Where should I start

[Garry T]

I have been studing psychedelics for a few months now-but at a distance.

The problem is I am one of these people who fretts about the consequences of my actions-with regard to everything.

I reckon psychedelics hold the key to a transformation of this type of outlook but the very problem which i seek to address is what is keeping me from solving it.

I am not in it for the buzz/rush/etc but to develop a deeper understanding of myself and nature. For this reason I find myself wary of any synthesised psychedelics. I would like to hear what you would recommend I try first bearing in mind I would prefer to wade in from the shallow end than dive into the deep

Garry

[sidecross]

Quite simply a revelation will be out of reach with apprehension. You can not let go and hold on at the same time.

[daniel]

You can begin with lower doses of the various organic or semi-organic compounds. I personally have enjoyed lower-dose mushrooms, and minimally effective ayahuasca doses.

Fear vs. curiosity is often the issue for people. I think you will be happy if curiosity wins out.

Also, life is short - don't put off doing something and then miss the chance, out of over-repressive prudence.

[Nicole]

I think that perhaps you are more adventurous than you realize.

If you only wanted to develop a better understanding of yourself and nature, I might recommend meditation or hiking. I think part of the thrill of experimenting with psychoactive substances IS the risk involved. Not the risk of death as the Just-Say-NO-ers might have you believe, but the psychological and emotional risks. The risk of experiencing something transformative or earth-shattering in a matter of a few hours. The risk of the unknown. It's exciting and thrilling and frightening simultaneously, and I think that's why certain people are drawn to it. Yes, the experience may be spiritual (drugs have been used for religious purposes for thousands of years), but there are quieter ways of achieving insight.

You didn't mention what drugs you were familiar with. I didn't know if I should assume that you've experimented with certain susbtances, like marijuana?

I've never taken psilocybin mushrooms, but from what I've read about them that may be the experience you're looking for. A low dose, as Daniel suggested.

I have some of the same fears that you do, but the main reason I haven't done these substances is because I can't FIND them. In time, in time. I think I may get to experience my first psilocybin trip within the next few weeks.

If you weren't so opposed to synthetic substances, I might suggest MDMA (Ecstasy). For myself, it was a gentle and mildly psychedelic introduction to the world of entheogens. I've always enjoyed it, and I've never had a "bad trip." However, it is imperative to know your source. "Ecstasy" is only sometimes MDMA, and it's difficult to know what you're getting. (Even the E-Z testers are not very reliable.) I'm not sure this is the experience you're looking for anyway, though.

[sire_012]

nicole:
If you weren't so opposed to synthetic substances, I might suggest MDMA (Ecstasy). For myself, it was a gentle and mildly psychedelic introduction to the world of entheogens. I've always enjoyed it, and I've never had a "bad trip."i see where you're coming from with this nicole but i would really discourage anyone from starting their journey with MDMA. MDMA appears to be a beneficial ally because it can allow a user to approach some aspects of their conciousness with a kind of carressing nature that isn't always found in some of the more analytical, introspective entheogens like LSD. but while it is perhaps more psychologically easy on a person, i think MDMA also tends to be a bit 'greedier' than other compounds, meaning it seems to ask quite a bit more from the user in regards to physical/sertonic effect, recurrance of use, and it seems to attract a different 'cult' of followers in general than some other compounds. if someone is looking for a deeply introspective experience and takes MDMA, they may not be ready for the seratonin dip possible depression which comes a day or two after the experience. that depression could be enough to undue the previous days work or worse, scare them off from approaching their psyche again for a while.

also it seems to be closer to alcohol than to an entheogen (IMHO) as it is more of an ego-enhancing experience than ego annhilating. not that there are not benefits that can be had from alcohol or ego-enhancing experiences, i just feel that they may be a bit misleading if someone is looking for an entheogen to explore.

in tihkal shulgin mentions that he thinks 4-HO-Dipt would be a good introduction to psychedelics for new explorers due to its fairly benevelant nature and relatively short duration of effect. also, 4-HO-Dipt is not scheduled. perhaps you should look into this.

i think daniels advice is worth applying to whatever you choose to pursue... start small and work into your own shoe size.

[Nicole]

sire:

I definitely see what you're saying. I don't find MDMA to be a very good philosophical tool, but I have had experiences that could be termed "religious." (Whatever that means anyway.) It is a gentle drug, and I think it might lessen the fear that comes with entering into the world of psychoactive chemicals. I suppose I recommend it because I've had incredibly wonderful experiences with it, and it led to my current interest in the field of ethneogens. It was simply my own path, but I do understand that it might not work for everyone.

Personally, I've never suffered the depression that afflicts some users. One can also try preventative measures like taking 5-HTP or an SSRI like Prozac. (I recommend doing research on when to take these, how much, etc.)

Yes, it may attract a different "cult" of followers. I imagine I'm probably the only person here that's involved in techno/club culture, and that's how I was introduced to Ecstasy. The "scene" does have destructive elements that I eventually learned were destructive (e.g. cocaine), but I think MDMA can be beneficial if used responsibly.

There's a lot of talk about "the ego" in circles like ours, but I have not come to any definitive conclusions regarding the subject. Is it really desirable to annihilate the ego? Wasn't there a quote in Daniel's book about how John Lennon suffered from a period of creative inactivity after he was told he should destroy his ego? I hear the term thrown around a lot, but I've never experienced it and there's very rarely involved discussions about what it actually *means*. Admittedly, I feel in the dark about a lot of it.
Furthermore, I'm not sure something "ego-enhancing" is always Bad. What exactly does "ego-enhancing" mean? Although I realize it's difficult to encapsulate some of these concepts into the boundaries of language, it's also difficult for me to know how to discuss it when I'm unclear on the meaning. Could you clarify some of this?

[Nicole]

Um...correction: that should be "entheogens."

[Woodpecker]

Don't forget about the ethnogens! Very powerful drugs, capable of generating entire ethnicities; nevertheless, they have yet to be invented....

[sire_012]

nicole:
Is it really desirable to annihilate the ego? to give it vocabulary - or at least the term i infer with its use - an ego- annhilating experience would be a transpersonal experience... pre-natal, post-terrestrial, samahdi, becoming objects or other people, etc. it is an interesting question and not one i'm sure i know the answer to whether or not you can ever have a truly ego-annhilating experience. i feel like i've had them, but then that feeling is always processed through my present filter of understanding myself as an other to the rest of the world. perhaps the only true ego annhilating experiences one could have would be those where they can't even recall them because they were totally seperated from their present processing capabilities. with this discussion i think you eventually lead downt the meditative path of What are You? and this can get furry indeed. anybody have some help on this?

Wasn't there a quote in Daniel's book about how John Lennon suffered from a period of creative inactivity after he was told he should destroy his ego?annhilating the ego of probably the most powerful man in the world at the time would make one hell of a boom me thinks. but not to digress it seems very common for heads to blast their ego and then not put it back together. i think that is the reason for many 'jaded' people and many burn outs, and the sad stories of folks who at one time used psychedelics and later moved onto heroin, etc. if you choose to look through the microscope you best be willing to accept and work with what you find. but because it happens to some doesn't make it a bad thing. i think it is extremely valuable to pop the gaskets off, but that is with the qualifier that it takes *a lot* of discipline to put it back together again.

Furthermore, I'm not sure something "ego-enhancing" is always Bad. What exactly does "ego-enhancing" mean?i don't think its bad at all either, but i also think there is plenty of opportunity to enhance your ego and - at least for some folks - i think the transpersonal experience is a major catalyst in why they eat entheogens. in my mind "ego-enhancing" is something that helps caste the ego, that massages the ego. again this can be very beneficial, but also in my opinion, requires the same amount of work as annihilating the ego but in the other direction... if you rub that ego too much you tend to get a bit weird and self-blinded and risk becoming a mockery of yourself. for an example of this take a step into most bars, television studios, radio stations, or other places where western culture is manufactured. for what its worth the best solution i can come to is to meditate to find your path, develop your path, re-design it, pull in some opposing 'selves' to keep it in check, annhilate that ego and rebuild. this is kind of a reworking of the sufi saying "if you write stoned edit sober, if you write sober edit stoned." the ego seems to be a great tool for enacting positive change in the world, but it is only that a tool. annhilating can raise one's awareness to the impermanence of it and perhaps help you master it a bit more.

peace

[sidecross]

The ego has been shown to be useful in determining which and whose orifice to place dinner.

[Woodpecker]

to give it vocabulary - or at least the term i infer with its use - an ego- annhilating experience would be a transpersonal experience... pre-natal, post-terrestrial, samahdi, becoming objects or other people, etc. it is an interesting question and not one i'm sure i know the answer to whether or not you can ever have a truly ego-annhilating experience. i feel like i've had them, but then that feeling is always processed through my present filter of understanding myself as an other to the rest of the world. perhaps the only true ego annhilating experiences one could have would be those where they can't even recall them because they were totally seperated from their present processing capabilities. with this discussion i think you eventually lead downt the meditative path of What are You? and this can get furry indeed. anybody have some help on this?

for what its worth the best solution i can come to is to meditate to find your path, develop your path, re-design it, pull in some opposing 'selves' to keep it in check, annhilate that ego and rebuild. this is kind of a reworking of the sufi saying "if you write stoned edit sober, if you write sober edit stoned." the ego seems to be a great tool for enacting positive change in the world, but it is only that a tool. annhilating can raise one's awareness to the impermanence of it and perhaps help you master it a bit more.
Interesting musings, Nicole and Sire; thanks for feeding the fire of illumination today.

I don't have theories, but an anecdote.

In my wild youth (which officially ended about a minute and a half ago, when I swore off nibbling on the couscous I made for dinner later) I inhaled ether on several occasions, and, by Sire's tentative definition above, truly annihilated my ego a few times. What I remember is coming down from these fantastic heights, trying again and again, after each separate sniff, to recollect where I had just come down from. An image that did stick with me on one occasion was that the universe was made up of four complementary personalities, similar to the concept of the four elements, but they all kind of looked the same, besides being different sizes. The third personality "possessed" me for a while, melding its consciousness with mine. This was done for two purposes: one, to expand my mind, which seemed at the time to encompass one eighth of the universe; and, two, to get a laugh out of the other personalities, who found Number Three's brief descent into humanity absolutely hilarious.

Well, that took me out of my stuffy old self for a while.

