Hancock on drugs, entities, DNA

by **banned** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:19 am

....they lie like rugs. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **rain** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:53 am

it's interesting to compare, let's say, the life and work of this guy <a href="http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/VonNeumann.html">ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/VonNeumann.html</a> with, let's say; this guy, <a href="http://futurehi.net/docs/Metaprogramming.html">futurehi.net/docs/Metaprogramming.html</a> what is it that the corporate junkies <a href="http://www.well.com/user/dpd/heffter.html">www.well.com/user/dpd/heffter.html</a> don't understand <a href="http://www.maps.org/docs/psyche.html">www.maps.org/docs/psyche.html</a> ? maybe the super-file for all the spin-offs is titled "the 'free' - base programme", the irony's almost amusing, but the game has always been about control. candy baby?

by **kinsei** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:21 am

Banned, I think we may actually be able to reach a consensus here. The key phrase in your reply was your saying that you always had a sort of mystical bent, and that you could get the same transcendent experience from watching a hawk, etc. That comment was very important. I wish I had experienced such a transcendent experience while I was younger, and in a purely sober state. Believe me, several years of my life probably would have gone smoother if I had. But that was not in the cards for me, either as a function of my environment (mental and physical), my brain chemistry, or both. However, certain natural psychedelics came along at exactly the right time, and helped me get the mystical message right when I needed it (making me realize that all that came beforehand was a necessary buildup to get me into the proper frame of reference for that experience). The drug was a tool, not inherently powerful on its own in isolation, but rather in combination with a powerful Set and Setting. And while the same drug wouldn't necessarily be beneficial to someone else, or even be useful to you (as you said you already had that mystical bent built in, something which I lacked), it was a missing piece of the puzzle for me, something that helped reconcile a spiritual imbalance that I seemed unable to rectify on my own prior to that. Now that I've gone through that, and found what I needed to appreciate the flying hawk, the psychedelics are no longer strictly necessary (although they can be useful reminders on rare special and sacred occasions, as a "communion" if you will). For the most part, pure relaxed meditation works fine for me now. But I wasn't even remotely on this path before that first transcending experience, and I'm thankful that God helped me to meet such a tool, such a friend, right when I needed it most. The fact that you never needed such an experience to be able to reach a transcending state, is a wonderful thing. Be thankful for that, and for the rest of us, we can be thankful that means are available to help us get the message our own way, at our own time. We all have our own paths, but one way or another we all end up finding what we're looking for.

by **kinsei** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:28 am

Oh, btw Osculum: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>LSD is a NOT natural psychedelic, nee entheogen<hr></blockquote> Actually, IIRC, LSD's primary chemical precursor (the key requirement to make it, the one thing that's hard to find as it serves no industrial purpose) is ergotamine tartrate, which is harvested from ergot fungus. So just as mescaline is a synthetic representation of the active substance in peyote, and psilocybin the active substance in mushrooms, it could be said that LSD is a very close cousin to the active substance in ergot (and if memory serves, ergot brews have been used in certain spiritual rites in Asia for quite some time). Given that ergot is very poisonous, making an ingestible variation thereof would necessitate a bit of work, whether it be in the form of a brew, or in this case, a small drop of liquid placed on a piece of paper.

by **Pants Elk** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:20 am

I took LSD many times back in the early seventies, when I was stupid and irresponsible. And I am deeply, deeply glad I was stupid and irresponsible enough to do it. Before I go on with this, I'd like to say that I haven't done it since, don't want or need to do it again, and would NEVER encourage anyone else to take it. I took it with a group of good friends, and we'd walk out into the countryside and ... well ... see God. It's pointless trying to put into words an experience that is so blessedly wordless. Even the use of the word God is inane, banal, inaccurate. My trips were (with one early exception) positive and beautiful beyond measure and telling, and have left me with an inner core of what I can only call cosmic optimism. For that, and the youthful recklessness which enabled it, I am profoundly grateful. But. I learned that the experience requires a kind of passivity, of letting go, letting the wave take you, and that doesn't come naturally or easily to some people. I also learned that the Leary mantra of set and setting is absolutely essential. I haven't felt that the time and place and mood has been right since, although the opportunity has been there on a number of occasions. I consider it as one of the most valuable experiences of my life, in that it has given me what seems to be a totally unshakeable belief in the goodness of the structure of the universe, and our "place" within it. Whether this is an illusion, a dream, I just don't know. But I don't know whether waking life, and my powers to reason, are just a dream, either. But I do know that sometimes they are a nightmare.

by **Trifecta** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:44 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's pointless trying to put into words an experience that is so blessedly wordless.<hr></blockquote> Ineffable is the closest I have come to it. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> LSD is manufactured and no way of knowing by whom and with what...end of.

