I also just finished B.O.T.H.

[Nicole]

And, I must admit, I'm having mixed reactions. I suppose that's a Good Thing as it has inspired a re-evaluation of my values and perspective (along with a deluge of confusion).

I related to Daniel right away. I, too, often feel like a bored existential cynic that is nevertheless searching for that elusive Something Else, something transcendent perhaps. "Meaning." (Whatever that means.) We also share a certain Beat sensibility, and Kerouac is one of my favorite authors. The references to Jameson and other postmodern theorists were what finally clinched it. "This man was an English Major," I thought. As was I. And, in many ways, I felt like I occupied the same philosophical space that he did - filled with the same criticisms and dissatisfaction, filled with the same yearning for Truth that I'm not sure exists. I want an epistemological structure that does not fall away when subjected to analysis and critical thinking.

In the past few years, I've immersed myself in research about consciousness and mind-expanding chemicals. Despite my lack of psychedelic experience, the subject absolutely fascinates me. I've used MDMA quite a bit, although I find it more conducive to momentary pleasure than serious philosophical inquiry. I've used salvia a few times, with uninspiring results. Once, I had a brief vision of playful beings that were looking down on me, but I never interpreted it as anything more than a hallucination. I've wanted to try psilocybin and LSD for years now, but no one in my circle of friends knows where to get it. Nevertheless, I continue to read and research.

I found Daniel's accounts of his experiences fascinating. However, he lost me somewhere towards the end when he began talking about fairies and elves and elemental beings. Yes, the part of me that studied post-structuralist theory knows very well that Rationality is a social construct. However, despite my academic training, I remain a skeptic at heart. I can't shake the ratiocentric perspective and I'm not sure I want to. After all, isn't that what led me to reject my childhood Catholicism? Isn't that what allowed me to see the holes in so much of our "common sense," so many of our widely cherished beliefs? Questioning was what led me to this most interesting field. And, obviously, I'm not going to believe in 'other worlds' simply because someone else has seen them. I have never seen an angel or a demon. I have never seen extra-terrestrial entities. I have never seen a ghost or an elf. And so I remain skeptical. I'm eager to try substances like DMT, so that I can see for myself. Will I experience these fantastical worlds and end up transforming my entire perspective on reality? Or will I simply dismiss them as drug-induced hallucinations? I can't say.

Until then, I suppose I'll remain my heretical self - always seeking and questioning until I find my own answers.

[Halfglass]

Nicole: Terence McKenna 1993 Green Egg interview: "For at least 500 years, Western culture has suppressed the idea of disembodied intelligences--of the presence and reality of spirit. Thirty seconds into the DMT flash and that's a dead issue." You probably weren't smoking extract salvia or you'd be posting in Psychedelic Experiences about the insectoids you saw--really. I've yet to smoke dmt but 10x salvia will make a believer out of anyone. (As will a gram of dxm.) Since you've never really tripped as you say, you won't be able to put a finger on what it's like to have your psyche go through powerful changes and be faced with KNOWING that there are Things in Places--intelligent if not amiable. This stuff goes to work on who you are--it doesn't get you "high". Good Luck.

[ June 04, 2003, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[Nicole]

Halfglass:

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I know these substances are about more than "getting high." Like I said, I've read a great deal about them. I'm actually starting graduate school in the fall, to get my Master's in Religious Studies, specializing in mysticism and Eastern religions. I'm thinking about doing some work on the ritual use of ayahuasca in South America. I have stacks and stacks of research at home on mysticism, religious rituals, neurophysiology, neurotheology, and just about every psychedelic drug you can think of. I am definitely not opposed to the use of these substances, nor would I ever lump them with drugs like heroin or cocaine. However, I go about this research cautiously, with a healthy skepticism and questioning attitude. I do acknolwedge that my world view could be completely shattered after taking one of these substances, but it hasn't happened yet.

I have tried the 10 x salvia. I have a gram of it at home. (And yes, I've used the bong with a butane lighter in complete darkness and silence. Just haven't had much luck.) I've also tried a relatively low dose of DXM (about 500 mg, if I recall correctly), but my experience was certainly not anything mind-expanding.

Please keep in mind that I'm not saying elemental beings and other realms don't exist, and I'm not critizing those who do believe in them. I just can't "believe" in something when I have no reason to. Someday, I might have a reason to. I can't say for sure.

I also wonder why some people have these experiences that cause them to believe in these other realms, while other people just acknowledge them as momentary "hallucinations." Obviously, people have interpreted their experiences differently, even with substances like DMT. (I'm referring to some of the participants in Strassman's study.)

It's just not in my nature to accept something blindly, without investigating for myself. (Even Daniel initially came from this perspective.) Again, hopefully I will soon be given that opportunity.

[Buzz]

Nicole,

I believe that skeptics make the best reporters, especially when something wierd does happen to them. My advise to you is be skeptical, but in the event of a mystic experience suspend your disbelief, at least long enough to gather in the experience. Analysis can come later. Those who blindly "Believe" often fall into the trap of cult worship and open themselves to all sorts of nasty abuse. Open your heart and conquer your fear.

I might also suggest that even with your message here you may have sent out a message to the universe, a prayer of sorts. Something, someone may come to you. Be discreet, but please let us know if anything happens. And remember that love must be at the bottom of all this.

[Nicole]

Buzz --

I think that's very good advice. Thank you!