The spirit world seems infinitely protean. Every time you look into it from a new perspective, the data is going to line up a bit differently.

As certain as I was at the time about the validity of the experience I just described, I wouldn't want to build a religion around it.

Much of what Sire's wisely saying about the ego applies to the soul, too. The soul needs to grow, change, develop, breathe. I suppose it's the ego's work and art to make this happen.

[ July 16, 2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Woodpecker ]

[Nicole]

sire:

I’ve been trying to find time to respond all afternoon, but they’ve actually been expecting me to WORK in my office. The nerve!

Hmmm…I’m a bit skeptical about phrases like “pre-natal” and “post-terrestrial.” But as for experiences that make one feel like they’re merging with objects: why is this desirable? Is it really desirable for me to feel like I became a windowpane, or a floorboard? I just have reservations about the usefulness of such insights. They are fascinating, to be sure, but I’m not sure if it’s preferable to “regular” reality.

“ti feel like i've had them, but then that feeling is always processed through my present filter of understanding myself as an other to the rest of the world.”

That’s my perspective on the matter, too, and precisely why I find it difficult to understand the concept of “annihilating the ego.”

All this talk of ego reminds me of Salinger’s FRANNY AND ZOOEY. His best book, I think, and I get something different out of it every time. I’ve found it insightful, juvenile, complex, simplistic, and brilliant depending on the time I’m reading it.

[Franny complains at the beginning:
“All I know is I’m losing my mind.[…]I’m just sick of ego, ego, ego. My own and everybody else’s. I’m sick of everybody that wants to get somewhere, do something distinguished and all, be somebody interesting. It’s disgusting – it is, it is . I don’t care what anybody says.”]

I do see the value in realizing that you are inseparable from the rest of the universe (which I think can be realized on MDMA), but I’m not sure I understand the concept of annihilating the ego. Or the usefulness of such an insight. The concept comes up in so much of my research, but I very rarely see it questioned.

[Proteus]

i notice that Woodpecker distinguishes soul from ego and that Nicole questions what, exactly the ego is. And then there's the general question of whether or not annhilating the ego is possible or desirable.

For what it's worth, here's my theory: The "self" is composed of several phenomena: the senses--including the mind--the ego, and consciousness (wherever that comes from). i don't really distinguish these phenomena from soul or spirit--as Woodpecker seems to do. For that matter, i'm increasingly less capable of making a meaningful distinction between body and mind/soul/spirit.

Anyway, my intuition is that each of us mirrors in miniature the Conscious Universe. i'm currently working under the assumption that the Totality (that would be the all-inclusive term for all beings and phenomena in all dimensions) is itself Conscious. It knows Itself. And that which Knows Itself is Ego--though at this Cosmic level there is no meaningful distinction between Self and other because the Totality comprises all others. My first ayahuasca experience--and others since--indicate to me that it's probably more accurate to say that the Totality knows Itselves and that Its Ego comprises all egos. Thus, the Totality has a body and senses--it's faculties being all phenomena and beings; it has an Ego--It knows Itselves; and it has Consciousness--a Mind that receives and organizes sense impressions and construes them in meaningful ways.

Relatively self-aware beings such as ourselves are constructed in a way similar to the Totality. There's a mind which, by its nature, functions to record, narrate, analyze, generalize, and theorize about the phenomenal data it perceives and there is an ego that knows itself to be an observer of all this stuff--and which then forms opinions, generalizations, analyses, and theories about this "stuff."

As the Abidharma--a very interesting and ancient book on "psychology"--puts it, each "self" comprises 6 skandas or "piles." We'd call the first 5 of these skandas the sensorium: vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell. Eastern tradition, however, asserts that mind is the 6th sense. Mind, by its nature, organizes the data it receives from the other five senses, making them meaningful. In this view, sight isn't light bounced off a flower, refracted through the iris, focused on the rods and cones at the back of the eyeball, & converted into electro-chemical impulses that fire into the organic brain. Rather, sight is the ability to transform such physical phenomena into meaning: "Ooh! Look at that glorious Dahlia!"

Mind, however rudimentary, is a concommitant of being and functions to make distinctions among phenomena--including the fundamental one between "I" and "Thou." It is the function of consciousness that takes raw perception and names and sorts it, analyzing it for patterns, storing it in memory, and assigning it various discriminative values (e.g. good, bad, sexy, stinky, etc.).

From this, i reason that the ego is either a by-product of the 6th sense (i.e. the mind) or, like the mind, a concommitant of consciousness. The ego apparently functions through the mind's discriminatory faculties to generate an awareness of awareness--and to create relatively coherent narratives out of the raw data of experience which it thereafter refers to as "myself." The ego, then, is the function of consciousness capable of accesssing the information in the storehouse of memory and of building a (unique) personna from this raw material--through narrative. Ego organizes the raw phenomenal data that the mind is constantly processing into the story of "my life." Ego is the function that highlights some experiences and represses others so it can create nice little stories like "this is what happened to me," or "here's what i'm like & what i'm not like," or "i'm too fat." Ego is so involved in the "construction" of Reality, that it frequently stops looking at it. When we say someone is ego-centric, we're referring to their tendency to be so focussed on "their" construction of Reality that they can't appreciate or even entertain someone else's. Is this a bad thing? That's probably the wrong question. Ego can't help but create stories about phenomena because that is its nature. In fact, i'd go further and say that ego is naturally prone to becoming so attached to these stories that it will do anything--including using force or the most obvious kinds of denial--to eliminate competing narratives about Reality. It takes a good deal of training to temporarily suspend the ego's tendency to cling to its own stories so that one can entertain the narrative-constructs of others.

Shortly after infancy, ego begins to mediate our experiences--sometimes to an astonishing extent. That is, we don't really experience phenomena directly, we experience them through thought formations the ego generates and through language, the medium in which ego works. Most egos don't see purple, they see an idea they have about purple. They don't meet a person, they meet their ideas about what that person must be like based on such visible facts as hair-style, body-type, gender, class association, etc. (Such mediated perceptions can be altered by experience, but that's another story.)

As i understand it, the reason that Eastern philosophy teaches that the products of the ego are delusive is because they see these narrative constructs as just that--artistic/literary constructs, which have logical consistency and coherence because they pick and choose among phenomena in such a way that consistency and coherence are highlighted. As such, these narratives cannot help but be incomplete, rhetorically interested, and language-distorted representations of the Totality-as-it-is. In addition, the ego's resistance to other narratives and its obsessive-compulsive relationship to its own constructions tends to insulate us from THIS (i.e. the Totality). We can see only a little way beyond that which we have language and thought-constructs for. We can't evolve spiritually unless we can crack the nutshell of the ego's construction of the universe and "see" things without mediation on a routine basis. Daily meditation or some other form of spiritual practice is a baseline teaching in these traditions because the ego never ceases its work. Even the Buddha continued to sit in meditation after his "englightenment." i think he did so because his ego was hard at work packaging the story of his experience under the Bodhi Tree the minute he rose from his seat and began to preach the Eightfold Path and expound upon the Fourfold Truth.

But back to the question that prompted all this blather. i'd say that the ego cannot be annhilated or enhanced because it is as inherent to consciousness as heat is to flame. By definition, if you're conscious, you have an ego. What's really at issue is whether or not we can or should annhilate our assumptions about the solidity/validity of our ego-constructs. Quite obviously, we can choose to call our ego-constructs into serious question through various well-established spiritual practices like meditation, prayer, and psychedelics. Or we can fortify our ego-produced delusions about the nature of "ourselves" and "reality" by avoiding anything that might call our assumptions and constructs into question. In a former life, i found that several beers a night, television, and pumping nonstop noise and activity into the background of my life were powerful allies in fortifying my assumption that my ego-constructs were unshakeable Reality.

Garry T--if you've managed to wade through all this junk and gotten this far--i'd like to affirm what others on this list have said. The only answers to your questions and the only solutions to the problems you have identified are those that you yourself discover--through whatever means you choose. Psychedelics are powerful tools, but they are not panaceas. An 8 oz. cup of ayahuasca taken reverently won't automatically make you less fretful or wiser. Aya is a superb teacher, but the student has to do the actual work to advance to the next "grade." As Halfglass put it so well a few weeks back, "psychedelics go to work on who you are." i think they do that because they quickly and reliably distance the individual from his or her ego-constructs for a while. Therefore, they make it relatively easy to see how artificial they are and how self-deluding we tend to be. But no substance, synthetic or organic, can take you from this revelation to a stable mind, a generous and compassionate heart, and a useful productive life. Damn shame too! 'Cause cultivating those qualities will take courage, patience, a strong will, and hard work for the rest of our lives.

[hiosoy]

Hey Proteus, That was one of the best and most comprehensive definitions of the ego I've ever read. You seemed to cover all areas, but where do you think this fits in with events like astral projection, or stories of people on psychedelics forgetting themselves and actually being a leopard walking through a forest or whatever vision they happen to be having. These are phenomena that involve your consious going to other worlds where you previously have no strong conception of what they could be like. By your statement of if you're consious, you have an ego, going to the astral plane or something like that would blow away your ego's "unshakeable reality." Then with the stories of people on ayahuasca being a panther or some animal walking through the forest, but feeling like that panther, having that panther's inate urges and conception of the world, would do the same to your ego. Or other even more out there stories of feeling like a water molecule being sucked up through the ground and going through the process of photosynthesis. Unless that is exactly how you can throw your ego for a loop and realign yourself with this reality and the undeniable proof of other realities outside your own ego's too. Sorry if I missed something or confused anyone, I should probably have re-read your post again but it's late, I'm tired and my eyes are bitching at me to go to bed.

[daniel]

Proteus, quite a rundown.

Some thoughts of mine:

The Ego is a structure or container - and the form of that structure is constantly changing. Do Australian aboriginals have individualized Egos in the same way that we do? Do we have Egos in the same way that Parisians did in the Court of Louis XIVth or in the fin-de-siecle? Is the potential upcoming "transformation" also a shift in the Ego structure to a form that is somehow both individual and collective (telepathic, perhaps)?

Also the modern conception of the Ego is based on Freud and the notion of the Id, Ego, Superego, with repressed psychic material residing in the Unconscious. Both Gebser and Steiner believe that there is no such thing as the Unconscious - just different levels or strata of consciousness. What resides in the "Unconscious" is the former forms of consciousness which have been pushed away by the current "mental-rational" structure.

