For clarity purposes, what I am proposing is really the beginning of the rescheduling process. We need the plants and molecules of interest to move to schedule 3. In that event, we will have centers that offer most anyone the space and time to explore what they wish, like the way a university provides many avenues of study. Along with it comes a minimum of education with a teacher/facilitator of choice. The sole purpose of which is to empower people to find words for their experiences, so they can go back into the world stronger, more resilient, and open to the flux of life.

The minimum of education could be a philosophical approach, or botanical, or scientific, or indigenous, or eastern philosophy, tantric, or otherwise--it doesn't matter. All paths are valid. That is the opening gambit for an institution of this type. In the event that we could reschedule, what we would then do is create safe, comfortable centers for exploration purposes. Unlike medical marijuana, which we select casually and take home for ad lib consumption, MOST westerners would NOT do well with this approach with psychedelics. We need places people can go to, much the same way you need a special license to work with explosives, or anything with inherent risks involved.

What we do here on the forums is very sophisticated because of the high level of aptitude, dedication, and drive required to get over the education hump. But people interested in a center like this will need more help than the members of this forum. Most people need help. We are the weirdos able to digest it all in isolation. It's important not to forget that we are not everyday walks of life.

Our society at large needs to collectively indoctrinate experts in order to integrate this work into our culture. Scientific research is only half of the picture. The other picture involves exercising our other birth rights as Americans, exercising our freedom of religion. It is our RIGHT to form religious organizations. And this is a very practical and realistic approach. It's not easy, but it is legitimate and very authentic.

Well, I'm totally for having spaces for harm reduction, learning and use. I'm against the "people are dumb so they need us to tell them how to do psychedelics right" attitude.

If your institution would routinely say something like "we very strictly advise people against unsupervised use of psychedelics, because it's very dangerous and needs expert supervision and preliminary medical tests and similar bullshit", then I'm against it. If it'd be like "we're just psychonauts like y'all, but decided to build this cool place to come together and learn about substances and use them with extra safety and guidance", then I'm on your side.

It's a finer line than you think.

~~~

For the record, I'm really glad that this conversation is brought up. I think its function is actually less "So what do we do?" And more, "This the cultural story that is forming, here and there."

^^^
This. There's a staggering amount of elitism floating around, as if those of us who are psychonauts are in some way cognitively more equipped to handle a psychedelic experience. It's statistically more likely than not that everyone here is a pretty average specimen of humanity and that it's likely that most people would behave like we do.

I'm reminded of an SMBC comic where a whole train of commuters are silently thinking to themselves: "look at all these sheep, no one here is as complex and introspective as I am. It's hard to be this special."

None of us are special. We almost certainly owe our being here more to chance and circumstance than any kind of inherent mental aptitude for dealing with psychedelic experiences.

Blessings
~ND

That elitism exists with or without institutions.

Yeah, but it's kind of shocking for a community that cultivates relationships with drugs who's seeming purpose (and primary effect) is ostensibly to limit the ego. It sounds like some people aren't getting the message.

Blessings
~ND

In writing, ego only occurs within complete sentences!

Otherwise, ego experiences remain simply as an option in who is reading the complete information not in complete sentence form. People are just used to writing, and speaking etc, in complete sentences, though at times will write in list and bit form!

If everything everyone has communicated in this thread was done by posting each bit of information outside of complete sentence form then you would be reading the clarity you are expecting!

I was thinking of trying to make a different contribution to this thread, but I think that the non time sensitive idea of creating entheogenic and otherwise transformational languages remains as a freely explorable option that is similar to plant medicine and also would at times help work in that area!

Respectfully, I'll disagree that the "message" is to limit the ego. The effect is to limit the ego, yes. And within that time-frame of ego dissolution/softening, you realize a lot of things, heal a lot of things, and these things, this newfound knowledge (or un-learning) informs the ego when it returns; when the entheogen wears off. This does not mean the ego itself is bad. It means that sometimes the ego can get dysfunctional, and we need to take a break from it, learn some stuff, and see how it fits when it slides back on. Ego is necessary for survival, for human togetherness. And institutions are indeed an extension of the ego.

Some institutions are dysfunctional, some are fine... until they aren't, at which point they must be renewed somehow. Die and reborn, mate with another institution to make a baby institution, have a revolution, etc. There are many ways. But I think institutions are a fact of human existence, like the ego. Like trees. They always grow into being, because communities work better when they are organized. Institutions are inevitable.

