dmt- I long for you

You said all that? Philosophy is the love of truth. Philosophy and science are natural partners. Your parameters strangle both science and philosophy.

Actually a bit of feigned enthusiasm as poetic license. I am for equal measure. I sincerely doubt that psychedelics have done more to affect the quality of your life than the study of physics. The study of physics leads to the practical application of physical principles. Arther C Clark is a science fiction and science writer who first put forth the idea of communication satellites. Our current way of life leans heavily on physical science. I am however certain that you may find psychedelics more overtly entertaining to your psyche.

You could say the same for the American middle class model, however as Krisnamurti said, it is not a measure of success to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
I have used psychedelics much in my practice, so I am not an enemy to the cause.

 

That is the literal original meaning of philosophy yes. But it tends more in modern vernacular to refer to something more esoteric. A general 'principle' upon which to base one's life.

As far as the search for 'Truth' goes, science is an abysmal failure. What truth ones arrives at via the scientific method depends entirely on what axioms one assumes, what experiments one chooses, and which of the myriad possible models that all equally well fit the data at hand one decides is most fitting to one's current worldview. Science doesn't require nor provide -the- answer, it just creates and uses -effective- ones. That's all.

Not to mention that a large number of the social systems and philosophies that have arisen from and been justified by strict scientific doctrine have been abysmally amoral.

As I said, I have benefited greatly from the wonders of technology, all the product of scientific research. As has society in general. I said -my- study of physics did less for -my- psychic well-being than psychedelics. Despite a childhood of reading physics texts for fun.

As for psychedelics and their entertainment value, well, I do admit I've had quite a bit of fun with them. But first off, fun is of high value to my psychic well-being. And second, fun is far from the sole or main reason I have made use of them. I primarily take them as a tool, an aid in learning to lead a more fulfilling, more compassionate, more functional life. And in this they've been indispensable. Quite to the point of considering that McKenzie's idea, that the ancient myths of 'Paradise' that seem to be common in many cultures arise from times when humankind lived in a symbiotic relationship with psychedelics, may actually have some merit. And the idea that most all human cultures arose with the use of psychedelics as a prime component actually seems fairly strongly supported.

People who seek out ayahuasca for fun are usually disappointed.

Well, exactly, it's a sick society. I continue to think it likely that we evolved to our current state in symbiosis with psychedelics, and our parting from them has been part of our difficulty ever since.

Psychedelics in fact do not seem to help one adjust to a profoundly sick society. In fact they seem to be one of the most powerful tools in the world for helping people see in what ways society is ailing, and for motivating people toward changing it.

Again, they are not a cure all. But they are an incredibly powerful tool. And most of humanity seems to have a feeling of -missing- something. And to me it seems that psychedelics may be a piece of what is missing.

 

truth and the imagination make up the universe and the alternate universe .. or universes..

 

While I'm mad at both of you, autumn and dope for hijacking my thread aimed at discussing Dmt, I give you credit for taking it in an interesting direction at least.

 

Imagination is part of the true nature of our experiences .. or inexperience.

 

experience what is not..

 

uhoh.... Yoda orison has been unleashed.

 

Like I say, I am for equal measure and I hold the same regard for definitions. That is, it is preferable to use the definition which accounts for all possible conjugations of the word, ergo the root expression, as opposed to a special or particular conjugation of the word.

The value of science is in it's call for rigorous fact or accurate observation.
Science's advances come from the acquisition of increasingly sensitive measuring devices to extend or enhance the senses of man. Science cannot supply an overall truth because life is emergent, measurable phenomena are emergent.

Eek!

My mistake then, I had you saying that it had done more for your quality of life.

By entertaining, I mean of fundamental interest.

When did we part from them? You are a proponent then, of the theories of Terence Mckenna?

Sanity is missing.

 

weapons, need them you will not..

 

Sorry 'bout that GB.
Btw, as far as extraction goes, I'd still say that one step, adding the lye, is better done outside if you can. Doesn't require a stove, it's an exothermic reaction.

 

You know someone is on a roll when they do that super experienced quote move.

 

Sounds like you could pull it off then. I second autumnreeze in saying you would probably bring more back from a 12 hour trip than a 15 min. one. Although I would speculate that multiple DMT trips may lend enough experience to be able to retain and consolidate. My initial complaint of Salvia Divinorum is that is initially so profoundly disorienting as to be not useful. With repeated use, recognizable patterns start to emerge.

