DMT & Mythology

[sgtWow]

I've been reading lots of on mythology lately. Especially about all the fantastic and weird beings and creatures that these ancient people spoke about.

I kind of came to the conclusion that theres some kind of link between the DMT entities and these ancient mythological beings. It's as if these beings aren't just all flights of fancy from backwards ancient people but actual mini maps of things from these other worlds and dimensions bought back and recorded for posperity.

Maybe back then there were many more seers/ shamans and oracles and people divulged more time into these matters then watching T.V but i digress.. :lol:

Not all DMT stuff fits the Mythological motif obviously, like the futurisitc/manti/reptillian stuff, although the mythological database also talks about reptilian/dragon like beings too.

This is really fascinating. Maybe with DMT we are uncovering these tiny bits of these maps/worlds/beings that the ancients knew about.

Heres an example from Wikepedia:

A dwarf is a creature from Germanic mythologies, fairy tales, fantasy fiction, and role-playing games. It usually has magical talents, often involving metallurgy.

The original concept of little people is very difficult to determine. The sources closest to the original Germanic mythology come from Norse Mythology, but even these are scarce and very varied.

Sources have gradually given dwarves more comical and superstitious roles.Dwarves were certainly humanoid, but sources differ over their height, their lifestyles, and their similarity to elves. Considering early sources, and considering the dwarves' nature, original dwarves seem fully human height.

They had strong associations with death : paled skin; dark hair; connections with the earth; their role in mythology. They followed animistic traditions, showing similarities to such concepts of the dead. They were similar to others from the 'Vættir' family, such as elves.

As their mythology evolved, the most notable changes have had them become more comical and more mysterious. They adopted the modern image of short height and ugliness. Their associations with the underground became more predominant. Dwarves were magical creatures with huge skill at metallurgy, taking fame for making great artifacts of legend.

This was exactly the kind of being I once met on a DMT trip. I did feel that: 1) That I was dead or dying in some sense 2) That I was in a compressed space or that I was in or under some deep and huge maze/mountain 3) I actually saw dwarf like creatures wizzing about working/tuning on some ULTRA complex jewled/crystalline stuff although this was vague. 4) I sensed vast intelligence/wisdom.


If anyone has seen any entities on DMT you really should check this site out. It has a full list of the many mythological entities that have been recorded through the ages. It could jog the memory on an entity you saw while on the otherside:

Lists of legendary creatures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[burnt]

i think one question that comes up from this entity issue. is are these entities manifestations of our own imagination and conceptions? or are they a separate individual being like ourselves just existing in some other place? i tend to think the latter makes the most sense.

 

[maxfreakout]

all of mythology is based on mystical altered-state experiences

there is a profound and intimate connection between psychedelics and mythology

life is mythic

a drug which alters consciousness, in this scientific materialist culture, is totally mythic

 

[DaedalManifoldingTranscendence]

Well, and nearly all founding scientific discoveries are directly related or spawned from a psychedelic experience.

 

[burnt]

scientific and materialistic culture don't need to be associated with one another.

whats so mythic about a drug altering consiousness? a myth to me is something that isn't true? psychedelic drugs in that sense are not mythic because they do alter consiousness.

what about someone whos brain has abnormal chemistry, becomes schizophrenic, is his voices and dreams and illusions any less real?

im also curious what is ment by founding discoveries being directly related to psychedelic experiences? i mean wonderful discoveries were discovered in all areas without any drugs but if you think psychedelic experience as meaning a manifestation of consiousness then ok it could that any learning or new thought is a psychedelic experience. im not sure what you mean exactly.

 

[Saidin]

scientific and materialistic culture don't need to be associated with one another.

whats so mythic about a drug altering consiousness? a myth to me is something that isn't true? psychedelic drugs in that sense are not mythic because they do alter consiousness.

Myths are born from archetypal symbolism in our collective unconscious. Most myths harken back to an earlier time when the consciousness of humanity was just begining to find purchase and begin to understand the world in which we live. They are teaching mechanisms that put into words the symbolic connections we have to the world around us, and from whence we came. All myths are true if you understand the symbolism behind them.