It's a bit of a contradiction. I seek understanding through analysis and yet I know that "Truth" can't really be encapsulated in such restrictive containers like words and logic. I think I probably have to be catapulted out of this ratiocentric mindset with an experience of some sort. Perhaps someday.

-- Nicole

[daniel]

Hi Nicole,

Thanks for your honest and thoughtful remarks.

Everybody coming out of our culture (though I was an intellectual history major, not English) has to find their own individual path out of the false rationality, or "irrational rationality" (Marcuse) of the self-enclosed ideology in which we are trapped. Open-minded Skepticism is a great way to begin the journey. Rudolf Steiner points out that we developed rational empiricism and materialism for a reason - so that eventually we could inquire and develop back into the "spiritual" realms as equals, not as subordinates or lackeys.

My own experience was that an accumulation of shamanic experiences almost acted like a "battery charger" that changed my consciousness over time, until I realized I had moved my perspective to the shamanic or esoteric worldview entirely. I think that undergoing rituals in tribal contexts greatly increased the "charge" in some ways. I don't think the DPT experience would have happened in that way if I hadn't gone to Gabon and the Amazon first.

There are several questions to investigate: Is it possible that there are subtle dimensions that our blinkered science can not yet acknowledge? If so, can one have experiences of them? (and please remember, psychedelics are not the only or safest avenue for this.) Having had experiences of them, can one keep one's integrity and sanity within this culture without denying one's knowledge?

If you get past the first two, the last question is still very difficult. The materialist ideology is a real straightjacket over people being able to think clearly about their own truthful, if anecdotal, evidence. One blogger commented on my book that he was proud he had maintained his skepticism after psychedelic / transcendent experiences. He quoted someone about "having had the experience but missed the meaning," and agreeed that that was a good perspective to take.

The Tarot card "The Hanged Man" symbolizes the reversal of perspectives that takes place after occult initiation. From that perspective, you realize that the value system of this entire Western civilization is hanging in mid-air, with no support under it. That is too much for most people to deal with, so they retreat from it rather than face the rigorous (and truly rational) consequences that follow.

[Nicole]

Thanks for the reply, Daniel.

"...you realize that the value system of this entire Western civilization is hanging in mid-air, with no support under it..."

Exactly. And I think our culture (myself included) has a great need for epistemological stability. We've watched as many of our most basic foundations (God, Truth, even "Reality") have fallen away. (I always think of Yeats: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold...") But we want things to be neat and orderly. We want things to make sense. And so we have a resurgence of fundamentalist theologies and the rising popularity of New Age philosophies like Wicca and astrology. We're desperately trying to create a structure that will stand up under scrutiny, that will provide meaning to our lives. And so we 'believe' and we 'have faith' (veiled terms that really mean, "We're scared shitless that there are no answers."). We fabricate answers to conceal our fear.

And that's something I never want to do. I want to maintain my intellectual integrity, to not simply accept because the alternative is too frightening to me.

I think the other realms you described must be accepted on an experiential basis, and not a theoretical one. I'm reminded of Kierkegaard and his pronouncement, "I believe because it's irrational." That never made any sense to me. Why, one could accept anything on that basis! But he didn't accept just anything - he accepted something very specific (namely, Jesus Christ as the son of God). Why that irrational belief and not another one? I don't believe rationality and logic can explain our universe, but I also don't believe irrationality and illogic can. I suppose even having the dichotomy between rationality and irrationality is part of the problem.

I have a question for you, though (and for anyone else that may want to answer): Why do you think these beings only appear to those who have taken substances like DMT and DPT? Do you think there's other ways of accessing these other levels of reality, beyond psychedelic drugs?
(I know that practices such as meditation, fasting, and chanting are conducive to religious experience, but I've rarely heard of practitioners seeing 'entities.') And why do you think that people who have not taken these drugs are unable to see these entities?

[Buzz]

Nicole,

Not everyone who has "other" experiences is on drugs or has ever done them. One case in point is Whitley Strieber. Whitley has written at least half a dozen books, supposedly non-fictional, in which he recounts many alien abductions, in great detail, I might add.

Some people just never spend any time outdoors, especially in secluded areas where all sorts of experiences can happen. On another thread in this forum, Halfglass writes about having shared strange experiences and the other party will have no recollection of it. I have found this to be the case in several shared strange experiences. Some people, in my opinion, just do not have the capability of retaining stranges events. I'm a visual artist and educator and I can tell you that it does not take much to shake people up. We become very comfortable in our little "reality". But the fact is that reality is flexible, and to be sure there is no finite reality in infinity. And we all know Blake's statement about the doors of perception. People, largely due to a lack of good, thoughtful leadership in religion, art, politics, whatever, live in fear. I think, mostly fear of death, but also the fear of the unknown.I think I will have to exclude those rare people who have had limited contact and influence with the Western world. It does not suprise me that most who experience alien abduction, do not remember it without hypnosis. I'm pretty sure (though I have no idea if what these people experience is "real")that the aliens do not have to do a thing to repress memory. Fear represses memory. I might state here, for whatever reason, that I have had dozens of sight encounters with UFO's (been witness to changing colors, eratic flight patterns, and out of this world speeds) but I've never experience contact of the third kind. To add to that I do not think that I could have any kind of objective hypnosis as I have read volumes about it.

