I am always receptive to thoughtful input or discussion on the DMT experience.

I would rather be wrong about everything I thought that I knew - just to know some degree of truth.

http://www.collective-evolution...cience-or-sound-science/

Being wrong.... degree of truth... using dmt to aid with that: doesn't work for me personally so far, as in: there's hardly a 'right', and 'the truth' is evasive. Or, all is evolutionary thus also that. The moment you think to have it, it has changed already.

This canon prevents me to investigate-to-understand. I won't say it doesn't happen, but as an out of focus spontaneous product then, and fwiw and for the time being.
This on a personal note to say I'm not a "Researcher" but merely a swimmer who feels many different currents and can't decide by means of mind analysis. I've also wondered about how much romanticized dwells became serious due calling it differently, like "Research" perhaps (tongue in cheek )

It (the medicine) does however helps me to find a course in the midst of contradictions, helps me to embrace the paradox rather that trying to solve or 'get it'. An invisible compass/rudder that whispers intuition, it has not let me down so far, knock on wood.

Just smoking DMT by itself doesnt necessarily mean you are doing science. But if you dont claim it is science, then you arent 'masquerading' anything. And that doesnt mean it wont be a valuable and learning experience, at least from a subjective standpoint.

That being said, smoking DMT can be a part of a scientific experiment, underground or not. But for that to happen you need to follow a certain methodology, isolate variables, use certain standardized instruments for data collection, etc. For example you could use a blind test protocol, or you could help fill out our standardized questionnaire from which some statistics can be derived, etc. The idea of the S.H.E., synchronized hyperspace event, was also going along the lines of trying to find some objective knowledge during the experience, like the answer to mathematical problems or proof of meeting other travellers in hyperspace. These are just some ideas, you could think of a number of others

The article linked doesn't really say much and appears to be little more than an advert for a book, as far as I can tell. Upon reading the summary of the book, there appears to be just as much substance (which is to say, minimal) presented there.

Can you succinctly articulate the thesis of the article you linked (and, if you want, the book it appears to be promoting)?

To me, it appears to be something in the vein of, "I smoked DMT and let me tell you, there's a whole lot people don't understand about existence"...which is a fine statement, it's just light on content.

Afraid I gotta agree with Snozz on this one, not seeing much here that qualifies as authentic and rigorous research, be it underground or above ground. I could be wrong though, the book could contain a meticulous and well-designed objective inquiry into the effects of the spice, though I tend to doubt it.

I love this bit from the description:

As if 99% of what is written on DMT doesn't promote that same agenda.

What would be truly revolutionary and groundbreaking in the field is a work attempting to evaluate DMT as anything other than some sort of gateway to another dimension.

Lol pitubo, hard to beat that.


The book claims to be scientific in nature, on the back:

wasnt me who said that, though

Changed it , its was dreamoar

https://dickkhan.academia.edu/research
and also on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DMT.Researcher/
An ego is exploding hard imho, nothing scientifically just personal stuff.
A seldom case I hope to be wrong

snozz summed it up beatufully...
pity articles like that are symptomatic of our times, for example, a local person i know keeps writing in a similar style, and is very proud of it.

Our community has conducted more research on all aspects of DMT, from cultivation to consumption, in the past 12 years than the above-ground scientific community has in half a century.

Argh, I thought this was an actual discussion but I feel like I have been misled. The other posters here are being really nice, OP, and having created a work such as the book (that I'm only assuming you wrote from your avatar) is a great accomplishment, and further I am positive that this forum is full of people that would love to discuss it with you, were you to present your hypothesis and findings (or whatever) rather than an advertisement for it disguised by misleading and manipulative verbiage (aka clickbait). This is a fairly discerning audience and one thing I've found and admire about it is that the vast majority will see right through that kind of thing. And well... yeah.

And Godsmacker is right.

LOL - and then ouch!



I asked Collective Evolution if I could write an article for them. They agreed and I tried to pitch it to their audience. I don't think the article strongly advertises the book.



I strongly disagree with your statement. Undertaking my research and committing to writing a book has been an exercise in determination and willpower. You wanna give it a kicking? Give it a good old kick.

Be sure to link me to any creative efforts you undertake - but I assure you I'll only look for the positives.

Peace monsieur

Ouch man! What is wrong with you? If you knew me on a personal level and said that to my face that would be different. But like this? Just because I write about my experiences and try to come to some understanding of how it works? Must I only confine my writing solely to DMT Nexus? Get a grip! Did you not succumb to those powerful DMT experiences that instil you with a desire to be creative and positive?

Love that!

Thanks, man! It was an unbelievable amount of hard work. It's life and soul stuff and I went ahead at my own expnse knowing it would cost me far more than I ever recoup.



Discerning and perhaps a little too quick to kick in the boot of negativity.

So I wrote an article for CE and posted a link onto DMT Nexus. It's not the only thing I have posted here and it won't be the last. But what it has given me is a heads-up that some people are overly quick to kick the creative efforts of others. And while I guess that's the norm for some, I am pleased as punch that my discernment is to be far more measured and far more reasonable and engaging when delivering criticism - rather than taking a cheap shot and feeling good when others support that view with similar negative expressions.

Agreed, let's keep my personal misunderstanding out of this and show the science which the cover of the book claims to be. That would be a non emotional step forward. OP was science, or not.

Again, my main question is this:

Can you succinctly articulate the thesis of the article you linked (and, if you want, the book it appears to be promoting)?


As to my creative efforts, I'll keep it to Nexus related efforts, but here ya go

Here are some of my talks:

















And a few of my written contributions:

When DMT Equals Killing the Environment

Festivals, Politics, and Change

Criminals and Researchers: Perspectives on the Necessity of Underground Research

Rick Doblin Asks the Government About Their Obstruction of Cannabis Research

New Study: "Hallucinogen Use Predicts Reduced Recidivism Among..."

A Critical Analysis of the State's Definition of "Ecological Terrorism"





And I'd also point you to my debate with Rick Strassman

So is this a "creative effort" or is it the "generous sharing of analysis of scientific findings"? I'm fine with supporting a creative effort, if it's represented as such. It's not easy to write a book, and I'll offer due credit for the effort you put in, kudos on that good sir.

If this is actually the result of rigorous study and the presentation of objective data, I'd love to start a discussion on that. If there is a pile of data however, why publish it in this book and paywall access to it? Why not publish it in an academic journal, or even better open source the raw data right here to collective databank that is the nexus?

I'm also still a bit hazy on the collective evolution article title. What does any of this have to do with the discussion regarding the soundness of underground research? The article does not offer any level of analysis of the merits of underground research methodologies (as does this presentation for example). I think that's where a lot of us feel misled and click baited. We were expecting an interesting analysis of the merits of research methodology and got a sales pitch for what appears to be a book of personal trip reports indeed "masquerading as science".