• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

If weed isn't a "real" psychedelic how do you explain arabesque/hindu art?

^Interesting, thanks for mentioning it :) What African plants do you refer to?

Thanks for the seemingly well intentioned advice, but while I don't go out of my way to publicize my beliefs, anybody who even remotely knows me already knows that I know a lot about astrology. You would probably be surprised by how many people aren't as condemning of the subject as you and Doldrugs seem to be.

I feel that they were just questioning the predictive parts of astrology, which has no basis given how we know the universe works. This isn't scepticism or anything like that, this is a viewpoint based entirely on scientific disproving astrology. Its so anthropocentric- constellations are purely subjective, what looks like connecting points may be seperated by incredibly vast distance. These things do not actually exist objectivel; how then could they play any role in human life? Unless I misunderstand the whole concept which is a big chance...

I would be surprised if many people really, truly buy into astrology in its traditional form. Its tempting to believe the future is written and can be revealed to you but there is no evidence for this and plenty against it...
 
I'm not talking about using astrology to predict future events. I'm talking about astrology used to predict personality traits. Give me a birthdate and time, and I can give you reams of information about what that person's personality traits will be in the case of a baby or already are in the case of a child or adult.

That's just a fact. A fact that you may have never experienced, but one that I have.
 
I'm not talking about using astrology to predict future events. I'm talking about astrology used to predict personality traits. Give me a birthdate and time, and I can give you reams of information about what that person's personality traits will be in the case of a baby or already are in the case of a child or adult.

That's just a fact. A fact that you may have never experienced, but one that I have.

No, it's not a fact. It's hilariously absurd, irrational, and has been disproved again and again. That's the facts.

Explain to me how the position of the earth in its rotation around the sun affects people's genetic make up and upbringing? Magical star rays? It genuinely astounds me that anyone can believe something so clearly, unequivocally absurd in modern times. And it's also incredible you think there's any difference between predicting future events or predicting personality traits. Both are equally impossible for all the same reasons.
 
Ok, if disproving astrology is indeed so easy to "prove" that it's been done "again and again," then show me your "proof." I've already told you once that it's impossible to disprove a belief system with science. You can't disprove astrology anymore than you can disprove Christianity, or Taoism for that matter. Belief systems are not high school geometry theorems.
 
Six expert astrologers independently attempted to match 23 as- trological birth charts to the corresponding case files of 4 male and 19 female volunteers. Case files contained information on the volunteers' life histories, full-face and profile photographs, and test profiles from the Strong- Campbell Vocational Interest Blank and the Cattell 16-P.F. Person- ality Inventory. Astrologersdid no better than chance or than a nonastrolo- ger control subject at matching the birth charts to the personal data; this result was independent of astrologers' confidence ratings for their predicted matches. Astrologers also failed to agree with one another's predictions.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_04_1_mcgrew.pdf

For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people — most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subjects should have had very similar traits.

The babies were originally recruited as part of a medical study begun in London in 1958 into how the circumstances of birth can affect future health. More than 2,000 babies born in early March that year were registered, and their development was monitored at regular intervals.

Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sports, mathematics and reading — all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.

The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the “time twins,” however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: “The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success … but the results are uniformly negative.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/17/20030817-105449-9384r/

This kind of information is not hard to find. Your lack of awareness of it indicates an apathy toward understanding your own belief system: the hallmark of a credulous and lazy mark.
 
^Interesting, thanks for mentioning it :) What African plants do you refer to?



I feel that they were just questioning the predictive parts of astrology, which has no basis given how we know the universe works. This isn't scepticism or anything like that, this is a viewpoint based entirely on scientific disproving astrology. Its so anthropocentric- constellations are purely subjective, what looks like connecting points may be seperated by incredibly vast distance. These things do not actually exist objectivel; how then could they play any role in human life? Unless I misunderstand the whole concept which is a big chance...

I would be surprised if many people really, truly buy into astrology in its traditional form. Its tempting to believe the future is written and can be revealed to you but there is no evidence for this and plenty against it...

Landrace plants ie pure non hybrid (African plants are sativa genus) strains that originate in Africa. I think "Durban poison" is an example of a pure African strain.

As for the bullshit argument going on this thread WTF? Middle Eastern/Islamic art is also "psychedelic" just look at the ceiling of any historically significant mosque.

