Consider this:

Multiple contradictory and exclusive claims in terms of religion are esteemed and testified by their advocates as being true to the exclusion of other views.

The basis for this personal testimony is largely experiential in terms of emotional effect.
If a person feels something to be true, in terms of emotion, this in turn persuades them of the factual claims inherent to the ontology associated with the experience.

In this regard different religions that are essentially factually mutually exclusive persuade individuals using the same psychological and emotional mechanisms into accepting an ontology which has been presented to the people.

The method employs a feeling of subjective emotional truth and then asks or motivates the individual to project that truth onto the claims of the religion. A common method is to invoke a sensation of love, peace or awe, the person so moved by this state then feels those emotional qualities as true, and then projects this sensation of real or true onto the ontological claims. Thus in regard to various religions, the testimony of truth is not based upon evidence in any measurable way, but is instead based upon emotional impact of experience. This is consistent for spiritual claims of conflicting ontological claims that cannot both be true.

The conviction thus arising is so strong and individually convincing that conflict arises where two cultures, individuals or groups with conflicting ontology cannot agree and thus literally go to war with one another due to their individual conviction and experience of truth. They will in effect, die for this emotional truth, for so compelling is the experience, despite being devoid of factual accuracy or objective evidence, that the individuals are utterly and totally convinced that their perceptions and derived informed beliefs are true.

This is compounded by the situation that each ontology is shared as a community or group, this reinforces the concepts of the ontology as true via a form of an appeal to authority fallacy where the authority it itself the group. Thus the individual convictions rest not only upon the emotional impact of experience, but likewise upon the shared ontology, the logic being that because so many believe or share in the ontology, it must be true. This works in all group ontologies, including those mutually exclusive, again to the point of causing beliefs that people are willing to die for because of emotional convictions and group reinforcement.

In context however, some individuals do not share group mentality and do not experience the same emotionality, these individuals often have the same experiences as others, but view these experiences differently. Such individuals are not convinced by group mentality or emotional impact of experiences.


What I would like you to consider is that the same psychological, emotional and social aspects that are found in religious ontologies also apply in this context to DMT experiences and the emergent ontology that has become recently codified regarding it. That is to say that DMT is increasingly associated with a set of beliefs that are informed, as opposed to individually formed in an independent manner. Much as is the case with religion people read testimony of experience and thus seek out these experiences for themselves. This informs both expectation and result by associating a set of beliefs with the experience and likewise involves an emotional experience. As is also the case with religions this emergent system is also associated with intolerance for view that do not fit into the sets of beliefs that are associated with the ontology, as opposed to associated with the experience.

I would like you to consider that what is occurring here is literally the emergence of a new organized religion, with a set of beliefs, expectations and even sanctified personages who act or have acted as spokespeople for the set of beliefs. These individuals are deified by the codification of their opinions into belief systems that are validated by emotional impact of experiences having suggestive content and by group mentality.

This religion is increasingly intolerant of alternative views, such as the perception that DMT experiences and conclusions can vary. The concept that underlies this is; that to say that experiences vary contradicts the claims inherent to the religion that DMT causes a specific reliable effect that is spiritual, extra-dimensional and real. To allow for diversity of experience, for the experience of some to suggest that DMT use can vary in terms of result, is to undermine the claims of this organized religion, in effect it constitutes heresy. Claims that DMT effects can vary are then met defensively in this regard, this defense (as is the case with all organized religion) rests upon appeal to group mentality and emotional conviction resulting in personal testimony.

In effect people are saying that if you experience something different than they do, or have a different belief about those experiences, then your results are abnormal and thus invalid. It does not matter if your experience supports varied results, for the view here is uniformity in regard to evocation. The set of beliefs for this emergent religious ideology does not allow for a non-uniform result, in this regard it is no different than any other major religious ideology, nor is the group and individual behavior associated with this ideology and ontology divergent from what is to be expected for a religious community.

Thus for the emergent DMT organized religion, there is no debate or question as to the nature of effects, for this culture that is analogous to a catholic questioning the validity of the bible. It falls outside the accepted set of beliefs that has been codified, largely from the teachings of the deified figures.

