Page all of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#110392 - 11/19/16 01:55 PM Recreational Drugs and Collectivism.
Sargeist Offline
member


Registered: 02/20/15
Posts: 358
Loc: Chile
Over the last few months I've been pretty curious about people who do drugs such as LSD and the apparent "oneness" with all living beings they claim to experience.

Then I look at bees and ants and how they manage to coordinate such large populations and maintain their societies working harmoniously. Then I remember bees and ants have tiny brains; brains that aren't capable of the intellectual prowess a human brain has. Then I look at drugs and how many scientific researches conclude that their use kill brain cells.

Finally I put everything together and it seems that these drugs, by causing a temporary cognitive impairment, manage to reduce us to the equivalent of a human ant or bee.

And the result is people thinking more collectively than individually.

Is this conclusion accurate or am I missing something?


Edited by Sargeist (11/19/16 01:56 PM)
_________________________
Perdition will set you free.

Top
#110396 - 11/19/16 02:25 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Sargeist]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
Entheogens, which are psychoactive compounds such as Ergoline alkaloids, Ibotenic acid, Atropine, hyoscyamine and scopolamine, Thujone, Kavalactones, Diterpenoid known as “Salvinorin A”, Psilocybin and psilocin, Phenethylamine alkaloids, principally Mescaline, Beta-carboline harmala alkaloids, MAOIs and DMT (dimethyltryptamine), and THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), are extremely useful when used in a mature, informed, and specifically respectful, Shamanistic context. One must have the proper setting within the mind, within the local environment, and conduct the communion for the right purpose.

It must be understood that entheogens (from the Greek language – En: Within, Theos: Divine, Genere: Create) are themselves conscious, and to be taken seriously, because the induced states are not mere experiences to be laughed at, but consciousnesses to be communed with, which offer correction when they are abused. These are known also as Psychedelics (also from the Greek language – Psyche: Mind, Deloun: To Make Clear). This is what true holiness, communion, and sacrament is, not an external holiness to be learned, not an external communion such as instruction, and not a dead sacrament, but a holy personal communion, a living sacrament (Sacrum: Holy or Sacred, and Mente: Mind – To make the mind holy) within ones own self, in the immediacy of the moment of hypernuminous awe and consciousness expanding gnosis (the clear and holy mind). Theses compounds have a natural relationship with our biological and conscious evolution in every natural and numinous human culture, and it is only within magian cultures that these are made illegal because they do understand that those who use these compounds will NOT remain in base consciousness, and will NOT be willful slaves to abstractions.

Those who achieve the higher Will see through abstraction and reject abstract concepts of personal identity and the supposed “roles” we are told we must play or fulfill. Entheogens and Psychedelics are toxic to the magian dialectic because they lead the people back to a numinous understanding of natural Law, and away from the hypnotizing media induce coma whereas Homohubris dwell. This is why magian legal systems bastardize altered states of consciousness, and this is why magian media lies about, and distorts, and slanders, the intentions of those who advocate them, Graham Hancock, Sam Harris, David Icke, Timothy Leary, Dennis McKenna, Terence McKenna, and Alan Watts, to name but only a few. The magian dialectic does not want you to OWN your own consciousness, or modify it, because they want to own it, and they want to modify it, to their own ends.


Edited by N913 (11/19/16 02:27 PM)

Top
#110397 - 11/19/16 02:28 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Sargeist]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
I am not at any level an expert or even a well read person in matters of the mind, my interest on the other side is indeed in this subject.

On the other hand I dare to say you conclusions are inaccurate and you do miss something.

This statement above I only can back up with the knowledge that the subject you are describing is a very complex one, consciousness and the working mechanism of the brain in general are still being researched and are incomplete.
It is not a matter of thinking which can explain these deep questions. Hard science is needed.

S.

Top
#110398 - 11/19/16 02:39 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Sargeist]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Good question.

The way you perceive the world around you is largely based on expectations emerging from prior experience, stuff you were taught to believe, etc. Relying on these things as opposed to, say, rigorous calculations and constantly re-examining the actual conditions at hand enables minds to make efficient decisions relevant to the gettin’ in the real world rather than say___ stare at their navel all day while banging-out MSS from their mom’s basement.

A lot of “who you are” develops from these preconceptions that the LSD experience definitely softens-up. One questions all of that shit. One is open, now, and malleable to all sorts of possibilities (after all, like, “how does anyone ‘know-know’”). If they somehow grab on to the idea that this intoxication is somehow to be taken seriously (for whatever bat-shit crazy escapist reasoning they may have) they’re not just doing drugs, they’re “enlightened”. They’ve transcended the illusion. With no limitations on any possibilities, the world is just “one” or “infinite” or any other number of vacuously unworkable generalities in any number of languages that no one actually speaks, but totally sound credible.

And___ I kid you not! They leave it at that and call it a day. Because they’ve eliminated all limitation, they become utterly incapable of making decisions at all. Permanent cripples and failed seekers – to quote the great Hunter S (PBUH), and it reflects in their writing; a ton of really complex structures that mirror the perverse geometric entoptics behind their eyes. Tomes that don’t actually say anything except in praise of a “oneness” you might expect of a mind recursively locked within itself without a leg in the real world to stand on.

The point being is: if you’re going to tear down the structures of your very psyche – assuming them to be a smidge misguided, or neurotic, or whatever – LSD definitely helps in that - and for reasons that do warrant further study. However, most acid gurus, upon demolishing these structures, remain content at having demolished them, call it a victory, and go no further than to dwell in the vacant lot that remains in the aftermath, or worse – end up building something in its place that is nowhere near up-to-code and barely resembles any place anyone would want to live at all. As above so below. If you get enough burnouts incapable of functioning in the real world together – their combined collective efforts just might – maybe – ensure they survive the winter without having to, like, get a real job.

A rare effeminate few, however, manage to crank out a few books before (predictably) dying of brain cancer.

*Edit: it's uncomfortable because it's true:

Mystic fallacy of the acid culture
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110407 - 11/19/16 08:27 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
ShadowLover Offline
member


Registered: 05/26/16
Posts: 351
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
I'm personally very wary of hallucinogenics. When I was young I smoked a mild amount of pot like most, but I found that when I smoked bud it was like Russian Roulette. 75% of the time it would be alright, but the other 25% I would have these fucked up petrifying trips! There was a few times I woke up the next day and I went cold when I recalled the things I remembered believing the night before. My brain had literally lied to me and at the time I had believed it.

When I was in my mid 20's I was the only person I knew who went looking for the natural leaf and tip. People would be proud of their stinky fucking bud and I'm like, Nooo thank you. I have had it since in social groups(not for several years now), but it still gave me those intermittent terrifying trips.

I think I instinctively knew that the strong stuff didn't agree with me and I for the most part avoided it. I have had older blood relatives since get a late onset, full blown schizophrenia when they dabbled in too much pot. I think I have a sensitive brain chemistry.

But I like my brain - I feel like I balance nicely between the two realities, sometimes on a knife's edge. I feel this allows me to think beyond what normal people do - I'm not saying I'm more intelligent but rather that I naturally think in directions that regular people don't go. I can trip without drugs and on a few occasions have totally debilitated myself until I was able to reconcile the new information with my physical reality... And this could take a few days. I would probably be bored if I was normal, but at the same time I wouldn't want to ever take something that made me tip over and not be able to come back. I wouldn't want to get stuck in one of those bad trips.
_________________________
Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.

Top
#110410 - 11/19/16 09:52 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: ShadowLover]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Ya’ know. To be perfectly honest, I love LSD. I would recommend it to anyone. I would even recommend it for their pets as well. Do it hundreds of times over, and in heroic doses – or don’t at all – whatever, but never forget: at the end of the day, though, it’s just a drug.

