Blatant cribbing of the McKenna quote aside, I would posit that this line of thinking is, itself pretty shallow. All of these constructs presented, ranging from BoA to Jesus in modern culture, have some sort of utility and basis in consensual experience, even if they are merely human constructs/concepts that have been given special status within human interactions. Or put into plainer terms, these things carry a functional weight because elements of human society agree that they are real and useful for certain things (assigning value to goods/services, personifying moral values, etc.).

This level of agreed upon realities is a pretty basic and fundamental one; in fact, it's how consensus reality appears to function for the most part, whether we're talking simple abstractions, like language, or more abstract concepts like mortgage-backed securities. Someone (or someones) designs the concept and then gets enough people (or the "right" people) to agree to the rules so that it can be applied to or enforced on the operating world of consensus experience.

The question of "is it real" vis a vis the DMT experience is not the equivalent of asking is BoA real, is jesus real, or is the dollar real...not even close. The question of "is the DMT experience real," or rather "are the realms, beings, and other seemingly hyperreal components of DMT experiences real," is more akin to asking "what is the nature of consensus reality?" After all, we have empirical evidence of the dollar, of BoA, of the church's use of jesus...these concepts/constructs are not in doubt, only the degree to which they should be (or are) allowed to influence one's actions. They are contrasted, perhaps, which something like gravity, which is going to influence your actions regardless of your own desires/intentions etc.

Questioning the reality of DMT experiences serves as an interesting reflection on reality, wholesale. Or put another way, we have no measures for actually testing/determining an objective reality, only discussing experiences/observations within consensus reality:



The same applies to waking life, no?



Thus, asking about the reality of DMT realms provides an interesting (and valuable, imo) ontological crowbar for re-conceptualizing and contextualizing reality as a whole. For once reality is understood as "a collection of human-defined axioms or 'tendencies'," there's no need to decry the "reality" of capital or religious figures, instead these are understood as human-generated parameters within the OS of "reality" and the question that remains is one of utility.

Whether engaging with DMT experiences or in the consensus world, it ultimately boils down (imo) to the question(s) of utility:

What CAN you do with it? What DO you do with it?


I'd be curious to hear Mckenna's reply, but sadly, I don't think he'll be joining us in this discussion.

Yes I have.
The mushrooms told me very specifically; "Forget what you know and humble yourself before God".
I know it's a bit Old Testament and not very fashionable, but in our egomaniacal and information driven culture/society, it's a lifetime's work and an instruction I offer to everyone.

We are the shepherds of your civilisation.

You are not ready.

Back in the bowl with ya's!

(kind of hints once properly mixed we will indeed be ready someday. So that's positive at least!)

No, terence just happens to hold a similar view.

It's a naive question because most things are not "black and white", there is a good deal of gray area and subjectivity relating to the notion of "real"

...Asking is it real in relation to these topics shows that the person asking the question has not contemplated the concept of "real" in much depth.

Again, is the value of a dollar real? Are state lines and boarders between countries real? Are figures like Christ or buddha real? The fact that a clear answer is not easily reached illustrates the naivete of the individual asking the question, this person must be somewhat naive regarding the concepts of "real and unreal"

Besides...should an individual not be able conclude whether something is real or not by their own assessment of the situation? Should an individual not contemplate the issue for themselves rather than accepting the answers provided by others? It's great to discuss your conclusions with others, to get feedback and input, but when it comes to a question like "is it real?" it's a different situation.

...besides, in these situations it is entirely besides the point.

How can I produce an example that people here will relate with?...

Ok, look at the "south park" television show's episode "imagination land", the point of that entire 3-part episode ultimately was that "is it real?" Is a rather naive question.

I can guarantee terence had no influence on the south park episode, and just like all the terence quotes I post these are things that many, many, many, individuals have said. I just feel terence says it best, here is a quick example, I could use this quote from Nick sand or this quote by terence McKenna: These quotes are both saying essentially the same thing, I just prefer the McKenna quote. Besides, every McKenna quote that I use related to the topic at hand perfectly, this is generally because an audience member had asked him a similar question to the one being caressed in the thread, but also due to the fact that McKenna himself has addressed nearly every issue relating to the philosophy and history of psychedelics. Now, just because I post his quotes quite a lot does not mean I subscribe to his notions, it just means they were on topic with the thread.