My point is that this aspect of religious culture underlies efforts such as the paper of this thread and thus such efforts become justificatory and begin from the supposition that the religious ideology is true. Essentially two reactions arise to what is considered an experience outside of the accepted set of beliefs, the first is to approach that experience and any drawn beliefs from it as invalidated in contrast to accepted teachings and principals, the second is to perform apologetics regarding those experiences and beliefs, that is to say that those experiences which fail to conform to the accepted set of beliefs are valid but will eventually be explained as not in contradiction to the accepted tenets of the DMT faith. That is to say that some reason or excuse underlies their lack of conformity, as opposed to considering them valid in their own right.

Inevitably the same religious aspects apply, and the faithful must both ask that individual form their own conclusions, but likewise reject all conclusions that do not conform to their faith and expectations; as invalid.

This is taken from another thread and discussion and I wish to discuss it and further elaborate upon it. All comments and observations welcome.

Note: The following post was a response related to this topic, carried over from this thread on AlberKLloyd's request, but I have not read the above post by AlbertKLloyd.


And this is what I find to be particularly distasteful.

The following is all my opinion

This construction of yours, "the DMT religion" is what you are using to negate, or at the absolute minimum, subvert, numerous subjective experiences that you feel meet the tenets of your manufactured religion.

It is worth noting at the outset, that while numerous people have questioned your experiences, because they seem at odds with their own, this is a far cry from being


In fact, many, if not most, here on the Nexus would probably assert that the DMT experience is one of the most variable experiences (psychedelic or otherwise) that can be induced in a human being.

As you further assert

I can't help but view this as a straw man. Again, pointing to my belief that most would agree that the DMT experience is insanely variable. Furthermore, digging into the oodles of threads that attempt to dissect and reconstruct what "reality", "real", "illusion", etc. even mean, the notion that there is a large segment of folks claiming that the DMT experience is "real" beyond being a subjective experience, to the degree of dogmatism that you suggest strikes me as absurd.

I would go through and select the various sentences about your constructed religion that rub me the wrong way and address each one, but honestly, I find the whole thing rather exhausting. Instead, I will attempt to summarize my issue with your claims/approach.

You have taken the experiences, beliefs, assertions, emotions and other subjective components from a myriad of people's DMT experiences. People you have never met...people you may know an inkling of...people you may know "well" and have, from this cacophony of experiences, extracted memes and archetypes that you see to be coherent across their experiences. You then tie them up in a neat little bow and claim that these experiences are the result of various spokespeople as well as indoctrinations of varying degrees. In this manner, the label of "groupthink" becomes a convenient tool for the dismissal of myriads of experiences that differ from your own.

Furthermore, you assert a dogma exists among these people...that they are actively vested in shutting down the opinions of people who don't conform to this "DMT religion" that you've constructed and ascribed to them. Yet, you are the only person articulating a uniform coherence with regards to their views. In other words, it appears that you are creating/ascribing dogma to disparate individuals reporting similar takes on a category of experience.

From my perspective, you have created a category to house the experiences of people whose perspectives don't jive with your own by highlighting the ontological similarities they share and that are at odds with your own view, claiming these similarities evidence a dogmatic fundamentalism that refuses to acknowledge variability in the DMT experience (among other things), branding them as your constructed "DMT religion," and then summarily dismissing them.

Do you see why this strikes me as negating their experiences and views?

As I understand it:
- You present a body of people that you make uniform by ascribing them all to your constructed religion, because you feel that they have a certain set of beliefs regarding the DMT experience, which you feel qualifies them as belonging to your constructed "DMT religion"

- You allow no room for examining how/why they arrived at their beliefs/hypothesis/ worldviews.

- You essentially say that they cannot have created these hypotheses/outlooks of their experiences independently.

- Instead, you assert that their understandings of the experience are the result of them listening to "sanctified personages" (or their "disciples") and thereby predetermining ALL of their experiences, hypotheses, conclusions, etc. relating to DMT.