Schuon writes that the Sufis see the world as a play of "cosmic receptacles" and "Divine unveilings." You couldn't have an unveiling without a receptacle, shaped in some way to appreciate it. Hence the need for embodied and limited beings such as ourselves.

The Ego also seems like the psychic vehicle of one's karmic obstructions (the body is the physical vehicle of same). I often feel the limitations of the "Daniel Pinchbeck" mechanisms, though I understand (I think) why it is necessary to experience them.

[Nicole]

Wonderful post, Proteus. I may have to print that out.

I agree with you - I am hesitant about dichotomizing the world into binary oppositions like body and soul, matter and spirit, etc.
Without the intervention of consciousness, the world is an undifferentiated whole, and all opposites are simply our own mental constructions. However, I didn’t think it was possible (or even desirable) to completely rid ourselves of these mental constructions. After all, the screening mechanism of our consciousness (highlighting some parts and dismissing others) is what allows us to survive. If we were to go through life fully conscious of the Totality and not simply “parts,” we would die. We would not be able to even make basic decisions.

Precisely! Those are my thoughts!

I think the importance of mystical experiences, though, is not destroying one’s ego (which we agree is not even possible), but the recognition of the ego as a construct. To put it simply, it’s the realization that we’re working within a box without necessarily leaving the box.

“Ego” is often seen as dirty word within spiritual communities, but (as you said) it is what gives us the ability to produce meaning. What's the purpose of a mystical experience without the ability to extract meaning from it and fit it into the narrative of our life?

I would even add that this ego-filled post-trip assessment is just as important (perhaps more so) than the ego-less trip itself. It is not the substance or even the experience that changes people, but it is the integration of that experience into our everyday lives.

[Nicole]

Dammit. I really screwed that up.

The quote that should be in the blank space is:

"i'd say that the ego cannot be annhilated or enhanced because it is as inherent to consciousness as heat is to flame. By definition, if you're conscious, you have an ego."

Bear with me. I've never worked with this stuff before. :)

[sidecross]

"…it is as inherent to consciousness as heat is to flame…"

This is one of those analogies that wilt.

Heat is relative. At one millionth of a second after the "Big Bang" the temperature is 10 trillion degrees. Protons and antiprotons were dancing. Ego was yet to form.

Can anyone say that the Universe at one millionth of a second was not sentient?

The babble about ego is a human enterprise. In many ways it has fragmented us from being a part of the universe and nature itself.

[sire_012]

sidecross:
The babble about ego is a human enterprise. In many ways it has fragmented us from being a part of the universe and nature itself. so is ego (or the image/concept that is called 'ego', the idea and the worship of the individual as an important force in the world) simply the vehicle information uses to pursue itself? is it the self imposed ordering that belies one into thinking he/she is seperate from all else in order to continue the cycle of play? is ego that belief in a snapshot of an instant rather than the recognition that energy requires a ground in order to perpetuate? it seems the ego may be a tool, and that tool can at times get more credit than its due.

i have had a lot of fun partaking in my ego, although i have found personally that if effect on the world (which seems a pretty misguided assumption in and of itself) is what is desired, that ego is at times the greatest adversary to that. ego seems most effectively applied when offering it to someone else's preconceptions as a means to help them. as then it is fullfilling its role as conduit and not plugging itself back into the feedback loop of its own echoing bark.

[Nicole]

sidecross:

Can anyone say that the Universe at one millionth of a second was not sentient? Out of curiosity, what is your definition of "sentient"?

[Halfglass]

(I love the way these threads take off.) Proteus: Nice. Thanks. "...all beings and phenomena (are) It." This is what I have been led to. I recently discovered a chap from the 1700's, a philosopher named George Berkeley. In his "A Treatise concerning the Principals of Human Knowledge" (1710) he wrote: "...the observing mind of God makes possible the continued apparent existence of material objects." He goes on to say many things of course (he wasn't Christian BTW) which are in a nutshell, that mindless material substances exist only in our perception of them. There is no paradox in his view (called immaterialism) between the mind and body, because the body is the perception of the mind. This idea interests me by reason of direct experiences similar to what Woodpecker saw. Also: Where ego is concerned I've experienced it as Multi-Selves, an orchestra of selves causeing the sense of one man, by "becoming" (I was "shown" there was no nothing, as well as no something to "me" only an orchestra of Multi-Selves "becoming" --wrap that around your syntax I know). Also: Nicole, gotta watch the SSRI's, need to check erowid for mixing those with some chemicals. Also Daniel: I wonder what they meant by strata--if Gebser and Steiner meant Pantom selves I'd be in.

[ July 18, 2003, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[sidecross]

sire_012, using your idea of ego as tool, you have suggested some interesting definitions. Was Mother Theresa effectively using her ego as she comforted the dying in Calcutta? I don't know.

Nicole, regarding the definition of sentient - I am using the standard meaning found in any dictionary; nothing special.

[sire_012]

sidecross:
Was Mother Theresa effectively using her ego as she comforted the dying in Calcutta? i don't know if she was or not either, however i think her 'ego' or presumed ego has been caste upon the world culture to elevate many peoples actions above the typical drawl. whether she resigned inside a static image of herself or not, i would be willing to bet that she had a clear idea of the mother theresa certain people wanted to see and needed to see in order to escalate their own works of compassion to a level which otherwise may have not become.

[Nicole]

Halfglass:

Also: Nicole, gotta watch the SSRI's, need to check erowid for mixing those with some chemicals. From erowid:

www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_info9.shtml (http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_info9.shtml)

The evidence is not conclusive, but it may reduce toxicity if taken a few hours after the trip. I’ve never seen any reports of it being harmful.

Do you have any links?

(For the record, though, I‘ve never taken an SSRI in conjunction with MDMA.)

sidecross:

Nicole, regarding the definition of sentient - I am using the standard meaning found in any dictionary; nothing special. Something sentient is generally believed to be something that has consciousness. It is the general consensus that consciousness arises from the brain. In the absence of any brains, how could the early universe have been ‘conscious’? I asked because I suspect we’re working with different definitions of consciousness, and thus sentience as well.

[sidecross]

"…Something sentient is generally believed to be something that has consciousness. It is the general consensus that consciousness arises from the brain…"

The view you expressed is limited. If the Big Bang itself was not sentient, how could we with "brains" be?

The Universe is a continuing event; it is unfolding at this very moment. Your view was a popular one of the 17th century and Rene Descartes.

His bias was even more constrained. He felt animals did not have consciousness. The Pope & church upheld this view because they felt heaven would be overpopulated with animals that would have souls if they were conscious.

[ July 18, 2003, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: sidecross ]

[Nicole]

sidecross:

If the Big Bang itself was not sentient, how could we with "brains" be? I don't see how this argument holds water. That's like asking, "If there were no hearts at the beginning of the universe, how could it be that we have a heart?" Things develop and evolve with time. I believe that the universe became conscious with the evolution of sentient beings, but I don't see how "sentience" could have predated those beings. I'm not saying it definitely didn't, but I haven't seen any reason for me to think otherwise. You've stated that you think my beliefs are antiquated and limited, but you haven't explained why you hold your own belief.

{Additionally, though, the "Big Bang" theory is also being challenged lately.)

The Universe is a continuing event; it is unfolding at this very moment. Yes - that's exactly what I believe.

Your view was a popular one of the 17th century and Rene Descartes.
I think that's probably the only time I've ever been accused of that! I'd say that my perspective is closer to the polar opposite of the Descartes'. The idea of a mechanistic universe was thrown out with recent developments in quantum physics. And I know I've stated before that I dislike his division of mind/matter, body/spirit, etc. In fact, my undergraduate thesis was on precisely that topic - the incomplete and limited perspective of the Cartesian world view (and all forms of dualism).

I think consciousness is a fascinating topic, though, and one that we don't know much about. I'm always interested to hear other perspectives because I haven't formed very many convictions of my own. So...if you don't think consciousness arises from the brain, how do you think it is generated?

[Proteus]

i really want to think through the questions that hiosoy, Daniel, and others have raised, but i'm going to need a couple of days to sort them out & to develop a serious response.

Last Saturday, my aya experience took me as near the edge of ego extinction as i've ever been for nearly an hour (which is perhaps why i remember so little of this time and probably why the "ego" suddenly came roaring back, completely terrified and pleading with...whatever it was...for a break from the Absolute.) It's from this rather chastened, shaken position that my previous post emerged. And i thank each of you for prompting me to integrate this radically disorienting experience into whatever the "Proteus" mechanisms are and are becoming.

The "ego," whatever else it is--as Nicole has just emphasized--is also a practical necessity. Yet, it's far more permeable, mutable, and flexible than the kernal-of-individuality notion that Freud's theory assumes. (Or, for that matter, that is assumed in much of the Western tradition.)

William Blake is better at expressing the notion of a mutable, flexible self than i have so far managed to do. He speaks of the body being "a ratio of the senses five." Indeed he is adamant that the body and soul are the same thing--and that the body is simply the visible part of a much larger world. He writes of a pre-lapsarian world in which we were "fluxile"--able to expand and contract our senses infinitely and at will. He also seems to presuppose something like the Totality (or the Multi-selves that Halfglass mentions). Albion, his name for "God," is the one who falls from "Eden" (a mental state in which creativity is on-going and in which forms are constantly being brought forth, destroyed, and refashioned--if that doesn't sound like Tryptamine-enabled closed- and open-eye visuals, i don't know what does!). We were "in" Albion prior to the Fall and now perceive ourselves as "outside of" or separate from God (and each other).

So, let me add "fluxile" to our lexicon of terms that can describe the ego to account for its ability to "travel" (astrally or virtually as sometimes happens when taking Salvia, aya, and psycilocibin) and it's ability to "grow" to the point where it transcends (or seems to do) the confines of the individual's consensus-reality "self" and to become in some way part of the Totality or the Oversoul or whatever name one gives the inexpressibly polyvalent, multiple nature of our combined selves. Why can the ego seem to disappear, travel, or merge with objects? Maybe because it is "fluxile" & permeable in ways that Western philosophy has generally overlooked.

More soon--and, again, thanks for your generosity while i "process" so publically & for pushing me to clarify and refine my thinking. Right now anyway, figuring out such things as what the ego is and how it relates to the Whole seems to be an important part of "the Task" that those of us looking to a paradigm shift in the very near future have been given.