Radio carbon dating disproves most religions time line, in the case of Christianity by IDK, a few billion years. So God was taking a real long shit? The archaeological evidence does not support some biblical stories such as the southern kingdom (King David) as being more then a village of goat herders during the time period of his supposed reign. The Northern kingdom (the one the Hittites destroyed) was in fact very wealthy with temple complexes etc. on par with other major ancient civilizations. The bible tells us the north were poor, the south rich?? Why would the Hittite empire go to war with some goats herders if what the bible claims is true?

Some other stories (Sodom plus her sister city) existed but were destroyed by explosive sub terrain gas building up beneath the city (near fault line) and exploding, the wrath of God? Maybe but more likely a natural disaster. Of course this could all just be some conspiracy theory and the FBI or whatever brainwashed me...

Moral of the story? Science can and does disprove religious theories/ideation on a regular basis.
 
Last edited:
^Oh okay, I didn't realise you were talking about cannabis... :)

I'm not talking about using astrology to predict future events. I'm talking about astrology used to predict personality traits. Give me a birthdate and time, and I can give you reams of information about what that person's personality traits will be in the case of a baby or already are in the case of a child or adult.

Okay. You are talking about predicting the future here also when you say you can know a baby's personality traits are before they even develop them. That's called 'predicting the future'. If you tell me what my current personality or life is like right now, you are using the 'predictive power' of astrology to draw your conclusions. At no point whatsoever are you doing anything that is either NOT a prediction of the future, or using this future-predictive tool to determine the present. You tell me I am unhappy because I was born at a certain time, because you believe that astrology truly predicts the future. You can word it however you like, but you are claiming astrology is giving you information that you cannot possibly know and that has no merit given the source for this information which is really the arbitrary position of earth in relation to clusters of disparate, unconnected stars.

Dresden said:
That's just a fact. A fact that you may have never experienced, but one that I have.

That's the whole point though, that this stuff isn't fact and has been shown to be untrue. You can make a statement and say it is fact, but the evidence tells me that this isn't so.

Of course, I have no problem with people wanting to believe this stuff but I also have no problem with saying that I think its nonsense... I'm not trying to take something from you, but I just think the era of superstition and ignorance should finally be on its way. It leads to no good at all IMO.

Peace <3
 
Little side note. GCMS testing uses heat which causes decarboxylation of THC-a which converts to THC. I wondered why eating raw bud didn't get you as stoned as the same volume in cannabutter. :) So THC % of raw bud includes THC-a if GCMS was used. THC-a is non-psychoactive however it does cause some metabolic/physiological effects. THCa has neuro-protective and anti-spasmodic attributes as well as anti-inflammatories, anti-tumor agents and antioxidant effect. THC shares some of these attributes. THC-V seems to exhibit anti depressant effects as well as euphoric, stimulating and mildly psychedelic effects. :)

You can't die from pot as the pharmacological properties of the various cannabinoids don't effect the brain stem/medulla. Don't ring 911 and say the following "I think we're dead... we're dead? Time is moving really slowly..." lmao: some US state cop, his wife and brownies made with confiscated pot. :)

Well it is a thread about the psychedelic nature of pot lol. :) I do find some strains have mild psychedelic effects but these are very mild vs LSD, shrooms, mescaline etc. I do recall "power plant" strain cannabis grown indoor had some pronounced effects such as time dilation, color light intensity/sensitivity?
 
Last edited:
^I think the curing process does decarboxylate also...Perhaps you refer to 'fresh' bud?

Speaking of fucking which....:)
 
Yes and no fresh bud or recent dried, even well dried & cured bud. Drying will degrade some THC-a. If you store it correctly while curing there will be minimal degradation of THC-a into THC, there will be some however. Jars should be airtight. Cannabis allowed to breath each day for an hour or so IMO. So this is when oxidization will occur. Cooking use heat as do most methods of extraction so the method of ingestion determines the psychoactive attributes. Use cold solvent extraction with 95 % food grade Etoh at -14 metric ie your freezer, or cold press to extract THC-a. :)

Did little browsing: Twenty twelve saw: "the strain Doug's Varin was created, with a ratio of 6:7 THC:THCV. This is the first strain we have evaluated that has more THCV than THC. All the high THCV plant strains we have observed are of the classic tall, lanky, narrow leaved sativa appearing variety." Steep Hill Labs, Inc. 2013.