- You accuse them of being dogmatic, despite the fact that the only "explicit" code is the one that you have stitched together from the similarities you find among them.

- You claim that they believe in a uniform nature of effects, despite the evidence that many, if not most, would claim that DMT is one of the most variable experiences you can have.

- You conflate questioning an experience (or an explanation/understanding of an experience) that seems at odds with what many people report to experience (or feel/understand they have experienced) as labeling that experience as "invalid."

The statements that you made earlier in this thread along these lines were precisely the reason I accused you of negating other people's experiences. I was literally flabbergasted when I saw your post that further detailed your constructed DMT religion, on the heels of you stating that you were not at all looking to negate anyone's experience.

I hope, if I'm misunderstanding you, that my attempt to lay out my discomfort with your constructed "DMT religion" will help evidence where precisely my misunderstanding is.

You misunderstand me, and I will get to that.

At the moment I am a little busy so I will begin with this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion


I will endeavor to demonstrate that I did not create the DMT religion, but that one exists and is evolving and it meets the above definitions of religions.

Likewise I will demonstrate this observation does not invalidate the experiences of others.

1, you state that people question my experiences and say they are at odds, but also say that the experience is one of the most variable that can be induced in a person, well my response to that is you cannot have it both ways and what you state strikes me as contradictory.
2, it is not my experiences that are at odds, but the conclusions I draw from my experiences. My experiences are not inconsistent with DMT, which as you note is highly variable.

You say it is variable, but real beyond being subjective.
This is problematic as that to be real beyond subjective means objective and that means that it does not vary from person to person or even from trip to trip, for it to be real beyond subjective experience means that it is consistent and observable in a reliable manner by anyone who takes DMT. Again this is a contradiction.

Actually this is what you have done in stating that my experience is at odds with the norm, you have essentially stated that my experience is abnormal because there is some consistent (non subjective?) aspect underlying the experiences of others and that my experience falls outside of this. For you to state that my experience is at odds with others equates to a statement that their experiences have a common aspect that is able to form the basis of your exclusion of my experiences from your concept of "normal".

Likewise my experiences are not particularly divergent from those of others, only my conclusions and emotional reactions, ergo my beliefs differ, and for this to be significant you must and you do imply that these other experiences involve a shared set of beliefs, conclusions or interpretations. This also pertains to the nature of the experience and the nature of the universe and the conclusion of the existence of hyperspace. In this regard what you have identified is that there exists a shared set of beliefs pertaining to common elements in terms of DMT experiences that also inform the individual. This is noteworthy as meeting the first definition of religion that I provided above, particularly if it is claimed that these beliefs and experiences pertain to spirituality or the nature of the universe and or existence.

Is it your claim that there is not a common theme to many experiences that pertains to spiritual convictions and a set of beliefs that DMT informs one about the nature of the universe and reality?


This is where you misunderstand. I did not state that the experiences are the result of doctrine and group mentality, only that a belief set exists that arises from doctrine and is reinforced by group mentality. That is not equivalent to stating that the experiences arise from indoctrination, nor does the group reinforcement invalidate the experiences involved.

Is it your belief that DMT experiences do not tend involve an emotional reaction?
Do you claim that there is not a doctrine involved and promulgated that affects expectation?

How many new users for example report that their initial attraction to DMT was from wanting to know the mysteries of the universe or some other related aspect involving spiritual claims attached to DMT? It appears to be no small number to me.

How many of these individuals report having spiritual expectations arising from exposure to information about DMT, prior to their taking it? I submit to you that it is demonstrably the majority of them.




I t is my belief that you and others have repeatedly sought to dismiss my distinction of belief and conclusion by identifying a shared belief set and a standard range of experience and that you utilize this to claim my experiences and conclusions are outside of this standard and thus are abnormal. Thus you are among those who articulates a uniformity among experiences and beliefs, so as to be able to claim my own are outside of the uniform context!



I believe you are engaged in this constantly actually.


False. I am actively involved in considering the reason for and nature of their beliefs.
Moreover to examine them we must consider that they may be influenced by suggestion and group mentality, something you are entirely rejecting. While I am considering the possibility of their claims, you are rejecting outright any consideration of what I am stating is a possibility.

