Do you know any secrets of the Universe?

[SnozzleBerry]

How so?

What is real?

...Is the value of a dollar real? Is Jesus real?

...Whether these things are actually "real" is debatable, and somewhat besides the point.

It just seems like a rather naive question in my mind.

Blatant cribbing of the McKenna quote aside, I would posit that this line of thinking is, itself pretty shallow. All of these constructs presented, ranging from BoA to Jesus in modern culture, have some sort of utility and basis in consensual experience, even if they are merely human constructs/concepts that have been given special status within human interactions. Or put into plainer terms, these things carry a functional weight because elements of human society agree that they are real and useful for certain things (assigning value to goods/services, personifying moral values, etc.).

This level of agreed upon realities is a pretty basic and fundamental one; in fact, it's how consensus reality appears to function for the most part, whether we're talking simple abstractions, like language, or more abstract concepts like mortgage-backed securities. Someone (or someones) designs the concept and then gets enough people (or the "right" people) to agree to the rules so that it can be applied to or enforced on the operating world of consensus experience.

The question of "is it real" vis a vis the DMT experience is not the equivalent of asking is BoA real, is jesus real, or is the dollar real...not even close. The question of "is the DMT experience real," or rather "are the realms, beings, and other seemingly hyperreal components of DMT experiences real," is more akin to asking "what is the nature of consensus reality?" After all, we have empirical evidence of the dollar, of BoA, of the church's use of jesus...these concepts/constructs are not in doubt, only the degree to which they should be (or are) allowed to influence one's actions. They are contrasted, perhaps, which something like gravity, which is going to influence your actions regardless of your own desires/intentions etc.

Questioning the reality of DMT experiences serves as an interesting reflection on reality, wholesale. Or put another way, we have no measures for actually testing/determining an objective reality, only discussing experiences/observations within consensus reality:

...are similar experiences really evidence of anything other than people having similar experiences?

Everyone who gets into a flight simulator has a similar experience, what makes dmt any different...any more or less real? Similarity of experience does not seem to indicate anything about the reality of that experience, just the similarity.

The same applies to waking life, no?

“Reality” is not something that exists as some solid, concrete “place”. It is an abstraction – a collection of human-defined axioms or “tendencies”. Conscious experiences that satisfy the axioms are “real” by definition. Change the definition, and you change what is real.

How would one go about proving that one is experiencing “real” reality? There can be no such proof. Not here, not in “hyperspace”, not in “heaven” or anywhere else.

Thus, asking about the reality of DMT realms provides an interesting (and valuable, imo) ontological crowbar for re-conceptualizing and contextualizing reality as a whole. For once reality is understood as "a collection of human-defined axioms or 'tendencies'," there's no need to decry the "reality" of capital or religious figures, instead these are understood as human-generated parameters within the OS of "reality" and the question that remains is one of utility.

Whether engaging with DMT experiences or in the consensus world, it ultimately boils down (imo) to the question(s) of utility:

What CAN you do with it? What DO you do with it?


I'd be curious to hear Mckenna's reply, but sadly, I don't think he'll be joining us in this discussion.

 

[Swayambhu]

I have heard that once you have healed, the plant starts to give you an education.

Have you ever learned anything from a DMT entity, or the plant itself, about the nature of the Universe? Or about the existence and nature of the soul?

Yes I have.
The mushrooms told me very specifically; "Forget what you know and humble yourself before God".
I know it's a bit Old Testament and not very fashionable, but in our egomaniacal and information driven culture/society, it's a lifetime's work and an instruction I offer to everyone.

 

[soulfood]

We are the shepherds of your civilisation.

You are not ready.

Back in the bowl with ya's!

(kind of hints once properly mixed we will indeed be ready someday. So that's positive at least!)

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

How so?

Because Terrence says so ...

I don't think that there are any secrets of the universe to know. There's just stuff to work out by using science. And i think that the concept of mystery that Mckenna is saying that underlies ordinary experience is itself a man made assumption. A very nice one, we all like a bit of mystery but no less of an assumption than the veracity of what we call everyday life.