Read or watch: Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth, and you will be amazed at how important and fundamental myth and mythology are to the entire human experience.

 

[modsquad09]

i think one question that comes up from this entity issue. is are these entities manifestations of our own imagination and conceptions? or are they a separate individual being like ourselves just existing in some other place? i tend to think the latter makes the most sense.

ok terrance mckenna. lol

 

[burnt]

interesting about the development of myths. well i can see it as a teaching tool, especially in the past. yes in the past people explained things and events because gods or their ancestors were causing them. however we know now that there is no man floating around on the clouds throwing lightening bolts at people. i guess in that way science has advanced the myths of existence. we call things atoms and electrons and make up names for theories of the universe which are often back up by experimental evidence but its still an ongoing story, because we are still missing so much information.

yea im just posing these questions because i like to hear other peoples feedback because they are things i wonder about. i dont like to just accept beliefs without reason and evidence. thats called religion ahahahaha just kidding...

 

[maxfreakout]

whats so mythic about a drug altering consiousness? a myth to me is something that isn't true? psychedelic drugs in that sense are not mythic because they do alter consiousness.

A myth is a story, perhaps life is a story? (and therefore, a myth)

since scientific materialism practically denies that consciousness exists (your brain is made of atoms), psychedelic drugs are a particularly 'story-like' aspect to the world

what about someone whos brain has abnormal chemistry, becomes schizophrenic, is his voices and dreams and illusions any less real?

it's probably caused by DMT anyway

 

[burnt]

it's probably caused by DMT anyway

Well I believe they looked into this and found it wasn't the case. However that does not mean some role from DMT is involved, I forget the source of that information but its out there somewhere. However the main well known idea about schizophrenia is that it has more to do with disturbances in dopamine much like that which happens in amphetamine psychosis.

since scientific materialism practically denies that consciousness exists (your brain is made of atoms), psychedelic drugs are a particularly 'story-like' aspect to the world

ok I think we should move this discussion a bit. what I am talking about is not what you are calling scientific materialism. so lets drop the term material and just use science. science does not deny conscioussness. science cannot yet explain consciousness completely but its learning a lot. the molecules and atoms and energy transfers going on in your brain do effect consciousness. thats true, if you take a psychedelic drug you are altereing the normal perceptions and hence you alter your consciousness and that in part is explained through science. however deep you look you run into this one currently unanswerable question. how does this exchange of energy and brain molecules form what we think of as human conscioussness(i say human because i think other forms of consciousness are out there and infact may need to be out there for our universe to make any sense). the ability for us to even ask that question is somehow a result of this wonderful brain we have.

about myths yea we can exhange definitions of what a myth is. to me a myth is a story that isnt really true. like the myths about greek gods or whatever. however lets look at the worship of the sun as the creator the giver some sort of god. science may say that the sun is just a giant ball of nuclear explosions and gases. however science also sais that the sun and its formation did create the atoms and molecules we see and are made of now here on earth. how much closer to a god can you get?? thereby science re-proved an original idea that the sun was some sort of creator. what created the sun is the suns god what created that is its creater and so on to something we cannot yet answer or perhaps even yet concieve.

people tend to have this preconcieved idea that science and religion or spirituality cannot work together. i want to make the point that this is a very backwards idea and has gottan the human race into a lot of trouble. i think in order for our species to move forward the union of science and spirituality is a must. people who aren't scientifically inclined and favor religion dont like that science can't answer everything so they cling to religion (scientists do the same thing with science). and yea science and our brains the way they are now cant answer everything but that doesnt mean we should just accept belief systems because people in the past did.

