Tantra-Induced Delusional Syndrome ("TIDS")

[American Dream]

A valid perspective but- and you may be getting at the crux of a central TIDS issue here- what might you suggest that people in James Kent's position do? In other words. if extraordinary states are leading to abuse/addiction, problematic delusions and whatnot, when one wants the visionary aspect but not all the shit?

Yeah - don't get me wrong. I think it adds something of value as the Crick / Narby stories artfully reveal. But I suppose my question is, at base, about the notion of "jungle tools." IOW whether or not the user can benefit from fairies on the beach, what do the fairies want, need, desire? I would hate to think that understanding them as tools (IOW disproportionately factoring their human value into their ontology) means almost enslaving (or, maybe just indenturing) those discarnate entities who are finally allowed a human interlocutor.

[liminalOyster]

A valid perspective but- and you may be getting at the crux of a central TIDS issue here- what might you suggest that people in James Kent's position do? In other words. if extraordinary states are leading to abuse/addiction, problematic delusions and whatnot, when one wants the visionary aspect but not all the shit?

Yeah - don't get me wrong. I think it adds something of value as the Crick / Narby stories artfully reveal. But I suppose my question is, at base, about the notion of "jungle tools." IOW whether or not the user can benefit from fairies on the beach, what do the fairies want, need, desire? I would hate to think that understanding them as tools (IOW disproportionately factoring their human value into their ontology) means almost enslaving (or, maybe just indenturing) those discarnate entities who are finally allowed a human interlocutor.

I suppose my own take is that the humility that is necessary to enter into an ethical relation with an other who is entirely non-ordinary, is healing in and of itself. So it's a sickness to think this kind of contact means one is special (delusions of grandeur) whereas it is humbling to realize such realities are ordinary? Maybe? I don't know much, I guess.

[American Dream]

That's an interesting take- so I'm hearing that spiritual superman who has the secret to save the world by lunchtime next Tuesday and super-rationalist who is going to solve the TIDS problem may be two sides of the same coin?

[liminalOyster]

That's an interesting take- so I'm hearing that spiritual superman who has the secret to save the world by lunchtime next Tuesday and super-rationalist who is going to solve the TIDS problem may be two sides of the same coin?

I sort of like the way you've framed it. But I admit I think we really need a whole lot more of the latter to counter the over-representation of the former. My sense from the longtime servers I've spoken with (a few native to the Amazon) is that they straddle both worlds. I love that passage in Michael Harner's work about coming back from Ayahuasca-world thinking he's been told by an ethereal snake being that he has been chosen to save the universe and an elder telling him, "oh, they always say that." I think in indigenous societies, many could be "super-rational" but their rationalism is very distinct from the one native to the reality I've been taught to spend most of my time in.

[American Dream]

There was a "western" ayuhuascero (possibly Marlene Dobkin de Rios) who came back from the jungle and left the path that they had been training in there. They said that to continue would have meant giving themselves over to a life of magical battle with sorcerers in struggle from which there would be no exit.

Personally, I think also this view could have been cultivated by their "teacher", so the mind fuck can be/seem infinite where total immersion in the Great Mystery is facilitated by sorcery and very strong medicine.

[liminalOyster]

There was a "western" ayuhuascero (possibly Marlene Dobkin de Rios) who came back from the jungle and left the path that they had been training in there. They said that to continue would have meant giving themselves over to a life of magical battle with sorcerers in struggle from which there would be no exit.

Personally, I think also this view could have been cultivated by their "teacher", so the mind fuck can be/seem infinite where total immersion in the Great Mystery is facilitated by sorcery and very strong medicine.

Funny you mention this. I've been thinking lately about how shortsighted it is that Euro/Western shamanism boosters rarely, if ever, speak of sorcery which seems to be a very substantial aspect of the Amazonian noospheric landscape.

[American Dream]

It of course depends on the shaman, but by that standard one might be lucky to find instead a plastic shaman who only wants to maximize their profit by seeing how many tourists they can jam into the same session.

[PufPuf93]

Psychiatric Power and Taboo in Modern Psychedelia
http://realitysandwich.com/159327/psych ... ychedelia/

Also from the reality sandwich link:

The Life of a Merry Prankster

by Carolyn Garcia (Mountain Girl) and from the 2016 Woman's Visionary Conference.

The 10th annual Women’s Visionary Congress (WVC)  http://www.visionarycongress.org/ will gather in Petaluma, California this month to present the work of visionary women healers, scholars, activists and artists who study consciousness and plant medicines. Since 2007, the WVC has held gatherings throughout the U.S. and Canada to support the transfer of knowledge among women of all generations who apply their research and personal insights. The 2016 gathering will take place Friday, June 17th through Sunday, June 19th at the IONS Earthrise Retreat Center http://www.noetic.org/earthrise/about/overview/. The event will feature discussions, presentations, film screenings, music, a fashion show of upcycled clothing, and visual art. People of all genders are welcome.