[paul]

nicole

you might like to check out the work of chandra bhose..who i,ve mentioned in previous posts...

he was the first scientist to work on the responses of plants to music, human interaction and the like (by measuring their bio- electrical fields)..the results are pretty conclusive..plants are definately conscious in some way

he went on to show the same with minerals, although i cant recall the details off the top of my head smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

[Nicole]

paul:

I can't find very much on Chandra Bhose. (The only thing I'm finding is Subhas Chandra Bhose, who was apparently the leader of the Indian Nazi party and I really don't think that's who you're referring to.) Do you have any links?

As for plant perception, I read this a few weeks ago and it seems to make the most sense to me:

http://skepdic.com/plants.html

I'm always open to other possibilities about consciousness and the universe, but it has to make some sort of sense to me before I can accept it.

[sidecross]

We are in the world of system theory when writing of consciousness; we have only models to write about.

If consciousness involves communication, then the recent experiments in quantum mechanic's dealing with entanglement must be discussed.

In these experiments sub-particles using lasers to split them and divide them over a long distance have shown that a communication between these particles was instantaneous. At these distances the communication pathways had to exceed the speed of light or were outside of the time-space continuum.

Einstein went to his grave trying to disprove this "action at a distance".

As far as changes in the Big Bang Theory, the only ones I am aware of are that the speed of expansion of the universe exceeds expectations, that light at the beginning of the Big Bang possibly was faster than the current speed of light, and that "dark energy" may be 60% of the universe along with the 30% of "dark matter". Also, planet formation occurred much earlier than previously thought. Is there something I have missed?

[Nicole]

sidecross:

Yes, but if consciousness has been thought to arise from the brain, and you propose a new idea where even brain-less life forms and objects have consciousness, wouldn’t you have to bring forth an entirely new theory of what consciousness consists of?

The burden of proof is on s/he who proposes the theory. That’s what I’m asking: if you think brainless life forms and objects are “conscious,” what does “consciousness” mean to you and by what mechanism does it work? Are you saying consciousness is simply “communication” in all forms?

Also, some theorists have proposed that the universe began not with a Big Bang, but with a Big Collision.

Here’s an interesting article I read last month. Some fascinating stuff!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

[sire_012]

proteus, i bow to your continued pursuit and your courage to work some of it out here amongst relative strangers! thanks for sharing this.

proteus:
Why can the ego seem to disappear, travel, or merge with objects? Maybe because it is "fluxile" & permeable in ways that Western philosophy has generally overlooked.for whatever its worth this seems to be an attempt at personifying the ego and giving it some material characteristics it doesn't appear to have. in my understanding the ego is born from the politics learned by an infant while trying to satiate their most primal needs. the ego is a set of responses, both passive and active, that seem effective to a child in acquiring their reptillian desires. that ego is the MO and the rhyme scheme the child uses to navigate his/her way through wants and needs, and the development of identity seems to be the outgrowth of the body politics learned in that process. if this is correct (and i *think* it is based upon my experiences and things i have read) than it doesn't strike me as too profound an idea to think we could not only annhilate the ego (although that does sound a bit pirate) but could actually float outside of this fairly basic robot script we adopted around our 18th month as an apparent individual on this planet.

[Halfglass]

Sire: The reptilian wants, scaled up to a being with self-reference--right--that's what I always think of with ego. The thing full of longings, the worrier, the storer of goods against the Last Day--thats the Ego. The real me I believe is something I call the Anti-Ego. Nicole: I thought I read some warnings somewhere about SSRIs, maybe it was, don't mix 'em with MAIO's (in which case aya would be out). I like benzos for coming off big doses. BTW you were talking about material vs. immaterial etc. Have you read about the bizarre paradoxes in the double-slit experiment in physics or non-location that sidecross mentioned? (Light will behave like a wave or a partical depending on if it is being observed--the person doing the experiment is part of the experiment, in it. The experiment isn't complete without the observer. It must be like a feedback loop. It looking at Itself. The universe is self-aware. You and I are that thing looking.)

[sidecross]

Nicole

Thanks for the reference to the article!

"…Yes, but if consciousness has been thought to arise from the brain, and you propose a new idea where even brain-less life forms and objects have consciousness, wouldn't you have to bring forth an entirely new theory of what consciousness consists of?…"

Only by the most narrow definition of "brain" can some life forms be described as "brainless".

The human and its science have been chasing after answers and have been continually changing their mind quite regularly since the written word. If it were not for all the widgets that technology brings forward, I think shamanism would have a revival.

I believe mainly in the mystery, and I need no developmental theory.

[hiosoy]

So by by this definition of the ego, all psychological problems would be caused by the ego's idea of it's rock solid surroundings being shattered by anything as small as a relationship breaking up to being thrown into other worlds by psychedelics and then not being able to re-invent and re-think it's theories. So if the ego couldn't remap it's theories in accordance with what the the mind now knows and holds in it's memory to be true. This would explain why hidden memories buried deep in your uncouncious somewhere that were never dealt with could still cause so much trouble. If you can remap your ego then maybe your ego wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions next time and would cause you to be a more open minded person. I guess I'm personifying the ego with qualities it may not have. Or am I separating things too much? Which brings me to another question, how do you think the best way to raise a child away from the ideas of limitations and the general dogma that we all grow up around, thanks to everything from TV to teachers to parents? What was that John Lennon thing about being in a creative lull?

[Halfglass]

Hiosoy: It seems to me that my ego continues to jump to conclusions even after I've beaten it to the likeness of a loose tooth wobbling in its socket. It runs from fright by endlessly putting up reason..."those Other could just be mind projections!" The Anti-Ego says: "Yes but remember how it searched us? Remember what it said--how convinced we were at the time?" "I know I know now stop scaring me, what's on TV?" Egocentric thoughts come in on the highway, say "...that bastard's cut me off! Who the F is he?" The Anti-Ego allows the thought to slip around that marble-in-the-hole (for if it dislodges completely all the marbles may fall? So a truce has been established.) The ego: "Ok, we'll let that go. I can deal with that much."

[ July 19, 2003, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[Nicole]

Halfglass:

You’re right about mixing SSRIs with MAOIs - that can lead to serotonin syndrome. I was only referring to MDMA, though – and as far as we know, combining MDMA with a post-dose SSRI is safe. (You wouldn’t want to take them at the same time, as the effects of the MDMA would likely be diminished or non-existent.) And, relatedly, you shouldn’t take MDMA with an MAOI.

Yeah, I’ve read about the double-split experiments. (Started reading this last year:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738204366/102-9565546-3040133?v=glance,

...but never finished it.)

“The universe is self-aware.” Yes, I agree with that because I think the universe is self-aware through us (or sentient beings).

When I say that I don’t think plants or objects have “consciousness,” this is likely to provoke a strong reaction in psychedelic/New Age communities because it seems that I’m implying that the universe is composed of stupid and sedentary “stuff.” And that is most emphatically not what I’m saying. Our universe has evolved from an unstable collection of hydrogen and helium into a highly complex pattern of self-organizing processes. This intelligence fascinates me, and it’s really at the heart of my religious search. While I think science and rationality are limited discourses, I do think they are useful tools that can guide us in our search for knowledge. I can say that my computer can’t “see” me because my computer does not have eyes. As far as we know, the purpose of our eyes is vision. Likewise, our brains are what produce perceptions, feelings, and awareness. (Granted, our brain is not a disembodied entity hanging in space. It is connected with everything that is. So, yes, in reality, I know there is no difference between “brain” and “rest of world,” or “subject” and “object,” but we need these divisions. They are not merely intellectual conveniences or linguistic abstractions, but they are also necessities that allow for our continued survival. Try hunting for food with no knowledge of “self” and “other.” But, strangely enough, some spiritual philosophies tend to look down upon these divisions as harmful, despite the fact that they are necessary. Why would an intelligent and ordered universe create a cerebral cortex that separates “myself” from “the rest of the universe” if it was not necessary and important? Do you see what I’m saying? I believe that religious or mystical experience is important because it reminds us that we are connected with the rest of creation – that we are not isolated life forms in an alien universe. Eventually, though, we must come back to “reality” with these new insights. I think one of those insights is that the structure of reality is completely our own mental perceptions. However, I don’t think we should rid ourselves of these mental perceptions. We can certainly expand our limited view, but we needn’t look upon our projections with disdain and contempt. It seems to me like a futile and undesirable attempt to transcend our nature. And, unlike many people, I don’t believe that our nature is corrupt or tainted because I don’t think the universe would have created such a being.

sidecross:

“Only by the most narrow definition of "brain" can some life forms be described as "brainless".”

Again, I think you are defensive about this because you’re assuming that I think other life forms are simply composed of brute and stupid matter (especially with the connotations of the word “brainless”). It may be a narrow definition, but I think we are all in agreement about what a brain is. I have a brain. My cat has a brain. The paper clip sitting on my desk does not have a brain. Thus, it is brain-less. Similarly, the plant in my office is composed of xylem cells. I, however, am not composed of xylem cells. I am xylem cell-less. If one states that our modern definition of “brain” is too narrow, one must have some new definition in mind, even if nebulous and unformed.


”I believe mainly in the mystery, and I need no developmental theory.”

Forgive me, but I just think this sounds too convenient and pardons you from explaining yourself.
You claim to have a theory (beings without brains are conscious), but then claim that you are opposed to theory. And while you may claim to be opposed to a system that defines and classifies reality, you’re engaging in one right now (writing English). Despite our prejudice against analyzing and theorizing, it is our nature (as beings with cerebral cortexes).

And, as an end note, I don't think that defining and classifying is the only way of interpreting reality. Admittedly, it erases some of the magic of "the mystery." But I think it's important to maintain a balance between magic and reason, and not simply embracing one side of the dichotomy.

