Unbearable ego death - could it be different?

[sighmon]

I don't particularly care about defining it. Words only reach so far.

I meant more or less what you said. The barrier is there, very strong all our lives (when it wasn't, we were too young to remember), and I don't think that's self-evident at all.

I don't mean it is self evident in the sense that it would naturally occur to us necessarily but given that the argument has already been presented, from an objective, scientific point of view it seems to me there cannot be an explanation for such a barrier actually existing in the place where we perceive it.

But I do think it is important to define it properly and makes a big difference how we define it. Because in the end if there are no real implications from such a thing then what is even the point in arguing for it? What does it even mean for something to be true that has essentially no implications? If you could get next week's lottery numbers that would be a very profound implication on the other hand, so that's what makes that definition interesting to argue about to me.

 

[nexalizer]

I don't particularly care about defining it. Words only reach so far.

I meant more or less what you said. The barrier is there, very strong all our lives (when it wasn't, we were too young to remember), and I don't think that's self-evident at all.

I don't mean it is self evident in the sense that it would naturally occur to us necessarily but given that the argument has already been presented, from an objective, scientific point of view it seems to me there cannot be an explanation for such a barrier actually existing in the place where we perceive it.

But I do think it is important to define it properly and makes a big difference how we define it. Because in the end if there are no real implications from such a thing then what is even the point in arguing for it? What does it even mean for something to be true that has essentially no implications? If you could get next week's lottery numbers that would be a very profound implication on the other hand, so that's what makes that definition interesting to argue about to me.

Sometimes, things just are. We can come to discover the truth about such things, or a truth, and it doesn't necessarily affect any of our actions in the world.

Other times, they shift something so fundamental that your whole outlook on the world and the experience of reality radically realigns to something new, exotic, unknown, different.

A new way to experience reality. Which we can choose to accept and cultivate. Or not.

tl;dr: it just is.

 

[HolySmoke]

Because in the end if there are no real implications from such a thing then what is even the point in arguing for it? What does it even mean for something to be true that has essentially no implications? If you could get next week's lottery numbers that would be a very profound implication on the other hand, so that's what makes that definition interesting to argue about to me.

How do we know there are no real implications?

Would it have any real implications if you were to tell a stone-age man, or an ant, that those dots you see in the night-sky are nuclear explosions, that have continually exploded for hundreds of millions of winters? They wouldn't even know what it meant, though the truth of it will have implications for the behavior of intelligent life in their future.

The "truth" of All is One could similarly have real implications on our behavior. Perhaps if it became commonplace to deeply understand what it meant, and to feel it at a societal level... well, I struggle to imagine what such a world would be like.

 

[sighmon]

I don't particularly care about defining it. Words only reach so far.

I meant more or less what you said. The barrier is there, very strong all our lives (when it wasn't, we were too young to remember), and I don't think that's self-evident at all.

I don't mean it is self evident in the sense that it would naturally occur to us necessarily but given that the argument has already been presented, from an objective, scientific point of view it seems to me there cannot be an explanation for such a barrier actually existing in the place where we perceive it.

But I do think it is important to define it properly and makes a big difference how we define it. Because in the end if there are no real implications from such a thing then what is even the point in arguing for it? What does it even mean for something to be true that has essentially no implications? If you could get next week's lottery numbers that would be a very profound implication on the other hand, so that's what makes that definition interesting to argue about to me.

Sometimes, things just are. We can come to discover the truth about such things, or a truth, and it doesn't necessarily affect any of our actions in the world.

Other times, they shift something so fundamental that your whole outlook on the world and the experience of reality radically realigns to something new, exotic, unknown, different.

A new way to experience reality. Which we can choose to accept and cultivate. Or not.

tl;dr: it just is.

I think that's quite an interesting question though, "what does it mean for something to be true that has no known implications?"

You say "a truth that doesn't necessarily affect any of our actions" but then can we really call it a truth? How do we even define the difference between it being true and it being false, really, if it doesn't have any implications?

I still maintain that in many cases people arguing for some "self evident" truth like that actually "secretly", maybe unconsciously even, have a different definition in mind.

I'm sure you would agree that it is very common for people to claim that they have "learned" something from experiencing oneness. That they are now acting differently in some way in their life because of it. But if they are interpreting oneness in the sense that we discussed now, the sort of self evident sense but the sense that lacks implications, then that doesn't rationally make any sense. If they are interpreting it in a different sense on the other hand, they cannot really fairly claim it as self evident anymore.

