Is DMT experience similar to Picture Arts?

[goodone22]

I have not used DMT yet...only one time and it didn't work.
but i'd like to know Is What you see on DMT all alike to DMT gallery?
i mean is there even a real world like human world on DMT?
Or is What you see always like distorted art environment?

 

[PedroSanchez]

the only thing that was interesting to me was the theory of afterlife On Dmt and eternity which if that be the real case we all are involved and i hope not!thats scary to think there is no merciful GOD and no paradise like what religions say.it feels we all are doomed.so i hope thats only our hallucination no matter how much we feel real on psychedelics.

why does there need to be a god? the places i have "visited" using DMT as my vessel need no gods.
in this world we are so used to having a single point of humanity dictate our world to us that we expect to see it in "heaven", but to me a true heaven is not dictated by a god, it is a complete freedom of the soul, which is definitely portrayed in my experiences. if the place i have been is heaven then i welcome it with open arms.

we also should not ignore that maybe peoples presumptions about heaven are wrong, maybe it is not a place of gods and representations of material things (paradise?), maybe it is a place where pure data flies around and intermingles (certainly adds up that it would be where all life is created), or maybe it is the experience of our energies floating around the vastness of the physical world, but with no physical sensors such as eyes, ears etc to decipher the information we are left with basic interactions with other energies, which are portrayed in such an alien manner to us because we only have a world of photons, matter and sound waves to compare it to. e.g. imagine if we had another organ that could detect radiation, what would that sense feel like? probably quite alien to sight or sound etc.

or maybe the god/s is/are there and we just do not experience them, or forget we experienced them. i have never experienced interactions with gods but i have read about people who claim they have (or entities claiming to be gods), so maybe they really are there, but we only access them when they are absolutely needed, or our physical minds cannot comprehend them so we "forget".

as for the paradise, that is completely relative, but i think most people think of paradise to contain material things that make up the paradise, even if it is just mountains and oceans, they are material things when compared to the DMT world. for me, when you remove the physical world (all material things), what is left is nothing. compared to that, the DMT world is an absolute heaven.

just some thoughts, but who knows!?

 

[fink]

Your reality is yours to believe however you choose. If it is working for you, dont change it.

Brilliant. For me, wrestling with this concept has been so profound. I have heard this said many times over many years, but didn't actually understand it until this year. Understanding that who I 'am' is quite literally my own construct felt like the first time I rode a bike.

There's some balance to be had here if we're going to concede to the probability of other minds existing in the same milieu. Hence why we research different topics. Reality is likely not all "relative" but a mix of objectivity, relativity, and subjectivity, on various layers of "existence."

And shouldn't beliefs be steeped more in "truth" rather than convenience, ie, shouldn't we be aiming to believe what is "true?"

One love

I think belief is actually the opposite. I would classify truth as knowledge.

Belief is something I dont need any proof for. Truth I will find with the scientific method. Belief comes from somewhere untouchable.

Eh... I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.



One love

Interesting read, thank you. It is probably semantics as often is the case. Belief is an emotional feeling for me and I dont need proof to believe something. I've actually written the first half of a novel that kind of deals with my view on this. One day I'll finish it.

Sure, I can believe something that is proven scientifically. Or I can say I know it. Belief is faith to me. Semantics.

 

[dragonrider]

Your reality is yours to believe however you choose. If it is working for you, dont change it.

Brilliant. For me, wrestling with this concept has been so profound. I have heard this said many times over many years, but didn't actually understand it until this year. Understanding that who I 'am' is quite literally my own construct felt like the first time I rode a bike.

There's some balance to be had here if we're going to concede to the probability of other minds existing in the same milieu. Hence why we research different topics. Reality is likely not all "relative" but a mix of objectivity, relativity, and subjectivity, on various layers of "existence."

And shouldn't beliefs be steeped more in "truth" rather than convenience, ie, shouldn't we be aiming to believe what is "true?"

One love

I think belief is actually the opposite. I would classify truth as knowledge.

Belief is something I dont need any proof for. Truth I will find with the scientific method. Belief comes from somewhere untouchable.

Eh... I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.



One love

Interesting read, thank you. It is probably semantics as often is the case. Belief is an emotional feeling for me and I dont need proof to believe something. I've actually written the first half of a novel that kind of deals with my view on this. One day I'll finish it.

Sure, I can believe something that is proven scientifically. Or I can say I know it. Belief is faith to me. Semantics.

This is exactly my position as well.

I also find it easier to change my beliefs about something. With things i think i know, i would realy need some hard evidence to convince me i was wrong about them. Something that can shed a different light on the facts that led me to conclude that X was true.

With beliefs, it is easier. At some point it may no longer feel right for me, to believe in something, and then the belief sort of vanishes in thin air.

I don't take my own beliefs very seriously either. When i buy someone a present because i believe that he or she may realy like it, i am less likely to spent a shitload of money on it, than if i actually know it for sure for instance.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Your reality is yours to believe however you choose. If it is working for you, dont change it.

