Ultimately, I would break it down thusly:

I was an atheist before I used entheogens, and I am still an atheist. I have no theism. But I would consider myself more spiritual, even if I consider the spirit to be yet another manifestation of consciousness. To me, even if the spiritual world itself is not in some way beyond the material, the experience of it is still deeply meaningful.

I think there is a degree to which we are all one. Fundamentally we are all manifest from one essential substance. On an important level, we are networked, too, like neurons in a brain. Unity through interconnection. I'm not sure on the possibility that we are all literally one, I don't see how we would go about seeing it.

As for objective reality, I live like a materialist out of pragmatism. Occam's razor. The likeliest explanation is the simplest. The idea that I perceive these objects etc which everyone else does too is because the objects are likely actually there. With hyperspace, there is no consensus to my reality. I see things which others don't.
Now, considering the part of my body I consider it is most likely creates my perception, the brain, is flooded with DMT, which affects its processes, I think it most simple to ascribe the change in consciousness to the changes in the organ which produces consciousness.

Also, to Gibran, on the issue of atheists not providing evidence for a independent observable universe. It's an axiom. Without assuming this, you cannot build models and end up lapsing into a kind of solipsistic or nihilistic model which is in no way beneficial. Most people play by these rules, and if there was no such axiom, even the meaning of evidence is gone. With no independent observable universe, how do you suppose one could ever provide evidence to another?

[quote=Kenota]

I think there is a degree to which we are all one. Fundamentally we are all manifest from one essential substance. On an important level, we are networked, too, like neurons in a brain. Unity through interconnection. I'm not sure on the possibility that we are all literally one, I don't see how we would go about seeing it.


[/quote]


For the sake of argument while keeping a "critical scientific mindset", I sometimes represent consciousness in my mind as a product (a byproduct even) of the electric activity going on inside the brain. If one would assume this to be true (not minding the "soul-perspective", then all of us "are" the same result of the same kind of electric activity. And electricity is the same whether or not it is "encased" in the same "battery" or in seperate (as in quantum). If you strip away everything that we as human beings learn from day one, we would be pure consciousnesses observing without categorization (what would happen to matter then?).

In this case it could be argued that the mechanism underlying the feeling of separation and individuality between us all is the socialization process that teaches us what we should believe and what not. Even when it comes to the interpretation of our own perception of everything we act as members of our culture. ..And all our measuring instruments are products of the same culture and include the same biases. ..So maybe it is more important to focus on our conceptions. Again, these are thoughts out loud.

[quote=Kenota]Also, to Gibran, on the issue of atheists not providing evidence for a independent observable universe. It's an axiom. Without assuming this, you cannot build models and end up lapsing into a kind of solipsistic or nihilistic model which is in no way beneficial. Most people play by these rules, and if there was no such axiom, even the meaning of evidence is gone.[/quote]
Right...but even though it may be a useful starting point or premise (especially for scientific observation)...there's no evidence it is objectively "true" or "real"...that it exists without a subjective observer.

This isn't about functionality...it's about the fact that you can no more show the reality of waking life any more than you can show the reality of the DMT realms. Therefore, demanding proof for one, while being unable to show proof of the other is an interesting stance. Functionally, yes, treating waking life as "objectively real" makes sense and has clear-cut benefits, but that doesn't mean it is the case, nor does it offer evidence one way or the other.

If, while dreaming, you discovered that there appeared to be certain physical rules/laws governing your dreamworld, adhering to the rules/laws would allow you to manipulate and control all sorts of elements within the dream. If within the dream, squinting your eyes and focusing on the sky allowed you to fly, and would allow you to do so every time you repeated the process, it would be functional to squint your eyes and focus on the sky every time you wanted to fly. However, upon waking up, you would state, "Oh, that was merely a dream."

Just because something is beneficial, functional, or practical within a certain context/reality, doesn't mean it has bearing on the "objective reality" of that context/reality.

I love threads like this.

Tat Tvam Asi~

Tattvamasi wrote:
gibran2 wrote:

There are many on this site who claim/believe that we are all one. If that’s the case, then it seems to follow that there is only One experiencer.



Indeed..



But that One experiencer could separate itself into many experiencers and give them the illusion that they are separate from the One experiencer, when really they are connected and are It.