The question is not whether institutions are good, but how can we cultivate them in such a way that makes them good, like a gardener gently creating the optimal environment for her plants to grow.

PS- I like this thread.

Expert: a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area

Is it elitist to hire a mechanic to help you with your car?
Is it elitist to have a computer technician repair your laptop?
Is it elitist to ask a neuroscientist about the brain, or an ethnobotanist about plants, or a spiritual teacher about matters of life and death?

What about people that have a lot of direct experience in something specific? Isn't that wisdom worth something to someone? Is it elitist for someone with countless hours of practice to share that wisdom with another?

Many people that spend time working with these plants go on to incorporate a spiritual practice of some kind into their personal lives. This is about life as practice. This is about the art of living.

It won't be more than a couple of decades before the millennial generation are running the show. They will be the generation with the education and open mindset ready to receive this novel change in our collective reality. The research is underway, and will likely provide exciting new data points to support this change from the objective materialist perspective. This is the spring time to plant the seeds of tomorrow. Interest in this area is growing.

I can test a mechanics ability by seeing whether his advice and predictions are accurate, the same is true with the computer tech. A scientists, whether they are a botanist or a neuroscientist also makes predictions that I can test. I have faith in their expertise because, presumably, if I put in the time and effort, I could learn what they have learned and test their predictions for validity. This is also true for skills like SCUBA diving, juggling, or speaking a foreign language.

I cannot do this with a spiritual teacher. There is no way for me to test whether a Christian mystic is more right than a Buddhist monk, or a psychonaut. I have no way of knowing whether their claims are accurate reflections of the way things actually are. It's all just thoughts. If a psychonaut goes off and says "I came to understand things X, Y, and Z about consciousness," that means nothing to me, because I have no way of determining whether they are right or not.

Consequently, when psychonauts get all full of themselves about the wisdom they have gathered from their experiences, I tend to raise an eyebrow.

My original point though, wasn't that psychedelic users are not 'experts' on the psychedelic experience, but rather, the (seemingly very common) belief that, because we are psychedelic users, we have access to some kind of higher truth, or are in some way 'special' in a way that non-psychedelic users are. You may be an expert in what it's like to be high as balls, but that's it, you can't extend that to any other domain.

I say this as someone who is *definitely* an expert in being high as balls.

Rhythm Spring: I see your point, and you made it very well - I think we may have some fundamental philosophical differences on the nature (and value) of the ego. I think that The Self is essential to suffering and to be released from suffering requires a necessary loss of the ego.

I'm actually fine with the idea of people making a psychedelic institution - my original post was basically saying 'people should do what they want, it's not our job to tell them how to use their drugs.' What that institution looks like is a different question.

Blessings
~ND

^^

Down with elitism, up with expertism!

~~



This made me chuckle. I know your background is science, but data points don't excite me--love excites me. Bravery excites me. Music excites me. Maybe it's just an individual thing. But what are data points without the love, bravery, and music underneath them? You can ignore this if you like.



Be careful. There is a contradiction in this. The "data points" mentality is in some ways at odds with the flow of psychedelic wisdom. I understand that we are talking about the seeds, and not the trees, but still; it is important to be careful when using the current paradigm (scientific/reductionist mentality) to give birth to a new one.

An interface must be maintained, I think, between the organizing factor here (contemplating "institutions", and the chaos factor (everyone *not* in the institution(s), nature, the totally unexpected).

What I'm saying is that the approach to any sort of plant medicine institution must embody the psychedelic experience--meaning a huge interface with or acknowledgement of the unknown.

An Ayahuasca shaman I look up to very much (and believe me, I have a very sensitive bullsh** meter) was reading a book... which was no easy feat for him, Spanish being his second language (Shipibo being his first). So I gathered that it was important to him. It was about shamanism, written by another Peruvian shaman. A huge portion of the book was about the importance of "no saber," or, "to not know." It is optimal to maintain this mentality, this openness. This is a very roundabout way of saying...

