@Enoon: There is a clear distinction between men that is apparent to me.

The average man is the guy who lives his whole life confined to reality, struggling to cope. In contrast the shaman isn't even "living a life" by the average man's definition. But one can never really appreciate the difference unless one has lived among shamans and among average men.

-f

After some years of a constant and fully-engaging struggle to 'understand' I've developed a Mythology. Although the word mythology is not to my liking, neither is it accurate but nevertheless. My definition of this mythology is an empirical and all-encompassing (within the bounds of my awareness) description of the world. The description is interactive and of web-like structure where all the points can be made to connect. The description is where I live.

I just want to point out that obviously no one's mythology or description of the world is right as opposed to someone else's being wrong. They are just means for each of us to get through life. Some men are bitter with life whereas others are joyous.

The average man receives his description from his parents + society and never questions it. And today there are a number of these mythologies which are embodied by populations worldwide. The Christian and Islamic doctrines are examples of this. They teach man what to think of himself and what to think of the world.

Long ago I realized that whatever I had gotten from society is wholly inadequate if I am to deal with the sphere of the unknown. So I set on a path of experience and corroboration which I still follow.

I am fully convinced that modern man is drowning in his crazy world of god and sin and whatnot. A world of pure fantasy where money has taken the place of energy as currency and everyone is totally blinded to what's going on around them.




The man's delusions have spoken.

-f

P.S. In my opinion one needs proper framework to really benefit from DMT. I am trying to present this framework which has been developed over generations by men whose only goal was to understand, to know. I am convinced that an average man who stumbles on this path cannot get very far. Obviously I can't force any of this on anyone and it is not my intention to do so. However, this is a free forum and I have the priviledge of sharing what I know in whatever form I feel is best.

Iv got nothing to add except that Im really enjoying this thread.

dear fwaggle

on a side note I wish you would stop using the word *man* and instead use human or being or human being or something else. You do realize that there are also quite a few women reading these posts and there ARE words that include both genders, so why not use them?

I understand your desire to explain a framework that you find useful. However, even if you can do what you suggest you can - feel into other people - I still doubt that you can know exactly what they know and feel, and thus you probably don't know if they don't already have a framework that is wildly beneficial for them when using dmt. Maybe this framework is very similar to the one you would propose (I still haven't really seen it explained anywhere by you, btw) but just uses different symbols. Maybe this framework even works better for them personally than yours would.

You say people are not that different, but solely given the fact that we seem to be vastly influenced by our social-context it would make sense that some set of symbols and analogies would work better for some than others.
Personally I do believe that people are quite different - this is why we have such a diversity on this planet - from religious leaders and scientific luminaries to artists to mass murderers, to soldiers, to you and me... Of course we can access these sets of emotions and thought patterns to a certain degree, but there is a difference between being able to sort of feel it and bringing this feeling into reality i.e. becoming like Ted Bundy, becoming like Richard Feynman etc.
The ancient gnostics already had an idea of individualism and how individual paths were more meaningful than following a set of rules that someone else seemed to think were a good idea. In their eyes one was considered immature if one did not develop one's own practices and instead just followed some doctrine. I understand that that's not what you are implying, but it seems to me you fail to at least allow for the possibility that we are already working on what you wish to see. Every one of us. And every one of us has access to a vast ocean of information, from books to persons to personal experiences, so that we too have ages of research behind us in a sense.

I deliberately did not say that we HAVE the perfect framework already. I can only speak for myself and everything else is conjecture, but in my case, even the framework that I use is always subject to improvement, and I hope it remains this way always.

Also, personally I do not take offence in your posts, I actually enjoy debating this with you. I would enjoy it more if you could clarify what you mean by framework and if you would pay more attention to the details of your language and if you were less absolutistic in your statements, but we've been through this and it doesn't seem like you care to change any of this.

Cheers
Enoon

f,
You are still speaking in absolutes - have you taken time to consider the requests that you refrain from doing so?
It appears that your English is fine, btw.
The earlier Wilson quote concerning the "average" man intimated what I will request explicitly: Please be more specific and more precise when expressing your ideas about said man.
Regarding knowledge developed over generations, frameworks, and paths: I find that entheogens, DMT among them, continue to offer much to many, many people; people have, in turn, responded (integrated?) in a profusion of ways. Personally, I seek to discover and learn the ways which empower me, illuminate the world, and make me a better person.

