• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The way things look

Migrated topic.

mr peabody

mr peabody
In 1968 psychedelics were my WHOLE LIFE and they are still the #1 most important thing IN THE WORLD to me. I was just a kid when I saw Tim Leary dance out on stage at a Moody Blues concert in a white robe playing tambourine to them singing "Timothy Leary's dead..." Leary was all the rage, but the damage done by Leary and others during those times was catastrophic. Some time ago I ran across this comment by Albert Hofmann:

"I was visited by Timothy Leary when he was living in Switzerland many years ago. He was a very intelligent man, and quite charming. I enjoyed our conversations very much. However, he also had a need for too much attention. He enjoyed being provocative, and that shifted the focus from what should have been the essential issue. It is unfortunate, but for many years these drugs became taboo. Hopefully, these same problems from the Sixties will not be repeated."

Now I haven't the slightest interest in anything religious, but I feel strongly that psychedelics are the key to life's deepest secrets, and that...

"Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it, we will all say to each other, 'How could it have been otherwise?'" (Wheeler)

The problem is virtual unavailability of PRACTICAL information about psychedelics and their purpose which, unfortunately, is presently beyond the means of science to address. Psychedelics inexorably collapse the scientific paradigm.

Hundreds of trips have introduced me to some rather unscientific facts, for example, that matter is materialized light. Now I can't prove this but I know that it is so. And I'm NOT imagining it any more than I'm imagining that I love my wife. I know these things are so, even though I can't "prove" them.

What if the following were true?

Human beings are light channels with an aperture like a camera. Psychedelics force the aperture open in relation to the amount of substance consumed. Like water seeking it's own level, light floods through any open channel with full force according to aperture dilation. More than one is ready for can cause a "bad" trip.

What if psychedelics were the only known tools for developing light throughput? What if star birthing was our ultimate destination, and psychedelics key for enabling that?

Just saying - WHAT IF?
 
Dear Mr. Peabody, thank you for the quote from Mr. Hoffman. I agree wholeheartedly, yes the '60'S had a detrimental effect on societal views in regards to psychedelics and the psychedelic experience. I also enjoy your materialized light theory, most importantly the comparative " Now I can't prove this but I know that it is so. And I'm NOT imagining it any more than I'm imagining that I love my wife. I know these things are so, even though I can't "prove" them." My wife is impressed,as well. Your diction is quite remarkable.
 
mr peabody said:
Hundreds of trips have introduced me to some rather unscientific facts, for example, that matter is materialized light. Now I can't prove this but I know that it is so. And I'm NOT imagining it any more than I'm imagining that I love my wife. I know these things are so, even though I can't "prove" them.

What if the following were true?

Human beings are light channels with an aperture like a camera. Psychedelics force the aperture open in relation to the amount of substance consumed. Like water seeking it's own level, light floods through any open channel with full force according to aperture dilation. More than one is ready for can cause a "bad" trip.

What if psychedelics were the only known tools for developing light throughput? What if star birthing was our ultimate destination, and psychedelics key for enabling that?

Just saying - WHAT IF?

I like it but I also like the idea that a filtering deficit caused by a dmt overdose (ie, a breakthrough dose that the brain might consider an overdose) might force the visual cortex to take input only from the 3rd eye. A vision of the brain/mind/consciousness in dmt augmented 3rd eye language, symbols and archetypes, ensues. These things seem to conflict and I like your idea better.
 
mr peabody said:
What if psychedelics were the only known tools for developing light throughput? What if star birthing was our ultimate destination, and psychedelics key for enabling that?

Just saying - WHAT IF?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "star birthing"...care to elaborate?

And as to your question of "what if"...ok...what if? If so, then what? What do you think?

Welcome to the Nexus :)
 
bad_elmo said:
Dear Mr. Peabody, thank you for the quote from Mr. Hoffman. I agree wholeheartedly, yes the '60'S had a detrimental effect on societal views in regards to psychedelics and the psychedelic experience. I also enjoy your materialized light theory, most importantly the comparative " Now I can't prove this but I know that it is so. And I'm NOT imagining it any more than I'm imagining that I love my wife. I know these things are so, even though I can't "prove" them." My wife is impressed,as well. Your diction is quite remarkable.

You are a light being of unimaginable power.
You reside at the stellar location you came into existence.
Your body is an astronomical instrument engaged in the conveyance of light.
Over countless lifetimes, we who are born into the evolving worlds of time and space attain the maturity necessary for star birthing.
You have advanced to the celestial nursery.
Find your beloved, and prepare for the next chapter of your great adventure.

Now that you have found each other (congratulations!), prepare to move on together.
 
