I think you are the ideal candidate actually. Your response is eloquent, intelligent and perfect to me.

I do not think spirituality or religion for that matter imply any particular claim about a god or spirit it is always personal for it to be valid to an individual. Ontologies vary, if religion and spirituality were singular things there would only be one right answer period.

I have had Out of Body experiences, but that does not mean I can experience them independently of my body. I have experienced ego loss, but that again contrasts with ego.
I suspect that if you were "pulled out of this world" you would not be able to observe anything or exist in any meaningful way.

AlbertKLloyd
"I suspect that if you were "pulled out of this world" you would not be able to observe anything or exist in any meaningful way."

Haha, I meant something more like, I haven't gone on a purely imaginary journey. I have remained plugged into my sense of the external world, transformed as it is. I agree with your statement though.

AlbertKLloyd
"I do not think spirituality or religion for that matter imply any particular claim about a god or spirit"

I guess not, I was referring more to sacred but even then I see your point. I was addressing one aspect of many possible outlooks and some religions do make claims about God, and I was making clear my concept of God as an idea that informs action.

Comments on other things from this thread:

JBArk
"(I must refrain from divulging when and where I read them, as some may find this disrespectful Pleased )"

Haha.

AlbertKLloyd
"The idea that everyone has their own definition is an interesting belief, it kind of subverts the validity of language if people use common terms with individual definitions. It ends up rendering language ineffectual."

I think that this happens a lot, out of misinformation or ambiguity of terms.

AlbertKLloyd
"I do not understand your point, are you saying that people have to agree on a definition or they are wrong about what is spiritual to them?"

I wouldn't say wrong, they just wouldn't really be understanding each other, thought they may not realize this as they are using the same word.

I've been called many things, but 'seat of emotions' takes the cake

As I understand it, the Amygdala nuclei is correlated with memory formation via emotional experience, but the actual experience of the emotions itself is still a process poorly understood. Thats a whole different thread, however

Haha , yeah.
And if we are talking about 'the seat of character', this would more likely be (imo) the hypothalamus which controls emotional expression and memory. If you were to ask me where is the 'soul' located, i would likely say for it to be in the hypothalamus - but yeah, that's more a conversation to be had under the 'Science' forum subsection

[quote=AlbertKLloyd]from post 22:

This is a definition of spirit in the context of such things as "school spirit" and "team spirit" and does not apply to the question or topic.
[quote]


??

Really? Where do you get that from? The "seat" of emotions and character is rah rah rah cheerleader go team go? You have either misread this or this is a stretch beyond any credibility...

(not to mention it makes sense neither grammatically nor metaphorically)

Next, my question:

"False. Unless you can show me how these relate:

the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character.

&

the rights, jurisdiction, tithes, etc. belonging to the church or to an ecclesiastic

OR

the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters

&

the fact or state of being incorporeal"

And your answer:

"Quote:


Social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for the sacred, for that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration, "a transcendent dimension within human experience...discovered in moments in which the individual questions the meaning of personal existence and attempts to place the self within a broader ontological context."


This pertains directly to the concept of other, it is set apart. Further it relates to a persons place in terms of ontology.
Quote:

: the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters : the quality or state of being spiritual

Religion is directly concerned with "other" and informs ontology, typically via cosmology.
Quote:

OXFORD:
(of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.

Since this context is specific to a person, it cannot be applied to a molecule, for a molecule cannot have intention so far as we know, so we can dismiss this definition. "

After stating "All of the definitions you shared have common aspects", you did not even address the definitions I cited for comparison of "common aspects"!! Instead, you grabbed a few that DO have common aspects.

"Quote:
They can, though those interpretations will be subjective and only personally meaningful. Are you not striving to make an objective point?

No dude, it is a poll.
Objective point?
Not at all. "

So your point, from the thread I am assuming lead you to post the poll, that there is an emerging DMT religion is subjective? You are not trying to gather objective data to support an objective point?

"sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)
adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory." (the free dictionary)

One of us is misunderstanding subjectivity and objectivity.

I will try and address the rest of your post a little later.

Cheers,

JBArk

I was wrong, all of the relevant definitions had common aspects.


Also, spirit, such as team spirit, is viewed as relating directly to character and emotion.

Spirited is defined as:


Argue all you want.


Have fun!

Yeah, you're right, point taken. I knew we'd end iin agreement.

JBArk

Can we also stop pretending like we're talking about a molecule and not the experience itself? It seems you like to flicker back and forth depending on whatever suits your arguments in the moment.