[sire_012]

nicole:
So, yes, in reality, I know there is no difference between “brain” and “rest of world,” or “subject” and “object,” but we need these divisions. They are not merely intellectual conveniences or linguistic abstractions, but they are also necessities that allow for our continued survival. Try hunting for food with no knowledge of “self” and “other.” not to badger the point but i don't really agree with this. its my present understanding that we are a habitat of information exchanging impulses and pasing energy across these many hands and mouths that make up the universe.

it doesn't seem that there is any a priori need for seperation in order for an organism to exist and, in fact, that assumption of seperation seems like it could actually harm the organism rather than help it. as a child it may be perceived that a hand is acting outside of the will of the other hand or that child may not realize the reason its stomach is rumbling is because it is in need of sustenance. that is why parents stick around and assist children for (usually)their first 18 years. the parent has a sense of order and a coordination of self that the child, in its lack of experience, may not have and may need to survive. humans, it seems, may be in a similar position presently, still believing that they are seperate entities not realizing our conciousness' are tied to a singular intelligence (or perhaps several singular intelligences) and that our sense organs may just be one part of a nerve ending on this creation sending information across to a central processor. it would seem an understanding of our singularity and the symbiotic nature of existence may be quite helpful in learning to navigate this body in this world and that a belief in the need for seperation may simply be a clinging to an old model that was needed and effective previously, but now is ineffective and needs to be outgrown.

the one question i always come back to though is, if we are simply passing information or energy, acting as some vast capacitor hovering in nothingness, what exactly are we passing energy for? gurdgieff idea of us being moon food seems interesting and at least indicates his recognition of this seemingly aimless pulsing but it also seems to be falling a ways short assuming the asnwer to our tumbling is in this percieved reality. maybe we are just farming for different entitities in different dimensions and vice versa, but that seems like that is only symptomatic of the process as well. does anybody have any clearer ideas on this? i would love to hear them.

[Nicole]

sire:

I'm not sure I agree.

You're probably familiar with the neurophysiology of the subject/object merging experience. (Most people interested in such subjects have come across this.) Basically, an excessive amount of neural activity in the frontal lobe (the area of the brain responsible for attention and concentration) can cause a lack of sensory input to the parietal lobe. The parietal lobe is what orients the "self" in space and time. So the lobe then concludes that there are no boundaries to the self, resulting in the feeling of being "one with the universe."

This is a somewhat simplistic explanation of it, and please keep in mind that I don't think the experience is completely explainable by neurophysiology. (As Alan Watts said, a chemical description of a spiritual experience is somewhat like the chemical description of a great painting.)

My point, though, is that the parietal lobe (the area that orients the "self" in space and time) is a part of our physical body. The only way to escape subject/object division is to shut it down. Why do you think this area of the brain would exist if it wasn't useful? Do you think an "old model," a mere theory, led to the development of this integral part of our physical body?

Again, I do think it can be extraordinarily uself to realize that everything is connected and there is not actually a separate self. But this part of our brain that perceives "separate objects" also ensures our very survival. Ask any doctor specializing in neurophysiology. A person that has experienced damage to the parietal lobe suffers from a number of cognitive impairments, and often can't complete basic tasks like dressing themselves.

[sire_012]

nicole:

My point, though, is that the parietal lobe (the area that orients the "self" in space and time) is a part of our physical body. The only way to escape subject/object division is to shut it down. Why do you think this area of the brain would exist if it wasn't useful? Do you think an "old model," a mere theory, led to the development of this integral part of our physical body?i know you're being facetious with this question, but no, i don't think the 'old model' created the parietal mode, nor do i think the umbilical cord is useless to a fetus.

nicole:

But this part of our brain that perceives "separate objects" also ensures our very survival.
we're just going to keep disagreeing on this. tongue.gif i tend to think that this stratification could possibly kill us.

nicole:

Ask any doctor specializing in neurophysiology. A person that has experienced damage to the parietal lobe suffers from a number of cognitive impairments, and often can't complete basic tasks like dressing themselves. no doubt, i'm not calling on people to go out and destroy their parietal lobes, but perhaps with enough time and a continuing healthy investigation into what is and what seems to be we can render the parietal lobe a part of the body whose relevance is simply an artifact of the past.

what appears to exist now shouldn't dominate our expectations of what may occur in the future. i think we've been given glimpses into new limbs and muscles and methods of thinking that, should we excersise them appropriately, could become a great advantage in years to come. to try and isolate these experiences into current models that are themselves a bit tennuous seems to sell the potential of evolution a bit shy.

[Nicole]

Yes, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I really don't think we can one day dismiss the entire parietal lobe as an "artifact of the past" anymore than we can get rid of our heart and continue living. If you have no separate concept of "shoe," you cannot put on your shoe. If your brain cannot distinguish between "mouth" and "rest of world," you cannot eat. If you constantly see the world as an undifferentiated whole, you cannot move and function within it. Even using language is separating reality into parts, defining and classifying. Do you think language will eventually be a thing of the past?

From a very early age, my frustration with traditional religion was that it always endeavored to "rise above" this reality. Christianity (and other dualistic philosophies) have always seen the material world as inferior and profane, a mere stepping stone until we reached some mythical paradise. I am bothered by these philosophies that attempt to transcend a supposedly "inferior" nature. I always knew that my own philosophy would have to revere THIS world as sacred, in all its imperfect glory. I suppose this is why I connect so well with Zen. It's really the only thing that's ever made much sense to me. It is what's here in front of me that I find sacred, not only the experiences generated by sensory deprivation or meditation or pharmacological agents.

"There is a sacredness which is not of thought, nor of a feeling resuscitated by thought. It is not recognizable by thought nor can it be utilized by thought. Thought cannot formulate it. But there's a sacredness, untouched by any symbol or word. It is not communicable." - Krishnamurti

[sire_012]

nicole:

Do you think language will eventually be a thing of the past?oh yes!

good luck on your travels!!!

smile.gif

[sidecross]

Nicole

I do not feel the need to explain myself further. The arguments you have made can easily be dealt with by an understanding of Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Godel, who was a contemporary of Einstein and a friend showed and proved that within any system you can not prove that system. For example, he proved that using mathematics; two plus two equals four can not be proved!

In the same way using consciousness to prove consciousness is incomplete.

I will say again from an intuitive point of view that conscious homosapiens could not develop from an unconscious universe. If you believe that an acorn that grows to a giant sequoia does not have consciousness, you are welcome to that belief.

[Nicole]

sidecross:

Please keep in mind that I am not attempting "to prove you wrong." I am on a search for answers and I am interested to hear your view so that I can progress further in my search.

All I was asking is what you meant by "consciousness" and where this consciousness comes from.

In many ways, I also think Truth cannot be reached through analysis. I went to see a Hindu swami speak a few years ago, when I was in college. I have a pamphlet that he gave me - I've always liked this passage:

"The human race has been trained to use the mind to think rationally and logically. The mind has been trained to process, analyze and synthesize all available data and to arrive at logical conclusions. If one's reasoning were to be followed up and taken to its logical conclusion, then such a reasoning mind would finally arrive at a profound realization, namely the inherent futility involved in all intellection. Intellection takes one nowehere that is to say, the intellect itself would reveal the futility of any further intellection and become quiescent and calm. That is the maturing of the human mind, for having understood the panaroma of life it becomes tranquil. Such a mind is on the threshold of a higher realization, being ready to step beyond its limitations as a thinking and processing mind."

...

"Even in metaphysical circles the world over, people are caught or trapped in their respective metaphysics. Each and every doctrine is derived from a mental process or activity. Following a doctrine is to be entangled with the action of processing words into ideas and doctrines. The true comprehension of a truth-doctrine is to eventually lead one to a state of being or awareness wherein there is no doctrine to follow or subscribe to. When one gains an insight into this, then one can step over any doctrines and what they represent and grasp that which the doctrines were meant to reveal. If we cling to any doctrine we miss the point, and since the whole point has been missed, people passionately hold on to their doctrine-based beliefs resulting in a state of worldwide doctrinal discord.

A doctrine is like a finger pointing at the moon. Once the object it points at has become clear, it becomes silly and futile to still cling on to the finger - the indicator in this instance. To be truly religious, one must grow out of religion or rise above all conventional theologies and metaphysical doctrines.

The wise never dispute, for there is nothing to dispute over. The wise are judiciously silent about entering into doctrinal disputes of any order. Stepping beyond the thought-structure, the threshold of language to no-language is crossed, and that is why the wise become wisely mute and silent.

In the silence of the mind, the Truth is discerned. Hence, it is folly to seek for the Truth outside of the mind. Nirvana is in the mind - so is samsara. That is the magic; enlightenment is in the mind, so is the world."

-- from MIND AND THE STATE OF NO-MIND, by Swami Yogeshwarananda

[Halfglass]

Sire you said: "Does anybody have any clear ideas on this?" (You mean the idea of our thoughs as food for some Other?) I am interested in direct experience and the closest I've come to "seeing" something like that is when I was searched by the Crab-Faced organic/metallic Other in high dose trances (they drift about in The Hive, and seem to give way to me these days). There is a clearly defined interaction with Other for those who've encountered it. (That's why I returned Dan Murker's book "The Ecstatic Imagination" after only reading the forward--the bloody bastard never tripped!--and it's a book on psychedelics--what's he gonna tell me?) I am only willing (or stupid enough) to enter these states like a naturalist on a new planet. I don't take with me don Juanian "Flyers" doing the thinking. What I did see on several trips was the same human awareness pouring into an electric/plasma pool through fissures in the walls of thought/dirt. I would need to do a whole report to really explain what was happening, but the gist, as I'm sure someone's getting tired of hearing is, whatever Aliens there be, humanity has its own thing Over There. It's a word that's been chucked on the yesteryear scrap heap--no not far-out or groovy but...Oneness. (We've forgotten our Itness.)

[ July 21, 2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[hiosoy]

I agree with Nicole on that whole argument especially the part of this reality being just as important as the more spiritual ones. The idea of separation does seem like a much needed thing, same as the idea of our limited perception towards all that is going on. Our ears have evolved to the point where we mainly hear around certain frequencies because they are the areas that the human voice sends out, but imagine we could hear endless frequencies, all the different noises animals and insects make that we can't hear now, and at the same time see all that is happening on other planes, not to mention smell and touch, would our brains be able to deal with it at all? Although I do think that language will one day be a thing of the past (providing we don't destroy the planet before this can happen), I've read of accounts where people have spoken almost full conversations telepathically, using symbols and pictures, and occasionally making strange grunting noises. Which seems like a much more straightforward way of communicating. A way that seems more closely linked to emotion, which would eliminate the confusion of language, the "I didn't mean it like that" moments. I agree with you about how our true nature isn't corrupt, our human nature now, ruled by emotions like jelousy and greed above most others, that's a different story, which I've heard chalked up to people's lack of spiritual energy, but who knows. I've never read a zen book, can you suggest a good book that theorises the need for this plane, but the use for the planes psychadelics and magick can show you too. Last of all it was nice to see a disagreement about a topic like this settled the way you and sire settled yours without someone declaring a JIHAD of some sort.