I always think that i have been let in on some kind of big mysterious secret when i have done DMT and that there is some kind of weird mechanism behind what is going on in my consensual reality but i don't think that it is naive to question whichever reality i happen to be experiencing, whether the reality has been attained by doing drugs, or not.
If it is (as Terrence states) infantile to ask if it's real or not, i say embrace your inner child.

No, terence just happens to hold a similar view.

It's a naive question because most things are not "black and white", there is a good deal of gray area and subjectivity relating to the notion of "real"

...Asking is it real in relation to these topics shows that the person asking the question has not contemplated the concept of "real" in much depth.

Again, is the value of a dollar real? Are state lines and boarders between countries real? Are figures like Christ or buddha real? The fact that a clear answer is not easily reached illustrates the naivete of the individual asking the question, this person must be somewhat naive regarding the concepts of "real and unreal"

Besides...should an individual not be able conclude whether something is real or not by their own assessment of the situation? Should an individual not contemplate the issue for themselves rather than accepting the answers provided by others? It's great to discuss your conclusions with others, to get feedback and input, but when it comes to a question like "is it real?" it's a different situation.

...besides, in these situations it is entirely besides the point.

How can I produce an example that people here will relate with?...

Ok, look at the "south park" television show's episode "imagination land", the point of that entire 3-part episode ultimately was that "is it real?" Is a rather naive question.

I can guarantee terence had no influence on the south park episode, and just like all the terence quotes I post these are things that many, many, many, individuals have said. I just feel terence says it best, here is a quick example, I could use this quote from Nick sand

The world of DMT is incredibly vast. What DMT opens in us is so profound that it is impossible to truly express. I have been making, using, and initiating people into DMT use, for around 40 years. I was the one who first discovered that the free-base could be smoked. It has never ceased to amaze me, nor have I ever felt that one could fairly arrive at any hard and fast conclusions about what was happening during a DMT trip -Nick Sand

or this quote by terence McKenna:

Any attempts to begin to describe the DMT experience is fraught with the immediate dangers of either over-simplification or a swift flight into metaphor since it is almost impossible to describe with words alone the fantastic swirling multi-faceted gateway visions that are only the beginning of the DMT experience. Intrepid travelers report that past these jeweled-gates can be found mechanical-Elves, Aliens, Egyptian Gods, temples, pyramids, and palaces of pulsating light, and some would say, the entire possible population of the Collective Unconsciousness. A magical place where the totality of phenomenal existence can be experienced in an often terrifying transpersonal flash. -terence McKenna
* No two DMT experiences are alike, and no two people should expect any similarity in their individual experiences. (Unless, in one of the many mysteries of the DMT zone, two experiences are indeed shared as One!) It is commonly said that DMT causes far many more questions than it does answers; for it is a flowerbed for all the mystery in the Universe. Mystery is an increasingly difficult thing to find in our Fact-or-Fiction society but the on-going mapping of this tryptamine accessed Inter-Zone may ultimately lead to the birth of powerful new spiritual metaphors for Mankind, and a new Mythology great enough to both resonate within us and encompass the incredible Universe we all occupy. So in this section, you will find collated here a number of DMT accounts as recounted by different psychonauts over the last 40 years, each one mapping out a small piece of this mysterious 8th continent of the Mind.

Dmtsite.com is for sale | HugeDomains

Get the premium .com domain you deserve. Seamless and professional transactions. Payment plans available.

www.dmtsite.com

These quotes are both saying essentially the same thing, I just prefer the McKenna quote. Besides, every McKenna quote that I use related to the topic at hand perfectly, this is generally because an audience member had asked him a similar question to the one being caressed in the thread, but also due to the fact that McKenna himself has addressed nearly every issue relating to the philosophy and history of psychedelics. Now, just because I post his quotes quite a lot does not mean I subscribe to his notions, it just means they were on topic with the thread.


-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

How so?

What is real?

...Is the value of a dollar real? Is Jesus real?

...Whether these things are actually "real" is debatable, and somewhat besides the point.

It just seems like a rather naive question in my mind.

Blatant cribbing of the McKenna quote aside, I would posit that this line of thinking is, itself pretty shallow. All of these constructs presented, ranging from BoA to Jesus in modern culture, have some sort of utility and basis in consensual experience, even if they are merely human constructs/concepts that have been given special status within human interactions. Or put into plainer terms, these things carry a functional weight because elements of human society agree that they are real and useful for certain things (assigning value to goods/services, personifying moral values, etc.).

