - enough to view the bigger picture. Hence why mystics and great scientific minds are so rare; such a frame of reference is only had by those of a certain temperament, who because of some sort of predisposition is able to view reality as if he were not of his time. This is because, in my argument, that time doesn't exist (which Einstein proved) and that all great minds tap into Eternity - that is the collective unconscious - to "spark" creativity. This may sound reductionist; however think about it: if the Universe is Eternal and time is in fact a mere biological illusion, it is more than plausible to suppose that this Dreamtime (Hyperspace) that shamans have tapped into for thousands of years is actually the total human repository of experience, which is lying dormant, holographically stored within our very genetic code. As I said before, Eternity is overlaid upon every moment; all we have to do is shortcut our consciousess and dissolve our egos. These compounds truly are keys; the mind is an instrument. They "open doors" within the mind which allow us to realize our true Self.

I believe that the Universe is an eternal process of which everything is fundamentally interconnected. As the collective persona of God - the Universe - we are by default obliged to live the same life over and over again. I subscribe to the cyclical model of the Universe because I believe it solves many resounding issues. If you check out my site, there is a bit on that topic in particular.

Why was I drawn to this? My experiences were very mystical and had many motifs which pointed toward this model. When I found the resounding consensus, I realized that it wasn't just idiosyncratic BS; it holds up quite nicely to dissection. My experiences led me to all of this. Particularly DMT.

I think I generate a lot of confusion. Sorry.

Yes it does serve as evidence but its not proof. That's always been my point. It also may not be good evidence depending on the situation. Like if someone see's an alien on dmt its evidence that maybe such an alien exists but its bad evidence because that person was on a powerful hallucinogen. Therefore you need more evidence to be able to make sensible judgement's about what happened.

In the example you are discussing since you say I have no other evidence to go on my decision is based on all I have to go on. My experience and memory of the situation. Its a similar situation faced by witnesses in a court case. You go on what you remember or what you think you remember. And we all know that this can be a massive mistake and not lead to the truth. But if its all you have its all you have.



I didn't mean to say that any evidence would always be available. It may have existed as a metabolite of a drug in my urine but passed through my system unnoticed by the time I investigated what had happened. Even me physically moving from one place to another is evidence but again its not really useful if no one saw me. Anyway no need to harp over that issue your point has been made and I think I clarified what I meant.