-eg

This was the exact point that terence and myself were attempting to make.

-eg

Hardly!

By your own value judgement, asking the question itself is "naive" and evidences "that the person asking the question has not contemplated the concept of 'real' in much depth." Even if this is the case, the person has posed the question and you attempted to shut it down by providing your own value judgement and citing yet another Mckenna quote (YAMQ).

Rather than taking the high and mighty (some might call it pretentious) position of having given the question "superior" consideration than some naive person, I'm contending that asking the question of "is it real" is, in and of itself, a valuable moment for several reasons. Notably that the societies in which we find ourselves tend to shy away from the deeper considerations present and generally attempt to condition similar aversions in us.

The fact that many folks haven't had the opportunity to even formulate questions (let alone understandings) about the nature of the realities of abstract constructs in consensus experiences means that the "is it real" question provides a golden opportunity for engagement (see my earlier statement re: ontological crowbars).

Rather than telling a person they're naive and attempting to support your assertion of their naivete with YAMQ, how about using your own words to actually engage with the topic at hand and actually dig into the discussion to help shine a light into the new realms of questions just beginning to become apparent to the person asking the question? Would that not, perhaps, provide them with greater understanding and utility?

I think supporting such questioning, even questions one may find to be "naive" is better than quelling such questions through making people feel silly for asking them. After all, if they can't clarify those initial questions or even feel comfortable asking them, how will they assemble the building blocks/foundations to ask more important/complex questions down the road? Surely each of us had to be asking "naive" questions at some points in our lives and most (if not all) of us are still likely asking questions that others, with different expertise and experiences, might find just as naive as those we see others asking.

Well said Snozz. Over the years i have found that there is sometimes a certain amount of intellectual snobbery associated with psychedelic users which can be off putting. Asking whether something is real or not is a gateway question that leads onto other thought processes along with questions like who am I? why am i here? Thoughts on death etcetera etc. Possibly naive but necessary for the journey that some of us have decided to take down the path of understanding and confusion.

In EG's defence i will take a punt that he was musing out loud about reality and naivety rather than aiming it directly at Asher7 who, from what i have read of post no 10 in this thread, finds it real from a subjective point of view. I guess that the subjective perception of reality is all we will ever have to go on. If there was an infallible objective reality measuring device that gave an accurate image of what reality is we'd all probably perceive the results in different ways from each other.

Maybe that is what people bonding with each other is about. Certain traits from one and others subjective bubbles match up and a bit of shared inter-objectivity is the result. Or is that bit too much like airy fairy rambling? If it is, in my defence, i have just drank 2 bottles of beer.

Hey man just for the record, nobody is going to offend me or in some way insult me by offering up a perspective even if theoretically they formed it in a perceived condecending way. It's all good.

I ask questions I already believe I have the answer to just to see what someone else will say. That practice is strangely more profound when you ask a little kid, because their minds are wide open. Adults usually say the same old answer, a "conditioned" sort of answer that uses more complex words but really holds no enlightening power because people tend to lock themselves in more as they become sure of themselves.

A simple answer on a widely known topic will blow your mind sometimes when you ask a little kid.

A lot of my questions take on a form similar to the exercise where you pick up a pencil and just write. Sometimes in the lack of thinking yet answering you find your unique answers as you go back over what you've written. Too much thinking gets you locked into your tunnel vision patterns because you just keep adding to the pattern instead of truely stepping outside of it.

It really get's as simple as having a coworker tell you he just got back from lunch and... and you ask "why did you go to lunch?" or something "stupid" like that and watch. They'll hesitate for a second like, wtf, and then answer in a need to keep the beat and that's how you know they're cutting into new ground. They didn't have the answer already figured out and rehearsed. That is where you get your gold from. (that's just a random example there are better ones with every question you come up with)

People, in my opinion, should ask a boatload more questions, and just let the answers speak for themselves.

Snozz, you are a beacon of light. Excellent execution. Your devotion to the integrity of our conduct here and how we treat this intelllectual space, already a very special one, speaks volumes to me about the person behind the writing. Ever watchful, ever vigilant.. your words at the very least. It is possible to keep a sense of humor and take things more seriously (read: more carefully), simultaneously, is it not? This is a deep thanks to you brother. And a thanks to e.g. as well. because his words are also very much enjoyed.