But I will relate a story here that happened to me while completely sober. It is actually two stories about what I suspect was the same phenomenon. I'll add that I am and was at the time of the earlier event a veteran of the psychedelic experience. As a young man in my early twenties I used to ride around for hours in the country north of Baton Rouge, LA. On one occasion, around 1975, I parked at the entrance to a cornfield near Jackson, LA. I was miles from any house, totally isolated, totally sober (except perhaps for coffee). I walked oout into a newly planted corn field. The young corn was maybe 6" high. I carefully walked through the field to a large oak tree near the middle of it. I was completely alone or so I thought. Suddenly, at a distance, I heard the buzzing of bees. The noise grew louder, it sounded like thousands of bees swarming, on the move and coming closer to me. There was at least 40 acres of planted corn between myself and the nearest woods. I saw nothing but could tell that the noise was coming from a particular direction, directly toward me. As "it" approached into the clearing to a close distance I could see nothing. Still thinking that I was facing a swarm of bees, I began looking for someplace to run or hide. I was exposed except for the tree, and I suspected that was where they were heading, so, I froze in fear. I believed that I was about to be stung to death. But as the "buzz" grew closer I knew that I should be seeing something, and I was not. I think this was even more scary than bees. I waited in astonished fear as the buzz came right upon me and completely enveloped me. I was frozen facing the same direction "they" came from. The sound was pratically deafening, as if a huge swarm of thousands of bees surrounded me. Then, it swept passed me. Only after a couple of seconds of passing could I turn to follow noise. It moved off across the field, across the road and away into the distance. All the time the noise diminished and I could see nothing where a swarm of bees should have been. I felt guilty for being fearful, I felt like I had flunked a test. I learned nothing, it seemed, and had succumbed to fear. All I was left with was another curious event in my life. Whatever this was it seemed aware of me, as it stopped on top of me momentarily.

As odd as this may seem it happened again, 10 years ago. My wife and I bought a piece of land in the mountains of North Carolina near the town we lived in. This is a strange place, though more than a hundred families once lived in the area, they had all moved out since WWII. A huge paper company had bought and owned the land until recently. It is considered haunted. Curious of the unknown, and a lover of nature and the wild world, I built a cabin above Haunted Cove creek, on a lower ridge of the property. There are a few cabins that have sprung up in the area over the last 10 years but only a couple of families have settled full time. Big strong hunters with high power rifles talk of their fear of spending the night "in those woods". I've asked why but usually get an "are you kidding" look with no real answer. Though I love to stay there I nearly always have a difficult time falling to sleep (for no apparent reason).

Anyhow, maybe that gives you a feel for the place. One evening as I was clearing land where I was to build my cabin I heard the buzzing. Again it came from the west towards me. Again I was totally sober, and totally alone (no other humans or pets). Again I looked to see if I could see a swarmbees. Though woods and hiding places were all around me I knew there was no need to run. I got a grip on my fear. I could see nothing as the "buzz" got to a point where I knew I should be able to see bees, if there were any. I braced myself to encounter an anomoly. I looked above me all around me, but except for the noise there was nothing out of the ordinary. I was overcome by the phenomenon, I asked it questions about its nature, why me? But it moved off leaving me full of unanswered questions. The one difference is that this time I did not freeze in fear and looked in all directions even as it was upon me. Believe me though, I was scared, just not as scared.

I have posted this experience in a couple of other forums, but no one has ever come forward with an explaination or a similar experience. All I can tell you is that it happened, 18 years and 800 miles apart, but it happened.

It my belief that psychedelics can prepare one for death and the unknown. After a dozen or so trips as a teenager I was overcome one night, and tripping has never been just the "recreational" thing that it was before. I'm going to stop short of endorsing tripping for everyone though. Some people are unstable. Clinically or Shamanically I believe that under the right set and setting that psychedelics can do wonders for people. Death and the unknown awaits everyone. I credit my psychedelic experiences with giving me some grip on my fear, and "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself".

[Woodpecker]

Buzz, I encountered a possibly similar sound twice in '97 during my shamanic immersion course in Ecuador which nearly killed me. Here's how I wrote it up in my journal, which then became my memoir manuscript.

"In my dream last night, it’s nighttime. There’s the house we’ve been living in, and the provisional hut falling apart next door. My sculptor friend Elias Ramirez is sitting on a stump between them, carving a three-gallon winecask out of a single block of wood. A great noise starts up in the forest, made of several noises at once, like mammals roaring, and chainsaws, and trucks, and insect wings. I’m afraid and pick up a machete that’s curved like a scimitar. Elias says, 'Don’t worry, it’s the junglemommas. They’re calling out to you.'"

I wrote that down while sitting alone in the forest one morning, while waiting for the yage I'd just drunk to kick in. My account of what happened after I put my notebook down begins like this:

"At this point I stood up and breathed deeply and stretched. Looked around me and felt the yug (yage) coming on. Heard the same sound I heard in the dream the previous night, a roar like supernatural mammalian machines, moving around behind the trees nearby. Just sat and listened to it for a while, transfixed."

So yeah, it was this powerful mobile buzzing sound. It awed me. Maybe my account of it is overwritten. I didn't know what to make of it, and still don't, though what my friend said to me in the dream seems like a clue.

Nicole wrote: "Why do you think these beings only appear to those who have taken substances like DMT and DPT? Do you think there's other ways of accessing these other levels of reality, beyond psychedelic drugs?
(I know that practices such as meditation, fasting, and chanting are conducive to religious experience, but I've rarely heard of practitioners seeing 'entities.') And why do you think that people who have not taken these drugs are unable to see these entities?"

As I pointed out on another thread here recently, there are people who see these entities without drugs, but they're rare. William Blake was one, and he writes beautifully about them.