by **heyjt** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:55 pm

Thanks P.E. I think you pretty much summed it up. I still would like to reflect on the concept in the original Hancock article that there are deep embedded keys in our DNA that may be triggered and released by Altered States. A drug can just open the gateway and then no longer be neccessary...

by **Pants Elk** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:43 pm

I would hope that the LSD state isn't accessible without taking the drug! How would we tie our shoes? Go for milk? I would hope it can only ever be a glimpse. For me, this life is like waiting, and doing the right thing while I'm in line; I no longer want to storm the gates of heaven. I take what comes, deal with it, tie my shoes, go for milk ... all in good time!

by **professorpan** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:57 pm

The argument that some drugs (i.e. "natural" ones, like mushrooms) are better than synthetics (i.e. LSD or MDMA) has always rang hollow to me. Is willow bark tea better at reducing a fever than a tablet of aspirin? I'd rather take the aspirin. And certain plants, particularly those that contain tropane alkaloids -- used primarily in sorcery (datura, jimsonweed) -- are far more dangerous than many synthetic psychedelics. I do understand the shamanic view of plant spirits and devas, though, and have no argument with those who choose to work with plants through that prism. One anecdote has always stayed with me, though -- when Wasson gave curandera Maria Sabina pills of synthetic psilocybin, she claimed that the spirt of the mushrooms was in the pills. Anecdotal, of course, but worth thinking about. And some people *do* know where their drugs come from, who made them, and the precise chemical composition. Of course, taking any substance when you don't know what it is or where it came from is risky. That includes a candy apple from the old lady next door. banned, we understand your viewpoint and your opinion quite clearly. I try to approach controversial subjects by de-emphasizing opinion and, instead, focus on objective data. When studying psychedelics, there is a wealth of evidence that they are valuable to *some* people (let me reiterate --*some*) -- from medical marijuana to treat nausea to MDMA for post-traumatic stress disorder to LSD for treating alcoholism. I'm talking controlled studies, not opinions. That's why robertreed posted those links. We're sharing data here, not just spouting opinions. I may have the opinion that eating pancakes for breakfast every day is wonderful, but really, of what worth is that for someone who hates pancakes? I sat in a teepee with the Native American Church, and took part in their peyote ceremony. It was very illuminating and deeply moving. Studies -- i.e. quantititave data -- have shown that being part of the NAC cuts down on many of the social ills that plague many Indian communities (alcoholism being the main problem), without having any deleterious effects on the participants physically or mentally -- in fact, on some scales they were happier and more well-adjusted than the norm. <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/tb/2070">www.medpagetoday.com/Psyc...ns/tb/2070</a> So let's try to separate opinion from ideas and data, shall we? It makes for a more valuable conversation than "Oh, yeah, well my opinion is that X sucks, and Y is great!" You know what they say about opinions...

by **Pants Elk** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:52 pm

Pan, what you said. With a "but". Other peoples' opinions are always useful. I find the way banned expresses him/herself to be stronger than necessary - why all the steam? - but there's always something interesting going on in people when they let the steam off. And I don't base my worldview just on "data". That"s actually a small percentage of what I find valuable. If data was what this board was about, it'd be a dry old place. We all bring to it what we have, in our own way. Go for it, banned! I wouldn't have it any other way. Doesn't mean I "agree" with it - who cares? Back on the topic of "synthetic" versus natural - I have an increasingly hard time making a distinction. One set of molecules whirls one way, another another. Does LSD know it's synthetic? Does nature? The word "synthetic" is beautiful; of synthesis. Even artificial has a beautiful connotation; from artifice. Like, for example, a cathedral. Or music.

by **professorpan** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:55 pm

Pants Elk, Yes, opinions can be useful. But I don't think name-calling, insults, and disregarding the ideas of others completely is a good way to further a conversation and to get others to listen to one's opinions. If I called banned a "teetotaling sobriety-obsessed prohibitionist pinhead hypocritical freak" I would be stepping over the line. There's no need to hurl insults at someone to make a point. What you call "steam" others might call simple rudeness. If I said "All drugs are great, and anyone who thinks they are not is an idiot" I'd expect to be called out on my blanket statement. That might be valid as an "opinion" but it is contradicted by tons of evidence of the harm drugs can cause. Sure, banned can spout off about anything with lots of anger and nastiness. I'm just suggesting it doesn't do much to push forward dialogue. But then again, I don't think that's what "opinion pushers" want to do. And some people thrive on friction and creating discord. That's life in these here Innernets. But about data... without it, we're all just windbags. After all, many of the topics on this board are dismissed for a perceived lack of data -- ritual abuse, UFOs, 9/11 theories, and so forth. Confronting those denials requires that we build a strong enough case to persuade others. This board *is* about data, after all. We collect data and offer our analysis and opinions. Opinions without data to back them up are not worth very much. If we're interested in truth -- as I hope most of us are -- then our opinions are likely to change over time as new data emerges.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:57 pm