I have nothing against drugs or people who take drugs – it’s the people who take drugs seriously that I absolfuckinglutely cannot stand.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110424 - 11/20/16 05:26 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic

I have nothing against drugs or people who take drugs – it’s the people who take drugs seriously that I absolfuckinglutely cannot stand.


What do you mean with seriously ?

You mean taking de experience itself seriously ? which the brain was creating under influence ?

S.

Top
#110430 - 11/20/16 02:23 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Stick]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
“Oh yeah, I can see giving it to my pets, but wait a just minute – what do you mean with seriously?”

Seriously as-in all of the above, man. Whenever there’s this insistence that there’s somehow more to it than what there is.

From those who make it, like, their “thing” to those who genuinely believe the euphemistic bullshit that props up any market. Things like “Happy Hour” or “Consciousness expansion” or “PLUR” all the while totally oblivious to the vastly more interesting and insidious realities at work.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110431 - 11/20/16 02:35 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
Antikarmatomic, you have some rather interesting views. If you would be so kind, please kindly refute the claims of ethnopharmacologist, research pharmacognosist, lecturer, and author, Dennis Jon McKenna? He is merely the director of ethnopharmacology at the Heffter Research Institute, a non-profit organization concerned with the investigation of the potential therapeutic uses of psychedelic medicines, so it should be easy for you to counter his supposed knowledge and experience, as your personal expertise so stunningly exceed his own. I'll just wait with bated breath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSCjRa8osxE


Edited by D. M. Hutchins (11/20/16 02:38 PM)

Top
#110433 - 11/20/16 02:58 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Did your brain leak out through your pupils one trip?

I’m sure that’s a fascinating lecture and that watching old bald men on a lecture racket is precisely what I was looking to do with my Sunday; but guess what, Major Tom? As anyone whose ever owned a dog and a stash can attest to, we’re not the only fucking animal on the planet that eats hallucinogens. Animals, as it turns out, trip balls pretty regularly out there in the wild.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110434 - 11/20/16 03:12 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
Did your brain leak out through your pupils one trip?

Predictable ad hom.

 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
I’m sure that’s a fascinating lecture and that watching old bald men on a lecture racket is precisely what I was looking to do with my Sunday;

If you cannot refute his scientific claims, simply say so.

 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
but guess what, Major Tom? As anyone whose ever owned a dog and a stash can attest to, we’re not the only fucking animal on the planet that eats hallucinogens. Animals, as it turns out, trip balls pretty regularly out there in the wild.

And you point would be? I asked you to assess and refute this lecture, that such would substantiate your position.

Top
#110435 - 11/20/16 03:32 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Sargeist]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7187
Loc: Virginia
The claim itself is rooted in belief. Since I'm a non-believer in such things, never once have I experienced "Oneness" with all living things on LSD. Hallucinations are not guaranteed either. At the very least, you can say that you have a heightened sense of being attuned to what you are doing in that moment.

Over the Summer, I was on a trampoline under the stars while on LSD. I laughed, I experienced a heightened sense of being 'air born' in the up, and 'reality' when I'd hit back down. Since it was an outdoor event, I wasn't alone. A person that thought they could intensify my experience by jumping really hard and high over me, ruined it. I was most attuned to take out the jumper.

I just removed myself, and tra-la-la onto the next experience which happened to be a trek in the woods looking for a place to pee. I'm pretty sure there was nothing but Apathy as I pissed by a tree, who can say? No word back from the Trees.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110436 - 11/20/16 03:42 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Humans have complex brains. Humans eat mushrooms. Therefor mushrooms caused their complex brains. That's the scientific claim you want me to refute??? How about, no? Does no work for you?

It’s patently absurd and boring as hell – but whatever that’s just me. Knock yourself out, man – eat more mushrooms. Find more unintelligible shit to write about. See if I care.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110437 - 11/20/16 03:44 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Sargeist]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3300
Much of it is ballooney really.
Drugs and hallucinogens indeed make the brain more "receptive".
But not in the sense as understood by "seekers".

The brain, your whole body, functions on a cocktail of hormones and pulses. Drugs do nothing but stimulate for getting a certain reaction. Practically frying certain/specific receptors which will give a certain outcome and/or specific high.

Perhaps even a certain "state" of non-reception (painkillers).
In any case.. that "one-ness" collective being and understanding of the Universe... just between the ears.

Age-old challenge. Get high and write down the ideas that come flooding in. Read them again once sober again. That should be indicative enough.

So yeah. If you fry your brain you're more receptive for better or worse of it. More keen to pertain to a collective of fellow absent-minded others whose primary input are the words of others.

It's even worse than being the proverbial sheep following the herd.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#110440 - 11/20/16 04:16 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Dimitri]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Age-old challenge. Get high and write down the ideas that come flooding in. Read them again once sober again. That should be indicative enough.

Sigmund Freud liked his Cocaine, Francis Crick used LSD, Thomas Edison enjoyed “Vin Mariani” (thats cocaine wine), Paul Erdös used amphetamines until he was an old man, Steve Jobs said that LSD was one of the most important things in his life, Bill Gates admits to using LSD in his twenties, John C. Lilly used LSD and Ketamine, and pioneer the field of electronic brain stimulation, Kary Mullis used LSD and his Nobel Prize is better than yours, Carl Sagan smoked and ate Marijuana and advocated its use and legalization...

You, Dimitri, are an ass. Certainly you realize the profound impact these individuals have had on human culture, philosophy, the sciences, and mathematics? Which is to say nothing of music, literature, and film, wherein I could conger equal and greater list... I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.

Top
#110441 - 11/20/16 04:22 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7187
Loc: Virginia
Playing Devil's Advocate:

I think it would be a worthy exploration to determine what, if/any detrimental effects long-term continual use would have on the brain. Specifically these particular brains. Who knows, maybe they would have done 10 x more than they did in their lifetimes if not for those drugs.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110449 - 11/20/16 06:39 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: SIN3]
ShadowLover Offline
member


Registered: 05/26/16
Posts: 351
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
I have a story where drugs (MJ) changed my outlook on things.

It was about 20yrs ago. There was this fellow... He ran with a group that was a few years younger than my boyfriend and I but we still saw this group on a regular basis. They were like second tier friends.

Anyway, there was one that I couldn't stand. I hated his voice, I hated his attitude, I hated the very sight of him. He was the most irritating person I knew but he was harmless.

One night we had a smoke, and in my drug trance I saw an alternate reality which I at the time interpreted as a past life, where he was my younger brother. I was a teenager, he was also a teenager (a couple of years younger than myself) and we had a few younger siblings as well. In my drug trance our parents died and he fucked off and had a life and left me alone with the responsibility of all the kids and I vehemently resented him for it. ...I accepted this explanation for the inexplicable intense dislike of him I had in the present.

Anyway, after this night I liked him and even had a fondness for him. I no longer found him irritating and could in fact sit and talk with him for hours. Of course, being a full-time stoner some of his ramblings were even too bizarre for me, but I did enjoy his company.

If you put all of the spiritual interpretation aside, the drug was able to allow me to somehow hypnotise my self into believing something, and reset my brain accordingly.


Edited by ShadowLover (11/20/16 06:40 PM)
_________________________
Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.

Top
#110456 - 11/21/16 01:21 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3300
And I drink absinthe, have used weed and did in a variety of other things.

Still maintaining a degree and a steady job without by-effects.
Reason? I'm not using it during my performances.

So yeah, there are people who "use" which have decent records.
Generally these people "use" it as a little treat and not as some way of living/insight.

