 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 406 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614093 Today 6 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok consider that a side note |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LSD definitely expands consciousness - just read the writings of Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, Christopher S. Hyatt et al for the scientifically intellectual approach to it - people seem to dismiss psychedelics as something to do with unwashed and unkempt hippies back in the 60s (before they all became millionaires and help fuck up our culture, oh the irony), but not at all. Also from personal experience I know they definitely expanded my consciousness. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't really do hallucinogenics too much anymore (weed is technically i guess). LSD is not my favorite, however. It always felt more edgy and synthetic than mushrooms. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lsd turns hippies into corporate go-getters |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was quite the opposite, I liked LSD over mushrooms, but I haven't taken anything like that for about a decade. (god I'm old) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It has probably been about that long for me since I did it with any frequency. I had a few bad experiences that had me not even smoking for a while. Within the past couple years I did some shrooms once (only a few caps/stems) and had a sugar cube another time. Both experiences were relatively mild as I didn't take a whole lot either time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
forgive my impatience, but did you read my fucking post? principle? what is the use of being closed-minded on principle? so you can justify your choice of denial? so you can pat yourself on the back? you might as well tell us you refused to read a book on principle. refused to fly in a plane on principle. refused to play a video game on principle. refused to try an unfamiliar food on principle. argue that you try LSD? drunken mastah, what makes you think that i care about you so deeply that i would extend that effort on your behalf? my only wish for you is what i wish for myself and all people: for you to see your illusions and obstacles destroyed. cripes, man, you are the living end. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
can't we all just get along? Drunken Mastah, having an interest in what motivates people to use drugs is fine, but to me you are coming off as quite a condescending person who is way too sure about his reality being the one and only. It seems you are masking your critique with a question but it's blatantly obvious that you think nobody in their right mind should use psychedelics and that your 'interest' from a psychological point of view isn't going to help you in any way. You don't feel the need to try psychedelics, others do. If you really want to know why, Marlowe has given you plenty of things to check out. also, I have a massive hangover and it sucks balls. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thanks for making think i died and was trapped in a time loop |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Bill Hicks: "people who think drugs (incl..lsd) are no good for people must throw away all their music". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Just before he launches into his funny rant about New Kids On The Block :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah and christian rock music. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"forgive my impatience, but did you read my fucking post?" Yes, but you haven't convinced me that the drug experience is so "privileged," so special, that it is impossible to convey what one supposedly gains from it in words. "what is the use of being closed-minded on principle?" Am I closed-minded just because I don't want to rely on chemicals for thinking, or for doing anything at all for that matter? There's also a certain risk involved in matters like these. "argue that you try LSD?" I meant argue about my principle. "my only wish for you is what i wish for myself and all people: for you to see your illusions and obstacles destroyed." Is this one of the insights you've gained from drugs? If so, can you be more specific? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think the problem is that you have asked a question and the answers you have recieved have not answered it to your satisfication. It's like trying to describe colours to the blind (although the kid with the big face in Mask did an awesome job) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You are right in some ways. One time i thought i had figured out this formula to the universe based on a balance between aesthetic beauty and utilitarian functionality. It all seemed so profound the way I was thinking about it. I went home, walked past my grandparents and uttered the words, "figured it out, must rest." They looked at me like I was on drugs, which was fair because I was. The next morning I woke up and thought about it and then what I was thinking about just seemed kinda obvious and so what, but the night before it felt like a grand revelation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thinking is chemical anyway, you can't help but rely on chemicals to think. