Full Version: Perception altering drugs
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Nov 28 2003, 02:05 PM) |
| Any drug altered state of consciousness does not alter or expand consciousness permanently. It creates a false impression of the selfs expanded awareness. It allows one to step outside of their habits and fears temporarily by providing a crutch to do so. |
I disagree with this assessment of pharmacologically-induced modified states of consciousness as necessarily being a 'crutch' or as giving a false impression of the self's expanded awareness. Instead of being a 'crutch', I would characterize it as being a 'tool' or an 'aid', or else you fall into the absurdity of considering things like eating, breathing, and the enjoyment of life as being 'crutches' for living.
If our aim is to expand consciousness, then we must consider all means towards this end. At best, your personal experiences suggest that chemically-induced changes in consciousness are temporary, but this does not invalidate other people's experiences or suggest that your personal experience holds for all people. If your statements were not based on your personal experience, then they stand on an even shakier ground.
A disagreement does not necessarily make a stand in the idea of proof or reality, it means your experience takes you in a direction of choice and assumption or presumption. This definately will have an impact on what you percieve and what you believe.
I make my statements from personal experience and also knowledge of my experiences with reality.
I have experienced what you believe and found the belief easily shattered through a different experience.
I make my statements from personal experience and also knowledge of my experiences with reality.
I have experienced what you believe and found the belief easily shattered through a different experience.
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Dec 7 2003, 12:09 PM) |
| I have experienced what you believe and found the belief easily shattered through a different experience. |
but would you entertain the notion that you have not experienced the same reasons that I have for believing what I believe, nor the experiences that form the basis for those reasons? Is the experience of the One the different experience you're referring to in your above quote? If so, then that experience should carry with it the desire or longing to further expand itself, to overcome itself. If it does not, then I think that is problematic for the person experiencing such things, since it prevents any further growth or desire for further expansion of consciousness.
What you are suggesting is that I am not making the same choices as you based on the differences in internal or intellectual programming or past experiences.
This is obvious for no two people will think the same things even when exposed to the same stimuli, for the things we have been exposed to that flavor the senses perceptions give each of us the individual perception of what reality is based on the subtle internal programs of beliefs and experiences that are colored by those beliefs.
But let'sget back to the original statement I made.
This is obvious for no two people will think the same things even when exposed to the same stimuli, for the things we have been exposed to that flavor the senses perceptions give each of us the individual perception of what reality is based on the subtle internal programs of beliefs and experiences that are colored by those beliefs.
But let'sget back to the original statement I made.
| QUOTE |
| Any drug altered state of consciousness does not alter or expand consciousness permanently. |
What I am saying is any experience can be changed by changing the experience for another to alter the beliefs. Beliefs are constantly changing as does life. Any experience will be added to the intellect and may expand the intellects bank of experiences but they are always within the senses realm of understanding of the body and the world. Consciousness is not made by the body or the world, our world and the body are merely extensions of the mind. The mind is always subject to experiences and beliefs that are relative to the point of refrence. If that point of reference is limited to the sensory world then the awareness is continually bound within those limits. Consciousness is not bound by any limitations and so to try and base any understanding of consciousness within the changing aspects of experiences and beliefs that are limited to the boundaries of the manifest physical reality limits consciousness, it does not expand consciousness. In order to expand consciousness, (expand it beyond beliefs and experiences) or to expand conscious awareness is to bring into the awareness what is non changing, permanent and not bound by change in perception or beliefs. You may change your beliefs, experience as many different sense perception based realities for consciousness is never limited to what it can create, but this is merely wandering within the possibilities trying to determine what makes something work by taking it apart, rather than going directly to the source of what it is.
In order to expand consciousness permanently is to go to what supports all beliefs and experiences and bring that awareness into every reality and experience. There you can consciously create each experience rather than jumping blindly from one to the next still never reaching the source of it all.
If you take 4 blind men who have never experienced an elephant and take them to the elephant and let each one touch a part of the elephant, they may experience it like this.. One touches the tail and says "Ah, an elephant is like a rope" still another goes to the leg and says, "Ah, an elephant is like a tree" another touches the trunk and says, " An elephant is like a great snake" and still the other touches the side and says, " An elephant is like a mountain."
Each perception based on past impressions of reality still leaves the mind bound by what it believes is real, what is solid, what is tangible. Yet what is solid? Molecules are built from atoms and yet if you take an atom and increase its size to the size of a football field it is 99.99% empty space with .01% of something.
Our perceptions based on changing experiences may alter the ideas or add to what we believe is real but it does not permanently change the awareness of the greater consciousness that resides within manifest reality but is not of it. Only by putting attention on that which is beyond experience and change does that expansion take place, for what you focus on grows.
Hence again I will say no drug can expand the awareness of consciousness permanently for the mind will always fall back to the known and align every experience with the basis of the known reality which is built from the senses in relation to the body and the world.
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Dec 8 2003, 10:48 AM) |
| What you are suggesting is that I am not making the same choices as you based on the differences in internal or intellectual programming or past experiences. This is obvious |
exactly. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Dec 8 2003, 10:48 AM) |
| If that point of reference is limited to the sensory world then the awareness is continually bound within those limits. Consciousness is not bound by any limitations and so to try and base any understanding of consciousness within the changing aspects of experiences and beliefs that are limited to the boundaries of the manifest physical reality limits consciousness, it does not expand consciousness. |
but who said anything about the point of reference being "limited" to the sensory world? If we claim that we perceive forms (Maya), and that 'that' which perceives the forms is itself formless, then we already have fallen into the trap of dualistic thinking. The forms and the formless constitute a totality. To draw the distinction, as you have done, between the changing and the permanent, is the result of dualistic thinking. These distinctions must be overcome. To claim that Maya is any less real than the unchanging, or that the Relative is any less real than the Absolute, is the result of dualistic thinking, and must be overcome. I do not seek to invalidate your experiences, as no-one can invalidate that which exists, but would question the validity of your interpretation of those said experiences.
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Dec 8 2003, 10:48 AM) |
| In order to expand consciousness permanently is to go to what supports all beliefs and experiences and bring that awareness into every reality and experience. There you can consciously create each experience rather than jumping blindly from one to the next still never reaching the source of it all. |
I partially agree with this. There are many ways and dimensions along which to expand consciousness. The way you have described is one such way to me. Our being also partially consists in the forms that we perceive, in our mental constructs, and in Maya, and to deny this fact is to deny the totality of all that constitutes our being and that exists.
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Dec 8 2003, 10:48 AM) |
| Each perception based on past impressions of reality still leaves the mind bound by what it believes is real, what is solid, what is tangible. Yet what is solid? Molecules are built from atoms and yet if you take an atom and increase its size to the size of a football field it is 99.99% empty space with .01% of something. |
yes, I agree, though the atom example may be misleading because it's based on a simplistic 'solar system' model of the atom, and does not take into account quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Dec 8 2003, 10:48 AM) |
| Our perceptions based on changing experiences may alter the ideas or add to what we believe is real but it does not permanently change the awareness of the greater consciousness that resides within manifest reality but is not of it. |
This is your experience, but I would claim, based on my experience, that it is possible, employing pharmacological as well as other techniques, to permanently change the awareness of the greater consciousness, and because of my said experiences, I am convinced that we should further pursue this avenue of developing and employing tools for expanding our consciousness, which includes the permanent changing of our awareness of the greater consciousness.