The standard explanation for these things involves the image of the brain as a radio whose dial is turned to other stations by the drugs or natural brain chemicals.

In my late-night jungle pondering of things of the spirit, it occurred to me that people in the past generally might have had very slightly different brain chemistry, on average, that would have facilitated experience of spirits. Even to this day, "primitive" folks without a lot of outside contact see spirits without taking drugs. An anthropologist friend of mine was in a village in Papua New Guinea when a man came tearing in from the forest: the rainbow serpent had nearly eaten him. Anyway, the thrust of Western culture has been away from the spirit and towards material things; this may have been either a cause or a result of a tiny shift in brain chemistry; and it's the reason we've been able to build things like the space shuttle and develop cafe latte instead of expending our energy running away from the rainbow serpent....

It occurred to me once that one reason why some strange truths might appear only to people who are on drugs, is that in this way the truths will remain hidden from the great mass of the people--precisely because it's only those drugged-out freaks who are perceiving them.

[Buzz]

Woodpecker,
A belated congratulations on your marriage.

Thanks for your reply to my story. "Junglemommas"?
Hmmmm! A bit of a followup. My wife reminded me that once when we were at our mountain cabin about 5 years ago we had eaten psilocybe. I told her that I could here the "buzz" in the distance across the creek on another ridge. However, that time it did not approach and she did not hear it. I've got to make it down to South America one of these days. I've got 35 years of strange experiences I would love to run by those shamen. Each experience only deepens the mystery for me. No answers here, just speculations.

Nicole,
As concerns psychedelics, I believe they open one to the mystery and soothe the fear associated with it.

[daniel]

Hi Nicole,

Thanks for your question: "Why do you think these beings only appear to those who have taken substances like DMT and DPT?"

I agree with the writers above, that they occur to many people in tribal and mystical cultures who have a cultural context for these experiences. As opposed to "What you see is what you get," we might propose, "What you know is what you see." I also think many people have such experiences in our culture but experience "retro-cognitive dissonance" and repress the event - I am not sure, however, about the efficacy of hypnosis as it may create new fantasias rather than real repressed memories.

Also the Tibetan Buddhists who go on "dark retreats" in total blackness for weeks or even months definitely encounter all sorts of imaginal entities. Apparently Lamas recognize descriptions of the DPT trip as the farthest place you can go into the Bardo and return to human form.

Also I believe we all are in nightly contact with these realms when we sleep, but generally can't remember it because we don't train ourselves. When I became obsessive about remembering dreams I began to recover more and more - it was truly incredible, vast narratives and hyperspeed vibrant-colored cartoon-like scenarios that had a strong feeling of DMT.

The DPT realm is in my opinion the "Luciferic" realm described in detail by Steiner - it completely resembles the Crowley/Beardsley/Spare Western occult trip. According to STeiner, Luciferic spirits are more advanced than we are and act on us through our powers of understanding - they can pull us up into brilliance but also deviate us into pride and arrogance. Everything that has that taint in our culture - from films to Edwardian drawing rooms - may reveal a bit of forgotten material from the Luciferic realm.

[Nicole]

I was flipping through B.O.T.H again last night and I was yet again disturbed.
It confuses me because I related to the authorial voice so completely in the first half of the book. He echoed my perspectives, my opinions, my beliefs. And then, suddenly, it was like the author departed on a voyage that I wasn’t invited on. He makes the transition from “reality” to fantasy and I was never quite able to make it with him. And that left me feeling like, “Wait a second, what happened here?” How did he get from Point A to Point B? One cannot “choose” to make that leap; I think it has to happen slowly and subtly, almost imperceptibly. At least, that was how it appeared from my point of view. And, as I mentioned before, it’s probably something that has to happen with experience, rather than through theory and analysis. And I have never have had any experience that would cause the same sort of transformation.
In all honesty, though, I think that is what makes a book "good" – one that leaves us slightly uncomfortable and unsettled.
I love reading things that shake things up; it’s boring to read things that simply reaffirm our preexisting philosophies.

Buzz, thanks for the name (Whitley Streiber). After reading DMT: The Spirit Molecule, I’ve been very interested in alien abductions and what possibly causes them on a neurophysiological level. I’ll check out his works.

Interesting anecdotes, all of you. Nothing remotely similar has ever happened to me. It is my skeptical nature, but I always assume there is an explanation for unexplained occurrences, even if we might not know what it is yet. As an example, I was very interested in the "plant experiments" that Daniel talked about towards the end of the book. That sounded fascinating to me, so I started doing some research. I quickly came across this:

http://skepdic.com/plants.html

I’m not saying that either view is completely correct, but I think it’s important to maintain a balanced perspective when investigating such things. I like to read perspectives from *both* sides of the issue.

Yes, I know people see entities without drugs, but I might question the validity of their testimonies. For example, if a schizophrenic patient told me he was "hearing voices," I would be more inclined to think that was an auditory hallucination resulting from his particular brain chemistry, rather than hard evidence of an external entity. People see and hear things all the time, but that doesn’t mean they’re there.

If one of your loved ones went out around screaming that someone was following them, you might seriously consider the possibility that have a mental condition. I’m not saying that everyone that "sees things" is crazy. (On the contrary – most of my family has claimed to see ghosts or UFOS or other "beings" at various times throughout their lives.)

What I am saying is this:

How do we determine if one’s internal perceptions can accurately indicate the nature of our external reality?

