Any other daily travellers here?

[Qoniaq]

It's implied right here:

So again, why do their questions and doubts hinder you? Again, I agree, know your audience, not everyone is going to get it. But that's not really what you're focusing on, is it?


Relative to how you present yourself, in conjunction with the statements I am focusing on, it simply seems like there's something else going on, but nothing that I presume to know or see so well as to try and pinpoint for you. Perhaps the proof that informs your conviction isn't as conclusive as it may appear?


Is it perhaps that veracity of your position is challenged when people don't align with you? Most people, myself included, would gladly challenge the notion of "true metaphysical framework." Don't mistake the map for the terrain.

One love

I understand protecting oneself, but that doesn't seem to be what this is about.

the map is not the mountain indeed...

 

[Panpsychic]

I can relate to being hesitant to share weird experiences. But countless people here have shared weird synchronicities and seemingly precognition experiences etc.

Good for them, hopefully it was received well.

for years...and when the people sharing are clearly remaining open minded and aren't presenting it as the one "true metaphysical framework" and saying things like "proven" and "beyond doubt"...the reception here is likely to be far more reasonable and warm. A lack of opened mindedness to being wrong will often color peoples reaction more than the unique strangeness of the experiences shared

There are truths in physics. And there are truths in metaphysics. No, we arent just groping in the dark, and not all experiences and the resulting views are equally valid.

However, the caveat is that each persons subjective perspective can only be shared so much, and beyond that some things can only be personal knowledge.
One of the foundations of investigation in this area is correspondences...correspondences with others experiences, and experiences of other paths to different states of consciousness be it mysticism or meditation. When these things line up we can be surer we are on the right track. I have plenty of times been open to alternative interpretations, however in some cases there is no possibility of doubt- for me.

That is personal knowledge, beyond the point of conjecture and its not necessary to share much of it and no, there is no possibility of some of this being 'wrong' - although it wouldn't be possible for someone else to know this, only realize similar certainties themselves.

So again, why do their questions and doubts hinder you?

They don't

Perhaps the proof that informs your conviction isn't as conclusive as it may appear?

The conviction doesnt always come from 'proof' which is the hard part sometimes to get ones head around. The only way to describe it is sometimes being in touch with truth itself. I think you will be familiar with what I am talking about. Subsequent 'proof' just affirms this to the rational mind, what was never in doubt anyway. However debating it with others trying to rationalize isnt always what I am interested in doing.

Is it perhaps that veracity of your position is challenged when people don't align with you?

No, this is difference between faith and going beyond doubt. Certain things aren't amenable to change just because peoples views may not align.

Most people, myself included, would gladly challenge the notion of "true metaphysical framework." Don't mistake the map for the terrain.

Then perhaps we differ here. There are core axioms for how reality operates is my position. Perhaps this can be for another discussion...this is what I alluded to regards correspondences between traditions that work with higher states of consciousness and metaphysical insights that have emerged. I don't claim by any means to have to full picture, but partial yes as we all should be progressing towards more fully.

 

[northape]

Then perhaps we differ here. There are core axioms for how reality operates is my position. Perhaps this can be for another discussion...this is what I alluded to regards correspondences between traditions that work with higher states of consciousness and metaphysical insights that have emerged.

That'd be awesome. I'm genuinely interested in what led to such a firm position in your case. Maybe you can share more about it here or in a separate thread.

 

[Qoniaq]

One of the things I've tried to do since the very beginning of journaling and recording is to make sure that I don't focus on meaning—or Meaning™.

Here's the thing. We all have different phenomenological experiences. We feel things, we see things, we hear things. It's a complete, all senses reporting for duty experiential event. It's not just what you see. It's an entire physical revelation.

Some people see entities. Some people see conscious, sentient geometry. Some people see impossible landscapes. I often hear architecture. But what I've tried to do since the beginning is simply note the phenomenology. What did I see? What did I hear? What did I feel? At what point in the experience did I feel it? Where was it in the experience? How intense was it? What kind of vector did it have?

Meaning is something our nervous system constructs after the fact, and it's a notoriously bad narrator.

When I share these experiences, or read other's reports what I notice in the comments is that things usually become argumentative when people try to assign meaning to the experience. Usually it's a meaning that can be crocheted onto a pillow or turned into a bumper sticker. "It meant this." "it represents this.." "That's your energy system saying..bla. bla."