Big difference there boso.


Edited by Dimitri (11/21/16 01:22 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#110482 - 11/22/16 07:50 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1219
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins

Sigmund Freud liked his Cocaine, Francis Crick used LSD, Thomas Edison enjoyed “Vin Mariani” (thats cocaine wine), Paul Erdös used amphetamines until he was an old man, Steve Jobs said that LSD was one of the most important things in his life, Bill Gates admits to using LSD in his twenties, John C. Lilly used LSD and Ketamine, and pioneer the field of electronic brain stimulation, Kary Mullis used LSD and his Nobel Prize is better than yours, Carl Sagan smoked and ate Marijuana and advocated its use and legalization...

So fucking what? I could rattle off a list of successful figures who had Nazi sympathies, or who beat their wives, or who were fat, or who had weird fetishes, or were into certain religious movements, or who had any number of other features and habits that may or may not have had jack to do with their success.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (11/22/16 07:52 AM)
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#110485 - 11/22/16 10:14 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: XiaoGui17]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
Personally I think it is mainly about the brain were the drugs are put in.
Can it be a catalyst ? maybe.

All the names D.M Hutchins are persons who have strong personalty in the first place and nice trip COULD kick a concept in a brain like that from just a intent to a action.

I have seen many people improve enormously once they were diagnosed for ADHD ADD and the autism spectrum and were put on stimulant medication (methylphenidate or dexamphetamine).

But I have seen the opposite to.
People who destroyed there brains and or mental health on Stimulants, Psychedelics and even mothers nature's "best" plain weed.

It is about the dose and the kind of brain it is put in.

Top
#110488 - 11/22/16 01:59 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Stick]
Sargeist Offline
member


Registered: 02/20/15
Posts: 358
Loc: Chile
I only tried MJ once and it was not a pleasant experience, one half of me felt like floating and the other half like a fucking boulder.

So in short recreational drugs intensify what someone already thinks of existence. I was curious since so many people claimed to experience the sensation of oneness with everything that I thought it couldn't be a coincidence, but probably they just were pre-conditioned to it.
_________________________
Perdition will set you free.

Top
#110489 - 11/22/16 03:46 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: XiaoGui17]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
Sigmund Freud liked his Cocaine, Francis Crick used LSD, Thomas Edison enjoyed “Vin Mariani” (thats cocaine wine), Paul Erdös used amphetamines until he was an old man, Steve Jobs said that LSD was one of the most important things in his life, Bill Gates admits to using LSD in his twenties, John C. Lilly used LSD and Ketamine, and pioneer the field of electronic brain stimulation, Kary Mullis used LSD and his Nobel Prize is better than yours, Carl Sagan smoked and ate Marijuana and advocated its use and legalization...
So fucking what? I could rattle off a list of successful figures who had Nazi sympathies, or who beat their wives, or who were fat, or who had weird fetishes, or were into certain religious movements, or who had any number of other features and habits that may or may not have had jack to do with their success.

Your error is two fold. First, be mindful that we are not addressing here the "success" of notable figures in terms of popularity, nor social graces in terms of their works acceptability, but rather a direct and evident advancement in a particular field of human philosophy, advanced technology, the sciences, and mathematics, which lead to expansions of, and new understandings within those fields, such that Nobel Prize were issued, industries were forever changed, and education is now based upon their discoveries. Please take up more trivial issues with someone else. Second, if you did in fact demonstrate that there were commonalities between those pioneering individuals lifestyles, be they your aforementioned traits or others, such traits would then merit an equal study to that of the influence of entheogens, however, such would not rule out the effect of entheogens in regard to those individuals prowess, and none of the traits you have asserted above has been proven to have this pioneering effect, while entheogens in fact have... You're a law student?


Edited by D. M. Hutchins (11/22/16 03:53 PM)
Edit Reason: A law student, really?

Top
#110500 - 11/23/16 01:44 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3300
 Originally Posted By: N913
First, be mindful that we are not addressing here the "success" of notable figures in terms of popularity, nor social graces in terms of their works acceptability, but rather a direct and evident advancement in a particular field of human philosophy, advanced technology, the sciences, and mathematics, which lead to expansions of, and new understandings within those fields, such that Nobel Prize were issued, industries were forever changed, and education is now based upon their discoveries.


No, what we are addressing here is the spiritual bullshit frequently linked with drugs. You came up with a random list in order to prove that back-ass notion. Making a leap of faith by summing up successful people who did use drugs... being oblivious enough EVERYONE at one point in their lives did use one drug or another. Giving the impression you know jack-shit about the different "users" of drug (recreational vs addicted).
First strike.
 Originally Posted By: N913

Second, if you did in fact demonstrate that there were commonalities between those pioneering individuals lifestyles, be they your aforementioned traits or others, such traits would then merit an equal study to that of the influence of entheogens, however, such would not rule out the effect of entheogens in regard to those individuals prowess, and none of the traits you have asserted above has been proven to have this pioneering effect, while entheogens in fact have... You're a law student?


There are commonalities between these individuals. Strong character and a penchant for the things they did. Generally those traits which can be found in any successful entrepreneur.
You are making, once again, a leap of faith by asserting (without evidence) these people were using "an entheogen" in order to do and become who they are. That's just the biggest pile of bullshit you can make. It's like saying "coffee" made many a person successful because all those in manager-, or other important, positions have been drinking it.
Second strike.

Other strikes:
Did I see an Ad Hom there?
Next to the following logical fallacies:
- Affirming the consequent
- Argument from personal incredulity
- Appeal to authority (your random list)
- incomplete comparison
- ...

I MIGHT go on there.


Edited by Dimitri (11/23/16 02:01 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#110503 - 11/23/16 03:10 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Dimitri]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
First, be mindful that we are not addressing here the "success" of notable figures in terms of popularity, nor social graces in terms of their works acceptability, but rather a direct and evident advancement in a particular field of human philosophy, advanced technology, the sciences, and mathematics, which lead to expansions of, and new understandings within those fields, such that Nobel Prize were issued, industries were forever changed, and education is now based upon their discoveries.
No, what we are addressing here is the spiritual bullshit frequently linked with drugs.

Actually, no. I do not believe that I have mentioned "spirits" whatsoever. I welcome you to quote me, and suggest that if you cannot, you'd reevaluate my statement or withdraw your own. To quote myself:

 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
"the "success" of notable figures in terms of popularity, nor social graces in terms of their works acceptability, but rather a direct and evident advancement in a particular field of human philosophy, advanced technology, the sciences, and mathematics, which lead to expansions of, and new understandings within those fields, such that Nobel Prize were issued, industries were forever changed, and education is now based upon their discoveries.

I have stated my position in reasonable English, and so I'm not certain exactly where your confusion is leading you to this "spiritual" strawman argument.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
You came up with a random list in order to prove that back-ass notion.

No, again. I created a very specific list of individuals whose work in their respective fields was so profound as to revolutionized human psychology, philosophy, technology, the sciences, or mathematics, and which afforded a few of them the Nobel Prize. My criteria is rather specific, Dimitri, and I welcome you to challenge my point, if you ever develop an actual counterpoint. And for the record, its "ass-bacwards" or "bass-ackwards". Mastered English, you have not.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Making a leap of faith by summing up successful people who did use drugs... being oblivious enough EVERYONE at one point in their lives did use one drug or another.

(1) There are no statements of "faith" in my position. Everyone I have mentioned is on the record, as a matter of history, as having used their given compounds while working at their career. (2) I made no statements whatsoever pertaining to unsuccessful people using or not using, and (3) if it is your claim that "everyone" (all of humanity?) has used drugs, you must own the burden of proof which accompanies that claim. If you would be so kind as to package that proof with the quotes where I have asserted "spirits" and "faith", I'd thank you very much.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Giving the impression you know jack-shit about the different "users" of drug (recreational vs addicted).