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Dec 8 2003, 10:48 AM) |
| Hence again I will say no drug can expand the awareness of consciousness permanently for the mind will always fall back to the known and align every experience with the basis of the known reality which is built from the senses in relation to the body and the world. |
I grant that you're justified in your point of view, based on your experiences, but would maintain that we should seek to develop and employ tools for the purpose of expanding our consciousness, and that pharmacological methods ('drugs') can be legitimate and useful tools towards this endeavor to expand consciousness to the extent that they are employed intelligently. Further, the development of neuroscience offers us the best and most practical path for determining the workings of the mind and of determining the methods for enhancing and expanding consciousness.
| QUOTE |
but who said anything about the point of reference being "limited" to the sensory world? |
I did, in reference to any experience drug induced or otherwise.
| QUOTE |
| If we claim that we perceive forms (Maya), and that 'that' which perceives the forms is itself formless, then we already have fallen into the trap of dualistic thinking. The forms and the formless constitute a totality. To draw the distinction, as you have done, between the changing and the permanent, is the result of dualistic thinking. |
Yes that is why we must stop thinking in terms of I, and I percieve, and I percieve something.
| QUOTE |
| These distinctions must be overcome. To claim that Maya is any less real than the unchanging, or that the Relative is any less real than the Absolute, is the result of dualistic thinking, and must be overcome. I do not seek to invalidate your experiences, as no-one can invalidate that which exists, but would question the validity of your interpretation of those said experiences. |
Such questioning brings back the absolute unchanging and undefined into definitions. The manifest reality is a projection of a thought only and it is not any more real than any other thought. to make it real or to say it is the same as the absolute is a thought but not reality. Although the unchanging is within all of creation, creation cannot contain the absolute and to give creedence to the idea that they are the same is an illuson of perception based on a foundation that the I and what the I experiences is real.
| QUOTE |
| I partially agree with this. There are many ways and dimensions along which to expand consciousness. The way you have described is one such way to me. Our being also partially consists in the forms that we perceive, in our mental constructs, and in Maya, and to deny this fact is to deny the totality of all that constitutes our being and that exists. |
Our being is projected by thoughts as interpreted by ego. Any attempt to define being by any method is still limiting the limitless. To focus on any experience derived from any attempt to project definition limits consciousness. Consciousness is multidimensional and timeless without any limits to its ability to create in whatever idea that can or could be concieved. Thinking in any form limits consciousness to time, to formulate the thought and any subsequent reason that follows, it is an attempt to project the self into the unlimited Self. They are not the same thing, only to the mind that wishes to find a point of reference that can be labeled or defined.
Consciousness simply is and if you didn't have the memory of what you have learned here on planet earth what would consciousness be or think if it needed to think?
Consciousness does not need anything, any experience or form to experience or define itself. What we call evolution is simply a return to this awareness by discarding more of what we think we are.
| QUOTE |
| yes, I agree, though the atom example may be misleading because it's based on a simplistic 'solar system' model of the atom, and does not take into account quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. |
I do not favor theory.
| QUOTE |
| This is your experience, but I would claim, based on my experience, that it is possible, employing pharmacological as well as other techniques, to permanently change the awareness of the greater consciousness, and because of my said experiences, I am convinced that we should further pursue this avenue of developing and employing tools for expanding our consciousness, which includes the permanent changing of our awareness of the greater consciousness. |
Greater consciousness cannot be changed only percieved or defined by experience. Expanding conscious awareness is by focusing not on any experience or definition but by stepping beyond any experience to the source of its creation. If you choose to create the experiences and try to follow it back to a definition you lose the reality of the non-being limitless reality of the Self and consciousness.
You run the hampster wheel of samskara, impression and action never settling down to the true nature of the self or anchoring yourself in the still and silent nature of consciousness.
Consciousness is active by its nature and is limitless in its action but what is defined by action within experiences gets lost by limited perceptions in time and definition associated with time and thought.
| QUOTE |
I grant that you're justified in your point of view, based on your experiences, but would maintain that we should seek to develop and employ tools for the purpose of expanding our consciousness, and that pharmacological methods ('drugs') can be legitimate and useful tools towards this endeavor to expand consciousness to the extent that they are employed intelligently. Further, the development of neuroscience offers us the best and most practical path for determining the workings of the mind and of determining the methods for enhancing and expanding consciousness. |
I will agree that a tool for expanding consciousness when intelligently applied is useful. However I do not fund much value in stimulating and dissecting mechanical attributes of a mechanical organ as valuable for defining or enhancing something that is not either mechanical or subject to the mechanical mind. The mind will when it is used coreectly turn its awareness towards the limitless aspects of consciousness. Any attempt to jumpstart an organ of mechanical nature into a new habit is not of any permanent value. For one the value of what it is aiming for is an unknown at best. To direct the mind to what is not known or understood in an attempt to define what has not been defined is like shooting blindly at an imaginary target.
Only by turning the mind towards the infinite and focussing on that, discarding all experiences on the way as shadows of past impressions does the awareness become free of limits and definitions. Then can the mind accept creation and direct it consciously rather than from foundations of definitions and limits.
| QUOTE |
I will agree that a tool for expanding consciousness when intelligently applied is useful. However I do not fund much value in stimulating and dissecting mechanical attributes of a mechanical organ as valuable for defining or enhancing something that is not either mechanical or subject to the mechanical mind. |
I'm not sure what you mean by 'mechanical', and would be curious to find this out, as well as what you consider useful tools for expanding consciousness.
But in any event, consciousness has it's basis in (or, at the very least, is largely dependent for it's mode of expression on) the patterns of neuronal activity in our brain. If we possess control of these neuronal activities, then we possess control of our consciousness. Neuroscience seeks to understand this system we call the brain. By understanding a thing, we are in a position to control a thing. Thus, we are in a position to control, enhance, and expand consciousness through the understanding of the brain afforded to us by neuroscience.
All your meditations and mental focusing will only take you so far. Neuroscience holds the potential to blow all of our 'doors of perception' wide open and to allow us to experience states of mind that have never been experienced before, and that we can't even begin to imagine. Surely you realize this potential, don't you?
There is a long standing debate with the teachers of consciousness and the scientific community as to the direction consciousness takes and who directs it. If consciousness was directed by the firing of signals from the brain then it would suggest that once the brain was dead consciousness would lose its direction.
Awakening consciousness is more of an awakening to a conscious awareness of what already exists in omniscient intelligence. The mind is simply a reciever and when tapped into omniscience can recieve what universal mind is creating. The mind in ignorance sees through internal programming of past impressions. IT believes it has some kind of control and directs itself to master that control in its dreams of projected futures and diversions from fear and lack of control.
You never were in control and you will never be in control because the you does not exist. Only consciousness is real and that realization will blow the doors off of any idea and any attempt to define the undefinable.
Awakening consciousness is more of an awakening to a conscious awareness of what already exists in omniscient intelligence. The mind is simply a reciever and when tapped into omniscience can recieve what universal mind is creating. The mind in ignorance sees through internal programming of past impressions. IT believes it has some kind of control and directs itself to master that control in its dreams of projected futures and diversions from fear and lack of control.
You never were in control and you will never be in control because the you does not exist. Only consciousness is real and that realization will blow the doors off of any idea and any attempt to define the undefinable.
here's an interesting excerpt from a book called "The Ending of Time", which contains real dialogues between Krishnamurti and Physicist David Bohm (a fascinating book, btw; also the emphasis in the following is mine; this dialogue occured on April 15, 1980 in Ojai, CA):
David Bohm: What exactly do you mean by 'what is there to change'? What is to be changed?
Krishnamurti: Yes, both; what is there to be changed, and what is there to change? Basically, what is there to change? 'X' sees that he can change certain things along this way, but to go much further than that, what is one to do? I am sure man has asked this question. You must have asked it. But apparently the mutation hasn't taken place. So what is 'X' to do? He realizes the need for a radical revolution, a psychological revolution; he perceives that the more he changes, it is the same thing continuing; the more he enquires into himself, the enquiry remains the same, and so on. So what is there to change; unless 'X' finds a way to change the brain itself?
David Bohm: But what will change the brain?
Krishnamurti: That's it. The brain has been set in a pattern for millenia! I think it is no longer 'what' should I change. It is imperative that I change.
Now, because of their ignorance of brain function and structure, neither Bohm, nor Krishnamurti, could offer effective suggestions as to how to go about changing the brain itself. But I think it's clear that they both recognize the need to change the brain itself. Wouldn't you agree?
David Bohm: What exactly do you mean by 'what is there to change'? What is to be changed?
Krishnamurti: Yes, both; what is there to be changed, and what is there to change? Basically, what is there to change? 'X' sees that he can change certain things along this way, but to go much further than that, what is one to do? I am sure man has asked this question. You must have asked it. But apparently the mutation hasn't taken place. So what is 'X' to do? He realizes the need for a radical revolution, a psychological revolution; he perceives that the more he changes, it is the same thing continuing; the more he enquires into himself, the enquiry remains the same, and so on. So what is there to change; unless 'X' finds a way to change the brain itself?
David Bohm: But what will change the brain?
Krishnamurti: That's it. The brain has been set in a pattern for millenia! I think it is no longer 'what' should I change. It is imperative that I change.
