Zon, i am guessing from your name and avatar that you are into scionics.



If we carry on with this circular argument with various people taking offence and indirectly causing offence to each other this thread will get locked.
Let us all practice the one sacred law of Zon Buddhism: LIVE AND LET LIVE!

As far as DMT entities being just in the head argument and jumbled up bits of holographic information goes, could it not be that when we modify our perception with these drugs that this jumbled information is put into the context of entities, strange alienoid machines and fractals. And that these "hallucinations" are further quantified and directed by subconscious suggestion? If that were the case then, while one is immersed in the DMT state of mind, entities and suchlike are as real as the (possibly) holographic universe that we live in.

interesting...

you've managed to create a set of 'beliefs' to conveniently fit your perception of perceived reality, while neglecting the spiritual element (you even said "nonspiritual" ). there is another group of people who do the same...religious zealots.
in all fairness, you did declare these musings as opinions in the thread title.

There is knowledge that aims at truth and there is knowledge that aims at control, power and status.

Most science, as a construct of social reality, seeks knowledge of the latter type, as do most scientists most of the time - scientist is a job type after all, tied up with subsistence issues such as income and social status.

People are not to be blamed for having to deal with the realities of practical living.
However, losing fundamental understanding about the difference between the two turns science into dogma and then into religion.

It can be very humbling to see the nature and intent of one's own knowing.

@The Hermit:

What you said about science and fundamentalism was interesting. Obviously I agree with the part about science. Regarding fundamentalism, I would also agree that "a strict adherence to a basic set of beliefs or principles" is very harmful when those beliefs or principles are not in unity or harmony with reality itself, but actually makes a lot of sense if those principles are in unity or harmony with reality.

A Christian Fundamentalist, for example, holds a set of beliefs about the beginning and end of the world, the origin of life and species, and a whole bunch other ideas about reality, based upon the "fundamental principle" that the Bible is an infallible book containing nothing but absolute truth. Many of the supposed "truths" in the Bible have since been falsified through the progress of science, thus negating the idea that the Bible is infallible and contains nothing but absolute truth. As a result, those who still regard themselves as Christian Fundamentalist despite the scientific evidence, are often seen as "out of touch" with reality.

The same type of things can often be said about fundamentalists of any religion, where that religion is counter to that which is known about reality.

Now, let's imagine someone we'll call a "Mathematical Fundamentalist." This person believes that (at least some) mathematical principles represent absolute truth, of a sort. He or she believes that mathematical equations, for example, are capable of being definitively evaluated as representing true or false mathematical statements. (In other words: 1+1=2 would be regarded as true, while 1+1=3 would be regardee as false.) A "Mathematical Fundamentalist" would (or should) understand the limits of mathematics, and those areas of life where it is or is not applicable. For example, mathematics would be very applicable to determining how much change one is owed when paying for something at a store, but not applicable to determining what the lottery numbers will be tomorrow. (Otherwise there would be a lot of wealthy mathematicians out there! Mathematics would, however, be applicable to determining the odds of a particular set of numbers being drawn.)

Now, let's imagine something different...let's call it a "Reality Fundamentalist." This person believes that "reality exists" and that reality is EVERYTHING or ALL that exists. Furthermore, this person believes that the only way to know and understand reality is to study reality itself. (Well...that's actually a pretty good way of looking at science: it attempts to know and understand reality by studying reality itself.) It also turns out that the "Reality Fundamentalist" will eventually learn to co-opt the techniques of the "Mathematical Fundamentalist" into his or her "Reality Fundamentalism" because, as it turns out, reality operates in many ways which can be desribed mathematically. (Perhaps, upon realizing this, the "Reality Fundamentalist" draws the metaphysical conclusion that "Reality must be consistent with its own existence, or it could not exist," and understands that this is the reason that reality can often be described in mathematical ways.)

Now, there may well be limits to the knowledge which one can derive about reality...but the "Reality Fundamentalist" will not simply acknowledge that such limits may well exist, and then decide to cease all further investigation or exploration of the nature of reality. Instead, the "Reality Fundamentalist" will seek to know what these limits are, and will further seek to know and study all that can be known within these limits.