That which I know is available to the public on the internet. If you are able to access The 600 Club, you are able to access that information as well. I am not responsible for your ignorance in the even that you refuse to conduct ten minutes of research in order to established an informed position, rather than these illiterate opinions.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
Second, if you did in fact demonstrate that there were commonalities between those pioneering individuals lifestyles, be they your aforementioned traits or others, such traits would then merit an equal study to that of the influence of entheogens, however, such would not rule out the effect of entheogens in regard to those individuals prowess, and none of the traits you have asserted above has been proven to have this pioneering effect, while entheogens in fact have... You're a law student?
There are commonalities between these individuals. Strong character and a penchant for the things they did. Generally those traits which can be found in any successful entrepreneur.

(1) The possession or absents of the traits you have listed have no more baring than do Xiao's, in terms of my position. If you will substantiate or refute my claim pertaining to entheogens, do so, though I have no responsibility to address every peripheral (attempted red herring) issues unless you demonstrate an actual connection, or you can demonstrate that "character and penchant" are incompatible with entheogens. I'd argue that they actually support one another. Entheogens do not increase or decrease ones potential for mental or emotional intelligence, rather that explore and invoke what is therein available. Those you see behaving stupidly when on whatever substance, were very likely using synthetic concoctions (non-enthogen), they were very likely abusing the substances rather than using them responsibly, and they were very likely stupid to begin with. Your replies, Dimitri, have tremendous volume, yet are absent substance. (2) I have specifically defined my gauge of "success" in the context of my position, and so "any successful entrepreneur" is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. If you are actually a multilingual college degree holder, I'd ask you to behave like it.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
You are making, once again, a leap of faith by asserting (without evidence) these people were using "an entheogen" in order to do and become who they are.

I have provided you ample information with which to investigate each of these individuals, their careers, and their use of various substances. Gather that evidence for yourself. I am not responsible for your ignorance.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
That's just the biggest pile of bullshit you can make. It's like saying "coffee" made many a person successful because all those in manager-, or other important, positions have been drinking it.

You are so profoundly stupid that you do not realize that caffeine (a non- entheogen) is the most popular, and most consumed, drug on Earth. In major studies it is listed just after nicotine and just before heroin. You, Sir, are an ass. Look up something other than The 600 Club sometime. You may be surprised what you'll learn.

Top
#110505 - 11/23/16 03:59 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
Those you see behaving stupidly when on whatever substance, were very likely using synthetic concoctions (non-enthogen), they were very likely abusing the substances rather than using them responsibly, and they were very likely stupid to begin with.


on the last two premises I full heartedly agree.

I think it does not matter the substance is synthetic or natural occurring if it does the same job even through a different pathway it will likely have the same outcome (generally by inhibitory action in case of a psychedelic).
In a "street" setting though, a chemical will pose a bigger risk of overdose there the "therapeutic window" (the line between working dose and overdose is very small).
A "natural" enthogen often has a "build in" fail safe, if you ingest to much you most likely puke you guts out, there by limiting your intake.

In a controlled setting, chemicals have a big advantage.
If the person who is supplying, has the knowledge, the equipment ect,and can produce in laboratory quality. The dose can be controlled exactly and with less unnecessary compounds.

A "natural" product always has a big difference working substances in each batch, the given dose is there by hard to predict.

S.

Top
#110508 - 11/23/16 08:01 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1219
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
First, be mindful that we are not addressing here the "success" of notable figures in terms of popularity, nor social graces in terms of their works acceptability, but rather a direct and evident advancement in a particular field of human philosophy, advanced technology, the sciences, and mathematics, which lead to expansions of, and new understandings within those fields, such that Nobel Prize were issued, industries were forever changed, and education is now based upon their discoveries. Please take up more trivial issues with someone else.

That's what I meant by success. Please correct someone who actually made an error. Don't know what gave you the idea I meant something else.

 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
...and none of the traits you have asserted above has been proven to have this pioneering effect, while entheogens in fact have...

That's begging the question. Where is this "proof"?

Thus far, you have failed even to establish a correlation between drug use and pioneering ability. The fact that there were several successful individuals who used drugs is mere anecdote, not data. Data would be actually showing me that successful people use them in higher rates than the general population, that there is some mathematical distinction between use rates that correlates with success.

"Well, here's a handful of examples" isn't scientific at all. Take Bill Gates using LSD in his twenties. That could very well be typical for his peer group. Maybe twenty-somethings in the time and place where he was were generally likely to use LSD. So his user of LSD could be ransom white noise, static, instead of an interesting data teems, unless you can establish a correlation.

I sincerely doubt you could produce data establishing such a correlation, since frankly we don't have reliable data about the rates at which people used drugs, especially when looking at historical figures. When substances are illegal and/ or stigmatized, people tend not to be open about their use.

Even if you were to show that there is a correlation between drug use and the pioneering effect, it would not necessarily establish that the drug use caused the pioneering ability. It could be that whatever trait makes people naturally inclined to be pioneers also gives them more of a taste for mind-altering substances--that is, the two correlated factors may have a common cause instead of one causing the other.

The evidence you need for causation is empirical evidence--that is, controlled experiments. You would need take two representative samples of people of roughly equal intelligence, and give one mind-altering drugs and the other group a placebo. You would need to repeat this experiment several times and replicate the results. Only them would you be on the path to establishing causation.

And finally, even if empirical evidence showed a connection, it could be that drug use helps activate some latent pioneering trait in some people, but it doesn't necessarily work if that trait isn't already present to begin with. Even if there were cases where drug use helped people pioneer, it wouldn't necessarily follow that drug use alone was sufficient.

And finally, if you actually understood the scientific method, you would grasp that these were necessary steps in the analysis to make the case for the hypothesis that drug use causes pioneering ability. You would also understand that there is no such thing as "proof" in science; only in mathematics. In science, evidence for a hypothesis is a sliding scale. You can be 99.999999999% certain of your results. But you cannot be 100% certain, and that is what "proof" refers to.

Simply saying "this is science, this is proven" over and over again and insulting everyone who disagrees with you does not make it so.

 Quote:
You're a law student?

Nope; I'm a lawyer.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#110509 - 11/23/16 08:34 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1219
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
You came up with a random list in order to prove that back-ass notion.

No, again. I created a very specific list of individuals whose work in their respective fields was so profound as to revolutionized human psychology, philosophy, technology, the sciences, or mathematics, and which afforded a few of them the Nobel Prize.

Mere lists are not data. They are anecdote. They don't prove anything. That was his counterpoint, and it would have been blatantly obvious to anyone who understood how the scientific method works. You pick at irrelevant semantics and insult your opponent instead of addressing that point.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Making a leap of faith by summing up successful people who did use drugs... being oblivious enough EVERYONE at one point in their lives did use one drug or another.

(1) There are no statements of "faith" in my position. Everyone I have mentioned is on the record, as a matter of history, as having used their given compounds while working at their career.

 Quote:
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Making a leap of faith by summing up successful people who did use drugs... being oblivious enough EVERYONE at one point in their lives did use one drug or another.

(2) I made no statements whatsoever pertaining to unsuccessful people using or not using,

And that's precisely why your claim that drug use is causally linked to pioneering fails. If you understood the scientific method, you'd realize that you have to show a correlation, which you cannot do without analyzing trends in the overall population.