Now, because of their ignorance of brain function and structure, neither Bohm, nor Krishnamurti, could offer effective suggestions as to how to go about changing the brain itself. But I think it's clear that they both recognize the need to change the brain itself. Wouldn't you agree?
| QUOTE |
| Now, because of their ignorance of brain function and structure, neither Bohm, nor Krishnamurti, could offer effective suggestions as to how to go about changing the brain itself. But I think it's clear that they both recognize the need to change the brain itself. Wouldn't you agree? |
No, if you could understand where Krishnamurti is coming from when he is saying that nothing needs to be changed it is supremely simple. When one becomes enlightened nothing changes other than the point of reference. The conditions that are programmed into the nervous sytem are simply beliefs of the existing condition. he is saying that what underlies everything in consciousness is a constant. The limited mind sees and interprets and out of ignorance tries to condense what does not change and what cannot be contained. It thinks that it needs to change something to interpret differently but the problem is that what is interpreted is illusion and does not exist in the first place, so how can you change something that is not real?
The brain is simply a reciever, like a computer it only functions mechanically with what it is programmed to do. Remove the erroneous programming and it returns to its factory settings and allows consciousness to experience itself through the reciever. A link between the manifest and unmanifest. Consiousness has a direction and it moves in all things and all beings. Nothing can change that would make anything different. Everything that happens in any reality is being created perfectly by consciousenss. Ego thinks it is something, something separate from that and a victim to circumstance always looking for a way to control.
If you are the puppetmaster directing the puppets there is nothing other than creativity. IF you are the puppet thinking you are victim to circumstance and the pupetmaster then you would think you would need to change something to no longer be victim. ITs all in a point of reference. If you move your awareness into consciousness you are freed from the circumstance and from victim consciousness, free also from the thought of a body that lasts on an average of 80 years and immortal in your ability to move through ideas of time and space, and manifestations in dimensional realities.
There is nothing to change. everything is. Even by moving your awareness into consciousness, consciousness does not change and the manifestation does not change from its being an idea or a thought.
but Krishnamurti is not saying that nothing needs to change; he's saying that "It is imperative that I change".
According to you, "The brain is simply a reciever, like a computer it only functions mechanically with what it is programmed to do." But I don't know of anyone else who believes this, nor of any evidence that supports this belief. What is your basis for believing this?
Even if the brain were simply a 'receiver', it still doesn't change the fact that by altering the brain, you will alter consciousness, with the potential for dramatically expanding consciousness. This is true, irrespective of whether the brain is merely a receiver or not.
My sense of Krishnamurti's words is that he appreciates the potential for dramatically expanding and enhancing consciousness by modifying the brain, and in fact, that he thinks it's "imperative" that we do so, in order to change and transform ourselves.
According to you, "The brain is simply a reciever, like a computer it only functions mechanically with what it is programmed to do." But I don't know of anyone else who believes this, nor of any evidence that supports this belief. What is your basis for believing this?
Even if the brain were simply a 'receiver', it still doesn't change the fact that by altering the brain, you will alter consciousness, with the potential for dramatically expanding consciousness. This is true, irrespective of whether the brain is merely a receiver or not.
My sense of Krishnamurti's words is that he appreciates the potential for dramatically expanding and enhancing consciousness by modifying the brain, and in fact, that he thinks it's "imperative" that we do so, in order to change and transform ourselves.
Krishnamurti said it is imperitive that I change. What is the "I"?
From the internal programs that are fed into us from birth come our perceptions of life, and our perceptions of ourselves. Beliefs in reality that are taught by our parents and societal standards, fears and stress. Each of us have a unique way of looking at life and we see things thru our own perspective. No two people see the world in the same way and with 6 billion people in the world you can imagine the diversity in perspectives and beliefs.
Who am I? A carpenter a scientist, a prostitute etc. What we do and what we think does not make who we are but what and who we identify with. These beliefs are layered into the nervous sytem by repetitive impriniting, by continuous stimulation from our environment which is saturated by these same programs.
A child who comes into the world without the internal programs does not limit itself to the same stresses that an adult does. It is not hampered by stress in competitive values unless we teach it these things. It does not believe learning a new language is difficult and easily masters many complex languages where an adult struggles to learn thru the ideas of difficulty that he/she learns.
Where a dysfuntional person does not adapt to the physical world he/she may not have the capacity to recieve and maintain the programs that allow it to transmit these ideas through the mechanics of the body. But then what does the mind of such a person see, what does the mind of such a person experience without the programs that most of society sees as normal and useful. Does it see itself as dysfunctional and does this person have self worth issues, does this person have anything to measure its experience against when we hold our system of values to a set of rules and established beliefes in who we are and who we should be?
There was a scientist that trained a rat to run a maze, and slowly removed parts of the brain until almost 90% of the brain had been removed and the rat continued to run the maze. How much of the brain is needed to function and how would anyone measure the consciousness that is interpreted by the brain and how would you measure what is not measurable?
Consciousness cannot be expanded however awareness of consciousness can be expanded. By turning the awareness into the more subtle aspects of reality it becomes more aware of what exists underneath the manifest reality so familiar with the senses. If you take a computer and fill it with a bunch of programs it will only discern between the programs if there is some kind of way to move from one to the other. It takes an act of choice to move from one to the other, it doesn't just happen. Similarly the awareness has to by choice move from what it normally associates itself in the denser sense realities to the more subtle.
You may temporarily jar the awareness with drugs, but it does not permanently expand the awareness, only adds another imprint into the neural pathways. IF the neural pathways are cluttered with beliefs in who I am, in experiences of fear and stress they will continue to interfere with the minds ability to move within its subtle senses without distraction, through the layers of neural imprints. If you could find a way to cleanse the neural pathways so that there is no conflict of interest or conflict of the subtle and gross senses then you might find a way to expand the awareness of consciousness to a degree, but without any familiarity of what it (consciousness) is you would be like the blind man touching the elephant. What would it be to you, and what would you refer to in association?
What I see Krishnamurti suggesting is to change the subtle programming of the brain. By exposing it to something greater than the lesser programs, by taking it into the vastness of the unchanging one consciousness any lesser program cannot stand in its limitation amongst such a reality. By familiarizing ones self with the Self, with Consciousness one naturally dissolves all limiting beliefs in what is determined to be wrong through judgments and beliefs maintained by internal programs of fear.
Once one experiences Consciousness then one knows that nothing really changes other than the choice to direct ones awareness from one idea to another.
Within consciousness exists all ideas and even the idea of time to sequence the experience of ideas but consciousness is and consciousness experiences itself as its nature. Nothing or no-thing ever comes into existence or goes away, we never change, only or choice to experience drives the awareness from one experience to another. knowing what it is that created the experience, knowing what it is that underlies all action and interpretation is far greater than any experience.
Experiences come and go and you can have as many as you like and in and of any reality and possibility for there is no limit to consciousness or the human condition other than what is artificially imposed.
To suggest that the mind could be manipulated to understand what it doesn't know of or understand would seem a bit absurd, but the ego tries to master the universe through its limited perspective of itself as the foundation of reality, this is what has been tried and maitained in belief for millenia.
One has to finally take the remote and push another button and change the channel, to realize something different.
From the internal programs that are fed into us from birth come our perceptions of life, and our perceptions of ourselves. Beliefs in reality that are taught by our parents and societal standards, fears and stress. Each of us have a unique way of looking at life and we see things thru our own perspective. No two people see the world in the same way and with 6 billion people in the world you can imagine the diversity in perspectives and beliefs.
Who am I? A carpenter a scientist, a prostitute etc. What we do and what we think does not make who we are but what and who we identify with. These beliefs are layered into the nervous sytem by repetitive impriniting, by continuous stimulation from our environment which is saturated by these same programs.
A child who comes into the world without the internal programs does not limit itself to the same stresses that an adult does. It is not hampered by stress in competitive values unless we teach it these things. It does not believe learning a new language is difficult and easily masters many complex languages where an adult struggles to learn thru the ideas of difficulty that he/she learns.
Where a dysfuntional person does not adapt to the physical world he/she may not have the capacity to recieve and maintain the programs that allow it to transmit these ideas through the mechanics of the body. But then what does the mind of such a person see, what does the mind of such a person experience without the programs that most of society sees as normal and useful. Does it see itself as dysfunctional and does this person have self worth issues, does this person have anything to measure its experience against when we hold our system of values to a set of rules and established beliefes in who we are and who we should be?