[Nicole]

hiosoy:

I've never read a zen book, can you suggest a good book that theorises the need for this plane, but the use for the planes psychadelics and magick can show you too. I would recommend An Introduction to Zen Buddhism by D.T. Suzuki, one of my favorite books. Zen is not a theory or an ideology. It would not offer a perspective on anything because it claims no perspective. However, sometimes the practice of Zen and the intentions of the philosophy are quite different. (I’m struggling with my words here, because Zen would claim no “intentions.”) Put simply, it might be described as the direct experience of this moment, with no theories or words that seek to conceptualize and define it.
As Alan Watts quipped, “Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes.” It is the here-and-now, what’s happening right in front of you.
As you might imagine, though, it is difficult to put a philosophy into words that contends that words are useless! Sometimes it is a bit difficult to grasp because we are trained to think logically and rationally, and you cannot understand Zen through these means. It is not a mental abstraction. And Zen would claim there is nothing to "grasp" at all!

I don’t know of any books that specifically talk about Zen and psychedelics, although I know quite a few books about Buddhism in general and psychedelics. (Zen is simply one school of thought within Buddhism.) Officially, Buddhism discourages the use of mind-altering plants and chemicals. There is an excellent book called Zig Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics (edited by Alan Hunt Badiner) that explores the conflict between the “official” stance of Buddhism and the actual experiences of practitioners, though. (Many people claim that they were led to Buddhism as the result of a psychedelic experience.)

I don’t think I’ve ever read anything on magick. Perhaps you can recommend something to me!

[Nicole]

One more recommendation that I forgot:

_This Is It: And Other Essays on Zen and Spiritual Experience_ by Alan Watts

Wonderful book!

[Morninggloryseed]

Mescaline or mushrooms if you want to keep it natural. If you don't mind synthetics, I'd go for MDMA, 2C-B, or 2C-C. All are very gentle and won't push you too far. 2C-C is especially gentle.

[ July 24, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Morninggloryseed ]

[hiosoy]

Hey Nicole thanks, I think I'll start with that one by Alan Watts. I can suggest a good website on magick, takes you through 8 small lessons to get the basic idea down. Then you could probably read "magick with out tears" by Aleister Crowley, it's a series of letters from Crowley to a student of his. I've heard Rudolf Steiner's "Theosophy: An introduction to the spiritual process in human and in the cosmos" is really good, I haven't read it yet." Do you know anything about that tao's ideology?

[hiosoy]

sorry I meant taoists, and has anyone tried hawaiian baby woodrose seeds?

[Nicole]

hiosoy:

Thanks. Do you have the address for that website?

Tao (pronounced Dow) translates roughly into English as the path or the way . Like Zen, it escapes definition and must be experienced. It's based on the Chinese text the Tao te Ching by Lao Tse. In a basic sense, it involves harmony with nature and the reconciliation of opposites (good/evil, etc.). You're probably familiar with the Taoist Yin Yang symbol that embodies this idea.

Alan Watts has written a few books on Taoism as well. I haven't read one of them, but he incorporates Taoist ideas into almost all of his works.

[hiosoy]

Ya sorry I just realised i didn't give you the adress...

http://mysteria.com/magick/course.html

Ya I am familiar with the yin and yang symbol, it's actually my favorite symbol, I've been thinking a lot about dualities lately, so this zen book should be perfect right now.

[Proteus]

I really don't think we can one day dismiss the entire parietal lobe as an "artifact of the past" anymore than we can get rid of our heart and continue living. If you have no separate concept of "shoe," you cannot put on your shoe. If your brain cannot distinguish between "mouth" and "rest of world," you cannot eat. If you constantly see the world as an undifferentiated whole, you cannot move and function within it. Even using language is separating reality into parts, defining and classifying. Do you think language will eventually be a thing of the past?Nicole, i have appreciated your articulate, engaged, and thoughtful posts these past weeks. i admire your obvious passion and intellectual rigor as well as your tact and generosity of spirit when dealing with those who disagree with you. Obviously we're all groping toward workable answers to BIG questions on this list and your notions have certainly helped me and others think some of this stuff through. In that spirit, let me challenge a couple of your claims & see whether or not they'll whet our mind-blades a bit further.

You say that "If you have no separate concept of 'shoe,' you cannot put on your shoe" and that "If you constantly see the world as an undifferentiated whole, you cannot move and function within it." Really? Does your actual performance of this daily task usually include a conscious thought about your "I" and the word "shoe." Do YOU literally think "me" and "shoe" when slipping on a pair?

Probaby not. i'm guessing that most people don't make a strong distinction between I and It at such a moment. i daresay that most of us don't actually give such oft-repeated tasks more than a split-second's actual thought. What conscious thoughts we do have are most likely about the activity to be performed (e.g. "better get the black shoes," "need to get the strap over the heel") rather than a strong statement distinguising I from It. Maybe it's just me, but don't most folks perform such routine tasks as putting on their shoes or driving their cars as their discursive minds wander the paths of free association? (i'd distinguish "discursive mind" from the kind of consciousness it takes to tie up your laces or activate your turn signal even as the discursive mind begins thinking of what it's going to say at a breakfast meeting in an hour.) We are often mentally "absent" from the activity of a given moment like this. So i think it's a bit too simple to say that we have to conceptualize an object in order to perform such rudimentary tasks. If you can concede that much, then i think you have to concede that we really don't need a subject/object distinction to function--at least not at a conscious level. Though i'd be the first to admit that we need such a distinction in order to discuss and analyze such activities--or even to conduct basic transactions with others.

Since we're engaged in the paradoxical activity of distorting our experience of reality with language and creating arbitrary distinctions in order to better understand the world around us, let me insist on a couple such distinctions now. Thinking, "better get my shoes on." isn't the same thing as putting them on. Seeing a shoe and putting it on doesn't necessarily entail a subject/object concept--or at least not on any conscious level. Shoes and feet, most of the time, are mutally defining to such a degree that one can scarcely speak of one--or see one--without instantly being aware of the other. Isn't that the same thing as functioning as though the world were an undifferentiated whole? No strong sense of I/It, just doing the task at hand?

Many of our daily activities and the "objects" that support them are likewise mutually defining--and the protocols for using them are so deeply ingrained that they require almost no thought whatsoever. Mind is operating at some level during routine tasks, but the ego (the function of mind that constructs a separate self to "star" in a narrative about a carefully selected sequence of experiences) is scarcely engaged.

Similarly, you say "If your brain cannot distinguish between 'mouth' and 'rest of world,' you cannot eat." Again, i'd ask whether that formulation accurately reflects your actual experience? When was the last time you paid more than casual and fleeting attention to the texture, aroma, temperature, sound, or even taste of your food?

Since you broached the "Z-word," we could consider how important it is in Zen tradition to cultivate mindfulness--to wake up in the present moment. Thich Nat Hahn, the famous Vietnamese Zen priest & peace activist, conducts mindfulness seminars where he asks participants to peel and eat an orange so thoughtfully, attentively, and gratefully that the last wedge of each person's orange isn't consumed for more than an hour.

Why does he do this? Because we not only don't attend to such things as "mouth" and the "rest of the world" in order to eat, we need to be trained in order to pay much attention to the act at all. He and Buddhist teachers in all kinds of traditions teach their students how to eat, walk, and work mindfully because they know that it takes a great deal of patient practice and dedicated training to be truly awake. But we're not waking up to an idea about "I" over here and "object" over there in order to function. Rather, by the time one has mastered mindfulness, one has also learned that to be truly mindful is to transcend the subject-object distinction as often as possible in order to taste the infinite delights of unmediated experience.

But i do hear you saying that it's not either/or here. It's not that the ego-function that generates the subject-object distinction isn't necessary for certain things--or even that it's a necessary evil until we someday find ourselves in the sweet by and by. IMHO, the paradoxical facts of the matter are that we seldom experience self (or ego or subject or whatever) apart from the so-called objects around us when we interact with them. Yet, we experience the subject-object distinction quite pungently when discussing or analyzing our activities--or comparing our activities to those that we observe others involved in. To do that--and there are definitely benefits to doing so--we must create an "I" and an Other or a Thing separate from that "I" in order to keep agency and action straight.

Too right that Zen spirituality isn't thinking about enlightenment (or God) while peeling potatoes but about just peeling potatoes! Nor is Zen spirituality about thinking about peeling potatoes while peeling potatoes. It's about attending calmly to the activity of peeling in an attitude of no-mind. The master spud-parer is clear in her mind, deftly sliding the peeler over the skin until the surface is free of peel. The novice thinks "peeling, peeling, peeling." The master simply peels. No fanfare, no furrowed brow, no goal, no thoughts. Any discussion of whether the master uses a specific techique with the paring knife or thickness of the peelings or how many potatoes are needed to feed the Sangha the morning meal are added to the experience after the fact. There is no subject or object during the act--only during the discussion of the act.

[Nicole]

Proteus:

Thanks. I enjoy these discussions as well. I can’t exactly discuss such things around the water cooler at work, so it’s nice to have a forum like this.

Hmm…I don’t think there’s really much to contest here. I didn’t mean that we had to separate “shoe” and “rest of world” consciously. (Surely, that would make life problematic as well if we were constantly conceptualizing every mundane task throughout the day!) What I meant is that we separate the world into parts on a much more basic and fundamental level – a level that isn’t necessarily conscious. (Are we consciously beating our hearts or breathing? No – we just do it.) I would again move back to the parietal lobe and its function. Even if you don’t consciously think, “this is my shoe and I’m putting it on,” your brain is able to distinguish your shoe from your jacket – and, similarly, your shoe from the rest of the world. If you run into someone you know, there is a flash of recognition, and you are able to separate that person from Joe Bob next to them, and similarly from the rest of the world. This is how our brain works. This is how we are able to move and function within this undifferentiated whole. That’s what I meant. Am I making sense here? It’s not easy to articulate this.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t cultivate mindfulness and encourage less conceptualization while we go about our daily lives. Although, I might ask, why do we value this behavior as ‘better’? Is it because it makes us happier or calmer? And this seeking for contentment or happiness – is that not a function of the ego?

I’ve been reading Krishnamurti lately and finding him fascinating. He addresses some of these issues.