You mistake analogies for red herrings. If I said, "All these successful people wore shoes," you would not say that we need to investigate how the wearing of shoes causes a pioneering ability. You'd say, "Well duh, everyone wore shoes. That's not evidence that shoes had anything to do with their success."

That's the point. That's exactly what Dimitri and I are pointing out about drug use. Just because successful people used drugs doesn't mean the drug use caused their success. It could be irrelevant. The first step to showing that this data may actually be relevant is to show that this is a deviation from the overall population. We're not changing the subject, we're pointing out that you haven't taken the necessary steps of scientific analysis.

 Quote:
(3) if it is your claim that "everyone" (all of humanity?) has used drugs, you must own the burden of proof which accompanies that claim.

He's not making a claim. He's pointing out that you haven't actually presented data showing a correlation. You keep harping on about how scientifically proven your drugs --> pioneering hypothesis is, but you haven't done the basic steps of science (or, for that matter, statistical analysis).
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#110511 - 11/23/16 12:56 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: XiaoGui17]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
First, be mindful that we are not addressing here the "success" of notable figures in terms of popularity, nor social graces in terms of their works acceptability, but rather a direct and evident advancement in a particular field of human philosophy, advanced technology, the sciences, and mathematics, which lead to expansions of, and new understandings within those fields, such that Nobel Prize were issued, industries were forever changed, and education is now based upon their discoveries. Please take up more trivial issues with someone else.
That's what I meant by success. Please correct someone who actually made an error. Don't know what gave you the idea I meant something else.

Dimitri, in fact. Though my statements were originally directed at yourself, He has come to wage straman accusations upon my positions such that I am now answering you and correcting him. Apologies.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
...and none of the traits you have asserted above has been proven to have this pioneering effect, while entheogens in fact have...

That's begging the question. Where is this "proof"? Thus far, you have failed even to establish a correlation between drug use and pioneering ability. The fact that there were several successful individuals who used drugs is mere anecdote, not data. Data would be actually showing me that successful people use them in higher rates than the general population, that there is some mathematical distinction between use rates that correlates with success.

So what you are saying is that until I can plot an exact chart of the specific dosage, of the specific compounds, at the exact time of day they were taken, and over x amount of days, while writing and exact song, or performing in from of an exact audience, we can't really prove that Jimi Hendrix or Jim Morrison tripped their asses off, which had a profound effect on their music and lyrics? Sure.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
"Well, here's a handful of examples" isn't scientific at all. Take Bill Gates using LSD in his twenties. That could very well be typical for his peer group. Maybe twenty-somethings in the time and place where he was were generally likely to use LSD. So his user of LSD could be ransom white noise, static, instead of an interesting data teems, unless you can establish a correlation.

His "peer group" revolutionized computer technology, which is my point. His peers (rivals, competitors, employees) mostly admit to using drugs, and Jobs is directly quoted as saying that his experience on LSD was listed among the top three most important things in his life. Its just a fact that smart people are smart, and dumb people are dumb, but when very intelligent people take a big trip, they come back with some pioneering and revolutionary content. This is true of science, mathematics, music, film, et al.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I sincerely doubt you could produce data establishing such a correlation, since frankly we don't have reliable data about the rates at which people used drugs, especially when looking at historical figures. When substances are illegal and/ or stigmatized, people tend not to be open about their use.

Oh but you are wrong. We can actually look over historical "criminal" records and establish at least a partial understanding of who had what substance, when, and where. I doubt they were just carrying them around, so its a picture of what they were using during that stage of their career.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
Even if you were to show that there is a correlation between drug use and the pioneering effect, it would not necessarily establish that the drug use caused the pioneering ability. It could be that whatever trait makes people naturally inclined to be pioneers also gives them more of a taste for mind-altering substances--that is, the two correlated factors may have a common cause instead of one causing the other. The evidence you need for causation is empirical evidence--that is, controlled experiments. You would need take two representative samples of people of roughly equal intelligence, and give one mind-altering drugs and the other group a placebo. You would need to repeat this experiment several times and replicate the results. Only them would you be on the path to establishing causation.

You are distorting my position. I have not stated that entheogens 'cause' the pioneering effect, but that they amplify, and "exponentiate" if I may coin a term, the available intelligence.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
And finally, even if empirical evidence showed a connection, it could be that drug use helps activate some latent pioneering trait in some people, but it doesn't necessarily work if that trait isn't already present to begin with. Even if there were cases where drug use helped people pioneer, it wouldn't necessarily follow that drug use alone was sufficient.

And now you, like Dimitri, are arguing a strawman, because it is not my position, nor have I stated that: Entheogens are sufficient for producing the pioneering effect in the absents of latent intellect.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
And finally, if you actually understood the scientific method, you would grasp that these were necessary steps in the analysis to make the case for the hypothesis that drug use causes pioneering ability.

And if you were actually a lawyer worth your salt you'd refrain from offering these silly strawman arguments that do not reflect my position whatsoever. You are dishonest and without honor, or perhaps that is your agenda in the first place, to distort my position rather than refute it?

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
You would also understand that there is no such thing as "proof" in science; only in mathematics. In science, evidence for a hypothesis is a sliding scale. You can be 99.999999999% certain of your results. But you cannot be 100% certain, and that is what "proof" refers to. Simply saying "this is science, this is proven" over and over again and insulting everyone who disagrees with you does not make it so.

Seriously? Have you ever heard of the logical requirement referred to as "the burden of proof"? Thats the on I'm talking about.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
Mere lists are not data. They are anecdote. They don't prove anything. That was his counterpoint, and it would have been blatantly obvious to anyone who understood how the scientific method works. You pick at irrelevant semantics and insult your opponent instead of addressing that point.

No, actually I refuted his position AND insulted him. Theres a difference.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
And that's precisely why your claim that drug use is causally linked to pioneering fails. If you understood the scientific method, you'd realize that you have to show a correlation, which you cannot do without analyzing trends in the overall population.

This is actually the failure of the scientific method. You ignore the evidence in your face, which you could experience, yet opt for a paper written about it, to merely read, and then have the audacity to consider yourself properly "informed". This is the classroom indoctrination. In other news reading books about boxing won't win you any fights, you need actual training and the gym. Its like if I told you that dropping a hammer on your foot hurt like hell, and then I pointed to several individuals throughout history who had dropped hammers on their foot and agreed that it hurt like hell, then you and Dimitri would come running and screaming "NO NO NO! We need to map all the nerves in the human foot and then drop hammers on the whole populations feet!" LOL Fuck science. Hammer plus foot equals pain. This is an experienced fact which exceeds science.

Top
#110512 - 11/23/16 01:33 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3300
 Originally Posted By: N913

Actually, no. I do not believe that I have mentioned "spirits" whatsoever. I welcome you to quote me, and suggest that if you cannot, you'd reevaluate my statement or withdraw your own.

You indeed didn't mention "spirits". Neither have I as the actual used word is "spiritual" in the context of "of the mind".
Learn to read.

 Originally Posted By: N913
I have stated my position in reasonable English, and so I'm not certain exactly where your confusion is leading you to this "spiritual" strawman argument.

You assert without back-up. YOU ASSERT there's a link between drug-use and succes while lacking emperical evidence. I disagree with that assertion. Points against have been given.

 Originally Posted By: N913
(1) There are no statements of "faith" in my position. Everyone I have mentioned is on the record, as a matter of history, as having used their given compounds while working at their career. (2) I made no statements whatsoever pertaining to unsuccessful people using or not using, and (3) if it is your claim that "everyone" (all of humanity?) has used drugs, you must own the burden of proof which accompanies that claim. If you would be so kind as to package that proof with the quotes where I have asserted "spirits" and "faith", I'd thank you very much.
Very easy.
If I ask the honest question if anyone here has ever tried a cigarette, weed, coffee or drank alcohol... ALL will say yes. And I can easily repeat this question in other random places and getting the same results every time again.

