I've disregarded your opening paragraphs as they're less relevant to the point I'd like to make than the above passage.

When you make up your own definitions, anything can be anything, but everything loses conversational utility when you make up your own definitions, as no one else is on the same page as you. A definition of science is:



Claiming "the end goal is about knowing and understanding" is a bit of a red herring. You could be talking about many things that are not science but still aim to conclude with "knowing and understanding." Substituting your own definitions is detrimental to productive discussion.



How can you claim this when there is literally an entire body of peer-reviewed research that doesn't include a single researcher "actually partaking of the substance" in the context/course of their research?



It's all well and good to speculate that someday science may engage with the immaterial or "spiritual" or have explanations for currently unexplainable phenomena, but using that postulation to then claim that essentially "anything can be science if you want it to be" strikes me as nonsensical and unsupported by evidence.





Maybe...but you originally said:



And that's just fundamentally untrue. So...

My thoughts mirror SnozzleBerry and dreamer:

If you are not able to understand the scientific method or are not able to withstand the rudimentary testing of it then you have little to show on this forum since we will take nothing on face value anyway.

You either stop with this pseudo-science disinformation or you start to deliver something real.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

I didn't read this entire thread. Did read the article though. Although I think title may be a bit misleading in terms of content, the overall article is fine and well written. There is nothing wrong with introducing a book either. If i wrote a book i would want people to read it.

Recording observations is a big part of science. So if you taking a substance and recording the effects you observe on it on yourself you are doing science. Forming hypothesis and testing them is another part of science. Observations, experiments, theories, its all science.

I think the issue here is the interpretations you make from recording subjective observations about a drugs effects. Answering the question of whether or not an entity is real from taking a drug we know effects the brain is something you need to design an experiment to really test. I can't think of an experiment that would answer that exact question. But certainly observing the effects in the brain the drug has via fMRI or some other technique would useful in gaining insight into how to design such an experiment. So does research into effects from a psychological perspective. I think the more we know about these things the easier it will get to design experiments that give meaningful answers to these questions.

I don't think we are really at a point where we can say science can't explain the effects of psychedelic drugs like dmt.

I think you hit the nail on the head here burnt. Thank you for your input.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

SnozzleBerry mentioned this elsewhere, I'd like to elaborate.

It is very very hard for us humans, as a whole, to disconnect between
[logic-scientific works , be it only collecting data and/or analyzing/theorizing them]
and the
[emotional person]
that carries them out. The true-to-the-bone researcher would not even care if a feedback is agreeing or dis-agreeing, only seeing input to work with.
Even outside agree/disagree, the quantisizing if certain input is relevant or not, the true-researcher would leave his emotions far away home. Because he knows the emotions easily mask out objective relevance.

Seeing the hard emotional expression quote above, this is the human side of WAS. It's natural, it has his place, it's inevitable. It defines being human. We can't expect anyone to not-be.

But a line has been crossed here imho and needs addressing: that in ALL the responses you got so far, from many many people here, except from Chocobeastie, were not-honest, not-decent, and only out to piss you off.

If you wrote a book about trip reports and the spin-offs here at nexus in a more humble/non-personal manner, I predict EVERY ONE LAST SOUL HERE would be on your page, cheering hurray, and SnozzleBerry wearing a WAS T-shirt on his next talk

Why did this not happen? This is a pity, your work is so laborious, you can write, it deserved a better treatment by yourself imho.
If we read you like the quote above (which is an exponent of your general polarizing tendencies throughout imho), how can we validate any further your objectivity seriously on any of your works? People dig just an amount of persona-ooze, not limitless.

I realize, this post, you probably feel "attacked" once more, again negative response, well it is NOT

Your post came over as quite "shouty."

Not sure why you felt obliged to take that tone or to include so much of your own stuff.

Nevertheless, can you recommend just one of your videos and just one of your papers and I'll be sure to take a look.

I'll take it! Thumbs up

You're right; it's not easy to write a book! And I could count on one hand the people who have given me due credit for that.

It's far easier investing considerable emotional energy in critiquing an article of just a few hundred words. And that's fine. You can't please everyone. But can you believe, in this day and age, that people will still judge a book by its cover?

On the contrary Jees. Your posts are by far the most enjoyable because you always confirm my niggling little suspicion about the plausibility of your personality, as conveyed on this site.

