Well, Electric Sight i do not think we disagree to the core of how we think, yes i agree that certainly Joe Rogan is more likeable and more recognisable than lets say Nichols. I also agree that if there is a majority to be formed this is going to happen through more "pop" venues. Hmmm, although i do not think im on any sort of high horse since i thumbed up both sides : if i am on anything it seems like its a midget pony rather than high horse.

I might not like so much the "pop" side of publicity the same way i am not a fan of "legitimacy through religion" - because i think it can have sideeffects-, but hey thats merely my view. For example while religion can credit legitimacy even to the most "anything goes" belief systems and practices, i think using it for many people would be playing the card of "legitimising through the p.c. Unquestionable/Untouchable of religion" sprouting hastily constructed religions just to get the "get out of jail free" card: i would rather side easier with medical/scientific research than religion, for me it would feel more honest towards myself since i ...do not host religious beliefs. All things said i think that already the "masses" are being exposed to the new found publicity of psychedelics in general: high profile series like Fringe have many refferences to them, Pop stars have imbided in salvia, many movies feature a joint at some point , hey even Sex and The City 2 has a refference to ...peyote (fleeting, but its there)!

So, we will see how it goes, i think either way one just has to sit back with his/her favorite drink in hand and...watch how it unfolds: everyday that passes i see more and more refferences in pop culture about psychedelics.

Sorry if i came off as a stiff ass

P.S. : im not saying that popularity will not "work", or that pressing a religious guise will not work... They will "work" if working is legalisation/decriminalisation of some sort.I just wonder about side-effects and if those moves will bring more problems than they solve. Maybe im too idealistic and not too much of a diplomat or someone who can grasp the "public vibe".

Man....i thought this discussion was finally going somewhere when we arrived at the theme of naked gay wrestlers.

I agree science will be a major stepping stone here. I just believe a combination of all angles will work better than any one alone. The high horse comment was just in reference to you ripping on my use of the word cool. My comment was unnecessary though, for this I'm sorry. Your apology is also accepted! Let's hope all is well
There's a strange amount of love for naked gay wrestlers on this site, I wonder how many here enjoy it as their favorite pastime next to spice

I think that Rogan is a good promoter for DMT. Beacuse he is a known face from the media people will more likely listen with open ears at what he talks about. Otherwise it's just a bunch of Psychonauts, Chemists, Doctors and Professors talks about DMT, and It might get a bit boring for the mainstream minds. I think that thanks to Rogan the word about DMT will spread. And besides he's on everyones "favorite" TV Shows. The Media is never to be listened to, It's just full of shit, Mainstream propaganda for mainstream minds. I would say that it doesn't matter if the media criticizes DMT, because if it does it doesn't know, and we all know that knowledge is power.

I was thinking the same thing. Some serious knee-jerk reactions to anything involving shirtless men....
I have to say, all joking aside, I'm pretty shocked at the homophobic comments.

homophobic? not really
just an observation. with all the UFC defending, it's obvious some of you like watching guys getting all tangled up together. like i said, not my thing, but you go ahead with all that.


maybe because mainstream minds are very stupid and have the attention span of dumpster flies.
being that they are easily entertained by trash tv, somehow this doesn't surprise me.

Yea I think its pretty sad day when people would rather listen to some UFC loving moron (yea I think UFC sucks) rave about a drug while ignoring professionals in the field.

I understand why folks may find him to be an irritating yahoo, but he is not a moron... he IS a professional entertainer who exploits his own media personality much of the time - offensive, but par for the course in our spectacle-saturated culture. And surely he is not the worst offender... I find him sharp, funny, and down to earth at his best, but asinine, sophomoric, and irrelevant at worst.

His personal DMT commentary is ironic, considering he is featured as the ringmaster in the film "DMT: the Spirit Molecule".
Perhaps making that film has changed his reflex to spout speculation as if it were fact? The documentary has some good moments but was rather jumbled and shallow - makes me wonder about Strassman's vision for popularizing DMT. Not a failure, but it could have been so much better... a better script for Ringmaster Rogan...
L

ps - lots of good reasons to detest UFC, but a moral stance against competitive fighting or claiming the bouts lack martial arts skill are not among them, IMO

in his interviews preceeding the film, his commentary is dubious.
as I've mentioned, it's almost a verbatim rip off of a Terrence McKenna speech given in '93. Sharp is a relative term, compared to 'reality tv' goons you see nowadays; and a less-than-sharp audience would miss the fact that he has undoubtedly read some literature and doesn't cite his sources.