But these experiences don't always have that kind of meaning.

So I've always focused on the phenomenology. I tend to leave the meaning to the person who had the experience, or to whoever is reading the account. I don't tend to talk about Jungian archetypes or deep cosmic visions or any of that. I really just try to relay exactly what I saw, what I heard, what I felt, when it happened, where it happened, how intense it was, and how it unfolded.

I think that by doing that, we remove a lot of the argument. Nobody can tell me I didn't see what I saw, or hear what I heard, or feel what I felt at that moment. I never inject my own personal interpretation into it. In fact, I deliberately try not to record my interpretations. It's simply the phenomenology.

What I'm trying to do, and what I think is worth sharing, is the data. The actual lived experiences.

The map is not the mountain, and the reports we bring back are closer to cartography than anything else. At least, that's what I try to make them. We're describing terrain. We're describing environments. I'm not trying to tell you what the rock means or what the tree means. I'm just trying to tell you there was a rock there. There was a tree there.

Someone who climbs Everest is never going to be able to make you feel what it was like to stand on the summit. And They can show you pictures! They can show you videos. We don't have that! I wish! And yet the places we visit can make the top of Everest feel like a trip to dairy queen.

So the best we can do is record the terrain and share that terrain honestly, so that other people traveling there might recognize parts of it. It doesn't mean the entity I see is going to be the entity you see. But we might repeatedly see the same kinds of interactions occurring at similar points in the voyage across hundreds and hundreds of reports. That's the kind of data we need.

Not woo-woo stuff. Not "it's just chemicals" stuff. Real experiential reports that are as free as possible from interpretation. As free as possible from imposed meaning. Reports that are purely phenomenological.

That's what I've been trying to put together, and that's what I think is worth sharing. I'm not sharing what it means to me. I'm sharing what I saw and what I felt at that moment, and I'm trying to record it as honestly as I possibly can.

That's where all the low-dose training comes in. The idea is to allow easier access into the higher stabilized breakthrough regimes with greater control, greater memory, greater retention, less time spent in the transition zones, and more time spent in the stable breakthrough environments, whatever those environments ultimately are. Because they're different for each of us, and they're different from trip to trip, even for me.

But I think it's only by noting these experiences honestly, and trying to remember as best we can what was actually there, that we'll advance as a community. That's why I think sharing these reports is so important.

 

[Voidmatrix]

However debating it with others trying to rationalize isnt always what I am interested in doing.

I mean you know me, I don't really hold convictions, however I do understand what you mean. However, does it have to be a debate? Again I get it and I have been there, but when I see the confrontational stance, my mood and desire for fun pending, I may not respond in kind, that is, in a manner of debate and justification.

Then perhaps we differ here. There are core axioms for how reality operates is my position. Perhaps this can be for another discussion...this is what I alluded to regards correspondences between traditions that work with higher states of consciousness and metaphysical insights that have emerged. I don't claim by any means to have to full picture, but partial yes as we all should be progressing towards more fully.

I do. I see it more with a gratuitous flux of arbitrariness, if I have to have a view at all. However, shall we take this discussion elsewhere? We have one vote for it?

To bring things back around, and because I really wanna know, have you smoalked 5-MEO-DMT daily by any chance? And if so, please enlighten me as to what that was like!

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

That's where all the low-dose training comes in. The idea is to allow easier access into the higher stabilized breakthrough regimes with greater control, greater memory, greater retention, less time spent in the transition zones, and more time spent in the stable breakthrough environments, whatever those environments ultimately are. Because they're different for each of us, and they're different from trip to trip, even for me.

This is part of my orientation as well.

That said, did you do your homework today? I did.

One love

 

[Qoniaq]

This is part of my orientation as well.

That said, did you do your homework today? I did.

One love

this morning, sir! report filed.

 

[universecannon]

There are truths in physics. And there are truths in metaphysics. No, we arent just groping in the dark, and not all experiences and the resulting views are equally valid.

That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying people don't respond well when you claim to have no doubt about your perspective. Or when you say that those who doubt you just haven't experienced this one true metaphysical framework you're operating from. That doesn't mean I think everyone's interpretations/perspectives hold equal amounts of water, or that more accurate frameworks aren't attainable. But even if they are, we should still doubt them and be more open minded than that IMO

 

[Panpsychic]

That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying people don't respond well when you claim to have no doubt about your perspective.