I don't go for the whole we are one theory. I believe we all come from one but to claim we are all one is a step too far imo. When i say we come from onje i don't mean God either i mean we come from a common ancestor.
Interesting debate

I remain a small agnostic human individual after my DMT experiences, but I certainly have much more fun playing with ideas that extend beyond the world I see in sunlight. DMT didn't necessarily sway me towards more spiritual or religious views, but gave me an intense desire to see what is happening behind the scenes. I've always had a bit of a wondrous pull towards the nature of my subconscious and some of my first DMT experiences involved (subjectively) interaction/experience with/of what I would categorize as some of my subconscious aspects (certain attitudes that arise, states of mind, visuals that resonated with my idea of brain activity). Having many experiences that extend far beyond what I would think (assumption) possible to conjure "on my own," I also take the idea of the experience being simply my individual subconscious with a few grains of salt.

In regards to common ancestors and oneness is the quote below (believe I posted this is an older Atheism thread).
From Wikipedia Tawhid:
[Quote]According to Avicenna, the universe consists of a chain of actual beings, each giving existence to the one below it and responsible for the existence of the rest of the chain below. Because an actual infinite is deemed impossible by Avicenna, this chain as a whole must terminate in a being that is wholly simple and one, whose essence is its very existence, and therefore is self-sufficient and not in need of something else to give it existence. Because its existence is not contingent on or necessitated by something else but is necessary and eternal in itself, it satisfies the condition of being the necessitating cause of the entire chain that constitutes the eternal world of contingent existing things.[31] Thus his ontological system rests on the conception of God as the Wajib al-Wujud (necessary existent). There is a gradual multiplication of beings through a timeless emanation from God as a result of his self-knowledge.[34][35][/quote]

Not really sure I know how to word my current thoughts on this topic. Surely we have individual selves that we experience, but beyond that I don't have any certainties. I'm more related to fellow humans than a plant outside, but considering it to be alive (and considering scientific data) I know I have some relation. Even a rock may have once shared a star with me. Or perhaps beneath all of observable properties within a material body lies the observing property. I'm comfortable not knowing.

[quote=gibran2]
Ultimately, it’s how my experiences affect me that’s most important. Whether or not they’re real (whatever “real” means) is less important.
[/quote]

THIS struck a thundering chord in me, gibran2. I will smoke DMT to that, friend. We've had our disagreements, but this is a common ground for both of us, and what it all boils down to indeed.

Best regards from some phycisists in Oslo and your old sparring partner Citta =)

I don't have much to add here.

However, I just want to encourage physicalists (i.e., materialists) to explore "spiritualized" versions of their ontology--philosophies like Stoicism are both materialistic but deeply spiritual. For a more recent defense of "spirited" materialism, read Nancey Murphy's Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?.

[quote=Citta][quote=gibran2]
Ultimately, it’s how my experiences affect me that’s most important. Whether or not they’re real (whatever “real” means) is less important.
[/quote]

THIS struck a thundering chord in me, gibran2. I will smoke DMT to that, friend. We've had our disagreements, but this is a common ground for both of us, and what it all boils down to indeed.

Best regards from some phycisists in Oslo and your old sparring partner Citta =)[/quote]

[quote=primordium]I don't have much to add here.

However, I just want to encourage physicalists (i.e., materialists) to explore "spiritualized" versions of their ontology--philosophies like Stoicism are both materialistic but deeply spiritual. For a more recent defense of "spirited" materialism, read Nancey Murphy's Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?.[/quote]

Let us focus more on what brings us together, and less on what seperates us. Enough with the labelling of personal choices on beliefs, and enough with following specific "movements".

Movements are for those who do not have the time or will to create their own interpretation of the nature of the world we're living in; we are all competent enough to shed labels and devote ourselves to more important issues.

[quote=Tattvamasi][quote=gibran2]
There are many on this site who claim/believe that we are all one. If that’s the case, then it seems to follow that there is only One experiencer.
[/quote]

Indeed..
[/quote]


What comes to mind when I think of the 'we are one' idea revolves mostly around how nothing exists in a vacuum, everything that exists (or seems to exist) is completely inter-related and interdependent with the environment. My mind seperates the universe into nouns, because that is how we were taught and it is convenient for language, etc... however the act of making nouns is a total illusion. Everything in this universe that I perceive exists in relation to that which surrounds it, and interacts with it.

For example, a plant gets cut off in my mind from the petals to the roots... it appears as though it is a solitary object. Where do the boundaries end? That plant exists in soil, rebuilding its cells with the materials derived from the environment, depends on weather patterns to provide water, developed color patterns to attract bees to polinate its own species as well as provide for honey.... it is a component of a much much much larger system than the 'object' itself. Even calling it a component is a sort of mind-game, as there is no real breaks in the continuity of the whole system.