Your whole argument stands on loose screws.

 Originally Posted By: N913

I have provided you ample information with which to investigate each of these individuals, their careers, and their use of various substances. Gather that evidence for yourself. I am not responsible for your ignorance.

Cop-out. It is up to the guy making a claim to defend his affirmation. NOT the guy who disagrees you fucking idiot.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#110515 - 11/23/16 04:15 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Dimitri]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
YOU ASSERT there's a link between drug-use and succes while lacking emperical evidence. I disagree with that assertion. Points against have been given.

I have suggested a link between entheogens and higher states of human consciousness, which manifest in the modern worlds as innovation, revolutionary, and pioneering, creativity in terms of human philosophy, psychology, technology, the arts, the sciences, and mathematics... and I'm right. Your supposed points evaporate in the light humanities arts and sciences.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
I have provided you ample information with which to investigate each of these individuals, their careers, and their use of various substances. Gather that evidence for yourself. I am not responsible for your ignorance.
Cop-out. It is up to the guy making a claim to defend his affirmation. NOT the guy who disagrees you fucking idiot.

I am not responsible for your ignorance, Dimitri. I cannot learn this for you. You have to educate yourself.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/10_famou...for_it_partner/

http://drugabuse.com/20-genius-minds-and-the-drugs-they-were-addicted-to/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/11/22/creativity-madness-and-drugs/

http://www.famousscientists.org/14-famous-scientists-inventors-who-experimented-with-drugs/

https://erowid.org/culture/characters/characters_drug_use.shtml

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...-use-more-drugs

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/creative-mind/2010/09/drugs-and-alcohol-and-creativity/

http://www.projectknow.com/15-famous-heroin-addicts-and-why-they-used/

http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/3-drugs.htm

http://www.learning-mind.com/brilliant-minds-how-lsd-changed-the-world/

I am NOT responsible for your ignorance...

Top
#110516 - 11/23/16 04:53 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
Bartho LeMule Offline
member


Registered: 10/13/13
Posts: 108
We all have to face the fact that N913 - former ONA mule - is right. Let's at least thank him for enlightening us with his scientific and narcotically mystical wisdom.

There are many inner cities here in America. Most of these inner cities are filled with niggers, beaners, and white trash who do crack, meth, cocaine, etc. Obviously, our inner cities are brimming with geniuses, mensa members, pioneering inventors, spiritual gurus, millionaires, and humans of higher consciousness.

You people just haven't experienced having a conversation with a black hooker on skid row who sucks dick for crack yet. Had you done so, you'd realize that you were in the presence of a highly evolved human being of awesome consciousness.

Top
#110517 - 11/23/16 06:43 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Bartho LeMule]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
The responsible and proper use of entheogens and drugs can potentially expand upon ones inherent creative and intellectual capacities.

The irresponsible and improper abuse of entheogens and drugs can potentially expand upon ones inherent escapist and ignoble behaviors unto disgrace and death.

Top
#110518 - 11/23/16 06:45 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Bartho LeMule]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Juggalos. You forgot that brain-trust.

Juggalos and this guy. <-That man is just fucking absolutely brimming with numinous insight.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110519 - 11/23/16 07:26 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
Persona non grata Offline
member


Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 469
 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
this guy. <-That man is just fucking absolutely brimming with numinous insight.

Lets look at what he said:

Q: What do you think the meaning of life is?

A: To live in the mystery, and to find purpose, and to live in the now! Magic! Love! Now! (fart sound representing that what people are doing instead is shit)

Q: What is your most adventurous memory?

A: This! I remember THIS! THIS IS AN ADVENTURE! THIS is the memory.
(Chanting representing Vibration and Frequency and state of Consciousness)

Q: What advice do you have for younger generations?

A: Live in the moment. Don't get old. Don't judge people. Because you can't be free, if you judge people. Love NOW! Create! Inspire! (farting sound while looking around represents modern valuations are shit) (Chicken sound represents that you all live in fear of the responsibility of being truly free)

Q: How do you define freedom?

A: By doing what you love. THIS! The Moment! Love! Now! It repeats... (Chicken sound represents that you all live in fear of the responsibility of being truly free)

Q: What other advice do you have for us?

A: That you are already doing, you are always doing what is in your Heart. You can't get away from your Heart. Because life is a paradox. It's a mirror of confusion. So love NOW!

Q: Who do you love?

A: I love all of you. (Spreads arms in symbolic fashion of being crucified between two thieves - regret for the past / worry for the future, not that I would expect many here to recognize the Gnostic crucifixion in the context of his statements)

This man is not addressing the "Christ" of the Christian Bible, rather he is addressing the embodiment of Christ Consciousness...

As I posted a couple of weeks ago:

 Originally Posted By: A Change In Perspective
Rather than dwelling in worry or regret I would address the currently numinous, the immediacy of the moment, as is expressed in the symbolism of the Gnostic crucifixion. Do not be enslaved to magian concepts of time, and deadlines, and endlessly repeating cycles of labor and rest. The Son of Man, representing the light of the world, was crucified between two thieves who represented regret for the past, and worry for the future, which implies that one should live in the moment, and I would elaborate, to see from a broad and informed perspective what is now within you, and within the world. Understand time to focus upon the nature of consciousness and its maturation as it navigates the ever expanding present moment, rather than the fruitless repetition involved with adherence to magian abstract identities and their assumed responsibilities.
https://nexion913blog.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/a-change-in-perspective/

I would much rather live in a world filled with people like him, than to be enslaved to the fears and subjectivity of others.

Top
#110520 - 11/23/16 07:52 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Some do stay on Ogygia longer than others.
Many never leave.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110521 - 11/23/16 10:26 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1219
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
So what you are saying is that until I can plot an exact chart of the specific dosage, of the specific compounds, at the exact time of day they were taken, and over x amount of days, while writing and exact song, or performing in from of an exact audience, we can't really prove that Jimi Hendrix or Jim Morrison tripped their asses off, which had a profound effect on their music and lyrics? Sure.

What I am saying is that we have no way of knowing whether they would have written the exact same songs without tripping balls. We don't know if drugs were what made them brilliant songwriters, or whether they would have been brilliant songwriters even if they hadn't done drugs, because we only have one version of history to go on.

The same goes for the Nobel Laureates etc.

 Originally Posted By: Darryl
And now you, like Dimitri, are arguing a strawman, because it is not my position, nor have I stated that: Entheogens are sufficient for producing the pioneering effect in the absents of latent intellect.

But if preexisting genius is necessary, what's the point of having this discussion? Few people are geniuses. Singing the praises of drugs is silly if they only facilitate breakthroughs in those who are already exceptionally intelligent and on the cusp of a great discovery to begin with. Some guy working at Dunkin Donuts isn't going to turn into Mozart after dropping some acid.

 Quote:
Seriously? Have you ever heard of the logical requirement referred to as "the burden of proof"? Thats the on I'm talking about.

No it isn't. Maybe that's what you meant to say, but it isn't what you said. I'm not a mind reader, Darryl. I can only go by what you post.

You claimed it was scientific and proven that drugs do such-&-such. You offered no statistical evidence nor empirical evidence to support this proposition. When this was pointed out, you pointed to anecdotes that were neither empirical nor scientific as though this somehow settled the matter and meant you had won.

 Quote:
No, actually I refuted his position AND insulted him. Theres a difference.

His point went sailing over your head. Claiming you refuted it doesn't mean you did. Largely you begged the question and mistook refutations by analogy for positive assertions.

