expirementation.. thought process benefits to being stoned

Okay.. wanted to try to make a pretty original post here....



So I'm high at the moment, and a few minutes ago I’m watching this mpeg I downloaded that is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon synced with the Wizard of Oz. Needless to say this was a very perplexing experience. What intrigued me most though is the fact that I noticed things.. the syncs.. ones I had never even noticed before. I then sobered up just a bit and thought to myself what this meant. My conclusion is that when you are watching a streaming movie your thoughts become very narrow and focused on just what you are watching, not everything else available for you to possibly apply to the viewing experience. When you are stoned your available mental creative and reasoning is widened, albeit not efficiently... but it is widened (this is what I believe results in all the absurd things we imagine off any topic when we are stoned). When I view the movie, I suddenly think of many more connections in my head to what I’m witnessing on film... it all becomes distorted so that it appears as if it passes slower, and there is no cognitive pressure.. Freedom to just let the observations flow all throughout your mind. Because of this I'm able to make many more connections between the music and the film's supposed magical sync.... If anyone is interested here is the details of two stoned observations I made: (and they may not be THAT good, as I didn’t read up hardly any on this sync, only heard that it was good and downloaded the video)



1. "Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain" -- in sync with Toto lying in the sunshine on the bed after escaping from the wicked lady’s bike to run back into Dorothy’s home right before the storm.



2."Hear the softly spoken magic spell" -- the wizard (then traveling magician) finishes telling Dorothy her reading with his magic ball, then immediately after that Dorothy runs out into the windy storm the exact second that great gig in the sky comes on (which in itself is another name for a big storm, metaphorically speaking the song was supposed to refer to the storm of death but is very literal in this sync.)



Anyone's thoughts on this phenomenon I felt....? This really surprised me!

 

Interesting,
I can see what your saying on how it helps your mind open up to many things, that normally would never come to conciousness
-Your getting that whole "philasophical" mindset

 

i completely agree, weed just helps you "become one". There i said it...no am not a Budhist(if thats how to spell it). They've hit the nail on the head with that saying. Weed brings you closer to your Sub-Conscious [the cause of that annoying as Fook feeling of "paranoia"(which is just over-perception and taken negatively because everyone is jelous of your hightened intake)]...where was i?....went off in a tangent there.

There is something about smokin a doob that just feels so right. Im not an addict but i am in denile.

I hope there is some1 out there that feels what am sayin. If there is any1 that knows what am on about. e-mail me r10g10@aol.com

happy tokin,

Fellow ToKeR

 

this is an interesting thread that is about to fall off the edge of the forum. Ive yet to see the sync but this tpuches very well on the neurology of cannabis. not something ill go into now, but maybe something to get some more replies

 

though i was talking about the first person's interpretation. at any rate, how about other people post their way of viewing this process, in terms of the mind.

eg. a friend of mine describes it as an amplification of each moment. every sense and though amplified in the moment.

 

I've noticed this type of thing. Whenever I'm high I can notice similarities between how I'm feeling at the time and what is going on in the world around me. Similarities that I would not have noticed had I not been high at the time. Synchronicity is a tricky subject. I always relate it to that scene in The Matrix when the Oracle tells Neo "don't worry about the vase", then he breaks it. She goes on to discuss whether or not he would have broken the vase if she hadn't mentioned it. I relate synchronicity to this scene because maybe there are always the similarities between stoned observations about percieved possibilities and their correlation with everyday life, but we are just more in tune with the similarities, as opposed to the differences, in our stoned state of mind.

 

^^^sorry, stoned gibberish

 

can u send us the clip of wizard of oz and dark side of the moon?

 

Dude, he made the post almost a year and a half ago. The clip is probably long gone.

 

All you have to do is start DSotM at the 3rd roar of the MGM lion. Mute the Wizard and turn up the Floyd, smoke up again, because naturally, you already have. It can be a little tricky starting it right, but different synchs can happen if you slightly off. Just look it up on Yahoo. Much more fullfilling if you do it yourself.

 

just download the sync off of kazaa or whatever file sharing program you use (if you use one)

 

ya i dloaded it off kazaa lite, it was good quality, no virus's

 

I'm not sure it's amplification, it's more of a whole different mode of thought. Nonlinear instead of the sober linear. Inductive rather than deductive. There's more freedom, including the freedom to follow absurdities to their ends, rather than giving up on them like we generally do when we're sober. This, and the general shift into a different mode of thinking will often allow us to notice things we wouldn't have noticed when sober, probably because of the shock, or newness, of this mode of thought makes everything seem fresh.

 

yer its not actually amplification, but in a few cases his idea works especially in the domains that he explored. in my early inspections i looked at it through the amplification route and it fits in with a lot, i wrote a very big page post on it in some random forum, but ive since found a much more accurate look at cannabis action i believe, but i need to look at some more neuroscience to integrate, unfortunately, scientists are fuckin slow when it comes to establishing any of this sort of thing

in ways though, all these are right.

like to hear morethough

 

You don't need to have more knowledge in neuroscience to understand being high. All you need is some weed and a bowl.

