My point about imagination is that, at least in my experience, we project our experiences of life onto everything. There's really no such thing as a clean window through which we view the universe, there's just us and our experiences and our references back to them. In other words it's all relating and everything is relative.

I've learned a lot from DMT but the things I've learned about it have been about myself. My ways of thinking. My ways of relating. For me it is a tool that lets me unlock my imagination and drift into the deepest parts of myself. This isn't to say it's an 'active form of imagining', but then again I'm not sure how keen I am on the idea of free will to begin with (see my argument from Nietzsche's point of view earlier about the will being an effect rather than a cause or grab a copy of twilight of the idols and take a look for yourself).

Point being, I can get really stuck in a mode of thinking about things, closed minded if you will, and I believe that psychedelics help to open my mind up to new ideas and new possibilities. This, in my opinion, is a form of imagining. I have to imagine things aren't how I believe they are for awhile, to get outside my usual reference points, and look at the world in a different way.

Actually to use a specific example.

One of my last DMT trips I believed I was talking to God/The Source/Whatever you want to call it. This being was expressing love towards me and it was a really positive experience. The thing is, deep down, I'm pretty agnostic. The whole experience conflicted pretty heavily with my core beliefs. But it did show me something, that no matter what I believe about someone else that their feelings are their own.

Fast forward to a couple of nights ago when I took some mushrooms and went on a nice journey by myself in my room. It felt like a life review process and when I got to my issues with my dad I put all the pieces together.

See my parents divorced when I was about six and they fought a lot afterwards and really put myself and my brother in the middle of things. This had made it pretty hard for me to forgive my dad and my mom but I want to love them both. I started thinking about all the sacrifices both of my parents made for me while growing up. They weren't perfect, but they both loved me and did their best to take care of me.

I believe my DMT trip was really about my dad and I was imagining a conversation with God as a means of working through what I was doing to my dad (projecting). It helped me see that my dad's feelings towards me are his own and not dependant on my perceptions of him.

In other words I don't believe the DMT trip was 'real' in the objective sense. I think it was more like a dream. It was influenced by my feelings and the stuff I had been reflecting on recently, maybe not on a 100% surface level but reflecting none the less. It wasn't a conscience thing, but neither are dreams. I still would say they both stem from the human imagination.

But again, this is just my perspective and my experiences. So take it all with a grain of salt.

First off tat, I do see where you're coming from, and you're right this is tangled in lots of semantics.



Let's take an artist (of any kind really) with his creative imagination as the example. Even though he may be channeling his imagination into the here and now, this is achieved first through divergent thinking in which the artist much reach into past experiences in order to integrate them into the present through convergent thinking. The artist through the imagination cannot draw on what has not come from his past. If anything, it's a rapid alternation between present and past.

Sometimes yes...but often times no.
Many times, once the pen touches pad, the end result is never known till it arrives...extracted, if you will, from the aether with no thought involved.
Truly channelled from 'that place of no-time'.

If there is no thought involved, is one exercising the imagination, or some other creative process that can involve mechanics perhaps with optional intermittent periods of imagination?

My work with the plants has completely changed how my "imagination" works, and I don't see it as unrelated to hyperspatial experiences at all really, nor do i see it as some process that is limited to drawing on ones past (although that often plays a part in more mundane expressions of it). I think it taps into that other mode directly. To me it seems that both are in a sense non-local, however most peoples imaginations remain largely untapped and they are not even getting a glimpse at the tip of the iceberg. It can take you into some very far out experiences, especially if combined with psychedelics...Just look at what Jung was doing with it. I've had many precognitive "visions" that first started as mere day-dreaming but shifted into something far more bizarre and tangible.

And of course its no surprise that psychedelics directly catalyze the imagination (whatever the hell that "is" anyways)...In its more full-on manifestations I think the imagination is sort of like an experience of the operating mode of the dormant right hemisphere, which is our self that dances with the symphony of the energy and consciousness of reality more directly than our world confined within abstracted conceptual frameworks.

