anyone else wonder if existence is always on,or alternating between on and off?
whether what we perceive is real or a product of our expectations, expectations being,as reality itself appears to be,solid and of form until closer inspection reveals the subtle energy beneath. Do we really only ever see ourselves?
why does the mind create patterns? surely if existence was continuous there would be no need...no gap between on which to ponder.
when did we stop thinking in our heads and start thinking with our eyes?(sorry ...no politics )
does utilizing these extracts free the individual from their conditioned daily panorama and enable them to deal with their objective reality on a more intense subjective level, we have so little time to stop and stare,so much of what we experience is agreed on by communal decree little vital, immediate experience,maybe we have agreed on so much we have become bored perhaps eliciting a little help from the plant kingdom is widening our grasp to strengthen our grip.
ramble over...
thanks for reading.
hello.

I think that this chemical is so profound because it allows individuals to experience and perceive stimuli from a point of view that is entirely separate from that of our every day existence. It allows many to contemplate the phenomena that is the subjective interpretation of a distinct nondynamic stimulus and to understand that what our senses tell us is not the same thing that other people's senses tell them even if both people interpret it to be the same stimulus with the same qualities; it is not experienced in the same way. I think that existence is ON and that what we perceive is REAL, in the sense that it is not a hallucinatory stimulus, but our subjective perception of it is very much UNREAL. Humans rarely if ever see things from a point of view that is not our own even when contemplating opinions that are not our own. I think experiences with these chemicals allows individuals to understand the subjective nature of our reality.

yes, i agree..humans see from a human perspective...plants from a plant perspective...but what is it then to see?
have we a view that hasn't changed,an essence that has always been..the human view could then be considered a condition one..forgive me im not a nueroscientist but it struck me that we condition our experiences in hyperspace in the same way we do in our .ay to day lives....our daily lives can appear very real

I have come to learn that our reality, the one that we perceive, is very much a vibration - that the subtle energy creates what we see, and that it's very much influenced by our thoughts/beliefs/emotions/expectations. Our mind has been designed to hold this vibration in place - as everything is in constant motion. I believe that using Salvia, Mushrooms, DMT and other psychedelics free our mind - moving or loosening our assemblage point. (Google Carlos Casteneda and the assemblage point if you're unfamiliar with this)

This reality isn't still, isn't constant - there's a pulse, a heart beat, and we are a part of it ..... co-creating all of it.

thank you aeracura.
i am familiar with casteneda too.
you mention the possibility of existence being intermittent.
perhaps this would explain quantum reality,or at least the incongruous nature of it to us...
if all is energy then why does matter appear at all?
is matter a subjective reference point?
and if it is....what might be the nature of the perciever ? the subject...
is it of the energy? or does it differ? it is hard to imagine how an energy would become so disjointed as to mistake its own nature..what would be the reason for this apparent dichotomy?
could the energy itself become displaced or distorted by being in contact with something altogether other...David bohm the physicist asks the question,"
"if energy is emptiness then is that upon which it rests,upon which it moves,substance?"
pondering this leaves me wondering whether the apparent order necessary to involve some kind of awareness,and therefore matter,time etc, operates at the boundary between energy and the superior(and totally hypothetical ) "substance"?
it gets very complicated from here for me...already the boundary concept may be illusory.
throws up some interesting possibilities though.