I still say try the stuff then talk.

fractal, is not my intention to come as "negative". What I posted doesn't mean you have to accept it. As you said, there are people that may think money is sacred and that is THEIR belief. So as benzyme said, its an opinion.

Christians may think that the Bible is a sacred text, and Muslims may think not.
Some people may think drugs are sacred, and some others may think not.
Some people may think rocks may be conscious... and some are pretty sure that is not the case.

And, please understand, I am not trying to come as a "reductionist"... I think that there is a magical aspect about life, Earth, the Cosmos and the Hallucinations. I know that the possibility that "there is more than meets the eye" may be true. Benzyme said that proving that the "spirit" is real may be outside of the grasp of scientific method... he suggested that. I don't know if that is necessarily true, but that is his opinion and I respect that.

I don't think that DMT is crap or anything like that. I love the fact that DMT exists. I also love the fact that mushrooms exists. But it's complicated... see, I don't think that meditation = DMT or that one achieve a Salvia Hallucination just by figuring it out. I think that drugs are necessary to achieve such states! I think that is wonderful. But I see drugs as a key! Not as a deity or a holy object. If you think DMT is sacred that's fine. I wont kill you for believing that, but please remember that wars have been fought because people thought territorial lands were "sacred" and many other stuff like that.

If there is a land like Narnia behind my closet (sorry about the example...that came up) then the KEY to open the closet is important, but it's not "sacred" or "spiritual" to me... it's just an object that serves a purpose: To open the door and enter the "magical" land.

I actually get a little angry when someone says IRL to me:

- "Pfft dude lay the drugs off... you can achieve that through meditation."

I almost always reply... - "I've tried it... doesn't work for me."

But I still think that if someday some tech-company develops nano-bots that activate certain areas and create hallucinations, the nano-bots won't be sacred to me. DMT creates hallucinations... could a nano-bot create hallucinations? What if they can?

Of course I acknowledge that drugs are fucking great and can help do a lot of awesome things if used properly, but I won't be saying "don't do this or do that because I think that this particular drug is sacred and you should too". I mean... it sounds like religious stuff.

It's just my point of view.

Personally, I dont think anything is more sacred to me than anything else is. I dont think that meditation=DMT at all..not by a long shot..and reguarding nanotechnology..i think in a way psychedelics(especially synthed onces like LSD) are already hinting at that.

I agree with benzyme that proving or disproving the existance of spirit is outside of the current arena science has built for us.

I think that it is acaully very counter productive in the end as well to downplay philosophy and focus only on scientific method..the two are always going to be interwoven at some level, and for good reason..philosophy gives us the ability to generate somewhat well informed ideas(based on science) on things that are too far ahead, or large scale to measure scientifically..but those philisophical models are what drive science foreward and feed our curiosity..scientific investigation will always hit a point where it run into philisophical speculation..that is just the way things work.

In reguards to respect..what about set and setting? isnt that the same thing? To me this is just common sense..just becasue someone respects something and what it can do doesnt mean they are religous. Respect for these things is part of a framwork that you can utilize when you work with these things. If you dont respect what it is that DMT can do to you..than you might get burned..try eating 7 grams of mushrooms or smoking 75mg of DMT in the middle of a party full of drunk people..I can guarantee you, you will gain some level of respect for the intensity of the experience that these things can create..any sane person would.

Clouds, I see some good points in your posts. You're on the edge of something you're not sure about, and you're looking for clues and advice, and at the same time you're putting your ideas out there. That takes guts.

But it also sounds like you're not entirely satisfied with the responses you've been getting, some of which are rather negative, even uncomfortably so. I'm new here, myself, and got some rather hurtful feedback on my first postings, too. If you don't mind, I'd like to offer some advice.