When it gets deep it can unfold with no will of your own, and progressively shift into a total sensory/psychic synesthesia orgasm, even shifting fully into the visual spectrum and so on. This is essentially what McKenna was talking about when he speaks of the Object, or the auto-poetic lapis, that is an external version of your non-local mind/imagination (or in his word, the imaginatrix). I've experienced this "thing" a number of times in both trips, dreams, and "sober" trances, and it has been the most mind blowing and alien, yet oddly at home, feeling I've ever had. Like a hyperdimensional plasma organism that you birthed, dance with, ARE, and see and experience synesthesiacally all at once.

I think this quote by Terence below hits on what I'm trying to explain.

"The Other plays with us and approaches us through the imagination and then a critical juncture is reached. To go beyond this juncture requires abandonment of will, and of old and ingrained habits of thinking and seeing. At that moment the world turns lazily inside out and what was hidden is revealed: a magical modality, a different mental landscape than one has ever known, and the landscape becomes real.

This is the realm of the cosmic giggle. UFOs, elves, and the teeming pantheons of all religions are the denizens of this previously invisible landscape. One reaches through to the continents and oceans of the imagination, worlds able to sustain anyone who will but play, and then one lets the play deepen and deepen until it is a reality that few would even dare to entertain.”


"Somehow part of the package of being a living, thinking being is that you get a universe inside of you. You get a galaxy sized object inside you that you can access.

And there, there are the mountains, the rivers, the jungles, the dynastic families, the ruins, the planets, the works of arts, the poetry, the sciences, the magics, of millions upon millions upon millions of worlds.
And this is apparently who we each are. We’re a little bit of eternity sticking into three-dimensional space and, for some reason, occupying time in a monkey body.

But when you turn your eyes then inward you discover the birth right. The existential facts out of which this particular existence emerged."

I think the answer to that depends entirely on how you choose to define "thought" and "imagination"

Yes. Clearly "imagination" might be one of those words like "reality" or "ego" that are so mixed up in connotations that it becomes quite difficult to understand if you're using the word the same way others are.

The imagination and the way we use it or understand it can be so subjective and vary from person to person. Obviously the way I build images or thoughts in my head can be quite different than others. There are most likely a variety of styles (that can be combined) of how people use or reflect on their imaginations

Good point there. To me, and this is just a personal way of looking at it (which I more or less accept)--when the artist enters "the zone" or is doing an automatic drawing/automatic writing like Cyb mentions--I'd call that accessing "big mind" or "big imagination". Channeling from the aether. Perhaps the mechanics you mention are unknowable, and big mind is just a label that I can stick to it, to make myself feel better



I've been very interested in this transition phase for some months now. As you say, mere reverie can open up and expand into something visionary. Something that *seems* beyond mere imagining. I'll hang out with new age types....doing drum journeying with them--something I've never really gotten into. I hear people talk about their visions experienced via drum and it's like that--mere day-dreaming that can sometimes open up into something that seems to have a reality to it.

Right now I probably can't say anything too intelligent about this, but as an artist who frequently uses imagination and a psychonaught who occassionally dives deep into "big mind" this zone where imagination can open up--is quite interesting to me right now. I've been messing about with low changa doses and a bit with WILD techniques, trying to get a handle on it, but it has eluded me. It's only the current conversation that's caused me to start using this big mind/little mind big imagination/little imagination terminology....

I would argue again that it's all relative. I don't believe one thing comes from big mind and one from little mind, it's a relationship between the two, always. Unless you want to get into holism in which case there's just the one anyway and everything comes from that one always and the whole conversation becomes moot (did it come from me or the universe? well you're just a part of the universe so of course it came from the universe).

Anyway as long as we're playing with dualism I would argue that DMT and similar compounds allow us to get outside our heads for awhile. To play make believe in ways that many of us forget as we get older. I talk to myself on mushrooms, I talk to myself on DMT. I think these things are entities outside myself while it's happening. That's part of the fun and part of the game. And from that perspective, the perspective of when it's going on, it's definitely a both thing for me. I've had the entities tell me that they're both real and part of me. I've also had them tell me that they exist outside of me and that they're just my imagination.

When I come down though and start to integrate I'm just not a spiritual person. My core belief is that it's all me in a practical sense (internal) but in a larger, or more Buddhist sense, that me is an environmental effect anyway so it's not even 'me' to begin with but a manifestation of the universe having an experience. It's 'my' past experiences, 'my' current feelings, 'my' dreams for the future and psychedelic brain chemistry all stirred together and projected onto that current experience that we call now.