This level of agreed upon realities is a pretty basic and fundamental one; in fact, it's how consensus reality appears to function for the most part, whether we're talking simple abstractions, like language, or more abstract concepts like mortgage-backed securities. Someone (or someones) designs the concept and then gets enough people (or the "right" people) to agree to the rules so that it can be applied to or enforced on the operating world of consensus experience.

The question of "is it real" vis a vis the DMT experience is not the equivalent of asking is BoA real, is jesus real, or is the dollar real...not even close. The question of "is the DMT experience real," or rather "are the realms, beings, and other seemingly hyperreal components of DMT experiences real," is more akin to asking "what is the nature of consensus reality?" After all, we have empirical evidence of the dollar, of BoA, of the church's use of jesus...these concepts/constructs are not in doubt, only the degree to which they should be (or are) allowed to influence one's actions. They are contrasted, perhaps, which something like gravity, which is going to influence your actions regardless of your own desires/intentions etc.

Questioning the reality of DMT experiences serves as an interesting reflection on reality, wholesale. Or put another way, we have no measures for actually testing/determining an objective reality, only discussing experiences/observations within consensus reality:

...are similar experiences really evidence of anything other than people having similar experiences?

Everyone who gets into a flight simulator has a similar experience, what makes dmt any different...any more or less real? Similarity of experience does not seem to indicate anything about the reality of that experience, just the similarity.

The same applies to waking life, no?

“Reality” is not something that exists as some solid, concrete “place”. It is an abstraction – a collection of human-defined axioms or “tendencies”. Conscious experiences that satisfy the axioms are “real” by definition. Change the definition, and you change what is real.

How would one go about proving that one is experiencing “real” reality? There can be no such proof. Not here, not in “hyperspace”, not in “heaven” or anywhere else.

Thus, asking about the reality of DMT realms provides an interesting (and valuable, imo) ontological crowbar for re-conceptualizing and contextualizing reality as a whole. For once reality is understood as "a collection of human-defined axioms or 'tendencies'," there's no need to decry the "reality" of capital or religious figures, instead these are understood as human-generated parameters within the OS of "reality" and the question that remains is one of utility.

Whether engaging with DMT experiences or in the consensus world, it ultimately boils down (imo) to the question(s) of utility:

What CAN you do with it? What DO you do with it?


I'd be curious to hear Mckenna's reply, but sadly, I don't think he'll be joining us in this discussion.

All of these constructs presented, ranging from BoA to Jesus in modern culture, have some sort of utility and basis in consensual experience, even if they are merely human constructs/concepts that have been given special status within human interactions.

This was the exact point that terence and myself were attempting to make.

-eg

 

[SnozzleBerry]

How so?

What is real?

...Is the value of a dollar real? Is Jesus real?

...Whether these things are actually "real" is debatable, and somewhat besides the point.

It just seems like a rather naive question in my mind.

Blatant cribbing of the McKenna quote aside, I would posit that this line of thinking is, itself pretty shallow. All of these constructs presented, ranging from BoA to Jesus in modern culture, have some sort of utility and basis in consensual experience, even if they are merely human constructs/concepts that have been given special status within human interactions. Or put into plainer terms, these things carry a functional weight because elements of human society agree that they are real and useful for certain things (assigning value to goods/services, personifying moral values, etc.).

This level of agreed upon realities is a pretty basic and fundamental one; in fact, it's how consensus reality appears to function for the most part, whether we're talking simple abstractions, like language, or more abstract concepts like mortgage-backed securities. Someone (or someones) designs the concept and then gets enough people (or the "right" people) to agree to the rules so that it can be applied to or enforced on the operating world of consensus experience.

The question of "is it real" vis a vis the DMT experience is not the equivalent of asking is BoA real, is jesus real, or is the dollar real...not even close. The question of "is the DMT experience real," or rather "are the realms, beings, and other seemingly hyperreal components of DMT experiences real," is more akin to asking "what is the nature of consensus reality?" After all, we have empirical evidence of the dollar, of BoA, of the church's use of jesus...these concepts/constructs are not in doubt, only the degree to which they should be (or are) allowed to influence one's actions. They are contrasted, perhaps, which something like gravity, which is going to influence your actions regardless of your own desires/intentions etc.