Correct to a large degree, and identifiably so.
A simple review of new member essays will identify if they have arrived at their conclusions independently or if those conclusions were informed. I will get to this in time and demonstrate that a majority do not do this in an independent manner.



oversimplification, I have stated their understandings were influenced by the result of these personages and doctrines, which largely attracted them to DMT and provided exp4ectations as well, however I have also said that the experience is profound and that it is emotionally relevant, that is to say that it is incorrect to claim that i have said their understandings are resultant from doctrine, rather it is my claim they are informed by such doctrine.


I will demonstrate that there is in regard to what i have identified as the DMT religion:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe


This is your main contradiction, for you cannot reasonably affirm my experiences and conclusions are at odds with "normal" and then state that normal is extremely variable.

See above comment regarding this contradiction in your position.

Far be it from me to accuse you of religious fundamentalism and responding to my proposal as if it was heretical!

Iirc members that come here with the hopes that DMT shows us the answers, most eventually arrive to the conclusion that it actually causes more questions to arise.

I don't see anywhere that people have created any sort of organized belief that all share. Since everyones experience is variable, we all arrive to different hypothesis on our own.

And you can actually say that DMT is variable in its experience yet there are similarities that most share, which puts your outlook on your experiences at odds from the norm.


That doesnt mean that it is a contradiction, just that one main aspect doesnt jive with others experience.

well...I vote Kikker for Pope!

But seriously I think its pretty evident that most people here tend towards being very open minded compared to your typical religious folk, and are more often than not comfortable with holding a number of ambiguous possibilities in suspension simultaneously without the need to come to some kind of premature conclusion or solid belief as to what the nature of reality, consciousness, or the dmt experience "IS"...Most seem to resonate with RAW when he said that "belief" is often the death of intelligence in many ways...Naturally though people can have suspicions or hunches as to the nature of certain aspects of the experience (as you seem to have yourself), but unlike religious beliefs they are often emphasized as only being ones personal opinion on the possibilities, and IMO it is often not dogmatic or defended in a way comparable to those who cling to religious doctrines...Nor do these opinions tend to flow along the same exact path, unlike those of a religion.

Also, snozz is not being contradictory in stating that the dmt experience is highly variable yet your experiences seem to be rather unique in some respects. All sorts of things are highly variable, but that doesn't mean there aren't outliers...or on the flipside, at the same time, a plethora of themes (i.e. carrier wave)...

The weather where I live is highly variable...but if it starts raining droplets the size of volleyballs, then I think its safe to say that regardless of its inherent level of high variability the weather has now become in some ways unique and different from the scope of expression we typically encounter it in, which I think is all he was saying about your experience. There is no reason to get so defensive about it to the point of denial.



LOL...as anyone in the chat will point out, us nexians seem to love to disagree with each other, and we'll gladly debate about virtually ANYTHING. There is hardly a consensus on those matters above. And the lasagna really starts flying when people try to bring in their beliefs with absolutist undertones to the discussion...



What then do you make of the level of congruency among cultures with shamanic practices around the world who view the reality encountered with a similar level of validity? Generally speaking dozens if not hundreds of them seem to have come to somewhat similar conclusions as to the nature of those states, despite often being on entirely different continents. I don't say this in an attempt to lend evidence to one perspective over the other, I simply think its a useful comparison for highlighting how not everyone who has somewhat similar opinions is following a set down doctrine of beliefs...Actually think your drastically underplaying just how variable peoples opinions here tend to be.

Also, back to the quote above, its worth pointing out that no one ever comes to any conclusion in an entirely independent manner, even yourself. There is always things outside ourselves, particularly our past experiences in life, that have in one way or another influenced our conclusions. IMO though, "conclusions" are in many ways an out dated and overused naive concept.

Support that conclusion with evidence.
I do not presume you are familiar with my outlook.

As stated, my experience are not in any way atypical, merely my belief set.