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Drunken Mastah, having an interest in what motivates people to use drugs is fine, but to me you are coming off as quite a condescending person who is way too sure about his reality being the one and only." Well, yes, I realised it might seem condescending, so I warned about that when I asked the question, but it isn't entirely unjustified. As I said, people who explain their insights and experiences from psychedelics are usually just scratching the surface or just plain wrong. When it comes to the part about my reality, I'd rather reply with a question about what you mean with the distinction between my and your reality, but I'll also note that in the sense where "my reality" refers to the way I see things, then I'm never sure about it, but you won't get anywhere by being a wishy-washy relativist who dodges every question with a "it's taste, innit; can't discuss taste, no no no" (which, by the way, I believe you did towards the end of your post: "You don't feel the need to try psychedelics, others do."). "It seems you are masking your critique with a question but it's blatantly obvious that you think nobody in their right mind should use psychedelics and that your 'interest' from a psychological point of view isn't going to help you in any way." If you think I'm trying to mount a critique, you're only partially right, and you're right in the wrong way. It's more of a critical attitude than a direct critique, and the main point isn't really a critique (the type of critique you're thinking of would only be implied, and it would also be an ethical critique (based on values) instead of a look at the ontological status of psychedelic experiences, meaning we'd have to handle it differently). Now. Can someone tell me anything at all, or are you going to cling to your mysticism? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Am I closed-minded just because I don't want to rely on chemicals for thinking, i'd like to see you do it without... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Man, you need to calm down and take some acid. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Let me rephrase it, then, as external aids but with an emphasis on drugs and chemicals and other ways to artificially and intentionally interrupt signals and chemical processes in the brain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"relying on chemicals for thinking"? in a nutshell, it just doesn't work like that. while it is true that the inventor of the polymerase chain reaction used LSD to visualize his creation, i'm not even trying to argue that angle at all. would you refuse a microscope because you don't want to rely on an instrument for seeing? the substance is a catalyst, it doesn't make you think. in some ways it facilitates and amplifies thoughts, but in a way that is unpredictable. it won't change you any more than a trip to the summit of mount everest will change you. i've done a lot of research in this area (the last time i mentioned this ceri jc accused me of doing research by interviewing my stoner friends and reading erowid archives, ha) and in fact the risk is very small for an individual without a history of mental illness or instability. you can't understand something that is unique, personal and unpredictable without experiencing it yourself. find a scholarly analysis of the history of LSD use and you will see for yourself that the risk is very small. i think you'd be surprised by how much you don't know about your own mind. if there's one thing i know, i know i cannot convince you of the value of my own experiences. i am addressing only the issues you raised out of my own interest. i'm not interested in persuading you to try LSD. it is a fascinating area of research. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"i think you'd be surprised by how much you don't know about your own mind. " And what do you know about your mind? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the literature is there, so is the prejudice... what else is needed? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL LSD DRUGS LOL ROFL FSEIL THE GATEWAY TO THE WORLD ROFL LFOLOLOL THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHIGN zzzzzz. i celebrate the death. he ruined a generation unintentionally and half the people i know now are completely fucked because of the amounts of LSD they've used. there is no proper use. its proper use is like the man advocated it himself and as another poster already stated: psychotherapy. it's supposed to be for insane people |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
heroin was created in theory to be a less addictive form of morphine and after it was invented it turned out to be twice as addictive. LSD backfired, too |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He's hardly to blame for people who didn't have the control to use it in moderation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
taking acid may expand your mind temporaraly, but i really don't think it's going to change your perception afterwoods, i think that's just an illusion. i have taken acid a number of times and i can't say i know more about my mind or reality than the next man. You either have an open mind or you don't, as you get older, you become stronger in your wisdom, if you've taken acid before, that's only given you an abstract insight into a powerful mind for the duration of the trip. i don't think you gunna take anything with you, accept maybe some confusion or psychosis. but that's just my opnion, there may well be research which has helped scientists understand more about our brains. but for the general user, i don't see any major improvements to your everyday life. regards, larn |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you get out what you put in. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