What can I say? At least I row my own boat!

When you make a vague quote, (e.g. "[All that you wrote and posted]") it's impossible to know what you're talking about. I would assume that you meant my most recent post struck you as "shouty" (not really sure why/how as you chose not to elaborate), but then you seem to skip over anything I said in that post, and start referencing a post I made over a month ago? So maybe you're talking about that one?

If you're asking why I used large font to ask you what the thesis of your article was, the reason is simple; I had already asked the question and you hadn't engaged with it in your response. Thus I assumed you missed it and wanted to make sure that you engaged with the question.

I must admit, I found your assertion that your article lacked a thesis rather surprising, but it appears that the large-format font did draw your attention to the question at hand. That said, I would maintain that this assertion is rather revealing.

As to why I posted my body of Nexus-related work, the answer is simple...you asked me to!



I think the talk most relevant to this thread is Criminals & Researchers: Perspectives on the Necessity of Underground Research (text available here)




As an aside, would you care to engage with this exchange? You appear to have conveniently skipped over it and it seems rather significant given the claims you have been making about research, science, and the contents of your presentation/book...





And finally:



If you'd like to submit a copy of your book for reading/review/critique, I'm sure plenty of folks would be happy to read it and engage with you. I know this because several folks have said as much during chat discussions. That said, it seemed pretty apparent that none of them are/were willing to pay for that privilege. So it looks like it's just a question as to whether or not you're willing to share the text, if you'd actually like folks to engage with it.

I think personality/ego interference is unavoidable as a given, most visible when highlighted self proclaimed authority is draped all over it. We all are pathetic when it comes to it, the worst those who think of being excused/exempted for whatever reason, poring a ton of sh*t to hide in its feeble (sometimes alleged) silver lining.

I see mine and those of others, what a theater
There comes good things of it too I'm very sure, it's just: we should work on the balance to have more of the silver lining and less of the sh*t.

Checked out the contents of the book "DMT & the Occult Mind" and plan to buy it just so I can compare the reports in the book from the author to those from Benny Shanon who took Ayahuasca hundreds of times and interviewed hundreds of people who consumed the brew over a 10 year period. As a reader of entheogenic books for many decades, closely check the scene for new books, love to read.

There are a whole group of dmt books coming out lately: Through the Transdimensional Portal: A DMT Research Volunteer Tells Her Story, "The DMT Diaries", "DMT and the Soul of Prophecy", "Panegyric to Spirit: the Final DMT diaries", "DMT & my occult Mind", etc. However, like Ayahuasca, I do find many of the new books on 5-meo-dmt to be fascinating, especially since 5-meo-dmt is a strong 5-ht1a agonist, similar to the other oral entheogens like LSD, mescaline, mushrooms, Ayahuasca which are all 5-ht1a agonist as well, DMT seemingly lacking in this department, as it has no 5-ht1a agonism...something all the important oral entheogens have in common (see chart below)...this is something the academic community continues to ignore scientifically even though LSD scientist Dr. Nichols has brought up in many of his papers. When 5-ht1a receptors are targetted, serotonin reuptake inhibition takes place in the brain...causing the brain's serotonin filtering system to be shut down, Mind at Large is allowed to Manifest when this filtering system is shut down, and the entheogen is allowed to do it's magic without the normal day-to-day filters in place. The serotonin filter system is used daily to keep us in normal survival mode...otherwise me might constantly marvel at the color of a traffic light for example.

The good books I've read on 5-meo-dmt are "The Toad of Dawn by Dr Octav and Rak Razam", "Tryptamine Palace by Oroc", "The Toad and the Jaguar by Metzner", and "The God Molecule by Sandoval and Ball".

Only bring this up as the tradtionally used snuffs in the Amazon combine DMT with 5-ht1a agonist like minute amounts of 5-meo-dmt or bufotenine (another potent 5-ht1a agonist)...important teamwork going on then...these 5-ht1a receptors in the brain making up more than 80% of brain 5-HT, while DMT is only stimulating the remaining 20% of brain receptors (with great force I might add). Besides snuffs, dmt containing plants are used with Caapi which contains a component of which is a potent 5-ht1 agonist. In other words, DMT is always used traditionally in combination with either caapi or minute amounts of 5-meo-dmt or its derivatives like bufotenine found in the snuffs. These snuffs giving effects which lasts for around 3 hours.