There was a scientist that trained a rat to run a maze, and slowly removed parts of the brain until almost 90% of the brain had been removed and the rat continued to run the maze. How much of the brain is needed to function and how would anyone measure the consciousness that is interpreted by the brain and how would you measure what is not measurable?
Consciousness cannot be expanded however awareness of consciousness can be expanded. By turning the awareness into the more subtle aspects of reality it becomes more aware of what exists underneath the manifest reality so familiar with the senses. If you take a computer and fill it with a bunch of programs it will only discern between the programs if there is some kind of way to move from one to the other. It takes an act of choice to move from one to the other, it doesn't just happen. Similarly the awareness has to by choice move from what it normally associates itself in the denser sense realities to the more subtle.
You may temporarily jar the awareness with drugs, but it does not permanently expand the awareness, only adds another imprint into the neural pathways. IF the neural pathways are cluttered with beliefs in who I am, in experiences of fear and stress they will continue to interfere with the minds ability to move within its subtle senses without distraction, through the layers of neural imprints. If you could find a way to cleanse the neural pathways so that there is no conflict of interest or conflict of the subtle and gross senses then you might find a way to expand the awareness of consciousness to a degree, but without any familiarity of what it (consciousness) is you would be like the blind man touching the elephant. What would it be to you, and what would you refer to in association?
What I see Krishnamurti suggesting is to change the subtle programming of the brain. By exposing it to something greater than the lesser programs, by taking it into the vastness of the unchanging one consciousness any lesser program cannot stand in its limitation amongst such a reality. By familiarizing ones self with the Self, with Consciousness one naturally dissolves all limiting beliefs in what is determined to be wrong through judgments and beliefs maintained by internal programs of fear.
Once one experiences Consciousness then one knows that nothing really changes other than the choice to direct ones awareness from one idea to another.
Within consciousness exists all ideas and even the idea of time to sequence the experience of ideas but consciousness is and consciousness experiences itself as its nature. Nothing or no-thing ever comes into existence or goes away, we never change, only or choice to experience drives the awareness from one experience to another. knowing what it is that created the experience, knowing what it is that underlies all action and interpretation is far greater than any experience.
Experiences come and go and you can have as many as you like and in and of any reality and possibility for there is no limit to consciousness or the human condition other than what is artificially imposed.
To suggest that the mind could be manipulated to understand what it doesn't know of or understand would seem a bit absurd, but the ego tries to master the universe through its limited perspective of itself as the foundation of reality, this is what has been tried and maitained in belief for millenia.
One has to finally take the remote and push another button and change the channel, to realize something different.
I just thought I'd add a little perspective on the integrity of Joesus' statements
first he says:
first he says:
| QUOTE |
| Molecules are built from atoms and yet if you take an atom and increase its size to the size of a football field it is 99.99% empty space with .01% of something. |
Shawn then counters with:
| QUOTE |
| yes, I agree, though the atom example may be misleading because it's based on a simplistic 'solar system' model of the atom, and does not take into account quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. |
To which Joesus says:
| QUOTE |
| I do not favor theory. |
which is funny because Joesus favored his simplistic 'solar system' theory as a meaningful statement until Shawn shot it down. Sounds like Joesus favors theory that favors him.
It appears that what Joesus really favors is to live above adherence to his own words, where he implies the foundation of his perspective as 'absolute truth' while demoting all other people's statements as 'their perceptions based in emotion and belief' (or 'relative truth', whose truth is at best 'subjective'). He essentially employs a 'concept negation' technique that succeeds by virtue of characterizing all encountered claims as notions based on subjective criteria and declaring their truthfulness as intrinsically relative and devoid of absolute value. After authoritatively (sic) establishing this 'subjectivity of the truth of concepts', he then implies the existence of an objective (absolute) truth (God) that can emerge if one learns to embrace as intrinsically 'relative' all notions. This 'objective truth' is of course undefinable (as he has already defined that any definable truth is 'subjective' and thus not 'absolutely true'), and can only be 'experienced'. And Joesus just happens to know how to 'lead' one to that 'experience'. lucky us
The stupidity in such a position is the fact that one must employ as absolutely true the notion that all notions are intrinsically relative and thus incapable of being absolutely true. If one were to fully practice this position, one must accept that the position itself is at best only 'relatively true' which of course renders the entire position nonsensical.
the real logic in Joesus' neverending proselytization is this:
1. All notions are intrinsically relative and thus are poor ground for understanding
2. Good ground for understanding does exist, but it cannot be described (if it could be, it would be a 'notion' and thus relative)
3. This good ground is reachable only through the total rejection of all notions as absolutely meaningful
4. Unless you are damn lucky, you're going to need a guide to lead you to this promised land
5. I am a guide, and if you do as I say you too can be saved
Essentially, Joesus must rely on the inability of the neophyte to completely reflect the logic of the 'relativity of notions' back at him. If ever a neophyte decides that all of Joesus' statements lack the quality of absolute truth, then any reason for believing in him as a guide to absolute truth is gone. At this point, only blind emotion may support the desire to believe which is usually not enough. The main tool Joesus employs in order to sustain the 'initiation' and to avoid being seen as a hypocrite is a continuous barrage of psychological manipulations (called 'ruthlessness') that divert the neophyte from critical thought while capitalizing on their desire to believe. Eventually, the neophyte reaches the breaking point and, after having invested so much into this new cognitive system they have been trained in, tend to accept it as a matter of relief. With time, the doubts are buried deeper and deeper while the new system of cognition is continually practiced.
alas, a new religious fruitcake is born and the cycle is set to repeat
| QUOTE |
| Consciousness cannot be expanded however awareness of consciousness can be expanded. |
This is a moot point, one that can be argued in either direction, seemingly without any consequences either way. In other words, pragmatically speaking, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, difference between 'expanding consciousness' and 'expanding awareness of consciousness'. If you consider what I've said, but interpret 'expanding consciousness' to mean 'expanding awareness of consciousness', then I take it that you agree with what I've said?
I'm sorry I don't have time at the moment to give the recent posts here the sort of thoughtful response that they deserve, but I did want to say something: that it's nice to hear from you again, Dan.
| QUOTE |
| I just thought I'd add a little perspective on the integrity of Joesus' statements |
Yes
I have to admit, I'm somewhat swayed by Dan's arguments. Joesus, you've got to do better than a one-word comeback, son.
| QUOTE (mixmaster @ Dec 22, 10:25 PM) |
| I have to admit, I'm somewhat swayed by Dan's arguments. Joesus, you've got to do better than a one-word comeback, son. |
Well, Ok I'm intrigued. What are you looking for, a push in another direction like a swing that is swayed in one direction and needs to be pushed in another so that you might see something different or would you like to be a bit more stable and come from your own perspectives and experiences? Dad...
Joesus,
I have read your posts. You stumble over words too much, so why do you bother? Your Absolute is relativistic. There are no Absolutes. Only what we create. I may not be so fancy with words myself, but I try to say what I mean, though what I mean is not synonymous with my being. It's hard to communicate the meaning of an overflowing existence. What's there to communicate?
But I digress. What have you to teach that's new, or are you a parrot?
Mahadeva? Show me.
Thus do we weave the web.
I have read your posts. You stumble over words too much, so why do you bother? Your Absolute is relativistic. There are no Absolutes. Only what we create. I may not be so fancy with words myself, but I try to say what I mean, though what I mean is not synonymous with my being. It's hard to communicate the meaning of an overflowing existence. What's there to communicate?
But I digress. What have you to teach that's new, or are you a parrot?
Mahadeva? Show me.
Thus do we weave the web.
Show you what?
You have already determined your reality with no room for anything different.
You have judged me and my words not only by others perceptions which seem to easily sway you but then say you are aware of a known reality which I repeat like a parrot, but which you are beyond.
I think you just want to be right!
I think there is no room for you to be taught.
You have already determined your reality with no room for anything different.
You have judged me and my words not only by others perceptions which seem to easily sway you but then say you are aware of a known reality which I repeat like a parrot, but which you are beyond.
I think you just want to be right!