 

[nexalizer]

I think that's quite an interesting question though, "what does it mean for something to be true that has no known implications?"

I don't find it very exciting. See below.

You say "a truth that doesn't necessarily affect any of our actions" but then can we really call it a truth? How do we even define the difference between it being true and it being false, really, if it doesn't have any implications?

Imagine I learn some deep truth about the psychological makeup of some animal in a remote part of the world that I'm highly unlikely to ever encounter, or even talk again for the rest of my life.

It would be a truth. A very irrelevant truth.

I still maintain that in many cases people arguing for some "self evident" truth like that actually "secretly", maybe unconsciously even, have a different definition in mind.

Perhaps. I'm not a mind reader, so that's not something I can argue about in either way.

I'm sure you would agree that it is very common for people to claim that they have "learned" something from experiencing oneness. That they are now acting differently in some way in their life because of it.

Sure. I'm one of those people.

Even I can't accurately put in words what changed. I just know that it did. I can feel it. Life is different for it. None of what I experienced can be forgotten.

The experience of reality, I came to realize, goes WAY beyond the borders of what I had previously defined as reasonable boundaries based on experience.

The rabbit hole runs very deep.

To come to realize that what everything you thought you knew about the nature of reality might be incorrect, based on indescribable states of consciousness, shakes you to the very core.

It's disorienting. You might have to question a lot of fundamental assumptions.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter.
But it's the most important thing in the world.

What is seen (experienced) cannot be unseen.

More than that, I can't even tell you the full implications of that truth. It's something I'm constantly exploring and thinking about.

A journey, you could say.

But if they are interpreting oneness in the sense that we discussed now, the sort of self evident sense but the sense that lacks implications, then that doesn't rationally make any sense. If they are interpreting it in a different sense on the other hand, they cannot really fairly claim it as self evident anymore.

I confess you lost me with this one, but I'll try to offer this: it doesn't have to make rational sense.

 

[sighmon]

Because in the end if there are no real implications from such a thing then what is even the point in arguing for it? What does it even mean for something to be true that has essentially no implications? If you could get next week's lottery numbers that would be a very profound implication on the other hand, so that's what makes that definition interesting to argue about to me.

How do we know there are no real implications?

Would it have any real implications if you were to tell a stone-age man, or an ant, that those dots you see in the night-sky are nuclear explosions, that have continually exploded for hundreds of millions of winters? They wouldn't even know what it meant, though the truth of it will have implications for the behavior of intelligent life in their future.

The "truth" of All is One could similarly have real implications on our behavior. Perhaps if it became commonplace to deeply understand what it meant, and to feel it at a societal level... well, I struggle to imagine what such a world would be like.

Ok, maybe I'm overreaching by claiming it has no implications, but it actually doesn't matter I think.

Let's say it simply has no known implications given that definition. Aren't we being dishonest if we claim oneness to be self-evident (based on that definition) while choosing to act differently based on the realization of what we call that same oneness? Because either we have to admit we act differently for no rational reason (so we can no longer really relate it to the "truth" of the oneness) or we must state that reason, which must be rooted in an implication of that definition, and then we would have to prove that the definition really implies that without changing it, or if we change it we can no longer consider it self-evident based on the original argument.

To give a more practical example (at the risk of being a bit of a straw man), lets consider someone coming back from an experience of oneness and saying they now act more kindly towards other people because of it. Given the simple self-evident definition of oneness, that there cannot be a real border between the self and the environment, there is just no rational reason for this changed behavior. It seems to me you would have to add something like the "mental connection between all people" for this change in behavior to make sense, but then you no longer have a good argument for the oneness actually being true.

 

[sighmon]

Imagine I learn some deep truth about the psychological makeup of some animal in a remote part of the world that I'm highly unlikely to ever encounter, or even talk again for the rest of my life.

There's a big difference between a relatively unimportant truth and one with no known implications. With your example there is still the "butterfly effect" which even if we cannot realistically we still can theoretically predict the consequences of and act accordingly.

Sure. I'm one of those people.

Even I can't accurately put in words what changed. I just know that it did. I can feel it. Life is different for it. None of what I experienced can be forgotten.

The experience of reality, I came to realize, goes WAY beyond the borders of what I had previously defined as reasonable boundaries based on experience.

The rabbit hole runs very deep.

To come to realize that what everything you thought you knew about the nature of reality might be incorrect, based on indescribable states of consciousness, shakes you to the very core.

It's disorienting. You might have to question a lot of fundamental assumptions.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter.
But it's the most important thing in the world.

What is seen (experienced) cannot be unseen.