I probably seem hyperlogical and rational to most of you, so it may surprise you that I don’t believe in objectivity. It’s a nonsense word. We will never have an accurate interpretation of reality because there’s no such thing. Some creatures have a much wider range of hearing than us. Some creatures have a much wider range of sight. There is so much that we can’t see, so much that we can’t know. All we have is our own interpretation, mediated through our own particular consciousness.
We believe that that small little view is “Reality.”

So my skepticism towards fantastical visions is not necessarily because I believe scientific discourse is infallible (far from it); rather, it’s because I question our sensory experiences and cognitive interpretations as “accurate” indicators of Reality. How do we know our head is not playing tricks on us? How do we know that our internal visions represent anything external? These questions interest me, and I think they’re important.

One of the reasons psychedelics fascinate me so much is that I feel they contain possible doorways to “lost knowledge.” Our view of Reality is woefully incomplete, particularly in this so-called “information age” when we’ve repressed true information about the world around us. Instead, we find meaning in things like Reality TV and the stock market. In many ways, we have blinders on. That is the nature of perception: we highlight certain things and block out others. And, from what I’ve read and studied, I think psychedelics work by breaking down certain mental and linguistic structures that we’ve used to construct our particular vision of reality. This can be incredibly beneficial and this can also be dangerous. If used in the correct way, I think psychedelics offer tremendous potential for personal and social transformation. However, as for them being doorways to alien realms, I struggle with the questions I posed above.

[daniel]

Nicole,
You don't sound "hyperlogical", you sound thoughtful and grounded.

I think it is a very reasonable perspective to say that psychedelics can be beneficial because they open us to sensorial experiences and "decondition" us from a narrowed worldview.

(Believe me that I often wish that had been my final conclusion on the matter - without any occult weirdness!)

As for schizophrenics, I stand by the notion, presented in my book, that many of them might have been recognized as shamans/channels in traditional or indigenous societies, and given an important social function and role. As a follow up to my book, I strongly recommend reading "Black Elk Speaks," which recounts many visions by Black Elk as a boy. In our society, he would have been institutionalized, given Thorazine, then Ritalin and Prozac. In the Lakota society, his visions were recognized as communications for the tribe, they were dramatized in rituals, and he became a Medicine Man.

[sidecross]

Nicole

No one has ever seen an atom, or the hundreds of sub-particles that compose the atom, yet few disbelieve that they exist.

Terrance McKenna often spoke about the belief in the atom as the proof that the most incredible and illogical can easily be assimilated. McKenna would often say, “if you can believe in that, what could you not believe in”.

Let me end by quoting again from John C. Lilly’s The Center of the Cyclone, “in the providence of the mind, what is believed to be true is true or becomes true, within limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the providence of the mind there are no limits.”

[Nicole]

Daniel,

As for your final conclusion: even if I didn't relate to it, I did have an enormous amount of respect for you for presenting it. I love this part:

"I am writing this truthfully, yet part of me recants, doesn't accept, sincerely hopes to reject the whole tangled argument and return, tail between legs, to the consensual, daily-newspaper view that is, I know, hopeless and deranged in its one-dimensional portrait of a doomed world, yet oddly comforting in flat certitudes. I am sick of finding myself fluttering, like some unwieldy albatross, farther and farther away from the margins of the mainstream."

That part was particularly poignant to me because it was clear that you had experienced things that were not translatable to the general population. I've been there, and I definitely know what that feels like. Additionally, knowing that you knew you might be viewed as a lunatic for believing such things only confirmed to me that you *weren't* a lunatic. :)

As for schizophrenics:

Yes, I'm familiar with Foucault and his 'madness as social construction.' Nevertheless, to glorify madness as divine inspiration seems just as problematic as condemning it as "evil" or "sick." They're simply two different interpretations of the same phenomenon (albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum), and I'm hesitant to proclaim one view as Correct. [As someone that witnessed a girl suffer a schizophrenic breakdown in my home, (believe me) it's not always something magical and inspired.] Thanks for the book recommendation; that definitely sounds interesting.

I recall reading somewhere that you've read Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. I've been meaning to read that book forever and just haven't gotten around to it. Too many books, too little time!

[Nicole]

sidecross:

It's true that we put faith in a lot of things we can't see. However, it doesn't logically follow that we must believe in *everything* we can't see. I could make up any fantasy or vision in the world, and it doesn't make sense to believe in it simply *because* it's invisible.

I'm not claiming these things don't exist. I'm just saying I can't believe in them when I have no reason to. Why not believe that unicorns are parading through my office right now? Why not believe that God is a purple frog that's throwing flowers at me right now? Who not believe that a demon on my shoulder is telling me lies right now, a la Descartes? These are silly examples, but they illustrate the point that there must be *boundaries* on our belief systems. That is what makes them beliefs. If you take away boundaries, you have no beliefs.

Who creates these boundaries? What makes one person's boundaries more "correct" than another's?
If it's fallacious to claim that only visible things exist, wouldn't it be just as fallacious to claim all invisible things exist? And if not, why not?

[sidecross]

“…I'm not claiming these things don't exist. I'm just saying I can't believe in them when I have no reason to. Why not believe that unicorns are parading through my office right now? Why not believe that God is a purple frog that's throwing flowers at me right now? Who not believe that a demon on my shoulder is telling me lies right now, a la Descartes? These are silly examples, but they illustrate the point that there must be *boundaries* on our belief systems. That is what makes them beliefs. If you take away boundaries, you have no beliefs…”

You seem to imply that you are your beliefs, and they exist within boundaries. Quantum mechanics has shown this not to be the case for at least the quantum level of who you think you are.