From the above, it would seem that "fundamentalism" in certain contexts leads to a divergence from and disharmony with reality, and that in other contxts, e.g., "Reality Fundamentalism," it can lead to the greatest possible unity and harmony with reality itself.

Because there are essentially infinite types of "fundamentalism" which can lead to divergence from and disharmony with reality, (Of which Christian and Muslim Fundamentalism are by far the most prominent on the world stage today) and actually only one which leads to the maximum unity and harmony with reality ("Reality Fundamentalism" ) the very term "fundamentalism" has taken on negative connotations.

I also think that most people innocently but incorrectly assume that there is no "one right way," of studying reality (and hence that ANY sort of fundamentalism would be wrong) because different people have different innate ways of relating to the world, by their very nature, and also because in life there are also many essentially equivalent ways of approaching and completing the same task. ("There is more than one way to skin a cat," is a reflection, albeit rather gruesome, of this.) Nonetheless, to know reality, it is reality which must be studied...and this is fundamental.

@hugs46:


You are correct.


This thread has gone in a very different direction from that which I had expected and intended, which was (and I am quoting my original post) "the analysis of the psychedelic experience from other 'scientifically-minded' individuals who are current or recent users." I would be VERY interested in such posts, although very few have been forthcoming. Instead a great deal of what I have recieved have been a large number of challenges or criticisms of my belief-system...and I am perfectly fine with that, and do consider such post to be valuable and constructive in their own right, provided they are written in the spirit of honesty and greater mutual understanding.

I would prefer that this thread remain open, because it has provided me (and I think others) with a great deal of intellectual stimulation. I very much enjoy the intellectual challenge of defending my beliefs, and consider it a very valuable excercise. However, there is nothing "sacred" about this post. If the moderators or administrators decide to lock the thread, then so be it. I will say, however that at all times I maintain a very strict attitude of "unity, love, peace, and understanding," whether in this thread or in my daily life, only ever intentionally "giving offense" in response to those who initially attempted to "give offense," and even then only when that seems to be the best way of handling the situation. In fact, this is from the very beginning of my original post:


Regarding the One Sacred Law of Zon Buddhism: "LIVE AND LET LIVE!" means exactly that. Everyone can have the ideas or beliefs they choose. I don't want to impose my beliefs on others, or to have others attempt to impose their beliefs on me. In the context of a debate regarding beliefs, however, which this thread has become, it is perfectly acceptable to go back and forth, to disagree, and so on. I take no offense at all with disagreement, and find it healthy. It is by presenting and defending our various viewpoints that we may grow in our understandings.

What is this spiritual element? There is, on the one hand, matter, energy, and "physical stuff" in general; on the other there is mind, consciousness, thought and "mental stuff" in general. In each of our own individual beings, we are "made of" body and mind. There are "emotional" aspects of our existence, but these are activities of mind and body. There are "artistic" elements, but again these are activities of mind and body. And so on...

I am actually the OPPOSITE of religious zealots in that I EMBRACE reality and reject non-reality; religious zealots EMBRACE some non-existent "spirituality" and all sorts of unfounded and actually often disproven ideas, and in the process they REJECT reality.

Of interest, please see my recent response to The Hermit regarding fundamentalism. The word "zealot" actually conveys a very similar meaning to the word "fundamentalist." I would certainly agree that I am a "Reality Fundamentalist" as I defined it in that post; I would also say that I have a "zeal" for maintaining a reality-based view of the world.

@pitubo:



Scientists, yes, do science as a career, and yes, a career obviously does involve aspects of money, status, and so on. Interestingly, however, the work of scientists is examined by other scientists, also seeking their own money, status, and so on. This creates competition to do "good science," i.e., HONEST science which yeilds results about reality which can be reproduced and verified by others. DISHONEST or "bad science" (think of the tobacco companies funding studies to "prove" that tobacco isn't really bad for you, or petroleum companies funding studies for "prove" that climate change is either a "myth" or not a result of our use of fossil fuels) does exist, but it is ALWAYS found out in the end, and revealed to other scientists and to the general public. Furthermore, those who have a sufficient understanding of the principles involved in a "bad science" study are often able to "see through it" right from the beginning.

One should not be humbled, but PROUD, if "the nature and intent of one's own knowing" is HONESTY.