More than that, I can't even tell you the full implications of that truth. It's something I'm constantly exploring and thinking about.

It seems to me the change is because of the experience, not because of the truth of oneness. Unless you can justify why the changes happened because it is true and would not have happened if it were false (which wouldn't necessarily have caused a different experience).

 

[nexalizer]

It seems to me the change is because of the experience, not because of the truth of oneness. Unless you can justify why the changes happened because it is true and would not have happened if it were false (which wouldn't necessarily have caused a different experience).

The truth of oneness is the experience.

(In that particular subset of experiences that happen to lead there, plenty of profound trips that have nothing to do with Oneness)

 

[sighmon]

The truth of oneness is the experience.

That doesn't make sense to me.

But, I mean, is there something that you consciously do differently now because you believe in the truth of the oneness? Otherwise, if it is either not conscious or not because of the belief in the truth of the oneness, it isn't what I was talking about.

 

[nexalizer]

The truth of oneness is the experience.

That doesn't make sense to me.

But, I mean, is there something that you consciously do differently now because you believe in the truth of the oneness? Otherwise, if it is either not conscious or not because of the belief in the truth of the oneness, it isn't what I was talking about.

See my previous post about it.

Everything is different, yet nothing changed.

My whole perception of the world is now irreversibly colored in such a way that is a direct adaptation to the sort of experience we speak about.

Deep truths always change the way you think and act in the world.

For instance, have you ever had the experience of time massively slowing down during a trip? Even stopping? It's happened to me many years ago, and it always stayed with me, how precious and limited time, youth, and a state of good health is.

It doesn't matter one iota if you've read this or that about time being relative or time being an illusion and this and that, only when you actually go through it, do you viscerally understand it.

I thought I knew about the time thing too and guess what, the first time it happened it terrified me, that experience went so outside the boundaries of what I judged to be the limits of the perception of reality that it necessitated some heavy adaptations on my side to live with that truth.

Similarly, the deep truth of Oneness instills such sudden, radical and disorienting behavioral (psychological, philosophical, etc) adaptions on one's take on the whole mystery.

I can't tell you the deep truth. I don't even understand it myself. All I can do is point the way, tell you, "there is something there, if you are willing to check it out".

 

[sighmon]

See my previous post about it.

Everything is different, yet nothing changed.

My whole perception of the world is now irreversibly colored in such a way that is a direct adaptation to the sort of experience we speak about.

Deep truths always change the way you think and act in the world.

Let me just specify concisely what my point was again, I think my argument has gotten a bit too confused:

- You believe in oneness defined as A.
- You argued for oneness defined as B (I agree)

What I was trying to establish is whether B implies (or equals) A. Because if not I couldn't truly agree with you, not based on that argument anyway. Basically I'm trying to catch you believing something about oneness that is not implied by B.

For instance, have you ever had the experience of time massively slowing down during a trip? Even stopping? It's happened to me many years ago, and it always stayed with me, how precious and limited time, youth, and a state of good health is.

It doesn't matter one iota if you've read this or that about time being relative or time being an illusion and this and that, only when you actually go through it, do you viscerally understand it.

I thought I knew about the time thing too and guess what, the first time it happened it terrified me, that experience went so outside the boundaries of what I judged to be the limits of the perception of reality that it necessitated some heavy adaptations on my side to live with that truth.

I've felt like time didn't exist on psychedelics before, even on weed once (first and only panic attack in my life, felt like I was going insane and had never felt anything like that before or thought it even possible to feel like that).
But at the peak of this intense dmt trip it was something more. At the peak it was like I felt how time stopped for an instant and then restarted.

It didn't make me feel like time is more precious though, more like the opposite in a sense. But much more importantly it made me realize how precious mental health is, and how nightmarish insanity could be. For a while I was afraid of being insane forever, but I kinda got over that, even if I cannot completely convince myself that it isn't possible.

 

[HolySmoke]

Let me just specify concisely what my point was again, I think my argument has gotten a bit too confused:

- You believe in oneness defined as A.
- You argued for oneness defined as B (I agree)

What I was trying to establish is whether B implies (or equals) A. Because if not I couldn't truly agree with you, not based on that argument anyway. Basically I'm trying to catch you believing something about oneness that is not implied by B.

I realize you are not replying to me here, but want to chime in anyway.
I think there is a very different conception of truth and belief going on here. When you say "You believe in oneness defined as A", you are already misunderstanding the "belief". With that I mean, you imply that there is a clear definition, and that the belief follows that definition.