I am going to go for yes. The experience moves me and is therefore spiritually uplifting (so far). I could also say no as i may just be a flesh machine that reacts to chemical input. All that spiritual stuff may get explained by science in years to come, but i do not think that that will take anything away from it. In fact i would be quite happy if it was all explained to me in black and white in an easy to digets peer reviewed paper.

I think it is more medicinal than spiritual. I dont know , maybe, i am not sure. I guess it depends what mood i am in at any given time. I change my opinion more often than my underpants on subjects like this.
Can i change my mind after i"ve ticked a box????

I reckon this poll should have been done before the DMT/religion thread as that may have affected peoples answers here.

I clicked on "only if you intend it to be or use it that way" because it was a flick of the mouse button, could not go back to re-do

Wanted to choose "other", because it largely depends on the dosage what comes of it.

'Only if you intend it to be or use it that way' and 'sometimes yes, sometimes no, it is unpredictable' in equal parts.

The reason I say this is because whilst intention does make a difference sometimes, often it can be something completely ridiculous and absurd. I recall once playing gregorian chant, dimming the lights, loading up the pipe and settling into a very spiritual pre-launch state, intending to have a deep and spiritual journey and connect with the universe. What I got was a journey to the heart of the Lord of the Crazy's studio, seeing the lunatic himself bend and twist and stir together all of the most aggressively cartoonish possibilities together in a bucket, which then multiplied and overtook the planet.

So yeah...

Yes, the question may have been better worded. Is DMT sacred? Is the experience spiritual?
For example, the Bible or Quran is sacred to its subscribers, but it's not spiritual in itself.
Its starting to come across as a fishing method for DMT religion subscribers to be honest



I reckon we would have had a higher rate of 'yes' if this poll was done back in the Iron Age.
From the prevalent answer so far 'only if you intend it that way', seems to suggest that DMT is whatever you would like to interpret it as subjectively - whether it boarding pass to the ether, a ticket to elf land, a molecule god/s designed to communicate with you, or a gateway to hell

hmmm..Im not sure if it is relevant to compare the bible or the quaran to DMT.

I am actually not of the opinion(not in the way others put it forth so far) that DMT itself it not important or that it is more the experience itself that is..or that this is all subjective interpretation. That is part of it, but how big of a part?

I think that DMT plays a certain role in the ecosystem, modulating the behaviour of higher mammals and likely many other species..that modulatory action is very specific and not subjective..the way we perceive it may be subjective..but how much of that is due to the nature of our social environment? At the heart of the thing is this experience, that is not unique to the individual. It crosses the globe, across all cultures, languages, races etc..becasue we are wired for this..and it it just my opinion that there is something deeper going on here..that what we are dealing with can be likened to some sort of planetary broadband signal we are tuning into. For me it brings me into a realization and conscious participation in the sacredness of the gaian storytime..and I think this is what these tryptamines do for all people actaully, reguardless of how they define it. We all define things differently, often even while describing the same thing.

What we make of that experience after is what is subjective..and we live in a society that inherantly shuns these types of revelations as nothing more than subjective projections..what interests me is not how people feel after the experience, so much as what they experience in the heart of the experience..usually you find that is so much than what is later described.

It is relevant in the context I am using.
Can a physical object (a book, a cracker, a bottle of wine, a molecule) be sacred? Yes - it can to its subscribers.
Can a physical object be spiritual? (Again - in this particular context) No - but the experiences it invoke's could (eg cosmic consciousness)

well, I dont agree that this is relevant. A bible is not a common neurotransmitter found throughout ecosystems that produces a specific effect within the nervous system of mammals who happen to ingest it. A bible is just a book some people wrote not that long ago. I cant even actaully read the bible becasue I cant read hebrew..the bible requires a much more specified context for it to even be experienced. I can give any human DMT and it will do what DMT does to humans. Two totally different things..

..we can just agree to disagree..I understand you point, but my point is that what DMT does in inherantly different from what reading a book can ever do. Im not sure the question "is DMT sacred" even makes sense in the context that I feel drawn to..because "sacred" is just a word..and I would say the whole system(if anything) as a cohernat unified field fits that description better than anything..so what is DMT to us??? I ask what is DMT to the system? Asking that question in relation to the bible seems too far removed.

Remove all the cultural garbage and overly analytical masterbation.. and your left with just monkeys in the forest eating tryptamine plants. I dont think this whole subjective interpretation would be such an issue..ask yourself this..why is it that all the cultures who origionally used these things developed some kind of spiritual practice around the use of them? The degraded later forms of psychedelic culture associated with self sacrafice etc seem to have occured later on, along with a lot of other cultural baggage to interprete the experience through..but cultural lenses can do that.