I don't know. I don't think there's really a 'right' answer here (hence my vote for neither). Everyone has their own perspective and some of us even have many perspectives that we may adopt and move through as our understanding changes or even 'conflicting perspectives' that we hold at the same time (dualism vs. holism). I think that's part of what's so great about being alive. It's all in how you look at it.

Well, I see you guys are already teasing through the obvious semantic issues here, and like anything deep or worthy of discussion, it makes a big difference what the basic terms mean to you. If our language was more nuanced, and/or we could just use telepathy, I think we would mostly all agree on stuff. But we monkeys do love to chatter.





This Terrence gem that UC posted about sums it up for me. It basically touches on all the issues being discussed here now. Imagination, the ability to drift from mere daydreaming into heavy visionary states... the nature of Hyperspace relative to "reality." etc. etc.


Of course, whether you want to get into holism or not, you are in it by definition. And, yes... whether you do something or some "external" force seems to do it... it is still the Universe doing it. People like to get away from holism, solipsism, and unity because they feel it makes everything moot. The same reason mathematicians factor infinity and zero out of their equations wherever they can. I find this is missing the point, though. Everything IS moot. Infinity is the nature of the one thing that exists... of which we are all (collectively and individually) an equally infinite subset. Any fraction of infinity is itself infinite... and this infinity stuff is awfully fractal.

Glossing over this is to miss the meat of the sandwich. Without the cosmic oneness, we are left with two pieces of toasted polarity... and none of that secret sauce that makes it all go... consciousness.

Heheheh.

Anyway, it is always fun to play at philosophical musings and look for patterns in the smoke rings we blow. Especially when, as is the case, the conversation involves a number of my favorite Nexians.

Namaste to you all.

I was wanting to get away from holism just for the sake of the conversation and the poll as I was enjoying the discussion and didn't want to render it moot.

I personally do feel it's worth considering holism and I've mentioned it in one form or another several times in this thread. I believe the essence of holism can be summed up in the dharma seals and I believe this is where Nietzsche (and later Jung and Freud) pulled many of his influences and perspectives. Influences and perspectives that still shape our mental health practices today.

On a personal level holism has helped me immensely on my journey towards self-acceptance. In my interpersonal relationships it has helped me a lot as well with understanding and forgiveness.

That said I'm not a fan of monism, which was more or less the term I should have used to begin with, and I don't really believe the Buddha or Nietzsche were either as that perspective tends to lead towards nihilism (or mootness). One could argue that this is the heart of real freedom but I would argue that the point of mental health and Buddhist practices aren't freedom but rather freedom from suffering (or acceptance of how things are/freedom from attachments). The idea here being that when you realize that you're a composite phenomena you absolve yourself and the world of guilt, shame, and sin as there's no 'one' there to place blame upon (not even God).

Of course, this doesn't jive well with most Western Philosophy with it's basis on personal virtue, responsibility, and self valuing nor does it work well within the Christian conceptualization of sin and eternal punishment (the prison system in the U.S. being an extension of that). It also conflicts a great deal with the self made man myth that drives much of the greed we see in the United States (I say this as an American). And of course we can go into a lot of continuity of the soul and life after death arguments from here as well that would probably produce feelings of discomfort and cognitive dissonance in anyone that hasn't honestly investigated their fear of death, assuming for a moment that everyone has one (after all if 'you' are a composite phenomena what part of you survives death?)

In other words, it's just not a topic I think many people are comfortable engaging openly and honestly (but maybe that's a projection on my part or fear of being judged for my own beliefs). I do feel it has a lot to do with this thread I just think the answer goes beyond the scope of what 5 Dimensional Nick really was asking (i.e. what really is internal and external anyway?)

eggzachtlee <3

I understand your perspective fully, and respect where you are coming from... especially vis a vis not wanting to render the conversation moot.

I suppose my thoughts on the cultural reticence stuff is that people are just uncomfortable with infinity. It is something that includes everything they attribute to their small gods and then some... and then some more... and so on. But the all and everything is one thing. Whatever you want to call it, it encompasses the observer, the observed and the possibility of observation. It renders everything moot because it is everything. Lucky for us, though... we can experience it directly.