The comment that went over your head was an allusion to the fact that view like yours have official sanction. In fact, they provided the original justification for the escalation of the war on drugs. Once one dogmatically denies that anyone could possibly receive any benefit from the substances- that it's all delusionary- it's a very short logical hop to justify keeping the substances illegal, and garrisoning a police state to enforce ones quasi-theocratic narrowminded views on the subject. I'm sorry to hear about your friend. 19 is too young for most people to get involved with psychedelics, I think. I had a tough time, as well. In some ways, it was a matter of fortune that I didn't end up in some sort of confinement myself. In the absence of preparation, guidance or a benevolent environment, high-dose experiences with psychedelics are the equivalent of being tossed off of a high dive into the deep end of a pool blindfolded, and left to sink or swim. But it was worth it, for me. I also question whether your friend was taking "mescaline." The vast majority of the "mescaline" available in pill form on the street was LSD mixed with PCP. That's the illegal street market for you. PCP is a whole other kettle of fish from mescaline or LSD. For one thing, it's a disassociative anesthetic, not a classical psychedelic. Frequent repeated doses also accumulate in the body. I'm not trying to talk anyone into taking psychedelics. But the ridicule of anyone who finds them valuable strikes me as motivated more by smugness, conceit, fear, insecurity, and/or envy than by reason. And, as I've mentioned previously i a related comment, that wouldn't bother me if there was some sort of level playing field for the free play of ideas on this subject. But psychedelic users are routinely persecuted in this society. For instance, admission of use- even past use- is a death knell for eligibility to holding any type of political office, whether elected or appointed. You can be a "recovered" alcoholic or cokehead, but it's the kiss of death to admit to past experimentation with LSD, much less expressing a favorable opinion about the experience. Anyone who does can count on being pilloried by ignorant bigots. That's what I mean by "banned." And I think that it at least partially offers an explanation for the social reactionaries, crabbed temperaments, and mendacious characters who make up so much of the political class of this country. That's the result of a process of selection that's really quite insidious. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/14/05 4:44 pm

by **banned** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:19 am

Of course I've noticed that most of the people on this board are seriously humor impaired, so maybe they miss it. 'Scuse me if I get upset when some asshat tells me that my friend's near-death and the wreck of his psyche was a lie or an urban legend. But it's never the attacks ON ME that panster notices--including his own. He's always right. That's rule one. Rule two--there is no rule two. Rule three--see rule one. Rule four: no poofters. He can insult me, ignore what I say--basically, he pays zero attention to the what I say in his zeal to twirl his own ego. Knock yourself out, panster, what you do is so obvious it's...well...humorous. ""teetotaling sobriety-obsessed prohibitionist pinhead hypocritical freak"" There's a perfect example: when I'm said I'm for legalization of all drugs, how the sam hill, except in the head of panster who needs a straw man to demonize, is that prohibitionist? Please don't answer, prof, that was rhetorical. I don't find discussions with you worth anything because all you do is use me as a jumping off point to grind your own axe. It's not lack of reading comprehension, it's willful misrepresentation and you do it all the time, not just to me. rdr wrote: "But the ridicule of anyone who finds them valuable strikes me as motivated more by smugness, conceit, fear, insecurity, and/or envy than by reason." Funny, I find the ridicule of those who prefer not to take them motivated by exactly the same things. That you are just sooooo much more profound than I am. Well, you ain't. Thanks, Kinsei, for noticing that some of us get places by a different road. Truthfully, did I not come from a family where bipolar disorder and substance addiction were rampant, I might have a different attitude toward drugs. But I believe my friend's near-flight was a very fortunate thing for me: it kept me from experimentation--I was actually considering whether I wanted to try mescaline at the point where Gary cracked up. (By the way roberto I don't know how old you are that you think you know what was on the market drug-wise in Boston in the early 1970s. What are you, DEA? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> ) "Pro drug propaganda" that doesn't warn people that they MIGHT experience a psychotic break that would RUIN THEIR LIVES is to me as bad as "Anti drug propaganda" that makes it sound like one doobie and they'll go off on a murderous rampage. There are routes to mystical experience that do NOT involve ingesting substances that can result in madness or death. If the point is the mystical experience then what's wrong with those other routes? Nothing, except some people don't want to take up a spiritual discipline, they want a short cut. Worse, some people who get involved in drugs don't want a spiritual insight at all--they want a thrill, or an escape from themselves or their problems. Funny as it sounds given how stupid people are nowadays, one of the reasons I never did drugs was because I liked being extremely smart and didn't want to risk losing any IQ points. Now, I could shave off 40 and still be in the triple digits, smarter than 98% of the people I run into, and I would be a happier person because I wouldn't feel so isolated and different. I'd just be a happy spud, one 'o' the sheeple. Don't worry, be happy... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"> Several years ago I had a saying I used to sum up my life to that point: "I didn't do enough drugs in the 60s, I didn't get enough sex in the 70s, I didn't make enough money in the 80s, and I didn't do enough self promotion in the 90s." I'm not sure what the 'ought' decade will be known for and not sure I want to know. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> So, folks, why don't you give me some examples of some of the fabulously creative things you've personally done under the influence of your substance of choice? Where are your paintings exhibited? Point me to a review of your novels on Amazon, or your film on Rotten Tomatoes, or a web page showing the buildings you've designed. I'm not famous in any art form, but I've written a novel, written and directed plays and studied improvisation, done nature and architectural photography, do figurative clay sculpture, have designed several publications, taken tap, ballet and modern jazz, I sew, crochet, knit and do needlework. All of it on MY substances of choice--Coca Cola, yerba mate, and chocolate (love them theobromines, which by the way means "Food of the Gods!)--and red meat. Can you suggest any drug to make me more creative? The one thing I can't do that I have always wanted to is sing--my voice would drive a hungry dog off a gut wagon--so if you can come up with a drug that will let me belt 'em out like Liza Minnelli, I will happily take it.