Psychedelics are inherantly spiritual tools in relation to human use of them, IMO. All psychedelic cultures including ours by and large seem to reflect this. A lot more people read the bible than take LSD..but you didnt see people turning on in the 60's to deeper spiritual understanding from reading the bible the same way they were doing from eating LSD.

I think people actually try to be too cautious with these kinds of ideas and claims..because it's a big claim to make..and I will make it. Psychedelics within the gaian ecosystem play a role in the awakening of human consciousness to higher levels of understanding and participation in the gaian dreamtime. Books dont really do this in the same way.

I think we are getting lost in symantics here. I mean you could of argued that a book has no relevance to a bottle of wine also.

Just like DMT requires interaction for it to work on a human (injesting the molecule) and the chemicals to cause various reactions and synapses, a book requires to be read for the optical nerves to synapses all the way to the cortex.

Smoking .000001g of DMT may not have as much spiritual effect on someone that reads the Quran over and over again for 30 years in a cave.
Just as a bible requires you to understand language, DMT would likely require a human to not be brain dead (though still an 'alive' human in medical terms)

Saying all this, in the context that you are talking, DMT certainly is nothing like a book or a cracker, and I hope peoples optic nerves didn't synapse to the conclusion of context you are mistaking me for. I'm not disagreeing in your argument there.

So, the point that I was trying to make was that the wording of the question was not specific enough for me to give a specific answer, not that pages on a book or red wine are as AWESOME as DMT

So if we dream at night (when our body produces DMT), would members call this a spiritual experience? Or just a dream?

Just to address this point: I see a difference between spiritual and religious. I know a lot of people who are religious, but aren't the least bit spiritual. They're just scared they might go to hell so they attend church and talk to themselves at night (or pray, whatever you want to call it) so that their all loving, all forgiving god wont torture them for eternity in hell. Then there are religious people who are very spiritual about it. I also know non religious people who are spiritual. They just don't attach themselves to one belief set (religion) that was previously conceived.

I meant to vote "sometimes yes, sometimes no, it is unpredictable" but I accidentally hit a different one. Not sure if I can change it.

Here is why I chose this option:

Some people go into the experience wanting to get something spiritual out of it, but they just end up in some bizarre carnival scene or alien operation room completely void of any spirituality or feeling of "one-ness" (or whatever their concept of spirituality is.) Sometimes people go into it just expecting a "trip" without any spirituality and they meet god or become "one with the universe." It is unpredictable. For me certain experiences completely fit my concept of a spiritual experience, and sometimes it just fits into the bizarre, mind bending, or scary category. One thing that is constant about it is that there is always a lesson learned after integration of the experience (or sometimes during the experience.) Which is why I stick with it.

I do not believe the molecule itself to be sacred. Something being "sacred" is completely up to each individual to decide and not actually factual. For example: holy water. To a catholic this is water, and it is sacred (or holy). To a non catholic it is just water. It is definitely water, that's a fact, but it is up to the person to decide if it's sacred.

@ shadow: As far as I know this is completely a myth that dreaming is caused by DMT or that DMT is being produced while you dream. Do you have any sources showing this? Or was that just a hypothetical question?

Edited to add: Nevermind my last question, it's off topic. To answer that question. I believe if the dream is a spiritual experience to the person then yes, it's a spiritual experience (just in a dream.)

It could pertain to spirit, in the sense of the entrainment of non-physical realities, aspects or perceptions.


a common view, one I do not share but respect.



Though it may seem as such I wish to clarify a perspective that may not yet be clear:
I do not separate the experience from the molecule in any absolute way.
To ingest the molecule is to generally have the experience.
In this manner if the experience consistent regarding a property, that property can be associated with the cause of said property. While not a common view in the west, this view is common to specific ontologies that are more archaic. For example in the Andes there is among many that the spirit of the San Pedro cactus is not in the cactus or associated with the cactus, but is the cactus.

The view originates from the property being fundamentally inseparable from that which yields it. While conceptually differentiated, we cannot have a DMT experience for example, without the molecule. Ergo for me there is neither a flicker back and forth, nor a meaningful division between molecule and experience in terms of spiritual property. I do not expect others to adopt or understand this view, but I share it to clarify this issue.

Two patterns emerge, among the population so far it is clear that there are belief sets held by a majority, despite variance of belief sets and within agreed upon tenants. The other pattern is that intention is largely viewed as an important aspect of the experience, something that not all agree on, but a great many do.