• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Extended State IV DMT participants discuss their experiences in depth

L

Loveinthedream_

Esteemed member
DMT-X participants discuss their extended state IV DMT experiences, moderated by Andrew Gallimore, Graham Hancock, and Rick Strassman.


This was one of the most fascinating and thought provoking discussions of altered states I have ever been fortunate enough to watch/listen to. I can not recommend it more. These are very eloquent and deeply interesting individuals, and they speak about this all incredibly rationally. It's a far cry from Terrance waxing poetic.
 
That was an excellent discussion.. I really enjoyed it. I found it fascinating both the similarities and the differences in their perception of what is going on during the experience. All had a healthily agnostic attitude towards it. But definitely some consistent themes present in what they gained.. almost like a gnostic agnosticism. A knowing that arises from accepting the inherent unknowns in life.. and the limit's in their definition.

Particularly interesting was the different perceptions on the nature of the entities. One of the volunteers for example found the entities mostly unengaging.. just going about their lives in hyperspace, while others found the connection with them very personal and engaging. Comparing with my own experience I found this interesting, as these days I tend to experience the entities, or “inhabitants” - and the space they inhabit - as one in the same. So I don’t get these populated ecosystems described by some of the volunteers. My earlier experiences I did .. but now I find the line between the entity and it's environment completely dissolved.

I really enjoyed the consistent theme of the participants developing their toolkit for navigating hyperspace.. it seems they all developed their techniques to a much more sophisticated level through DMT.x and will no doubt be much better equipped for future experiences as a result.. it's really cool the relationship you can form with this molecule. You can learn it, while it learns you.

One thing that I was a little disappointed with was that no one pointed out the pitfalls of taking Terence's 'elves and self dribbling basketballs' so literally.. Terence himself would not have wanted people to buy too deeply into his descriptions. He himself was the first to admit the ineffable nature of the DMT experience. He was also an entertainer and arguably a poet/comedian.. there was a strong element of humour in his approach to discussing the psychedelic experience. When people say Terence was wrong about this or that I think they sort of miss his message a little. Anyways.. that was a very small gripe with an overall fantastic couple hours of listening. All of the participants were grounded in their own unique ways and had valuable wisdom/insight to render down into speech for us listeners.

It was nice to see everyone had an open mind to the nature of the DMT and there was no dogma about this or that. It is after all such a personal experience.. and due to it's ineffable nature has strong limitations on it's translation to discussion. Listening to this was a reminder of how much DMT varies person to person. We are all on our own unique journey that colours the experience and our perception of it.

What I really loved about this discussion was the universal feeling of initiation between the volunteers during their time participating.

Good stuff! :)
 
Last edited:
I watched this some time ago and I really liked the experiences. I think it also gives some clues about focusing in hyperspace and navigating that realm. It is now more than relevant since I feel that now with the use of a vape and MAOI one can achieve a prolonged stay in hyperspace. From experience this has a somewhat different approach to the experience.

Yet I’m a bit annoyed about the use of Gallimore lingo, about “dmtx technology” and “breakthrough technology” and the somewhat forced attempt to legitimize the science of it all and call everything research. I mean don’t get me wrong I like the study and the outcome is interesting.
What also was interesting was the amount of things/rituals that some of the participants seem to think to need it.

For the ones who would like to go and read a bit more and more on the pharmacological side you could read the new book of Andrew, Reality Switch Technology.
 
Varallo said:
I watched this some time ago and I really liked the experiences. I think it also gives some clues about focusing in hyperspace and navigating that realm. It is now more than relevant since I feel that now with the use of a vape and MAOI one can achieve a prolonged stay in hyperspace. From experience this has a somewhat different approach to the experience.

Yet I’m a bit annoyed about the use of Gallimore lingo, about “dmtx technology” and “breakthrough technology” and the somewhat forced attempt to legitimize the science of it all and call everything research. I mean don’t get me wrong I like the study and the outcome is interesting.
What also was interesting was the amount of things/rituals that some of the participants seem to think to need it.

For the ones who would like to go and read a bit more and more on the pharmacological side you could read the new book of Andrew, Reality Switch Technology.
Click to expand...
Dreamer042 and I were watching Hamilton Season 3 about Bufotenine and the shaman referred to working with it as a "science". The science was to start with a small dose and when you trip you will encounter an entity who is a man. He won't speak so you must speak to him first and then he will take you somewhere to start learning the shamanic journey. I wish we could get more information on shamanic science! If only we could start taking care of these often marginalized communities, we might have more opportunities to learn about healing.
 