By the way, hiosoy, thanks for the link. I’ve printed out the lessons on magick; hopefully, I’ll get around to it this week.

[Halfglass]

Proteus and Nicole: Check out PhD. V.S. Ramachandran's "Phantoms in the Brain" (1999) for a cool and sometimes disturbing look at the Multi-Selves involved in making up the sense of self. (Read about the woman who died laughing, or the guy who thought his parents were replacements and not the originals, or the "blind" man who can still "see" but isn't able to discribe anything--then there's the woman with such a skewed denial circuit that she swears her left arm is not hers, and all these people are perfectly sane otherwise!) Also a book I think has been underrated to some degree, PhD. Amit Goswami's "The Self-Aware Universe" where he tackles dualism (via quantum physics) better than anyone ever has IMHO.

[ August 01, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[Nicole]

Thanks for the recommendations!

I've read an article by Amit Goswami before, although I can't recall where.

[Proteus]

Halfglass: Good suggestions; your notions about the Multi-Self have quite a bit of resonance with my own experiences. It definitely isn't as simple as the "atomistic" model of the self that we inherit from 19th c. psychology & the Western Philosophic tradition.

Ever read any of the Seth materials? Many of the books are transcriptions of an entity (Seth) "channeled" by a psychologist, Jane Roberts. Lots of talk there about how each of us is but a single aspect of a much more complex, multi-personalitied "self." Indeed lots of talk about the illusions produced by existence in space-time, mind-trapping dogmas, and ego-centricism.

Nicole: You ask, more or less, "why do we value the no-mind "state" over an ego-centered one." Why is it "better?" Since we're speaking of such things in Buddhism's terms, it's easier to answer in such terms. It's not that it's better to view the world without the attachments to various thoughts or experiences (including the construction we call "I"); rather, it's that no-mind is the inherent state of Mind. i guess you could say it's better to see things as they are without the distortions of the ego warping their appearence; but, since this kind of no-mind state is usually depicted as the sky and such "mental formations" as birds which pass through without a trace, it seems off somehow to describe either bird or sky as better. As phenomena, they are interdependant and co-arising.

Been reading in a cool new practitioner's journal recently (Buddhadharma) and came across the following descriptions of the various issues of Mind/mind, Self/self, etc. that have preoccupied us on this thread. Here, the late Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche presents a view that pictures the "I" or little-s "self" or "ego" as a manifestation of

"Thoughts are the play of pure awareness. They arise within it and dissolve back into it."

Blind to the true nature of Mind (i.e. "pure awareness"), "we fixate on thoughts, which are nothing other than the manifestations of their nature. Pure awareness becomes frozen into solid concepts such as 'self' and 'other,' desirable' and 'repulsive,' and many more."

"Emptiness, the ultimate nature of [pure awareness], the absolute dimension, is not a mere nothingness. It has a luminous cognitive aspect that knows all phenomena and that manifests spontaneously. ["Pure awareness"] is not the product of causes and conditions; it is the original nature of the mind."

[Halfglass]

Proteus: I've heard of the Seth entity but never read anything on it. For the most part I haven't given much credit to channeling--I'm very much a direct experience kinda person. Of course if I tell the average person what I do believe, (have experienced) (the Other is real, leaving he body is real, realms in the trip/trance are real etc.) they'd think I believe in anything. But who knows? Although channelers can easily make it up, maybe there onto something? (I keep seeing that twit "The Pet psychic" in my head.) What do you think about Jane Roberts? What is she saying (not how she's acting) that makes her seem like she's being talked through? Also: Can you relate some of your experiences with MultiSelfism?

[Nicole]

Proteus:

“i guess you could say it's better to see things as they are without the distortions of the ego warping their appearance…”

My only question is: why?

I hope you don’t think me difficult for being the proverbial child that’s always asking, “But whyyy, Mommy? WHY?” As you might imagine, I was given the answer “Because I said so” quite frequently when I was younger.

I liked the quotes you presented and, in many ways, I agree and feel the same way. Beyond this, though, there is always the question “why.” I cannot get rid of it and I don’t suppose I want to, as I enjoy this search for Truth. (Masochistic tendencies.) If I’ve learned anything on my search, it’s to always question my own (and others’) assumptions, even when they appear obviously correct. I’ve also learned that this tends to frustrate other people. Virtually everyone has their epistemological ‘stopping point’ where they cease questioning and say, “Ah, this is what I believe.” I don’t really have one. So I hope you bear with me and don’t find me too difficult.

But I digress…

So what is this search for our true nature, for ultimate reality, for the ego-less state of no-mind? What is propelling the search – is it the ego? The desire to rid ourselves of "distortions of the ego" – doesn’t this clearly imply a value judgment that one mental state is more desirable than another? And what should we make of this when Zen tells us that satori is free of all value judgments, of all either/or dichotomies? It seems rather paradoxical.

Keep in mind that all these questions are coming from someone that has Buddhist tendencies, meditates daily, and has very specific ideas about what is “better” and what is “worse.” Nevertheless, the ever-persistent “why” remains and I always question my own beliefs and motivations. Why meditate? Why seek? Why anything at all?

[Proteus]

Halfglass: i don't quite know what to make of the Seth entity or Jane Roberts either. Like you, i prefer to validate such things through my own experience & i simply haven't been "there"--not channeler nor in the presence of one who claims to be doing so. But, to be fair, Seth/Roberts has had important and positive impact on my spiritual search.

The first instance was fairly direct. My uncle, a former psychologist, was taking a year's sabbatical, conducting research into occult phenomena. Basically a wild cross-country road trip from his home in Minnesota to mine in California and back. Visited every palm reader, psychic, and occult bookstore/gathering he could find along the way. By the time he arrived in CA, he was very into Seth & showed me the first book. Maybe you've seen it? It contains many pictures of Roberts in trance, her face considerably changed from her normal, sort of frumpy house-frau psychotherapist in cat-eye glasses thing. He also had tape recordings of her and, no doubt about it, she did seem to change personality completely when Seth was doing the talking. And, man!, can that dude talk! The transcripts indicate an hour or more for some sessions.

That was when i was 16. My uncle's enthusiasm sparked (for the first time) an intense desire in me to explore the spiritual. i don't know why, but i never really got into the Seth Materials beyond a fascination with the "spooky" seeming idea that someone could be "possessed." (Remember, this was when i was 16 & the Exorcist had just been released to theaters.) But the enthusiasm for spiritual exploration has never waned. So, Seth "touched" me in that important way nearly 30 years ago.

Unbeknownst to me, my present wife was reading all the Seth books like they were the word of God at about the same time. It would be fair to say that Seth's ideas have been the biggest single influence in her own spiritual development to date. So, it was quite a surprise to me that, after nearly forgetting all about my teenage experience with Seth, to meet and fall in love with someone who knew these materials very well. During our early courtship she read to me for hours from some of his books.

Got to admit it, i had a great deal of trouble taking it very seriously at the time (about 7 years ago now). i mean, there really aren't entities and channeling is New Age cornpone, right? However, it's amazing how some of the statements she read to me about multi-selves and existence outside of time resonate today!

My own sense of the multi-self isn't as pronounced as yours seems to be. My most direct experience of it has been through aya when my "self" has seemed to dissipate into a much larger consciousness. My sense during these times is that the Totality is all minds--and all things. That is, that i have felt myself recede into all minds and all things to the point that "Proteus" seems just another absurd and distant idea among many. i have also had the sense that what one "self" experiences has a ripple effect throughout the Totality.

At one time, it was palpable that each entity, no matter how small or insignificant-seeming, was vital to the perfect functioning of the Totality. At some level, we think through one another, see through one another, suffer through one another, take delight through one another.

Is this the Hivemind you speak of? It certainly could be. As i've read your descriptions of your various DXM travels, something about them seems familiar--but i can't quite put my finger on a vision or experience that corresponds directly to them. Certainly my own experience of my "self" is such that i recognize multiple personnas: the teacher self, the student self, the parent self, the child self, the husband self, the gardener self, the tripper self, the Buddhist self, etc. These forms appear and disappear as causes and conditions make necessary and are at some level "me." At another level, though, these selves feel distinct to me. Their motives aren't identical. Their actions and ways of manifesting to others aren't identical.

i also wouldn't be surprised to find other dimensional selves related to the Proteus entity. But, so far, haven't experience that one.

[Proteus]

Nicole: Sounds like "why" is your koan. My own is closer to "what" than "why." What is THIS? What is the nature of this reality? What is the mind that asks this question?

Seems like either approach, if pursued whole-heartedly, would prove useful tools for keeping onself intently focused on discovering his or her own nature and the nature of reality.

Why is knowing the true nature of reality better than a delusive view of it? Beats the hell out of me! Both conditions are painful in their own ways. Billions of people go to bed each night and sleep soundly without ever having asked themselves if what they take for "normal" or "reality" is anything more than a fabrication, a convenient way of avoiding having to think too much. Millions of people who do ask those questions go to bed slightly queasy and disoriented because they know that there is absolutely no permanent ground upon which they can build a fixed "self" through which to understand all things "rightly." So, living in delusion certainly does work--at least at the level of sustaining a relatively comfortable existence in the midst of bewildering ontological questions and frightening intimations of worlds and things lurking just beyond the range of our vision.

My own sense is that "why" is likely to prove a less durable tool for discovery than "what." That's because one cannot provide an ultimate answer to the why question. Every cause, has its root in yet other causes ad infinitum. Why did he hurt me? Because he was mean. Why was he mean? Because he was mistreated as a child. Why was he mistreated as a child? Because his parents were mean, etc., etc.. Thus, i reason, one cannot arrive at a satisfying answer to the ultimate "why" of it all. One can, however, patiently study and eventually arrive at a satisfying answer to "what" a thing is.

Life is short and each of us has only so much energy. i'm throwing mine away on the "what" question because i believe i have a realitively good chance to get some answers that satisfy my craving for answers. Selfish dog!

[Woodpecker]

Seems to me that even the "What" question has infinite dimensions to it. But--whatever gets you through the night! Peace.