Graham Hancock, "Supernatural", pg 428:
Hancock smoked DMT many times and took Ayahuasca over a dozen times.

Thomas S. Ray, Psychedelics and the Human Receptorome (2010):
http://journals.plos.org...371/journal.pone.0009019
hxxp://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009019

Breadth of Receptor Binding, 4.00=max, 0.00=min

Personally, I would love to see more books like Shanon's who used a traditional Shamanic brew which incorporates dmt from psychotria with the dream like vision effects from caapi...note: I'm not talking here about using caapi or the harmalas in such a low dose that it only "activates dmt" which is considered inferior by most native Shamans...but using it in large enough doses so that the dream-like effects of the caapi/harmalas are brought out...then study this large dose in combination with the dmt from the leafs of the psychotria or chaliponga plants.

The research presented in Shanon's book "Antipodes of the Mind, Charting the Phenomenology of the Ayahuasca Experience" is based on the systematic recording of the author's extensive experiences with the brew & on the interviewing of a large number of informants: indigenous people, shamans, members of different religious sects using Ayahuasca & travellers. In addition to its being the most thorough study of the Ayahuasca experience to date, the book lays the theoretical foundations for the psychological study of non-ordinary states of consciousness in general.

I've read Strassman's book "DMT, the Spirit Molecule" several times and Benny Shanon's book several times front to back, I find the differences between injected DMT and Ayahuasca to be striking. I have read others mention on-line that there should have been a study planned on the use of dmt in combination with harmalas or caapi for example, simulating the way it is used in the Amazon Shamanically for example...in the traditional sense.

Besides many people describing the effects of the brew in religious terms, encounters with the divine, etc., Benny came up with (in just one chapter for example) a "core corpus" of what not only he himself saw with closed eyes on the brew, but found that in his interviews, hundreds of others saw many of the same common visions...and even though the content was similar, none of the visions repeated, they were always new, for example:


The above Ayahuasca "contents of visions" chart is in contrast to the occult terms used by the author of "DMT & my Occult Mind" used to describe smoked dmt only. Instead the Ayahuasca visionary content is described in religious, spiritual, transcendent, artistic and cultural related terminology.

Even though Ayahuasca visions are often described as "dream-like", they do not contain content commonly seen in sleeping dreams as Shanon mentions, but rather items such as tigers and serpents, palaces or scenes from ancient civilizations, royalty or other special beings for example...as well as places that may be characterized as phantasmagoric or magical, historical or mythological scenes or ones having to do with the meaning of either the human predicament, Life and Creation, Nature, or the Cosmos. The visions have religious or spiritual quality and often seem to convey a message or serve as a vehicle for instruction.

This charting of the phenomenology I find fascinating since it matches the same types of visions I've had after dreaming Ayahuasca over 50 times...I love these types of books as they probe deeply into not only what the author has experienced in the visions, but what hundreds of others have seen, myself included. Please note that the above is just a sample from the chapter covering the "contents of visions" seen with Ayahuasca, there are dozens of other chapters in his book that deal with other phenomenology pertinent to Ayahuasca for example..ie the themes of visions....ideas, insights and reflections...non visual perceptions....consciousness....transformations....time....meaning and semantics, etc. This book being on the level of "Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley, but taking it to a whole nother level with the authors consumption of not only hundreds of brews but interviewing hundreds of others over a 10 year period...then charting the phenomenology...a very thorough and long-term analysis study.

For a comparison of DMT trip reports (with endless speculations on the entities) to the Ayahuasca journey "contents of visions" the reader is referred to the following great reads:

DMT research from 1956 to the Edge of Time by Gallimore and Luke
http://realitysandwich.c...956-to-the-edge-of-time/
hxxp://realitysandwich.com/318885/dmt-research-from-1956-to-the-edge-of-time/

One of the best & longest articles ever read: In this paper we learn that the Hungarian psychiatrist Stephen Szara isolated dmt from samples of Cohoba, a psychoactive snuff powder prepared from the seeds of Anadenanthera peregrina by the Taino Indians. He extracted the bufotenine (a potent 5-ht1a agonist) out and the dmt out, and gave the bufotenine only to prisoners, and injected himself with 75mg of dmt.