Link to Mountain Girl's presentation:

http://realitysandwich.com/320137/the-l ... prankster/

[dada]

Yeah - don't get me wrong. I think it adds something of value as the Crick / Narby stories artfully reveal. But I suppose my question is, at base, about the notion of "jungle tools." IOW whether or not the user can benefit from fairies on the beach, what do the fairies want, need, desire? I would hate to think that understanding them as tools (IOW disproportionately factoring their human value into their ontology) means almost enslaving (or, maybe just indenturing) those discarnate entities who are finally allowed a human interlocutor.

Perhaps we anthropomorphize these non-human entities, though, project onto them. Their wants, needs and desires may be so unlike ours that we could never fulfill them, or they may have none. Or none that we can understand. Perhaps.

They may desire to be what we unconsciously expect them to be. Meaning, we see "fairy" "angel" "alien" "living light" depending on where we're at psychologically, but also if we expect them to need something from us, they will.

I'm talking about drug elves and otherwise. Some people don't need altered states to get there. It's possible that a clearer picture of these entities can be brought into focus by the non-inebriated self. We can better see them for what they truly are. A something that exists between self and the void. Helpful, harmful, playful, depends on the self's relationship to the void. Perhaps, I say:)

The reindeer man, or the tea healer, are not seeking enlightenment. I think that's the big mistake that we've made culturally in our explorations. Even the recreational user is looking for that special kick, and the artist looking for that new perspective breakthrough. Saving the world is really "my idea of what saving the world should look like." But the journeying is meant to find answers to help others. It isn't about us, at all. But this is our problem culturally with enlightenment seeking in general, in all its forms.

One other thing I would add. The human is the incarnate entity. That's the "boss." If boss doesn't respect their position, accept it, and own it, the entities won't either. No matter how old these spirits, gods, demons or what have you are, the incarnate entity is older. The incarnate is great-grandfather or grandmother of all those other entities. It's the way it is, and the entities all know it.

There are others that are equal to boss, but they don't usually get involved with this plane of existence, unless you ask them nicely.

[American Dream]

Pharoah Sanders - Hum Allah Hum Allah Hum Allah

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




.

[PufPuf93]

Yeah - don't get me wrong. I think it adds something of value as the Crick / Narby stories artfully reveal. But I suppose my question is, at base, about the notion of "jungle tools." IOW whether or not the user can benefit from fairies on the beach, what do the fairies want, need, desire? I would hate to think that understanding them as tools (IOW disproportionately factoring their human value into their ontology) means almost enslaving (or, maybe just indenturing) those discarnate entities who are finally allowed a human interlocutor.

Perhaps we anthropomorphize these non-human entities, though, project onto them. Their wants, needs and desires may be so unlike ours that we could never fulfill them, or they may have none. Or none that we can understand. Perhaps.

They may desire to be what we unconsciously expect them to be. Meaning, we see "fairy" "angel" "alien" "living light" depending on where we're at psychologically, but also if we expect them to need something from us, they will.

I'm talking about drug elves and otherwise. Some people don't need altered states to get there. It's possible that a clearer picture of these entities can be brought into focus by the non-inebriated self. We can better see them for what they truly are. A something that exists between self and the void. Helpful, harmful, playful, depends on the self's relationship to the void. Perhaps, I say:)

The reindeer man, or the tea healer, are not seeking enlightenment. I think that's the big mistake that we've made culturally in our explorations. Even the recreational user is looking for that special kick, and the artist looking for that new perspective breakthrough. Saving the world is really "my idea of what saving the world should look like." But the journeying is meant to find answers to help others. It isn't about us, at all. But this is our problem culturally with enlightenment seeking in general, in all its forms.

One other thing I would add. The human is the incarnate entity. That's the "boss." If boss doesn't respect their position, accept it, and own it, the entities won't either. No matter how old these spirits, gods, demons or what have you are, the incarnate entity is older. The incarnate is great-grandfather or grandmother of all those other entities. It's the way it is, and the entities all know it.

There are others that are equal to boss, but they don't usually get involved with this plane of existence, unless you ask them nicely.

Perhaps the "non-human entities" we meet while under the influence of entheogens are less visited parts of our brain, possible even a DNA-transferred memory of humanity and even life prior to our species rather than to anthropomorphize?

Our perception is emergent from the human brain.

Perhaps the sense of "oneness" from the entheogen is because life is a "oneness" and our specific consciousness is a temporary node of concentration, the incarnate or a human being, we experience as our life?

The discarnate entities are always there to be reveled and revealed within the brain and may or may be nonsense from our frame of reference.

The entheogen entities are long memories that exist within the brain and those we meet tour guides conjured within.

[liminalOyster]

Yeah - don't get me wrong. I think it adds something of value as the Crick / Narby stories artfully reveal. But I suppose my question is, at base, about the notion of "jungle tools." IOW whether or not the user can benefit from fairies on the beach, what do the fairies want, need, desire? I would hate to think that understanding them as tools (IOW disproportionately factoring their human value into their ontology) means almost enslaving (or, maybe just indenturing) those discarnate entities who are finally allowed a human interlocutor.

Perhaps we anthropomorphize these non-human entities, though, project onto them. Their wants, needs and desires may be so unlike ours that we could never fulfill them, or they may have none. Or none that we can understand. Perhaps.

