SnozzleBerry said:
chocobeastie said:
Snozzleberry,
“Snozzleberry” said:
By your logic, only two or three people were investigating phalaris in the 90s, which is patently untrue.
Well, we don’t know. I know that Trout said in January 2003, he only knew of 1 or 2 people who had got phalaris to work. Not one, not two, but one or two.
You'll note that I said "investigating phalaris." There is no question that more than two people were investigating phalaris back then. Come on now :roll:
chocobeastie said:
The ER article doesn’t talk of any conceptual framework in place, just an experimenter who said, hey, this seems to work!
it is both historically wrong and preposterous to suggest only 2 people or something got Phalaris to work in the 90s..this seems to be an underlying fallacy in many of your arguments, which are based purely on your own exposure to various limited groups of people..
Trout is a very quiet guy..when he says he knows of 2-3 people this means that's who he personally knows! i think you'll find there's more reports than that even in pre Trout ER, but the 90s is not a mass net based reports era..Jim de Korne's Psychedelic Shamanism well and truly established Phalaris, and a Lot of experimentation ensued..it's like you think no one read these things...we can practically statistically assume that reports in ER in the 90s constitute a fraction of actual experimentation..and you essentially acuse the nexian who said they were offered changa or a similar blend in 1994 as a liar? ok, but trying to turn the argument into 'just Nen said this' isn't correct..
you claim, chocobeastie, to have created some kind of 'revolution'..i can only see this as marketing, and slightly different packaging..as the concept of MAOIs plus dmt was well established beforehand..not popularised sure, but known...and tried..and varied on..Gracie and Zarkov were very widely read, within the entheogenic community..what you're not seeing the difference between is promotion and probably naming, vs actual concept behind invention..
you contradict yourself in a few ways, one being that first you say there is some kind of 'old guard' deep state who doesn't agree with you, then you say you've only heard this from me..
in terms of some who disagree with your 'invented' changa, you yourself refer to a particular subset..it's just that i don't believe there's some conspiracy out to get you as you suggest..i don't want to name people here, but you yourself refer to a perceived subset, ask 'them'..a prominent Nimbin hippy elder also comes to mind..who has spoken at EGA. .but like ER reports most people who do things are not here, talking about it on the net..
it doesn't matter to me personally what the origin of particular blend is, it never has, but your claims of owning a conceptual idea do..you ask why did no one else's smoking blend take off and changa did? probably because changa was marketed in 'head shops' and places like boom festival in Europe..
people have been making blends, and smoking harmalas for a while, that's in personal experience..but what makes your changa hype seem troublesome to me is that you seem to almost place a method above the plants involved, and place what i find is a disproportionate amount of emphasis on yourself in this matter...this really needs to be questioned above all else, which a few nexians are doing...but also your constantly shifting the goal posts of what defines changa to suit your 'i am the creator' position is also highly dubious to me..if you need to own the franchise, fine..it just seems to me, even from what others have said in this thread, that it has a life of its own...
so for the last time: caapi (or harmalas) smoked modulates, enhances or extends dmt - is not a concept established in the early 2000s by yourself...this is the main point..and not the exact way or plants used..if there is a central concept to changa that is surely it..and we already see the concept 'smokable ayahusca' in 90s ER..
as for the popularisation and mass selling of things, and probably naming, but I'm not 100% sure there either, i leave that to you chocobeastie..popularisation and invention are different kinds of claims..
it is some of the claims you're making, not that you have a connection to changa, which a few people are taking issue with here..