I dont have much to say here, besides…


Snooz you bringing up that



brings me to a realization, that Hyperspace and the effect of experiencing it has on humans, has to do with we not having any concept to integrate it into.
Our physical capacities (brain/nervous system), and our cultural “codes”(language/symbols) and therefor our perception have been shaped by our environment through out a long period of time. The facilities of hyperspace apparently havent been enough of a consistent stimulus for mammals to leave traces in our genom, comparable to those of language, and diet(as example). Everything that we can see in our daily live, has some kind of culturally derived meaning, or wording to describe it. I could imagine, that if we would frequent Hyperspace from a very young age, and through out generations, it would very likely leave some kind of trace in our cultural network of meaning and language (I would imagine its similar to the way some tribes integrate this into their culture/maybe this could happen in a way leaving even deeper marks, if hyperspace visits are even more frequent) and maybe even our genom.

Just some thoughts...

if that's how you interpret what I'm trying communicate then that's how you interpret it.

It's not just a terence McKenna opinion, I cited a popular culture reference in my last post which made the exact same point. It's not about McKenna, and I know that you see my knowledge of McKenna as a means to insinuate that my ideas are invalid, or that I must subscribe to everything McKenna says, when in reality nothing could be further from being the actual case.

whether you love what I say or it hate it, at least try to learn something from it.

It's great to ask "what is real?", and to contemplate the nature of reality, but in certain contexts it is naive, which is just my opinion, as well as the opinion of many others. I'm nit a fan of television or pop culture, but as an avid cannabis consumer, while smoking with ithers I'm often exposed programs which I others would never watch otherwise, the "south park" "imagination land" episode makes this same point, it shows how this can be a naive question.

When I was in philosophy that was one of the teachers key arguments when it came to the discussion of reality, he would ask "are state lines real?" And then we would discuss the matter, ultimately revealing that it's not a yes or no type of question, so, is it real? Yes, in some contexts it is very real and has quite real effect, in other contexts you could say there's nothing real about it, these are imaginary concepts made up and agreed upon in the minds of humans. "So is it real?" It's not black and white, there is a good deal of gray area and subjectivity, it's great to ask yourself these things, but to ask others wanting anything more than their opinions is a bit naive. The value of a dollar was one of this professor's other examples, then he would dive into fictional and religious characters for duscussion. These are not McKenna concepts.

Besides, Believe it or not, the majority of what McKenna did was explain the work and ideas of others, he would take the concepts of Plato, or Jung, or Alfred north whitehead, or Marshall McLuhan, and explain them.adding in his own commentary and thoughts along the way. many of his key concepts and even some of the language which people think was unique to McKenna was generated by these other individuals.

I don't subscribe to most of what McKenna says, but if it fits the topic at hand, is it not a valid contribution? I think the more content related to the topic at hand the better, who cares who it came from, the ideas are what's important.



I never told anybody they were naive, and I most certainly did not prevent anybody from asking any questions, I simply said that in my opinion is it real is a naive question, how that affects anybody other than myself, I'm not sure.

...and ultimately I did inspire a wave of discussion and thought, "is "is it real" a naive question?" It was discussed, and ultimately the participants are left with a greater understanding of this concept.



Pretentious has a slightly different meaning, and if you knew me in reality you would find the description of "high and mighty" (or even pretentious) laughable, but that's not important here and if you interpret my posts as pretentious that's fine, I simply state my currant thoughts on the topic at hand, sorry I can't always produce conversation that's deep and profound to your standards, regardless I'm going to share my ideas. If they are that repugnant in your view, and if you can never seem to get anything from them then technically you could simply not read them, though I'm always happy to elaborate.

-eg

Thanks for raisin the level of discussion.






Sorry, couldn't resist

Raisin the level of the discussion????? More like sour grapes to me...

that's appleing

double post. oops!

Orange you guys able to make better fruit-based puns than these?

i'm berry sorry

Let's nut speak of it again.

I'd love to but i am plum out of ideas.

It just shows you what you already know from within, you are the universe/reality you see, you created all of it but most of the time you only have a limited point of view/perspective because you are experiencing separation.

Through our eyes the universe sees itself and becomes more and more aware as we are.