 Quote:
This is actually the failure of the scientific method. You ignore the evidence in your face, which you could experience, yet opt for a paper written about it, to merely read, and then have the audacity to consider yourself properly "informed". This is the classroom indoctrination.

First you're touting your assertions as science. When it's made clear they're not, suddenly it's, "Fuck science, what had science ever done anyway? Science sucks."

Bitterness is not becoming, Darryl.

 Quote:
In other news reading books about boxing won't win you any fights, you need actual training and the gym.

Now that is attacking a strawman. I never said "books will teach you everything" or "reading alone is the key to success." I pointed out that scientific claims--claims of causative relationships--require empirical /statistical evidence.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#110523 - 11/24/16 02:29 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3300
So... your evidence is.. clickbait?
I've read a few of those links, alcohol was included as a drug.
Guess what, alcohol has been consumed by at least 75% of the total world population. The clickbait is shit.

Especially when one of your "lists" is filled with people who came clean and had to include 2 fictional characters (Gregory House and Sherlock Holmes). Not to mention the same names are always repeated. If I'm correct, there are much more "influential" artists and scientists who did not use and made an equal, or even greater, impact than those listed.

Fuck, even one of the arguments in your offered links raises the same doubts as I've been voicing. How stupid can you be?
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#110525 - 11/24/16 04:51 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
Stick Offline
member


Registered: 06/08/12
Posts: 157
Loc: Benelux
 Originally Posted By: D. M. Hutchins
 Originally Posted By: antikarmatomic
this guy. <-That man is just fucking absolutely brimming with numinous insight.

Lets look at what he said:

Q: What do you think the meaning of life is?

A: To live in the mystery, and to find purpose, and to live in the now! Magic! Love! Now! (fart sound representing that what people are doing instead is shit)

Q: What is your most adventurous memory?

A: This! I remember THIS! THIS IS AN ADVENTURE! THIS is the memory.
(Chanting representing Vibration and Frequency and state of Consciousness)

Q: What advice do you have for younger generations?

A: Live in the moment. Don't get old. Don't judge people. Because you can't be free, if you judge people. Love NOW! Create! Inspire! (farting sound while looking around represents modern valuations are shit) (Chicken sound represents that you all live in fear of the responsibility of being truly free)

Q: How do you define freedom?

A: By doing what you love. THIS! The Moment! Love! Now! It repeats... (Chicken sound represents that you all live in fear of the responsibility of being truly free)

Q: What other advice do you have for us?

A: That you are already doing, you are always doing what is in your Heart. You can't get away from your Heart. Because life is a paradox. It's a mirror of confusion. So love NOW!

Q: Who do you love?

A: I love all of you. (Spreads arms in symbolic fashion of being crucified between two thieves - regret for the past / worry for the future, not that I would expect many here to recognize the Gnostic crucifixion in the context of his statements)

This man is not addressing the "Christ" of the Christian Bible, rather he is addressing the embodiment of Christ Consciousness...

As I posted a couple of weeks ago:

 Originally Posted By: A Change In Perspective
Rather than dwelling in worry or regret I would address the currently numinous, the immediacy of the moment, as is expressed in the symbolism of the Gnostic crucifixion. Do not be enslaved to magian concepts of time, and deadlines, and endlessly repeating cycles of labor and rest. The Son of Man, representing the light of the world, was crucified between two thieves who represented regret for the past, and worry for the future, which implies that one should live in the moment, and I would elaborate, to see from a broad and informed perspective what is now within you, and within the world. Understand time to focus upon the nature of consciousness and its maturation as it navigates the ever expanding present moment, rather than the fruitless repetition involved with adherence to magian abstract identities and their assumed responsibilities.
https://nexion913blog.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/a-change-in-perspective/

I would much rather live in a world filled with people like him, than to be enslaved to the fears and subjectivity of others.


That video clip is Epic !
I laughed very hard with mixed feelings one of semi shame because it could be me (minus the haircut) and one of intriguing, it could be spontaneous or it could be a rant out of a drugged brain quoting read memories out of some second hand book of the Osho series.
The thing I respect the most are the fart, chicken and other "well" placed sounds which to me proves the "disrespect" and seemingly lack of seriousness, now that are traits I admire the most in this man in the video. He properly lost temporary or not that annoying self consciousness that is preventing that direct self expression in everyday situations.

S.

Top
#110572 - 11/26/16 10:44 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Stick]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
Meh, I wouldn't over-think it. It's meant to be funny.

The fart sounds and chicken clucks were just handy reminders of what the rest of the bullshit coming out of his gaping cocksucker may just as well have been for all the good it does anyone.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110605 - 11/27/16 05:42 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7187
Loc: Virginia
Darry shows bias and preferential treatment towards any sort of collectivism though.

He prefers the sentiment in the message, no matter the delivery or merit behind it.

You could certainly call his efforts a labor of love, what else drives the thing but passion?

Even if he manages to change 1 out of 10 minds, that's a purpose fulfilled. The human condition shows a penchant for purpose, in general. On an individual basis, it may just be task-based but leading to say, a life goal or some shit.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110629 - 11/28/16 02:16 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
I'm talking about the clip. Feed an otherwise decent wandervogel enough acid and they altogether flip their lids. They cease venturing out in any appreciable sense and begin tarrying in public, freaking out the locals, and looking for hand-outs. It’s disgusting.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110640 - 11/29/16 03:36 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7187
Loc: Virginia
Oh yeah I get that too. There's a local guy doing that very thing right now, some people say he's got Schizophrenia but I think he's had a life of daily acid trip and it broke his brain.

He's waaaaay out there. Begging for shit and following people around like he really can't help it. I like to observe how people respond to him. Mostly with disdain. Even those love everybody, peace and acceptance types. I love hypocrites, lol
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110646 - 11/29/16 10:32 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: SIN3]
IronWizard Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/25/15
Posts: 37


I want to talk about eugenol. It's a derivative of clove oil, and it is used in dentistry to relieve pain for cavities and certain procedures. I soaked pieces of paper in it and chewed them. When I was done, the paper was turned to a plastic like material. It is apparently toxic to skin, to. Presumably, it has a similar effect. Well, the vapor hits you pretty quickly. It caused me to laugh uncontrollably, which was a lot of fun. Then, I just felt a bit dazed, but it wasn't anything significant. The next morning, my hands and nails were bright fucking yellow, and my eyes had a slight hint of jaundice to them as well. I hope my liver is okay... yes, I did feel liver pain too. The experience was okay, but definitely better than my one with nutmeg. Nutmeg just made me tired, dazed, and in a shitload of stomach pain. The main downside of eugenol is the jaundice and liver pain, but at least it's mostly pleasant.

I've read various experiences of it online. They're pretty inconsistent. Some compare it to heroin, others to speed, and others describe it uniquely. Really, it's a combination of the three.

Top
#110648 - 11/29/16 11:23 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: SIN3]
antikarmatomic Offline
BANNED
stalker


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 3208
Loc: El Mundo
 Originally Posted By: S3
There's a local guy doing that very thing right now, some people say he's got Schizophrenia but I think he's had a life of daily acid trip and it broke his brain.

It can do definitely that. People speak of “making all these ‘new connections’ in your brain” as if that’s always an inherently good thing. It’s not. I think of it like traffic – civil engineering. You (the general ‘you’) start arbitrarily ripping down long-standing traffic signs – no matter how seemingly inconvenient – all the while constructing two-way roads with intersections at every 300 feet, and you’re eventually going to end up with some really goofy – and permanent - traffic patterns over time. Connections that make about as much sense to leave in place as a four lane cul de sac. Betterment my ass. It gets down right loopy and in ways that, no matter how used-to-it residents eventually become, are always glaringly obvious to the out-of-towners.