^..monism doesn't discount polarities..

two ends of the same pole...polarity is not the same as dualism..

polarity means different, and yet the same...

I get where you're coming from but why should infinity stop at one thing? To turn an old phrase literally upside down, what if it's turtles all the way up too? What if there's no one easy answer and things are just complex because it's a complex system where everything exists in relation to everything else? What if everything we see is an orgy of relationships and consciousness is the default state of everything? Are two polar opposites aware of each other? Are we really aware of ourselves in a way that's any different then how two atoms are aware of each other or are we just a more complex version of that same fundamental principle being expressed by many atoms working together?

I guess what I'm driving at is anti-foundationalism or dependent co-arising and I'm sorry I took such a long way to go about saying it. I'm still studying philosophy and refining my position (and vocabulary) constantly as I go along so I also apologize if I've used the wrong terms to try to express myself or caused any confusion along the way. The questions above are just things I've been considering myself as I go about my own process of trying to find understanding

Anyway, fun stuff to talk about and think about and I think we're really on the same page Hyperspace Fool (or at least close enough). Maybe now I'm just tripping over the semantics of 'everything' myself. But as you said, we monkeys love to chatter.

When you smoke a good-sized dose of DMT in one or two inhales, lay back and close your eyes, all this conversation just dissolves away. There's no longer any discussion on this or that. You 'know' when your there, deep in....there's no questions any longer. If you tell me otherwise, I humbly ask that you need to imbibe in a little moar, as they say.. a dose in one inhale preferably.

When you start coming back from 'source', the ego/mind starts reconfiguring itself, trying to make sense of it, only natural. The questions and ideas start churning. All this conjecture isn't the point. Sure it's interesting to contemplate, surely.

Source encompasses all yet transcends all.

Great conversation btw.

<3 tat

I like to ask questions and I've been deep enough to realize that there's a place in the mind where contrast disappears. The fact that we can experience such an event subjectively is not proof that it's an objective phenomana like an all encompassing source energy. It may be the canvas on which the brain writes contrast, it may be sensory overload or even the opposite, a form of sensory deprivation as we lose contact with external phenomana as we understand them.

And though I get what you're saying, about such questions feeling moot while you're in it, I've found an incredible amount of healing in my own life by learning to step outside myself and ask the right questions once the experience is over, to integrate and try to make sense out of everything. But like I said, I like to ask questions.

In the end I believe it's all about each of our own relationships with the molecule. If you want to use it as a tool for personal growth, as a way to dissolve your ego so you can be at one with everything, or just as a means to step outside yourself for a bit because you can't take a trip to Maui right this second and you really need the vacation, then I say more power to you.

Me, I'll keep asking questions. Not because I expect to find the 'right' answer but because I'm curious and enjoy exploring different perspectives.

I still think that they should have an "i don"t know" box to tick for anyone who wants to abstain. Voting systems always give you limited options and never seem to cater for minorities. Although, in this case, i would say that not really knowing what the source of hyperspace is would be a majority vote if we are honest with ourselves. But i agree that it is fun to speculate.

How about the source of the experience is actually one experiencing it?
-When one extracts the alkaloid, one extracts the plant's "Brain Matter." Why only certain plants contain that specific type of alkaloid, is because of the planet's ecological necessity for that plant. What one experiences when one imbibes the plant's essence is the consciousness of the plant itself. One experiences an aspect of Mother Earth's psyche. One experiences through one's own interpretation of reality, Earth's perception of reality. It's like eating an apple. One eats an apple for energy and nutrients. The fruit of the apple tree provides energy. Plants that have a high concentration of DMT, are like nodes upon the surface of the Earth that link ourselves to the planet itself.
-What we see when we close our eyes is open for interpretation. When we open our eyes and view our surroundings, our commonalities in experience converge. Anyone who has ingested the same alkaloid from the same plant, will inevitably experience some similar hallucinations. When we close off the outside world and view the world behind our eyes, it is wildly different in interpretation.
-Hyperspace is probably just a short escapade of "Earth-goggle-laser-vision." Or seeing the world through the imagination of the world itself. That's about as psychedelic an answer I can give right now.