They may desire to be what we unconsciously expect them to be. Meaning, we see "fairy" "angel" "alien" "living light" depending on where we're at psychologically, but also if we expect them to need something from us, they will.

I'm talking about drug elves and otherwise. Some people don't need altered states to get there. It's possible that a clearer picture of these entities can be brought into focus by the non-inebriated self. We can better see them for what they truly are. A something that exists between self and the void. Helpful, harmful, playful, depends on the self's relationship to the void. Perhaps, I say:)

The reindeer man, or the tea healer, are not seeking enlightenment. I think that's the big mistake that we've made culturally in our explorations. Even the recreational user is looking for that special kick, and the artist looking for that new perspective breakthrough. Saving the world is really "my idea of what saving the world should look like." But the journeying is meant to find answers to help others. It isn't about us, at all. But this is our problem culturally with enlightenment seeking in general, in all its forms.

One other thing I would add. The human is the incarnate entity. That's the "boss." If boss doesn't respect their position, accept it, and own it, the entities won't either. No matter how old these spirits, gods, demons or what have you are, the incarnate entity is older. The incarnate is great-grandfather or grandmother of all those other entities. It's the way it is, and the entities all know it.

There are others that are equal to boss, but they don't usually get involved with this plane of existence, unless you ask them nicely.

Perhaps the "non-human entities" we meet while under the influence of entheogens are less visited parts of our brain, possible even a DNA-transferred memory of humanity and even life prior to our species rather than to anthropomorphize?

Our perception is emergent from the human brain.

Perhaps the sense of "oneness" from the entheogen is because life is a "oneness" and our specific consciousness is a temporary node of concentration, the incarnate or a human being, we experience as our life?

The discarnate entities are always there to be reveled and revealed within the brain and may or may be nonsense from our frame of reference.

The entheogen entities are long memories that exist within the brain and those we meet tour guides conjured within.

I like the cut of your jib. What do you think of Julian Jaynes? I've noticed a little surge of interest in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind at the fringes of academia recently.

[dada]

The buddhist says there's no substance at the ground of the universe, the hindu says there is an ultimate substance. The Jain would say they're both right, from differing perspectives.

Here we have a similar case. Are the entities outside of the "self," or are they projections from within. Maybe both perspectives are correct.

And whose perspective is it. Again, a matter of perspective. There's a perspective whether I know the answer to that question or not.

I can be satisfied with this open perspective. That frees me up. Instead of perspective being like looking at the sky from the bottom of a well, it's undefined. Like in mathematics, "solve for x." Value of X depends on the equation.

What is the correct perspective. Wars are fought, innocent people are killed over that question. Even though I see the logic of the undefined, and act from it, there's still a part of me that wants to know. The part that wants, wants, wants. It always wants something. The little pac-man in all of us.

Many people identify with their inner pac-man, that's what they call "I." The part running through the maze, eating up its karma or whatever. But no one ever really sees the whole pac-man with their eyes. Just one frame at a time, or dissected on a sprite-sheet. The only way to see the whole pac-man is to imagine it.

[American Dream]

I like where this thread is going. A lot. I'm definitely of the "Everything is Everything" school, so yes to the alien voice as within us, as us, beyond us, beyond the knowable, beyond the human. And all the other possibilities I can't even think of. That's what put me on this path and that''s also what confuses me sometimes

[liminalOyster]

The buddhist says there's no substance at the ground of the universe, the hindu says there is an ultimate substance. The Jain would say they're both right, from differing perspectives.

Here we have a similar case. Are the entities outside of the "self," or are they projections from within. Maybe both perspectives are correct.

And whose perspective is it. Again, a matter of perspective. There's a perspective whether I know the answer to that question or not.

I can be satisfied with this open perspective. That frees me up. Instead of perspective being like looking at the sky from the bottom of a well, it's undefined. Like in mathematics, "solve for x." Value of X depends on the equation.

What is the correct perspective. Wars are fought, innocent people are killed over that question. Even though I see the logic of the undefined, and act from it, there's still a part of me that wants to know. The part that wants, wants, wants. It always wants something. The little pac-man in all of us.

Many people identify with their inner pac-man, that's what they call "I." The part running through the maze, eating up its karma or whatever. But no one ever really sees the whole pac-man with their eyes. Just one frame at a time, or dissected on a sprite-sheet. The only way to see the whole pac-man is to imagine it.

That's a really interesting juxtaposition (Hindu/Buddhist) that I don't think has ever occurred to me in quite those terms. I know "aether" (universal substance) comes to Aristotle from India more or less which has always seemed to me a rather distinctly Euro/Western way to quell ontological anxieties about the void, which I find intriguing as it may suggest one point on which the roots of Western philosophy (not to mention Capitalism et al) are juxtaposed to Buddhadharma. I'm rusty on my Buddhist studies but I suspect there is also something in the Yocara/Madyamaka debates of relevance here. Maybe I'll get inspired and find it.

Also, I've never studied much in the Western esoteric traditions but I will say it made a big impact on me when I learned/realized that magic(k)ians largely don't seem to concern themselves with the ontology of various entities. I intuit that allows people to not get too stuck on ontology and just focus on their work.