Last edited:
Yes that would be interesting, maybe there are patterns or commonalities between these practices that could be applied in longer stays in hyperspace. In practice though it might be a very difficult task.

I think that there might be less “real” shamans than we think, and that it’s a huge task to filter out the shamans that have been thought through succession over generations from the teach yourself kinda types.

In my limited experience with shamans they all seem to fit within two categories one is the enlightened type of new age guy that had couple of trips under his belt and developed a guru complex. The other type is more within the realm of perpetuating folklore and mix it with a psycadelic of some sort. In both cases I get a strong sense of quackery especially when a financial or power dynamic is present. Then there might be a third category of shamans that live in a traditional community that has been using a psycadelic for generations where they share there rituals over the generations and where that practice has evolved to a good set of practices.

I’m not so sure if third category still exists and if they do that the practices are anything more then a religious practice.
 
Varallo said:
Yet I’m a bit annoyed about the use of Gallimore lingo, about “dmtx technology” and “breakthrough technology” and the somewhat forced attempt to legitimize the science of it all and call everything research.
Click to expand...
What's the issue? He did actually develop the system they're using for the consistent intravenous injection. Given that this initial run proved the system successful, I think it's fair that he refers to this as technology. It's the reason they're able to extend the breakthrough state.
 
I kinda relate to feeling frustrated sometimes at Andrew’s scientific lingo towards the mystical experience.. But that is more than likely because I find trying to explain the entities sort of not all that interesting anymore compared to other aspects of the experience. I think the DMT.x thing is probably a nod towards SpaceX.. which I find fitting

But yeah .. really we just have a different world view..I think personal mystical experience is by nature going to remain fairly ineffable in day to day life.. Terrence McKenna used to word “unenglisheable” which springs to mind. Trying to concretely say it is this or that kind of goes against its nature IMO.. but none the less, he has his own take on it and I appreciate his work very much. He seems like a super solid dude and very kind hearted
 
Last edited:
DMTx is just shorthand for "extended-state DMT."

Trying to concretely say it is this or that kind of goes against its nature IMO

Where does he do this?
 
Last edited:
Acacian words it really nice I think my annoyance is in line with that, I also think for me it also feels like a type of marketing thing, which is understandable but doesn’t really do it for me. I did read the book though, and it is well written and well balanced. But full with the unnecessary addition of the words like technologies and space. So I have no disagreement or dislike with the author just don’t like the lingo in the beginning of the video, especially since I read his book.

He ends the book with; children at play in the endless landscapes of the mind. Worlds without end. I think he referred to Clifford Simak which is really good.

For the method that he developed, it was something that had been done by amateurs before and although crude was used to stay in hyperspace for longer. From what I remember a saline drip was or an automated syringe infusion machine was used, for years I hoped to find a second hand machine to try it myself. But now that the dmt citrate vape is out I don’t think I need it anymore.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify.. I don’t mean that he is making a claim on what the DMT realm is or isn’t.. more so just that his way of interpreting it I think maybe limits it a little. And that’s completely subjective/based on my own view of reality and in no way is a slant towards Andrew Gallimore.. I really like him and have been enjoying his talks for a few years now. I just have maybe a more mystical approach.. I can’t agree that DMT.x feels like a sales pitch either.. it is a genuine attempt to explore the unknown.. just through a certain lense. This podcast I felt that lense loosen a little as each participant had their own view on it all.

And @krylon_drip .. I facepalmed when you revealed the actual meaning of the name. While I think DMT.x as a space journey program gives a kind of legitimacy to a new form of travel.
 
Last edited:
Varallo said:
For the method that he developed, it was something that had been done by amateurs before and although crude was used to stay in hyperspace for longer. From what I remember a saline drip was or an automated syringe infusion machine was used, for years I hoped to find a second hand machine to try it myself. But now that the dmt citrate vape is out I don’t think I need it anymore.
Click to expand...
Anesthesiology uses similar devices, sure. You can read Dr. Gallimore's take on it here, where he also references others using similar RoA. It also includes the following:

Beyond this, I certainly haven’t shied away from the more “sci-fi” potential of the technology, particularly when discussing the entities encountered in the DMT space, and no doubt this helped pique the interest and imagination of those reading my work or listening to me speak on the subject: This wasn’t just going to be a useful tool for the MRI suite or the clinic, but a technology for discovering alien intelligence from beyond our universe. Or, at least, that was my original motivation for DMTx. I have neither an academic position nor a funding source to defend and am thus free to entertain ideas that, to many, would seem rather outlandish. This is a freedom I’m more than happy to exercise. Some of the news articles that followed publication of our paper were somewhat hyperbolic, and I personally remain largely agnostic as to the true origin and nature of the DMT entities, and don’t rule out the possibility that DMT might grant access to a truly autonomous conscious intelligence.
Click to expand...