Seriously though, I mean that. A description or a thesis on the cause/effect of marijauan highs and such, are not the same as the experience, which is what really counts. Not to say understanding it isn't interesting, of course. But I say, just get stoned and watch yourself. May not be science, but it's still understanding.

 

you can get a general idea, but neuroscience and the mind are anaologuous. if an idea doesnt fit in with teh neuroscience then either the idea or the neuroscience is incomplete, and in reality its always both, however by integrating both you can get closest to this sort of thing.

i dunno, it might just be my way of thinkning about it but i dont actually see a difference in the experience and the workings of the brain, theyre the same thing, just different ways to describe or percieve them\

in the end theyre describing the same function and process. you cant do neuroscience without experimenting with experience, and i also believe perception is given tonnes more value when the process behind them are considered

 

It's just my sort of way of seeing things. I think the subjective experience is paramount and more important than our supposed objective views. Also, I think far more is to be learned via synthesis, rather than analysis. Analysis means division, cutting stuff apart to learn about it. I believe we are more than the sum of our parts, being also the relationship between them. Thus, for example, dissecting a body can only teach you so much, because it is dead. When you put it all together, you get a Frankenstein monster, it isn't the same thing as it was before because it's been pasted together with your assumptions, rather than it's actual relationships.

The ancient Chinese and Indian doctors did not see things structurally like we do, but functionally. They didn't know about the stomach or heart or liver (well, they did, but not in the same sense we do), they dealt with body regions, energy centers, etc. Yet their medicine was just as good as, and in some ways better (less invasive, for example) than ours (until modern times, but technology only takes you so far). The point is they didn't have to cut up the body to learn about it, they just went from experience. And they have far, far more knowledge about the mind than we in the West do, because with their meditation they have in a sense mastered it. We focused on outer space, they on inner space. The mind, anyways, is such a tricky thing to study, as it is so very near and dear to us. I believe the subjective experience is the best way to learn it. I guess I'm biased by my Eastern philosophical leanings though.

 

i think frankenstein effect (not understanding the actual links of the whole body) isnt to do with the analytical approach taken, but the ability for the analyser to consider teh system as a whole. which is clearly not a strength of modern scientists. at least in psychology. especially in psychology. i mean, you have eastern philosophy.. and then western scientific approach. but what happens when you join the two? what happens when you look at the science behind eastern medicine? you get confused, because the structured approach to science sees eastern medicine as too indirect. but if it works, then there MUST be a process behind it, musnt there? unless herbs contain metaphysical energies and healing powers.

subjectivity is individual for everyone. but neuroscience isnt. but at the same time if you then dont consider your own subjectivity, neuroscience will not make sense.

for example, when i read scientific articles on the brain, its clear that the writers cocnlusions from their studies are done by observing their test subjects externally. they show a test and then say 'nd from this we can see that so and so process leads to such and such behavior'. or something along these lines. but i take my own conclusions from the data given, according to how it reflects my own subjectivity (if it applies to a state of mind that i can relate to). without my own subjectivity, i would not be studying the mind, but the output of the mind. by linking subjectivity to objectivity, the nature of the subjectivity can be linked to every human with a functioning brain. with just sujectivity, i am only exploring my own mind, and you simply cant use eastern philosophy to attack an unknown situation. you can only use it to explore what is known. eastern philosophy has of course developed over many many thousands of years of people devoting their life to it and thus it is comprehensive in a range of pathways. this is mostly why its so much more effective than science, which really has only been studied by relatively few people over some several hundred years (in terms of the things we are tlkaing about now).

eastern doctors would have had to do some sort of science of their own, testing medicines and the like at some point along teh track. philosophers would have tested their ideas amongst their people and selves. using science takes these ideas to the furtherst studiable level. cept once again, it has to be integrated. one without the other is useless. objective studies are dry observations. subjective ones are incomparable to any others. in order to compare subjectivity, you are using some level of 'objectivity' whether you like it or not. however its only gonna go as far as the terms in which you define your own subjectivity. so if you define your own subjectivity on the terms through which are equal across man and animal.... then youre not making youre subjectivity any less of an experience.. youre merely puting it in a realm where you can relate to every single mind there is.

you see this thread clearly shows that peoples subjectivities are all different. however the science behind them shows that theyre all actually directly comparable and relatable and essentially the same (they have to be, since we all have brains and we all are smoking cannabis). difference in subjectivity can then be understood in terms of difference in brains, thus these differences can be factored in, and everything is on the same level of process.

sorry i dont know if this was clear enough


but to be honest, i dont think english language can be used effectively in terms of the mind, i dont think it has the words to express the right things

 

I believe it was the late, great Bill Hicks who said: We are all one consiousness experiencing itself subjectively at a slow vibration.


Or something like that. I just smoked a huge ball of resin, so I'm going to go meditate and sleep. Good vibes to you all.

 

that sync is nothing compared to syncing up

Eminems - Go to sleep with Gorillaz - party time [thats not what the video is called, i'm nto sure what video it was, but it's the one when tey are driving on the freeway in that dune buggy]

NOW THAT IS TRIPPY!