I think this is an exaggeration.
Shamanic practices is so incredibly inclusive as a term that it is almost meaningless. Having studied it from both inside and outside of an academic perspective i find your statement to be inaccurate of both my understanding and beliefs as someone who engages in such practices.

Perhaps it is true form a certain perspective that you could share with me so as to help me understand such congruent aspects?

I disagree, I think that you underestimate the diversity here.


My point exactly, groups and individuals behave in a predictable manner, there are few if any exceptions and I am not among those exceptions, nor are people in general her exceptions to standard behavior. This corroborates my view that a DMT religion is emergent and undergoing codification and that such an event falls under the normal spectrum of human behaviors. That does not invalidate any perspective, but it does demonstrate a perspective reason why individuals such as Snozz and yourself ask me to consider their own perspectives while utterly rejecting the one I share and claiming it is abnormal. Such refusal of consideration and rejection of an alternative possibility are typical behaviors in the context I address.

Moreover there has been no demonstration that my experiences or conclusions actually fall outside the range of variability in terms of experience and belief regarding DMT, rather a strawman has been erected as the premise for the rejection of and refusal to consider in any way the concepts I have proposed for consideration or to accept them as valid for me.





Can you support or demonstrate this claim, for thus far there has been evidence to the contrary regarding it.
I find that the community is identical in behavior to any religious community ncluding in terms of there ebing some open and some closed minded people, some are clearly more fundamental than others and some are clearly more open minded then others.

Consider that neither you or Snozz has considered the possibility that there is any validity to any of my statements, proposals or perspectives. Neither you nor he has demonstrated for example, a form of open mindedness. For while i am proposing that there is enough room in terms of experience and belief for diversity to be valid, both you and he at this point are saying that is not the case, that diversity exists so long as it is not allowed to include perspectives like mine.

I find it to be fairly typical human behavior corresponding to a belief set and involving the usual hypocrisy. It is clear that it operates from the fundamental assumption that I must inevitably be wrong, even when I say that experience is diverse, and seeks to just assert that without evidence, while stating that when you claim experience is diverse it is correct, provided it excludes my perspectives and experience, because you fundamentally refuse to consider my experiences or perspectives as valid, even as opinion limited to me.

There is a rather strong contradiction there, and it is demonstrable and recognizable.

You want to assert there is not a set of beliefs, but that there are beliefs common enough to identify what is outside of them. While you can deny that this is religious behavior and that you are essentially labeling me a heretic for sharing my own opinion, that does not mean you are correct about me.

I think that one thing that should be considered is that I have given DMT to dozens of people, but did not provide doctrine about the effects, what to expect etc, though they knew it was a powerful psychedelic molecule, and the effects varied to a large degree, likewise the conclusions drawn from those experience were varied and did not reflect what is being claimed to be a standard here insofar as the perception of alternative reality or spiritual connotation.

Likewise we can introduce that the role of suggestion in the psychedelic experience is so significant that it forms the basis of psychedelic therapy. In this regard it has been found that the use of suggestion in concert with psychedelics is more efficacious than the use of either alone.

Traveller is the pope, the mods are bishops (with Art Van D"lay as grand inquisitor), senior members are the priests, we the members are the flock and new members are the choir (who love to be preached to ).



Maybe because they are human beings and are therefore open to suggestability as much as anyone else.

I think we are about due for a new kind of religion and i am not that up in arms against the idea of DMT as the new religious sacrament if it promotes introspection, growth, empathy and critical thinking. It is an entheogen afterall. Religion is such a dirty word nowadays.

Fundamentalism could end up being a problem, but what would be preferable? Islamic and christian fundamentalists slugging it out with violent abandon or a bunch of new age type hippies pontificating about the infinite spirit within/without etc etc adinfinitum? I"d take the hippies everytime.

hrm, I call bs

I keep hearing about some universally accepted "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe", but I have yet to see anyone post of one specific example of such a belief...I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that there is a "DMT religion", and I would agree with hug46 that I too might not be opposed to such a thing. But so far I feel like you attest that such a set of beliefs exists, without making any specificmention of what those beliefs are.