I think there is no room for you to be taught.
temper, temper! Come now, Joesus, the Self recognizes Itself. This is all just a play, an attempt to realize something greater than Itself perhaps, an attempt for greater Self understanding. At the very least, an attempt at amusement, at the expense of no One other than the Self.
| QUOTE |
I think you just want to be right! |
Oh phewy! There is no right or wrong. There only is what is. A will, a consciousness, unstoppable in its action, like the unfolding of a lotus. Behold, we're all caught in the process of unfolding as I speak. It is what it is.
| QUOTE |
| I think there is no room for you to be taught. |
come now, I'm not that arrogant. There's always room to learn, to open oneself to new ways and new visions. That is the way.
| QUOTE |
| temper, temper! Come now, Joesus, the Self recognizes Itself. |
So what are you telling me here.
| QUOTE |
| Oh phewy! There is no right or wrong. There only is what is. A will, a consciousness, unstoppable in its action, like the unfolding of a lotus. Behold, we're all caught in the process of unfolding as I speak. It is what it is. |
Polly wanna cracker!
| QUOTE |
| come now, I'm not that arrogant. There's always room to learn, to open oneself to new ways and new visions. That is the way. |
Then there is nothing to say of what comes to you from another, other than everything that comes to you is a gift for your growth, unless your all grown up....
| QUOTE |
Polly wanna cracker! |
Touche'!
I thought so.
If you had an Idea of what was said there might be some depth to this conversation, but you leave me with what I expected.
However in response to your idea that the absolute is relativistic, and your lack of knlowledge of the truth I will leave you with this, an easy description of something that you,
If you had an Idea of what was said there might be some depth to this conversation, but you leave me with what I expected.
However in response to your idea that the absolute is relativistic, and your lack of knlowledge of the truth I will leave you with this, an easy description of something that you,
| QUOTE |
| It's hard to communicate the meaning of an overflowing existence. What's there to communicate? |
have such a hard time communicating, usually as a result of incomprehension.
To completely define the infinite is impossible but certainly easy enough to discuss and to be absolutely realised beyond relative values once you unchain the mind from relative boundaries.
The source of universe reality is the Infinite. The material things of finite creation are the time-space repercussions of the Paradise Pattern and the Universal Mind of the eternal God. Causation in the physical world, self-consciousness in the intellectual world, and progressing selfhood in the spirit world÷these realities, projected on a universal scale, combined in eternal relatedness, and experienced with perfection of quality and divinity of value÷constitute the reality of the Supreme. But in an ever-changing universe the Original Personality of causation, intelligence, and spirit experience is changeless, absolute. All things, even in an eternal universe of limitless values and divine qualities, may, and oftentimes do, change except the Absolutes and that which has attained the physical status, intellectual embrace, or spiritual identity which is absolute.
The highest level to which a finite creature can progress is the recognition of the Universal Father and the knowing of the Supreme. And even then such beings of finality destiny go on experiencing change in the motions of the physical world and in its material phenomena. Likewise do they remain aware of selfhood progression in their continuing ascension of the spiritual universe and of growing consciousness in their deepening appreciation of, and response to, the intellectual cosmos. Only in the perfection, harmony, and unanimity of will can the creature become as one with the Creator; and such a state of divinity is attained and maintained only by the creature's continuing to live in time and eternity by consistently conforming his finite personal will to the divine will of the Creator. Always must the desire to do the Father's will be supreme in the soul and dominant over the mind of an ascending son of God.
A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective. Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality. All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition.
Mindless causation cannot evolve the refined and complex from the crude and the simple, neither can spiritless experience evolve the divine characters of eternal survival from the material minds of the mortals of time. The one attribute of the universe which so exclusively characterizes the infinite Deity is this unending creative bestowal of personality which can survive in progressive Deity attainment.
Personality is that cosmic endowment, that phase of universal reality, which can coexist with unlimited change and at the same time retain its identity in the very presence of all such changes, and forever afterward.
Life is an adaptation of the original cosmic causation to the demands and possibilities of universe situations, and it comes into being by the action of the Universal Mind and the activation of the spirit spark of the God who is spirit. The meaning of life is its adaptability; the value of life is its progressability÷even to the heights of God-consciousness.
Misadaptation of self-conscious life to the universe results in cosmic disharmony. Final divergence of personality will from the trend of the universes terminates in intellectual isolation, personality segregation. Loss of the indwelling spirit pilot supervenes in spiritual cessation of existence. Intelligent and progressing life becomes then, in and of itself, an incontrovertible proof of the existence of a purposeful universe expressing the will of a divine Creator. And this life, in the aggregate, struggles toward higher values, having for its final goal the Universal Father.
Only in degree does man possess mind above the animal level aside from the higher and quasi-spiritual ministrations of intellect. Therefore animals (not having worship and wisdom) cannot experience superconsciousness, consciousness of consciousness. The animal mind is only conscious of the objective universe.
Knowledge is the sphere of the material or fact-discerning mind. Truth is the domain of the spiritually endowed intellect that is conscious of knowing God. Knowledge is demonstrable; truth is experienced. Knowledge is a possession of the mind; truth an experience of the soul, the progressing self. Knowledge is a function of the nonspiritual level; truth is a phase of the mind-spirit level of the universes. The eye of the material mind perceives a world of factual knowledge; the eye of the spiritualized intellect discerns a world of true values. These two views, synchronized and harmonized, reveal the world of reality, wherein wisdom interprets the phenomena of the universe in terms of progressive personal experience.
Error (evil) is the penalty of imperfection. The qualities of imperfection or facts of misadaptation are disclosed on the material level by critical observation and by scientific analysis; on the moral level, by human experience. The presence of evil constitutes proof of the inaccuracies of mind and the immaturity of the evolving self. Evil is, therefore, also a measure of imperfection in universe interpretation. The possibility of making mistakes is inherent in the acquisition of wisdom, the scheme of progressing from the partial and temporal to the complete and eternal, from the relative and imperfect to the final and perfected. Error is the shadow of relative incompleteness which must of necessity fall across man's ascending universe path to Paradise perfection. Error (evil) is not an actual universe quality; it is simply the observation of a relativity in the relatedness of the imperfection of the incomplete finite to the ascending levels of the Supreme and Ultimate.
Evil is a relativity concept. It arises out of the observation of the imperfections which appear in the shadow cast by a finite universe of things and beings as such a cosmos obscures the living light of the universal expression of the eternal realities of the Infinite One.
Potential evil is inherent in the necessary incompleteness of the revelation of God as a time-space-limited expression of infinity and eternity. The fact of the partial in the presence of the complete constitutes relativity of reality, creates necessity for intellectual choosing, and establishes value levels of spirit recognition and response. The incomplete and finite concept of the Infinite which is held by the temporal and limited creature mind is, in and of itself, potential evil. But the augmenting error of unjustified deficiency in reasonable spiritual rectification of these originally inherent intellectual disharmonies and spiritual insufficiencies, is equivalent to the realization of actual evil.
All static, dead, concepts are potentially evil. The finite shadow of relative and living truth is continually moving. Static concepts invariably retard science, politics, society, and religion. Static concepts may represent a certain knowledge, but they are deficient in wisdom and devoid of truth. But do not permit the concept of relativity so to mislead you that you fail to recognize the co-ordination of the universe under the guidance of the cosmic mind, and its stabilized control by the energy and spirit of the Supreme.
To completely define the infinite is impossible but certainly easy enough to discuss and to be absolutely realised beyond relative values once you unchain the mind from relative boundaries.
The source of universe reality is the Infinite. The material things of finite creation are the time-space repercussions of the Paradise Pattern and the Universal Mind of the eternal God. Causation in the physical world, self-consciousness in the intellectual world, and progressing selfhood in the spirit world÷these realities, projected on a universal scale, combined in eternal relatedness, and experienced with perfection of quality and divinity of value÷constitute the reality of the Supreme. But in an ever-changing universe the Original Personality of causation, intelligence, and spirit experience is changeless, absolute. All things, even in an eternal universe of limitless values and divine qualities, may, and oftentimes do, change except the Absolutes and that which has attained the physical status, intellectual embrace, or spiritual identity which is absolute.
The highest level to which a finite creature can progress is the recognition of the Universal Father and the knowing of the Supreme. And even then such beings of finality destiny go on experiencing change in the motions of the physical world and in its material phenomena. Likewise do they remain aware of selfhood progression in their continuing ascension of the spiritual universe and of growing consciousness in their deepening appreciation of, and response to, the intellectual cosmos. Only in the perfection, harmony, and unanimity of will can the creature become as one with the Creator; and such a state of divinity is attained and maintained only by the creature's continuing to live in time and eternity by consistently conforming his finite personal will to the divine will of the Creator. Always must the desire to do the Father's will be supreme in the soul and dominant over the mind of an ascending son of God.