Questioning the reality of DMT experiences serves as an interesting reflection on reality, wholesale. Or put another way, we have no measures for actually testing/determining an objective reality, only discussing experiences/observations within consensus reality:

...are similar experiences really evidence of anything other than people having similar experiences?

Everyone who gets into a flight simulator has a similar experience, what makes dmt any different...any more or less real? Similarity of experience does not seem to indicate anything about the reality of that experience, just the similarity.

The same applies to waking life, no?

“Reality” is not something that exists as some solid, concrete “place”. It is an abstraction – a collection of human-defined axioms or “tendencies”. Conscious experiences that satisfy the axioms are “real” by definition. Change the definition, and you change what is real.

How would one go about proving that one is experiencing “real” reality? There can be no such proof. Not here, not in “hyperspace”, not in “heaven” or anywhere else.

Thus, asking about the reality of DMT realms provides an interesting (and valuable, imo) ontological crowbar for re-conceptualizing and contextualizing reality as a whole. For once reality is understood as "a collection of human-defined axioms or 'tendencies'," there's no need to decry the "reality" of capital or religious figures, instead these are understood as human-generated parameters within the OS of "reality" and the question that remains is one of utility.

Whether engaging with DMT experiences or in the consensus world, it ultimately boils down (imo) to the question(s) of utility:

What CAN you do with it? What DO you do with it?


I'd be curious to hear Mckenna's reply, but sadly, I don't think he'll be joining us in this discussion.

All of these constructs presented, ranging from BoA to Jesus in modern culture, have some sort of utility and basis in consensual experience, even if they are merely human constructs/concepts that have been given special status within human interactions.

This was the exact point that terence and myself were attempting to make.

-eg

Hardly! :lol:

By your own value judgement, asking the question itself is "naive" and evidences "that the person asking the question has not contemplated the concept of 'real' in much depth." Even if this is the case, the person has posed the question and you attempted to shut it down by providing your own value judgement and citing yet another Mckenna quote (YAMQ).

Rather than taking the high and mighty (some might call it pretentious) position of having given the question "superior" consideration than some naive person, I'm contending that asking the question of "is it real" is, in and of itself, a valuable moment for several reasons. Notably that the societies in which we find ourselves tend to shy away from the deeper considerations present and generally attempt to condition similar aversions in us.

The fact that many folks haven't had the opportunity to even formulate questions (let alone understandings) about the nature of the realities of abstract constructs in consensus experiences means that the "is it real" question provides a golden opportunity for engagement (see my earlier statement re: ontological crowbars).

Rather than telling a person they're naive and attempting to support your assertion of their naivete with YAMQ, how about using your own words to actually engage with the topic at hand and actually dig into the discussion to help shine a light into the new realms of questions just beginning to become apparent to the person asking the question? Would that not, perhaps, provide them with greater understanding and utility?

I think supporting such questioning, even questions one may find to be "naive" is better than quelling such questions through making people feel silly for asking them. After all, if they can't clarify those initial questions or even feel comfortable asking them, how will they assemble the building blocks/foundations to ask more important/complex questions down the road? Surely each of us had to be asking "naive" questions at some points in our lives and most (if not all) of us are still likely asking questions that others, with different expertise and experiences, might find just as naive as those we see others asking.

 

[hug46]

Well said Snozz. Over the years i have found that there is sometimes a certain amount of intellectual snobbery associated with psychedelic users which can be off putting. Asking whether something is real or not is a gateway question that leads onto other thought processes along with questions like who am I? why am i here? Thoughts on death etcetera etc. Possibly naive but necessary for the journey that some of us have decided to take down the path of understanding and confusion.

In EG's defence i will take a punt that he was musing out loud about reality and naivety rather than aiming it directly at Asher7 who, from what i have read of post no 10 in this thread, finds it real from a subjective point of view. I guess that the subjective perception of reality is all we will ever have to go on. If there was an infallible objective reality measuring device that gave an accurate image of what reality is we'd all probably perceive the results in different ways from each other.

