My theory on DMT

[hug46]

I can't help but think this is somehow directed at me. Unfortunately it is not my fault that I am having problems with weed, it is genetic.... For this reason I am very hesitant to take a dive into hyperspace, I don't want to end up in a straight jacket speaking gibberish. I'm a very down to earth person and I think this experience would leave me in a complete mind-fuck. Especially with my habit of having to rationalize and explain everything.

I sympathise with you in this respect. I have had similar problems in the past, usually with the hardcore THC laden skunk (although i have usually been ok on LSD). I believe it could be genetic as my dad went psycotic when he gave up drinking (and got sectioned).

To be honest i agree that there is a large possibility that we are just under a hyper hallucinogenic, suggestible state and could be prone to believing whatever our inner core beliefs tell us at the time of tripping. However there is also a strong possibility that we are also having our perceptions altered to see a different side of the coin of reality.

At present no-one really knows. You take DMT and then make your own mind up. But i am pretty sure that your theories about what the DMT experience entails will change back and forth as time progresses. This may also depend on how far you get into it. I reckon it takes a few goes to get your vaping/relaxation tecnique sorted.

Either way, whether you are doing DMT or ayahusca, i wish you safe and good quality travels.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

This thread was too silly to jump into before... yet another person stating Kent's assertions as their own "theory."

I can assure you I did not borrow this theory from James Kent, I only used some of his quotes because perhaps he has more credibility, and expereince with DMT than me. Besides, all this theory is just the complete opposite of the "hyperspace is real" crowd. It's not hard to come by.

What you are describing is not a "theory" but an opinion that challenges the theories of others and supports the theories and opinions of a few people who tend to have bad reputations in the entheogen using community.

To come to a place where people are actually working on theories about hyperspace, and tout an opinion formed on no actual personal experience or knowledge, which differs in no way from the half-dozen other inexperienced people who either come here touting it, or are quoted on these threads as believing something very similar... is not worthy of being dubbed a theory. IMO

A theory with your name on it would require you breaking new ground or coming up with something that is not so "dime a dozen." I would be ashamed to start a thread titled "My Theory On String and M-branes" where all I did was agree with and quote someone else. If on that thread, I basically restated someone like Witten... I would indeed be borrowing his theory, even if I was only recently familiar with it.

1) Having a strong opinion about something you have never experienced is generally not a wise thing.

So I'm not allowed to inquire about it just because I've never done it?

Inquire away amigo. I only said in my post that you are entitled to have and express an opinion and that skepticism is a healthy place to start from. But you, my friend, have not come here with an "inquiring minds want to know" attitude. You may be coming around to that in the last page, but as a whole this thread has you coming off as someone who has never had sex trying to explain away orgasms. I think most would agree that such a conjecture (esp from a virgin) would barely be worth replying to.

Children have opinions about how televisions work... but they are almost always wrong. It is through years of inquiry that they might one day actually come to understand how they really work.

No one calls themself a researcher if all they are doing is reading the reports of others. One must do some personal experimentation and come up with something that adds to the existing debate or you are just a spectator and not a theorist.

You railed against semantics, but many of us here find that defining these words properly is paramount to even attempt communication on things that are slippery enough to begin with. This is a key to logical debate.

You have said that it is your keen logical facility alone that enables you to know fairly well what those of us here somehow missed in our years of study and practical experience. And yet, you do not demonstrate any logic... but rather resort to a number of obvious logical fallacies to support your argument. It is rather too bad that logic is no longer a required course, as it is a very useful subject... one which many science minded youngsters assume that they have mastered despite never studying it.

Stating things you learn in your hard sciences classes as the foundation of logic is simply untrue. According to logic and epistemology, all science is flawed and can produce no true knowledge whatsoever due to the problem of induction.

Scientist tend to ignore this as well as a good many other things that interfere with their sense that they are part of some grand understanding of the Universe that any day now will explain all phenomenon and replace the superstitions of the unenlightened masses... pointedly bashing philosophers, mystics, theism in general and a host of other hoary and honored fields of inquiry. Alas, despite asserting this stuff for generations, they are no closer to explaining any of the fundamental mysteries and have not managed to even prove that the Universe is actually material. In fact, the more brilliant among them have begun to restate mysticism into their language and are coming up with holographic universe theories and other such things that basically agree with what mystics have been saying for millenia.