Brilliant. For me, wrestling with this concept has been so profound. I have heard this said many times over many years, but didn't actually understand it until this year. Understanding that who I 'am' is quite literally my own construct felt like the first time I rode a bike.

There's some balance to be had here if we're going to concede to the probability of other minds existing in the same milieu. Hence why we research different topics. Reality is likely not all "relative" but a mix of objectivity, relativity, and subjectivity, on various layers of "existence."

And shouldn't beliefs be steeped more in "truth" rather than convenience, ie, shouldn't we be aiming to believe what is "true?"

One love

I think belief is actually the opposite. I would classify truth as knowledge.

Belief is something I dont need any proof for. Truth I will find with the scientific method. Belief comes from somewhere untouchable.

Eh... I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.



One love

Interesting read, thank you. It is probably semantics as often is the case. Belief is an emotional feeling for me and I dont need proof to believe something. I've actually written the first half of a novel that kind of deals with my view on this. One day I'll finish it.

Sure, I can believe something that is proven scientifically. Or I can say I know it. Belief is faith to me. Semantics.

I gotcha. And yeah, I find semantics important. That's how we find common ground towards understanding.

But now I have another one for you :twisted:



One love

 

[fink]

This is exactly my position as well.

I also find it easier to change my beliefs about something. With things i think i know, i would realy need some hard evidence to convince me i was wrong about them. Something that can shed a different light on the facts that led me to conclude that X was true.

With beliefs, it is easier. At some point it may no longer feel right for me, to believe in something, and then the belief sort of vanishes in thin air.

I don't take my own beliefs very seriously either.

^ this, especially the last line. I really love how you describe this dragon.



Void, I'll ha e a look at the second link too. Hey look, another thread I've helped to hijack

 

[Voidmatrix]

Void, I'll ha e a look at the second link too. Hey look, another thread I've helped to hijack

I was thinking the same as I was clicking the link :lol:

So I'll leave it by saying that what I was alluding to is that while these ideas may seem distinct, disconnected, and disparate on the surface, there may be more inextricable, recursive, and reciprocal relationships and links to these ideas on deeper more fundamental layers.

One love

 

[○]

For me there's not much [if any] art out there that touches what the state actually looks like when you're there, 100% in it. To me there's some art out there that catches glimpses of the state, portions, but as far as a complete [or near complete] portrayl goes I personally haven't seen anyone come even remotely close.

 

[goodone22]

the only thing that was interesting to me was the theory of afterlife On Dmt and eternity which if that be the real case we all are involved and i hope not!thats scary to think there is no merciful GOD and no paradise like what religions say.it feels we all are doomed.so i hope thats only our hallucination no matter how much we feel real on psychedelics.

why does there need to be a god? the places i have "visited" using DMT as my vessel need no gods.
in this world we are so used to having a single point of humanity dictate our world to us that we expect to see it in "heaven", but to me a true heaven is not dictated by a god, it is a complete freedom of the soul, which is definitely portrayed in my experiences. if the place i have been is heaven then i welcome it with open arms.

we also should not ignore that maybe peoples presumptions about heaven are wrong, maybe it is not a place of gods and representations of material things (paradise?), maybe it is a place where pure data flies around and intermingles (certainly adds up that it would be where all life is created), or maybe it is the experience of our energies floating around the vastness of the physical world, but with no physical sensors such as eyes, ears etc to decipher the information we are left with basic interactions with other energies, which are portrayed in such an alien manner to us because we only have a world of photons, matter and sound waves to compare it to. e.g. imagine if we had another organ that could detect radiation, what would that sense feel like? probably quite alien to sight or sound etc.

or maybe the god/s is/are there and we just do not experience them, or forget we experienced them. i have never experienced interactions with gods but i have read about people who claim they have (or entities claiming to be gods), so maybe they really are there, but we only access them when they are absolutely needed, or our physical minds cannot comprehend them so we "forget".

as for the paradise, that is completely relative, but i think most people think of paradise to contain material things that make up the paradise, even if it is just mountains and oceans, they are material things when compared to the DMT world. for me, when you remove the physical world (all material things), what is left is nothing. compared to that, the DMT world is an absolute heaven.

just some thoughts, but who knows!?

Considering there is Causality Law everywhere in this logical world,it should be a creator for every thing,it can not be made without someone who makes.
and you may say then who made GOD?
I think God is far beyond any Law and any material that we know,so we cannot comprehend god correctly because we are only human and we have little to no wisdom compared to God and divine creatures.and we are stuck in the rigid thinking of this world.i'm not sure about DMT experiences as it is strange and makes people go more than mind's limits,however it may be just messing with mind and making it mixed up everything as medical doctors and scientific literature says it's just kind of psychosis and hallucination.so what we see on DMT may not be trustworthy enough to use for determining Whether or not there is GOD or anything more than this material world.
but i agree probably heaven and afterlife isn't materialistic and it should be about spirit and inner existence things because thats deeper and thats how we reach to truth(skipping external attractions and concentrating on inner concepts.but still i think we better not be certain at any point because it can have consequences of believing.