Lastly -



You do not. Almost, but no - it seems you neglect that you are a part of the Nexus community. As in all communities, members here have a responsibility for their "form" beyond whatever they feel is best.

As ever,
L

@Enoon: I'm sure that you are working towards something. That something is always vague, though. And on this path what we get is usually not at all what we expect.

By merging with people one does more than just feel them. One becomes the thing one is merging with. For me it is as simple as that. True hunters know that this is so because they merge with their prey. It is something that once experienced leaves no doubt, yet it can't be thought about.

The framework I'm talking about starts with a simple assumption. Instead of assuming, as the average man does, that we are a physical body surrounded by objects I assume that everything is awareness, energy. The next step is to corroborate this assumption. One must struggle to witness and to understand that we are truly energy before we are matter. This is where ayahuasca can help.

First you need to know exactly what it is you want to know. Then you "discuss" the matter with ayahuasca and he shows you what you need to know. It's really as simple as that.

One who approaches ayahuasca seeking knowledge will receive knowledge, albeit in unexpected ways.

I am convinced that if man is willing to abandon his fort of self-complacancy, ayahuasca will start him on the path of acquiring a framework that is made-to-order and suits him.

Once you have the first hand knowledge that awareness is all that exists you work from there without the hindrance of social perception.


In regards to my using the word man and the masculine gender: I am male. But what I'm saying is no different for women. Men and women really aren't that different, either. I make this claim because I do not see people as physical bodies. I see something else which is practically identical whether you are male, female, canadian, buddhist, or a circus freak. We are just a bunch of things encased in something like a bubble. The things in the bubble are the same for all human beings. The difference is in which of those things we utilize.


Learn to perceive the world as energy and there will be no cease to the wonders, believe me.

-f

@Ljosalfar: If a day once again arrives where a man can be penalized for grammar, that is the blackest day.

-f

"You can't say A is made of B
or vice versa.
All mass is interaction."
- Richard Feynman

is interaction then awareness for you? it is for me, and so I would say we almost agree

I'm female and I dislike the use of the word *man* for generalization when there are suitable words that don't imply a sex, because I agree that men and women share the basic energies. But the more complex structures IMO are different from one individual to the next and I have empirical reasons to believe this.

Why do you think that what I'm working towards is vague? I don't see how you can know this. I certainly can't really voice or explain what it is, but possibly it is the process itself that I am working on and you yourself say that there are things that one cannot think/speak about because they are beyond words. Possibly my process isn't vague at all... How would you know?

And finally I have learned to perceive the world as many things, energy being one of them. The world out there never ceases to amaze and fascinate me.

I still don't understand what makes your framework so special or what it really is aside from acknowledging or assuming that all things are awareness and energy. Is there some end result you are looking for, some kind of energy that this framework will give you, some sort of process it starts and where does it lead? What is your intention in using this framework? What do you feel needs to be gained in the first place?

As for your bubble analogy, I disagree. To me it does not feel like we are in bubbles at all, but we more like nodes in a network of interactions, pulsing, interconnected. I don't believe the body is the *vessel* of something else. The energy and the matter we are seem to me to be one and the same. The body in that sense would already the brilliant light of life and the divine... I think we just learned to think of life and our selves as something unexciting because the actual reality of what we are is too overwhelming and mind-boggling to properly function in the world we have to survive in.

Much love
Enoon

It's not grammar really but that which is behind the grammar that you are being criticized for, and really now one is penalizing you. The way you express yourself indicates a lot about your attitude and sentiment towards other people - it makes you seem aloof and arrogant, and this is not something we want to think of others, nor is it necessary in having these discussions. A different angle in your communications would evoke a lot less negativity while the constructive remarks would still be there.

What I seek is absolute freedom. Freedom to extend myself to infinity. Freedom to merge with the universe while I am still alive. Freedom to ride the surf of the unspeakable.