A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective. Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality. All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition.
Mindless causation cannot evolve the refined and complex from the crude and the simple, neither can spiritless experience evolve the divine characters of eternal survival from the material minds of the mortals of time. The one attribute of the universe which so exclusively characterizes the infinite Deity is this unending creative bestowal of personality which can survive in progressive Deity attainment.
Personality is that cosmic endowment, that phase of universal reality, which can coexist with unlimited change and at the same time retain its identity in the very presence of all such changes, and forever afterward.
Life is an adaptation of the original cosmic causation to the demands and possibilities of universe situations, and it comes into being by the action of the Universal Mind and the activation of the spirit spark of the God who is spirit. The meaning of life is its adaptability; the value of life is its progressability÷even to the heights of God-consciousness.
Misadaptation of self-conscious life to the universe results in cosmic disharmony. Final divergence of personality will from the trend of the universes terminates in intellectual isolation, personality segregation. Loss of the indwelling spirit pilot supervenes in spiritual cessation of existence. Intelligent and progressing life becomes then, in and of itself, an incontrovertible proof of the existence of a purposeful universe expressing the will of a divine Creator. And this life, in the aggregate, struggles toward higher values, having for its final goal the Universal Father.
Only in degree does man possess mind above the animal level aside from the higher and quasi-spiritual ministrations of intellect. Therefore animals (not having worship and wisdom) cannot experience superconsciousness, consciousness of consciousness. The animal mind is only conscious of the objective universe.
Knowledge is the sphere of the material or fact-discerning mind. Truth is the domain of the spiritually endowed intellect that is conscious of knowing God. Knowledge is demonstrable; truth is experienced. Knowledge is a possession of the mind; truth an experience of the soul, the progressing self. Knowledge is a function of the nonspiritual level; truth is a phase of the mind-spirit level of the universes. The eye of the material mind perceives a world of factual knowledge; the eye of the spiritualized intellect discerns a world of true values. These two views, synchronized and harmonized, reveal the world of reality, wherein wisdom interprets the phenomena of the universe in terms of progressive personal experience.
Error (evil) is the penalty of imperfection. The qualities of imperfection or facts of misadaptation are disclosed on the material level by critical observation and by scientific analysis; on the moral level, by human experience. The presence of evil constitutes proof of the inaccuracies of mind and the immaturity of the evolving self. Evil is, therefore, also a measure of imperfection in universe interpretation. The possibility of making mistakes is inherent in the acquisition of wisdom, the scheme of progressing from the partial and temporal to the complete and eternal, from the relative and imperfect to the final and perfected. Error is the shadow of relative incompleteness which must of necessity fall across man's ascending universe path to Paradise perfection. Error (evil) is not an actual universe quality; it is simply the observation of a relativity in the relatedness of the imperfection of the incomplete finite to the ascending levels of the Supreme and Ultimate.
Evil is a relativity concept. It arises out of the observation of the imperfections which appear in the shadow cast by a finite universe of things and beings as such a cosmos obscures the living light of the universal expression of the eternal realities of the Infinite One.
Potential evil is inherent in the necessary incompleteness of the revelation of God as a time-space-limited expression of infinity and eternity. The fact of the partial in the presence of the complete constitutes relativity of reality, creates necessity for intellectual choosing, and establishes value levels of spirit recognition and response. The incomplete and finite concept of the Infinite which is held by the temporal and limited creature mind is, in and of itself, potential evil. But the augmenting error of unjustified deficiency in reasonable spiritual rectification of these originally inherent intellectual disharmonies and spiritual insufficiencies, is equivalent to the realization of actual evil.
All static, dead, concepts are potentially evil. The finite shadow of relative and living truth is continually moving. Static concepts invariably retard science, politics, society, and religion. Static concepts may represent a certain knowledge, but they are deficient in wisdom and devoid of truth. But do not permit the concept of relativity so to mislead you that you fail to recognize the co-ordination of the universe under the guidance of the cosmic mind, and its stabilized control by the energy and spirit of the Supreme.
crikey! does anybody out there think that made much more sense than this?
it seems that, although a mind is a terrible thing to waste, a wasted mind is a terrible thing to put up with
it seems that, although a mind is a terrible thing to waste, a wasted mind is a terrible thing to put up with
I'm flattered that you still take so much interest in me and my posts.
Smoochies
Smoochies
Joesus,
true wisdom brings humility. History provides ample evidence of this. Your lack of this trait speaks volumes.
I think you try too hard to appear wise. You're being too self-conscious and too concerned about your image. Why don't you just share your thoughts without expecting some reward in return? Does the sun expect something in return for showering us all with its golden rays? No, it does so out of its abundance, without expecting anything in return. If only you could overflow with such abundance!
You've made it evident that you can write in large quantities, but do you think nothing of quality? I read through your big long post above, and it was mostly nonsense. It's like reading a horoscope. You understand what it's saying, but it's either completely meaningless (for example, when you speak of "time-space repercussions of the Paradise Pattern") or it's filled with truisms (for example, "To completely define the infinite is impossible"). And so I must ask, do you have anything useful to share?
If you are content with your state of understanding, then you have a small spiritual appetite in my opinion. You come to dinner, and you don't even bring a good appetite with you. What is there of life in that?
Do we value the eunuch who has no sexual appetite? In a similar manner, should we value your state which apparently is characterized by the lack of spiritual appetite? Who wants to live like this? Why would you do this to yourself?
You seem to value the 'Will of God', but you lack it, just as you apparently lack any sort of strong will whatsoever. Perhaps you truly aspire to be the 'Mouthpiece of God' instead, but you will never be anything like the 'Hand of God', or anything remotely resembling the 'Will of God', at the rate you're going. What is there of will in you? Your whole persona is of the self-satisfied, will-less individual who thinks that they know it all. You may think that you know it all and that you've progressed to the highest level, but apparently you're the only one who thinks this. Is this the goal of your religion, to delude yourself into believing just about anything? Have you no honesty, intellectual or otherwise? Have you no will left?
You tend to speak in very vague terms, but when you get into details, you show your true hand, and it's clear that you've been bluffing all along. For example, in your post above, you say:
true wisdom brings humility. History provides ample evidence of this. Your lack of this trait speaks volumes.
I think you try too hard to appear wise. You're being too self-conscious and too concerned about your image. Why don't you just share your thoughts without expecting some reward in return? Does the sun expect something in return for showering us all with its golden rays? No, it does so out of its abundance, without expecting anything in return. If only you could overflow with such abundance!
You've made it evident that you can write in large quantities, but do you think nothing of quality? I read through your big long post above, and it was mostly nonsense. It's like reading a horoscope. You understand what it's saying, but it's either completely meaningless (for example, when you speak of "time-space repercussions of the Paradise Pattern") or it's filled with truisms (for example, "To completely define the infinite is impossible"). And so I must ask, do you have anything useful to share?
If you are content with your state of understanding, then you have a small spiritual appetite in my opinion. You come to dinner, and you don't even bring a good appetite with you. What is there of life in that?
Do we value the eunuch who has no sexual appetite? In a similar manner, should we value your state which apparently is characterized by the lack of spiritual appetite? Who wants to live like this? Why would you do this to yourself?
You seem to value the 'Will of God', but you lack it, just as you apparently lack any sort of strong will whatsoever. Perhaps you truly aspire to be the 'Mouthpiece of God' instead, but you will never be anything like the 'Hand of God', or anything remotely resembling the 'Will of God', at the rate you're going. What is there of will in you? Your whole persona is of the self-satisfied, will-less individual who thinks that they know it all. You may think that you know it all and that you've progressed to the highest level, but apparently you're the only one who thinks this. Is this the goal of your religion, to delude yourself into believing just about anything? Have you no honesty, intellectual or otherwise? Have you no will left?
You tend to speak in very vague terms, but when you get into details, you show your true hand, and it's clear that you've been bluffing all along. For example, in your post above, you say:
| QUOTE |
| But in an ever-changing universe the Original Personality of causation, intelligence, and spirit experience is changeless, absolute. |
and this shows me how flawed your position is. Since Hume, the objective existence of 'causation' has been disproved. Further, to claim that your 'spirit experience' is absolute is just blatantly absurd because you're making your relative experience some absolute. Also, 'intelligence' is such a vague term, that it really doesn't say much.