Edit: THV-v seems to interact with THC. THC-v seems to alter the THC subjective experience to a more stimulating effect, THC-v also causes anorexic effect. So that is why some dope you get the munchies and some you don't. I think pure Indica strains don't produce THC-v, they do produce THC, CBD etc as dose cannabis Ruderalis (minus much/any THC with Ruderalis). Cannabis Ruderalis hybridized with Indica and/or Sativa create auto-flowering plants. So the genome determines the metabolites the plant produces as well as determining it's size, density of flower and flowering cycle.

I believe there is 3 different metabolic pathways a cannabis plant can utilize to create various cannabinoids, determined by genetics. These result in THC, THC-a, THC-v while another process creates CBD, CBG etc, the third creates Terpenes plus other metabolites/cannabinoids I think?
 
Last edited:
so basically you have to be on something to have any artistic talent? guess God was the first head.
 
It's only mild if the dose is low. High dose edibles are literally the polar opposite of mild.

Of course, still this is why I say, We must remember, that eating hash can produce extremely intense visions & was a chief method of ingestion over 1000's of years & cannot be entirely ruled out, especially in combo with possibly imported or extinct genus of mushroom, or other lost formulations. SOMA also, for it's high praise in the Rig Vedas hasn't been re-discovered for sure which leaves a huge question mark for many matters. Gorden Wasson suggesting Aminta Muskaria despite in my impoverished education on the matter, I feel seems incorrect.

So outside Datura (seeds of Tibetan Datura), not a true psychedelic, even as has been used for millennia by Tibetan Shamanism, these Lama's having special training & prep still yet it's seems according to some who've looked at this, such as Terence McKenna that these visions are not akin to these beautiful tapestries. He asked this very question in his travels in the 70's while in exile. The lack of shrooms outside of Aminta Muskaria in this region, (a place of great ancient trade) again more like a Datura than a psychedelic I think leaves this at hash eating still a possibility, excluding the trade in non-local substances, or one's that are now extinct in the region. These images are psychedelic for sure. 8)
 
I doubt soma was Amanita Muscaria.

----

The very traditional Zoroastrian groups in Iran, who still practice a ritual using soma (or as they call it, *homa* ) use a variety of ephedra grass as their "soma." They of course claim that what they use is the real soma and the same soma that was always used. Ephedra does also generally fit the descriptions of soma given in the Vedas themselves: both in the appearance of the plant, and in its effects on the user. Although cannabis would be fairly consistent with these descriptions as well.

That being said, a number of temples have been found at archaeological dig sites, belonging to the ancient Aryan tribes and the kingdoms descended from their migration, which have been discovered to include sacrificial alters with preserved burnt and unburnt material. This material has been analyzed and in fact seems to vary by region: in Persia mixtures of ephedra, opium poppy, and cannabis were found, while material discovered farther east has often contained just ephedra, or ephedra and cannabis.

Etymologically a link has been postulated between the current Indian word for cannabis (bhanga), and one of the Chinese words for cannabis (Hu Ma), and the ancient Indo-European "Haoma" found in texts from Persia and which is generally thought to be equivalent to "soma."

...so. There may not have ever been one specific plant labeled as soma. The preparations may have varied by region, and depended on what grew nearby. There also may have been various different plants given the label soma, and even in some of the ancient texts which we use as reference material, there have been referenced to the obscurity of certain Vedic words and speculation as to their meaning.

I would say the two plants that fit the bill are definitely cannabis and ephedra--and they were definitely both used in ritual by various groups at various times. For what it's worth, cannabis (bhanga) is still used ritualistically today in India, but Ephedra is only used by certain Zoroastrian groups in Iran. This may indicate that ephedra use was a localized permutation of the identity of soma to just that region... But there are also references in the Vedas about "the best soma" coming from past Kashmir, where cannabis does in fact grow wild, but more importantly where ephedra grows wild, and where ephedra use is still practiced.
 
Ephedra is incredibly unpersuasive as the supreme spiritual drug of a culture with numerous substances on hand that have much more mystical effects. Anyone who doubts hash as a legitimate possibility needs to get some high dose edibles. Everything I've read indicates we just don't have enough evidence to say for sure, though. Barring the unlikely discovery of crucial documents or artifacts we'll never know.

Gorden Wasson suggesting Aminta Muskaria despite in my impoverished education on the matter, I feel seems incorrect.

The experts on the matter agree with you. Wasson's theory is not well thought of in his field.
 
the main fallacy in this thread is the believe that you cannot study geometry without having taken psychoactives. they can be inspiring, but there are other ways to get to these shapes, and designing stuff like that is highly mathematical as well.
 
the main fallacy in this thread is the believe that you cannot study geometry without having taken psychoactives. they can be inspiring, but there are other ways to get to these shapes, and designing stuff like that is highly mathematical as well.

