An observation:

Your recent posts here at the Nexus suggest a self-important, judgmental, resentful, (and possibly emotionally/spiritually immature/naive) mind-set. This is what happens when one becomes overly attached to ones beliefs and personal point of view. I'd recommend that you stop giving away your power by taking things other people do personally, and check out the work of Carlos Castaneda. He eloquently, yet bluntly describes a system of emotional detachment, behavior modification, and energy redirection he calls the Warriors Way, or the Warriors Path. Here are a few quotes that might help you:

The fact of the matter is, Joe and Mckenna are for two different audiences. I happen to enjoy both of them, but one is confusing and insightful while the other is loud and clear. Listen to whichever one suits your preferences.

As for whether he is doing a good thing or not, I honestly think he is. Ask yourself this: Would you rather have people hear about DMT in the news because of something Joe Rogan said, or because an extractor accidentally set his home on fire?

I came to read this topic and this is the first thing I see and I must say; it would be a pretty scary world if everyone thought the way you do. If all those people out there who started charities or opened homeless or abuse shelters simply had an "elevated sense of self importance" than good on them for it!

If I might make an observation, you come off as rather judgemental and arrogant suggesting that this person should adhere to your way of thinking (or rather this strange author who uses a fictional 15th century lecher as a role model's way of thinking).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make this world a better place for humans and other lifeforms we share our home with. Its counterproductive obviously to just mope about the injustice in the world without doing anything positive to change things but I refuse to believe that the only reason people help out others is because of their own self importance. Like it or not, some people really DO care about the well-being of their fellow man. Seriously I shudder to think how awful the world would be if nobody ever had any beliefs or emotional attachments to causes. Lets think about the
United state's alone; women wouldn't be able to vote, black people would still be slaves or at the very least still be severely segregated against, and native American could potentially be all but wiped out. No, I think it's best for us that people CARE. Its one thing to be offended by silly things that aren't hurting anyone but when it comes to infringing on the health and wellbeing of other lifeforms, it's ok to care.
/rant over. Sorry it's off topic.

Joe Rogan.. Can't say I feel much one way or the other. Never watched his psychedelic talks because I'm just not much in to celebrities. Saw him on fear factor a couple times, thought he seemed like kind of a tool. But I can't say for sure seeing as I never met the guy.

this guy sauroman1 your defending proposed recently in a similar thread that was closed that all carnivores are "evil" "terrorists" and should be exterminated, with only herbivores roaming the land. This very dark and intellectually childish mindset is farrrr from caring of the health and wellbeing of all other lifeforms.

You know the real, sublime ignorance of his idea of killing all killers? Deer eat birds. Cows eat birds. Not often, but they do (you can go watch them do it on you tube). And, of course, there are birds of prey....damn, let's just kill everything but bunny rabbits and gerbils and place a dome around our new bunny paradise There are all sorts of animals we think are pure vegetarians who kill and eat meat.

rabbits love steak, little savages, kill them, kill them all.

I simply made an observation and offered a suggestion based on my positive experience with Castaneda's techniques. If I came off as arrogant, that's your interpretation. I never suggested that anyone adhere to my way of thinking (I'm sure you don't know me well enough to even know my way of thinking). Also, you're thinking of the wrong Don Juan. Castaneda's teacher, Don Juan Matus (whether true story or allegory), was a Toltec shaman, not the 15th century womanizer.



I never said there was.



You can care without clinging. It's about balance. Emotional over-attachment to a "cause" (or any beliefs for that matter) can be perception-limiting, energy-draining and is just another way the ego makes itself feel "real" and important.

Curious that you reacted the way you did to my words. If I ruffled the feathers of your beliefs, maybe there's a lesson for you there? I think there's something to be said of examining our beliefs and emotional reactions.

See, you're making a lot of assumptions without really knowing "my way of thinking" (or Castaneda's since you obviously don't understand his system of teaching and the Warriors Path that is laid out within his books). I highly recommend reading them. Lots of spiritual gems in there. I'm not being dogmatic- there is wisdom to be found in all sorts of weird places. There are many paths up the same mountain. I found a gem on one and I'm letting others know where to look.

Perhaps it would be helpful to get more information next time you're about to start a rant. This thread is relevant to our discussion and might clarify some things.

I find that Joe uses far less word salad than some of the other psychedelic celebrities, living or dead. Good or bad? I don't have an opinion on that. He does still peddle the 'DMT is made in your pineal gland' stuff, though this is still not confirmed. Various little details and inaccuracies. He has turned a lot of people on, is that good or bad, or both? The ones with the most facts and accurate information seem to be more in the shadows, busy doing more research. It's a shame we don't have big voices to speak on their behalf.

As for this kill all the killers stuff, what a trainwreck of logic. Are killers of killers not also killers, and should be killed ?

3rdI, they also taste pretty good themselves!

I think with something like DMT, this type of thing is going to happen. After my first experience with 5-MeO, I wanted to tell everyone and thought everyone needed to try it.