And finally, your Original Personality sounds very much like your ego. Get over your ego, son. Only then will you shine forth true wisdom like the sun shines forth its golden rays.
Perception is what creates relativity, perceptions in proofs that are stable only in time.
I am more interested in what exists beyond individual perceptions and structures within the belief systems of time and intellectual stagnation.
You are welcome to your ideas and your feelings, this I have no issue with as I do not have an issue with anyones feelings.
Your perceptions however are simply that tho and unfortunately the world does not always agree when the universe is seen as fragmented in so many definitions.
Your arguments are not new to me and like the parrot that speaks so often of what it hears and does not know easy to understand.
Enjoy
I am more interested in what exists beyond individual perceptions and structures within the belief systems of time and intellectual stagnation.
You are welcome to your ideas and your feelings, this I have no issue with as I do not have an issue with anyones feelings.
Your perceptions however are simply that tho and unfortunately the world does not always agree when the universe is seen as fragmented in so many definitions.
Your arguments are not new to me and like the parrot that speaks so often of what it hears and does not know easy to understand.
Enjoy
| QUOTE |
| Your arguments are not new to me and like the parrot that speaks so often of what it hears and does not know easy to understand. |
are you saying you're a parrot, Joesus? I'm glad you're finally seeing things from my perspective!
Your perspective is something isn't it..
Wow, Sally hits you like a car crash!
After reading this thread I had to purchase some, and tried it last night. No hallucinations but it bent my brain round 180 degrees
Thanks for the tip guys, i'm looking forward to trying it again.
After reading this thread I had to purchase some, and tried it last night. No hallucinations but it bent my brain round 180 degrees
Thanks for the tip guys, i'm looking forward to trying it again.
when I danced with Sally, I felt like I was being rolled up like one of those retractable window shades. My sense of smell and taste revolted against the smell of burning Sally, which was quite unpleasant. All told, Sally just wasn't my kind of girl
That's a shame Dan, but if you don't want her 
I was reading that you become sensitized to the experience over a number of uses and not to expect much the first go. Does this mean that the hallucinations will come in time?
That's something that I really feel the need to see, to prove to myself that its possible. I've not once seen a hallucination in all my 28 years and no amout of mushrooms or acid has helped. I'm beginning to think its all a lie, either that or I have some sort of neurolicical block.
Would love to get hold of some pure LSD or Mescalin but that stuff is near on impossible to get in the UK, and my peote cactus died recently
I was reading that you become sensitized to the experience over a number of uses and not to expect much the first go. Does this mean that the hallucinations will come in time?
That's something that I really feel the need to see, to prove to myself that its possible. I've not once seen a hallucination in all my 28 years and no amout of mushrooms or acid has helped. I'm beginning to think its all a lie, either that or I have some sort of neurolicical block.
Would love to get hold of some pure LSD or Mescalin but that stuff is near on impossible to get in the UK, and my peote cactus died recently
Laz,
I 'm curious to know exactly what you expect in a true "hallucination"? Would say, seeing a person who isn't really there-but who appears so real you can't distinguish them from a "real" person- count? In my own case, I've had what I consider hallucination just from smoking weed! There was even once after using a centrepoine CD that I SWEAR there was somebody in the room that I seen out of the corner of my eye!
Hammy
I 'm curious to know exactly what you expect in a true "hallucination"? Would say, seeing a person who isn't really there-but who appears so real you can't distinguish them from a "real" person- count? In my own case, I've had what I consider hallucination just from smoking weed! There was even once after using a centrepoine CD that I SWEAR there was somebody in the room that I seen out of the corner of my eye!
Hammy
Hey Hammy, hows it going
hmmm, a true hallucination...
I want to have a predomenantly visual experience that is like this excerpt from the salvia.co.uk site:
After about 15 minutes, we began to have visions. This time I spoke mine out, alternating between English and Spanish, which helped to fix them in my mind. Diaz spoke first and mentioned flowers. These later became giant fruits and seeds. At the same time I felt that I was twisting inside my body as well as spinning around. I saw a burning cross with two horizontal rays. It stopped flaming and began to emit light. Suddenly I seemed to be very heavy, as though something were pushing me into the bed. My arms felt sore. Later I saw what looked like a darkened picture in black and white. Diaz apologized to Don Alejandro for our inability to see the religious figures the curandero had described. My vision then changed back to colour, with praying figures resembling those seen in Mexican churches. They were faceless and their clothing was covered with gold. The image of a jewel-encrusted, single-rayed cross appeared. It converted itself slowly back and forth to a sword. In the centre of the image I could see animals, plants, and people. If the vision started to change or disappear, I could concentrate and bring it back. The last image was that of a castle that was transformed into a Byzantine church. Hooded, faceless, monk-like figures marched around it.
After a prolonged interruption, he returned to his motel room, where the hallucinations returned:
Even though I did not speak out, I saw a pulsating purplish light that changed to an insect-like shape, perhaps a bee or a moth, and then into a pulsating sea anemone. It expanded into a desert full of prickly pear cacti, and remained so for several minutes. During the first session and throughout the night, my visions had all appeared to be something like a cross between a silent moving picture and a cartoon. I felt myself to be an observer of these mute visions, rather than being an actual part of them. Suddenly, however, I was in a broad meadow with brightly coloured flowers. I had just crossed a stream by way of a small wooden bridge. Next to me was something that seemed to be the skeleton of a giant model airplane made of rainbow coloured inner tubing. The sky was bright blue and I could see a wood in the distance. I found myself talking to a man in a shining white robe that was either shaking my hand, or else holding on to it. It was an amazing hallucination, as I truly believed I was in the meadow. It was not like a dream. After a few moments the desert landscape returned and I slowly went to sleep after an hour or so.
To have ones head folded in on itself and to feel it as a sensation, is of course a hallucination, but its not the stereotypical trip. I have had many balance related hallucinations and can induce them in myself without the need for drugs under the right condidtions, but i don't class these as what i am looking for.
I want to see stuff, I want to have a converstaion with a wise druid only wake up the next day and find out that i was talking to a lamp post!
hmmm, a true hallucination...
I want to have a predomenantly visual experience that is like this excerpt from the salvia.co.uk site:
After about 15 minutes, we began to have visions. This time I spoke mine out, alternating between English and Spanish, which helped to fix them in my mind. Diaz spoke first and mentioned flowers. These later became giant fruits and seeds. At the same time I felt that I was twisting inside my body as well as spinning around. I saw a burning cross with two horizontal rays. It stopped flaming and began to emit light. Suddenly I seemed to be very heavy, as though something were pushing me into the bed. My arms felt sore. Later I saw what looked like a darkened picture in black and white. Diaz apologized to Don Alejandro for our inability to see the religious figures the curandero had described. My vision then changed back to colour, with praying figures resembling those seen in Mexican churches. They were faceless and their clothing was covered with gold. The image of a jewel-encrusted, single-rayed cross appeared. It converted itself slowly back and forth to a sword. In the centre of the image I could see animals, plants, and people. If the vision started to change or disappear, I could concentrate and bring it back. The last image was that of a castle that was transformed into a Byzantine church. Hooded, faceless, monk-like figures marched around it.
After a prolonged interruption, he returned to his motel room, where the hallucinations returned:
Even though I did not speak out, I saw a pulsating purplish light that changed to an insect-like shape, perhaps a bee or a moth, and then into a pulsating sea anemone. It expanded into a desert full of prickly pear cacti, and remained so for several minutes. During the first session and throughout the night, my visions had all appeared to be something like a cross between a silent moving picture and a cartoon. I felt myself to be an observer of these mute visions, rather than being an actual part of them. Suddenly, however, I was in a broad meadow with brightly coloured flowers. I had just crossed a stream by way of a small wooden bridge. Next to me was something that seemed to be the skeleton of a giant model airplane made of rainbow coloured inner tubing. The sky was bright blue and I could see a wood in the distance. I found myself talking to a man in a shining white robe that was either shaking my hand, or else holding on to it. It was an amazing hallucination, as I truly believed I was in the meadow. It was not like a dream. After a few moments the desert landscape returned and I slowly went to sleep after an hour or so.
To have ones head folded in on itself and to feel it as a sensation, is of course a hallucination, but its not the stereotypical trip. I have had many balance related hallucinations and can induce them in myself without the need for drugs under the right condidtions, but i don't class these as what i am looking for.
