ChaoticMethod said:
Hyperspace Fool, did you take the time to read the first post? It is actually talking both about the "spiritually inclined" and those who may reply agressivly. Can't you try and take an objective point of view? I think everybody has something to think about.
As stated in the first post, it is not spiritual matters that are juged as unfit for some sections of this forum; it is the fact that some adress them as objective facts.
Can you explain to me how writings that go back for thousands of year consist in any kind of proof? Will Bilbo The Hobbit be any more real in a thousand of years when someone will read Tolkien's books?
I also don't think there is any competition between spirituality and science: I think it is completely possible to have a spirituality that fits with what science can observe.
If you begin to accept any claim by any one because you reject logic, reason and the scientific method, then where do you draw the line? Will you simply reject any fantasy tale that doesn't fit in the fantasy tale paradigm that fits your beliefs?
Of course I read the OP. (as well as every other post here)
I applaud endlessness for trying to be as fair minded as he is able, but the bias against spirituality is present in the OP, in the title of this thread, and in abundance across the threads that are in question. Go through and read them, and you will see that there is no thread here where (when read in its entirety and not taken out of context) people are trying to prove their
subjective experiences objectively or making claims about
absolute truth. This is always exclaimed as a defense of the people who do the name calling, but it is simply
not the case.
We may not put disclaimers on
every single posting, but in the context of the threads... it is abundantly clear that we are talking about
our experiences and not trying to
convert anyone or make any
scientific case for the phenomenon we experience. We are practicing the time honored psychonaut tradition of sharing our anecdotal trip reports. The fact that many other people share very similar experiences while in these spaces... alone makes it a valid topic of discussion.
We don't need to cite peer reviewed journals to recognize that many many people report experiences that seem to indicate that telepathy might be possible and enhanced by psychotropics. Why should we need to cite anything other than our experiences? Our opinions and conjectures about what these things mean are our own to make. And if we choose to mention that reports of these things are very prevalent in the record of human history, this should be forbidden or mocked?
It seems that many of you are missing the point. No one is telling anyone what the TRUTH is. We are sharing our experiences. No one is making claims that need to be backed up because we have nothing to prove. If you think that the 10 people who are sharing reports of telepathy are all liars and crazy, maybe you can click over to another thread rather than repeatedly and willfully calling names and putting people down.
People are already afraid to admit to their experiences and share. Why on earth should we condone an environment where those people who are less able to defend their beliefs than I may be, are made to feel unwelcome? Why should I have to have the same tired exchanges on every single thread where we want to discuss these things?
If you want to ghettoize us, and move all of our threads to the Through The Looking Glass subforum... prohibit the new members from even joining in the discussion... I think this is a big mistake.
Telling us that we need to join another forum entirely? Suggesting that we need to get lost and go to the Shroomery or Ayahuasca Forum because we want to discuss aspects of the entheogen experience that don't fit into everyone's neat little boxes is simply a type of
censorship and it is unbecoming of this esteemed venue.
We can do better than this.