Gibran2 -
If I have a headache, I have a headache. It doesn't matter if the explanation is dilating blood vessels in my brain, or muscle spasms in my shoulders, or 'stress', or psychological distress, or invisible demons pounding mallets on my brain. We don't call some headaches 'headaches' and others 'apparent headaches'. There is no such thing as an 'apparent' headache. Likewise, a mystical experience is defined as such based on the characteristics of the experience, not the source or explanation of the experience. So whether the source is 'outside' or 'inside', whether we explain the experience in mechanistic terms or not, it is still a mystical experience. There is no such thing as an 'apparent' mystical experience.

I'd rather not get involved with this thread but I did want to leave this here as food for thought

Zon, thanks for the reply.

For me, I have no problem with spirituality, mysticism, whatever, as long as it is tempered by rationality and a willingness to examine the possible explanations behind it. I do love a story though, and I love hearing subjective explanations for peoples experiences and perceptions.

So my issue with religion is this - it'd all be fine if they were just weaving a story, like some kind of 'skin' applied to a very similar underlying structure, except that's not where they stop. Oh no. They feel the need to march around telling everyone else their story is the BEST one, the only true one, and all other stories are lies.

Now while science comes a lot closer to fact, a better phrase to use is 'best current working hypothesis'. Which could be made to look ridiculous or at least redundant by the next even better one. Some of these hypotheses are truly amazing. Some fall a little short for me. There is so much we don't yet know, and maybe cannot know, and to wrap all of these things up in 'human delusion' seems like a cop out. Certainly most it gets convoluted when human feelings come into play, we become so attached to our ideas and beliefs, don't we?

Well I like the stories as much as the science, I believe in the power of belief more than the belief structures themselves, and maybe I'd rather read some epic cosmic saga in three parts than the latest paper on string theory, but the best part of this whole cruise is that it doesn't seem to matter what I believe, assuming I don't try and force that on anyone else. It seems like such a fundamental courtesy, not to be a fundamentalist. It's a terrible thing to see science making the same mistakes religion has before it.

But this is the old merry-go-round, I've sat at opposite ends as well as on the fence. And for all of it, I can see you point. But again, I love a good story.

It's science fiction baby

@universecannon:

I completely agree with you that an experience IS an experience regardless of the source of the experience!

I would say, however, that it would be incorrect to identify a headache caused by a hammer blow to the head as a "stress headache," and vice versa, it would be incorrect to identify a headache caused by stress at work as a "hammer headache," so to speak. They are both headaches, and it is certainly valid to identify each as such; if, however, one wants to identify the type of headache it is (perhaps to avoid such headaches in the future) then it becomes important to identify the source of the headache.

Now, regarding "mystical" experiences in general, or "DMT" experiences in particular, there also might be a reason to want to identify the source of the experience, i.e., whether the experience is internally generated in one's own brain/mind, or whether it is of some sort of external origin. Knowing the source of the experience might even change the way that one referes to it, and also the attitude that one has about the "contents" of the experience, so to speak. If one has good reason to believe that the experience was of external origin, and came from some sort of god or spiritual being, then one might continue to call the experience "mystical" or "spiritual," or something of that nature. If, on the other hand, the experience is determined to have been internally generated, it might more properly be referred to as a "hallucination," or something of that nature. One still has had some sort of experience in either case, but on the one case it would most properly be considered to be "mystical," "spiritual," or the like, and in the other it would be most properly be considered to be "hallucinatory," or something of that nature...and these are very different things. So in this case, one CAN in fact have an "apparent" mystical experience, which was actually a hallucinatory experience.

I can well understand your not wanting to get involved in this thread, but I do thank you for your input!

@ The Hermit:

Of what you said, two things in particular stood out to me: one was in regard to the "best working hypothesis" model you proposed, and the other had to do with fundamentalists not forcing their beliefs upon others. I'll do my best to address each.



It is well known in science that the best model of reality which we have today can be supplanted by something better tomorrow. (In fact, this is one of the things which allows science to advance human understanding, while mystical religions often maintain a worldview which is thousands of years out of date.) But scientists and scientifically-minded people tend not to feel "ridiculous" when a new, better information becomes available. Speaking for myself, I feel a sense of pride that I am ALWAYS using the best information I am aware of, and when new, better information becomes available I am both proud and eager to integrate the new information into my world-view.



