Maybe...we just trip nuts

[Shayku]

You must chuckle quite a bit because thats pretty much what people do here.

Yes i've considered maybe we just trip nuts....

And YES, Terences novelty theory IS a theory. A theory is simply, a contemplation or speckulation as opposed to action. It's not definite. We won't know until it actually happens. We are all learning constantly. Some quicker then others... i will be the first to admit that i know im not all ways the brightest color in the box, but im here!

Yeah maybe Terence is crazy, heh. But he's the smartest crazy person i've ever heard.

A hypothesis is an unproven idea/contemplation/speculation based on something we have observed, aka the novelty hypothesis. When it becomes true it will be a theory.

Theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Godspark]

Nobody (or almost nobody) thinks dreams are not normal even if they are extremely weird. But humanity has been dreaming since I don't how for how long. So when one dreams, one only says "wow, that was something nice/weird/horrible/cute", and moves on. Sometimes dreams have such a great impact in our psyche that we remember them for a long time and sometimes forever, but we don't think they are not normal.

If I were able to remove one word and all of its definitions, scientific understandings, and meanings from humanity, I would remove the word "dream". Can you imagine the next day when everyone wakes up from their endogenous 'nutty trip'? Ooohh the freak outs that would ensue.

 

[Apoc]

Has anyone ever considered this? That maybe the psychedelic experience does not give way to greater consciousness and that we're so high that we are just tripping so hard that we don't know what is real anymore?

It seems you consider only 2 possibilities; that either the psychedelic experience gives way to a greater consciousness, or we're "just" tripping hard. The insinuation seems to be that anything less than greater consciousness is nothing impressive at all.

First, I have never confused what I experience in trips with physical reality, so I would have to say, no... I don't think I'm so high that I can't tell what's "real" anymore. I know it's all in my head. There is a change in perception, but I've never come out of a trip and sworn that I saw something that wasn't really there.... except of course, the images and ideas that appear in my own imagination.

On the other hand, have you ever considered that you have become so attached to everyday reality, you are tripping balls so hard on baseline consciousness that you can't even tell what's real anymore? Having lost the ability to accept anything other than baseline consciousness as real?

Furthermore, even if the latter point is true, that the pschedelic experience is completely illusory. Isn't that equally astounding, if not more than this supposed greater consciousness? If we have the power to imagine some kind of greater divine consciousness that isn't even there.... that's crazy. What does that mean? It means your mind is capable of more than you ever gave it credit for. And not only that, it means that your mind can FOOL you more than you ever thought it could! Imagine everything you ever thought to be holy, you suddenly realize was totally made up by yourself, just to give yourself a trip, just to give yourself a high that you get from believing in something. It means that everything you ever thought to be solid might not be... you could just be tripping. Your whole life could be a trip and you wouldn't know because you WANT to believe. You want to believe that your identity is solid. And why? Why would your own mind play tricks on you like that? It is an utter astounding mystery. The only answer seems to be.... why not?

I for one, kind of think that both suppositions are true; that the psychedelic experience is "just" an altered perception, and is another form of consciousness. Sure, the psychedelic experience is just a trip, just a perception... but what isn't? Is there anything other than perception? If there is, I'd sure like to know. What is this greater consciousness we speak of? Is it not just a perception you have from your assumed state of lesser consciousness? If this greater consciousness is really there, what does the greater consciousness think about you and your perception of it? How does it perceive you? Maybe it sees you as the greater consciousness. Maybe we're over here seeking a greater consciousness, and the greater consciousness is seeking us.

 

[universecannon]

Has anyone ever considered this? That maybe the psychedelic experience does not give way to greater consciousness and that we're so high that we are just tripping so hard that we don't know what is real anymore?

During my first ignorantly executed (bad set) heavy dose of acid (when i was real young) and idea similar to this was tearing me apart and really eating away at me relentlessly as i danced on the line between heaven and hell all night unable to figure it out. Finally i just let go and stopped worrying about it... Gradually i was consumed by this piercing white light and began flying away from the earth as this light-spiral of unbelievable love. i could see all sorts of organisms riding it along with me.. This was before i'd read all the theories on dna and psychedelics..I came out of it in tears. At that point it really felt like the proof was in the pudding.. though i really am not certain at all as to what these things really do to us.