Choose your words carefully. Most folks around here are very serious about not offending anyone. If you come across as pushy, angry, or annoyed, you'll get pushy, angry and annoyed replies. If you have something to say, especially something you're guessing might offend someone, speak your piece gently, with a generous helping of "The way I see things now..." and "I may be mistaken, but...." and other humble phrases. You might be thinking, "But that's not me. I"m pretty straight forward. I don't play games." BUT... It is not playing games to be polite. Respect for others is built into the system here, and it's not respectful to step on people's toes. It's a lesson I'm still working through myself.

Anything you want to say can be crafted in a humble way that prompts a response without hurting anyone's feelings. It just takes some practice. I can see that you're getting this, anyway, because your responses are increasingly less "edgy".

For instance, I believe that rocks have the capacity for sentience. So, I was taken aback by one of your earlier remarks:




Saying it that way is like a smack in the face to me. You are implying my life is a lie.
Not a nice energy to swallow.



Much better said! I am not maligned here, you allow me my beliefs with respect.

Keep posting! Your ideas are an asset.

Do you guys realize that no matter how much you debate this in the end it's all the same! Life is beautiful! Life moves forward! It depends what you believe in more. If you are geared towards science you quickly try to disprove a truly spiritual experience by saying DMT gives you hallucinations and all the yabadooda.. Notice most powerful natural psychadelic teachers that grow in nature are DMT based (mushrooms, yopo:both kinds, m. Tenuiflora, psychotria viridis, and loads more including ice plant!)

Hmm I wonder why...?

And you have LSA In nature which when prepared properly can be even more powerful than an LSD experience. And you have Iboga root bark as a true healing cleansing life change. Mr. Iboga

so let's just smoke some spice and learn.. The old science vs spirit debate can go on infinitely yet it will go no where..

I say to those who have not tried spice or aren't at least familiar with it.. To do so.. The only way to learn the molecule is to take it yourself however you see fit and become familiar with it.

I really liked your post Clouds. It was humble and personal and I didn't see it as negative or a rant at all. I think the critical, rationally grounded view is often the minority in underground hallucinogen culture. It's important to remember that not everyone is "working" with "medicine" as bedroom neoshamen nor does everyone believe that the technicolour light temples inhabited by superintelligent cosmic mantises actually exist somewhere in another dimension.

Different people with different worldviews react differently to the experiences we share and speak about on this forum. I think the variability in the reaction and interpretation of these experiences - and how this is clouded by previous beliefs and prejudices held by individuals, set, setting and mood - is evidence that what is happening is coming from within us. As someone else in this thread said already; the molecule is the KEY to unlocking that inner activity.

I am a computer programmer. The essence of what I'm doing is building "living" mathematical models of reality. During this process, I learn about reality, because successfully modeling something is only possible by understanding that thing.

This discipline will eventually model everything we know. We will understand reality by creating perfect models of it. The interesting question is whether there are limits to this exploration. I believe there are, and when these limits are found, they will serve as indirect pointers to what we call spirituality.

The first part of your statement sounds exactly like what scientists say when they discuss the importance and depth of science. While I do not disagree and feel that yes, computer programming will eventually model everything, that really doesn't mean anything as models are not real. It's the same issue I have with certain areas of science and modern Economics in totality. Reality is not a "perfect model", when you create a "perfect model" (perfect vacuum, perfect supply/demand correlation, etc) you are not proving anything concrete about reality, as benzyme already said, you're "proving" a concept. While this does not make the data gained irrelevant in all cases, it is important that we remember that these models ARE NOT the real world.

As to the second part of your statement, I wholeheartedly agree. As I said, your whole posts resonates with science in a strong way, bothe programming and science attempt to model reality, etc etc. This last part makes me think of things like EPR Paradox, relating to quantum theory. There are limits or at least very strange, even spiritual? (I dunno) implications created by these things that strive to be perfect models of reality. I don't think that it is through coincidence or chance or due to some error on the part of those behind the theories, I think it is a mapping of phenomena that we know and experience, yet for which we have no viable explanation or representation through modern scientific methods/thought. Just my thoughts...I found the similarity between your post and many things I've heard from neuroscientists and high-level physicists to be interesting, and it makes sense, given the fields.