Maybe that is what people bonding with each other is about. Certain traits from one and others subjective bubbles match up and a bit of shared inter-objectivity is the result. Or is that bit too much like airy fairy rambling? If it is, in my defence, i have just drank 2 bottles of beer.

 

[Asher7]

Hey man just for the record, nobody is going to offend me or in some way insult me by offering up a perspective even if theoretically they formed it in a perceived condecending way. It's all good.

I ask questions I already believe I have the answer to just to see what someone else will say. That practice is strangely more profound when you ask a little kid, because their minds are wide open. Adults usually say the same old answer, a "conditioned" sort of answer that uses more complex words but really holds no enlightening power because people tend to lock themselves in more as they become sure of themselves.

A simple answer on a widely known topic will blow your mind sometimes when you ask a little kid.

A lot of my questions take on a form similar to the exercise where you pick up a pencil and just write. Sometimes in the lack of thinking yet answering you find your unique answers as you go back over what you've written. Too much thinking gets you locked into your tunnel vision patterns because you just keep adding to the pattern instead of truely stepping outside of it.

It really get's as simple as having a coworker tell you he just got back from lunch and... and you ask "why did you go to lunch?" or something "stupid" like that and watch. They'll hesitate for a second like, wtf, and then answer in a need to keep the beat and that's how you know they're cutting into new ground. They didn't have the answer already figured out and rehearsed. That is where you get your gold from. (that's just a random example there are better ones with every question you come up with)

People, in my opinion, should ask a boatload more questions, and just let the answers speak for themselves.

 

[thymamai]

Snozz, you are a beacon of light. Excellent execution. Your devotion to the integrity of our conduct here and how we treat this intelllectual space, already a very special one, speaks volumes to me about the person behind the writing. Ever watchful, ever vigilant.. your words at the very least. It is possible to keep a sense of humor and take things more seriously (read: more carefully), simultaneously, is it not? This is a deep thanks to you brother. And a thanks to e.g. as well. because his words are also very much enjoyed.

 

[woogyboogy]

I dont have much to say here, besides…


Snooz you bringing up that

For once reality is understood as "a collection of human-defined axioms or 'tendencies'

brings me to a realization, that Hyperspace and the effect of experiencing it has on humans, has to do with we not having any concept to integrate it into.
Our physical capacities (brain/nervous system), and our cultural “codes”(language/symbols) and therefor our perception have been shaped by our environment through out a long period of time. The facilities of hyperspace apparently havent been enough of a consistent stimulus for mammals to leave traces in our genom, comparable to those of language, and diet(as example). Everything that we can see in our daily live, has some kind of culturally derived meaning, or wording to describe it. I could imagine, that if we would frequent Hyperspace from a very young age, and through out generations, it would very likely leave some kind of trace in our cultural network of meaning and language (I would imagine its similar to the way some tribes integrate this into their culture/maybe this could happen in a way leaving even deeper marks, if hyperspace visits are even more frequent) and maybe even our genom.

Just some thoughts...

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

How so?

What is real?

...Is the value of a dollar real? Is Jesus real?

...Whether these things are actually "real" is debatable, and somewhat besides the point.

It just seems like a rather naive question in my mind.

Blatant cribbing of the McKenna quote aside, I would posit that this line of thinking is, itself pretty shallow. All of these constructs presented, ranging from BoA to Jesus in modern culture, have some sort of utility and basis in consensual experience, even if they are merely human constructs/concepts that have been given special status within human interactions. Or put into plainer terms, these things carry a functional weight because elements of human society agree that they are real and useful for certain things (assigning value to goods/services, personifying moral values, etc.).

This level of agreed upon realities is a pretty basic and fundamental one; in fact, it's how consensus reality appears to function for the most part, whether we're talking simple abstractions, like language, or more abstract concepts like mortgage-backed securities. Someone (or someones) designs the concept and then gets enough people (or the "right" people) to agree to the rules so that it can be applied to or enforced on the operating world of consensus experience.