I don't really think we can say whats real and whats not with any real certainty. Its all just experience one way or another. We're all swimming in a big mystery of uncertainty

But the idea that we are "just getting fucked up" with these things and deluding ourselves, or as some think, just stimulating parts of the brain resulting in a randomly generated experience of mish-mashed sensual data- doesn't hold much water in my mind. The experience as a whole and in its little parts is to meaningful, to emotional, magical, clear and coherent, -while, no doubt, being completely fucking nuts as well!- to be just simply an episode of complete delusion.

 

[Soulshine]

You must chuckle quite a bit because thats pretty much what people do here.

Yes i've considered maybe we just trip nuts....

And YES, Terences novelty theory IS a theory. A theory is simply, a contemplation or speckulation as opposed to action. It's not definite. We won't know until it actually happens. We are all learning constantly. Some quicker then others... i will be the first to admit that i know im not all ways the brightest color in the box, but im here!

Yeah maybe Terence is crazy, heh. But he's the smartest crazy person i've ever heard.

A hypothesis is an unproven idea/contemplation/speculation based on something we have observed, aka the novelty hypothesis. When it becomes true it will be a theory.

Theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I understand, I just have never heard it refered to as novelty "hypothesis". But dosen't it say right in the definition that it is a contemplation or speculation as i have said?

Perhaps its common knowledge that i don't have, and i didn't see in the wikipedia def, that when it becomes true its a theory. If something becomes true isn't it a fact?


Please correct me if im wrong. i hope im not coming off like a smart ass. As i said im just trying to learn...

 

[Metanoia]

I second the thought that it has a lot to do with out intentions when taking these substances. The high school kid who just wants to see "some fucked up shit" will usually see just that, because he isn't looking for any other deeper meaning in the experience. Of course, this may depend on the substance being taken. This was very much my outlook, my reason to take psychedelics, was just to "get high" and "see some fucked up shit". Then this very question, along with a few good ass-kickings, had me so disillusioned with psychedelics that I stopped doing them all together. I thought to myself, "None of it is real, it's all just some fake, weird, mind-fucky bullshit. There's no deeper meaning in this." I moved on to other, less "enlightening" substances. Eventually, they kicked my ass just as hard. Then I started to question the whole drug-induced experience, as a whole.

Heroin or LSD, cocaine or DMT, if abused, they'll kick your ass in the end. It may be in different manners, or on different time lines, but they'll feed you your ass alright.

So maybe that is part of the whole psychedelic intoxication? That these drugs can be so convincing real, they fool us into believing there is more to them than just some chemical reaction going on in our brains. After some very spiritual and meaningful experiences (that I did not ask for) I would have to say that there is more going on behind the curtain than just "we're tripping nuts." If these drugs are just fooling me, I'm glad to be fooled.

On the other hand, have you ever considered that you have become so attached to everyday reality, you are tripping balls so hard on baseline consciousness that you can't even tell what's real anymore? Having lost the ability to accept anything other than baseline consciousness as real?

I look at people who don't use any drugs as being this way often. They're so adamant that everyday reality is what is real, everything else is just fake nonsense. Almost always they are very close-minded and judgmental. Very "certain" about a great many things.

What interests me, keeps me getting up everyday and going out there in the world, is mystery. There are still a great many things that we can't (or won't) have answers for. That makes me feel like there's still a good reason to be here. If what I see, touch, smell, and hear was all there was to this existence, how dull and monotonous it would be.

 

[jbark]

Shayku wrote:

If you're experiencing it, how is it not 'real'? It may go away, it may be different from the rest of reality, it may be drug-induced, but did you not experience it? What is it that grants other experiences more 'reality'? If it's happening, it's real.

I don't know that I agree with this. If you have a conversation with a friend in a dream but, of course, in waking reality the friend has no recollection of the conversation, was the experience real? If you cheat on a spouse in a dream, or kill someone known to you or not?

One may argue that a dream is another reality and within the confines of that reality the experiences are true and real, but what about simply imagining the above situations? In great detail? With a paucity of detail? or if not a dream, experiencing them in a hypnagogic, or meditational state? Where would the line be between what is real and not? Is there such a scale as more and less real, or is it a strict binary system, real OR unreal, but never anywhere in between...?

I think you need to define your terms clearly; the statement "If it's happening, it's real" needs a definition of "happening" in order to be true or false. What is it to "happen"?

hap·pen/ˈhapən/Verb
1. Take place; occur.
2. Ensue as an effect or result of an action or event.

If 20 people are in a room and 1 person sees a table topple over, but the other 19 people do not, did the table toppling occur? did it "ensue as an effect or result of an action or event"?

And if that one person is on a psychoactive substance and is the only person witnessing the melting of the walls? Are the walls melting? Is it happening? For this person only? And what are the actions or events that result in the effect of the walls melting for this one person? (and not for the 19 others?)