That's my opinion. Capsaicin produces different results than DMT. That's it, different. By what authority can anyone say either is more significant? Attaching any greater meaning or significance to either substance, and the result of its ingestion, is purely subjective. I don't believe in Objective Significance. It doesn't exist. We attribute significance to what we encounter based on our experience (or whatever BS we've been brainwashed with). There is no universal scale of absolute objective significance.

Now if you only define 'significance' in terms of strength of physiological effects, then sure DMT has more powerful physiological effects than capsaicin (although even that is arguable since capsaicin is capable of producing high level hallucinations and out of body experiences). But this entire thread is about questioning DMT's 'significance' in terms of having some importance and meaning regarding the spirit and its subsequent elevation to sacred substance because of this. That's what I argue against. That sort of significance and meaning is created, subjectively, by us. It doesn't exist, a priori, within the substance. From that perspective, no substance holds any more or less significance, meaning, or sanctity than any other.

Cool discussion BTW. Not attacking you or anyone at all here, just chatting.

freethinker wrote:


Perhaps not, but i think you will find a resounding consensus asserting that a hot pepper is not even in the same categorical ballpark (or universe) of significance as what is extracted from MHRB. I mean come on, there's a limit to being the devil's advocate, no?

Furthermore, you say so yourself:



If we attribute significance, that makes us, in consensus, the authority, no?



No one to my knowledge has stated that it is not. All significance and meaning is certainly created by us. Things can contain great OBJECTIVE power, but meaning always comes from us, often in consensus. (I know i am potentially opening up a HUGE discussion here BTW.)



Can you provide sources for this? I am genuinely interested as a self professed pepper fanatic. All the sources I could find are anecdotal and suspect.

cheers,
JBArk

Different substances have different effects. That’s what I said before, and I don’t see how it can be argued.

I also said that some substances are more significant than others. For example, oxygen is a very significant substance. Water is also a very significant substance. Significant subjectively? Of course.

DMT is, to use your terminology, subjectively significant to me. There are many substances and many things in my life that I consider significant. This does not mean that I worship any of these things.

The original post was concerned about the apparent reverence and respect that some people show toward a chemical compound. Much of this is just semantics – how we use language.

Here’s my take on the original post: The original poster had an LSD experience that led to the delusional belief that “drugs are the gods of the future”. In time, the delusion faded, but it left a mark. It seems the OP is now concerned that if he uses DMT he might become deluded again. He sees how some people refer to DMT on this site and elsewhere and sees signs of delusion in them. I don’t think this is the case. As I said, I think it’s mostly just semantics.

Gibran and Jbark make excellent points.


IMO, on my subjectively opinionated substance significance scale i'd place psychedelic medicines as holding far higher value to the human race than something like capsaicin. It doesn't mean i worship it.. I think all this is besides the point.

You could argue that haemoglobin should be worshipped above DMT for its amazing ability to oxygenate our tissues and allow us to live. You could argue that luteinizing hormone should be sacred for its triggering of ovulation and facilitating the circle of life. Worshipping sacred cows is silly.

worshiping a skinny long-haired jew is silly..
hasn't stopped billions of fools from letting it embody an entire superstitious belief system for over 2000 years

Well, I have carefully read each and everyone of your replies guys and I can say that I am learning this so far:

• Smoking DMT doesn't necessarily mean that one thinks/believes that DMT is sacred, I say this because some people have suggested that I should smoke/ingest the substance and then decide whether it is sacred for me or not. That is absolutely valid, but no one can say: "Smoke it and you'll see that it is a sacrament."
Some people here in this thread are experienced DMT smokers and seem to agree that DMT itself is not sacred. Or any drug for that matter.
Some others have gone as far as to say that nothing is sacred. I don't know "everything", so I can't be sure that "nothing" is sacred, but I do know that DMT is a hallucinogen drug and drugs are not sacred to me. I give more subjective significance to humans than to drugs.

