I am now concerned with the question of how we can say things that we experience are different because they are, but we all have the same experiences.

And with relativity to the amount of change we experience from them.

We all go through phases and stages of altered consciousness, similar to what we feel when we are together and yet we can sense the change among others.

So the reasoning is more of a guideline to follow than it is in the strictest sense of the word, the deameanor one should have about them when under the practice of entheogens.

you can talk to yourself the same way you can talk to another person, but you cannot talk to another person the same way that you would talk to yourself.

This must all sound like I'm stuck in a hall of mirrors trying to decipher my own scribbled thoughts out loud, but I'm trying to be as coherent as possible with any of this.

<Snipet >

That seems to be a pretty broad statement , there are many who have never posted their experiences here nor are many of those who have are the same . So if there are those who are different how do you know if they are or not if you don't know what they are ?

This idea is relating the concept of social ambiguity.

I want to go further into this thought to explain it better.

What we experience as a single individual will change who we are, and that makes us more the individual. We set out across a world where there are common grounds between us, yet we achieve them through separate circuits.

Where as we can have a unique set of circumstances it will eventually lead to a general experience, like making love or hallucinating.

The ways that we do these are unique to ourselves, yet they have the same physiological aspects, heart rate, philosphical conclusions...etc.

I think that you are at least partially right.

Many people argue that everything is subjective and that if i decribe something to you and even if we describe eachother what we see, we would't be able to know whether we realy understand eachother. This would be because, for instance the color red, would be different for you than how i perceive it.

I think there is a point in that, but the basic structure of the framework of our mind in wich things are given meaning must be the same for each person, because the same laws apply to it.

The visual spectrum is the same for each person and the distance of each colour from one of the edges of the spectrum is therefore also the same. So the geometric principles of how meaning is attached to radiation of certain wavelengths is more or less the same for each person.

So this principle must apply to many other things as well.

Yes even words themselves can be subjective, but there is attitude in meaning and some things have the tendency to be more subjective than others. Whereas the meaning can be lost because the translation was not given proper defining.

However Great minds think alike, but feeble minds also think alike, its just not as inspiring to feel akin to that attribute. Great and feeble minds do not think alike.

I think most people agree that red is red not because they are feeble minded, but because they genuinely see red as being red.

Those who do not I only suspect as being color blind. And even the color blind experience the same chance happenings under the influence of Psychedelics.

This was my concern, why do we feel that we are seeing something that no one else is to the point that we must diverge attention away from the obvious? And yet we go through familiar channels of recognition in order to gain credibility?

Getting back to the red being blue example, How difficult is it to explain the premise of red being blue rather than it being the truth that anyone has ever not seen red as red?

The extraordinary often becomes the status quo, and I see nothing wrong with that. You can cry wolf with DMT because it will never turn out to be a real wolf.

And at last I think that this thread is beginning to get out of hand.