5) Why is the OP so intent on studying DMT if he/she has no intention of trying it? If the OP is prone to psychosis (as indicated) then perhaps being obsessed with an hallucinogen is not the best use of your time.

Another quick witted assumption. I do have the intention of trying DMT, in the form of Ayhuasca. It would be safer for my psyche because it's more gradual and less intense.

As far as I can tell, this is the first time you said this on this thread.

As a longtime fan of Aya, as well as a leader of many a medicine circle... and someone who has trained with ayahuasceros, and experimented with dozens of combinations of ayahuaca analogues... I have to tell you that while it is more gradual and less of a sledgehammer in its effects, it is in no way safer for your psyche. Being in that space for 6 hours can lead to very profound and prolonged assaults on your worldview. While you may be able to brace yourself and be astounded for 5 minutes, a full aya journey will get under your skin and seep deeply into your being.

That said, I think ayahuasca may indeed be good for you when you are ready for it. Make sure not to combine it with any pharmaceutical medication. These days where 70% of Americans are on scripts, it is rather hard to give anyone the brew. Most people have to get off their antidepressants, their ADHD medication, their anti-anxiety pills and what not before even thinking about the magic of ayahuasca. This is further exacerbated because people who are on such drugs tend to have mental problems of some sort that they have not been facing or dealing with... which will come up in spades when they are off their meds and on an entheogen.

I turn away most such people and recommend that they begin a practice of yoga and meditation for a few years and then come back to the idea once they have developed their introspective abilities a bit. I tend to catch flack for this, but I believe that people who can not control their own psyche enough to not need pills from psychiatrists really have no business attempting to be psychonauts. Just like people who are morbidly obese and out of shape have no business trying to be astronauts.

Insisting that your theory explains DMT or that OBEs are all illusions simply because they can be triggered by stimulating the brain a certain way is a classic rush to judgement fallacy.

I believe you are mistaking me with another poster. Though I know of Dr.Persingers "god helmet", I did not mention anything of the sort on this thread.

I have recently acquired a SHAKTI set up which is directly based on Persinger's so-called "god helmet."

If it wasn't you who was talking about NDEs and OBEs as "fully explained as illusion" simply because they can sometimes be induced by stimulating the TPL, then excuse me, and that poster can consider that part of my post as directed towards them. Your "theory" that DMT is purely neurochemical and thus not capable of generating objectively real experiences is still very close to this, and my comments still apply, though.

I really think that the current wave of interest in DMT by young, inexperienced, non-psychonaut materialists is a bit disheartening. Most of these kids are not really cut out for DMT. If someone has a hard time with weed and hasn't even done LSD... they should probably put off doing DMT until they learn to doggy paddle in the shallow end of the pool.


HF

I can't help but think this is somehow directed at me. Unfortunately it is not my fault that I am having problems with weed, it is genetic.... For this reason I am very hesitant to take a dive into hyperspace, I don't want to end up in a straight jacket speaking gibberish. I'm a very down to earth person and I think this experience would leave me in a complete mind-fuck. Especially with my habit of having to rationalize and explain everything.

I am not sure this current wave of propoganda about marijuana psychosis is any more founded in reality than the marijuana psychosis talk of the 30's, 50's, 70's or any other time. It is possible that people like you are genetically predisposed to losing your minds... but anecdotal evidence is against the idea that any significant number of weed smokers are going crazy from weed. Given the incredibly large number of people of every genetic disposition that are successfully using cannabis, and the long history of the anti-drug crowd pulling such studies completely out of their poop shoot only to have their assertions shot down time and time again by actual studies... I would not rush to judgement about this.

That said, weed is very strong today and most people only need a half a hit to get properly stoned if their tolerance is low. Now that weed quality in the heartlands is finally catching up to places like California and The Netherlands... people are starting to realize how profoundly mind altering cannabis actually is. But having a psychedelic experience on cannabis does not make you psychotic. Psychedelics are not actually psychotomimetic... despite decades of propoganda to the contrary.