To simply answer the original question, I would have to say his influence is beneficial overall. I know a handful of people who tried DMT because of the youtube vids or his podcast, and they are better off for it.

That being said, he does need to stick to the facts.

I'd just like to add that he is an awful comedian...

truly dreadful.

yeah
when we've been spoiled by the likes of Bill Hicks and George Carlin,
rogan just doesn't seem that funny or sharp; but the younger generations think he's the t!ts.

Yeah, the interview/commentary sucks, doesn't do much for entheogenic liberty or critical thinking about the DMT experience.
And I recant! - Hicks, Carlin, Pryor... all vastly superior. In a different class entirely. I just find him entertaining sometimes, and a perfect ringside voice for sensational cagefights, which I happen to like!
I really wish the documentary had been better, tigher, deeper, less a mish mash off the cuff affair. Strassman, what up!?
L

this

this is what's lacking from so many people, and many of them scoff at James Kent for demystifying the subject. Here you have a guy who's extremely experienced and erudite on DMT, yet people reject his logical explanations because he challenges their beliefs in mythical figures and invisible beings.
I'm not one to take that away from people; if they believe those things are real, then it's real for them, not me. I'll just politely say, "that's not my reality."

i don't see figures, per se...i see...energy and entropy.

As a naturally skeptical person who not long ago discovered dmt, i am interested in finding logical explanations for the wonders that i have recently experienced.

So far i've read some James Kent online, I found it very interesting so i've ordered his book 'Psychedelic Information Theory...'.
Could you recommend anything else on the subject?

http://www.scribd.com/do...-E-Nichols-Hallucinogens

the link is giving a server error right now, but keep trying.
this paper is golden.

if it continues, i'll get it and post it as an attachment.

This brings up a point I’ve made a few times that never gets much attention – the DMT experience is not the same for all of us. So when we start asking questions about the nature of the DMT experience, we first should ask “the nature of whose DMT experiences?”

If all I saw during DMT journeys were elves and goblins and grey-type aliens, and other mythical/archetypal characters in archetypal settings, then I’m sure that I’d think differently about the experience. If I experienced “energy and entropy”, then I’d have yet another opinion regarding the nature of the DMT experience.


(I’d like to read the article you linked to, but it still gives a server error. )

Yeah gibran, that is actually a very important point you are bringing up. I mean, 69ron thinks he met God on Ayahuasca, Bancopuma doesn't see entities on his DMT journeys, Ice House has mentioned (here and in the shroomery) that sometimes Salvia took him to the same places DMT did, Antrocles says he went to the pleiadian stars while vaporizing and into the spirit world on Ayahuasca, Art Van DLay says he has not a clue of where he goes. Some others say that they were energy, other say they were the universe itself, some see elves, some see triangles. Some have mystical revelations, some get beaten the hell up. Some meet the Fractal world, others even see normal people! Joe Rogan says he saw aliens, and some others say they saw angels or other kind of archetypes.

It seems that neurophysiology maybe someday will give the answers to why do people hallucinate like that, but psychology is in big trouble because this wont be easy to explain in detail. I am not saying that the mechanics of hallucinations are easy to describe, I am saying that it seems that explaining accurately the meaning of particular visions in psychological terms is a task almost impossible. Thanks to the psychedelic experience (especially the DMT/Salvia), psychology needs to start all over again.

Joe Rogan good or bad?


Good.


Joe doesnt let his fame and fortune silence his opinion on this matter. He doesnt give a flyin fuk what others think. I like him for that.

Joe is pro DMT and he says so without regard potential negative impact it could have on his career.

Joe Rogan good or bad?

Good.

There are plenty of rich and famous out there who do all kinds or illegal substances and they would never step up and publicly speak out for it. Why is that? They are too worried about what others may think about them.

Joe Rogan is a real dood. He doesnt care. He has done DMT and he doesnt care who knows and what they think.

Joe Rogan good or bad?

Good.

Joe is genuine.