• Science and Spiritual philosophy are tools to try to comprehend different areas of knowledge, experience and imagination. They are both useful in one way or another. A Buddhist is capable of discovering a scientific breakthrough as much as an atheist or a polytheist. If one wants to believe that rocks are conscious or that a long-haired jew will come back from the dead, then that is their choice... its their belief. And we are FREE to believe whatever we want as long as we don't harm others (actively or passively). We could also talk about Philosophy of science, which in my opinion is a very ethical and logical philosophy, but that is another topic (which I would love to discuss later in another thread) in relation with drugs, hallucinogens and intoxication.

I am thinking about more things that I can learn from this discussion, but for now these are the main ones, if anyone thinks that I am assuming things that were not meant to be assumed that way, please feel free to reply. I will try to analyze the premises in a new way.

I guess it depends on what you mean by Philosophy. If, by Philosophy, you mean every avant garde new-age guru that comes mouthing some mumbo-jumbo, then sure. This is not, however, the definition most scientists nor real philosophers would give. In point of fact, modern philosophers such as Bertrand Russel and Karl Popper have been not only influential, but revolutionary in the development of the modern scientific method: Bertrand single-handedly overturned the dominance of Inductivism in the scientific method which had reigned for centuries, and Popper led the way towards an explanation-centered approach to the scientific method, a problem-solving approach to determining truth and reality. Philosophy and science are very much good friends.



Exactly.

Superb! This is also why I'm doing physics, once we unlock the ability to model reality perfectly (if the universe lets us), there is no room for BS! However unlocking this achievement is a double edged sword, it could lead to us killing each other once and for all or it could lead to utopic peace and harmony.

When debating things, the most important thing to consider is objective reality itself, not any hypothetical parallel universe which lies outside the boundary of falsifiability.

I also agree that the limits will probably serve as pointers to spirituality. The conflict between science and religion is silly. It is clear that science provides boundary conditions on what is correct and what is not. For instance we know that Earth is not currently floating on the back of a giant turtle. However science will perhaps never provide the answer to what is truthful until all the boundary conditions have been found. So in that manner, religion and science are gambles, science is a long and slow bet that has perhaps a 100% chance of success and religion also has 100% chance of success but for each religion there is a 50/50 chance that you are either following complete BS or the divine truth (under the assumption that anything that is not divine truth is BS). The equations that science pumps out are divine truth and this is evidently where religion conflicts with science - people don't like being told that what they have been told in the past is horse tranquiliser. Whereas of course, in scientific circles one is used to the notion that one's beliefs are subject to change in light of new found truth. Science is the true religion.

embracethevoid wrote:



nicely said. One of the fundamental, and paramount differences between a system of faith and science: falsifiability. If religions and other dogmatic systems of faith were falsifiable, the world would be a much simpler, safer place.

From there to scientific equations being the divine truth is clearly false, however, particularly due to falsifiability. The "divine truth" is what all these endeavour to find; the methods must be falsifiable, but not the end goal.

dots & thoughts. penser ou danser.

JBArk

The way in which I mean "divine truth" is not that any equation in science is 100% certain but rather, you get an equation, boundary conditions for which it will work and the degree of uncertainty to which it is accurate. For all intents and purposes, these combined are pretty much divine truth given that keeping all these in mind will allow one to reproduce conditions irrespective of position in space and applying this knowledge intrinsically lets you modify it till you reach the ultimate truth. The ultimate truth will be falsifiable but it will never be false.

I imagine science to begin approximating towards divine truth over time like a Bessel function (0 is the goal), whereas religion is like a vector pointing in a general direction and you pray that it is going in the right direction (literally!). So perhaps if there is a true religion then it is a vector starting at (0,0) and ending at (infinity, 0). Unfortunately most of the vectors out there point down into hell.

DMT manifests the consciousness that is infused into all universal life.
This consciousness [seemingly] has infinite possibilities within given parameters (physics)
Therefore, DMT has infinite functions. Not just one.

I'll tell you one thing,
DMT is not a grass hopper, or a flag pole.