I don't disagree, but I think the thread has since diverged from its original point.
 
Like I said, alters have been found with both ephedra and cannabis. Also poppy.

The argument against cannabis is that it's so pervasive and was so well understood as a psychoactive in India that it seems odd that so many of the ancient reference texts express confusion about soma's identity: those authors *did* know bhanga, and yet soma was still treated as something separate and mystical.

On the other hand--most wild cannabis looks nothing like the hydroponic of today.... Obviously. But there are/were wild strains that are more "exotic" looking, with larger buds and more crystalization on the buds. "Soma" just meant the "food of the gods" and clearly the actual plants used tended te vary by region and time period--as demonstrated by the archeological evidence--but where soma might have referred to cannabis, when referred to by ancient scholars that already *knew* of cannabis... It may have been referencing particular cultivars. Thus that line in the Vedas that specifies the best soma coming from beyond Kashmir.

It also must be noted that many Indian scholars agree that it's probably cannabis. Or at least that cannabis was probably *one of the substances* referred to as Soma.

But... Ephedra does not produce effects equivalent to ephedrine. Keep that in mind. There are different species of ephedra, and even of the species that contain ephedrine, there are other alkaloids present. But even so... I don't know why you or anyone thinks that this "soma" *must* have been an entheogen and the inspiration for all the creativity of the Indo-European religious and cultural practice. Mere "stimulants" are consistently valued across cultures and given sacred, spiritual value. It makes perfect sense: from the perspective of a scientifically illiterate but spiritual culture, what plant might embody life itself? A plant which invigorates the self, which gives energy, gives "*virulence*", even gives sexual energy and thus can be connected with the myths surrounding fertility and surrounding the act of creation itself.

The traditional Chinese pharmacopeia is extensive, but a a glance, what plant is given the most respect, is the basis of formal ceremonies, conducted by and for everyone from te emperor down to many of the poor locals? Tea, of course. Camilia Sinensis. why? Sure it tastes good. And sure, it has all kinds of health benefits--many of which were discovered, or otherwise attribute to it, by the people who respected and used it in China, Korea, and Japan. What would compel this use? At the most primordial level, before the tea ceremony had already become an enshrined cultural practice, what would cause tea to stand out as a particularly special plant? It's a stimulant. It invigorates the mind and the body.

Similarly, for Native North Americans, there was a plant used ubiquitously, so much so that it could form the core of a ceremony performed to demonstrate peace between tribes: what was it? Tobacco. A stimulant. Look a little farther south, then, and what do you see? "Chocolate" drinks prepared from the cacao bean--not your sweet-tasting, relaxing store bought milk chocolate, but rather a bitter mixture full of caffeine and theobromine and theophylline and phenylethylamine.

Further south still and you've found yourself the coca leaf--and I hope you don't claim that that was never considered a "sacred" plant, because it certainly was, and still is.

The very earliest evidence of coffee drinking comes from the Sufi shrines, where it was regarded as a sacred for its ability to allow them to dance and study far into the night. Tobacco also found a place in Islamic culture, and became an important part of their artistic expression--intricate water pipes and complex ways of preparing the tobacco (as shisha).

And for all the talk about use of entheogens by Native American groups: of ayahuasca, of bufotenin, and of mescaline, let's not forget that one of the most sacred plants in South American tribal legend--presented as a gift from the gods directly to a man who saved their lives, as a "drink of friendship"--is Yerba Mate. There's caffeine again! Besides, mescaline is classed as an entheogen today--and it most definitely is--but it's also very distinctly notable for effects beyond that: it provides many hours of boundless physical energy coupled with a calm, contemplative, even languid, state of mind. Well, there's one thing in particular it was famously used for: allowing messengers to run for miles without fatigue.

Hell. alcohol "invigorates the body" too: Sure, it's a depressant, but it causes significantly higher adrenaline levels than even cocaine or amphetamine--and it flushes the skin and provides (the sensation) of warmth, and creates false courage and "drunk muscles" through disinhibition. Well alcohol has certainly played an important part in the religious custom of many a culture--forget the Christian sacrament: by that time it was too old and too established. How about the old Viking tradition of drinking fermented goat's milk before they went into battle? Or the old term (I believe still used in France) Aqua Vitae "water of life" for all alcohol in general but more specifically originating as a term for the spirits derived produced by a monastery from the extensive distillation of fruit wine to produce a near-neutral grain alcohol.