I think Joe probably talks about it because he believes it has value. His show isn't a huge mainstream hit because he does seem to only talk about things he believes in or cares about and won't allow his show to be compromised by "selling out".

He probably also talks about it because its an interesting topic that many of his fans would like to hear about. This is necessary to do if he wants to maintain a talk show talking about things he likes.

Good or bad? Depends on how you look at it.

For those of us who are content and don't want the boat rocked, its probably not a good thing.

For those of us that want to see significant change in how society sees things like DMT, it might be good.

I never got how people can say killing animals to eat is immoral, as if they are the arbiter of what life forms are ok to kill to eat and which ones are not.

Joe Rogan reveal yourself. We know that you are here!



This thread drives me a bit crazy. For reasons I've stated in earlier posts. The man is still alive and I'd be willing to bet that he's at least familiar with this site, in fact if there was a betting pool I would put money on the big payout, that he's a member. Personally I think it's in very poor taste to do a like dislike/like, good/bad post on Mr. Rogan. His personality I've encountered in many members of the Nexus.

Okay fine I'll be out with it I am Joe Rogan

Or Spartacus . . . I'm not quite sure.

I get why people dont want to eat animals. It"s because we identify with them. If i was to design a scale of what was considered moral to eat starting with the most moralistic comestibles , it would probably go something like this......

1, fallen items that are no longer connected to their living host entity such as fruit.

2, Plants.
3. crustacians, snails, insects and shellfish
4. Fish
5. non mammalian animals such as reptiles and birds.
6. mammals like sheep, cows and goats.
7. mammals like hamsters rabbits and squirrels. They"re more cute than cows,the more ugly an animal is the more justified we feel that we are in eating it.
8. mammals such as cats and dogs - this is where (in the west) that we enter into taboo as cats and dogs are common pets and therefore part of the family. If i was hungry i would be far more likely to eat someone elses cat rather than my own because me and my cat had a bond due to my having anthropomorhasised him.
9, humans (longpig) - in the west we will only eat each other if we are hyper hungry.
10. babies. It is totally immoral to eat babies.

That list is open to critique and there are grey areas and blurred lines. IE is it more moral to eat a fully grown cat over a baby chicken? Would one rather eat a sweet baby rabbit or a fully grown dog?

These are the kind of questions that sometimes keep me up at night.

Tell that to antrocles.


Kind regards,

The Traveler

I am fully aware of the indiscretions of certain members of this forum. Rogan would fit right in here.

EDIT i forgot to put eggs and unborn foetuses in my list.

I didn't say I don't get why people don't want to eat animals. I said I don't get the whole "eating this life form is immoral" point. Liking animals and thinking they are "too cute to eat" has nothing to do the morality of killing and eating something.

I find eating rats disgusting because I associate them with disease, and I find eating dogs disgusting because I look at them like friends, but in some cultures this is ok. I find eating cows ok, but some cultures find it blasphemous. None of that has anything to do with morals, its culture conditioning.

As a whole we are more conditioned to believe animals are a higher order of life form because they more closely resemble us. If we look at it logically the morality thing doesn't make sense. Plants are pretty peaceful, do a lot of good for the earth, and relatively I would say pretty passive and not aggressive, and we says its moral to kill and eat those life forms. But killing an animal like a chicken, that goes around indiscriminately killing and eating other life forms like insects, is immoral.

If you want to look at it from a morality scale, mushrooms should be on the top as they just eat decaying matter, and they should be the most immoral to eat as they are highly intelligent and completely passive from our view point.

I like how Terence McKenna here

Sperm = totally ok.

I would say that culture conditioning and morals are very much related.A sense of morality helps to shape our cultural conditioning. If it is blasphemous to eat a cow in some countries. what is blasphemy? Blasphemy is showing contempt towards the sacred. Depending on who you are blasphemy is a moral no no. It is wrong. In some countries the culture allows an adult man to marry a kid, which a lot of people find morally repugnant.

Edit.... if you disagree i am happy for you to offer up an alternative list with a more logical slant.




Good call. The seed that hath fallen from my loins. I suppose in that case we could add menstruation to the list aswell (as a sub category of eggs).

Well if there is a objective morality, I haven't seen a good argument for why there would be a line between animal and plant life forms when it comes to killing and eating them.

If there isn't and its all subjective, then I guess its just a matter of opinion and we can all be right.

Either way I haven't heard a good argument that shows why its wrong to kill and eat certain life forms and ok to kill and eat others.

Really? What about fact that there is a known mechanism by which animals can feel pain, and that no such mechanism seems to exist in plants? When we farm animals we tend to put them through a lot of suffering.

It's possible to say that plant are "modular" with functions distributed throughout the organism and are thus capable of "losing quite a few leaves" without being endangered. Animals aren't quite as resilient...

And it's also been said that they quite like to take a monkey for a ride now and then