 

[Cosmo D]

I have not used DMT yet...only one time and it didn't work.
but i'd like to know Is What you see on DMT all alike to DMT gallery?
i mean is there even a real world like human world on DMT?
Or is What you see always like distorted art environment?

The collection by Cyb in the gallery are very close to some of the visions I have seen while traveling different levels of hyperspace. In particular Lattice, Golden Child and Out of REM.

 

[PedroSanchez]

Considering there is Causality Law everywhere in this logical world,it should be a creator for every thing,it can not be made without someone who makes.
and you may say then who made GOD?
I think God is far beyond any Law and any material that we know,so we cannot comprehend god correctly because we are only human and we have little to no wisdom compared to God and divine creatures.and we are stuck in the rigid thinking of this world.i'm not sure about DMT experiences as it is strange and makes people go more than mind's limits,however it may be just messing with mind and making it mixed up everything as medical doctors and scientific literature says it's just kind of psychosis and hallucination.so what we see on DMT may not be trustworthy enough to use for determining Whether or not there is GOD or anything more than this material world.
but i agree probably heaven and afterlife isn't materialistic and it should be about spirit and inner existence things because thats deeper and thats how we reach to truth(skipping external attractions and concentrating on inner concepts.but still i think we better not be certain at any point because it can have consequences of believing.

i can see where you are coming from. if there is a god/s i think it is safe to say they are unlikely to exist in a way that humans can understand (at least not yet). i often think of them as "things" rather than "beings".
for a very crude example, just pretend that we knew the big bang happened for a fact, that might be considered a god of some sort (albeit a very low level one), as in the actual event itself is the god. it would have created so much life and is still here now, we are all made up of it and it dictates our world as we know it, just like a low level god.
there is also the possibility that we are just living our lives on some form of petri dish, unaware of life outside of that environment and unable to ever detect that it even exists. in which case the gods would be the things that put us there, even if they do not know they did it.
i agree we came from somewhere, but i can't commit to deciding if it was a conscious creation or a series of lucky events. a series of lucky events is difficult to grasp for me, but then so is creation, for the reasons you pointed out :lol:

this is such a fascinating topic to think about! there are so many layers of questions and every answer raises more questions, but we can never even know if we have any of the answers right. it is the most beautiful self torture there is

 

[dragonrider]

I don't think it is logically impossible that the chain of causality is without an ending/beginning.

I believe this is sometimes being referred to as "turtles all the way down", meant to invalidate theories that imply endless regressions.

But the main problem with endless regression, i think, is that it does not explain to us where we came from. But that would only be our own problem.

Just the fact that something doesn't satisfy our desire for clear answers doesn't have to mean that it's also impossible.

In science and math, people usually don't like explanations that result in endless regressions, but this is because of practical reasons: your theory or model needs to have a foundation somewhere.

But again, i think that the fact that you can't build a model around something, doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Hume effectively brought the idea of causality into question, positing that maybe we see things occur in succession but without actual connection of cause, but more pattern: what follows from what rather than what causes what. He thought maybe we fill that part in.

Our ideas of beginnings and the patent assumption that beginnings can be applied to all instances is predicated in our immediate experience it seems.

One love

 

[downwardsfromzero]

Somehow stumbling across this quote from Spinal Tap seems timely here :lol:
"Well, I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like? It's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe, you say, if the universe is indeed infinite, then how - what does that mean? How far is all the way, and then if it stops, what's stopping it, and what's behind what's stopping it? So, what's the end, you know, is my question to you."
Courtesy of Stay Up Forever:
[youtube]

 

[Voidmatrix]

Makes me think of Aristotle's idea of first mover, or prime mover: that which moves but remains unmoved; that which changes but remains unchanged.

One love

 

[PedroSanchez]

i agree, the concept of infinity seems difficult to understand for a lot of people, probably because everything we know in our lives has a beginning and an end at face value.

that said, sometimes the math theory breaks down when applied to reality, so although infinity exists in theory it does not really mean it definitely exists in nature. for example when you divide a whole object into three parts (1/3) you do not really get a piece that is 0.3 recurring in size because the physical world does not allow us to simply divide one into three. imagine trying to put a dot on 0.3 recurring on a ruler, it is impossible, the number is uncountably infinite, so once you commit to a point the recurring parts disappear and reality slaps you back into reality.
another example of the same thing is 1/3*3. this sum turns 1 into 0.9 recurring, losing a small portion without actually removing any parts. it is not magic and it is not reality, it is just a flawed theory. even now in 2022 we cannot do basic maths

countably infinite is probably different in my opinion, which i think is what we are looking at with things like where we came from or where we are going. if we start counting to infinity we can never finish, in theory or in reality.

which leaves me back at the beginning of not knowing what to think :lol:

i think our commitment to models and theories is holding us back. i completely understand why we use them of course, but we seem to have this mindset of if the model doesn't fit then it is an impossibility.
we already know that physics changes on a small scale, so we have already proven ourselves wrong that things have to match our current understanding of physics, and thus models and theories.