I'd argue it goes the opposite way, we have a belief first, and then we vaguely try to describe it (without ever fully succeeding). We must not confuse the map with the territory, here. Believing the descriptions instead of the direct experience leads to things like dogmatic religion, or materialistic rationalism.

I hope I speak for many here about the "belief" in "All is One", when I say that they don't actually believe that sentence as such. They have experienced a one-ness of sorts, a literally Ineffable one-ness, it cannot be defined, it cannot be put into words. These words are our feeble attempts of making sense of that which cannot be made sense of. Don't believe that people (or at least I) believe their own explanations.

Definitions are tools, not reality as such. I don't know what reality is, every time I have defined it I have later been proven wrong. All is One, One is Many, I am One of Many, and Many are Part of the All that is One. I am the Light, the Source, God. But within this One I simultaneously exist as a perceived separate consciousness. I am both Source, and defined as something within it/within myself.


Edit: Grammar.

Edit 2: Wanted to add onto here that I don't mean to come off as condescending in any way (especially when I said "you are already misunderstanding the "belief"" ). I frequently just write down things without giving thought to how it may be perceived. I value and applaud that you coherently argue your opinion and perspective

 

[sighmon]

I realize you are not replying to me here,

Or am I ... :shock:

Believing the descriptions instead of the direct experience leads to things like dogmatic religion, or materialistic rationalism.

But what is the alternative? Blindly believing all experiences?
That could be dangerous or deadly. Of course who's to say that's bad ... damn, this is confusing. Maybe I should just pick up some old fashioned Abrahamic religion, at least they tell you what to do

 

[nexalizer]

But what is the alternative? Blindly believing all experiences?

Experiencing something. Pondering about the experience. Trying to integrate it. Discuss and reflect with other people who may or may not have had a similar kind of experience.

It's a fine line. Sometimes for whatever reason it does get delusional.

For reasons I don't quite grasp, for most people the previous delusional state does appear obvious in retrospect.. but there is a small minority for whom this (tragically) isn't true..

That could be dangerous or deadly.

Life is a disease with 100% mortality rate. Get used to the idea :d

Of course who's to say that's bad ... damn, this is confusing. Maybe I should just pick up some old fashioned Abrahamic religion, at least they tell you what to do

Nobody said this stuff is easy.

Au contraire - it's written right there in the nexus wiki (DMT-Nexus Wiki:Health and Safety - DMT-Nexus Wiki)


"DMT is a bottomless well of never ending confoundment, an unsolvable riddle of epic proportions spoken in alien tongues. It will call into question all that you know, all you’ve learned to accept as reality, and introduce you to a state of being which defies all comprehension.
This experience is not for everyone, and not all who choose to open the door deal well with the questions it raises. It should never be undertaken lightly or treated in a casual manner. Those who approach it with little respect often pay a psychic price.
Should you choose to proceed, be aware that integration issues may follow. What you find inside may change your life. It will almost certainly alter your deepest, most fundamental assumptions.
"

Can confirm.

 

[nexalizer]

The truth of oneness is the experience.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Because you haven't had the experience.

Words really only reach so far, I'm not trying to be enigmatic or anything like that.

It's something so utterly beyond and radically different than our normal/default way(s) of perceiving the world, that even if we tried I'm not sure mere words, useful as they are, would ever be adequate to portray the general character of the experience & the resulting astonishment.

 

[HolySmoke]

But what is the alternative? Blindly believing all experiences?
That could be dangerous or deadly. Of course who's to say that's bad ... damn, this is confusing. Maybe I should just pick up some old fashioned Abrahamic religion, at least they tell you what to do

In many ways those religions may have been on the right track. I think the alternative is to use belief like a tool, like you use words, definitions and tools as tools. Conjure up the belief that does the most good, for you, other people, and life in general, both short term but more importantly long term.

For instance, a belief that sees an ember of God in every person, where you are God as much as I am, where I see me in You. Such a belief, when properly integrated into a society, can lead to some of the better aspects of Western society, where even mass murderers have the right to a fair trial, instead of being mobbed and killed immediately. Where every human, at least in principle, starts off worthy of respect, and then is responsible for their own actions.

I think it should be obvious that some beliefs lead to better places than others. Figuring out what beliefs build stability, beauty and fairness is a mission humanity (unknowingly) has experimented with for as long as we have had beliefs. Self destructive beliefs self destruct. Adaptive beliefs stabilize and prosper.

