wander being the key word

My world is all inclusive, I understand the positive and negative aspects of them; they are both. My warning is simply intended to properly respect the negative aspects so they don't get out of hand. Is that so wrong? Please enlighten me if it is, because I too am capable of making mistakes, and if I've made one here then I would absolutely appreciate knowing where it is so I don't make it again

Etymology is not an argument. And you are the one who called them hallucionogenic, names don't have to be fully descriptive and accurate reflections of reality, in fact, often they are not.

This whole thread sounds to me like someone had a bad experience and, no offense, attempts to deal with it by convincing himself it's not real, needing to be convinced of this so much that he results to obviously flawed logic, and then tries to spread that idea to others.

Only the Sith's deal in absolutes.....

That would be fine, if it were true. Re-read your posts.



Then why do you insist on generalizing your conclusions about your experiences (conclusions which you believe to be absolute undeniable fact, as you said) onto everybody elses? Do you not see the contradiction in what you are saying here and what you said before?

Btw i don't think solid conclusions are really necessary. I always recommend staying away from the left brained need to ever even come to such an absolute point of view.



Do you have any idea how many people get strokes who have never taken psychedelics in their life? And aside from how ridiculously flawed your reasoning is here, you do realize that Ram Dass claims to have basically stopped using psychedelics decades before his stroke, right?

[quote=brokenChild
I will mention this tho, I've done at least 25-30 trips on psylocybin/LSD in my 10 years
[/quote]

Since when does 25-30 experiences make one capable of figuring out what the entire experience is? Or a hundred for that matter? There is people here who have done them hundreds or thousands of times and they don't feel qualified to boil it all down to an absolutist statement that they claim applies to everyone's experiences. Why not just express your OWN experiences and your OWN *opinions* on YOUR experiences instead of claiming that you have figured it all out and are here to share with us the absolute undeniable truth about the nature of ALL of our mushroom experiences that we were somehow too blind to see?

Etymology is just another piece of the puzzle. You don't call a rusty truck rusty, when it's not rusting. You don't call a green apple a green apple when it's red. No one calls mushrooms hallucinogenic, unless they are indeed hallucinogenic.

No offense taken, but your perception of my assertion is simply not true; also no offense. I've had mostly positive and beneficial experiences from my mushroom trips; but they were limited to the effects of the drug; and the perception of "that reality" is drug-induced, so it has no substantial validity of it's own without the drug. Hence, it's an illusory mental state created by the effects of the drug. It certainly is REAL, in the sense that the drug has a very direct and specific effect, but that effect is just a projection of an illusion; it has no substantial validity... it's like a movie. Seems real, but has no substantial validity; is based in fantasy not reality.

I'm not trying to spread anything to others, I'm simply pointing out the nature of the thing itself. A screwdriver is a screwdriver, used to drive in screws. A hammer is used to hammer things down (and has other creative, variable applications)

Hallucinogens produce hallucinations; simple facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Some trips can be good and beneficial; others can be bad and disturbing. These are simple facts, true and accurate

I see no contradiction, if there is one please point it out. I'm asserting that mushrooms create an illusory state of mind, and in high doses and large enough quantities, are dangerous. They can also be beneficial if properly respected; those are not contradictions, they are both sides of the fence. Two sides of the same coin, both are true.


Yes, I realize this, this is why I'm not asserting it as an undeniable truth. Because you're absolutely right, I don't know for 100% certainty, it's just a consideration, that's all.

How many times do you need to drink water before you figure out it's basic application? How many times do you need to fly in a plane before you understand its basic function? I needed 25-30 trips to get the gist of the message. I feel like I have a good grasp on that gist.

Also, regarding your


Who exactly do you know here that has tripped thousands of times? I'm a fan of constructive criticism, not hyperbole. Tho I understand the basic gist of your statement. I don't claim to know every single aspect of the mushroom trips; but I get the basic message, and that's all I'm relaying here;

They create hallucinations; not founded in true reality. It's like a dream, when you go to sleep, and you dream in the night, it seems real, but has no substantial validity. One can argue tho, that even dreams are "real" in the sense that they are dreams, and so deserve to be respected as such. In the same way so are mushroom trips; they don't have any tangible, substantial reality, but in and of themseleves, they provide a dream-like experience, but it's hallucinogenic; i.e. not tangible reality.

Let's come back to your assertion that, somehow, ayahuasca is a "truer" experience then magic mushrooms, which I find interesting.

The active psychedelic compound in Ayahuasca is (for the most part) N,N DMT. There are the harmalas involved in helping the N,N DMT reach your brain, but I am going to assume that when you refer to the Ayahuasca experience, you are refering to the power given to it by the N,N DMT.

The active psychedelic compound in magic mushrooms is psilocybin, which is metabolized into the psychedelic compound psilocin (this is what makes you trip, not psilocybin, which is a pro-drug of psilocin). Psilocin is (drumroll please): 4-HO DMT.

