It's just that the demographic of people who extract their own DMT are DIY and less interested in being guided. I'm personally not interested at all, I don't even like tripping with others.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Are there advantages of being guided by a Curandero over doing DMT alone?
- Thread starter Ajqij
- Start date
I too am discouraged. So the question is what is the source of the "drama" and conflict? If the answer is a shared responsibility I'm in . . . if it points to one person, I'm not interested in a debate as blame isn't the answer. Maybe I need to look in the mirror and I will do so . . . now how about the Nexus and its senior folks, can you all do the same?
I do it everyday. I do it right now. How much do I see? It depends...
Blame, blame & more blame. At the very least you know what to work on. Thank all the souls here later on
Much Love to You & May You find Peace
Last edited:
Thank you for this. I'm not even opposed to many of these ideas and the potential to be part of reality. I suspend judgment overall.
However, having a way to parse our thoughts and beliefs is important because we can already observe how we trick ourselves, have biases that color our thinking, and sometimes don't reason well. It doesn't matter what the vantage is, we need to think deeply and be ready to correct ourselves.
Just because one does a piece of work (like looking in the mirror) doesn't automatically mean others need to too.
One love
Since you are pointing your figure at all senior members now, I will say I found you condescending from the very beginning. It's like you are trying to elevate your ego above others because of your experiences in order to drum up business. Others have trained with indigenous groups and don't mention it in every post or at all.
The senior members all liked it here and stuck around, many for over a decade, but you are complaining that you aren't a senior member immediately? It's really shocking to over and over post on a forum on how you don't like it there. It's like going up to members of a city and saying you don't like it there. Obviously reception is not positive.
What's up with calling yourself a Daykeeper? Are you a spiritual authority? Did the Mayans dub you so or did you claim that yourself?
Is it possible that it's not the forum, just the general population just isn't as interested as you thought?
The senior members all liked it here and stuck around, many for over a decade, but you are complaining that you aren't a senior member immediately? It's really shocking to over and over post on a forum on how you don't like it there. It's like going up to members of a city and saying you don't like it there. Obviously reception is not positive.
What's up with calling yourself a Daykeeper? Are you a spiritual authority? Did the Mayans dub you so or did you claim that yourself?
Is it possible that it's not the forum, just the general population just isn't as interested as you thought?
Last edited:
Here&Now
Titanium Teammate
For sure, thank you for supporting such a helpful place like the Nexus.
Yeah, and like you mentioned, there's also something to be said for the manner in which the discourse occurs. That's really a skill in itself; to be able to reduce the opportunity for friction to a minimum while still expressing your ideas. Nobody likes to feel that subtle personal attacks are peppered into the conversation.
fink
overthinking the unthinkable
I would say of the nexus community in the most simple way possible:
When you join, the more you have to say, the more likely you are to come up against challenging replies.
It's part of the beauty of this site. Embrace the challenges and allow yourself to digest before countering. If you seek unquestioning agreement of your opinions then this is not the place.
When you join, the more you have to say, the more likely you are to come up against challenging replies.
It's part of the beauty of this site. Embrace the challenges and allow yourself to digest before countering. If you seek unquestioning agreement of your opinions then this is not the place.
To add a small thought:
We're not a fan of absolutes here. It's a little too weird out here to be using them confidently.
Fair point @Here&Now2 . . . and in the spirit of dialogue, we don't know if the scientific approach is a service or disservice to human beings any more than we can say that quantum physics was a boon towards understanding the way the universe works. Let me also suggest, (not as truth but as a possibility) that extended use of synthesized DMT (even perfected by the best chemists) may not be as wonderful as it may seem to some folks in this community for three reasons . . .
1. What if synthesized DMT produces powerful hallucinations, but because it doesn't carry "non-scientific" traits that Nature herself "synthesizes" into her creations, it produces only dazzling effects without the deep cosmological wisdom and sustaining insight they have to offer us bipeds? Without expanding consciousness and making us better people who are more loving, caring, and responsible, who’s to say that long-term use won’t result in nothing more than a “Dune-like” societal mindset totally disconnected from the grace of being and wholeness of existence?
2. And of greater import perhaps . . . what if extended use of "pure” DMT carries minute traces of toxic extraction chemicals, that when inhaled over time degrade the integrity of the brain? While McKenna's brain cancer was said to be unrelated to his extended use of potent substances, what if all this wonderful science you all seem to defend so emphatically turns out to destroy organic tissues, much like how Monsanto so brilliantly and scientifically is methodically destroying the organic integrity of our planet?