The question of "is it real" vis a vis the DMT experience is not the equivalent of asking is BoA real, is jesus real, or is the dollar real...not even close. The question of "is the DMT experience real," or rather "are the realms, beings, and other seemingly hyperreal components of DMT experiences real," is more akin to asking "what is the nature of consensus reality?" After all, we have empirical evidence of the dollar, of BoA, of the church's use of jesus...these concepts/constructs are not in doubt, only the degree to which they should be (or are) allowed to influence one's actions. They are contrasted, perhaps, which something like gravity, which is going to influence your actions regardless of your own desires/intentions etc.

Questioning the reality of DMT experiences serves as an interesting reflection on reality, wholesale. Or put another way, we have no measures for actually testing/determining an objective reality, only discussing experiences/observations within consensus reality:

...are similar experiences really evidence of anything other than people having similar experiences?

Everyone who gets into a flight simulator has a similar experience, what makes dmt any different...any more or less real? Similarity of experience does not seem to indicate anything about the reality of that experience, just the similarity.

The same applies to waking life, no?

“Reality” is not something that exists as some solid, concrete “place”. It is an abstraction – a collection of human-defined axioms or “tendencies”. Conscious experiences that satisfy the axioms are “real” by definition. Change the definition, and you change what is real.

How would one go about proving that one is experiencing “real” reality? There can be no such proof. Not here, not in “hyperspace”, not in “heaven” or anywhere else.

Thus, asking about the reality of DMT realms provides an interesting (and valuable, imo) ontological crowbar for re-conceptualizing and contextualizing reality as a whole. For once reality is understood as "a collection of human-defined axioms or 'tendencies'," there's no need to decry the "reality" of capital or religious figures, instead these are understood as human-generated parameters within the OS of "reality" and the question that remains is one of utility.

Whether engaging with DMT experiences or in the consensus world, it ultimately boils down (imo) to the question(s) of utility:

What CAN you do with it? What DO you do with it?


I'd be curious to hear Mckenna's reply, but sadly, I don't think he'll be joining us in this discussion.

All of these constructs presented, ranging from BoA to Jesus in modern culture, have some sort of utility and basis in consensual experience, even if they are merely human constructs/concepts that have been given special status within human interactions.

This was the exact point that terence and myself were attempting to make.

-eg

Hardly! :lol:

By your own value judgement, asking the question itself is "naive" and evidences "that the person asking the question has not contemplated the concept of 'real' in much depth." Even if this is the case, the person has posed the question and you attempted to shut it down by providing your own value judgement and citing yet another Mckenna quote (YAMQ).

Rather than taking the high and mighty (some might call it pretentious) position of having given the question "superior" consideration than some naive person, I'm contending that asking the question of "is it real" is, in and of itself, a valuable moment for several reasons. Notably that the societies in which we find ourselves tend to shy away from the deeper considerations present and generally attempt to condition similar aversions in us.

The fact that many folks haven't had the opportunity to even formulate questions (let alone understandings) about the nature of the realities of abstract constructs in consensus experiences means that the "is it real" question provides a golden opportunity for engagement (see my earlier statement re: ontological crowbars).

Rather than telling a person they're naive and attempting to support your assertion of their naivete with YAMQ, how about using your own words to actually engage with the topic at hand and actually dig into the discussion to help shine a light into the new realms of questions just beginning to become apparent to the person asking the question? Would that not, perhaps, provide them with greater understanding and utility?

I think supporting such questioning, even questions one may find to be "naive" is better than quelling such questions through making people feel silly for asking them. After all, if they can't clarify those initial questions or even feel comfortable asking them, how will they assemble the building blocks/foundations to ask more important/complex questions down the road? Surely each of us had to be asking "naive" questions at some points in our lives and most (if not all) of us are still likely asking questions that others, with different expertise and experiences, might find just as naive as those we see others asking.

if that's how you interpret what I'm trying communicate then that's how you interpret it.

It's not just a terence McKenna opinion, I cited a popular culture reference in my last post which made the exact same point. It's not about McKenna, and I know that you see my knowledge of McKenna as a means to insinuate that my ideas are invalid, or that I must subscribe to everything McKenna says, when in reality nothing could be further from being the actual case.

whether you love what I say or it hate it, at least try to learn something from it.