If anything, entheogens might actually be the only safe treatments for mental disorders. Though, I stress, that such unstable people should not attempt to use psychedelics unguided. A proper shaman or at the very least a good friend with plenty of experience who is willing to go through some difficult stuff with you is a good idea.

Anyway, good luck to you. I have said that someone prone to psychosis should probably not be obsessing over an hallucinogen... or anything for that matter... but if you feel very called to DMT, there is probably a reason. Perhaps you are being guided to this most miraculous of chemicals because you actually do need to have this experience. In this case, keep doing your research, and when you are ready... try the sacred spice. Feel free to come back then and tell us what your new thoughts on the matter are.

Namaste
HF

 

[hug46]

but as a whole this thread has you coming off as someone who has never had sex trying to explain away orgasms. I think most would agree that such a conjecture (esp from a virgin) would barely be worth replying to.
HF

Apparently not...If the last 5 pages (and counting) are anything to go by.

 

[The Neural]

What you are describing is not a "theory" but an opinion that challenges the theories of others and supports the theories and opinions of a few people who tend to have bad reputations in the entheogen using community.

What he is describing (The opposite of "Hysperspace is real" ), is indeed a theory, based on subjective evidence, as is everything. Not an opinion. The field of neuroscience is still valid regardless of how much each of us "trusts" it or not, and the OP is asking for specific insights from that field.

We do not have to have died first to ponder on how death will be like. There are other routes of thinking that may satisfy (partially at least) our curiosities, for that specific purpose.

I think Pechenek has been overscrutinised to an extensive degree, and he has always responded politely to correct any assumption made on his behalf, regarding his intentions. Maybe it is either time to provide our own answers to his questions, or maybe stop trying to find successful analogies to show him how "irrational" his request is? It's still a request, if we cannot answer it, we could easily refrain from posting altogether.

 

[The Neural]

Pechenek, this is my take on your last question (lost somewhere in the thread). I imagine the brain as a rather complicated 'Technics' stereo (dont know if you remember those, they're pretty old), with too many equalizer sliders. If a molecule such as DMT alters one of them, the others will shift with it to compensate for the change. This whole shift will provide us with a very new perceptual experience. Because it is new, we have no words to describe it. So we cannot classify that set of equalizer values to "rock", or "blues" or anything already there.

If you could "see" a new colour, what word would you use for it? Gred? Breen? It will not matter, because it will be a new colour, it will not look like any other, so you will have to make up a new word for it.

I believe this is where the inability to describe such an experience stems from.

 

[Global]

If you could "see" a new colour, what word would you use for it? Gred? Breen? It will not matter, because it will be a new colour, it will not look like any other, so you will have to make up a new word for it.

I believe this is where the inability to describe such an experience stems from.

This is a good example, especially considering that there do seem to be new colors in hyperspace. Most colors are not new, but you know 'em when you find 'em. Naming these colors would be quite simple, save for the fact that we can't point the specific color out to someone else, and inform them which new color this label refers to. Since we can do no such cross-referencing with other humans, this makes it virtually impossible to make up labels to affix to the new colors (or other ineffable hyperspatial phenomena).

 

[anrchy]

To add to what neural and global are explaining, and to further expand on dreams/DMT, dreams work based on the physics we understand here in this reality we all experience. Even when it's breaking those rules we see that and understand what's happening. Flying, shape shifting, and other strange things that are not possible to do here still makes sense cause its just breaking the rules.

In hyperspace it's completely different. It literally has its own "physics" like I said before. Yes you see colors that you don't see here, unless you have an extra cone perhaps, but interactions with things in hyperspace work differently. Things exist there that you cannot explain, cave man in a computer lab sort of thing except much more complex. Often times I have no idea what I'm even looking at nor do I understand how it works yet I "know" what it is or what it does.

It makes it even more difficult cause you don't have someone with you that you can point to something and say "let's call this thing blahbeegibber". Imagine a caveman trying to explain to another caveman what he saw using an electron microscope looking at atoms and how they interact with eachother.

