The other day i asked myself why man needs this highly complex scientific viewpoint. Why does man need to try to understand everything. Why must man need to know??

-Thinking more about this, i started to ask myself, is the psychadelic experience is what man is trying to express externally with science. Especially where psychadelic use is prohibited or looked at with suspicion.

-Could there be truth in saying that where the psychadelic experience stops, that science starts. Is this because man has a biological need for such complexity and questioning. In fact, is this what we need in order to motivate man to live for...ie, is science really our new godhead, when perhaps in the past it was the psychadelic experience??

-I know that the psychadelic mindset may spell out clearly the frivolous nature of modern day society, but is all loving towards all nature. However , the scientific viewpoint seems to make nature look like a menace and modern day society like our saviour.

-Please, what are your views on this. Am i going mad??. Perhaps my posts are getting more ridiculous as time moves by??

Evolution has put curiosity into brains--they (brains) aren't much use without it. Expect humans to be curious--about how things work, and about new and strange experiences.

Thanks, SWIMfriend. Do you think that Psychadelics allow man to just "know ", and be happy like that? Where'as Science agonises at finding the facts, and is never at peace. Is Science really important to man after all, or are Psychadelic states truly the "El Dorado" that man must "seeketh".

-(Surely Psychadelics were put on earth to be mans best medicine. Now, instead, Science has over-run healthy reason with it's unquenchable drug like "need for overanalysis type thinking"??)

Science is important to man, more so than psychedelics are. Science is as much the search for truth as it is the need to adapt and survive. How is it that you can communicate across great distances? How is it that you can extract your DMT? How is it that your life expectancy is so much greater now than it was not very long ago? How is it that you are immune to several diseases that killed millions of people in the past? It is because of science and the quest to find real answers to real questions. Science affects every part of your life, and you should be grateful for it if you're grateful for your life - because you probably would've been dead without it, or at least could expect to be very soon.

Man need science for answers, for growth and development. Man need science for solving problems, for surviving, for understanding. Whereas psychedelics give some interesting, truly moving experiences, science gives collective development and saves millions of lives.

Edit: That was on the bright side of course =)

Very true.

Science isn't bad nor is it at odds with psychedelics. The results of science can be used for greed and profit or to heal and repair (both the natural world and our modern one).
Humans have a natural inquisitive need to understand (everything!) and science happens to be a very good tool for this.

I can understand your points of view, Citta, however , i'm trying to understand wether we would need any of our modern day scientific knowledge if we just used the psychadelics from day 1. And listened to their teachings instead of those " scientific or government " type ones that came into force once the psychadelics were prohibited??

-You say man needs science for growth and development, solving problems, surviving, understanding. I say that man has in the past used psychadelics for the exact same purposes and more. Most of the diseases of today are only there because man is not living in congruence with nature. Man in the past had no need for cars and mobile phones,etc. He lived in close knit communities in the nature. I am grateful for my life , but don't know if i should be grateful for science having taken priority as a "godhead" instead of psychadelics.

-You say that without science we couldn't smoke DMT. But i say, maybe this is another example of man flexing his scientific ego again. Maybe Ayahuasca was the way it was only meant to be done??

-Has man progressed through science???- I dunno. I think man has "distorted" the simple true life into some "extra thing" with science, and then put a stamp on it saying that this is "progress". But really life at it's core best is a simple life. The rest surely is ego, and therefore musclebound distortion on bullshitting steroids???!!





-

I think both science and the psychedelic experience can be outlets for human creativity. With psychedelics it is automatic. Your mind creates and you have to hang on and experience it. Science is a more labor intensive way of creating but it can be just as exciting.



Maybe there is not such a clear dichotomy. Lots of science over the last 50 years has been directly informed by psychedelic experiences. There is no need for an either/or mentality here. (at least not for me).



I have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of 'the scientific viewpoint.' IME scientists revere nature above all else. The aim of science is to try to model nature in such a way that it is understandable to the human intellectual apparatus.

