Hi! I wrote that "DMT - Dangerous for your Mind?" text 5 years ago

[regret and hope]

Hello dear DMT-Nexus!

English is not my first language, so I am struggling a bit to write this text. It is somewhat difficult for me to express myself in the way I actually intend to.

I was just browsing the forum, which I do from time to time, and stumbled upon this thread:

DMT - Dangerous for your Mind? - DMT Discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

It was revived by user "ManifestTheMind", who is wondering "how he/she stands on their beliefs today". So here I am. Since I just registered, I am unable to post a reply in the thread, so instead I will do it here.

I wrote the text 5 years ago on the shroomery as the user "I_like_mushrooms". I no longer have access to that account (and I no longer want to visit the shroomery because I dislike the general attitude in the forums there), but I do still have access to an ayahuasca.com forum account which I mentioned in one of my postings on the shroomery. So I think I could in theory prove that it really was originally posted by me.

Some words about myself: I am a male human being. I am currently located in the virgo supercluster, milky way galaxy, sol solar system, planet earth, european landmass. I (struggle to) study engineering. I like funny and colorful things. I dislike, well, probably too many things.

I did not realize until now that the text had spread to at least two other forums, which I am not really happy about, even though it sparked some constructive discussions. This should serve me as a reminder that all actions in life do have consequences. Therefore, I should in the future always be very careful about what I write on the internet, as my thoughts may reach and influence many more people than I initially intended.

When I wrote the text, I was in a state of mind that may be described as "desperate, confused rage". It was a difficult time for me (and it kind of still is and will probably be for the rest of my lifetime, but then again, whose life is not difficult? I guess being human is more or less hard for everyone). The text is actually not about Terrance McKenna or some guy from a tool song or the random forum users whom I quoted. It is, in essence, about me - I was the one who had used certain substances and became convinced that the things he experienced were not just a result of his imagination, influenced by the effects of the substances he had ingested.

Actually, I think that the degree of conviction I had (and maybe still have) far surpassed that of McKenna or basically that of anyone I have ever met. I am aware of the fact that while McKenna liked to "play with" various extraordinary ideas in which he probably actually believed up to a certain degree, this does not mean that he thought of these ideas as absolute truths. And I think this is the case for most people who use substances like LSD, Psilocybin, DMT and so on - the experiences may be very convincing, they may shatter and rearrange your worldview, but a certain amount of doubt always still remains.

The extremely high degree of conviction I held towards my newfound believes irritated me. And it also irritated me that the majority of the shroomery forum users were not sharing that same kind of irritation regarding their own experiences.

At that time (2008 ), DMT use had begun to become really popular at the shroomery. The amount of users performing their first extraction increased rapidly, and therefore also the amount of reports from first time DMT users. After reading many of these reports, I became confused about the fact that so many people wrote about "visiting other dimensions" or "talking to the elves" without any sign of skepticism. It appeared to me as if a great amount of people had adapted the views propagated by McKenna (and other authors with similar ideas) without questioning them at all (and while I really enjoy McKenna's ideas, I do not think that he wanted his audience to just accept them without doing any thinking on their own). Also, I was wondering at the time what kind of consequences the extremely drastic exchange of one worldview (ordinary "rational" western view) with another ("visit the elves in another dimension by smoking DMT" ) might have on the life of those DMT users. For example, I remember reading multiple reports of people who used DMT just once or only a couple of times, who would then immediately afterwards go on to make radical changes to their life, e.g. selling their possessions and/or devoting all their time to extracting DMT and "turning on" others. The total lack of skepticism seemed very disturbing to me at the time.

This is kind of ironic, as I myself was also lacking this skepticism, but I regarded my situation as different. Because unlike most other users of the substances listed above, I had asked for irrefutable proof that my experience of being able to contact intelligent but non-human lifeforms through these substances was actually not just the result of an overactive imagination - and I had become convinced that I had indeed received that proof. But from my point of view, basically all the reports I had read were lacking such proof, and despite that, people would not hesitate to interpret their experience as nothing else than what it appeared to them while under the influence.

