Talking to the mushroom

The imagined division of being is the first, last, most important, most salient, and most profound teaching I have received from psychedelics and otherwise perturbed states of consciousness. Diversity exists, but a diversity of one unity. Like your face; some pores here, some jelly balls of vision there, some red lips here, some openings there . . . so much going on, all kinds of different "things" . . . all still one face. If you wish, you could say that "my nostrils are communicating with each other", or you could simply zoom out and see that your face is just "facing".

Could this all just be an arbitrary difference in mental default parameters for cognitive magnification of reality? I vote YES.

 

wow. don't you know that beingness, aliveness is not a monopolized, human quality?

this is why the planet is so fucked up today. don't you know that without these other beings there is no us?

you all still think i am talking about "entities" "spirits" and all this mumbo jumbo. it's because you lack the framework in which to place such extracommunicatory experiences. it's simply interaction.

 

ok i agree with this. but aside from the unity there exists an immediately apparent duality, a relative world in which beings can interact with what is perceived as the other. this is really a moot point.


lay off the acid and you wont get so caught up in the semantics of it.

 

edit.

 

First, your making A LOT of assumptions about what I do or do not believe or respect. Maybe you should go back and re-read my post WITHOUT the intention of trying to find things to take an opposing viewpoint over, as that appears to be your intention as regards anything I post lately.

again;
Don't be so absolute and dogmatically convinced of the rightness of your own paradigm whatever that may be. It is guaranteed to change drastically as you grow and move through this adventure we call "life".

I always get a chuckle out of those in this forum and elsewhere who will condemn people for things like believing the bible, or some other religion, or believing in a God. Christians really get bashed like that a lot and are accused of being narrow-minded and dogmatic and failing to see the other side so to speak. All the while those doing the bashing are just as dogmatic, narrow-minded, and hold on to belief systems that really have no more or less validity and proof then the one they are bashing. It really is hysterical.
And that applies to all belief systems and also to those who profess to hold none. It is the very natural human trait of ego-centricity that is at work here, nobody is immune to it, including me as I dogmatically put forth the previous paragraph.

Thank you for proving the validity of the previous paragragh.

I was just using Christians as an example, same happens to Muslims, Jews, and even indiginous Indian's.

Why are you so rampantly lashing out towards those who don't completely share your world view? By doing so you shut yourself off from learning, and isn't that what this whole game we call life is about?
Has something happened recently that you are angry about? The nature of your posts seems to have changed towards being a lot more confrontational.

I could try and end this post with some smart-assed remark aimed at your particular belief system, but I won't because contrary to what you think I DO have a lot of respect for those belief systems which you ascribe to. As I have also had considerable respect for you based on the nature of your posts, now I'm not so sure.

:cheers2:

 

aye, its easy enough for me to get lost in tangents. would it suffice to say then that what could be considered the soul is that portion of the whole which is expiriencing individuality?....
its a strange word, one that iv never heard a sufficient meaning for. i parallel soul with conciousness because these concepts really do begin to merge with one another when i try to unravel their meanings. or perhaps it would feel more clarifying to say that conciousness is a symptom of the soul phenomenon. idk.

 

Did you ever consider the possibility that the awareness of the interconnectedness and the interdependancy of life is just a given for a lot of people who frequent these forums, therefore does not need to be brought up every post?

For me that has been just a foundational concept in my world view for as far back as I can remember. Maybe it comes from all those long walks with my Grandfather when I was young. He was Choctaw and often spoke of the things he learned from his mother and uncles.

It is hard to not think you are talking about "entities" and "spirits" when those are the terms you use.

 

Introduceme en tu cuerpo
desde alli te te hablaré
Introduceme en tu mente
desde alli te alumbraré
Introduceme en tu corazón
desde alli te daré calor ...

 

quote me. please show me where did i use this in this particular discussion. i will try to be more prudent about that in the future.



sorry if i seem to be attacking your beliefs? that was not my intent, only to remove the religious factor from it. because we are not talking about religion. You can say Maria Sabina's speaking with the mushroom was religious but she would probably deny that. i remember her being quite adamant about her faith belonging in the church, and her work with the mushroom being strictly practical.

i am overstating the obviously vast difference in our viewpoint of the "other intelligence" problem that trippers encounter when dealing with the mushroom people. this is not something of a simple answer so yes we are going to get excited while talking about it! that's not a bad thing. I just don't want anyone to get offended so please put me in my place if i step over the line.

now without putting words in peoples mouths....
my problem is this: some of you seem to be asserting that my viewpoint has something to do with a (mistaken) belief in spirits. This is merely a difference in our relational ontology, mine being the stance that the world is full of persons only some of which are human. Also realize that human beings are not the standard by which i set to define personage. This has nothing to do with a religious belief. It's merely the way i view the world.

If you want to discuss religion there is a forum for that. For now we are discussing communication with another person. An other than human person. If it's so hard for you to get your head around that i suggest you eat more mushrooms and ASK THAT PERSON who they are. because i doubt you will take my word for it. Why should you anyway?

good. please continue to believe what you want. if we can at least agree this much :

1. mushrooms are a living being, in a relationship with a community of other living beings.