 

[maxfreakout]

Well I believe they looked into this and found it wasn't the case.

who is they? I am unaware of this

science does not deny conscioussness. science cannot yet explain consciousness completely but its learning a lot.

if you are a colourblind neuroscientist, no matter how much you come to understand about the workings of colour perception in the human brain by poking around inside brains, you will NEVER be able to find out what the colour red actually looks like

For this reason, science will never be able to understand consciousness, because consciousness is subjective (like the experience of seeing red), and the domain of scientific enquiry is strictly limited to objective existence (like the workings of the brain in colour perception)

the molecules and atoms and energy transfers going on in your brain do effect consciousness. thats true, if you take a psychedelic drug you are altereing the normal perceptions and hence you alter your consciousness and that in part is explained through science.

science has nothing meaningful to say about this, the best they have come up with, is to identify that psychedelics act on serotonin receptors, but this in NO WAY provides a meaningful explanation of the jeweled paradise you experience on DMT

however deep you look you run into this one currently unanswerable question. how does this exchange of energy and brain molecules form what we think of as human conscioussness

there is another unanswerable question which you must answer BEFORE you can address this ^ one

That is, how do you know that this physical functioning of the brain is responsible for forming consciousness? Any attempt to answer this question will send you round in circles

about myths yea we can exhange definitions of what a myth is. to me a myth is a story that isnt really true.

Every belief system is founded with a myth, the myth of scientific materialism is the myth upon which the Western postmodern belief system is founded

like the myths about greek gods or whatever. however lets look at the worship of the sun as the creator the giver some sort of god. science may say that the sun is just a giant ball of nuclear explosions and gases. however science also sais that the sun and its formation did create the atoms and molecules we see and are made of now here on earth. how much closer to a god can you get?? thereby science re-proved an original idea that the sun was some sort of creator. what created the sun is the suns god what created that is its creater and so on to something we cannot yet answer or perhaps even yet concieve.

good point i never realised that. But science does not even begin to address the questionof what created the universe, that is out of its domain of enquiry, the 'big bang' is supposed to explain creation, but as Terence Mckenna pointed out, it is the most absurdly improbable explanation you could possibly think of to explain anything

 

[Entropymancer]

Well I believe they looked into this and found it wasn't the case.

who is they? I am unaware of this

It was a big movement in the '50s and '60s. "Hey let's find the schizophrenia chemical!" So they did a lot of tests on crazy people and analyzed a lot of urine. DMT was one possibility that was specifically considered and roundly rejected as untenable. I don't recall the precise experiments.

 

[burnt]

wow cool discussion.

f you are a colourblind neuroscientist, no matter how much you come to understand about the workings of colour perception in the human brain by poking around inside brains, you will NEVER be able to find out what the colour red actually looks like

For this reason, science will never be able to understand consciousness, because consciousness is subjective (like the experience of seeing red), and the domain of scientific enquiry is strictly limited to objective existence (like the workings of the brain in colour perception)

the reason we see red is because our eyes are able to see pick up on this wavelength of light. if you cant see it that doesnt mean other people dont and that it doesnt exist.

science has nothing meaningful to say about this, the best they have come up with, is to identify that psychedelics act on serotonin receptors, but this in NO WAY provides a meaningful explanation of the jeweled paradise you experience on DMT

this is not meaningless discovery. things that bind to serotonin receptors play a role in our perceptions thats offering part of an answer to the larger question as to what consciousness is. no it cant explain certain peak experiences one experiences on DMT but it gives us an idea that ok this change is happening and it can lead to a wide variety of perceptual experiences. this is an amazing discovery. psychedelic experiences and drugs give scientists a tool to perturb consciousness and hence study it.

here is another unanswerable question which you must answer BEFORE you can address this ^ one

That is, how do you know that this physical functioning of the brain is responsible for forming consciousness? Any attempt to answer this question will send you round in circles

if this physical functioning of the brain is altered your perceptions are altered and hence conscious experience is changed. i cannot argue that the physical functioning of the brain is the only way to experience conscious existence.