Ok... I'm sure I could keep finding more examples but this is turning into a tangent and I think it's starting to make my point less clear rather than more clear. My overarching point is that stimulants have always been viewed as sacred plants, frequently a gift of the gods, and often become deeply embedded in a culture with the development of complex ritualized use patterns. They are often described in texts in very spiritual terms, and though some (mescaline obviously, but also cannabis, tobacco, and even ephedra) have other mind-altering properties, there is a frequent focus on their ability to invigorate the mind, body or soul. I think it's perfectly sensible that, to a culture utilizing a "God of the gaps" type theology/spirituality, the ability of a plant to impart energy, the sensation of being alive would place that plant in a very special place. As a food for the gods, for example.

I'm of the opinion that--among the early Aryan tribes who brought te Vedas to India--ephedra probably predates cannabis as a holy plant, simply because they likely had the opportunity to use it earlier in their migration, farther north, before they had the opportunity to use cannabis. Maybe they used Amanita too, even farther north. In fact they probably did. But it doesn't match the descriptions in the Vedas. Ultimately it becomes a question of semantics: all of these plants were used in religious rituals, which one we can call the "real" soma is going to be somewhat arbitrary, considering that the term has clearly been used to describe different plants in different time periods and regions.
 
Similar to others, I come to this thread to reject the premise upon which the question is based. But, to be clear:


  1. Yes, weed is a real psychedelic, but...
  2. The human brain is psychedelic at its core anyway, and...
  3. You don't need drugs to trip, and...
  4. You don't need drugs to art, but...

Can't remember my last point.

Bye.
 
Similar to others, I come to this thread to reject the premise upon which the question is based. But, to be clear:


  1. Yes, weed is a real psychedelic, but...
  2. The human brain is psychedelic at its core anyway, and...
  3. You don't need drugs to trip, and...
  4. You don't need drugs to art, but...

Can't remember my last point.

Bye.
All these things being true...

There's still an unmistakeable similarity between the form constants and patterns found in some artwork and the particular kinds of forms characteristic of some of the serotonergic class of psychedelic drugs. Yes, weed is mind altering, and yes it can cause changes in visual perception, and yes those changes in visual perception can be VERY intense (note on my experience of that below) but it's also subjectively *different*. It's quite simply not the same class of drug. Which is quite obvious--but that's why it's bizarre to me when people say "weed is" or "weed isn't" a psychedelic. Sure, it's a strong mind altering substance that in high doses can even produce intense subjective changes in perception.
But no, it does not produce the effects characteristic of the "classical" psychedelics--because it is not one, and does not share their mechanism of action. It's no different than asking whether dissociatives can be considered psychedelics: sure, of course they could be considered psychedelics--some moreso than others. Is this psychedelia mediated by effects at serotonergic receptors? In the case of ketamine.... Maybe a little bit? In the case of the others.... No.

So if people say that Indian art looks like a DMT chrysanthemum...well first of all maybe they just looked at a god-damned chrysanthemum or something. But second of all, it's not unfair to specify that some artwork seems to evoke form constants more characteristic of one class of drug over another--in which case perhaps cannabis is less likely to have played a role in that creative process. But the issue is that people see a piece of artwork and think "shit looks trippy, fuckin weird animals head and shit"".... And yes, it might be a very imaginative scene--very unlike anything in existing in reality.... But that doesn't mean it resembles the form constants induced by serotonergic psychedelics.

(On tripping on weed)
--some of my first experiences with weed caused a--peculiar in hindsight--but terrifying and confusing in the moment--visual distortion such that it would take several seconds for my vision to "catch up" with what my eyes were actually pointing at...

So instead of sweeping my gaze smoothly from object A to object B... I would perceive the motion of my head to be coupled instead to a weird blending of the images passing across my vision.... And after several seconds all of the old imagery would sort of "shatter" away... It's hard to describe or even clearly recollect the effect now because it's been years... But it felt like being in some kind of twisting tunnel where you'd lose all sense of what was supposed to be up or down. The seemingly contradictory proprioceptive and visual data--of feeling my head turn but not seeing a different visual space--at least right away--well it was terrifying. And it happened a couple of times, too: In my first dozen or so experiences I always either smoked too little and felt nothing, or smoked to much and had one of these "trips." That's probably what put me off of weed--never really decided I cared enough for it to consistently keep any around--though I've long since been able to adjust my intake more carefully to avoid these results.
 
Top