These are profound questions, and I expect many (conflicting ) theories.

JBArk

 

[Skizm]

You must chuckle quite a bit because thats pretty much what people do here.

Yes i've considered maybe we just trip nuts....

And YES, Terences novelty theory IS a theory. A theory is simply, a contemplation or speckulation as opposed to action. It's not definite. We won't know until it actually happens. We are all learning constantly. Some quicker then others... i will be the first to admit that i know im not all ways the brightest color in the box, but im here!

Yeah maybe Terence is crazy, heh. But he's the smartest crazy person i've ever heard.

A hypothesis is an unproven idea/contemplation/speculation based on something we have observed, aka the novelty hypothesis. When it becomes true it will be a theory.

Theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I understand, I just have never heard it refered to as novelty "hypothesis". But dosen't it say right in the definition that it is a contemplation or speculation as i have said?

Perhaps its common knowledge that i don't have, and i didn't see in the wikipedia def, that when it becomes true its a theory. If something becomes true isn't it a fact?


Please correct me if im wrong. i hope im not coming off like a smart ass. As i said im just trying to learn...

A hypothesis is a generalization based on observed data. It has yet to be proven right or wrong.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven to work in the vast majority of circumstances. A theory can never be proven 100% right.

Most people here confuse the two. Mr. McKenna has a hypothesis, not a theory.

Whenever you hear a friend say "I have a theory that..." they should be saying hypothesis because they have not subjected their idea to testing through the scientific method.

 

[Eden]

Q: Did you know what was meant?
A: Yes.

Language is a method of communication...if you understood the intention, why degrade a discussion into an argument of semantics?

If 20 people are in a room and 1 person sees a table topple over, but the other 19 people do not, did the table toppling occur? did it "ensue as an effect or result of an action or event"

I would have to say yes, it did happen, at least for the person who saw it. The thing about our physicality is that we are completely constrained by our own perspectives. I feel determining what actually does occur is an empty exercise if your own account of existence is completely conflicting. If I see a table fall over, and 19 people tell me it did not, I still have more evidence pointing to the fact that it did.

I am reminded of this graceful statement.

EVERYWHERE I LOOK I CREATE

 

[○]

These experiences are outside of our realm of what we consider to be 'normal'.

Only because of cultural boundaries.

These visionary experiences are part of a "spectrum of reality". Ordinary consciousness, visionary realms, dreams and imagination are just examples of what humans can do in this planet, with this body, in this dimension. These visionary experiences seem strange and not normal because we haven't done them enough throughout history. If in the future we discover yet another "realities", they will appear supernatural and strange to us, but with time, they will be adapted to what is normal for a human to do. Just like dreams.

Nobody (or almost nobody) thinks dreams are not normal even if they are extremely weird. But humanity has been dreaming since I don't how for how long. So when one dreams, one only says "wow, that was something nice/weird/horrible/cute", and moves on. Sometimes dreams have such a great impact in our psyche that we remember them for a long time and sometimes forever, but we don't think they are not normal.

This planet contains psychoactive plants and fungi. We are inhabitants of this planet. We eat them. There is nothing extraordinary in that.

Some people think these visions are special because they are projecting their own needs. These visions are part of the human experience.


Are we "tripping balls"? Yes.

Why?

The answer is here

[YOUTUBE]

If the DMT experience (or any psychedelic is just tripping balls, then we are ALWAYS tripping balls. Always.)

Even in the so.called "Ordinary consciousness"

Exactly my thoughts. cool video clouds.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Q: Did you know what was meant?
A: Yes.

Language is a method of communication...if you understood the intention, why degrade a discussion into an argument of semantics?

Because then you can't tell the other person that they are wrong and you are right and, let's be real, isn't that why we engage in discussion?

I am reminded of this graceful statement.

EVERYWHERE I LOOK I CREATE

Great quote...I really dig it 8)

 

[Eden]

Well you can thank our wonderful brother jbark for that one.
Guess I forgot to add him as the quotee.

 

[Soulshine]

Skizm,
Thanks for having patience, and clearing that up for me. I really appreciate you taking the time to break it down for me in layman's terms. I can see how people can get the two confused. And sorry if you thought my responce was a bit flakey... i thought it was a fairly open ended question with an open ended responce.

I actually thought about what you said several times during work today. I guess i felt a bit embarrassed and kind of hung out to dry i guess im just a pretty sensitive guy (especially when discussing the Other relm and my bubble gets burst). I got over it though...

