just because it occured doesnt mean its real though, dreams occur but their content isnt nesessarily objective truth. I have dreamt that i am batman rollerskating round a shopping centre, i am not batman and i dont rollerskate.


If you want to keep it to yourself for personal reasons thats cool, i understand these things can be personal and thats why i said if you wish to share i would be interested. i just find it very interesting when people claim to have seen the truth through drug use without any acknowledgement that it could well be all self created.

your feeling about me having made up my mind is not correct, i have ideas about what is going on but my mind isnt really set on any one existential model.


I have and i dont. it seems quite odd that you think that if someone disagrees with you then they simply cant have experienced what you have, people have identical experiences and have different takes on it.



it doesnt sit anyway with me, your beliefs dont effect me at all, i just find peoples psychedelic experiences and resulting existential models very interesting

It's been a long day so I wont dissect every sentence you have written in reply, I will summarise.

Supernatural definition off wiki: of a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

That just explains spice in one sentence, to me.

I wont explain my reasons for claiming a supernatural experience, not because it is private like I said, but because that experience is not for trying to win arguments or for trying to changing peoples minds.

Many of the people here on the Nexus think like you, as you infer that it is a drug and it gets you high.

To me that is disrespectful of some thing that I can only describe with words like, sacred & gift.

The trip: illusion or not?

What about this interpretation:
- it is not true in "this" dimension;
- it is true in another dimension.

Hypothese:
An experience cannot be false or it cannot have existed to start with.
Experience can tough not exist in one realm, yet it can in another.

(The words dimension and realm are fuzzy, but how to call it else?)

This interpretation is illustrated by a candle experiment I saw once on TV:
a person stares at a candle and brain activity is clinically measured.
Then the candle is removed, and the person is asked to imagine the candle (closed eyes?) as if it is there, and low and behold the brain activity resembles.
For the brain it wasn't very important if it is true, or not. It just is, and because of that it is both true and un-true.

Remember yourself a feeling of falling in love, and the whole body reacts as if it was the case now, maybe lesser, but still enough proof for a "real" effect of something imagined.

Same wise, whether an experience is in this realm, or another, for the registering observer it doesn't makes much of a difference.

One can't easily equalize a vision with alleged reality, nor can a vision/dream/experience be downgraded toward no-thing. But why trying to do so? They both abide so well in their own temple and the observer takes them all serious whatever their nature is.

Interesting the experiments where these realms are put in contrast with each other, like the hypnoses of anesthesia. Reality tells there is pain mechanism present yet the suggestion can (if successfully) override this reality. The both realities exist but in contradiction, then the observer chooses which side to follow.

Then the main question: is "reality" not just another vision/suggestion of a very particular nature? A contradiction solved as one and the same, the simplicity behind this is so strikingly appealing that it almost proves itself by that.

Just my 2 cents.

The articles author strikes me as that person that has had a dozen or so light and mild trips with little substance and feels they are an expert on psychedelics.

Things get a little different with high doses.

No I'm not saying "this is this and this is that and you should believe it all." Once you experience the overwhelming infinite, it's hard to make a concrete belief about anything really. It also becomes harder to not consider anything as possible. History has shown us as a race to feel something is impossible right up to the moment it is scientifically proven.

Anyway, good luck.

I had a similar impression. Underneath the genuine guise of skeptical thinking and a call for doing away with claiming absolute truth and so on, it was kind of ironic to see they essentially presented their own opinion as fact a number of times...The common "it's all really just 'you'[whatever the hell 'you' is] ", etc. But the article does make some good and obvious points of course regarding delusion/avoiding conclusions.

Thank you for posting!
This is exactly what I needed in my life at this point.
I love this article so much that I'm printing it out and tacking it up on the wall.

On Mckenna -
There are some folks here who seem ambivalent about this wizard of words.
Well here are two things I've learned from this giant, and they actually fit right into the advice of the article.

First, McKenna (as one poster pointed out already) did not take himself seriously. (Neither did Alan W Watts).
I remember hearing him rave just the other day about his severe scorn for the idea of the relativity of ideas - that somehow all ideas have equal worth. He said this is nonsense. And so he raised the question: how to know what to believe?
Well, he in a nutshell said that the way to protect ourselves from becoming fools is to always choose the simplest explanation when trying to understand something - it's the so-called principle of parsimony called Occam's razor.
You all know what I'm talking about so I won't belabor that.

Second, McKenna always insisted on the primacy of immediate experience. His main message (from his mouth) was two fold: the message of self-empowerment, and the message of self-trust.
"Just deal with the raw data and trust yourself - nobody is smarter than you are, and so what if they are?
Inform yourself. Mistrust and transcend ideology."

I mention these two points quickly only to show that although he had his own ideas, AT LEAST HE HAD IDEAS. And, as far I can tell, he lived by what he preached - that is - trusting his own intuition and encouraging others to do the same.

If Terence Mckenna wasn't a Bodhisattva of sorts, I don't know who else is. (Don't get me started on Alan Watts. Both were giants.)

In conclusion, I see no discrepancy with this article and Mckenna's own views.
Kudos to the author of that article.
And kudos to ND for posting it!

Peace.