The main issue or question is can language alone capture what psychedelics or nature is? I would argue it can not.

[Nicole]

"You seem to imply that you are your beliefs, and they exist within boundaries."

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I don't think that a person IS his or her beliefs, but I do think that belief structures must have boundaries. Our beliefs attempt to mold and form the reality around us, to make sense of it. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a belief system devoid of boundaries and limitations. Can you think of an example?

"The main issue or question is can language alone capture what psychedelics or nature is? I would argue it can not."

Oh, I don't think it can either. I would even argue that language cannot capture the essence of life itself, let alone the essence of the psychedelic experience. Language is an arbitrary sign system that has no direct connection with "reality."

"When language (whether spoken or in texts) tries to deal with society or some other externality, signifiers slide into other signifiers without reaching a signified; they only reach meaning when working on some immediate, limited level. But there is no ultimate truth which can be arrived at through language."

-- Jaques Derrida

[sidecross]

“…I think you would be hard-pressed to find a belief system devoid of boundaries and limitations. Can you think of an example?…”

Yes, Einstein’s attempt to find a unified field theory that combined quantum mechanics and gravity.

What part of the John Lilly quote do you not comprehend? “…“in the providence of the mind, what is believed to be true is true or becomes true, within limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the providence of the mind there are no limits.”

[daniel]

Nicole writes: "I would even argue that language cannot capture the essence of life itself, let alone the essence of the psychedelic experience. Language is an arbitrary sign system that has no direct connection with "reality."

I don’t agree with you that language is an "arbitrary" sign system; it has deep roots that reach back to the origin of human consciousness and thought. It has evolved as organisms evolve, according to its own logic, in its own arena.

I used to enjoy Deconstruction, but now I tend to think it has become a poisonous influence. The absence of "universal truth" can be experienced as a positive rather than a negative. I agree with McKenna’s presentation of the shamanic perspective: The universe is made of language, the Logos, which means that "reality" is storied or mythed into being at a deeper level than we currently imagine. A major problem in our world is we have chosen to live the wrong story – as the Toltec shaman Miguel Ruiz says, we are dreaming the dream of hell. Change the dream, and everything will change.

I also feel that post-modern Deconstruction close us off prematurely from truth that is, in fact, available to us if we are willing to strive for it. In my book, I write about Gurdjieff’s idea that knowing is related to being – when you attain a different level of being, a different form of knowing becomes available to you. That other form of knowing has a different relationship to language than our ordinary conceptions. It is best expressed in a language of symbols or parables (Christ, for instance, communicated in parables).

Here are a few bits from Rudolf Steiner’s autobiography, in which he tries to express a fully "rational" or scientific theory of knowledge that does not limit us to a world of floating signifiers, but recognizes human thought as an active participant in a living spiritual cosmos:

"On the one hand, meditation leads to knowledge of spirit; on the other, the results of such self-observation lead to an inner strengthening of the human spirit, independent of the organism, and establishes its being in the spirit world, just as the physical organism is established in the physical world. …

Such an experiential cognition is incompatible with all theories of knowledge that limit human cognition to a certain sphere – those that place the "primordial ground," or "thing-in-itself," into a "beyond" that is unavailable to human knowledge. The unattainable was unavailable to me only "to begin with." And it remains unattainable only so long as we have not inwardly developed what – by its very nature – corresponds to the unknown and enables us to unite with it in conscious experience. Those who want to see the true human relationship to the world in the right light must acknowledge the human ability to grow into every kind of existence. Those who cannot acknowledge this will view knowledge not as a part of the world, but merely as an insignificant copy of some part of the world. And with the cognition that merely forms copies, we cannot grasp an inner being who, as a fully conscious individuality, provides us with inner experience of our firm stance in the cosmos as a whole."

[Woodpecker]

Amen to that. Specifically referring to ayahuasca trances, one could say that the individual's soul or spirit--one's point of consciousness--itself can become information, become knowledge, become phrases of language within the song of the universe. Then there's no distinction between the perceiver and the perceived. Which is fun when it happens, and hard to convince others of later.... ("Scientists convince with logic; poets convince with fascination," someone once said.)

Nicole wrote: "It's true that we put faith in a lot of things we can't see. However, it doesn't logically follow that we must believe in *everything* we can't see. I could make up any fantasy or vision in the world, and it doesn't make sense to believe in it simply *because* it's invisible.
I'm not claiming these things don't exist. I'm just saying I can't believe in them when I have no reason to. Why not believe that unicorns are parading through my office right now? Why not believe that God is a purple frog that's throwing flowers at me right now? Who not believe that a demon on my shoulder is telling me lies right now, a la Descartes? These are silly examples, but they illustrate the point that there must be *boundaries* on our belief systems. That is what makes them beliefs. If you take away boundaries, you have no beliefs.
Who creates these boundaries? What makes one person's boundaries more "correct" than another's?
If it's fallacious to claim that only visible things exist, wouldn't it be just as fallacious to claim all invisible things exist? And if not, why not?"

A serious and playful response: I don't think there's anything you could say that would convince me that unicorns *don't* parade through your office when you're not around. In fact, the fact that you came up with that example proves to me that the image occurred to you, which could mean that the unicorns were even so bold as to allow themselves to be perceived by your imagination. How many of them were they? Where had they just come from? Where were they going? Are they there right now?