Scientists did not construct modern society. Sure science has enabled modern society but that is only because the models seem to work.

Scientific activities were in play long before psychedelics were prohibited, or even known to any significant degree. What kind of teachings would these psychedelics give that science has provided for us? Do you seriously think that just relying on eating some mushrooms and tripping balls would give us information about the real world, rather than to go out there and investigate things? Don't be silly =)

Most of our diseases is because we do not live in congruence with nature? What is that supposed to mean? What about the fact that we dropped dead like flies when we lived in "congruence" with nature long ago? Bacterias and viruses for example exists independently of how we live our lives (of course, we influence how they develop by using antibiotics and soap and so on, but this is not what I mean), in fact being one of the oldest biological entities on earth.

Of course man has progressed through science. We live longer, we have medicines, we have technology that you use everyday and take great benefit from; yet you seem to doubt that they do any good. The simple life you are refering to is in fact a very tough, unforgiving and physical life where most people died of things we don't even think about these days. Look at the third world; kids die of diarrhea.. now ain't that a splendid way of life.

I can see your way of thinking. But again i ask you to condider that man is an extremely adaptable animal. Most people ill in 3rd world countries are only so because of lack of food, shelter, and simple things. No science needed there-just to move to where it is plentyful, where the governments will alllow them, etc. Pity the "modern day countries with all their scientific know how" cannot help them!!

-Healthy , robust immune systems are an ally AGAINST diseases. Our superclean lifestlyes of today are the breeding ground for new illnesses to take a grip,etc.

-Living in congruence with nature meaning to eat natural healthy foods as required, therefore minimizing harm to the animal, plant kingdom. Living right, as required- and not out of 9-5, monday to friday HABIT, ETC.

- Such a life develops the senses, fitness,etc.

-We live longer today-perhaps, but do we have a better quality of life- i dunno.

- We have medicines-we always did!. It is found in nature all around us. Those of the past knew how to use it.

--- I am convinced that man lived a simple, happy good life before " science made it better". Like i say, i don't think happiness requirements have changed at all. The only thing that has changed is that new " needs" have been created, via distortion of the basic fact?-etc

I think you have created a false dichotomy here between science and psychedelics.

If by scientific viewpoint, you mean the scientific method, I don't feel this is incompatible in any way with the psychedelic experience, quite the contrary actually. It's not the sole means of interpreting it by any stretch; its one tool amongst many.

Great point there, Snozzleberry. I can see how the psychadelic mind and science can work together "in perfect harmony". What about that bloke that won that prize, then admitted it was all thanks to LSD!!

And don't you think scientific and technological development helps creating good shelter, good agriculture and other simple things? And even if they had all of these things, without antibiotics, vaccines and lots of our medication they wouldn't stand a chance to fight of pandemics and diseases that would spread out in the population. These medicines are based on scientific principles and the knowledge our investigation of nature has given us.

Yes, but healthy and robust immune systems - how can we get them? By eating healthy, perhaps taking some vaccines and so on and so forth. How much do you think we knew about nutrition in the past? There are plenty of examples throughout history illustrating lack of important substances in our diet. Through biology and chemistry however, we now know of these things and what they do and what happens when they lack in our diet. This information is rather new, if you put things in perspective.

Yes, but it is the scientific method that learns us how to use them and exploit them, and tells us what works and what doesn't. Those of the past didn't know that tiny little organisms we call bacteria and viruses were the reason for many diseases (a fact that became clear to a few people at the end of the 18th-century), even less how to treat such diseases. In the 1920's patients with tuberculosis were forced to lie outside in the snow at night. Why? Cold were supposed to good for your health. Didn't help at all. Health conditions were extremely poor during the 18th century, and the sanitary conditions in hospitals were horrible because the same operation table were used again and again, doctors wore the same coats again and again, the floors and equipment weren't washed. The death rate for operations in Paris at this time were goddamn 60%! Women giving birth to children died at a rate of 30% at hospitals in certain periods. All of this changed when society, because of science, understood that this was caused by bacteria and that good hygiene faught these bastards off.