I am not sure, however, what you are referring to when you say you "see science making the same mistakes religion has before it." Do you mean, trying to force scientific beliefs upon others? I am not trying to force my ideas on anyone. I am merely presenting and defending them. You and everyone else are free to believe whatever you wish.

Or perhaps you mean that some sort of "fundamentalist" adherence to a belief-system or set of principles is a mistake? If that is what you meant, I will refer you to my previous reply to you, where I dealt with exactly that issue.

Glorifying ignorance? Why do you feel that choosing to never buy into anything 100% (or at least striving to) = glorifying ignorance? You can have intelligence of all kinds and be brimming with information and wisdom of every sort, but still can withhold from committing yourself to ever believing anything fully (or at least striving to). Considering how everything we think we know is provisional and could be changed in the future, and how concepts are, after all, merely models and maps we're dealing with and not the meal or territory, this seems a reasonable approach. The history of human understanding being in a constant state of profound change seems to support this. Psychedelics experiences perhaps even more so in my opinion.

I think attempting to distance yourself from the need to believe fully is part of science and psychedelia 101. Why cling to certain models when you can hop between reality-tunnels? These are but words, strings of monkey generated pixels across a screen, feebly attempting to convey complex concepts that are but models or maps and never "reality" as it "is". As others have said, whatever we say reality "is", it isn't. All we have is metaphor.

“Words bend our thinking to infinite paths of self-delusion, and the fact that we spend most of our mental lives in brain mansions built of words means that we lack the objectivity necessary to see the terrible distortion of reality which language brings.” - Hyperion

tl;dr? we all need to use "seems", "maybe", and "I think", more

This is entirely based on you're personal opinion though.

Why does an experience inside my head make it therefore "non-spiritual" or "non-mystical"? Every experience throughout my life (or at least most, who can be sure) have been internal. Does that make them by definition non-spiritual as well? Who gets to decide the "most proper" definition.

Say we discovered a kind of non-local mechanism behind telepathic communication with other beings or dimensions- would that then make those experiences properly "non-spiritual" by definition as well, since you can then categorize it under a label you're comfortable with?

Believing it a "hallucination" and therefore not "real" or "spiritual" because one thinks it is merely going on in your brain is not an explanation at all of the experience- it is explaining it away. Especially since we don't even understand the nature of consciousness or the imagination itself.

I love science and did my undergrad in cog sci. But I'm very critical of it when necessary and put off when people distort it into a tool to push their BS (Belief System) or particular reality-tunnel.. Regardless of whether or not it is of religious orientation.

The reason I didn't want to get involved in this is because, to be honest, this kind of overall discussion has occurred many times in this community in various forms.

@universcannon:

"Believe in nothing...Whatsoever...," is an anti-reality, anti-knowledge approach. It is not the same as "not buying into something 100%," it is "not buying into" (or believing) ANYTHING, EVER! Thus, such a statement is a glorification of ignorance.

Knowledge = a true belief.
Ignorance = the lack of knowledge, i.e., the lack of true beliefs.

To say "Believe in nothing...Whatsoever..." is obviously a glorification of ignorance. If one holds "Believe in nothing...Whatsoever..." as a statement of virtue (or as a prescription for human behavior) then this is logically equivalent to stating that ignorance is a virtue.

I choose not to "believe" the statement "Believe in nothing...Whatsoever..." But this is not merely some arbitrary choice; it is a choice in harmony with reality itself.

Something exists. Reality exists. I know my thoughts exist. I therefore believe, 100%, that somethining exists and that my thoughts exist. Furthermore, I know that logially a thing cannot exist which existentially contradicts its own existence. The best way to understand and know about the nature of reality or existence is to study reality itself. This is what science does...and it does it better than anything else humans have ever developed.

The 'truth' does not require your belief.

(We can debate the definition of "truth" elsewhere)

You can have a very high suspicion of something being 'true'-even regard it as a near certainty when weighing probabilities- and be more aware of it's apparent nature than one who holds it as a full fledged belief, and still not believe in it 100%. Does this mean you are more ignorant of it than them by default?