Born out of all my irritation, confusion and what would most likely be defined as mental illness by a vast majority of the population, was the text that I posted on the shroomery. Looking back, I think it was not written with mischievous intent, although I know realize that it can be considered as trolling due to the provocative nature of the text. Actually, I posted it on the shroomery in order to spark fruitful discussions and to read the responses by the forum users, because I had a genuine interest in them.

Not much thought went into the text - it was probably written with little effort and consideration in less than 20 or 30 minutes, and I am not exactly the smartest person to begin with. It was definitely lacking in quality. Therefore, the often harsh criticism I was confronted with by many readers was duly deserved. At this point, I would like to use the opportunity to say that I am sorry for enraging and angering so many forum users. I have definitely learned a lesson, and I hope that I will never post such an antagonistic text anywhere ever again.

My best wishes to everyone.


TL;DR: I am sorry. I think I have learned my lesson and will no more post such texts online.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Wow, this is the most offensive post I have ever read here.

I loved your original post and thought it showed a very open mind considering something that many people are too closed minded to consider.

The relationship between psychedelics and belief is a very important topic and we need people who are open minded enough to consider that experiences and beliefs need to be questioned with an open mind, no matter what we experience or believe. Everyone has to make up their own mind, but all we end up having is belief, opinion etc, knowledge, real knowledge, does not arise in the human experience.

The idea that you are retracting your consideration is what I find offensive. Most users who believe their experiences are real are very closed minded and just don't realize it. The experiences may be real, or they may not be, but not questioning your beliefs is a sign of true closed mindedness and delusion. Even questioning your beliefs and then having the opinion that they are real and then no longer questioning them is a sign of a closed mind. One should always be willing to question belief or one is prevented from learning properly.

Question everything, all the time, but don't be a naysaying skeptic. Never accept your experiences or beliefs as unquestionably true or you wont get anywhere near wisdom.

 

[anrchy]

but not questioning your beliefs is a sign of true closed mindedness and delusion. Even questioning your beliefs and then having the opinion that they are real and then no longer questioning them is a sign of a closed mind. One should always be willing to question belief or one is prevented from learning properly.

Question everything, all the time, but don't be a naysaying skeptic. Never accept your experiences or beliefs as unquestionably true or you wont get anywhere near wisdom.

Not questioning your beliefs is not closed mindedness, dismissing questions to your beliefs is closed mindedness.

 

[universecannon]

Not questioning your beliefs is not closed mindedness

i strongly disagree... but then again, everyone defines closed-mindedness differently

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

This is my point exactly, these are opinions, beliefs, not knowledge.

not one of us knows that not questioning or questioning things is or isn't closed minded, we only believe that, and it is yet another belief worth questioning.

 

[regret and hope]

AlbertKLloyd,

it seems amusing to me that you think that retracting the text that so many people found offensive is offensive. I feel like I am in a pinch here .

The reason why I "retracted" it is not because it might make a reader question their believes. I do agree that questioning your believes is generally a healthy thing to do. The real reason why I am sorry for posting the text is the provocative way in which it was written. Just look at all those angry comments that were made in the two threads here on the nexus and on the shroomery. They were directly caused by my immature ramblings. I do not want to spread texts over the internet that incite such negative emotions, instead I would rather inspire positive and friendly discussions with well-worded ideas. I want to strive towards acting like a gentleman, not like a troll.

That being said, when I question my believes, I only do so until I find answers that satisfy me. And then I stick with them unless I find a good reason to reevaluate them. Regarding the issues mentioned in the OP I have found such answers. For myself, I have come to the conclusion that certain substances (for certain people under the right circumstances) indeed facilitate the contact with extremely advanced entities who seem to possess abilities that would generally be considered as "god-like".

 

[edge2054]

For what it's worth I thought there was some insight in your original post. But I do see why you would want to retract it, as you said it was fairly inflammatory and in some ways just as close minded as those who feel they've found the 'secret to the universe' and refuse to consider that it may just be drugs messing with your mind... because it seemed to refuse to consider the other point of view.

But I think you had a fair point. Often times when human beings begin to explore their minds using psychedelics they have trouble remaining grounded and DMT, with it's predisposition to entity contact, seems more dangerous in this regard than say LSD, at least on the surface anyway.