 

What is not, does not exist.

 

Shrug, many words have many uses. Using them in another manner is not incorrect, context is important to understanding what someone is saying. I am sorry if I was unclear. There is no other word for the meaning I used. Whereas for the meaning you refer to, there is another handy word. Science. The meaning I used is also the far more common one at this time in history.

Science cares not for fact, it analyzes data. There is a subtle but very important difference. Science cannot supply an overall truth not because life and phenomena are emergent. But rather because data is always limited, and there are always an infinite number of models that fit any data set.

Tell me, how did I arrive at this number sequence:

0,1,1,2,3,5,8...

There is an obvious answer, the fibonacci sequence. But it isn't the only answer. There are, in fact, an infinite number of separate functions that would give this sequence. An infinite number, in fact, that would follow the sequence for 100 steps then suddenly deviate.

Science builds models from data, tests the models, and if they still hold up some fools start to call them facts. Then someone like Einstein comes along and pokes a few holes in the model, showing that although the universe does appear to act in accordance to the models, the models themselves are not true. Not that they are incomplete, but that they are incorrect on fundamental levels. They are useful, but not true.

Science creates extremely useful and highly functional fictions.

My use has done more for my quality of life then my study, yes. That is correct. My use has not, necessarily, done more than all science, no. I do not have a memory of any pre-science state with which to compare, but I tend to imagine life has been greatly improved on many levels by advancements in science and technology.

Say what you mean then. Your phrasing appeared quite dismissive. I will say this again, psychedelics have had an extremely powerful positive effect on me. Both through my own use and through the impact on society as a whole over the past 50 years.

Put another way, I'm sure you found Arthur C Clarke overtly entertaining to your psyche, but...

I am not trying here in any way to malign science. I am by inclination something of a scientist myself. I just find religious zeal for scientific doctrine disturbing. As a scientifically minded person.

When? Unknown. It appears to be some time within the rise of the city state. Some time after the writing of the Vedic texts.

No, I am not a proponent of Mckenna's theories. I find them fascinating, but mostly unlikely. One need not go so far beyond the pale as McKenna to find evidence of mass early cultural use of psychoactive sacraments though. This is widely accepted theory.

When did we part from it?

 

Do you consider this a common conversation, it is for me but it conforms to my interests. Just still getting a feel for you so that we can be significant in our communications.
There is another very common word to describe the phenomena you were alluding to and that is belief.

Science cares for factual or accurate data.

Another way of saying the same thing.

That is not at all an obvious answer. It may be obvious within the confines of your intended soliloquy, but the obvious answer to me is that you pull it from your memory to make a point.

This is true of all our perceptions. What we see when we look for specifics is a corridor of refraction, a small fraction of a 360 degree horizon. Form is defined by negative space.

This is the point I was making. I would further point out that you use a scientific rigor in the considerations of your own experience. Science in one regard, is the practice of scientists.

Take the defensive reaction away, i. e. "quite dismissive" and I will be easier to take. I refuse to support our local illusions.

So we've exposed some personal sensitivities. Again my zeal is for equal measure. I am not a proponent of favored sons, science and philosophy
both emerged from the night time sky.

 

I'm sorry, but it seems quite rational to take comments such as 'so much for culture' and 'give me these visions for god's sake' as being quite dismissive. I do try to give you the benefit of the doubt, as I know you are an interesting, intelligent and thoughtful man. But you also tend toward being a bit of a pompous, arrogant ass who thinks he knows better than everyone else, about just about everything.

 

Appearances are deceiving. I always invite everyone to examine the information.
I do not use emoticons.
Are you easily blown off course then?
Further I come here for communication, not debate. It is the solution that teaches, not the problem. Defensiveness is a hinderance to open communication. The only thing that can be threatened are our illusions. So let's dispense with the weaponry.

 

nice link

what IS that? i like science AND psychedelics

 

^Looks like shroomsies to me.

I understand the point made regardless of what im about to say but I thought ayahuasca was like max a 6 hour trip?

 

NaOH + HCl -> NaCl(aq) + H2O + heat. No explosive fumes. Just wanted to clear that up.