I also feel like it is worth mentioning that I spend a fair amount of time on this forum, and I have never heard someone deny that the subjective DMT experience varies tremendously.

It surely follows then that:

The Nexus is our Church...An ornate Virtual Cathedral standing strong at the centre of the Web.
Take off your muddy shoes, all who enter these Hallowed Halls.

And while the pages of our revered Bible reside hidden and encrypted on the Sacred Secure Server...they reveal themselves 'magically' to the congregation as they enter the Grand Portal of the Cathedral.

The true heretics are thus named; DEA, NSA, FDA and Congress.

Let it be known that future code breakers and virtual historians may stumble upon the Sacred Secure Server, it's strange markings and glyphs decoded to reveal that...

It all started here folks.

Praise be.

Bishop cyb

I really dont think anyone is calling you a heretic for your beliefs. If you take a gander through the hyperspace poll thread you will see there is a very mixed set of beliefs on what the dmt experience is. Most it seems see dmt as more of an internal/external thing.

Using your isolated experiences also do not hold much merit. Unless you do a blind study, with all the correct safeguards in place it is just simply redundant to bring up your circle of people you dosed as an example to prove anything.

I agree suggestion can and does play a role in certain circumstances. BUT, more often than not what one believed before the experience is changed afterwards. Dose again and you get the same result. Nothing seems static, and if we're really going to label the majority of people who disagree with your view i would say "agnostic" is much more suitable.

You can say all you want about looking for something in a dmt experience and finding it, but i wasnt. I came to the experience with a "wtf is it" mentality. I had a few experiences that made me feel like it was the result of something external. Had some afterwards that made me feel like it was more like a debugging program for our ego. So on and so forth.

Yet, i am still very agnostic about it. I actually have only seen a handful of people who are insistent on a specific understanding. Those type of people dont last long. Not because they are challenging anyones belief, but because the majority of people here challenge others when they seem to act like they know the answer. Whether they think its full on real or full on internal. THIS is why you are receiving so much attention. Your wording in your posts do not reflect you having a neutral point of view, rather a decided understanding on something that no one really knows what it is.

And AlbertKLloydd is our doubting Thomas (and every religion needs one).

After my first breakthrough i didnt really know what the hell had happened but i think as i formulated opinions in the aftermath, which i regularly changed, i opened myself up to my own suggestability for future outings. Global wrote in another thread about the tipping point where an autonomous reality takes over, but i think that just because i have forgotten my physical self and am in a hyper-real environment doesnt mean that i am any less open to suggestability in that state. It could even be that i am in a state of complete hyper-suggestability that is totally unpercieved in the ensuing mayhem. Events may happen as a reaction to a thought before we are even aware of having that thought.

A lot of people are looking for answers, for whatever reason, and i think DMT can give people the idea that perhaps there being something more to the material concensus reality of everyday life than is normally percieved. This can become very comforting and i think that there is nothing wrong with having a personal safety blanket. I guess it is when we start trying to smother eachother with our blankets that it becomes a problem.

That sounds like a common enough aphorism: don't smother people with your personal safety blanket. but I've never heard it before--you just come up with it?

I do not believe that there is any type of consensus that "all dmt experiences are spiritual". Al, that is ridiculous.

From the dmt paper thread:



Well, I agree with this, and many other statements you're making. In fact, so many people would agree with that statement--I'm not sure where it is, exactly, that you think your beliefs are so divergent from the congregations. Can you please pin-point, or re-state, exactly where your heresy lay?

i think that the question of "is there an emergent dmt religion" is quite interesting.

but you seem to be assigning some imaginary fungibility here. I do not believe that anyone has ever suggested that "all dmt experiences are spiritual". I also suspect that you may be exaggerating the level of consensus out there.


Is this "new religion" denying the dark side actively? I hope not. And last year a Brazilian "ayahuasca cult" allegedly sacrificed a baby? IDK how true that all is--I wasn't there. nor was I there on any Aztek Pyramid when they allegedly sacrificed 80,000 people in one day, or something insane like that. The dark side is very much present in a lot of trips. Someone's been pissing in the holy water. Ayahuasca sorcerers, modern cults, drug deals, rape of the eco system just to harvest mimosa. Is anyone denying (beyond minor hair-splitting) all that?