2. to ingest a mushroom is to ingest a part this being (or the corporeal remnants of it= IF THATS WHAT YOU BELIEVE)

3. The mushroom experience, a result of ingestion, elicits an input of stimuli or information.

if we can agree on those three things really then are we not dealing with a mushroom person that communicates? if not then feel free to express yourself as to why.

 

Given the definitions of entity and being, your use of the term being is essentially the same idea as entity. Humans are entities are they not.

en⋅ti⋅ty [en-ti-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.
1. something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment


be⋅ing [bee-ing] –noun
1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4. something that exists: inanimate beings.
5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.
6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.
7. (initial capital letter) God.
8. Philosophy. a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.
b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.

Actually entity is a more accurate term than persons in regards to the type of life and intelligences to which you are referring. Person is very anthropomorphic terminology, and as you have pointed out we are not talking about things that are human or humanlike.


Have you ever considered that maybe this knowledge of plant uses and disease fighting was arrived at through happenstance or trial and error? These cultures have existed for eons and have very rich and strong verbal traditions. Understand I am not saying that they did NOT receive the information through visions, just that there are also other viable possible explanations.

My bad, I should not have used religion as an example when I was referring to the idea of personal paradigms as that is what I was actually referring to more than religious beliefs. Religion is just an easily accessible comparison for most people to grasp. Religious beliefs are a part of one's paradigm, but only a fraction.

My main contention with your views as well as some others in these forums is that you espouse your personal paradigm as THE ONLY TRUE paradigm. If you look through my posts in these type of threads I have always tried to make it clear what are my PERSONAL experiences and views, and they do not necessarily constitute reality for everyone.
I grew out of trying to convince others of the "rightness" of my experiences and religious views long, long ago. I know what I believe and that it is always evolving and that there is nothing to be gained trying to "convert" someone else. I will share my experiences, but that is different than being dogmatic about their "truth" or that they apply to everyone else.

You have experienced things in your life that have led you to your world view, as have I. That does not mean yours is any more "right" than mine or vice-versa.
The one thing I personally feel certain about is that your experiences are just as valid as mine, therefore BOTH must have some place in the "REAL TRUTH".
A vast majority of people are not willing to accept the validity of others experiences and attack them.
That is more out of fear and an ego-centric world view rather than wanting to share and compare.
That was the main idea I was trying to convey.

As far as "spirits" or "entities" it is really is just a difference in semantics.
Often I think people are referring to the same thing or phenomena, just through different cultural filters.
:cheers2:

So to arrive at a consensus of truth we should just beat each other with bats and last man standing is the keeper of the truth. At least thats the way it has been done for eons.

 

Im not going to deny the possibility of that, but typically from an ethnobotanical perspective this is a bold assumption to make about all cultures collectively. It is a really outdated assumption that was used towards the varying bodies of south american indigenous plant knowledge. Up until the expeditions of Richard Evan Shultes it was thought that for the most part people understood what they knew about plants because of experimentation. This was only partly true. The one thing that was common among all the shamans was that they used visions and messages from the plants themselves to find out what to actually experiment with- and for what purpose. The peoples use of their plants was highly linked to their relationship to the plants as living persons. This is really beautifully outlined in Wade Davis' book "One River." Richard Evan Shultes was his teacher and basically reinvented modern medicine within a couple of expeditions to the amazon.

In the example i provided earlier about the Huichole...where is the time for trial and error in vaccination techniques when primitive people have no such "germ" or pathogen paradigm like that of modern, western medicine? if they believe maladies are called by spirits then where is the trial and error for vaccination? there wasn't. The Marakame simply received instructions, and followed them.

A people with no immunological resistance or knowledge of smallpox made a primitive form of vaccination against it totally by accident? im suppost to believe that?
clearly there could be other explanations besides " a plant told him" but we don't really have much else to go on without contradicting those whose opinion matters most : the natives themselves.

i can see how you would feel that way but in all honesty i don't really care about my personal paradigm. i only care about people making stupid statements that are incorrect. i will correct that which i see is wrong.

i merely am telling you this one statement is incorrect :

because it would be based on the assertion that these three statements are false:

if they are feel free to refute them.

 

That premise does not invalidate those three points at all . . . it merely stipulates the mechanism through which the exchange of information occurs; ie, through electro-chemical activity in the gray mush between your ears caused by small amounts of a tryptamine molecule in another type of squishy/crunchy grey/brown matter called "mushrooms"

 

:cheers2:

I do believe that I didn't say I thought that trial and error were the ONLY answer, just one viable explanation, if you are going to quote me please do so in context. Yes Shultes did a lot to understand these plants and the indigenous peoples relationship with them. It is also very possible that the shamans were carrying on the oral traditions passed on to them by their predecessors in crediting the plants themselves with bestowing knowledge.
There is absolutely no way for you or Shultes to know how many people died or became ill or how many plants were tried for different things when you are talking about cultures that stretch back eons with no written history.