Thanks again,
Soulshine

 

[Skizm]

Skizm,
Thanks for having patience, and clearing that up for me. I really appreciate you taking the time to break it down for me in layman's terms. I can see how people can get the two confused. And sorry if you thought my responce was a bit flakey... i thought it was a fairly open ended question with an open ended responce.

I actually thought about what you said several times during work today. I guess i felt a bit embarrassed and kind of hung out to dry i guess im just a pretty sensitive guy (especially when discussing the Other relm and my bubble gets burst). I got over it though...

Thanks again,
Soulshine

I just like having the language clear for both parties. It makes our discussion a lot easier! My whole view-point, is that psychedelics have taken me to realms I never could have supposed existed. While under the influence, the things I felt were infinitely more real than anything I have ever felt in my life. One thing I consistently come back with from my trips is that there are other levels of reality.

Yet, when we experience these things we instantly chalk (maybe not instantly, incorporating them can be a bit disorienting) them it up as proof of these other realms. I feel that our biggest flaw is that we do not step back from the experience and objectively look at it. The reason people take heroin is to be really high. Maybe us taking psychedelics, is just another iteration of that. We take them to be really high, we just appreciate a different high from others.

Am I knocking the psychedelic experience? Naw, I love it to much, I'm such a hopeless romantic when it comes to it. I've just been thinking about this recently and was wondering if anyone else had run this through their head.

P.S: The amazing thing about science is we are more than willing to scrap our current ideas when a better idea that explains a little bit more of the picture. If the time-wave zero thing actually turns out to be correct, which who knows, it might. Scientists, if we are all still around, will say 'hey this guy had it right, but why?' and begin dissecting Terence's work. We always need people to throw those crazy ideas out because the one time they are actually right it could change everything.

 

[gibran2]

...Yet, when we experience these things we instantly chalk (maybe not instantly, incorporating them can be a bit disorienting) them it up as proof of these other realms. I feel that our biggest flaw is that we do not step back from the experience and objectively look at it. The reason people take heroin is to be really high. Maybe us taking psychedelics, is just another iteration of that. We take them to be really high, we just appreciate a different high from others.

There is no proof that the realm I visit while under the influence of DMT is real, just as there is no proof that my everyday experience is real.

You over-generalize when you refer to “we”. Some step back and look at their experiences very objectively. Others don’t. Some may take DMT and/or other psychedelics to get “really high”. Others don’t.

 

[clouds]

...Yet, when we experience these things we instantly chalk (maybe not instantly, incorporating them can be a bit disorienting) them it up as proof of these other realms. I feel that our biggest flaw is that we do not step back from the experience and objectively look at it. The reason people take heroin is to be really high. Maybe us taking psychedelics, is just another iteration of that. We take them to be really high, we just appreciate a different high from others.

There is no proof that the realm I visit while under the influence of DMT is real, just as there is no proof that my everyday experience is real.

You over-generalize when you refer to “we”. Some step back and look at their experiences very objectively. Others don’t. Some may take DMT and/or other psychedelics to get “really high”. Others don’t.

And some Fantasize and some Rationalize. Others both.

 

[camdemonium]

How do you know that what you experience as life isn’t a dream or illusion? How can you know that anything other than your own consciousness actually exists?

You always nail it on the head gibran2!

 

[SKA]

Wow excellent discussion people!
Just reading it for a while totally brought peace to my mind, insight and brought me to a higher level. Much thanks for that.

I have in fact often considered the "what if we all entheogenically made ourselves schizophrenic and joined together to reach some kind of new reality-consensus that makes us feel we areactually very sane"-hypothesis out of doubt and curiosity.

However I cannot really say there is a norm in this reality. To me the Material realm doesn't seem significantly more "normal" than the Immaterial realm(as experienced in Dreams and Entheogenesis). Day to day Material life, Night to Night Dream Life and the Entheogenic experiences in between all seem to be the ingredients of one and the same bizarre, breathtaking, everything but "normal" experience. Are "Normal" and "Weird" not actually just Subjective Judgements of experience and nothing more then a bad, compulsive habbit of judgement? Or would such Judgements have Biological/Sociological purposes behind them?


I think mankinds priority is not to achieve a universal consensus of what is "normal", but instead to achieve a universal consensus on what is Humane, Durable and Ecologically Responsible first. If we, troublesome sophisticated apes, can reach such a Consensus before we wipe ourselves out, then we could allways proceed pondering philosophical questions such as "What is the defenition of Normal?"