Every belief system is founded with a myth, the myth of scientific materialism is the myth upon which the Western postmodern belief system is founded

and what belief system is this? i like certain things science can explain although i do not think it has the whole answers (no one does) it can certainly improve the quality of our lives through many many of its achievements. people live longer because of some very useful discoveries in medicine and immunology such as vaccines and antibiotics. that doesnt mean it cannot be used to lessen the quality of life thats up to the users.

good point i never realised that. But science does not even begin to address the questionof what created the universe, that is out of its domain of enquiry, the 'big bang' is supposed to explain creation, but as Terence Mckenna pointed out, it is the most absurdly improbable explanation you could possibly think of to explain anything

the big bang implies that all matter was condensed to a point of infinite density. thats a weird thing for me to understand and in no way is the only explanation for creation. and in no way has science given up and said oh this is the answer lets all accept it. thats not what science is about. science is a continual understanding of the world around us yes through objective work but also through our subjective experiences as humans which lead us to ask what is going on.


about the DMT and schizophrenia question. the reason it was kind of disregarded is because DMT was found in equal amounts in normal human beings and psychotic ones both in the blood urine and cerebrospinal fluid.

 

[Entropymancer]

It's also important to bear in mind that the Big Bang is not a scientific theory, in the sense that relativity is a theory, or evolution is a theory. In science, the word theory is a very strong word, practically tantamount to an established truth. The Big Bang is a scientific model; it provides us with a framework for trying to understand phenomena, but its hypotheses haven't yet successfully stood up to the repeated scrutiny required for it to become a theory.

Frankly, the more I look into the Big Bang, the more questionable it seems. I don't think it's fair to characterize it as science's attempt to explain creation.

Ultimately the cosmological question of creation is essentially outside the realm of what science can address. I don't think that very many serious scientists are very concerned with the moment and nature of creation.... There's just so much that we can find out about things going on here and now, which we can directly collect data on to address contemporary issues. One of these issues is the question of consciousness.

science has nothing meaningful to say about this, the best they have come up with, is to identify that psychedelics act on serotonin receptors, but this in NO WAY provides a meaningful explanation of the jeweled paradise you experience on DMT

If you read PiHKAL or TiHKAL (the first halves), Shulgin talks repeatedly about his intensions in inventing psychedelic drugs. Very simply, he wants to design chemicals that will allow science to address the issue of consciousness in a lot more depth than has previously been possible. Of course, it's not so easy for neurochemists to get approval for experiments using his chemicals on humans... and consciousness outside of humans is something we're fundamentally not equipped to address.

 

[burnt]

it really is a pity how difficult it is to get access to do some of these studies. it is slowly changing however. especially if you look that many of these drugs do have a good safety profile. its also a hyptocritical of the government to deny such research when they used to give people LSD without telling them, give it to psychotic people who had no choice in the matter. really sick and unethical things.



yea and science may never understand things that happened so many billions of years ago however it still doesnt hurt to speculate and try to figure out how the universe got to be the way it is. in fact i think its quite wonderful that there will always be many unknowns and things to wonder about otherwise the universe would get pretty boring.

 

[flyboy]

Something salvia taught me is that my consciousness can easily be split up into multiple consiounnesses (? spelling ?) that appear to actually be able to 'perceive' each other and quite possibly 'talk to' one another.

Whether these mini-me's are actually me or not doesn't matter all that much, because i am only made up of ideas i have copied of mimicked from others since birth... so we all share the same ideas generally speaking particularly within a common culture. We are all different, but made up of the same or similar.

I think with the spice when the visions appear to be contacting us it just may well be our unconscious reaching out through images, but to say that is not "another being" is simplistic because i can't really even say for sure if my brother is another being sometimes we feel like we are the same... so where do others begin and ourselves end?

Much of this question begs this issue: Are humans really guiding their thoughts, or are their thoughts being guided by a combination of chemical reactions via the nose, ears, eyes, etc...

mind control suggests we do not control ourselves, but the environment controls us, so multiple beings surely could have been 'created' within our subconsciousness as we have aged and progressed in mental layers of developments.

I could see how me as a 7 year old, which i remember nothing of, may have been suppressed into an 'entity' of my subconsciousness that has only been able to live, grow, and exist on another plain in my mind. I often thing of the billions and billions of cells in my brains as equivalent to thousands of miles of space. There are spaces in my mind where ideas reside, place where memories reside, and places where memories have left to convalesce into actual separate entities with their own ideas and their own memories and their own sub- places'.