If we have an emergent religion here, then maybe the high priests should try and sweep that stuff under the carpet.

Time to start molesting some new members



I posed the notion of a spectrum of experience as a possibility. Additionally in the same thread, I tried to emphasize as much as I could to avoid "planting your flag" at any one viewpoint. I see this as far from dogmatic. The nature of my (largely agnostic) beliefs that I have about hyperspace arise from compelling personal evidence that I have delineated ad nauseum, and so I will not do so again here.

I don"t see your views on hyperspace as dogmatic at all. I very much enjoy the descriptions of your experiences that you write. I would even go as far as saying that your posts about hyperspace have been some of the most relatable descriptions for me on some levels. The reason i referred to your words from that post is because i thought they were very well put. I am just offering my perspective and a possibility of what maybe going behind. the scenes.



Yes i did. but i am sure that it"s been done before by another of my fellow geniuses.

hug, you totally get a gold star for today

About the religion thing.....dmt feels very religious, at times--to me. But dogmatic? Hyperspace is so powerful at forcing me to see my beliefs as foolish--even when I thought I had no beliefs. really, is there anything that challenges one's assumptions as potently as dmt? Humbled, and letting go of assumptions seems to be one of the most common traits of the dmt experience.

Definitely, avoid planting your flag. That kind of pride goeth before a fall.

It's not a contradiction to say:

The DMT experience can be wildly variable from one experience to another. However, many people report encountering similar memes, archetypes, spaces, entities, etc. The DMT experience is incredibly unpredictable from one experience to the next, however, there tend to be components that are commonly encountered by many people, including the "rush" of the onset, feelings of "deja vu," out of body experiences, feelings of oneness with the universe, etc. etc. (modify the list as you see fit, according to those similarities that stand out amongst myriads of trip reports).

Therefore, we can then say that, despite the marked variability of DMT experiences, there are experiences that seem "out of the ordinary" (although ordinary is being used to describe a seemingly infinite range of effects, here) even for DMT. Take, for example, gibran2's "realer than real" experience where he was told he was never really alive to begin with. Take for example any of the reports where very experienced users have reported "breaking through the breakthrough" or encountering individual experiences that stood out amidst the backdrop of the hundreds of other DMT sessions they had experienced. The only reason anything stands out, whether a DMT experience, or an object in the foreground of a picture, is because it contrasts with other things...that is to say, it has some sort of different quality.

As such, it is not contradictory to state that, although the DMT experience is wildly variable (as many people on this site keep insisting to you) there are experiences that are so far out of the realm of what people have encountered on their myriads of DMT experiences, that these experiences can be (and have been) labelled as outliers; sometimes by the very people who have had these seemingly "out of the wide range that one might describe as 'ordinary' in that their variability seems more relatable to each other" trips.

As a final example. If someone stated that they had a breakthrough experience, but claimed that they were still able to communicate with others in the room, were still able to observe "waking reality" around them, were still able to function in normal, routine manners during the breakthrough...this would qualify as being so far outside of what is commonly understood to occur during a breakthrough DMT experience that the nature of this experience would be questioned, as it would represent a severe outlier to what is generally experienced during a DMT breakthrough. (I've actually had an experience remarkably similar to this that I've described as breaking through into "ordinary reality" and it's still one of the weirdest DMT experiences I've had).

To question this/label it as an outlier DOES NOT contradict the statement that the DMT experience is wildly variable.

This will most likely be my last post on this topic. It bothers me that my critiques are met with "I'm not doing this, you're doing this," rather than a sound rebuttal, when I feel that I have laid out the justification as to why I'm stating that I feel you to be engaged in certain behaviors. This rubber/glue modality, on top of a topic that I find to be a red herring (your constructed DMT religion as a tool for dismissal of other's viewpoints), has completely burned me out for this discussion.

No hard feelings...it is what it is.