It's great to ask "what is real?", and to contemplate the nature of reality, but in certain contexts it is naive, which is just my opinion, as well as the opinion of many others. I'm nit a fan of television or pop culture, but as an avid cannabis consumer, while smoking with ithers I'm often exposed programs which I others would never watch otherwise, the "south park" "imagination land" episode makes this same point, it shows how this can be a naive question.

When I was in philosophy that was one of the teachers key arguments when it came to the discussion of reality, he would ask "are state lines real?" And then we would discuss the matter, ultimately revealing that it's not a yes or no type of question, so, is it real? Yes, in some contexts it is very real and has quite real effect, in other contexts you could say there's nothing real about it, these are imaginary concepts made up and agreed upon in the minds of humans. "So is it real?" It's not black and white, there is a good deal of gray area and subjectivity, it's great to ask yourself these things, but to ask others wanting anything more than their opinions is a bit naive. The value of a dollar was one of this professor's other examples, then he would dive into fictional and religious characters for duscussion. These are not McKenna concepts.

Besides, Believe it or not, the majority of what McKenna did was explain the work and ideas of others, he would take the concepts of Plato, or Jung, or Alfred north whitehead, or Marshall McLuhan, and explain them.adding in his own commentary and thoughts along the way. many of his key concepts and even some of the language which people think was unique to McKenna was generated by these other individuals.

I don't subscribe to most of what McKenna says, but if it fits the topic at hand, is it not a valid contribution? I think the more content related to the topic at hand the better, who cares who it came from, the ideas are what's important.

Rather than telling a person they're naive and attempting to support your assertion of their naivete with YAMQ, how about using your own words to actually engage with the topic at hand and actually dig into the discussion to help shine a light into the new realms of questions just beginning to become apparent to the person asking the question? Would that not, perhaps, provide them with greater understanding and utility?

I never told anybody they were naive, and I most certainly did not prevent anybody from asking any questions, I simply said that in my opinion is it real is a naive question, how that affects anybody other than myself, I'm not sure.

...and ultimately I did inspire a wave of discussion and thought, "is "is it real" a naive question?" It was discussed, and ultimately the participants are left with a greater understanding of this concept.

Rather than taking the high and mighty (some might call it pretentious) position of having given the question "superior" consideration than some naive person, I'm contending that asking the question of "is it real" is, in and of itself, a valuable moment for several reasons. Notably that the societies in which we find ourselves tend to shy away from the deeper considerations present and generally attempt to condition similar aversions in us.

Pretentious has a slightly different meaning, and if you knew me in reality you would find the description of "high and mighty" (or even pretentious) laughable, but that's not important here and if you interpret my posts as pretentious that's fine, I simply state my currant thoughts on the topic at hand, sorry I can't always produce conversation that's deep and profound to your standards, regardless I'm going to share my ideas. If they are that repugnant in your view, and if you can never seem to get anything from them then technically you could simply not read them, though I'm always happy to elaborate.

-eg

 

[downwardsfromzero]

I simply state my currant thoughts

Thanks for raisin the level of discussion.






Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[hug46]

I simply state my currant thoughts

Thanks for raisin the level of discussion.

Raisin the level of the discussion????? More like sour grapes to me...

 

[3rdI]

I simply state my currant thoughts

Thanks for raisin the level of discussion.

Raisin the level of the discussion????? More like sour grapes to me...

that's appleing

 

[Swayambhu]

double post. oops!

 

[Swayambhu]

I simply state my currant thoughts

Thanks for raisin the level of discussion.

Raisin the level of the discussion????? More like sour grapes to me...

that's appleing

Orange you guys able to make better fruit-based puns than these?

 

[3rdI]

i'm berry sorry

 

[Swayambhu]

i'm berry sorry

Let's nut speak of it again.

 

[hug46]

I simply state my currant thoughts

Thanks for raisin the level of discussion.

Raisin the level of the discussion????? More like sour grapes to me...

that's appleing

Orange you guys able to make better fruit-based puns than these?

I'd love to but i am plum out of ideas.

 

[WisdomTooth]

It just shows you what you already know from within, you are the universe/reality you see, you created all of it but most of the time you only have a limited point of view/perspective because you are experiencing separation.

Through our eyes the universe sees itself and becomes more and more aware as we are.