Consider this:
Multiple contradictory and exclusive claims in terms of religion are esteemed and testified by their advocates as being true to the exclusion of other views.
The basis for this personal testimony is largely experiential in terms of emotional effect.
If a person feels something to be true, in terms of emotion, this in turn persuades them of the factual claims inherent to the ontology associated with the experience.
In this regard different religions that are essentially factually mutually exclusive persuade individuals using the same psychological and emotional mechanisms into accepting an ontology which has been presented to the people.
The method employs a feeling of subjective emotional truth and then asks or motivates the individual to project that truth onto the claims of the religion. A common method is to invoke a sensation of love, peace or awe, the person so moved by this state then feels those emotional qualities as true, and then projects this sensation of real or true onto the ontological claims. Thus in regard to various religions, the testimony of truth is not based upon evidence in any measurable way, but is instead based upon emotional impact of experience. This is consistent for spiritual claims of conflicting ontological claims that cannot both be true.
The conviction thus arising is so strong and individually convincing that conflict arises where two cultures, individuals or groups with conflicting ontology cannot agree and thus literally go to war with one another due to their individual conviction and experience of truth. They will in effect, die for this emotional truth, for so compelling is the experience, despite being devoid of factual accuracy or objective evidence, that the individuals are utterly and totally convinced that their perceptions and derived informed beliefs are true.
This is compounded by the situation that each ontology is shared as a community or group, this reinforces the concepts of the ontology as true via a form of an appeal to authority fallacy where the authority it itself the group. Thus the individual convictions rest not only upon the emotional impact of experience, but likewise upon the shared ontology, the logic being that because so many believe or share in the ontology, it must be true. This works in all group ontologies, including those mutually exclusive, again to the point of causing beliefs that people are willing to die for because of emotional convictions and group reinforcement.
In context however, some individuals do not share group mentality and do not experience the same emotionality, these individuals often have the same experiences as others, but view these experiences differently. Such individuals are not convinced by group mentality or emotional impact of experiences.
What I would like you to consider is that the same psychological, emotional and social aspects that are found in religious ontologies also apply in this context to DMT experiences and the emergent ontology that has become recently codified regarding it. That is to say that DMT is increasingly associated with a set of beliefs that are informed, as opposed to individually formed in an independent manner. Much as is the case with religion people read testimony of experience and thus seek out these experiences for themselves. This informs both expectation and result by associating a set of beliefs with the experience and likewise involves an emotional experience. As is also the case with religions this emergent system is also associated with intolerance for view that do not fit into the sets of beliefs that are associated with the ontology, as opposed to associated with the experience.
I would like you to consider that what is occurring here is literally the emergence of a new organized religion, with a set of beliefs, expectations and even sanctified personages who act or have acted as spokespeople for the set of beliefs. These individuals are deified by the codification of their opinions into belief systems that are validated by emotional impact of experiences having suggestive content and by group mentality.
This religion is increasingly intolerant of alternative views, such as the perception that DMT experiences and conclusions can vary. The concept that underlies this is; that to say that experiences vary contradicts the claims inherent to the religion that DMT causes a specific reliable effect that is spiritual, extra-dimensional and real. To allow for diversity of experience, for the experience of some to suggest that DMT use can vary in terms of result, is to undermine the claims of this organized religion, in effect it constitutes heresy. Claims that DMT effects can vary are then met defensively in this regard, this defense (as is the case with all organized religion) rests upon appeal to group mentality and emotional conviction resulting in personal testimony.
In effect people are saying that if you experience something different than they do, or have a different belief about those experiences, then your results are abnormal and thus invalid. It does not matter if your experience supports varied results, for the view here is uniformity in regard to evocation. The set of beliefs for this emergent religious ideology does not allow for a non-uniform result, in this regard it is no different than any other major religious ideology, nor is the group and individual behavior associated with this ideology and ontology divergent from what is to be expected for a religious community.
Thus for the emergent DMT organized religion, there is no debate or question as to the nature of effects, for this culture that is analogous to a catholic questioning the validity of the bible. It falls outside the accepted set of beliefs that has been codified, largely from the teachings of the deified figures.
My point is that this aspect of religious culture underlies efforts such as the paper of this thread and thus such efforts become justificatory and begin from the supposition that the religious ideology is true. Essentially two reactions arise to what is considered an experience outside of the accepted set of beliefs, the first is to approach that experience and any drawn beliefs from it as invalidated in contrast to accepted teachings and principals, the second is to perform apologetics regarding those experiences and beliefs, that is to say that those experiences which fail to conform to the accepted set of beliefs are valid but will eventually be explained as not in contradiction to the accepted tenets of the DMT faith. That is to say that some reason or excuse underlies their lack of conformity, as opposed to considering them valid in their own right.
Inevitably the same religious aspects apply, and the faithful must both ask that individual form their own conclusions, but likewise reject all conclusions that do not conform to their faith and expectations; as invalid.
This is taken from another thread and discussion and I wish to discuss it and further elaborate upon it. All comments and observations welcome.