On a personal level, it was LSD that gave me the trip that left me with to many questions and no way for my little primate brain to properly integrate... and it was DMT that showed me that it was okay to let go and let my preconceived notions, rather those be spiritual, religious, or skeptical in nature, slide.

That learning to let go, to truly be open minded, is what has kept me sane and even allowed me to regain some sanity after that LSD trip.

Maybe I would have figured it out on my own eventually without DMT or maybe I could have found another way, through a good therapist for instance. But the fact remains, the first time I came up on DMT it was more than I could handle, so I had to let go. And thus I learned possibly the most valuable lesson I have thus far in life.

 

[regret and hope]

edge2054,

the reason why I picked on DMT in the original posting was mainly just because of the general sentiment towards it at that time on the shroomery. In 2008, when someone would post a topic about spiritual use of LSD or psilocybin, it would usually be countered with harsh flaming. Many users reacted very hostile to the implication that they had anything more than just recreational value. Strangely, it seemed to me that this was not the case for DMT, maybe because the majority of the users had never tried it back then. I actually had hardly any noteworthy experience with DMT at that time. My experiences were mostly with psilocybin mushrooms, which I had used many times in medium to high doses (5g+ of dried cubensis).

Afterwards, I stopped ingesting mushrooms and instead I started to appreciate Ayahuasca, often without any DMT admixture plants. I believe that Ayahuasca is more healthy for me, and increasing health is my main concern today when I use such plants. In hindsight, I find that for me the experiences provided by Ayahuasca are more easily integrated than those provided by mushrooms.

 

[trufflz]

The idea that you are retracting your consideration is what I find offensive.

It is never a good idea to take things personally and to heart... I really feel that offense should be reserved in the case of this individual. He is obviously dealing with a tremendous amount of internal-conflict and it is difficult for anyone to pour out their heart and soul. He is putting himself at the mercy of our bias and for this I have a tremendous amount of respect.

regret and hope, you are glowing with sincerity. I can see that the conflict you face is heavily steeped in compassion and worry for others. Please do not dull your sense of consideration and your willingness to speak out.

As for your abilities to write in English, I wish I could speak (let alone write) my second language (French) as well as you do! Kudos. 8)

This all being said; I have a very contrasting opinion concerning this entire issue. Let's leave it at that

 

[hixidom]

regret and hope,

I read your original text as follows:
"People who take DMT say and believe things that I can't conceive of being true and that popular culture consider to be crazy, therefore DMT is bad."

That's a really dickish translation, and I'm sorry for not reading more deeply into your original text and for not trying harder to understand your view and its context.

That being said, thanks for retracting it. It's not your responsibility to censor your opinions such that they don't offend others, but I appreciate that you are recognizing that offense. I think that all beliefs are subjectively valid, so I respect your beliefs, whatever they were/are, as long as you respect the beliefs of others in turn.

 

[Global]

Wow, this is the most offensive post I have ever read here.

I loved your original post and thought it showed a very open mind considering something that many people are too closed minded to consider.

The offense you take is ironic in the context of open-mindedness; that is to say that it appears that you are discouraging learning and growth in an individual as it no longer resonates with your viewpoint. You encourage close-mindedness by inferring that retracting one's statement is offensive. One cannot learn and grow as a person without retraction of statements.

 

[Pandora]

Hello regret and hope,

Welcome (back) to the Nexus. Thank you for taking the time to write such a thorough introduction essay. I found it to be very interesting, a bit cryptic and focusing on the past.

All I can say is please try to leave the past there right where it belongs - it is past and done with. Look forward, always forward if you can.

So, are you completely done with DMT use in your life or are you back here because you are back working with the spice? If you mentioned that in your essay or reply I missed it.

I hope you find what you are looking for here - this place has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years in very very positive ways. I hope you take the time to take a good look around and I also hope you like what you see.

Again, welcome to the Nexus.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

The offense you take is ironic in the context of open-mindedness; that is to say that it appears that you are discouraging learning and growth in an individual as it no longer resonates with your viewpoint. You encourage close-mindedness by inferring that retracting one's statement is offensive. One cannot learn and grow as a person without retraction of statements.