But why wouldn't he refer to that as "technology" when applied to DMT specifically? I feel like we might be conflating his references to actual technology in studies like the methods employed by DMTx with lingo he uses to name things in the DMT realm. Can you clarify which you're referring to? It seems @acacian is referring to the latter while you the former.

To me, referring to the actual method of sustaining consistent intravenous injection while monitoring the patient is absolutely a technology. Referring to the DMT realm you go to as a "space" seems practical and valid. You yourself refer to it as Hyperspace, so I'm not sure what the difference is? I do see you're often referring to his books, though. I must admit I have only recently purchased them, but have yet to read, so forgive me if I'm missing the references.

I don't take any of your comments as insults toward him, either. I'm glad we have him as a researcher. :) He's also a Nexian, although I'm unsure if he's made the jump to the new board.
 
The lingo I was referring to wasn't to do with the technology in the study or the study itself. I think Varallo and I are maybe talking about different things here. The part of Andrew's approach I don't resonate with so much is perhaps more simply the desire to extract objective/verifiable information out of what is inherently a very personal and often ineffable experience.. and on top of that to then bring will into something that essentially requires complete surrender to even receive that useful information . An example I'll use is his idea of getting the entities to verify some kind of mathematical equation during the experience so that their existence can be verified.. I just see it as missing the point a little. I understand the want to verify the DMT experience.. I just have doubts that there is much point in trying to do so. I think this is perhaps more one of those "the proof is in the pudding' scenarios.

In fairness, Andrew did admit this is maybe not the best approach nor perhaps very respectful to the experience .. the idea of trying to validate it. I guess I am just echoing that sentiment a little further.

None the less, if you think that bursting into their space for five minutes is disrespectful, I'd argue that trying to get them to validate their existence scientifically when you are in their space is far more of a disrespect. I dunno.. how do you guys feel? I know I am coming at this with my own "DMT world view" (erring more on the side of the mystical). And hey that's cool he is a member here, I've heard him bring up the nexus before but wasn't sure if he was just a lurker or not.

Regardless, Andrew has a very open mind regarding DMT.. so I'm glad he's asking these questions.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so perhaps "lingo" isn't the optimal term for your gripe. It seems your issue has more to do with the idea of validating or proving the ineffable or trying to categorize/define the experience itself? I'm not sure I have an opinion on that part of it either way, but I am in agreement with you about the math equation thing. I always figured if the entities were real and wanted that to be known, they'd have made that clear anyway.

I also agree that it seems very rude to jump into their space and demand they answer silly math questions. It seems egotistical to believe they'd know math or even care about solving banal questions like that. It also pales in comparison to the experience itself, which I believe is the overarching point you're getting at. "No, they didn't even know what the hell prime numbers were. When I asked, the entity transported me back to my childhood home and then showed me impossible colors I'd never experienced." Like it seems to be missing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

Besides, if they could factor large primes or whatever, people would just assume we're tapping into our own unseen knowledge base, wouldn't they? There's been instances of people developing acquired savant syndrome and "seeing math" after head injuries (kind of sounds the vision DMT gives you in parts of this article). For me, whether the entities are objectively real or not isn't that important. Both scenarios present equally interesting and mind-boggling questions.
 
Thanks for the article, I didn’t read it before. It starts really well with “ In the last few years, the extended-state DMT infusion technology, which has come to be known as DMTx, has cemented its position in public consciousness, at least within our small but growing circle of psychedelic-minded people. “

It might be my bias in professional life that is part of the reason why I dislike the wording. The technology in this example is the pump and mechanical system of delivering the agent, and not the dmt. It would be the same as calling hypnotic agents like propofol, technologies. Normally they would fall into the category of anesthetics and then be referred to as agents, therefore dmt even when dosed intravenously for a while is not something that I would consider a technology, even though technically it could be considered a technology ;) semantics (sorry trav ;) ) surely.

I think it should have been called a method as it is process by which you can extend the time and control the amount of dmt in the bloodstream. Just like one can achieve with the use of harmalas or moclobemide.

Now having said that I understand that sometimes language can be used in a specific way to express or convey the message of the author. And in a relatively new direction of research it’s sometimes necessary to create the language that is needed to make the reader understand. I think he does this wel in some aspects but I would have worded it differently.

Acacian I do feel you and your stance on the matter, it is on a emotional level certainly part of equation for me.
 
Back
Top Bottom