tl;dr - There's a LOT of potential for dogma to ruin a plant medicine institution. BUT, I do believe that there exists a simply pragmatic way of going about it. It would just take a lot of humility, nonchalance, and basically treating the position of the shaman or ceremony facilitator as equally valuable to, say, a car mechanic, a computer repair guy, or a chef. Just because they are an important, needed member of society doesn't mean they have power or can direct anyone's experience or lives in any way. They are just there if people request wisdom/knowledge.

I have shared psychedelics with quite a few people. I question them first, "what is your intent?", "have you used psychs before?" "are you a paranoid/anxious person in general" etc. I just want to know that they will have a meaningful experience. If someone answered "I just want to get high", then I don't share it with them. Is that elitist? No, I'm just sharing psychedelics with people that can handle it. I don't want them to have a massive hyperslap from disrespecting the entheogens. I don't need to be a High Priest or a shaman to know if psychedelics will help a person. I just arm them with the information they need to know, tell them to focus on positive thoughts and to surrender to the experience. I consider myself more educated about psychedelics than the average person. That is just the result of my hobbies and interests. It is not elitist to share information with people who do not know. It is elitist to claim that you are the only authority, or you are somehow superior to another. Of course a neuroscientist will know more about the brain than the average person. But that does not mean the neuroscientist is elitist, unless they constantly put people down with their profession.

So that brings up the whole expert thing. Everyone is different, and everyone will have different psychedelic experiences. No one can say exactly what a psychedelic trip will be like. All they can say is their own experiences. The only thing a person needs to know before embarking on a psychedelic trip is harm reduction. Proper set and setting, dosage, foods to avoid in the case of aya etc. That information is freely found on the internet.

There is no need for an institution to give you a predetermined experience. Especially putting the banner of religion on that institution. It just makes things more complicated. You have to think long term. Where will the institution be in 200 years after we're all dead and gone? Will it still uphold the original values, or will it be corrupted like most religions? Putting the banner of religion up will inevitably split crowds. If the institution was purely focused on the exploration of consciousness and spirituality, then there's no need to affiliate with a specific religious group. It's a human thing, not a religious one.

This quote resonates well with me.

lol. However, if I may tweak what you're saying: You can indeed extend your psychedelic wisdom to other domains in your life, your work, your creative endeavors... but certainly not impose them on anyone else. Can we agree on that?



Doesn't that come in handy when/if you're around someone who's high as balls for the first time and needs to be assured, if perhaps subtly, that they're just high as balls? Your experience is valuable!



Yes, but do you think you're going to be released from all suffering in this lifetime? Slow down there, buddy! I mean, if you can, good for you.


How bout this: It's the job of those experienced with drugs to tell people how... *not* to use drugs, but it is not our job to tell people how to interpret their experiences, unless, of course, they want to talk about it.

What if we put on our "Harm reduction" helmets? What about that way of thinking? Because it is absolutely important to tell people how not to use drugs:

Don't smoke salvia alone on a rooftop.
Don't combine Ayahuasca and anti-depressants.
Abstain from other drugs before ingesting Iboga.

And what about suggestions that can help people? Like:

Have a nice fire outside in warm weather when eating Peyote. The fire can provide a nice visual/auditory interface for visions.

Bathe in cool, running water before you take iboga, and perhaps in the latter part of the experience. People can get overheated on iboga, and it can be a great help to cool off.

When quidding Salvia, try to avoid media and distractions. When you remove all distractions and go inward, you can have an extremely fruitful experience in terms of insight (quite literally!).

You see? There are all sorts of helpful suggestions that aren't bossing people around about how to be all spiritually correct--they are merely aspects of the technology of taking a substance. Because certain substances change people's behavior, it is important to inform people of the best ways to harmonize their expected behavior with their set and and setting. And provide harmonious environments for people that can't find one because of their living/life situation.

Spirituality is personal and I believe should always remain inherently personal. (At least for me, hah). But the technology of getting to those great spiritual places can be improved upon, especially when you've got people climbing out of windows on Salvia.

Again, why don't we don our Harm Reduction hats?

I'm always in favor of harm reduction, but I still worry about it become prescriptive. I think the closest I'll come to saying we have any kind of 'job' is that we have a responsibility to render assistance to those who ask for it. You can make yourself known as a resource, but that's about as far as I'm comfortable going, really. Here are my credentials, I'm here if you want it, but if not, I'll keep my mouth shut.

If they want to learn from us, then teach. If they don't, that's their business as autonomous human beings, regardless of whether we could make the decisions they're making.