by **GDN01** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:30 am

wow - such high tempers over this! Banned - I don't know what happened to your friend, and you may not either. He may have had a psychotic break, with or without the drugs. Hard to say what caused what, and I don't think it is an indication of the "evils" of drugs. mmmkay? I took a class in kundalini yoga once. There are plenty of people who experience psychotic breaks when practicing kundalini - no drugs involved. Yoga, meditation, it's all about altered consciousness - but they are "acceptable" methods for doing so. My instructor said she knew a yogi who ingested 50 tabs of LSD, and claimed it had no effect on him because that's the state he constantly lived in. The goal of kundalini yoga is to realize we are all connected, and to connect through our energy fields by increasing them and moving our energy out to extend to others. There's one drug that does this - MDMA, or ecstasy. When studied in labs, using infrared video, the energy field surrounding a person on X actually expands, which is one of the reasons why people on X feel so connected to the people they share the experience with. You can "feel" someone without actually touching them. It's also a drug that is used in Europe to treat couples in marriage counseling, and people who are facing near death. It allows for emotional break throughs. It's also being used "experimentally" on soldiers from Iraq who have PTSD. It is one of the few drugs that has lasting beneficial emotional effects for up to 6 months after taking it, if used in correct doses. It's also one of the few drugs that the "breakthoughs" experienced while on it are remembered once the drug wears off - as opposed to some drugs, like LSD, when people don't remember what that "mindblowing" epiphany was all about once they come down. If I were to ask if all the people in the world should meditate for hours each day, hoping to achieve that deeply connected experience, knowing we are all one in the same - in the hope that people would stop harming other people through war and violence once they realized this, I bet most people would think that's a great idea. If I suggested we put a little MDMA in the world's water supply, to achieve the very same thing, I bet most people would be appalled. If there was a drug I would give everyone, it would be X. Not all drug use is evil. People who are gonna break, break, with or without drug use. A lot of people who are developing schizophrenia (it begins to affect people usually in their late teens, and males more than females) start taking drugs to get rid of the voices in their head, or to make sense of them, or to curb the anxiety and paranoia that often accompany schizophrenia. Self medication. Then when the schizophrenia becomes full-blown, many people blame the "drugs". The drugs didn't do it, but it's an easy scapegoat for family and friends who want to have something to blame.

by **banned** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:54 am

In point of fact, you can't PROVE that someone who had a psychotic break on drugs would have had one anyway, and if you want to claim that if someone who had never been psychotic, then spent a month or so ingesting mescaline and tried to fly out a third story window, there's not sufficient evidence to link the two--I think you've already been hittin' the bong. The level of denial is exceeded only by the level of sophistry.

Hancock on drugs, entities, DNA

PS I wouldn't trust that carpet if I were you...

candy baby

Re: I love mushrooms...

Oh yeah...

LSD

Re: LSD

Thank you, Pants Elk

Re: Thank you, Pants Elk

Natural/synthetic and "opinions"

Re: Natural/synthetic and "opinions"

opinions

banned

I think there's a lot of humor in my posts.

can't we all just get a bong?

Love your subject line!

Who is online