The only difference between magic mushrooms and DMT is two atoms: a hydrogen and an oxygen. Are you going to posit that there is some cosmically fundamental change brought about by those two atoms?

If your argument is that the interaction between the DMT and the harmalas somehow creates a "truer" experience, then what about people who take magic mushrooms and harmalas. It's very possible and the results are, to say the least, impressive.

I feel like you are falling prey to the stereotype that Ayahuasca comes from the jungle, is a healing potion used by wise, native shamans, while magic mushrooms are just another schedule 1 drug for hippies.

This is a total logical fallacy: I encourage you to abandon your assumptions about a drug (and by extension, your cultural assumptions about the people who take the drug: assumptions that you are almost certainly making from within a fog of privilege).
Psychedelics are all the same, and they are all different.

Fundamentally, they are all illusory, and they may all be deeply true as well.

Blessings
~ND

Yet you cannot prove that mushrooms are halluciogens, that solely produce hallucinations. Attaching the word halluciogen to mushrooms proves nothing. I could call a cup of water deadly, and argue drinking it would cause death as it's called deadly water. But if you drink it and nothing happens, then suddenly that makes no sense. You have nothing to back up that the mushroom experience is illusory.

Defining something as illusory is futile if you cannot even define what reality is. If your brain would naturally create the actives contained in a mushroom, then you would call that experience real and all else illusory (ignoring tolerance). Your perception is not exclusively objective when you have taken no additional chemicals, and exclusively subjective when you have. It simply doesn't work that way.

From what I know of molecular chemistry, even ONE atom, or one chain in a chemical bond can change the ENTIRE expression of the effects of that particular drug.

So comparing apples to oranges just because both are fruits doesn't really dictate anything of value.

Obviously mushrooms and ayahuasca have two entirely different effects, which have their own similarities.

That's absolutely not where my argument stems from, your assumption is simply false. That may be some notion made by someone else in your prior experience, but that's not the notion I am suggesting here. I have no problem with hippies, or yippies, or any other cultural demographic, I think they all have something valuable to contribute to the community which makes it a functional whole; we can learn something from all of them. So, I don't place shamans in any specific category higher or lower than that of hippies, I simply think they are two different and unique expressions of consciousness, and I value both equally.


This statement we can absolutely agree on. However, I do still feel like ayahuasca is at least more grounded in reality, mushrooms are more visually-enhanced; hence my suggestion of them being more illusory, and ayahuasca being a "truer" experience. Simple matter of semantics I suppose, but the only way I can communicate this is through words, which in themselves are limiting at times.

Thank you, very interesting input. Also I cannot comment on the mushrooms and hermalas concoction, as I've never tried it, but it does seem like an incredibly interesting experience to say the least

Ok then, let's define "real"... the real, is that which is naturally given, without any intoxicating substances. The experience that is given by nature, without inducing it with external substances, is what I consider real; it has it's own natural, assertive validity. Of course one can argue that experiences induced by intoxicating substances also have their substantial validity, in the sense that they are substantial, to the extent that under those induced conditions, those specific experiences occur... true. If I see butterflies everywhere while on mushrooms tho, those are phantom butterflies (unless, they are real in the sense that I can touch them, feel them, and they are actual butterflies in a forest or a grove somewhere)... to make it less confusing, I have never seen an elf or a gnome in real life, or any fairytale creatures. But, elf sightings on "mushrooms" are actually quite common anecdotal references; i.e. fantasy, not "real" and physical presence; simply mental projections of drug-induced hallucinogenic phenomenon.

Untill you produce me a real leprechaun with a pot of gold, I will continue to assume that they only live in fantasy land. This is just scratching the surface of all the kinds of crazy things one sees on a mushroom trip; and the communal reports of psychonauts everywhere

when one thousand trips you have took, look this good, you shall not.

thank you yoda, but have my fill I have had, take more mushroom trips I will not

Perhaps you have been simply shown it was an illusion (yes, you were shown this illusion), because for what ever reason the mushrooms became impatient with you, or you were unable to grasp the full meaning of the experiences.

I hear your warning, but that warning is good for only one person--you. I have been shown many things by mushrooms that I know are illusory, but I have also been shown many things which are true. My experiences are quite typical, but are also specific to me. Your experiences are specific to you.

To speak in absolutes is to attempt to be absolutely wrong.

Great post BrokenChild. Most people seem to disagree with your point of view but I would have to say I'm quite intrigued by what you have learned through your 10 years of consumption.

I think I comprehend what you mean by illusions. Also, what you say about truths and untruths makes sense to me. This will be taken into consideration. Much respect and thanks for sharing this.

I have locked this topics since the OP broke our rule about No preaching:



As we can all see here: by talking in absolutes you turn a topic into a monologue where no real discussion is possible anymore. On the DMT-Nexus we want dialogs and no preaching of ones own ideas about 'truth', such topics will always derail into a trench war.


The Traveler