Only wished he had kept the bufotenine together with the dmt and conducted studies of the two working together in unison as well, then we would have reports of the Shamanically used seeds, just as they are used in the Amazon. There is important teamwork going on when the bufotenine in the seeds is used in conjuction with the dmt found in the seeds--for one, the bufotenine is supplying the missing 5-ht1a agonism that dmt lacks...just as the 2nd largest component of caapi, a potent 5-ht1a agonist and serotonin reuptake inhibitor (but not found in rue) supplies the missing 5-ht1a agonism that dmt lacks. The anti-serotonin effects of LSD, mescaline and mushrooms also fall into this category--all having strong and important 5-ht1a agonism, with 5-meo-dmt having the strongest 5-ht1a agonism of all the known entheogens--and often, why only minute amounts of it are found in plants in combination with dmt--as only tiny amounts of it are sufficient--due to its overtly strong 5-ht1a agonist actions.

Dr. Nichols: "LSD has very strong potency in blocking the action of serotonin. The morpholide lysergamide cousin had only about 1/10th the potency in blocking serotonin. Of the 5 diiferent dialkylamides they studied LSD was the most potent and specific serotonin antagonist. " [page 2 & 3 of 8]:
https://heffter.org/docs/hrireview/02/chap6.pdf
hxxps://heffter.org/docs/hrireview/02/chap6.pdf

The Mystery of DMT: A Talk with Graham St John, author Mystery School in Hyperspace: A Cultural History of DMT
http://realitysandwich.c...ry-school-in-hyperspace/
hxxp://realitysandwich.com/319198/mystery-school-in-hyperspace/

Google books: contents preview of Mystery School in Hyperspace: A Cultural History of DMT
https://books.google.com...nepage&q&f=false
hxxps://books.google.com/books?id=mGb7rQEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Read all the contents, found it interesting that 8 time Mr. Olympia Lee Haney gave an account of his smoked dmt experience, included in the above are detailed accounts from Watts, Leary, etc. Do like the authors writing style, around a 500 page book.

340 DMT trip reports (compiled by Meyer and Pup):
http://www.serendipity.l...340_dmt_trip_reports.htm
hxxp://www.serendipity.li/dmt/340_dmt_trip_reports.htm
Read the first 250 of the 340 total reports, the reports with entity encounters are marked as such before the beginning of each report.

From Pinchbeck's book "Breaking Open the Head":

James Oroc contrasts the differences between dmt and dmt combined with minute amounts of 5-meo-dmt from his book "Tryptamine Palace":

Shanon breaks down the contents of Ayahuasca visions into 4 categories:

1. Nature
2. Culture
3. Fantasy
4. Domain of the Spiritual and Supernatural

Concluding Remarks from Benny Shanon on chapter "Contents of Visions" from the classic "Antipodes of the Mind, Charting the Phenomenology of the Ayahuasca Experience":

To the OP:

I have read this thread a few times and I think that many of 'us' here on the Nexus have done quite a lot of underground research that we have tried to make as scientific as possible, often looking at phytochemistry. Research such as this is actively illegal and often poo-pooed in more traditional academic or research settings because it is thought that a person's interest in the drug effects of the plants or molecule that they are researching makes the researcher kind of a spacey loon who is not a good scientist.

So I think that the title of your post strikes many of us in a deep place where maybe we have felt some trepidation or dare I say shame about our methods/interests in our chosen line of study. I think that is why, upon reading your article which is about a very subjective study and does not answer or even really ask the question 'is underground research legitimate research scientifically?' there is a tendency for folks to get pissed at you because they were all worked up emotionally by the title of the article and then feel like they got bait & switched. I for one was hoping for the article to tell me that yes of course underground research is valid research, which I guess it almost does but mostly it is about your own personal journey working with the medicine and your own feelings that your personal research is indeed very valid while commenting not at all about the state of underground psychedelic research as a whole.

This is a rambly post I know. I hope your book does well.

To tregar: thank you for all of these links! I had not even known about many of these books.

Your very welcome Urtica on the books & articles links, thanks for the kind words. Spent many enjoyable hours reading it all, just thought would share for other lovers of reading.