 

[AnAngelicProcess]

I don't think you're out of line trying to understand this for yourself. I can only offer you personal experience, for a first hand experience with yourself will ultimately be the only way you can understand it to any degree, as the viewable experience itself it is quite ineffable. The argument that it posed to my brain for it being a form of reality is primarily due to the incredible sense of deja vu I received, and it nearly brought me to tears afterwards. This seemed unbelievable to me, but long after, I still can recall an echo of the event, much more prominent than any dream I've ever had.

That's my short account. I won't bother detailing visual aspects because words only take you so far, but but I can relate to people's metaphors, and the more accounts I read I'm astounded. If it was an experience that came and went without memory, I wouldn't think too deeply into it. But in the aftermath of that first exposure, life has forever appeared more tranquil and wonderous. It still stays with me as one of the more vivid memories.

So as someone who generally basis my outlook off of logical conclusions, I simply leave this as a mystery that I speculate about from time to time. Unfortunately I don't think the full understanding of the thing will ever be obtained because it just exceeds human thought.

 

[JustATourist]

9) Insisting that your theory explains DMT or that OBEs are all illusions simply because they can be triggered by stimulating the brain a certain way is a classic rush to judgement fallacy.

I think you read my post a little bit superficially.

1. I stated that the current neuroscientific theory on OBEs (a subject that has been studied extensively in neuroscience field) is getting towards an EXPLANATION of simple OBEs rather than only correlating neural activity with phenomenal properties. The reason of this becomes apparent if you carefully look at the literature on the subject (start with the papers of O. Blanke and move your way up). As The Neural stated it is only a theory and it shoud be taken with a grain of salt, but it is well supported by the data available.
2. When I say OBEs I'm referring to the specific phenomenon when an individual has the impression of leaving its body AND LOOKING DOWN AT HIMSELF. The classification of autoscopic phenomena has its purpose, so the general impression of “leaving the body” (during a DMT trip for example) is technically not to be included in the category of “OBEs”.
I'm not talking about these experiences.

classic OBEs are kinda off topic actually.

B) People tend to start off doubting it, but eventually have to seriously question that stance if they use DMT enough at high doses. By the time people have a few dozen breakthroughs under their belt, they tend to change their tune entirely. Those of us with over 1000 entheogenic trips are nearly universally of the opinion that we are actually communicating with external intelligences that are well beyond our ability to imagine or make up... who are not archetypes... and who are not misfiring neurons.

Not sure if this is true. I remember some topics on the nexus where VERY experienced users were convinced of the opposite. Some of them went on the opposite path (were convinced of the autonomy of the entities first, eventually changed their minds).
Simpy put, experienced users don't seem to come up with the same conclusions about what DMT is. This seems to be one of the only facts available about experiences with this substance.

C) When you are ready and worthy of the experience, the entities are very capable of proving themselves to you... in undeniable fashion. Once you have had them tell you things you never knew before and check it out in real life... things you could not know, like locations of objects you didn't even know existed... it will rock your world.

This is very interesting and it could change a lot of things, can you make an example of this?

PS: @ anrchy: love the way you described the experience!

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

9) Insisting that your theory explains DMT or that OBEs are all illusions simply because they can be triggered by stimulating the brain a certain way is a classic rush to judgement fallacy.

I think you read my post a little bit superficially.

1. I stated that the current neuroscientific theory on OBEs (a subject that has been studied extensively in neuroscience field) is getting towards an EXPLANATION of simple OBEs rather than only correlating neural activity with phenomenal properties. The reason of this becomes apparent if you carefully look at the literature on the subject (start with the papers of O. Blanke and move your way up). As The Neural stated it is only a theory and it shoud be taken with a grain of salt, but it is well supported by the data available.
2. When I say OBEs I'm referring to the specific phenomenon when an individual has the impression of leaving its body AND LOOKING DOWN AT HIMSELF. The classification of autoscopic phenomena has its purpose, so the general impression of “leaving the body” (during a DMT trip for example) is technically not to be included in the category of “OBEs”.
I'm not talking about these experiences.

classic OBEs are kinda off topic actually.

B) People tend to start off doubting it, but eventually have to seriously question that stance if they use DMT enough at high doses. By the time people have a few dozen breakthroughs under their belt, they tend to change their tune entirely. Those of us with over 1000 entheogenic trips are nearly universally of the opinion that we are actually communicating with external intelligences that are well beyond our ability to imagine or make up... who are not archetypes... and who are not misfiring neurons.