I want to see stuff, I want to have a converstaion with a wise druid only wake up the next day and find out that i was talking to a lamp post!
You might want to try DMT, I hear it induces 'near death' type of visions or something and there is no danger of actually dying (although you might short a mental circuit or two). Here is a book written by a krazy doctor who administered DMT in controlled settings. A similar chemical, 5-MeO-DMT, can be acquired quasi-legally online here (along with other interesting chemicals) and this tells you how to use it and what to expect.
Laz,
I don't know if you've read anything written by Terence McKenna, but he contends that a a sufficient - what he calls "heroic"- dose of mushrooms would induce something along the lines of what you're looking for... The most intriguing account I read was how he was essentially being shown a series of visions that was narrated by a voice, telling him of various scenarios that could lay in store for the fate of the human race. Also like Dan says, he talks alot about DMT as being pretty powerful. I think there are hallucinations out there if you look hard enough!
Hammy
I don't know if you've read anything written by Terence McKenna, but he contends that a a sufficient - what he calls "heroic"- dose of mushrooms would induce something along the lines of what you're looking for... The most intriguing account I read was how he was essentially being shown a series of visions that was narrated by a voice, telling him of various scenarios that could lay in store for the fate of the human race. Also like Dan says, he talks alot about DMT as being pretty powerful. I think there are hallucinations out there if you look hard enough!
Hammy
Pass the purina rat chow, and the ego polish.
http://nootropics.com/
http://www.erowid.org/smarts/smarts.shtml
http://nootropics.com/
http://www.erowid.org/smarts/smarts.shtml
Here are some images that may well send a shiver down your spine and remind you of your salvia experiences:
http://www.salvia-divinorum-scotland.co.uk...mages/index.htm
http://www.salvia-divinorum-scotland.co.uk...mages/index.htm
I have tried quite a few of the herbal perception altering drugs, Salvia, Calea, HB Woodrose, Trumpets, Devils, Kava, Khat, Morning Glories, ect ect.. Out of all of them, Salvia is by far so horrifying and disturbing that the rest fade from memory. However, I still do it.. not because I enjoy it, but because it takes me from this life, sort of, for a while.. Anyone who is interested in these things, may I suggest. Erowid.org or Lycaeum.org for all your information needs. Dosages, Experiences, and such. And I personally am available most of the time. EtudiantDeVie on AIM. If anyone wants to talk or needs advice on anything like this. Also, I know the absolute best place to get salvia.. Ive seen lots of people just pass out from the strength, and it wasnt even the strongest they had, and the price aint bad. Well, I guess thats it for now. Au Reviour!
where's the best place to get salvia?? I tried it but mine didn't do anythinga nd so I'm very sceptical about it. Are you a distributer, seller, or producer of Salvia? Hmmmmm.
if you're in the UK I can personally recommend www.Salvia.co.uk
Internet Drug peddling!
what a world what a world
what a world what a world
The active ingredient in Salvia divinorum is a compound called salvinorin A. It is structurally distinct from LSD, mescaline, and other known hallucinogens. In addition, it does not work through the same biological mechanism of these hallucinogens. LSD and other hallucinogens work by binding to serotonin receptors. In particular, they work at 5-HT2A receptors. Salvinorin A has very poor activity at these receptors. Rather it is a potent and selective agonist at kappa opioid receptors. Opioid receptors modulate the activity of the endogenous opioid peptides or endorphins. The best known naturally occurring opioid ligand is morphine. Interestingly, salvinorin A doesn't look like morphine or heroin or other standard opioid ligands either. Many of the effects of salvinorin A are not completely understood but several research groups are trying to change that.
I am very interested in Salvia....I have experienced it a couple of times. I was wondering if you could tell me a little about why everything I looked at looked like clay-mation. What part of the brain does it alter?
it alters a very strange area of the brain, not sure where as the drug needs more research. i might do research on it myself using my MRI machine.
Salvia hasnt done much for me, in its 10x dose I felt differently but not different. No perception change at all.
I've read through some of the responses here and seems that most of you are well informed and naturally curious to how certain substances can enhance memory, increase creativity and mental acuteness.
I'm in the fortunate position of having taken most recreationally and also in a controlled enviroment with various like minded researchers. I've now been using lsd and mesculine ( lophoro williamsi ) for 10 years and tests have shown that IQ has upped 8 points - now that may not sound like a great deal, but it is. Having said that I cant help but question other factors -- since I started this experiment, the substances have lead me to ask questions that I would;nt normally ask, its taken me on paths that once bored me senseless but now interest me enough to research. Its a 50/50 situation - substance+curiousity
Maybe I'm rambling but I'm getting to the point - before delving into this full steam - make sure that you have some questions you'd like to answer for yourself ( not handed to you on a plate by others ). Dont be a lazy thinker, work it hard and dont be scared to voice what YOU think, regardless of what geniuses may say - the best development only happens when you try answer impossible answers by thought alone. Be prepared to spend plenty of time on your own, its a necessity I hope some other experienced and freethinkers in this arena will agree with.
Lastly amino acids are essential if youre going to be serious about this, you need it, not only to enhance certain experiences, but also to minimise damage of the synapses, receptors, seratonin and most important to ensure those neurons fire as well if not better than you started this journey with.
I've read through some of the responses here and seems that most of you are well informed and naturally curious to how certain substances can enhance memory, increase creativity and mental acuteness.
I'm in the fortunate position of having taken most recreationally and also in a controlled enviroment with various like minded researchers. I've now been using lsd and mesculine ( lophoro williamsi ) for 10 years and tests have shown that IQ has upped 8 points - now that may not sound like a great deal, but it is. Having said that I cant help but question other factors -- since I started this experiment, the substances have lead me to ask questions that I would;nt normally ask, its taken me on paths that once bored me senseless but now interest me enough to research. Its a 50/50 situation - substance+curiousity
Maybe I'm rambling but I'm getting to the point - before delving into this full steam - make sure that you have some questions you'd like to answer for yourself ( not handed to you on a plate by others ). Dont be a lazy thinker, work it hard and dont be scared to voice what YOU think, regardless of what geniuses may say - the best development only happens when you try answer impossible answers by thought alone. Be prepared to spend plenty of time on your own, its a necessity I hope some other experienced and freethinkers in this arena will agree with.
Lastly amino acids are essential if youre going to be serious about this, you need it, not only to enhance certain experiences, but also to minimise damage of the synapses, receptors, seratonin and most important to ensure those neurons fire as well if not better than you started this journey with.
Soma, with your experience I'd be very interested to hear more about from you.
No problem unknown, I'll answer any questions with complete honesty and wont try and paint pretty pictures etc etc.
| QUOTE (Soma @ Feb 18, 05:07 AM) |
| No problem unknown, I'll answer any questions with complete honesty and wont try and paint pretty pictures etc etc. |
Great. Thanks Soma.
To start, I have experimented a bit in my time. If I didn't, I would definitely be a different person today because my experimentation changed me, but not without negative side effects that didn't fully disappear until months, perhaps even years, later. Looking back, I believe I came through the experience stronger than when I went in, but imagine that other people could have succumbed to addiction or irreversibly damaged themselves. Because of this view, I do not openly recommend that other people experiment with entheogens since such experimentation is not for the general public but should only be pursued by a select few people who do not need to be pointed in such a direction by others, but who will find the direction on their own. I wonder about how many other people in a similar situation as mine share such views. Clearly, experimentation has incredible potential for mental and spiritual growth, but it carries such high risks that I wonder whether it's ever justified to recommend this path to others. What do you think?
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Feb 18, 12:48 PM) |
| Looking back, I believe I came through the experience stronger than when I went in, but imagine that other people could have succumbed to addiction or irreversibly damaged themselves. Because of this view, I do not openly recommend that other people experiment with entheogens since such experimentation is not for the general public but should only be pursued by a select few... |
You describe a classic philosophical split as epitomized by Dr. Albert Hofmann, discoverer of LSD, and Dr. Timothy Leary, proselytizer of LSD. Hofmann took action to prevent Leary from obtaining the million doses of LSD that he ordered from the Sandoz pharmaceutical company, where Hofmann was employed. This drove the psychedelic movement underground. I think history has vindicated Hoffman: consciouness expansion is only for the elite.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.