Perhaps...but thats their business not mine. I don't need to pretend to have doubts about some of my insights and perspectives to appease others who may not have gone beyond doubt regarding theirs. Like I said, there are some things each person can verify for themselves beyond any doubt whatsoever, but its not a certainty that can be shared, only arrived at individually.

This is where it differs from objective knowledge of the external world. I can say "there is a tree in a certain park" and you can go and verify if for yourself. This is not necessarily the same regards the inner worlds, although cross referencing experiences and phenomenology is one valid approach to attempt to validate this terrain, at least for the rational mind.

Or when you say that those who doubt you just haven't experienced this one true metaphysical framework you're operating from.

I have stated that based upon correspondences between different traditions as well as accounts of psychedelic users one can more closely arrive at whatever metaphysical realities there are.

That doesn't mean I think everyone's interpretations/perspectives hold equal amounts of water, or that more accurate frameworks aren't attainable. But even if they are, we should still doubt them and be more open minded than that IMO

I don't claim to have no doubts about everything lol, but only certain core principles of how reality operates, I have no personal doubts about. As I said though, this remains for each individual to come to themselves, which comes back to why sharing about some of these things is sometimes unnecessary or even counterproductive.

One of the things I've tried to do since the very beginning of journaling and recording is to make sure that I don't focus on meaning—or Meaning™.

Here's the thing. We all have different phenomenological experiences. We feel things, we see things, we hear things. It's a complete, all senses reporting for duty experiential event. It's not just what you see. It's an entire physical revelation.

Some people see entities. Some people see conscious, sentient geometry. Some people see impossible landscapes. I often hear architecture. But what I've tried to do since the beginning is simply note the phenomenology. What did I see? What did I hear? What did I feel? At what point in the experience did I feel it? Where was it in the experience? How intense was it? What kind of vector did it have?

Meaning is something our nervous system constructs after the fact, and it's a notoriously bad narrator.

When I share these experiences, or read other's reports what I notice in the comments is that things usually become argumentative when people try to assign meaning to the experience. Usually it's a meaning that can be crocheted onto a pillow or turned into a bumper sticker. "It meant this." "it represents this.." "That's your energy system saying..bla. bla."

But these experiences don't always have that kind of meaning.

So I've always focused on the phenomenology. I tend to leave the meaning to the person who had the experience, or to whoever is reading the account. I don't tend to talk about Jungian archetypes or deep cosmic visions or any of that. I really just try to relay exactly what I saw, what I heard, what I felt, when it happened, where it happened, how intense it was, and how it unfolded.

I think that by doing that, we remove a lot of the argument. Nobody can tell me I didn't see what I saw, or hear what I heard, or feel what I felt at that moment. I never inject my own personal interpretation into it. In fact, I deliberately try not to record my interpretations. It's simply the phenomenology.

What I'm trying to do, and what I think is worth sharing, is the data. The actual lived experiences.

The map is not the mountain, and the reports we bring back are closer to cartography than anything else. At least, that's what I try to make them. We're describing terrain. We're describing environments. I'm not trying to tell you what the rock means or what the tree means. I'm just trying to tell you there was a rock there. There was a tree there.

Someone who climbs Everest is never going to be able to make you feel what it was like to stand on the summit. And They can show you pictures! They can show you videos. We don't have that! I wish! And yet the places we visit can make the top of Everest feel like a trip to dairy queen.

So the best we can do is record the terrain and share that terrain honestly, so that other people traveling there might recognize parts of it. It doesn't mean the entity I see is going to be the entity you see. But we might repeatedly see the same kinds of interactions occurring at similar points in the voyage across hundreds and hundreds of reports. That's the kind of data we need.

Not woo-woo stuff. Not "it's just chemicals" stuff. Real experiential reports that are as free as possible from interpretation. As free as possible from imposed meaning. Reports that are purely phenomenological.

That's what I've been trying to put together, and that's what I think is worth sharing. I'm not sharing what it means to me. I'm sharing what I saw and what I felt at that moment, and I'm trying to record it as honestly as I possibly can.