[hiosoy]

Seems to me that the 'why' and the 'what' can lead into eachother, if you know the 'why' of say why we're all here, then that may help explain 'what' this is for. Same for the other way if you can find the 'what' this is, you may be able to find out 'why' we're here in it. To me it makes more sense to start with the 'what' through spiritual exercises, then the 'why' will come. Nicole when you asked why it's better to look at something with out the distortions of the ego, I'd say it's better to look at something as many ways as you can. Without the distortions and desires of the ego that can bend your thoughts about something a way you that's not necessarily true, but rationalises well with your earthly ego's wants. To see the bare bones it with no judgements. Also to look at it with the ego's wants and have knowledge of both to decide which is this best path for you to take, since you'll go with your ego.

[Nicole]

Proteus:

The past few years has led me away from searching for Ultimate Answers and more towards questioning my search – and what drives and motivates it. When I was reading Krishnamurti, it became clear to me that it is the ego that dominates this search. We want stability in the midst of instability, a resting place in the midst of constant motion. This provides comfort.

But, as you said:

…there is absolutely no permanent ground upon which they can build a fixed "self" through which to understand all things "rightly. I agree!

You also said:

One can, however, patiently study and eventually arrive at a satisfying answer to "what" a thing is. Isn’t this seeking a “permanent ground,” though, which we determined to be an impossibility? My own search for Truth is paradoxical in this way. “The search for Truth” implies that it’s something to be arrived at – a final and static point in an otherwise dynamic world. I realize the utter futility in such a search, and yet I’m driven by it. I don’t think I’m going to get there with “why” or “what” or anything in between, because I don’t think there’s anywhere to “get”! So I see the search as almost pathological in a way.

Hiosoy:

“I'd say it's better to look at something as many ways as you can.”

It is my intention to question why anything is better than anything else at all. What are we seeking? What is our ultimate goal? And what underlies this search – not only our conscious motivations, but our unconscious ones as well? Rather than say “this way is better because of this,” I’m interested in exploring why I think that. I want to explore the depths of my own mind - not trying to find a Truth outside of it, but examine why I am searching for Truth in the first place.

[sire_012]

i think the nature of "why" actually implies an expectation of a static answer, a cause, and that is how it is driven into an infinite series of unanswerable questions, ultimately becoming exhausting and not exhaustable. "why" expects a "because" and when you're chasing through this reality it seems to become clear fairly quickly that there is no because... searching for a because is like trying to dress your reflection in a pond. its naming that which can't be named. but "what" seems to be asking a more phenomenological question, a question of immediate and experential data. what is this table made from: formica. and then you could chase that into the chemical breakdown of formica. "why was this table made" is asking more a question of intent which seems a bit more elusive in the scape of human activity.

even though i've never been surfing in my life, the methaphorical power of surfing seems very present in this discussion. drifting through a sea of information until you find a pattern that seems to generate some degree of stimulation in that field, nodes of information exponentially feeding one another into something that can be stood upon momentarily and carry the vessel until it loses its vitality and validity and you dip back down into that big puddle of noise. good fun.

peace

[sidecross]

Either a continual "why" or "what" might call for bop over the head by a Zen Roshi!

[Nicole]

Either a continual "why" or "what" might call for bop over the head by a Zen Roshi! Yes – I agree! That was why I said I thought it was somewhat pathological. And yet I continue – probably until I’ve exhausted all my mental energy. Right now, it’s what's behind the "why" and the "what" that I find most interesting – asking those questions at all implies that you are seeking an answer. And an “answer” implies a stable, static point – something that I don’t even necessarily believe exists.

It is probably an intellectual neurosis of some sort.

[Woodpecker]

What is an intellectual neurosis? OW! Tell that Zen Roshi to knock it off!

There's a scene in a Dickens novel in a schoolroom. The teacher asks the new girl, "What is a horse?" She thinks and thinks, figuring it must be a trick question. Her mind fills with memories of the farm, the smell of the horses, their breath on winter mornings. The teacher calls on another student. He jumps to his feet and gives the correct answer: "Horse! Quadrupedal ungulate! Used for agriculture and transportation!" You get the picture. So what is a horse?

One thing can be defined in many ways.

Quiz question: Which of the following is known in the Ecuadorian Andes as "The poor man's x-ray"?

a) guinea pig
b) ayahuasca
c) lightning bolt
d) candle

Answer at the bottom of this post.

The poet Wallace Stevens wrote this poem, perhaps, as a way to approach a definition of a blackbird:

Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird

I
Among twenty snowy mountains,
The only moving thing
Was the eye of the blackbird.

II
I was of three minds,
Like a tree
In which there are three blackbirds.

III
The blackbird whirled in the autumn winds.
It was a small part of the pantomime.

IV
A man and a woman
Are one.
A man and a woman and a blackbird
Are one.

V
I do not know which to prefer,
The beauty of inflections
Or the beauty of innuendoes,
The blackbird whistling
Or just after.

VI
Icicles filled the long window
With barbaric glass.
The shadow of the blackbird
Crossed it, to and fro.
The mood
Traced in the shadow
An indecipherable cause.

VII
O thin men of Haddam,
Why do you imagine golden birds?
Do you not see how the blackbird
Walks around the feet
Of the women about you?

VIII
I know noble accents
And lucid, inescapable rhythms;
But I know, too,
That the blackbird is involved
In what I know.

IX
When the blackbird flew out of sight,
It marked the edge
Of one of many circles.

X
At the sight of blackbirds
Flying in a green light,
Even the bawds of euphony
Would cry out sharply.

XI
He rode over Connecticut
In a glass coach.
Once, a fear pierced him,
In that he mistook
The shadow of his equipage
For blackbirds.

XII
The river is moving.
The blackbird must be flying.

XIII
It was evening all afternoon.
It was snowing
And it was going to snow.
The blackbird sat
In the cedar-limbs.

Answer to quiz question: guinea pig.

[Nicole]

I have always loved that poem.

[Halfglass]

Proteus: My first encounter with occult was an old Edgar Case book when I was about 14. About The Hive--I went on that DXM "study" last winter. For whatever reason I decided to give it a whirl. I couldn't believe what began to happen to me. I was navigating around by way of my third eye into Apartments of the Dead. Literally! (Very human feeling wareness pervades.) There are regions of school/apartment catacombs, chrome covered electric living "appliances" and "funiture" all made out of the same living plasma/metal/organic/thought-mud. There swarms insect-faced Other, sometimes floating in to search/probe your being. All is REALER than real. "Monks" placing "boxes" of technology into your psyche to "reset" you and your reality. There is no question for me that there exists this Hive (or Overmind--which by the way I'd read about in Mckenna's stuff after I'd been there). But you need to go up to a gram for these results--something not for everyone I'm sure-- Oh and Nicole, just want to give you a line from Mckenna's Archaic Revival: "...the psychedelic states acquire great import because they reveal to life a task: to become familiar with this dimension that is causing being, in order to be familiar with it at the moment of death."

[ August 08, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[hiosoy]

Nicole, if that's the 'why' you're looking for, it makes a lot of sense for you to be end up looking through psychadelics, or other esoteric practices to bring your subconsiouses level up and find YOUR 'why'. I generally agree with you about that no static answer thing, but along the way you can come across static realisations, like the idea there are other realities outside of this one, that's something known for centuries and more.

Halfglass that Mckenna quote reminds me of something I heard once about a Buddhist belief that if you master the art of astral projection in this life, there may be no need, or was that you won't be forced to come back to this reality again. Not that I really agree with that, makes this seem kind of redundant; but who knows. Does anyone know the exact saying of that?

[Proteus]

Sire eloquently writes:
but "what" seems to be asking a more phenomenological question, a question of immediate and experential data. what is this table made from: formica. and then you could chase that into the chemical breakdown of formica. "why was this table made" is asking more a question of intent which seems a bit more elusive in the scape of human activity.

even though i've never been surfing in my life, the methaphorical power of surfing seems very present in this discussion. drifting through a sea of information until you find a pattern that seems to generate some degree of stimulation in that field, nodes of information exponentially feeding one another into something that can be stood upon momentarily and carry the vessel until it loses its vitality and validity and you dip back down into that big puddle of noise. Sire does a much better job than i did in my haste last week to express what is up with the "what" question. i don't expect to find ultimate answers with this question--or with any question. Though i don't think one can or even should supress the impulse to do so.

If one puts it in terms of a goal (which, of course, distorts what i'm trying to say because i'm positing a fixed self that can "gain" something that it inherently lacks--which doesn't describe my experience of "myself"), i just want to experience fully the present moment. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that i "intend" this attitude, this "subject position" in each moment.

However you put it, the experience of this intention is a willed suspension of the ego function of the mind (again, it might be more accurate to say that one simply notes the ego function when it expresses itself, giving it no more nor less importance than any other phenomenon). My intention is to drop notions of self and other--indeed preconceptions of any kind--and examine what is happening right now. My "what" question simply puts me in position to experience the phenomenological qualities of each moment.

This works whether i'm listening to a student describing his or her confusion about an assignment or am chillin' in the back yard and, presumably, would work if i were slowly slipping into death from cancer. Each individual moment has qualities unique to itself. i hope my very last conscious moment in this body is spent with no thoughts, simply registering the phenomenological events of my last moment--at peace with the way THIS appears NOW....

Sire, your surfing metaphor is awesome. Whatever "ground" i'm resting on in this moment will eventually give way to another. The notion of waves, currents, patterns that emerge & allow one to move in sync with the direction that causes and conditions are currently flowing describes how it "feels" to me perfectly!

[Waarki]

Coming into this late but have enjoyed all comments. Firstly, on the subject of compounds that might be useful for a first time experience. I will suggest 2c-i. Not at all pushy in it's character, not too long lasting, and fairly easy to acquire. Read more about it at Erowid or Bluelight. I feel that another good choice would be an oral dose of tinture of Salvia Divinorum as it has a short duration.
Secondly, for those that are interested in the study consciousness I highly recommend the trilogy of books written by David Hawkins:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Hawkins%2C%20David%20R./104-3519806-9097512

• Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior

•The Eye of the I

• I , Subjectivity and Reality

Hawkins states that as we are capable of experiencing 'reality' we are also continually creating it and that every thought is a potential universe of possibility that we broadcast out like radio transmitters. Not at all an unfamiliar idea if one is familiar with Jung's notion of collective consciousness. Hawkins succintly explains and demonstates this so eloquently that at times I have been moved to tears by it's simplicity. He points out that thought has energy which correlates to a rate of vibration and a subsequent level of consciusness. It is this reason that there are various 'enlightened' individuals that have visited this earth and of course, tyrants as well. Definitely worth reading.