While I respect your belief or opinion about this mine is not the same and I disagree.

first of all, the original view point never resonated with my viewpoint, I consider it to have valid points and to be considering something that I think a lot of people are unwilling to consider because they have closed their minds.

If you read what I wrote in this and the other thread my viewpoint was and is very different from the original post. So while it might appear to you that I am discouraging growth and learning because it doesn't resonate with my viewpoint this cannot be true for the original post did not resonate with my views. Moreover a change of the opinion of a person does not count as growth or learning because an opinion is subjective. So how can I be discouraging growth and learning when they aren't even related to the topic at all, and why would my motive in this be because the new opinion is different than mine when the original was also different than mine?


I find that retracting statements is itself ambiguous.

I am offended at the retraction of the consideration, not the statement itself. This is what I wrote and it is what I meant. I was offended at the retraction of the consideration. It does not appear that I wrote well enough for you to consider my words or you merely skimmed them and did not read them in detail, for you seem to address things I did not write or state as if I did write or state them and I find this frustrating.

I found the original post to be very open minded and objectively considered. I do not agree with it, I stated I thought it hit the nail on the head in a biased way but then proceeded to share my own opinion which was entirely different

This is the original post opinion, not the consideration, his changing of his opinion is not to me offensive in the slightest, nor do I view a change of an opinion as growth or learning per say, for those imply improvement, but I see a change in opinion or belief as motion, not as good or bad, a rejection of them as knowledge however I do view as growth and learning, but that is my opinion.

here is the original opinion of the first post:

In my opinion DMT is one of the most dangerous psychoactive substances known to mankind.
Its potential for causing mental harm is greatly underestimated.

and here is what I wrote:

A long term study of ayahuasca use in Brazil showed positive effects upon the mental health of the users in general. When long term studies of psychedelic uses show such things, we can assume that psychedelics are not good or bad, but are tools that can be used positively or negatively, just like a hammer or an axe.

I am curious Global if you truly disagree that DMT has the capacity to be dangerous and should be approached responsibly, but can also be incredibly productive and healthy?

The original poster proceeded to elaborate that the danger was psychotic delusion
ergo

In conclusion, i believe that DMT has the potential to cause severe psychosis with just one single dose of the drug.

And I wrote this:

In some individuals DMT and other drugs like it do promote the development of pre-existing psychosis, but these people tend to lack a certain type or rationality well before they ever take a psychedelic drug.

I did write that psychedelics can be dangerous, but I addressed behavior whilst on them (including in other mammals) and you (we all) likely know of an account not too long ago where someone was using DMT near water and drowned.

I never agreed with the original opinion that the danger of DMT is because of delusional beliefs, I even wrote this could have positive effects upon their behavior.

I still think it hit the nail on the head in a biased way. A lot of the more outspoken DMT users do not seem to question their beliefs, and yet most users I have met or encountered never established those beliefs at all. I believe people who do are in the minority of users but in the majority of the people who address such use publicly. An analogy is that the most outspoken of the religious people (pick one) tend to be the fundamentalists, in my own way I am saying that we have a lot of DMT fundamentalists. That is not a judgement for or against them, even if I do not share their beliefs that does not mean those beliefs are bad, or good, actions and consequences are, without such things beliefs are meaningless outside of opinion.

I agree that the original post was biased, but so are many of the responses, if not all of them, my own included.

I have used DMT quite a bit, and know many other who have as well, along with many other psychedelics. I disagree that a single dose can leave one deluded, however people are very impressionable and I could use a psychedelic to help delude them and get them to believe something that is not true. I know this because I have experienced it myself, I have tripped and thought I obtained knowledge and information about measurable events and totally believed it, until I came down and went to verify and learned that I had been deluded. My delusions were harmless enough, but the point is I was totally convinced of them, ergo my mind had closed.

 

[nen888]

^..DMT is a strong, sometimes confronting experience..
any kind of strong experience, in just the everyday non-dmt environment, can sometimes make the deluded even more deluded..
i agree with AlbertKLloyd's gist, that a single DMT experience is very unlikely (on it's own, without other drugs) to have a lasting delusional effect on a mentally balanced person..i have seen no real evidence of this..