Of course, I do love the stuff, personally – and I totally recommend it too - but for what it is! Not all this “spiritual gateway” mumbo jumbo; which is actually a pretty dangerous way to look at it, I think. After-all, it’s your brain your futzing with – not some ethereal inter-dimensional star-gate. I’ve seen a ton of people just forget to ground themselves afterward – you got to go outside, do something boring and tedious to get acclimated to the world out there, basically – a lot of peeps get sort of “stuck” in there, writing about their experiences – altogether eschewing and recoiling at the mundane and loath to interact. Living in their heads. Talking to god is something they’re totally up for, yet somehow they just can’t seem bring themselves to interact with a cashier at 4:15 am. It’s too "spiritually" unsettling, I guess.

‘Takes about half a year to put oneself back together – Inshallah . Some do better jobs of it than others, of course. Not that I’m telling you anything new.
_________________________
Angelic harlequins and sinister clowns.

Top
#110652 - 11/30/16 12:54 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7187
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: AK
Betterment my ass.


Right?

I mean, we all take risks with our biology but I don't see the usefulness is justifying it rather than accepting it.

 Quote:
Living in their heads.


Relatively easy to do without drugs too and produces similar mania. Quesadilla's and shit.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#110950 - 12/24/16 04:20 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: antikarmatomic]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3300
 Originally Posted By: AK
It can do definitely that. People speak of “making all these ‘new connections’ in your brain” as if that’s always an inherently good thing.

Not the first time I hear that argument.

Not forgetting to mention "drugs" don't make connections but only fire up receptors in overdrive. Drugs have nothing to do with actual thinking. They only "enhance" what is already present (and generally with negative down-effects in long term (ab)use).

You can't become a great thinker by using drugs if the brain has never learned to make "connections".
A rookie won't suddenly become a top-sprinter if he never set foot on tarmac.

Drugs to the brain are indeed a bit like traffic. If you're always using the same fast-lane, the other small alternative roads will deteriorate. The fast-lane itself will increasingly need more and frequent "work" in order to remain functional.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#111415 - 02/09/17 01:16 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Dimitri]
IronWizard Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/25/15
Posts: 37
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
 Originally Posted By: AK
It can do definitely that. People speak of “making all these ‘new connections’ in your brain” as if that’s always an inherently good thing.

Not the first time I hear that argument.

Not forgetting to mention "drugs" don't make connections but only fire up receptors in overdrive. Drugs have nothing to do with actual thinking. They only "enhance" what is already present (and generally with negative down-effects in long term (ab)use).

You can't become a great thinker by using drugs if the brain has never learned to make "connections".
A rookie won't suddenly become a top-sprinter if he never set foot on tarmac.

Drugs to the brain are indeed a bit like traffic. If you're always using the same fast-lane, the other small alternative roads will deteriorate. The fast-lane itself will increasingly need more and frequent "work" in order to remain functional.


Drugs are pure self-deceit. Drugs essentially cause your mind to lie to itself, to trick itself into thinking that the circumstances are good. You are right, using drugs to hide from the evils of life is like being a bodybuilder but only imagining yourself as having a perfect physique.

I admit to having an interest in drugs (mainly inhalants, as that was the extent of what I had access to) a few years ago, but I greatly regret that. I think that it was a dangerous manifestation of "rebellion" (that is, the fake form of rebellion that society wants us to see as such). True rebellion is created through educating oneself, making oneself stronger in every aspect of life. The media creates a "sex and drugs" portrayal of rebellion. Not only is that futile, but it's what the government wants people to believe, so they never even think of truly rebelling.

Top
#116615 - 07/28/18 11:28 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Persona non grata]
Timi Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/28/18
Posts: 7
Loc: Finland
Nothing against any drug - But I despise drug abuse. I've seen how people ruin their lives, not improve it.
Can drugs be used correctly? Of course.
I have a history of drug use and alcoholism. Right now I just drink tea,
I don't need drugs myself. I enjoy my Life with my naturally produced dopamines, serotonins, endorphins, etc.

I have done shrooms, lsd, dmt, salvia, nutmeg, pot (was addicted many years, yeah it does that), and I enjoyed some psychedelic experiences, but I wouldn't do them many times a year. And I like My ego. I like to have a control, not lose it (alcohol does the same, heh).
Also I was hooked on cough meds (codeine) for 4 years. Tried speed few times.

Now straight, just fucking tea.

That hippie/indigo/Law of Oneness thing: I loathe it. I want to be Me, and not dissolve my ego.
That's some cult member shit. Besides I fucking hate communal living, unless I'm in charge. I don't like to share stuff with other people and like everybody.

But I think drugs, even psychedelics should be studied more, and maybe they are awesome for certain people, but not me.



Edited by Timi (07/28/18 11:30 AM)
_________________________
Coming soon.

Top
#116623 - 07/29/18 06:51 AM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Timi]
Zeno Offline
member


Registered: 03/15/15
Posts: 145
In Satanism, if the individual is their own god, master of their own life, body, will, choice and destiny, then whatever denies them this state is unSatanic.

Whilst the individual can be free to do the hell they like to their body, when they abuse drugs, alcohol or sex, and it becomes their master, they are as worthless a human being as dog shit. If the bottle, needle, or chemical becomes the master, the individual becomes its slave.

I suggest people study the impact of chemicals on the body before they ingest it into the body, at least be informed of the consequencies before messing around with the stuff.
_________________________
Greece, the Bankers bitch.

Top
#116978 - 09/05/18 08:59 PM Re: Recreational Drugs and Collectivism. [Re: Sargeist]
CCB Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/24/17
Posts: 25
Loc: United States
That is a terrible conclusion to draw from that data, really. You may just as well have said, that people who do drugs such as LSD experience "oneness", because the chemicals that they ingest come in small portions, and that bees and ants also take in nutrients in small portions, which means that ingesting small portions of chemicals leads to a feeling of oneness. Many such possible explanations and correlations can be thought up. But the fact that they may be thought up does not make them true. To test the truth of an explanation, you need to actually test it. That is, conduct experiments to see if reducing the amount of brain cells a person has increasing their feeling of oneness with others.

Aside from how terrible your conclusion from this particular set of data was, it may really be true that a reduction in brain power translates to an increased feeling of oneness. It may be observed that a great many creatures of inferior brain power are less individualistic. And it may reasonably be explained that a creature with greater brain power is more capable of making distinctions, and therefore individuating itself from others. But there are still three problems with relating this to drug use: The first, is that the brain cell reduction from drugs is often very specific and mild, and can not be expected to structurally degrade the entire brain to such a level of intensity that it reduces one to the intellectual level of an ant. The second, is that drug use causes brain cell death, but this is a long term rather than a short term effect, and yet the effect of "oneness" that you describe is short term but not long term, which does not correlate with its potential cause of brain cell death. The last problem is that it still remains to be seen if there are other things that cause feelings of oneness, perhaps to a greater degree, than a degradation of mental ability.

It seems more probable that the feeling arises from the way drugs manipulate emotion, and suppress accurate thought processes. The former rather directly causes a feeling a closeness with others, and the latter may suppress accurate distinctions being made between individuals. Both of these things may occur regardless of brain cell death. I believe it is documented that drugs like LSD and especially MDMA directly cause spikes in oxytocin and serotonin, which increase general feelings of trust and euphoria which may be externalized to all living things, especially in a state of impaired judgement.

Top
Page all of 4 1234>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.104 seconds of which 0.023 seconds were spent on 63 queries. Zlib compression disabled.