This relates to beliefs at all levels, down to the very concrete and trivial. Beliefs about the DMT experience is almost meta-metaphysical, and I find it much harder or even impossible to integrate some of these experiences with daily life. Nevertheless, they seem to have an impact, on a level I barely can articulate.

I don't know exactly where I'm going with this. Say that i) one society has a collective belief that humans are just walking biochemical meat bags with consciousnesses that are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and ii) another society has a collective belief that God exists in all people equally, so that if they violate one another they violate themselves, that if they steal from another person, they are stealing from themselves. It doesn't seem far fetched to me that society ii) would do better in the long run, especially if they also see God equally in their environment, and treats the land as they would treat themselves.

Since they do better, and will exist in a more stable manner, or at least are more likely to, doesn't that imply that the belief of society ii) is more true than that of society i)? (Or vice versa, if society i) turns out to be the most stable and long lasting one). Doesn't it imply that they moreso are aligned with the reality of being?

The apple trees know the Truth. They, on average, have for millions of years bloomed at the right time, put out the right number of leaves. The rabbit knows the Truth. They know what to eat, where to hop, when to sleep. They have aligned themselves with Source and Gaia for millions of years. The sharks know the Truth. They have lived it for hundreds of millions of years. Do modern humans know the Truth? Do they know enough about the reality of Being to last another 1000 years?

Scientific truths are grand and deep. They are my primary way of learning about the natural world. But those truths are only half the picture.

 

[Metashaman]

I had the same question, because (at least on Aya) believe I am really dying and something is wrong with the brew, a pain, high BP or any number of things that aren't things.

I saw goodbye to everyone, tell them I loved them. Hope they were able to see me as a good influence.

It was too late to do anything more than send out thoughts and die. It's extremely scary, mentally painful and you really don't believe it's just a drug effect. The less time since the last time, the easier it is to die again. Because it is fresh that I will survive, but give me 10 months off? It sucks again until I make it through and realize I'm not dead, just in hyperspace.

 

[tseuq]

@dragonrider; Thank you, for sharing your experience with aya. To me, heaven and hell are two sides of the same coin, of "what is just now", and to what I can realte, the experience of "ego-death/dying" can be/is unimaginable intense. Thus, by letting go of all! expectations and ideas of what and how life is or should be, of any emotional or intellectual distortions, and go with it, ONE can experience something ineffable.

But what is the alternative? Blindly believing all experiences?

Go on ... question all and everything, especially own believes, make models and maps, learn, evaluate and share information and knowledge, keep openness and be mindful with all life, it is all you and I as we are one, have a good time with family and friends, be grateful and joyful, stay in the now, there is no need to turn away ever and keep on shining.

We love you.

Offtopic: Can we pls get some more promotion up votes for our fellows Metashaman and KloudQ7?

tseuq

 

[sighmon]

That could be dangerous or deadly.

Life is a disease with 100% mortality rate. Get used to the idea :d

Of course who's to say that's bad ... damn, this is confusing. Maybe I should just pick up some old fashioned Abrahamic religion, at least they tell you what to do

Nobody said this stuff is easy.

Au contraire - it's written right there in the nexus wiki (DMT-Nexus Wiki:Health and Safety - DMT-Nexus Wiki)


"DMT is a bottomless well of never ending confoundment, an unsolvable riddle of epic proportions spoken in alien tongues. It will call into question all that you know, all you’ve learned to accept as reality, and introduce you to a state of being which defies all comprehension.
This experience is not for everyone, and not all who choose to open the door deal well with the questions it raises. It should never be undertaken lightly or treated in a casual manner. Those who approach it with little respect often pay a psychic price.
Should you choose to proceed, be aware that integration issues may follow. What you find inside may change your life. It will almost certainly alter your deepest, most fundamental assumptions.
"

Can confirm.

That doesn't work so well in reality. If an amputee in a wheelchair at the top of a long, steep flight of chairs can feel his non existing legs, would you tell him to trust the experience and take a step - and then tell his family life is dangerous, get used to the idea.

As for the second part, that is very true and too many people are sadly calling psychedelics harmless just because they're not likely to physically harm you (but even that isn't really true as psychological issues are physical harm to the brain (even if temporary but a lot of physical injuries also heal by themselves)

 

[sighmon]

The truth of oneness is the experience.

That doesn't make sense to me.

Because you haven't had the experience.

I'm pretty sure I did. I did of course believe it to be true during the experience. I did have those "insights" like "of course", "how could it have been any other way" etc. and very strong feelings of profoundness. I just don't think now in a sober state that I can trust that. After all thoughts and feelings can be caused by the drug just like the experience itself.