 

[Global]

I found the original post to be very open minded and objectively considered. I do not agree with it, I stated I thought it hit the nail on the head in a biased way but then proceeded to share my own opinion which was entirely different

I had read your entire post, and you'll have to forgive me because the way it was coming across to me is that the experiences are not real (period) if for no other reason than people can't be objective about it, and that the resultant thinking in terms of making any statements affirming the reality of the DMT experience as delusional which I clearly interpreted as derisive.

 

[Jin]

people are very impressionable and I could use a psychedelic to help delude them and get them to believe something that is not true.

people only delude themselves when they try to understand the DMT experience in human terms , if human interpretation is applied to the experience sure one is bound to be deluded , however if one just clearly experiences with all his senses , leaving meanings where they belong in the human experience , then DMT and other psychadelics can definitely be useful

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

I found the original post to be very open minded and objectively considered. I do not agree with it, I stated I thought it hit the nail on the head in a biased way but then proceeded to share my own opinion which was entirely different

I had read your entire post, and you'll have to forgive me because the way it was coming across to me is that the experiences are not real (period) if for no other reason than people can't be objective about it, and that the resultant thinking in terms of making any statements affirming the reality of the DMT experience as delusional which I clearly interpreted as derisive.

My summary:

truth and non-truth are indistinguishable when it comes down to non-measurable beliefs.

The DMT user cannot possibly know if hyperspace for example, is real or is not real. There is zero chance that they can ever know, they can only believe or not.

i can have an opinion or belief, but that does not amount to knowledge. I am not making a claim that DMT perceptions are real or not, but am saying that unless they can be measured that the question of their reality is absurd.

However I do believe DMT like all psychedelics needs to be used responsibly. I still see the original post as being concerned primarily with harm reduction, not skepticism.

 

[Global]

truth and non-truth are indistinguishable when it comes down to non-measurable beliefs.

The DMT user cannot possibly know if hyperspace for example, is real or is not real. There is zero chance that they can ever know, they can only believe or not.

i can have an opinion or belief, but that does not amount to knowledge. I am not making a claim that DMT perceptions are real or not, but am saying that unless they can be measured that the question of their reality is absurd.

By this logic if someone from 200 years ago thought that x-rays might not be real, but since they weren't sure what exactly an x-ray actually is nor how they could possibly measure it or with what kind of instrument, and since it is normally imperceptible that the "truth" is that it is absurd for x-rays to exist.

 

[hixidom]

^ Nice example.

I would say that truth and non-truth are indistinguishable always. If AKL's statement is true AND the non-measurability of specific beliefs can be known to be true, then we have a paradox on our hands. Then again, I wouldn't say that a proposition is untrue just because my sober mind considers it paradoxical.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

truth and non-truth are indistinguishable when it comes down to non-measurable beliefs.

The DMT user cannot possibly know if hyperspace for example, is real or is not real. There is zero chance that they can ever know, they can only believe or not.

i can have an opinion or belief, but that does not amount to knowledge. I am not making a claim that DMT perceptions are real or not, but am saying that unless they can be measured that the question of their reality is absurd.

By this logic if someone from 200 years ago thought that x-rays might not be real, but since they weren't sure what exactly an x-ray actually is nor how they could possibly measure it or with what kind of instrument, and since it is normally imperceptible that the "truth" is that it is absurd for x-rays to exist.

That is my point, it is absurd to make claims about what cannot be measured as if they are knowledge. If there is X thing or phenomena, and it does exist but cannot be detected, it is absurd to say it exists or does not exist, it is utterly meaningless, just like X-rays were hundreds of years ago. As far as humanity was concerned with knowledge they did not exist back then in any informational context. Thus their existence at the time when they could not be detected was not truth at the time, because they could not be detected, though it is true they existed then, but we only know that from today's measurements.

I think truth only exists in the context of standardization and is otherwise a meaningless word. A weight is truth, it is measurable. An experience of that weight is also true. However to make a claim about knowing a weight without having ever measured it, to have an opinion on how much something weighs without detecting it is not truth, even if the opinion is a guess that is entirely accurate.

This is of course my opinion and nothing more than that.