That's where all the low-dose training comes in. The idea is to allow easier access into the higher stabilized breakthrough regimes with greater control, greater memory, greater retention, less time spent in the transition zones, and more time spent in the stable breakthrough environments, whatever those environments ultimately are. Because they're different for each of us, and they're different from trip to trip, even for me.

But I think it's only by noting these experiences honestly, and trying to remember as best we can what was actually there, that we'll advance as a community. That's why I think sharing these reports is so important.

I get this point of view, and its a very academic research oriented perspective and approach and is largely my approach also in terms of descriptive phenomenology. However I would say that sometimes meaning is woven into the fabric of the experiences themselves and not really subject to myriad interpretations. Furthermore, deriving meanings and what the experiences are trying to show you is in my view an art and a skill in itself that can be developed just as the other factors you mentioned such as stabilisation and clarity and recall.

 

[Panpsychic]

I mean you know me, I don't really hold convictions, however I do understand what you mean. However, does it have to be a debate?

Good, then you can see when I say debate is rational and some things transcend rationality and even language.

I do. I see it more with a gratuitous flux of arbitrariness, if I have to have a view at all.

I have also come to a perspective that reality may be holographic in some sense, and thus there seem to be multiple truths because there literally are, and reality is a multidimensional system able to operate from and reflect back different angles on it. However I would relate this to the famous simile of the blind men and the elephant, which was given in ancient times to address this very issue.

To bring things back around, and because I really wanna know, have you smoalked 5-MEO-DMT daily by any chance?

What spurred this question can I ask?

In general, since giving up weed smoking 15 years ago I tend to see daily psychedelic usage as a residual habit from this, although this thread is where I have really seen that this habit can on occasion be channeled very positively which is why this is interesting to me.

My insights come primarily from Harmala and DMT as well as LSD and Psilocybin. One thing worth mentioning is some of the metaphysical truths I am touching such as insights into time and aspects of precognition have crossed modalities of psychedelic experience, but LSD has its own unique expression and experience of it as does Harmala and DMT but I can tell they are still interfacing with the same 'cosmic pattern'.


5-MeO-DMT, if and when the time comes to partake of it will no doubt give new angles on things but as has been addressed in this thread, the individual self needs much development still so I am in no rush to jump into no-self terrain as yet.

 

[Voidmatrix]

In general, since giving up weed smoking 15 years ago I tend to see daily psychedelic usage as a residual habit from this, although this thread is where I have really seen that this habit can on occasion be channeled very positively which is why this is interesting to me.

Told you I'm not just a stoner

What spurred this question can I ask?

Well, I had thought, based off of other conversations, that you had done 5-MEO-DMT, and I thought maybe you'd had a stint with it daily is all. It is a thread about daily usage afterall.

One love

 

[universecannon]

I don't need to pretend to have doubts about some of my insights and perspectives to appease others who may not have gone beyond doubt regarding theirs.

That's, again, not what I was saying at all.

I have stated that based upon correspondences between different traditions as well as accounts of psychedelic users one can more closely arrive at whatever metaphysical realities there are.

There's quite a big gap between identifying connections and claiming you know the true metaphysical framework without doubt. There is a lot of obvious holes and pitfalls in that kind of thinking. Maps are provisional even if accurate IMO

 

[Panpsychic]

There's quite a big gap between identifying connections and claiming you know the true metaphysical framework without doubt. There is a lot of obvious holes and pitfalls in that kind of thinking. Maps are provisional even if accurate IMO

"The True Metaphysical Framework" as though there is some monolithic reality I am claiming knowledge of is not a framing I have used. Rather, there are certain aspects regarding a deeper metaphysics I have experienced directly and beyond doubt whatsoever - what I can only term as contact with truth itself/the mind of 'God' from which such certainty comes - and then correspondence with others accounts across traditions that can bridge it and inform thinking about it.

So for precognition for example, certainty arose experientially and directly. This is unverifiable outside of the individual. Yet it is certainty, a higher state of consciousness bound certainty, that is touched upon again when one re-enters the state. It is subsequently verifiable to rationality through it actually coming to pass, yet this is wholly unnecessary to the prior knowledge on that level.

Your doubts about others experiences may remain that. Your doubts about your own experiences, depend on your ability to reconcile rationalizing with the forms of direct knowing alluded to earlier.