Multiple contradictory and exclusive claims in terms of religion are esteemed and testified by their advocates as being true to the exclusion of other views.
The basis for this personal testimony is largely experiential in terms of emotional effect.
If a person feels something to be true, in terms of emotion, this in turn persuades them of the factual claims inherent to the ontology associated with the experience.
In this regard different religions that are essentially factually mutually exclusive persuade individuals using the same psychological and emotional mechanisms into accepting an ontology which has been presented to the people.
The method employs a feeling of subjective emotional truth and then asks or motivates the individual to project that truth onto the claims of the religion. A common method is to invoke a sensation of love, peace or awe, the person so moved by this state then feels those emotional qualities as true, and then projects this sensation of real or true onto the ontological claims. Thus in regard to various religions, the testimony of truth is not based upon evidence in any measurable way, but is instead based upon emotional impact of experience. This is consistent for spiritual claims of conflicting ontological claims that cannot both be true.
The conviction thus arising is so strong and individually convincing that conflict arises where two cultures, individuals or groups with conflicting ontology cannot agree and thus literally go to war with one another due to their individual conviction and experience of truth. They will in effect, die for this emotional truth, for so compelling is the experience, despite being devoid of factual accuracy or objective evidence, that the individuals are utterly and totally convinced that their perceptions and derived informed beliefs are true.
This is compounded by the situation that each ontology is shared as a community or group, this reinforces the concepts of the ontology as true via a form of an appeal to authority fallacy where the authority it itself the group. Thus the individual convictions rest not only upon the emotional impact of experience, but likewise upon the shared ontology, the logic being that because so many believe or share in the ontology, it must be true. This works in all group ontologies, including those mutually exclusive, again to the point of causing beliefs that people are willing to die for because of emotional convictions and group reinforcement.
In context however, some individuals do not share group mentality and do not experience the same emotionality, these individuals often have the same experiences as others, but view these experiences differently. Such individuals are not convinced by group mentality or emotional impact of experiences.
What I would like you to consider is that the same psychological, emotional and social aspects that are found in religious ontologies also apply in this context to DMT experiences and the emergent ontology that has become recently codified regarding it. That is to say that DMT is increasingly associated with a set of beliefs that are informed, as opposed to individually formed in an independent manner. Much as is the case with religion people read testimony of experience and thus seek out these experiences for themselves. This informs both expectation and result by associating a set of beliefs with the experience and likewise involves an emotional experience. As is also the case with religions this emergent system is also associated with intolerance for view that do not fit into the sets of beliefs that are associated with the ontology, as opposed to associated with the experience.
I would like you to consider that what is occurring here is literally the emergence of a new organized religion, with a set of beliefs, expectations and even sanctified personages who act or have acted as spokespeople for the set of beliefs. These individuals are deified by the codification of their opinions into belief systems that are validated by emotional impact of experiences having suggestive content and by group mentality.
This religion is increasingly intolerant of alternative views, such as the perception that DMT experiences and conclusions can vary. The concept that underlies this is; that to say that experiences vary contradicts the claims inherent to the religion that DMT causes a specific reliable effect that is spiritual, extra-dimensional and real. To allow for diversity of experience, for the experience of some to suggest that DMT use can vary in terms of result, is to undermine the claims of this organized religion, in effect it constitutes heresy. Claims that DMT effects can vary are then met defensively in this regard, this defense (as is the case with all organized religion) rests upon appeal to group mentality and emotional conviction resulting in personal testimony.
In effect people are saying that if you experience something different than they do, or have a different belief about those experiences, then your results are abnormal and thus invalid. It does not matter if your experience supports varied results, for the view here is uniformity in regard to evocation. The set of beliefs for this emergent religious ideology does not allow for a non-uniform result, in this regard it is no different than any other major religious ideology, nor is the group and individual behavior associated with this ideology and ontology divergent from what is to be expected for a religious community.
Thus for the emergent DMT organized religion, there is no debate or question as to the nature of effects, for this culture that is analogous to a catholic questioning the validity of the bible. It falls outside the accepted set of beliefs that has been codified, largely from the teachings of the deified figures.
My point is that this aspect of religious culture underlies efforts such as the paper of this thread and thus such efforts become justificatory and begin from the supposition that the religious ideology is true. Essentially two reactions arise to what is considered an experience outside of the accepted set of beliefs, the first is to approach that experience and any drawn beliefs from it as invalidated in contrast to accepted teachings and principals, the second is to perform apologetics regarding those experiences and beliefs, that is to say that those experiences which fail to conform to the accepted set of beliefs are valid but will eventually be explained as not in contradiction to the accepted tenets of the DMT faith. That is to say that some reason or excuse underlies their lack of conformity, as opposed to considering them valid in their own right.
Inevitably the same religious aspects apply, and the faithful must both ask that individual form their own conclusions, but likewise reject all conclusions that do not conform to their faith and expectations; as invalid.
This is taken from another thread and discussion and I wish to discuss it and further elaborate upon it. All comments and observations welcome.