Running with the big bang/expansion theory, i imagine a giant soup of particles and whatever the hell else becoming suddenly enormous, and then over a long stretch of time arranging itself into increasing complexity. All that exists is still this same basic stuff there always was, getting re-shuffled into very very complicated and interdependent phenomena. Wild stuff.

[quote=The Neural][quote=primordium]I don't have much to add here.

However, I just want to encourage physicalists (i.e., materialists) to explore "spiritualized" versions of their ontology--philosophies like Stoicism are both materialistic but deeply spiritual. For a more recent defense of "spirited" materialism, read Nancey Murphy's Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?.[/quote]

Let us focus more on what brings us together, and less on what seperates us. Enough with the labelling of personal choices on beliefs, and enough with following specific "movements".

Movements are for those who do not have the time or will to create their own interpretation of the nature of the world we're living in; we are all competent enough to shed labels and devote ourselves to more important issues. [/quote]
Thank you. I firmly believe we are all capable of building ideas on the nature of reality without knowledge of any -isms at all. By all means research, read, listen – but at the end of the day this is highly personal and the thoughts of others are just that, the thoughts of others.

depends what you define God as....

...Okay, I have read the majority of these posts. I am very interested in this thread!

[quote=The Electric Hippy]But I'm just not willing to accept that my convictions while under the effects of what is arguably the most powerful drug on Earth constitutes reality. Yes, I've merged with the Godhead. And yes, it was just as amazing and divine and wonderful and insane as any trip report given here. But I'm still not convinced.[/quote]

I singled out Electric Hippy's comment because his is what I expected to see reflected in a majority of posts relating to this topic. However, many simply went back to their standard-issue textbook Atheist dialogue: "Axioms" - "off-white powder" - "no such thing as objective reality" - "material brain" - "subjective experiences of external phenomena" - "Science" -
"Empirical evidence"

...And then we have hixidom's comment (which represents the minority of views):

[quote=hixidom]My past atheism was all about experience and evidence, and I had never had either to support spirituality. Psychedelics changed that, and then atheism was no longer a viable/rational belief for me.[/quote]

I am technically a Theist, but not in the orthodox sense. I found that my profound experiences when using psychedelic drugs (LSD - Shrooms) did not represent an actual "Encounter with God" but they were profound enough to reinforce my belief that life does not stop at the point of physical death. I fully understand an Atheist not "caving in" to any spiritualism or belief in God based on the use of a drug, but I would think that DMT should have had a profound enough impact on your non-belief ideology to strip away much of the Atheist dogma?

I would have guessed that a DMT experience for an Atheist would be enough to sever any pre-conceived notion such as "When we die, that's it and you're gone - the end!" and render it at the very least... suspect?

For me (as a Theist) I knew what I was experiencing wasn't actually God, but it was similar to "peeking through the window." into what God might be like. I would have figured a DMT experience to represent more of a middle ground for both views -- where Atheists question their non-belief and Theists are disappointed to discover their belief has not been confirmed.

Is it possible that once you return from your DMT experience that the "loss of information" that everyone seems to experience results in one's returning to old habits, dogmas and beliefs? (i.e. "back to square one" )

Can you honestly state that when you are at the peak of your DMT experience that you have not discovered something wonderful in "life" that says there's a lot more going on about "life" than we really know? -- and that there's possibly more to come once we die?

-Birdman

Wouldn't normally resurrect an ancient thread, but this one is worthy. There is a lack of philosophical discussion here despite the incredibly deep implications of the DMT experience. Personally, these discussions make me feel very uneducated and I tend to stay out of them,but I enjoy reading them. I seem to recall this one but would not have dared to enter into the fray when it was originally evolving.

I have called myself an atheist or a theist, whichever is more convenient at the time, my entire life. Despite growing up in the Buy-ble belt, I was fortunate to have a family that did not promote superstition or fantasy. However, I always felt some sort of connection to something I felt was outside of me yet that I was a part of. That said, (I really hate this word) "spirituality" was not a part of my life ever growing up. I made my family take me to church for Easter in second grade because I was fascinated by all the sci-fi/horror stories about the vaguely homo-erotic crucified warlock zombie kids were telling at school,and wanted to know what that had to do with the feeling in my chest I had when I in nature sometimes, but I was mortified at the uncomfortable suit I had to wear and the tedium that we endured in church and never returned.