The fact that a particular belief is "silly," according to someone's definition, has never prevented anyone from believing in anything, has it?

Tlakaelel, an Aztec shaman, tells the story of a religion class in Aztec times, a kind of Sunday school. The teacher asked the students what God was like. One replied, "He's a plumed serpent." Another said, "He's a great black jaguar." Another said, "She's the earth." The teacher said, "You're all right." So with the purple frog throwing flowers at you. That's God too.

I'm still in my William Blake mode, so I'll quote him here: "Everything possible to be believ'd is an image of truth."

To me, it doesn't sound all that fallacious to claim that all invisible things exist; if it is, why? Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

(Buzz, re: "junglemommas," thinking back on it, the phrase my friend used in the dream was "sachamamas," which is Quichua for "junglemommas." I took it to mean spirits of the place.)

[Nicole]

Sidecross:

You noted Einstein’s attempt to find a unified field theory that combined quantum mechanics and gravity as a “belief system without limitations.”
How so? Could you elaborate on this?

I didn’t say I didn’t understand the John Lilly quote. I don’t even think I commented on it. (If I did comment, that would be another discussion entirely, and I’m afraid I don’t have time! I post from work.)

Daniel:

Interesting comments on language. I have read a bit of McKenna’s FOOD OF THE GODS but stopped to start another book (yours, actually). That’s something I do quite often – my attention is always moving and flitting about, and it’s difficult for me to concentrate on thing at a time. I’ll pick it up again, eventually.

You’ve pointed out some inconsistency in my own thinking. I don’t believe that the world is divided into such sharp dichotomies, so why would I separate “nature” from “language” (or cognition)? Something to explore further.

Woodpecker:

I understand where you’re coming from, but I still would find it difficult to believe in *everything*. A relatively harmless belief in unicorns is OK, but what if I told you that God was ordering me to rape and kill small children? Would that belief be OK? Why not? How do you distinguish between 'acceptable' beliefs and actions and 'unacceptable' beliefs and actions?

“To me, it doesn't sound all that fallacious to claim that all invisible things exist; if it is, why? Absence of proof is not proof of absence.”

Remember – I didn’t say these things *don’t* exist. I never claimed it was proof of their absence. The point I have been trying to make (albeit unsuccessfully, it seems) is that our belief systems have structure and I cannot think of a single good reason to choose one structure over another. All knowledge needs a base that it arises from, and I can’t find that base. (Or perhaps it’s incorrect to look for a stable, secure base to begin with?) You see the difficulties. I ask too many questions. At some point, probably so that one does not go mad, one must find a philosophical ‘resting point’ where one says, “Okay, this is what I believe.” It appears you have done that when you say that all invisible things can exist. Your belief structure is certainly not as rigid or confining as most, but you have certain beliefs that you hold. I really don’t. At least not any that I will defend confidently. You’ll notice that I ask a lot of questions and I challenge other people’s assertions, but I don’t hold many convictions of my own. I’m still searching.

[Nicole]

Heh. Reading over my own thoughts, I sound like I'm having the stereotypical existentialist crisis.

I feel like such a cliche.

[sidecross]

"…I'm afraid I don't have time!"

You are right. These things go beyond chatting about at coffee break.

[Nicole]

sidecross --

Well, I do have time to get into involved, philosophical discussions, just not more than one at a time!

I spend most of my work day doing things like this, and surprisingly my company has not caught on yet. <knocks on wood> I have a very boring office job in the corporate world; it doesn't fit my personality at all.

I finally got so sick of it that I decided to leave for graduate school in August. I can't wait. I'm literally counting down the days.

[Woodpecker]

Nicole writes: "A relatively harmless belief in unicorns is OK, but what if I told you that God was ordering me to rape and kill small children? Would that belief be OK? Why not? How do you distinguish between 'acceptable' beliefs and actions and 'unacceptable' beliefs and actions?"

In the case of that particular belief, it's easy. We have a society to maintain. We try to prevent people from raping and killing kids because a vast majority of us believe it's a bad idea.

I don't want to dismiss your point out of hand, though. There are real-world cases that come close to what you're saying. David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam killer, believed that his neighbor's labrador retriever was telling him to kill people. Absurd. But to him, it was true. I don't know if it will ever be possible to prevent every mad killer. Really, I have no idea how to understand what happened there, and part of me just doesn't want to know.

There was a sad case a few years ago of a Harvard (?) student from Ethiopia killing her roommate from Vietnam and then herself. A creative writing teacher who had met the Ethiopian girl published an article in the New Yorker about it. For part of her research, she visited Ethiopia and interviewed relatives of the girl. One man said that the girl had obviously been possessed by an evil spirit. If she had been home in Ethiopia, he said, she would have been turned over to the healers and taken to a sacred waterfall for an exorcism. "But in America, there are only psychiatrists," he said, "and they don't have that power, do they?"

Another story comes from an excellent book called "How We Die," by Sherwin Nuland. (Nuland is a retired surgeon and professor of medicine at Yale; his book's main focus is the body's physical processes as it approaches death.) A mental patient out on a day pass suddenly, savagely murdered a little girl. He had had an uncommonly troubled childhood and at the age of twelve reported feeling the devil coming up out of the ground and into his body. To me, that's an argument for behaving "as if" there was some reality behind his experience; an argument for incorporating spiritual practices into mental health care.