basically i think you're just asking a loaded question. i know you're pretty well read an have completed some sort of higher education related to philosphy, yeah? you are taking a certain stance on what 'realising' is. you have to realise :) that when people describe a drug experience, it is prefaced by 'when i was on acid'...i don't agree with anyone who makes claims to the kind of experience you may assume a 'realisation' would require to be valid, if i my understanding of why you are asking is correct. but you have to understand the circumstances invalidate the experience as far as that is concerned. it's what the person does with what's put in front of them that matters anyway- perception has an active element after all. i remember a similar thread where you asked about hallucination during a trip and asked whether those who have experience thought what they thought was 'real' or not. i would not recommend any substance use to any body...that is the job of a doctor. i just think what you're asking begs the question. anyway could you tell your 'main point' then? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"you are taking a certain stance on what 'realising' is." The way I see it, realising is when something becomes real to you, but real more in the sense of what the etymological roots of the Norwegian virkelighet (or the German Wirklichkeit), implying that what is real is that which works (virker) or, more specifically, works upon. Consequently, when we're talking about that which is real to you, this doesn't have to correspond to the world (but it can), it just have to have an effect so to speak. "when people describe a drug experience, it is prefaced by 'when i was on acid'" That's part of my point (which is largely supported by reports up until now), actually.. that what hallucinogenics teaches you can not be anything but what it's like to be on hallucinogenics (This is where the moral argument would begin, by the way). What it may induce you to realise about how things are when you aren't on drugs, however, is a different matter altogether, and one that doesn't really require the drugs, implying that it is not an intrinsic part of the drug experience. From my experience, people are mostly talking about either "religious" experiences (being one with god or the nature, communicating with gaia, etc) or things they've realised about their own consciousness when on drugs. What they've reported realising about their consciousness has been the same kind of results you get from a little bit of introspection, or, rather, what you normally get from feeling alienation. Surely, alienation is easier to feel when the world and your sense aren't the way you're used to them being (big hands), but when it can be accomplished by normal introspection, why add the drugs? There's also a different problem related to this, and one that is perfectly demonstrated by plaidzebra's lapse into gnosticism. Sure, something could have been realised about your consciousness and the world, but where's the critical attitude? The primacy of perception mustn't be mistaken for perfect per |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ception (why is it impossible to make that character counter actually count the actual number of characters available?). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"From my experience..." I wouldn't use the term "my experience" because you obviously have none. "when it can be accomplished by normal introspection, why add the drugs?" Just because it CAN (which theoretically is possible) be accomplished by multiple means doesn't mean most people (in practice) ever get anywhere close. Intense meditation, artistic accomplishment and decades of philosophical inquiry will get you to similar places, sure, but not "normal introspection" except for maybe 0,1 percent of the population. I think your reference point is alcohol or something, which is indeed an "introspective" mind-distorting drug of "alienation," but also vastly different from anything we're discussing here. Alcohol in many ways puts you "below" your average level of consciousness while LSD and such put you "above" it. If you understand what alcohol-as-a-downer means, you can also try to picture the opposite direction. The movement from drunkenness to sobriety is comparable to the movement from one's average state to a higher state. Of course vertical metaphors are just metaphors, but quite accurate in this case. And just a final point: you can make all kinds of interesting arguments, but it's completely futile trying to disprove some ephemeral straw man that you've constructed out of your non-experience with things that are obviously not your thing (at least not right now in your life). It's like a man in Europe trying to classify the plants in Africa without ever stepping foot on that continent. The moral issue doesn't even interest me (as a libertarian), and proper epistemological issues cannot emerge from a perspective where we think the phenomenon is one of "big hands". I'm personally more interested in meditation, sports, music and other techniques right now, but there's certainly a valid area of research there, ideologically suppressed. But cultures pick and choose their things, and some things are not "our things" right now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I wouldn't use the term "my experience" because you obviously have none." I don't have one with drugs, no, but contrary to what people on here are saying, people are usually able to report what they have experienced, whether it was a drug induced experience or not. That's what the term "my experience" points towards. "Intense meditation, artistic accomplishment and decades of philosophical inquiry will get you to similar places, sure, but not "normal introspection" except for maybe 0,1 percent of the population." You're overrating the complexity and difficulty of the basic insights. All it takes is the will to actually try. That is a much more difficult thing to