There are plenty of examples of how science saves our lives and gives us important knowledge about nature. And trust me, bacteria were NOT discovered because some nutcase tripped balls.

And trust me, bacteria were NOT discovered because some nutcase tripped balls. -CAN YOU PROVE THIS, HAHAHA!

Ah come on Bacteria were confirmed to be pathogen entities when we could observe them and describe them properly through microscopes, not when we tripped balls...

Anyway, how about you reply to some of the other things I brought up, so we can bring the discussion on? =)

I would like to contiue, Citta, however i'm a little drunk on half bottle of sagatiba cachaca made into caipirinHa.

- This is one of those discussions that has come to a nice end for me. I guess i have realised that no matter how idealist the thought was, modern day life has changed, and it aint going back!

Science is important. Psychedelic experience is important. Spirituality and spiritual experience is important.

The key is to find where these things intersect and run parallel to one another, in those places great truths and discoveries can be distilled. One must temper psychedelic experience with scientific knowledge, temper scientific knowledge with spiritual experience, temper spiritual experience with psychedelic experience and scientific knowledge, so on and so forth.

Our conclusions about life, man, and the universe should be a culmination of these perspectives. All these fields are only sufficient to answer a certain set of questions, and are insufficient at answering other sets of questions. Let each aspect play its part .

christian, you are romanticising the past saying that everything was better back then. The facts of life are however that time cannot go backwards, and neither can development. Humans must move forwards and romanticising what was won't help. Our consciousness has developed from being undifferentiated within nature, to being ruled by natures conditions, to manipulating nature. From being ruled by nature to (at least in part) ruling nature - affirming, negating... the next step is ... synthesis.

People are already becoming aware of the necessity to think about sustainability and are trying to harmonize with nature more. The next step IMO would be to synergize with nature applying both principles - giving and taking in a way that all participating life-forms benefit maximally from all relationships... This would be progress, and IMO this cannot be done without science. It cannot be done without ethical, philosophical and spiritual understanding either. It is not about "one or the other" science or psychedelics, it is about integrating all the tools we have to make sense of the world and using them to improve everything. bit by bit.

Science is a great tool, but it has limits, and these must be acknowledged and for answering questions beyond the scope of science other disciplines should be brought into the mix, but science does not have to be discarded just because it does not serve every purpose. I think this whole idea of binary reality is a big hindrance in common thought. Dialectics should be applied when possible. Or ask yourself, every time you face a binary situation in your mind, "how can I integrate these two seemingly opposing principles?"

Here, here, another fantastically phrased answer, Hermetic, and so true. Well done.

-Great reply also Enoon, thanks.

Science and psychadelics should never be competing with one another, they are both excellent tools to explore reality. You can look at them individualy or fuse them together, never should you look at one while ignoring the other (in my opinion )

Edit: I just noticed Hermitic Shaman's post above me and he seems to say the same thing but better

here are some random thoughts I'm having right now about this.I don't think this question of ' what is a better way , technology or nature ' can really be addressed because we don't know enough about who we actually are our relationship to nature. Is this planet itself a conscious organism and we humans are a kind of cancerous growth on the planet?, ego driven only caring for ourselves and taking whatever we can the from the earth inflicting suffering on any other creature that comes between us and our wants? Or is this planet a husk or cocoon and after using all the available resources in it we blast off to the stars?

We can say things are better now because we live longer , we have this and that from science but notice how its always about us... maybe thats the way its supposed to be maybe it Isn't, maybe there is no right and wrong until we label it so, Is our own death and suffering actually a bad thing? is there evidence to support this ? ..... thats my thought atm , I like this thread, I really needed to see one on this topic. Thank you christian .


Ps ~ I know technology is a part or nature. perhaps those aren't the two words I'm looking for to compare but you get the idea.