You write, "At some point, probably so that one does not go mad, one must find a philosophical ‘resting point’ where one says, “Okay, this is what I believe.” " Exactly. That discomfort is what gets a lot of people off their duffs and onto a spiritual paths. I respect your search and your skepticism of other people's answers. Keep up the good work.

Me, I don't know if I hold beliefs all that firmly. Sometimes I talk as if I do. There was a point where I felt that I needed to find some things out. And ended up feeling that I had. It wasn't easy. Now I have my whole life ahead of me to question those things. Right now, I believe that my cat loves me (and, less "rationally," that perhaps there is something in him of the bold spirit of a hunting dog I knew in the jungle)--and that the ivy growing on the wall of the apartment building on the other side of the courtyard is beautiful. But I'm reminded of something a guru once said to Allen Ginsberg: When a thought form appears, don't cling to it, and don't push it away. Gary Snyder writes--and this can be applied to beliefs as well as anything else--"Hold it close. Give it all away." Timing is important in this, as in all things.

[Nicole]

As for the 'raping and killing small children' example:

Well, yes, it makes it difficult to maintain an orderly society. But is it truly and objectively Wrong - in a universal sense, not a societal one?

Yeah, I know all about Berkowitz. It probably sounds morbid and disturbed, but I have a fascination with serial killers and I've read a lot about them. I tend to think their actions are a result of neurophysiological abnormalities, though, and not "evil spirits." That just seems like a convenient excuse for when we don't understand something.

Ginsberg and Snyder, huh? Looks like we have some interests in common. Actually, I was familiar with Joyce Johnson well before I was familiar with her son Daniel.

The quote by Ginsberg's guru is a common theme in Buddhist philosophy and good advice for meditation. Neverthless, it doesn't quell my desire to find The Answers. Perhaps I have to become secure in my philosophical insecurity? To be content with not knowing.

[Woodpecker]

Nicole, When I was hanging out with the shamans, and with the "spirits," I sometimes got a sense that there really is an objective scale of morality and that there are good acts and evil ones. Somewhat connected to that was don Cesario's observation to me that the missionaries had an easy time converting the Secoyas because the ten commandments are essentially identical to the Secoyas' traditional moral code--except as far as keeping the Sabbath, which they didn't have.

"I tend to think their actions are a result of neurophysiological abnormalities, though, and not "evil spirits." That just seems like a convenient excuse for when we don't understand something. "

"Neurophysiological abnormalities" and "evil spirits" are conceptual categories that both seem to have some validity and some shortcomings. You're right, there's a lot we don't understand.

Carl Sagan wrote a great book called "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" in which he eloquently debunks us mystical types.

Now get back to work!!

Ha ha. Just kidding. tongue.gif

[Nicole]

Woodpecker:

In response to similarities between The Ten Commandments and the Secoya's moral code, I might say that those are basic laws for running *any*
organized society (i.e. don't kill people, don't steal, obey your parents, etc.). The only one that might not be cross-cultural is "Honor the Sabbath." The obvious problem with "Good and Evil" is that everyone is apt to define them differently. Even if there was an objective morality, you're liable to have everyone running around claiming *they* found the ultimate truth.

I might like the Carl Sagan book; thanks for the recommendation.
Like him, I have a tendency to look skeptically upon any philosophy that separates our universe into "material" and "spiritual" realms. The spiritual realm is nearly always given privileged status, while our material world is viewed as fostering "sin" and "evil." On a conceptual level, it makes our world insignificant and meaningless, while "real" truth is always somewhere Out There, separate from our immediate existence. While traditional theologies like Judaism and Christianity are more obvious in their presentation of this 'metaphysical hierarchy,' I find that it's present in nearly all religions. One might ask, "Well, what's the point in even having a religion if you don't believe in the spirit world?" But I think it's a perfectly valid and acceptable viewpoint. At this point in my life, the only religion that makes sense to me is one that would celebrate the magic and wonder of existence, without resorting to a belief in immaterial realms.

I love this quote by Alan Watts (my favorite writer):

"It is a special kind of enlightenment to have this feeling that the usual, the way things normally are, is odd--uncanny and highly improbable. G. K. Chesterton once said that it is one thing to be amazed at a gorgon or a griffin, creatures which do not exist; but it is quite another and much higher thing to be amazed at a rhinoceros or a giraffe, creatures which do exist and look as if they don't. This feeling of universal oddity includes a basic and intense wondering about the sense of things. Why, of all possible worlds, this colossal and apparently unnecessary multitude of galaxies in a mysteriously curved space-time continuum, these myriads of differing tube-species playing frantic games of one-upmanship, these numberless ways of "doing it" from the elegant architecture of the snow crystal or the diatom to the startling magnificence of the lyrebird or the peacock?"

I am not the typical atheist, I suppose, thinking that the universe is a random and stupid collection of automatic processes. No, far from it. It's not difficult to see that the universe is intelligent and it's certainly not random. There is something amazing going on, something wondrous that is simply undeniable to me. I dno't know what it is, and I think it's probably too great to put into words or confine to a particular theory. I have always thought that humanity's conceptions of "God" are hopelessly small. But I don't know what the answers are and I don't pretend to. Perhaps someday I might gain a glimpse into this mystery, but - as for now - I have no fucking clue.

You guys are fun to talk to. It's always nice to find people with common interests. At the message board I normally post at, I'm usually seen as the idealistic, romantic one. Interesting reversal here.

Now get back to work!!

Ha ha. Just kidding.

[Nicole]

Whoops! I didn't type those last two lines. They were left over from your post.

[ogopogo]

test