SnozzleBerry said:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "star birthing"...care to elaborate?

My original post is just a precursor to the equation:

You are a light being of unimaginable power.
You reside at the stellar location you came into existence.
Your body is an astronomical instrument engaged in the conveyance of light.
Over countless lifetimes, we who are born into the evolving worlds of time and space attain the maturity necessary for star birthing.
You have advanced to the celestial nursery. Find your beloved, and prepare for the next chapter of your great adventure.
 
Howdy,

What is "star birthing"?

What do you suppose is the mechanism which causes photons to change from fundamental particles into something with mass?t

I dig where you're coming from, I've always liked to think that the scientific method can be applied to things that we currently cannot explain. It's what makes that method so brilliant, a simple cycle of practices which had the potential to disassemble the most complex and the most foreign of concepts.
 
Loverofallthings said:
I've always liked to think that the scientific method can be applied to things that we currently cannot explain.

The question is whether you can be satisfied there are any number of things which science is at a loss to explain.
 
Loverofallthings said:
Howdy,


What do you suppose is the mechanism which causes photons to change from fundamental particles into something with mass?t

afaik it is the interaction of the massless particle (or field) with another massless particle (or field). Mass, along with many other properties, emerges out of relationship
 
mr peabody said:
SnozzleBerry said:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "star birthing"...care to elaborate?

My original post is just a precursor to the equation:

You are a light being of unimaginable power.
You reside at the stellar location you came into existence.
Your body is an astronomical instrument engaged in the conveyance of light.
Over countless lifetimes, we who are born into the evolving worlds of time and space attain the maturity necessary for star birthing.
You have advanced to the celestial nursery. Find your beloved, and prepare for the next chapter of your great adventure.


I'm still unclear as to what you mean by star birthing. Can you explain?
 
mr peabody said:
Loverofallthings said:
I've always liked to think that the scientific method can be applied to things that we currently cannot explain.

The question is whether you can be satisfied there are any number of things which science is at a loss to explain.
The question is also if you can be satisfied with scientific knowledge and that no matter how much deeper the theories might go, it still gives you a useful instrument 'as is'.

For example: we may not be able to explain gravity (yet) but it's forces are well known and the theories about it are based on empirical evidence, thereby the theory of gravity is usable on a practical level.

If we are not able to explain 100% of the story then that does not mean we should throw away the parts that we do understand.

Anyone can make up baseless claims about anything. So knowing that, it is important to differentiate between the people who are just making stuff up and people who are actually doing real research and base their hypothese on empirical evidence that is testable.

The DMT-Nexus embraces the group that does the real research.


Kind regards,

The Traveler
 
The Traveler said:
The question is also if you can be satisfied with scientific knowledge and that no matter how much deeper the theories might go, it still gives you a useful instrument 'as is'.

Not useful, IMO. Psychedelics inexorably collapse the scientific paradigm. The equation above was arrived at with brute force reasoning. With variation of parameters, this is the answer.
 
mr peabody said:
The Traveler said:
The question is also if you can be satisfied with scientific knowledge and that no matter how much deeper the theories might go, it still gives you a useful instrument 'as is'.

Not useful, IMO. Psychedelics inexorably collapse the scientific paradigm. The equation above was arrived at using brute force reasoning, meaning, with variation of parameters, this is the answer.

I'm unclear as to what "the answer" is. I'm also not so sure that "psychedelics inexorably collapse the scientific paradigm" as an absolute, and I'm somewhat unclear as to your meaning/intention. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more rather than just making single-sentence assertions?
 
mr peabody said:
The Traveler said:
The question is also if you can be satisfied with scientific knowledge and that no matter how much deeper the theories might go, it still gives you a useful instrument 'as is'.

Not useful, IMO. Psychedelics inexorably collapse the scientific paradigm. The equation above was arrived at with brute force reasoning. With variation of parameters, this is the answer.
Ok, I see.

So please tell me what you actually mean with these things:

1. "collapse the scientific paradigm"?

What paradigm? What collapse? How did psychedelics come into play? How is this inexorably?


2. "The equation above was arrived at with brute force reasoning"?

What equation above? It arrived in what way? What do you mean with "brute force reasoning"?


3. "With variation of parameters, this is the answer"?

Which parameters? To what answer? A variation?


Kind regards,

The Traveler
 
SnozzleBerry said:
I'm also not so sure that "psychedelics inexorably collapse the scientific paradigm" as an absolute...

The excerpt below may go at least part way to explaining what I mean.