Not sure if this is true. I remember some topics on the nexus where VERY experienced users were convinced of the opposite. Some of them went on the opposite path (were convinced of the autonomy of the entities first, eventually changed their minds).
Simpy put, experienced users don't seem to come up with the same conclusions about what DMT is. This seems to be one of the only facts available about experiences with this substance.

C) When you are ready and worthy of the experience, the entities are very capable of proving themselves to you... in undeniable fashion. Once you have had them tell you things you never knew before and check it out in real life... things you could not know, like locations of objects you didn't even know existed... it will rock your world.

This is very interesting and it could change a lot of things, can you make an example of this?

PS: @ anrchy: love the way you described the experience!

I have had a very wide variety of out of body experiences. I can regularly astral project, see my body and go around exploring my neighborhood... or leave this world entirely and explore other worlds (this tends to overlap with WILDing).

I have had so much proven to me about this stuff that it would be beyond silly of me to question what I know. I don't expect anyone else to be convinced because of anything I say though. You ask can I make an example... only the experience can be an example of any instructive value. Kind of the theme of this thread. Nothing I can say would convince anyone of anything, so why bother? I mentioned that I have been told things that turn out to be unerringly true. I have also astral projected without any drugs and flown around my neighborhood checking out things that always turned out to be correct. I have gone into rooms I never visited and noted things, only to come back in my physical body to find everything the way I saw it.

Trust me... it only takes a few of these kinds of experiences to permanently alter your worldview.

Part of the problem here is that people think they can discuss and figure things out about things like DMT, NDE, OOBE and more in the way they workshop literature, schools of philosophy or the state of scientific theories... Unfortunately even the most basic of these mystic activities, Lucid Dreaming can not even be commented on with any credibility by someone who has never had one. Kids can speculate about love, but their opinions are worthless until they have fallen in love... and even then usually not until they have fallen in love a number of times and are able to see it clearly without projection.

I think another thing I glean from your post is that you have a far different concept of what constitutes experience in all of this.

1) People who research OBEs are not experts on OBEs. They may study them and have some data on certain aspects of it... but the experts on OBEs (classic or otherwise according to your arbitrary definition) are people who regularly have OBEs... people who know how to astral project, WILD, and leave their bodies with drugs... usually these people are mystics, shaman, yogis, kung fu masters and the like.

2) A lot of the posters you refer to are young people with admitted limited experience with DMT. Even regular posters here often admit that they haven't even done DMT more than a handful of times, some have never broken through, and quite a few haven't touched spice in a year or more.

This is not experience in my book. I have 35 years experience with psychedelics. Not only that, but I have used entheogens many times a week during most of that time. I have studied with shaman and medicine men on a number of continents. I have done 2 week peyote fasts with Huichol. Even with all of that, there are plenty of wizardly people who have more experience than even I. The Shulgins pop into my mind as likely candidates.

There are some outliers and exceptions, but the elders of the entheogen culture... the people who have been doing them sinice the 60's and 70's, are overwhelmingly convinced of the reality of the entities they meet. 90% or more... no exaggeration. I don't know anyone my age still doing psychs who doesn't feel this way. After all, why keep doing them if the experience wasn't useful, veritable and helpful to you?

The people who balk at this tend to be young (half my age) with admittedly less than 1% of my experience. (I having done literally thousands of trips, people here with 20 journeys or less and very limited experience with actual breakthroughs are rank novices in my opinion.)

Being inexperienced and young doesn't mean one can not have an opinion... or even be right from time to time, but young people have little or no perspective. Very little they say about anything turns out to be wise or prescient. People tend to become sheepish and red in the face when presented with the actions and opinions they had 5 or 10 years ago. The assumptions and leaps of faith that 20 year olds make are just as ludicrious to people over 30 as those of tweens are to the 20 year olds. We don't take you kids seriously because you tend to have no idea what you are talking about. As someone in his late 40's, I can't be bothered to listen to college kids prattle on about things as if they understood even a single thing about life. People who have only been laid a few times if ever are simply not qualified to think of themselves as geniuses.