3. Think about this as well, what if the original “experts” and cultivators of psychotropic plants extract their medicine in only organically safe ways? Why might they have an aversion to modern science touting its critical thinking and pushing the use of artificially produced substances to be ingested by the world at large? Is it because they want to control people or “indoctrinate them” into some archaic cultural belief system? Well, okay, go ahead and make your empirical cases for your way of doing it, but I’ll not sit back and comply with that approach.
Love it @fink . . . I expect to get push back and lots of it. I'm not a newbie to the reality that we human beings tend to invalidate what we do not yet understand. I'm take the heat and say more.
How can you expect rational, respectful, and mature discourse to be the norm in your threads when you resort to generalizations like that which puts a whole group of people under the same common denominator? Do you think this is healthy for dialogue here on the Nexus?
I respond to what I'm given and try to redirect it to co-undertanding. My intent is not to argue, but to be honest, there are times when cooling is a good thing and times when it ain't. And as for the elders, you have no idea to the degree they will get in the face of arrogance and hurbis, without the tenderness of new age bs.That is the problem, man. I see that you are trying to bring good news to us.
Still, there are lots of stuff waiting to be integrated in your own case.
I'd suggest cooling a bit
Enjoy some Nature, eat well, exercise and pray.
Remember your elders and send gratitude to all.
It would do much more good for all of us than arguing here.
I’ve had synth, ayahuasca, mimosa, multiple acacias and more. They all worked just as well as the next ime. Pure synth is great. What’s the point of hypothetical situations that likely don’t even apply?
You talk down about science and critical thinking without understanding it evidenced by your hypothetical above. You don't understand the scientific process and how it provides a reliable process for many things, nor the principles that make it what it is.
Moreover, there shouldn't be a divide in types of thinking. Instead their should be a blending that is appropriate to the given context. Putting one against another is as goofy as the battle of rationalism vs empiricism: their utilities aren't mutually exclusive or decouple from each other.
One love
Moreover, there shouldn't be a divide in types of thinking. Instead their should be a blending that is appropriate to the given context. Putting one against another is as goofy as the battle of rationalism vs empiricism: their utilities aren't mutually exclusive or decouple from each other.
One love
Last edited:
Have you looked closely at the sequences of the conversations? And "rational" is a different animal than is "respectful and mature." I find this portal to be heavy on the rational mind and light on the openness of the heart. Maybe "irrational" might be healthier than you think, is that a possibility? I'll stay with it here if that's alright with you unless you want to remove me because I'm in your estimation to irrational, disrespectful and immature. Maybe what I bring is a valid part of what a Nexus actually is @Nydex?
The sequence of conversations has nothing to do with this. If you are unable to turn a blank page and ignore all of these comments you deem so disrespectful and immature towards you, and you keep replying with overgeneralizations and victim mentality, then you're no better than the people you point to.
If you are unable to understand that, then I'm afraid your 20 years of life with the elders gave you little practical wisdom in exchange. Stay with it all you want, but realize that if you keep doing what you're doing, you won't make any friends here or have many meaningful conversations.
Your time and energy are yours. The choice of how you employ them - likewise.
Here&Now
Titanium Teammate
Sure, using the ideas about synthesized DMT as an example, everything you're saying could actually be true. But humanity as a whole is currently lacking any widely accepted evidence that it's the case. And perhaps to the contrary, it's my understanding that synthesized DMT's chemical structure is identical to the naturally occurring form in plants and animals. If there's a substantial difference between the two, it's possible we lack the tools to measure it.
I'm not trying to say my personal opinion lands on one side of the debate or the other, but barring some kind of convincing factor beyond subjective opinions, some people are just hardwired to not accept the intake of new information without it reaching a certain degree of verifiability. I think that can be both a gift and a curse. It's a gift because that level of stringency has pushed humanity forward into the modern technical age we all enjoy, but it could also be considered a curse because major revelations may go unnoticed for a lot longer due to their perceived unlikeliness of being true.
I don't know; I'm doing a lot of babbling, lol. The main point is that some people are just naturally skeptical and others are simply less so, and it's probably best to learn how to navigate between the two to communicate in the most effective way.
Show me where I stated I was "special?" Here's the deal, your questions are laced with a trap my friend. There is no way for a productive dialogue to arise, and here's why . . .
If I answer that I am indeed special it will prove your already determined conclusion that I'm a narsissist.
If I answer that I am not special, you will point out how I am blind and denying my "special" presence.
If I choose not to answer, you will accuse me of being unwilling to follow my own suggestions of dialoging.
If I try to show you the logic in what I've just outlined about your approach, you will continue to palm face me.
No way to dialogue with you yet V, but I'm going to stay with it unit it's clear that you are going to remain closed-minded and closed-hearted to the personal and deeply humbling experiences I've come here to share.