If an Olympic athlete can get the same training by simply closing his eyes and visualizing the practice as he does by actually doing it (or very close, as been shown in experiments) then these entities which may exist 100% in my mind, within my cortex or brain matter, may just as well be considered to exist in the physical world.

 

[deedle-doo]

I think with the spice when the visions appear to be contacting us it just may well be our unconscious reaching out through images, but to say that is not "another being" is simplistic because i can't really even say for sure if my brother is another being sometimes we feel like we are the same... so where do others begin and ourselves end?

I could see how me as a 7 year old, which i remember nothing of, may have been suppressed into an 'entity' of my subconsciousness that has only been able to live, grow, and exist on another plain in my mind. I often thing of the billions and billions of cells in my brains as equivalent to thousands of miles of space. There are spaces in my mind where ideas reside, place where memories reside, and places where memories have left to convalesce into actual separate entities with their own ideas and their own memories and their own sub- places'.

Beautiful! I think you have a very nuanced perspective on this Flyboy.

Probably some of these 'cryptic' neuronal circuits underlay ordinary human creativity as well. The painter isn't making all the novel connections between her visual, emotional and motor systems as she paints. These connections are free to happen all the time and can be manifested if she taps into these latent circuits.

Very creative people can sometimes have difficulty keeping these circuits out of their consciousness. Many great artists have become profoundly delusional.

As far as myths go. Ancient people had modern human brains. The same human brains we have. It is not surprising that their brains conjured up similar visionary imagery to the common imagery we all experience. Their interpretation of these experiences were very different (prehistoric greeks were never abducted by aliens) but the experience was substantially the same.

 

[deedle-doo]

Every belief system is founded with a myth, the myth of scientific materialism is the myth upon which the Western postmodern belief system is founded

Not a myth really. A myth implies a sort of narrative. Scientific materialism has its own competing creation myths as you have discussed but there is a deeper underlying metaphysical assumption that is scientific materialism.

I have tried to boil this assumptions down as far as it can go: Reality is a hard object that exists independent of the conscious observer. This assumption is entirely unprovable and forms the bedrock of science. This is a nice metaphysics because it strips authority from the priest class. Everyones experience of reality is just as authentic. It is also a profoundly unifying metaphysics since it forces us to all occupy the same universe. Lastly, and least important, it is a practically useful metaphysics that has enabled humanity to interact with matter and energy on an exquisitely fine scale.

It's not all roses though. scientific materialism is a fairly poor metaphysical system for preparing you to face imminent death. If you buy into this kind of metaphysics 100% (like I do) death is a looming end-time and life must be lived with maximum fervor or it is wasted.

 

[burnt]

It's not all roses though. scientific materialism is a fairly poor metaphysical system for preparing you to face imminent death. If you buy into this kind of metaphysics 100% (like I do) death is a looming end-time and life must be lived with maximum fervor or it is wasted.

this is the part that scares most people

 

[Infundibulum]

It's not all roses though. scientific materialism is a fairly poor metaphysical system for preparing you to face imminent death. If you buy into this kind of metaphysics 100% (like I do) death is a looming end-time and life must be lived with maximum fervor or it is wasted.

this is the part that scares most people

Really nice discussion here, I really back burnt's opinions. I do not think however that scientific materialism is a looming end-time. I think this stems from the fact that scientific methodologies and explanations of this world tend to be distorted by laymen who just move the point a bit further to imply things that scientific theories did not imply in the first place.

As a scientist I accept that my body is finite and at some point it is going to melt into nothingness (I'm only body, still have difficulty accepting the existence of the soul); this should not however be interpreted so as to imply that the materialistic point of view is pessimistic, heartless and sterile (as opposed to the optimism of a beautiful afterlife promised by many religions). In fact the materialistic scientist (such as the ones of my kind) have no problem accepting that death is actually the beginning of something new and that turnover is a grandiose and important process in (of?) nature. How cool is that and how many lines it draws between the two supposedly opposite poles of Science and Religion?