Hancock on drugs, entities, DNA

by **banned** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:59 am

...I asked a young co-worker who did it all the time to tell me why she liked it. She said "Because it makes you think you had a good time even though you had a shitty time." Hmm. I'd rather go out and actually have a good time than think I had one when I didn't. That was from someone who is a FAN of the drug. As for cocaine, I have a friend who lost his job, his house, and his girlfriend permanently, his sanity temporarily, and ended up with peripheral neuropathy from injecting it and had a terrible time with antibiotic-resistant sores at the injection sites. What FUN! I must be crazy to want to miss the that kind of FUN! But of course if I took X presumably I'd think my life crashing down around me while I pick at my sores was FUN too!

by **GDN01** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:10 am

You are right - there is no way to "prove" if your friend would have had a psychotic break anyway. There is no way to predict who is going to have such a break, very few warning signs, and most signs are never seen for what they are until after the fact. Hindsight is 20/20. But, you are missing my point. There is no way to know either way, and saying it was all the drugs is like saying people murder because they listen to heavy metal music. It's a chicken and egg situation. And I would suggest letting that one tragic situation determine your opinion of drug use, and drug users, is not taking the whole picture into consideration. Drug use, drug abuse, and drug addiction, are three different things. Abuse and addiction are destuctive to one's life, regardless of what form it takes. Internet addiction has become a real problem for some people and the relationships in their lives. Porn addiction - big problem for some. Indigenous cultures have used plants and herbs from the beginning of time to reach enlightenment. There could be something to be learned from such experiences.

by **GDN01** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:12 am

I would say your friend has other "issues" and is abusing the drug. Why is she having a "shitty time" to begin with?

by **banned** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:01 am

These "indigenous cultures" that are so enlightened? Mostly being wiped out or coopted. One would think part of being enlightened would be to know how to resist the onslaught of a soulless and materialistic culture, no? People are arguing that these "plants and herbs" spur creativity and inventiveness. Some of these "indigenous cultures" never quite got around to inventing the wheel. Or clothing. Could be that sitting around chewing some magical herb and seeing got in your rug does not a creative person, or a creative society, make. I'm still waiting to hear all these amazing, transformative insights you folks have had. Most of you are in fact rude, disrespectful blatherers who think your views are the holy writ and anyone who disagrees with you is a piece of crap--if that's enlightenment, you can have it. Truthfully, you 'true believers' in drug culture have a lot in common with religious fundamentalists--demanding tolerance for yourself while denying it to anyone who disagrees with you, arrogating moral superiority to yourself without doing a frickin' thing to demonstrate your drug trips have made you superior to anyone except perhaps a masturbating bonobo. What drugs do is make YOU feel good, and feel superior, without your having to do anything to earn it. It's a cheap shortcut that demeans the genuine spiritual insights of the great teachers of the ages and produces cheesy cliches and fat heads, not profound insights and expanded compassion for your fellow creatures.

by **Pants Elk** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:44 am

Banned wrote: "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 ... 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 ... so if you can come up with a drug that will let me belt 'em out like Liza Minnelli, I will happily take it." Good, heartfelt stuff. Funny, too. But taking psychedelics doesn't improve your performance in any area, creative or otherwise. As far as I know, it was never claimed to. That's not what it's for. There have been attempts to create works of art while under the influence, but they're mostly unsuccessful. Works you create after the experience can be profoundly influenced by it, however. You can play musical instruments tripped out of your skull, up to a point, and many groups did just that. But when you're on a trip, things like art, and literature, and even music, take on a different perspective, and often it's irrelevant to what you're going through. It's more of a passive thing; you let it happen to you, and if you try to direct or exploit it to your own ends you have to be very careful, because the experience is stronger than you are. Your list of accomplishments is very creditable, banned, but I'm sure you don't need reminding that you're not alone in successfully expressing yourself creatively while off psychedelics. In that at least, you're just a normal human being. Like the rest of us. Although my own novels (three of them, all published incidentally, one optioned by Warners) were written a long time after I stopped taking acid, I'm probably correct in saying they would have been different had my life not been informed by the psychedelic experience. I'm not saying better or worse; just different. As to becoming more creative and your search for a singing voice; why not take lessons? You may find yourself singing like yourself instead of Liza Minelli. Not better or worse, just different. Edit: You should try to make the distinction between psychedelic drugs and recreational brain-fucks (such as cocaine). Not all drugs are alike. Otherwise our morning cup of java would render us unable to turn up for work. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pantselk>Pants Elk</A> at: 12/15/05 3:50 am