Grof: It sort of reminds me of the Sufi story where you have a guy under a lantern sort of crawling on his knees and looking for something. Another guy comes and says "What are you doing?", and he says "Well I lost my keys here, I’m looking for them." The guy says "Can I help you?" And the two of them are crawling and then the newcomer says "I can’t find anything. Are you sure you lost it here?" He says "Oh not here over there". He says "Well why are you looking here?” He says "Because it’s dark there. We wouldn't have a chance.”

So we have a good chance of finding what’s happening in the retina, what’s happening in the neuronal tract, the optical tract, the cortex. But as for the fundamental question "How does consciousness come out of that process?” Nobody has tackled it.

Paulson: And you’re saying that really the conceptual apparatus of modern science of brain science has no means of tackling that question.

Grof: It has no relevance to the nature and origin of consciousness in my understanding. Even if you go as far as Stuart Hameroff when you take it to the tubules.

Paulson: His microtubules.

Grof: Right. When you see the whole thing functions like a computer and so on, and maybe that’s the interface where consciousness is somehow generated, you still are stuck with the question ‘How does that happen? How is it possible that matter can generate consciousness?'

Paulson: So is this a question that’s just beyond science, something that science will never be able to explain?

Grof: Yeah, I think science is much better in answering questions related to how things happen rather than why things happen.

Science will never explain consciousness.
 
mr peabody said:
Science will never explain consciousness.
That is quite a strong statement. Had you said "science does not explain consciousness", it might have sounded a little more reasonable. I think we know so little about consciousness in the broad sense that making statements or predictions about it is not very opportune.

How do you explain consciousness, without science?

BTW, your answer sidesteps the original question "how does psychedelics collapse the scientific paradigm?"
 
mr peabody said:
Science will never explain consciousness.

I was kind of with "you" until you made this absolute. Speaking in absolutes is guaranteed to be wrong :p

Before addressing anything, I'd like to point out that you are still speaking in single sentence assertions. You shared a story, yes, but as far as "original thought" you appear to have only presented the assertion that "Science will never explain consciousness."

Now, personally, I'm of the vague mindset that the brain is more like a signal receiver than a generator when it comes to consciousness, but even this belief is the roughest of sketches as I'm no neuroscientist and know very little about about the workings of the brain. That said, even operating under that vague notion, it would appear to me that Grof's assertions presume we are stuck looking at our brains, isolated, as receivers, forever. That we never get any inkling or evidence that takes us beyond the brain as receiver...latch on to some signal being generated from somewhere. Now, granted, I'm talking entirely out of my ass with this analogy, but surely you can see how Grof's assertion falls apart if we were to come across some causal evidence that allowed for further "how" questions.

To assert that "science will never explain consciousness" is to dismiss the possibility out of hand. Now, I'm not asserting that science will explain consciousness, rather, I would contend I hold an agnostic (or possibilian) position with regards to the question. We simply don't know how much we don't know...have no clue how little of the picture we are seeing at the moment. With this, as with questions of theism, it strikes me that surety is rather premature. In that vein, I would steer you to two threads that I think you would be served by reading.

The Improbability of Hyperspace
The Improbability of Hyperspace, Part II

Again, I'm not saying that science will "solve" this riddle, or even that science is well-equipped to tackle such questions at the moment. But, that is a long way off from "science will never explain consciousness"...especially as I think that question is less clear than you make it out to be.

Additionally, the excerpt you presented is rather different from the earlier assertion that

mr peabody said:
Psychedelics inexorably collapse the scientific paradigm.

I can see some vague relation between this question and the excerpt, but I don't feel as though the excerpt explains, validates, or justifies this assertion. Especially not in the light of the body of scientific psychedelic research conducted over the past 60+ years.
 
pitubo said:
How do you explain consciousness, without science? BTW, your answer sidesteps the original question "how does psychedelics collapse the scientific paradigm?"

Consciousness is the living plasma of a single being.

Science cannot explain at all what psychedelics so effortlessly reveal.
 
mr peabody said:
Consciousness is the living plasma of a single being.

Source?

Also, please define living plasma.

mr peabody said:
Science cannot explain at all what psychedelics so effortlessly reveal.

Which is...?


And again, if you continue to "converse" solely in single-sentence declarations, I'm afraid this conversation is going to be rather difficult.
 
SnozzleBerry said:
mr peabody said:
Consciousness is the living plasma of a single being.

Source?

Written by myself based upon 50 years of deepest psychedelic reflection.

SnozzleBerry said:
Also, please define living plasma.

My own analogy. Plasma, meaning, life blood of consciousness, the cosmic light.

SnozzleBerry said:
mr peabody said:
Science cannot explain at all what psychedelics so effortlessly reveal.

Which is...?

Things I know. Simplest example, that matter is materialized light.
 
Back
Top Bottom