Getting good grades in your University doesn't mean a hill of beans.

You want to title your thread "My Theory on DMT" then present a theory that is yours. If it has been presented before... it is not your theory. You would be better off titling your thread "With no evidence whatsoever, I choose to accept these current theories on DMT."


Anyway, I don't really have much more to say here. Probably should have listened to my first intuition that commenting here would be a waste of time. I won't be posting any more info here, but none of this is anything I haven't discussed on the Nexus ad nauseum. IMHO There is no point in me going on about this stuff on this kind of pointless thread. No offense to anyone who finds this thread valuable... 8)

I will just say you can search the forum and find me discussing all of this stuff at great length on threads that make much better reads.

HF

 

[universecannon]

If you haven't explored dmt extensively- much less even bothered to try it- then any 'theory on dmt' you have should be taken with a few (and by that i mean several hundred) pounds of salt. I hope you don't take offence by this. Its just the way i see it. Even people who've done it hundreds of times continually get their models of whats going on smashed by the experience...only to remake more models... and get them smashed again...over and over

Admittedly, i haven't read this entire thread. But skimming through, i should also mention that IMO anything James Kent says about DMT is also automatically suspect in light of the fact that he claims its no more amazing than the rinky dink geometry we can see when rubbing our thumbs against our closed eyes too hard, and other idiotic notions

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

Even people who've done it hundreds of times continually get their models of whats going on smashed by the experience...only to remake more models... and get them smashed again...over and over

the only thing we can be sure of, is that we don't know.

we think we do at times, sure, but that is before we find out how laughably wrong we were the whole time

 

[What a substance]

Again, just because I've never done DMT doesn't mean I can't be interested. I am here mostly to inquire about the experience.

It was an enquiry masquerading as a poorly "researched" opinion, IMO.

Don't get all worked up now...

8)

I carry both copies of the rs2494732 genotype, I know this thanks to 23andme. Because of this, I am 7 times more likely to develop cannabis induced psychosis than someone who doesn't carry this gene.

You have your personality all mapped out in letters and numbers? Did it comment about your will power or give you a genotype for how ALIVE you might feel, or the degree to which your brain (seemingly, as opposed to your consciousness) is curious or 'risk-philic' or 'risk-phobic'.

Can you not get a "print out" telling you how you might react to ayahuasca, in whatever multiple, good or bad?

Hyperspace Fool and many others more than addressed your OP and your later posts.

. I am here mostly to inquire about the experience.

Go listen to Terrence McKenna and most of the brave (50mg (+)) sailors on this forum.

You are right that scepticism is good, so hold your ground if you think its right to do so. But some of the replies on here, directed at you, are amongst the most erudite and measured and qualified I have ever read.

 

[anrchy]

If you haven't explored dmt extensively- much less even bothered to try it- then any 'theory on dmt' you have should be taken with a few (and by that i mean several hundred) pounds of salt. I hope you don't take offence by this. Its just the way i see it. Even people who've done it hundreds of times continually get their models of whats going on smashed by the experience...only to remake more models... and get them smashed again...over and over

Admittedly, i haven't read this entire thread. But skimming through, i should also mention that IMO anything James Kent says about DMT is also automatically suspect in light of the fact that he claims its no more amazing than the rinky dink geometry we can see when rubbing our thumbs against our closed eyes too hard, and other idiotic notions

I kind of disagree. I have theories about the universe, like how it started, if its expanding contracting ect. I don't see the harm in this I just think the OP was taken incorrectly due to him not elaborating more. If I understand correctly its just a theory he came up with and he brought it here to get some insight on the matter. I really don't think he is tryijg to say it has any solid ground to stand on, and from what I have seen he has stated that he's just trying to get our take on why we think it isn't just chemicals causing us to see things that aren't really there, if anyone with experience also believes that, or what other ideas we have.

I think the biggest thing for me that makes me feel like kent is completely incorrect in his theory is the fact that its not really that you believe it's true, in a sense you almost know that what you see or are experiencing isn't coming from your head. I know my brain is complex and capable of doing amazing things but its hard to imagine it being able to create 9th dimensional scenery. Which doesn't mean much, we really don't know anything about this reality and its just as much a mystery how we got here as is what is hyperspace.