You obviously do care a great deal about your personal paradigm, because part of that is the acceptance and beliefs in the ideas that you have been putting forth regarding plant personages and teachers.
Evidence of your personal investment in these beliefs is revealed by the final underlined statement above.
If I was making such a statement I would have phrased it as; "I will correct that which I FEEL is incorrect."
The way in which you worded your statement conveys that you believe your position is ultimately right and any opposing viewpoint is in need of correction. Again it reeks of a narrow minded and dogmatic stance. Just because your viewpoint and beliefs don't follow along conventional modern thought or Judea-Christian thought does not make you exempt from being dogmatic and stubborn in it's defense.
It seems as though you think because of your affinity with shamanic and Indian beliefs and practices it puts you on some higher plane or level of understanding than me, it doesn't, it's just different than my viewpoint.

You also appear to be so invested in this particular world view that you are not able to see outside of it.
Don't fault me because I question it.
My belief that it is the chemicals that elicit these profound experiences, including revelations of knowledge is a very valid, testable, repeatable, and confirmed position.
Your position while very intriguing and backed by centuries of oral tradition does not stand up to accepted scientific test or proofs.
I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.

Please bear in mind ALL I have said regarding these topics and that personally in my world there is room for BOTH explanations working in tandem. I am very open minded regarding all these possibilities, it is you my Friend that seems to be having a problem with an opposing or different interpretation of the subjective experience.

Enough though, I do think you are very knowledgeable and experienced with a lot of these plant substances as has been demonstrated by your many posts regarding them. I just don't necessarily agree with your interpretations 100%. That does not mean I haven't learned from your experiences, to say otherwise would be a lie. I hope you maybe have also learned from mine as shared in these forums.

If you look through the linked site where I have been having a debate about LSD with some guy, in the LSD thread about medical studies and LSD, you will see that I am very much a hard-ass when it comes to things that are personal opinion and experience being presented as things that are proven, repeatable, scientific fact.
I always try to differentiate between the two.

We just have to agree that we view these things from different perspectives and the truth lies somewhere in the melding of the two as well as other viewpoints. :cheers2:

 

agreed on the bolded part.

i don't think my beliefs put me on a higher plane of understanding. Ive been some places, Met some people, and sat in some ceremonies. if anything they only reveal my LACK of understanding to me. But i am speaking from a somewhat more cultured viewpoint being that i have seen both sides of the spectrum. I used to be a flat out atheist/nihilist so its quite an extreme ive gone through.

true. and it is also valid and testable that consuming the PLANTS AND FUNGI that contain such chemicals (which are living beings )elicit the same experiences. but it is not your position i am arguing with, for on that part we hold similar ground. it's the statement that it is just the chemicals. clearly, even outside of my so called "native, indian paradigm" (thats all collectivist bullshit anyway) there is more involved than "Just chemicals". there is a very complex and very vast array of factors you are leaving out when you make such hasty statements. The mind itself being one of them.

how is that?

science can test a mushroom is a living organism in a relationship with a community of organisms. thats 6th grade stuff man.

science already says ingestion of this mushroom elicits experiences outside the scope of normal human consciousness.

science has also recorded instances of people (Gordon wasson, Alan Watts with maria sabina) gaining valid, and accurate information from such states of consciousness. Some of the information pertaining to life or death situations. if you are saying this information came from "just chemicals" i continue to politely disagree.

so no need to apologize there is already both scientific evidence and years of personal experience supporting my stance on this.

hahaha i couldn't help but laugh. the irony in this is priceless.

Take it easy PB.

 

Omacatl, I think you and I are actually more on the same page then we think. I tend to agree with a lot of what you have to say. My personal experiences, which is all any of us can ultimately go by, have not brought me to a point of accepting the notion of "plant personages" that speak to us about the use of them. Neither have they led me to completely discount them.

That is always subject to change. I also have had experiences of insight and learning not gained through "normal" means. Some induced by psychedelics, some not. The question still remains, at least for me, as to exactly where this information is originating from. Is it from within myself, a sort of ancestral memory possibly contained within our DNA? Does it originate from outside of myself from some repository of knowledge and awareness as some believe? Does it come from other entities or beings like some such as McKenna believe? Maybe it does come from plant persons as you say.

When I say that "it's just a chemical" that is in response to those who think these substances are some magic, they aren't, the magic lies within how they interact with our nervous systems and the resulting effects. Given how abysmal our understanding of the interaction of brain, mind, and consciousness is I use the chemical interaction as a starting point. The rest is still open to discovery.

Truth is I don't think any of us know for a certainty. What we do know is we don't yet understand the strange interplay of consciousness and mind as it relates to matter and our physical beings. I personally feel that the answer lies somewhere in the middle of all these different world views and ideas.
That is what I meant by saying I am very open minded about such things.

I enjoy these type of exchanges because they force me to think and re-evaluate my beliefs. If everyone agreed with you it would be a pretty boring existence without much personal growth wouldn't it.

 

Sometimes. Some people can not trip on mushrooms. Sometimes P. Cubes don't produce psycoactive substances. What if I only ate a gram of fresh mushrooms? No trip.

 

now we're just arguing for the sake of argument

 

No we're NOT!!!

lol

 

all in good fun