As for release from suffering in this life, I think, while I may not be able to achieve total release, I think there's a negative correlation between ego 'size' and 'quantity' of suffering, so it's still in 'my' interests to try to cut the ego down as much as I can.

Blessings
~ND

Yes! I'm glad we both arrived at the same words.


Couldn't agree more.


One devout Christian might argue that the idea of exploration of consciousness and spirituality is a kind of affiliation, because it is decidedly unaffiliated with religion. Why search all around your mind when Jesus is there for you, always? Just playing devils advocate. Maybe we should keep our mouths shut about even "consciousness and spirituality," and just do the work of harm reduction. Just an idea.

I am sensing that education is step 1, and organization is step 2. People still don't know what the f*** psychedelics are. I say, before we start thinking about organizing any kind of "institution," we should focus on free education. Right now, it's largely restricted to the internet. Education could be delivered more widespread, with much more love and effectiveness than that. When was the last time you saw a pamphelet in your local health food store giving run-downs on the most commonly used psychedelics, with web links to more harm reduction information on each one? When was the last time you saw a letter to the editor in your local print newspaper about the importance of safety and intention when it comes to using psychedelics? And these are just two ideas out of an infinite number of ways to expand education about plant medicine use.

tl;dr - Mass education step 1, finish step, then move on to institutions- step 2.

That's it; I believe that's what we're talking about, ultimately. Like a car mechanic. A car mechanic isn't going to come knocking on your door telling you your car needs fixing. He's just down the road if you need to hit him up.


*nods* I can relate to this.

I'm going to take the mechanic example and run with it to illustrate the problem I am increasingly having with The Nexus - it seems like there are a LOT of people here who think that, because a mechanic knows a lot about how cars work, they have the right to knock on your door, tell you that you're doing the 'wrong' thing with you car, and then claim that, because of their mechanic skills, they are somehow more intelligent or creative, than non-mechanics, who are all brainwashed by the car manufacturers and regulatory agencies.

Blessings
~ND

Psychedelics are still very unknown to most people, as you rightly said. I'm not sure how I feel if everyone in the world knew about psychs. I think it takes a certain type of person to appreciate psychedelic experiences. I have a lot of friends who are dangerously super rational. They all say "so what? You're just high" when I describe my trips to them. There is a negative stigma with psychedelics, only because it is lumped in with the bad drugs. Those friends of mine might see psychs as one of the bad drugs.

I'm very much in support of the individual. I don't think mass education is ideal. I think mass awareness is better. Those who are interested in psychs will find them of their own accord, whether it is legal or not. I can't really support an institution. However, I will massively support networks that make information freely available, i.e. The DMT Nexus.

Too late for that, gotta go with Annie here. Psychedelics have been here for anyone who wants them for a long time and they aren't going anywhere. Sites like the DMT Nexus and the Shroomery and so many others are giving the tools and skills to everyone willing to do some basic research to access these experiences on their own. That's really been the saving grace amongst all this institutionalized religious/academic/political nonsense that would seek to dictate how an individual should relate to the gifts of nature.


You lost me with the analogy to buddhism since what Shakyamuni taught was specifically to test the teaching for yourself and validate them against your own experience. Truth exists outside laboratories and research journals. It's something that is easy to forget when fully immersed in research methodology, but that's another one of the messages we see nicely embedded in the psychedelic, some things cannot be so easily pinned down, the deeper and more skeptically we choose to inquire into the mystery, the moar we find it's all based in magic, keeping in mind Arthur Clark's very apt definition.


@Warrior I notice in the OP you kind of brush off the work MAPS is doing as only working in the research/science/medical sphere, but their intentions go well beyond that and incorporate the religious and personal liberties aspects as well. I think a lot of your idea is reinventing the wheel when others are already pursuing this from the not only the religious, but also the medical, scientific, and political spheres. Perhaps this presentation Rick gave at Google will give you a bit of an idea of how this is currently and will be playing out as MAPS continues to move their agenda forward.

whatever happened to,
people get high, and can figure it out for themselves.
if they want advice they can ask.
if they have one shred of sense and humility, we will answer them.

they can listen or not, or interpret as they wish , at their own risk...........

we can lead, but babysitting or spoon feeding the dogma, is a fools errand.