Your definitions of knowledge and ignorance are just that: Your definitions. Please don't act as if they are everyone's definitions. Mistaking ones own definitions and opinions as THEE definitions and reality of the situation is a reoccurring theme running throughout this entire thread. I think if you built that acknowledgement of opinion into your style of communication more generally, then this would have a better chance of being a productive thread

Of course the truth does not require my belief. I make it my business, however, to seek out truth to the very best of my ability; therefore I use the very best methods humans have ever developed for doing just that: science.

Actually my definition of knoweldge is not my own at all. It actually is an abbreviated version of the definition provided by Plato's Theaetetus, which was "justified true belief." (I left out the justified part out, in an attempt to keep things simpler.) Since I'm not a big fan of Plato, however, here's what dictionary.com has to say:

knowledge -
noun
1.
acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
knowledge of many things.
2.
familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning:
A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3.
acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
a knowledge of human nature.
4.
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5.
awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6.
something that is or may be known; information:
He sought knowledge of her activities.
7.
the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

While I'm at it, here's the entry for ignorance:

ignorance -
noun
1.
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

So...my definitions are quite accurate and are not a matter of opinion.



As demonstrated, such "mistaking one's own definitions and opinions as THE definitions and reality of the situation" did not occur here...and I will also say that I am a very lingustically and conceptually precise person, and am very careful about how I use words and thoughts. I think the real problematic "recurring theme running throughout this entire thread" is due to the lack of precise speaking/thinking on the parts of many others and the desire to retain all sorts of mystical or otherwise unfounded beliefs (perhaps because they "feel good" to believe). To put it even more succinctly, the problem is that of the irreconcilable differences between scientific thinking and mystical thinking.

I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to make this important point.

...There is no mention of belief in any of those definitions...

And, regardless, people always experience and interpret the meaning of words in their own way, in their own minds...despite the myriad of dictionary definitions. There's no shame in admitting that though.

so what sort of scientific applications do you utilize to find "truth"?

you can be as precise as you want, in any language including math, and there will still
be phenomena you cannot precisely "define" without some incongruencies in syllogisms and mathematical proofs.

Zon, you have misrepresented the meaning of the term mystical. It does not innately refer to anything supernatural or outside of the mind. I could not have made the arguments you are making in a classroom when I was at college studying religious anthropology. I would have been shot down pretty quick with that limited definition.


" "Mysticism" is derived from the Greek μυω, meaning "I conceal",[web 1] and its derivative μυστικός, mystikos, meaning 'an initiate'."

You also lack adequate understanding of the role of the mystery and what the term likely meant to the Greeks.

The objective of philosophy, in Greece, as it came to them from the Egyptians and out of Vedic philosophy..was liberation. Without liberation, it was not even philosophy. It was a mystery because most men and women had not been schooled in philosophical thought until they had gone through the mysteries.

The mystics were initiates of the mysteries. I don't know how familiar you are with old world mystery traditions or the mythologies embedded within them...but there is no real evidence to suggest the context for such a belief system as you have put forward.

Science, and rationalism, are themselves the children of the mystery initiates. Neither of them would have arisen at the time they did without the mysteries.

Comparative mythology is the only way to really grasp today the allegorical nature of the mythologies that surrounded the mysteries...and if you really study them, it becomes rather clear that these were stories meant to be transcended by the initiates. They were allegory. The contained wisdom. That's all. Wisdom that required a level of stages to fully grasp so that one can move beyond the avatars and see a larger picture.

It is well understood that many Greek philosophers who came out of the mysteries never regarded the gods as literalized anthropomorphic beings. I don't believe that people were that stupid.

The mysteries, and the mystics who were innitiates(known as telestai), were simply initiated into a level of knowledge that was hidden from non-initiates, although the mysteries were open to anyone of any social standing as long as they were not murderers and were able to speak Greek(for obvious reasons). Those people became the mystics.

You are using a grossly misappropriated version of the term.

belief and knowledge are not the same, in any definition.
that's a ridiculous assertion. you'll never find "the authors believe.." in scientific writing.
semantics, ambiguities, and tautology are more suited to law professions rather than science.