raise than the actual insights themselves once one is committed to trying. "I think your reference point is alcohol or something" Wrong. My reference point has nothing to do with any kind of stimulant. "Alcohol in many ways puts you "below" your average level of consciousness while LSD and such put you "above" it." Or is that what you have been told? That's the lack of critical attitude towards what lies behind the drug use and what lies behind the experiences reported by people who have done drugs. "And just a final point: you can make all kinds of interesting arguments, but it's completely futile trying to disprove some ephemeral straw man that you've constructed out of your non-experience with things that are obviously not your thing" It may be a straw man in one sense, in that I do not yet know anything about the particular experiences of the people on here (they're unwilling to dispel them), but it isn't a straw man in that it isn't based on other reports. Even now that I've read the two papers flyagaric sent me (thanks, man!), the reports are largely congruent with earlier reports, and supportive of my hypothesis. In that sense, the straw man part of my argument would have to actually be disproved to be a straw man. (continued) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"The moral issue doesn't even interest me (as a libertarian)" That makes you a coward, not a libertarian. Even libertarians are interested in moral issues.. their entire main argument is a moral one. One that is based on a misconception of freedom, but moral non the less. "epistemological issues cannot emerge from a perspective where we think the phenomenon is one of "big hands"." It was an illustrative example of sense distortion (which can lead to alienation), not an exhaustive analysis of the phenomenon. It also isn't epistemological, but more ontological in a way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Drunken Mastah really needs to drop some acid and forget all the big words and the big concepts he's weighing his consciousness down with. C'mon big guy, be like Huxley, take a psychedelic and describe your experiences. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The amount of trolls in this thread is hilarious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as usual, you ignore the substance and pick a fight with a smaller detail. you seem disingenuous in your arguments, and you seem apparently uninterested in giving careful consideration to anyone else's arguments. i've spent a lot of time thinking about these issues, and despite your insulting characterizations, i haven't taken LSD for many years. i do not rely on it to think, and it does not generate my opinions. i suppose both of us see the other on a high horse, and we both see ourselves as somewhat more grounded. i've tried to be as transparent as possible in my communications, especially given the limitations of the forum. in my last words on the issue, i'll acknowledge that the degree of importance that i assign to the LSD experience is mostly due to the awareness of the potential within the experience to trigger a moment of gnosis, a challenge to seek the core of our being. that's all i have to say. :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"as usual, you ignore the substance and pick a fight with a smaller detail. " No, I'm trying to get an actual answer to my initial question. When you say that you think I'd be surprised at what I don't know about my own mind, it implies that something has surprised you, and I do not believe that this is something which you cannot even begin to try to approximate with language. I didn't want to bother with your microscope metaphor because it wasn't relevant, but if you insist: First of all, while it is true that a microscope is an instrument for seeing, it is not an instrument for seeing all things; it doesn't help you much if you want to look at the moon. All instruments have their proper use. Similarly, it isn't given that drugs are the proper instrument for viewing consciousness or anything at all besides determining the answer to the question "what is it like to be on drugs?" Secondly, a further difference is the fact that you cannot be sure at what level the drugs are intervening (before or after perception? ..or consciousness for that matter), which makes it difficult to determine if it's a good instrument for studying perception or consciousness. A neurologist may be able to tell you what parts of the brain are affected, but not even he is certain if consciousness is in a particular part of the brain or the brain as a whole, and he can never actually observe how consciousness is "out here" in the world based on studies of the neurological pathways in the brain (being out here in the world is not the same as determining in which way the brain handles sensory input on a neurological level). Third, and related to the second issue, there is just a huge difference between using a microscope and messing with your brain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's also the existential issue of whether it really is you as you experiencing the drug experience or if it is you on drugs experiencing the drug experience. Experiencing yourself as identical through experiences (remembering them) doesn't automatically imply that you have been acting as yourself throughout the experience. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Or is that what you have been told?" No, it has nothing to do with hearsay. I'm an empiricist, not a text analyst, as far as truth claims go. As for the moral aspect, of course it's relevant even for libertarians but only after we've established the basic right of human beings to do what they want to their bodies. After that, we can of course discuss the fine points. Most people, for example, choose to drink alcohol, which I grant them (not that they needed mine or anybody else's permission) despite alcohol's serious social and psychological consequences and despite the fact that I personally don't like it. The same with coffee, tobacco, cheese and hyphy. But the relevant arguments exist and will continue to color the zeitgeist while individual paradigms and mileages may (continue to) vary. It's only natural that some people benefit from some things while some people like other things. Cars, for example: I personally don't like them but I can see how some people think they're fantastic and how as a cultural phenomenon they revolutionized the scene. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just a quick note: hallucinogenics is not a word, nor is psychadelics whereas hallucinogens and psychedelics are. carry on. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Psychadelics, I agree, isn't a word. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"No, it has nothing to do with hearsay. I'm an empiricist, not a text analyst, as far as truth claims go." So your claim that alcohol "reduces" consciousness while hallucinogenics "expands" it is empirically verifiable by.. what conditions, exactly? "As for the moral aspect, of course it's relevant even for libertarians but only after we've established the basic right of human beings to do what they want to their bodies. After that, we can of course discuss the fine points." Right, so I have to agree with you to disagree with you? You don't have any basic right to do what you want to your body. What you have is responsibility for everything you do, and any and all effects your actions have on other people insofar as it is an effect that you know or should know about. This means that you are morally responsible for it you destroy yourself using drugs, something that will affect other people: Those close to you would suffer on an emotional level. Society at large would suffer on a sort of "economical" level, with you deliberately and avoidably taking up time and efforts from doctors and medical staff that could be helping someone who needs the help and that weren't being irresponsible or able to avoid the harm they have suffered. Add to that the fact that your job will be unfilled, etc. Note that these effects would be there even in a society that wasn't a welfare-society, even in a laissez-faire "state," even in a libertarian "state." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hallucinogenic: adjective. no plural possible. hallucinogens: not the same word, plural possible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i guess that he was not messing about |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
'...half the people i know now are completely fucked because of the amounts of LSD they've used.' blimey you either hang around with the wrong crowd or just don't know very many people. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"empirically verifiable by.. what conditions, exactly?" Experiments, of course, whether in or out of the labs. Specifically I was referring to my own experiences, and the experiences of thousands of others. It's a taboo subject in the universities, and until that changes it'll stay UG. But I'm not here to give you a step-by-step tutorial. The discussion about states of consciousness exists in many traditions, including Western philosophical-psychological and Eastern Vedic-Buddhist, and can be verified and deepened by personal experiments. "Right, so I have to agree with you to disagree with you?" "We" = "We the libertarians/anarchists". I was simply refuting your statement that social libertarians would ever let any moral considerations overrule freedom of choice. Other values factor in, but only after that first premise is established. Of course you can think differently but that's no longer libertarianism. But no, I see no reason to go into an economics discussion here. As it happens, I don't even support laissez-faire economics (because I don't think people can be free without equal opportunities) but that's beside the point. Your arguments for restricting personal freedoms can of course be argued from a socialist/authoritarian perspective. From a libertarian point of view there is no problem, since people are responsible for their own actions and consequently there's no freeloader problem. "You don't have any basic right to do what you want to your body." Oh? I see. That's interesting to know. I guess that's the basic difference between an authoritarian and liberal attitude. "Those close to you would suffer on an emotional level" Where do you get these images from? Who would? Where? Why? Cliché after cliché. But since Hofmann is not part of this discussion, I don't see the point in continuing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
10 points to you for actually continuing to wade through D.M.'s posts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it really is quite a feat. i am also utterly perplexed by boxbob's english as well. these scandinavians are serious about language! sadly i lack both the intellect and communication skills to add anything of value to this thread. i can't answer D_M's questions properly but thats partly because i don't see the point which may or may not be entirely my own fault. it's too bad the thread derailed because indeed Hofmann has no part in this discussion, but there are many valuable posts nonetheless so thanks everyone. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hallucinogenics = short hand for hallucinogenic drugs. since when does the counter culture nit pick about proper grammer? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