The description I embody is geared for power. I am a hunter of power. I accept only that which can take me to power, to freedom and I reject everything else. I aim for balance, for harmony. I struggle to overcome man, to become what I really am, which is nothing.

I sweat and puff to live a strong life and for me all that matters is that my actions be the best of me. I constantly bring out the best of myself and offer it to the universe. And I am humbled by this. And the universe is my friend and she brings me joy when no one else can.

I trust in my power and I know that it will lead me to my fate, whatever it may be. And I accept my fate and I desire nothing so whatever the world gives me is more than enough.

And I am happy and blessed to be alive. To have had a chance. To have roamed in this mysterious world.

And I will roam alone... until I'm gone.


Your's truly,

-f

Ahem

And yet...despite making this statement, you still argue against the subjective experience...

contradict yourself much?

oh nice one!!!

bah! Our debate was about whether DMT has limitations or not. I am convinced that it does whereas you are convinced that it does not. The reason for our lack of agreement is because our perceptual state is different. ie. We're seeing the matter from two different perspectives that cannot be aligned. I assure you that I can see where you are getting the idea about DMT being infinite, I really do. But can you see from my perspective?

Now you tell me what exactly the contradiction is?

-f

i myself have found this thread to be interesting, including the back and forth banter (it isn't disrespetful). i think we all enjoy it, even those who appear as though they take issue with it.

regarding the original post, im quite interested in dreaming too... there are practises amongst certain circles in the tibetan traditions where there is an emphasis placed on maintaining awarness while falling asleep and waking, as well as when dreaming. in this way there are no lapses in awarness, no moments of unconsciousness for the minds focus to be disrupted. awarness becomes a single pointed force in this way. unbroken by these voids between wake and sleep. it is believed that in this way we are preparing for death and the ultimate goal of maintaining awarness in the void between death and rebirth, fostering an immortal conciousness so to speak. one that dosent forget.
easier said than done. maintaining awarness in dreams in not an easy task ime. but this is somthing i work towards.

iv always found my dream world to lose focus quickly if my lucid attention lingers too long on any one scene or object, this causes me to wake up usually, or to forget myself in another dream layer. somtimes placing awarness on an object causes it to melt. the stuff of dreams is fluid.

The fact of the matter is, we are beings that perceive. Our perception should not be locked at one point, which results in rigidity. I choose to be fluid. Why would anyone choose to be rigid??

-f

@open'nheart:

Since you are interested in dreaming, here's a little tip: Stop talking to yourself and focus all your attention on the back of your eyelids as you are trying to fall asleep. Blobs of discoloration and something that appears like noise or static will appear sooner or later. Your best bet is to put all of your concentration on the moving blobs. For some people the static may appear as fast moving geometric patterns which cover the whole visual field superimposed on the darkness.

That's what I've been saying all along fwaggle...

I also say that the only limitations this tool dmt has are the ones you impose on it, because for me it seems it merely gives you access to yourself in a way, and you can go anywhere your self will take you from there. The limitations you perceive are yours alone, when taken from this perspective. That doesn't mean that they're not real to you. But they might not be there or real for everyone, and they might not be real to you forever either.

Well, it’s very easy to test your hypothesis regarding your ability to “sense” the subjectivity of others. Get a few people to do a little experiment with you – put those people in a room separate from yourself and have them write down what they are experiencing. They should write down what they are perceiving (seeing, hearing, etc.) what they are thinking, and what they are feeling emotionally. You can then enter into each of their subjective consciousness’ one by one, and write down what you experienced. After a sufficient period of time, compare what you have written. If your beliefs are true, your accounts should match very closely (actually, the match should be exact).

And even if you were somehow able to sense the subjective qualities of another person, this kind of “sensing” is not the same as having a direct subjective experience. In order to know what it is like to be another person subjectively, you would have to literally become that other person – you would have to experience that person’s thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations from that person’s perspective, not merely “sense” their subjective state with your mind and from your perspective.

You also contradict yourself when you say we are all the same, then later say that some of us are different from the “average man”. So are we the same or are we different?