So, the first hallucination I had on mushrooms at fifteen was religious. Go figure. I don't even know how the verse came into my head, but I was looking at some kind of vine like bush and was entranced by the way the branches seemed to twist as if they were on fire, but there were no flames. From somewhere the phrase just kept turning over and over in my head from Genesis (A book I had nothing but passing familiarity in at the time)- "Consumed and yet not consumed" as in the burning bush vision of Moses, and I came to the conclusion that he was indeed tripping, and that this state is the thing that was missing from the Easter church ceremony. There was no God attached to it, just the knowledge of being.

Fast forward a bunch of years and I have this encounter with 5meoDMT, which I did so during a period in my life when I was both heavily exploring natural states of altered consciousness, ala, astral travel as well as researching kabbalah and western esotericism pretty deeply. My intention with the practices was to discover a universal big-T Truth. That, and save myself from a life of addiction. It was all intertwined, long story.

I won't go into the details here, as I've written endlessly about this one trip and still am,but I died. I felt myself literally die, my heart thudded to a stop, my last breath flowed from my prone form like so much water into the earth. And I didn't meet god, but rather nearly merged with a gigantic mind outside of space and time within an eternal infinite void. It erased every question for me as to the reality of a state beyond death, this WAS the empirical evidence that I needed to prove the existence of something far greater than and outside of myself as a physical body, but of which my consciousness is both an emanation and distant fuzzy reflection of.

As for consciousness, this experience for me pretty much proved that it does NOT continue, but that rather the raw energy of it is returned into the void to return to the process of being and manifestation that is constantly unfolding. But as far as awareness, I think it ends for me at some point after my memories dissolve back into the earth, and before I merge back into void as a dissolute energy.

The entities that we encounter in n,n DMT hyperspace seem to exist on several planes of being and non-being, they inhabit these places and act with autonomy. I not sure if they are non-independent, yet autonomous archetypal forms created out of the universal unconsciousness or independently functioning on some other dimensional plane as Gods and gods that inhabit the various religions of the human world. Or maybe they are some kind of ultra-terrestrial consciousness that communicates in this way, or maybe they just are energetic life forms that exist in an ultra-dimension and are astonished to see us pop into their world like we are when we see UFO's pop into ours. I have no freaking clue what is in DMT.

I dont quote him much and often feel he is responsible for a lot of unnecessary mythology around it, but I will paraphrase TMcK when he said n,n DMT is probably the weirdest thing on earth. Funny, my entire life has been a quest for weirdness and I will have to agree with the man on this one.

I didn't mean for that to be that long, I hope it said something.

[quote=BirdmanDMT]...Okay, I have read the majority of these posts. I am very interested in this thread!

[quote=The Electric Hippy]But I'm just not willing to accept that my convictions while under the effects of what is arguably the most powerful drug on Earth constitutes reality. Yes, I've merged with the Godhead. And yes, it was just as amazing and divine and wonderful and insane as any trip report given here. But I'm still not convinced.[/quote]

I singled out Electric Hippy's comment because his is what I expected to see reflected in a majority of posts relating to this topic. However, many simply went back to their standard-issue textbook Atheist dialogue: "Axioms" - "off-white powder" - "no such thing as objective reality" - "material brain" - "subjective experiences of external phenomena" - "Science" -
"Empirical evidence"

...And then we have hixidom's comment (which represents the minority of views):

[quote=hixidom]My past atheism was all about experience and evidence, and I had never had either to support spirituality. Psychedelics changed that, and then atheism was no longer a viable/rational belief for me.[/quote]

I am technically a Theist, but not in the orthodox sense. I found that my profound experiences when using psychedelic drugs (LSD - Shrooms) did not represent an actual "Encounter with God" but they were profound enough to reinforce my belief that life does not stop at the point of physical death. I fully understand an Atheist not "caving in" to any spiritualism or belief in God based on the use of a drug, but I would think that DMT should have had a profound enough impact on your non-belief ideology to strip away much of the Atheist dogma?

I would have guessed that a DMT experience for an Atheist would be enough to sever any pre-conceived notion such as "When we die, that's it and you're gone - the end!" and render it at the very least... suspect?

For me (as a Theist) I knew what I was experiencing wasn't actually God, but it was similar to "peeking through the window." into what God might be like. I would have figured a DMT experience to represent more of a middle ground for both views -- where Atheists question their non-belief and Theists are disappointed to discover their belief has not been confirmed.