 

[pechenek]

What you are describing is not a "theory" but an opinion.

Call it what you want. Maybe next time I'll call it "My grand collection of ideas" if that suites you better.

I would be ashamed to start a thread titled "My Theory On String and M-branes" where all I did was agree with and quote someone else

It is my theory. It just so happens that me and James both arrived at a similar conclusion.

I would indeed be borrowing his theory, even if I was only recently familiar with it.

I don't think James Kent said anything of what I wrote in the OP aside from "it's all in the brain"... or at least seems he was headed in that direction. He didn't talk about dreaming, he didn't talk about neurons and synapses, nor archetypes. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word archetypes because now you might accuse me of stealing Carl Jung's ideas too. :?

You may be coming around to that in the last page, but as a whole this thread has you coming off as someone who has never had sex trying to explain away orgasms. I think most would agree that such a conjecture (esp from a virgin) would barely be worth replying to.

Haha. Every living thing has endogenous DMT so who's to say I have zero experience? Maybe I should have lied in the OP and not said I have no DMT experience, then I could have avoided the shit-storm coming from all the but-hurt people who are bothered by the possibility that it could all be in your head.

I am not sure this current wave of propoganda about marijuana psychosis is any more founded in reality than the marijuana psychosis talk of the 30's, 50's, 70's or any other time. It is possible that people like you are genetically predisposed to losing your minds .....long history of the anti-drug crowd pulling such studies completely out of their poop shoot only to have their assertions shot down time and time again by actual studies... I would not rush to judgement about this.

This is an actual study based on SNP's:

rs2494732 CC carriers have a 2 fold greater chance of psychosis if you smoke pot, 7 fold higher if you do it every day.

*1

*2

But it is fairly rare, for example out of 12 people on my sharing list at 23andme I'm the only one with two C's @ rs2494732, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. It would be obvious every time you smoke pot your reaction is not like others around you, that was my case. I never understood the association of cannabis with the word "mellow". I've smoke hundreds of times by the way, maybe a little under 1,000, and every time I had a overwhelming angsty feeling that I felt I had to overcome for the first 30 minutes just to enjoy the mildly pleasant after glow.... But that is a whole different subject.

The people who balk at this tend to be young (half my age) with admittedly less than 1% of my experience. (I having done literally thousands of trips, people here with 20 journeys or less and very limited experience with actual breakthroughs are rank novices in my opinion.)

Being inexperienced and young doesn't mean one can not have an opinion... or even be right from time to time, but young people have little or no perspective. Very little they say about anything turns out to be wise or prescient.

HF

Your posts are a prime example of age discrimination. Sure I might be younger than you, and chances are you have collected more wisdom over the years, but that doesn't change the fact that I too have a fully functional brain, that is probably in more pristine condition than yours - so maybe I get a clearer understanding of how that sponge in my head works.

Getting good grades in your University doesn't mean a hill of beans.

FYI you're talking to a high school drop-out. 8)

You want to title your thread "My Theory on DMT" then present a theory that is yours. If it has been presented before... it is not your theory.

I don't know why you keep parroting this. James Kent never went in depth, nor made any association between dreaming and DMT. Actually he thinks the closest thing to his DMT experience is when your body goes into shock. See here:

 

[a1pha]

Your posts are a prime example of age discrimination. Sure I might be younger than you, and chances are you have collected more wisdom over the years, but that doesn't change the fact that I too have a fully functional brain, that is probably in more pristine condition than yours - so maybe I get a clearer understanding of how that sponge in my head works.

pechenek,

I see no age discrimination here... simply hubris towards a valuable member of the DMT-Nexus who spent a good deal of time and energy responding in a wise and thoughtful way.

My hand was on the suspend button after reading your last post. I will not allow these ad hominem attacks towards our members. Pretend you just received a nice suspension, reflect on your words some, and then re-engage the issue with a little more thought and humility. If you do not, action will be taken. Consider this a very stern warning.

Every living thing has endogenous DMT so who's to say I have zero experience?

Could you please show us some peer-reviewed data demonstrating every living thing contains DMT?