by **Trifecta** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:52 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's a cheap shortcut that demeans the genuine spiritual insights of the great teachers of the ages and produces cheesy cliches and fat heads, not profound insights and expanded compassion for your fellow creatures.<hr></blockquote> Spirtual emergencies happen whatever route you take. If a drug, a picture, a sound, a meditation or an eagle circling a glade inspires your spirit to have empathy with the world it is all good. It the empathy which is the key. To deny any manificent art was not created though all of the above uses is folly. If you had taken psychedelics and still formed the opinion you carry, it is worth listening to. If you can see the world in a grain of sand heaven in a wild flower hold infinity in the palm of your hand eternity in an hour ~ Blake (psychedelic imbiber) Point is, meditation can produce the same effects, it may seem this is less threatful to your psychosis (alpha stating the gullible is worse) Kundalini Yoga on one hand has its benefits and in some cases can kill you (perhaps the point) and so on. Whatever expands your world view is beneficial to humanity.

by **GDN01** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:16 am

Shifting Sanctuary Just beyond is where this has always been. Beyond my finger tips Beyond my whispering lips Beyond my reaching out trips Just beyond is where this has always been. Where hands not touching pass through skin Where sanctuary holds for one shifting moment. Shifting realities Shifting dualities Shifting totalities Nothing matters more and everything matters less Than that shifting surface of being That eludes the penetrating moment. Or so it seems Did you feel that? Wait… Did you feel that? Did you feel That opening That breaking through That letting go and losing all and over again At once as haunting voices continue to call out From the edge that is crossed As the distance grows. It becomes harder to return to either side alone. So the challenge becomes how to remain How to remain Remain here in this sanctuary We have created with our shifting surfaces How to make this our reality Shifting in to our totality No room left for duality. Everything matters more and nothing matters less Just beyond where this has always been. Are you ready to go? -- a poem on X by gdn

by **GDN01** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:46 am

I'm not so sure inventing clothing is a sign of a progressed society - repressed maybe. And I never suggested I was superior - for any reason. Nor was I rude. But your insults certainly fall in that category. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gdn01>GDN01</A> at: 12/16/05 4:52 am

by **chillin** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:02 pm

C'mon, banned is an anti-drug fundamentalist troll. Most of the nasty things he has to say about drug users can actually be attributed to his/her self with examples to illustrate this throughout the thread. Banned's posts are uniformly rude and pompous, peppered with insults and accusations. Perhaps banned could enlighten us all as to why he's so sure the wheel wasn't invented by someone with a belly full of mushrooms. The absolute certitude when dealing with something unknowable is after all the calling card of the fundamentalist blinded by dogma. The posts on the other side of the 'discussion' have much more civil, open-minded tone. Psychedelics certainly aren't for everyone, but being able to conduct yourself in a civil manner should be.

by **professorpan** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:19 pm

Those of us who have experienced novel insights, increased awareness, compassion, and connectedness via psychoactive substances do not need to convince anyone. We know. I'm not about to list my various creative endeavors because psychedelics are not a single source of inspiration for any of them. But they are part of totality of my experience, and as such, they have shaped me into a better, more compassionate, more balanced, and more creative person. I don't need to prove that to you, banned -- and I don't care to. It's a big world, with plenty of room for all opinions. All I'd like to ask of banned is this: Some of us clearly disagree with your "opinion." We find the evidence, and our own subjective experiences, convincing. We know your opinion. We'd just like to be able to discuss our experiences and thoughts without constantly defending against charges that our experiences and thoughts are worthless rantings of druggies. Is that too much to ask?

by **robertdreed** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:43 pm

"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." I don't get the defensiveness, banned. I've never ridiculed your intelligence, or disdained your creativity. I haven't noticed anyone else on this board doing so, either. I know that there are psychedelicists who indulge in feeling superior to those who abstain from the experience. That is, in fact, an authentic hazard. It's possible to find the same attitude of self-pride among jet pilots, or extreme climbers, or bikers, or all sorts of categories of risk-taking experience. There's a media culture out there that encourages me-so-dialed arrogance. But some have learned humility. Insufferability is tiresome. Incidentally, the dismissive attitude that I hear from people who deny other peoples self-estimation of their psychedelic exeperiences is quite analogous to what I hear from atheists who knock the religious beliefs and experiences of others. But there's a salient difference. The avowal of personal religious experience isn't legally presecuted in this society- unless, of course, someone adds that their experience was catalyzed by an illegal chemical. So if you're surprised at the vehemence, or the numbers of the vocal opposition, what you're hearing is the unleashing of a lot of repressed anger and resentment. This is one of the limited array of forums where people like us can express our opinions candidly. You certainly won't find exchanges like this in your daily newspaper. So I predict you're going to keep getting an earful of it, until you refrain from making blanket pronouncements about matters of which you have limited and remote experience. Consider my opinion on Paxil. I've never taken it. I know people who have. One of them, a good friend of mine, consequently committed suicide. I think it's recklessly over-prescribed. But I'm not opposed to all medical use of antidepressants. I know other people who insist that they benefit from it. And I don't buy the line that insists that anyone who takes antidepressants is doing something wrong by seeking to artificially smooth out their moodiness, and that by denying their mood swings they're suppressing their creativity. It's a personal decision. By the way, about my expertise on the "mescaline" question- it's well-known that PCP-LSD combinations sold as mescaline were perhaps the most commonly mislabelled counterfeit on the illegal drug market, particularly in the early 1970s. That and "THC"- which, when sold in pill form, was always actually PCP in the 1970s. ( These days, it's occasionally possible to find pharmaceutical THC, diverted from prescription sources. But it's manufactured as gel caps. ) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/15/05 12:00 pm

by **Connut** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:18 pm

to report that Hancock is suspect with a possibly Satanic/Masonic agenda. He wants us to be prepared for the return of the Nine - for more information check into the book "The Stargate Conspiracy". Not that I agree with everything they write - especially the lack of insight into ritual abuse, but they make a good case for Hancock and others being in league with the CIA and the global elite. The old case of follow the money, the supporting cast are the usual suspects. Check it out for yourselves. Cheers, Connut

by **robertdreed** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:55 pm

I'm suspicious of just about all of the "New Age" crypto-archaeology authors I can think of, including Graham Hancock. If any of them have ever showed up at scholarly academic conferences for peer review, I haven't heard about it. I'm also suspicious of the ayahuasca bandwagon phenomenon that I've been noting, of late. I think there's entirely too much "prep work" going on, in terms of the agendas being advanced. I'd be very, very wary of the gurus, guides, and sages involved in touting the experience. It appears to me as if it's being sold as chemical EST- a transformative weekend that will leave the participant as a superior being. That isn't the way the Native American Church runs their ceremonies, I can tell you that much. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/16/05 12:36 am

by **banned** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:07 pm

We all choose how to deal with our "issues" and we all defend those choices, in spite of the fact that many of them arise out of the same pathology as the "issues." I've made it very clear what I have based my opinions about drug use on, and have not asked anyone on this board or in the wider society to share my opinions--in fact I've said I think everyone should be free to ingest whatever they want to. In terms of the negative impact on society, I worry more about kids eating Happy Meals and turning into porky diabetics than I do about recreational drug use. Even so, when I've tried to explain why I feel as I do I've been insulted, mocked, called a liar, called a troll. Now, you tell me whether it is ME who is being a closed minded asshat, or my opponents. Who has the genuinely open mind? Who has been honest about what formed their opinions? (me and nomo who said "I like to get fucked up") And who has repeated the same trite, tired boilerplate that's been going around since the Beats...Alan Watts blahblahblah...see God...nature of reality....SNORE. I have not heard ONE personal story that indicates anyone attained anything via drugs that I have not heard others describe attaining, or attained myself, without them. If in fact "X" works for PTSD, that's great. So do a lot of things that do not have the ill effects that have been reported for it, including EMDR (eye movement therapy), deep bodywork, and plain old talk therapy to debrief the trauma. So what we're left with is, what I've gotten is a lot of disrespect and invalidation for my opinion which I never claimed should be the opinion of any other soul on the planet let alone the basis for social policy. And you wonder why my attitude toward ya'll is "fuck you and the horse you rode in on"? Sheeeeeessssssshhhhh. chilled wrote: “C'mon, banned is an anti-drug fundamentalist troll.” Right, that’s why I said I’m in favor of legalizing all drugs. Seriously, how can one NOT insult people who can’t read a simple english sentence, repeated, how many times now in this thread? If I’m a troll, you’re an illiterate moron. Professor, I’ll cut you a deal. Next time I ask you to butt out of a thread of mine where you’re making yourself deliberately obnoxious, do it, k? In return, I’ll happily butt out of this one, because I don’t see anything in it to indicate that I’m wrong about the kind of people who gravitate to substance use/abuse. (which is it being of course never the latter to the defenders--even my coked up friend insisted till they locked him up that he could stop any time he wanted to.)

by **robertdreed** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:11 pm

"Who has the genuinely open mind? Who has been honest about what formed their opinions? (me and nomo who said "I like to get fucked up")" Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 12/15/05 8:14 pm

Hancock on drugs, entities, DNA

And as for X...

Breathe in.... breathe out...

Re: And as for X...

And where are they now?

Re: And where are they now?

Spirtual emergency

a bit of poetry

Re: And where are they now?

Troll

Re: And where are they now?

banned...

Sorry

Graham Hancock

Whatever works, folks.

quote without comment

Who is online