Is it possible that once you return from your DMT experience that the "loss of information" that everyone seems to experience results in one's returning to old habits, dogmas and beliefs? (i.e. "back to square one" )

Can you honestly state that when you are at the peak of your DMT experience that you have not discovered something wonderful in "life" that says there's a lot more going on about "life" than we really know? -- and that there's possibly more to come once we die?

-Birdman[/quote]


Ok Birdman, you get one hell of a big thumbs up for what you're stating here.

My theory?

That some souls (in this context, the word "soul" meaning: the most indestructible yet subtle fraction of our consciousness, i.e. the irreducible part of each of us that has always been and always will be, aka "The Watcher" or "The Witness" ) are not yet to their "maturity point" as of the moment (I've always pictured this in same the way that a crystal grows or a seed becomes produced ba plant) in order to be able to process the entirety, let alone even a fraction, of the cosmic fire hydrant of information (nearly infinite amounts I feel) transmitted and/or received during a "Peak Experience".

But why would anybody want to have certainty, or want to claim it, or want to shove it down other people's throat, on something about wich there simply CAN be no certainty?
What's so bad about admitting that you're not certain?

Because uncertainty is one side of the moon. The dark one. In the shadows, everything is the same: uncertain. In the light, all is diverse, still all live together. Root bark, tree trunk and branches kind of order. Darkness, chaos, is dissimulating order and order is dissimulating chaos, disorder. One is in a state of becoming, ascent, the other in a state becoming, descending. All movement.

There is truth and it takes many forms because all is subject to movement. If you go to very deep meditation state and experience unity, it will impossible for you to explain and you might explain it in two very different ways on different days or to different people.

There is still some definite truth to what we experience and how we experience it. But the realm of thought likes to get complicated unnecessarily and preview things, jump back on things on and on, rationalist thoughts at least, and its better form might be playful as a child. If you get beyond thoughts to the realm of physics, as in felt experience, you are and will always be in truth while experiencing diversity. It is a creative state of being, being in flow.

In darkness, things rest. Uncertainty can be calming. But you need to take action in the world, and that suppose certainty. Or your heart is not into what you are doing and you will construct nothing that lasts. The great tribes of our ancestors have passed on us knowledge that was an expression of their certainty, and it is why it lasted so long and was passed down to us from eons so far. But you cannot express certainty in words, they are tricky and lying. Only in being you will know true certainty. Yet the mind will come and try rip it off you, make you doubt. But once you have been, once you are, uncertainty stop existing.

But it does not mean rigidness, certainty is a state of flow, supremely creative, and opens up infinite becomings. It is the mind perfectly calm and facing any changes. All movement ... And the day turns into night.

[quote=ÅikyǬ]Because uncertainty is one side of the moon. The dark one. In the shadows, everything is the same: uncertain. In the light, all is diverse, still all live together. Root bark, tree trunk and branches kind of order. Darkness, chaos, is dissimulating order and order is dissimulating chaos, disorder. One is in a state of becoming, ascent, the other in a state becoming, descending. All movement.

There is truth and it takes many forms because all is subject to movement. If you go to very deep meditation state and experience unity, it will impossible for you to explain and you might explain it in two very different ways on different days or to different people.

There is still some definite truth to what we experience and how we experience it. But the realm of thought likes to get complicated unnecessarily and preview things, jump back on things on and on, rationalist thoughts at least, and its better form might be playful as a child. If you get beyond thoughts to the realm of physics, as in felt experience, you are and will always be in truth while experiencing diversity. It is a creative state of being, being in flow.

In darkness, things rest. Uncertainty can be calming. But you need to take action in the world, and that suppose certainty. Or your heart is not into what you are doing and you will construct nothing that lasts. The great tribes of our ancestors have passed on us knowledge that was an expression of their certainty, and it is why it lasted so long and was passed down to us from eons so far. But you cannot express certainty in words, they are tricky and lying. Only in being you will know true certainty. Yet the mind will come and try rip it off you, make you doubt. But once you have been, once you are, uncertainty stop existing.

But it does not mean rigidness, certainty is a state of flow, supremely creative, and opens up infinite becomings. It is the mind perfectly calm and facing any changes. All movement ... And the day turns into night.


[/quote]
Yeah....but you do realise that when you talk about 'taking action in the world', you speak about the material world, don't you?

What i mean is, that when you're reading this, THAT world is a lot more certain (at least on a phenomenological level) than the 'spirit world', or whatever you like to call it.

And my question is, why that would be a problem.