 

[Infectedstyle]

I can understand the stream of thoughts that people like Mr. Kent are having. The mechanism of dmt is the same mechanism that is causing dreams and indeed, the images that form when straining the eye-balls. It is not unexplainable.

I think of this study : Uncoiling the spiral: Maths and hallucinations . Which is an attempt to explain hallucinations. It shows the quality and power that this sort of "skeptical" and scientific thinking has produced up till now.

The common MISTAKE that these people make, is "in my eyes" to immediately jump to the conclusion that this somehow reduces the experience. Because, for one. Saying it is simply a biological phenomenom does not in any way take away anything from the grandure and truth this molecule has to offer to a human brain.

By the way, upon reading the link i added(not understanding any sort of logic, just the gist of it) it comes to me in a synchronistic way for i am paying attention to the Vasopressin hormone and this thread mentions the V1 receptors play a role in hallucinations. I think it is a very personal thing (as are all synchronisities), for some reason i am obsessed with the molecule. I have reason to believe my body has a chronic lack of Vasopressin and as it turns out here , the molecule has the power to solidify memories. I happen to have some kind of chronic amnesia. But i woulden't mind being able to remember an entire dmt experience. I would like to remember salvia.. but it could be for the better because that shit was scary.

I just might make a seperate thread about if it turns out to be interesting enough

I think this thread is reaching a dead end. I think pechenek should pay another visit to 23andme because i suspect he might have the asshole gene in his DNA. This gene has been clinically studied using 500 dickheads and 300 normal people. It turns out all the dickheads have this gene in their DNA. (By the way, judging by your posts OP i can see why you are prone to psychosis. You are full of delusions. And making up your own little hostile world around other people's words, no wonder ur angsty with marijuana. My theory about you)

What stuck out from this whole thread, for me is simply this line.

fMRI studies done with dreaming and then a successive study by the same researchers with ayahuasca seem to indicate that they might not be so related. When the ayahuasca participants were blindfolded so as not to have any external visual data coming in, their brains were reacting as if they were perceiving external stimuli. It was something to the effect that the brain could not anticipate the stimuli.

Meanwhile the fMRI in the dreaming study revealed that the visions in dreaming are much more closely associated with the brain activity involved in the imagination in which the brain can well anticipate the material it seems to be synthesizing.

I'd love to get a link to the studies mentioned for future reference. The implications are enormous.. If i was the OP i would absorb this piece of information and go from there. But i am not OP and who am i to tell others what to and what not to believe. I'm trying hard not to shout this little thing off of the rooftops untill i get a link to the actual studies.

Now i'm going back to listening Alan watts lectures. I would advise OP to do the same sometime

 

[What a substance]

What stuck out from this whole thread, for me is simply this line.


Global wrote:
fMRI studies done with dreaming and then a successive study by the same researchers with ayahuasca seem to indicate that they might not be so related. When the ayahuasca participants were blindfolded so as not to have any external visual data coming in, their brains were reacting as if they were perceiving external stimuli. It was something to the effect that the brain could not anticipate the stimuli.

Meanwhile the fMRI in the dreaming study revealed that the visions in dreaming are much more closely associated with the brain activity involved in the imagination in which the brain can well anticipate the material it seems to be synthesizing.


I'd love to get a link to the studies mentioned for future reference

Yes please!

 

[hug46]

I see no age discrimination here...

With all due respect, a comment like "very little that young people say is wise or prescient" does sound pretty condescending.
To the OP. Never mind about reading what Kent or Mckenna say about it. Just do it yourself (if you feel happy doing it). Then compare notes.

 

[Infectedstyle]

I see no age discrimination here...

With all due respect, a comment like "very little that young people say is wise or prescient" does sound pretty condescending.

Agreed. But old people are way closer to death and lived longer. Generally, old people have a more restful mind and think before they speak. Also, they tend not to be aroused by bullshit and stick with what they know. Something young people tend to do 99% of the time.

I think what HF meant to say is simply that more experience equals better judgement. And that demands respect. Just like i respect my grandma in what she has to say. It is not much, but what she says to me is the truth. And i respect that. Not that i am trying to compare HF to my grandma here.. Or am i... :twisted: