Folley
Bluelighter
It can be a bad trip if you take an ego dissolving dose and your ego stays
-
PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |
Can an ego dissolving dose be a bad trip?
- Thread starter juniorcat
- Start date
IamMe90
Bluelighter
Everyone also needs to realize that this topic has nothing to do with Freud because "ego" in the psychedelic colloquial sense means "sense of self" or "self identity," both of which everyone has (if you don't have a sense of self, I think you'd be a static unchanging person with no personality), whereas Freud's ego is:
"The ego acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief.[11] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the Ucs. [Unconscious] commands of the id with its own Pcs. [Preconscious] rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess...to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[12]
This is clearly not the same thing as a mere sense of self or self identity, something which (that is, a self identity) every major philosopher, psychologist and human being has seemed to confirm and agree exists. Stop mentioning Freud. Stop it, no personal attacks, because that doesn't have to do with anything; I'm not even necessarily disagreeing that an ego can't be dissolved, that's not unreasonable to think, but mentioning Freud is downright dishonest because it has nothing to do with anything this topic asks about.
"The ego acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief.[11] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the Ucs. [Unconscious] commands of the id with its own Pcs. [Preconscious] rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess...to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[12]
This is clearly not the same thing as a mere sense of self or self identity, something which (that is, a self identity) every major philosopher, psychologist and human being has seemed to confirm and agree exists. Stop mentioning Freud. Stop it, no personal attacks, because that doesn't have to do with anything; I'm not even necessarily disagreeing that an ego can't be dissolved, that's not unreasonable to think, but mentioning Freud is downright dishonest because it has nothing to do with anything this topic asks about.
limonov
Bluelighter
I've experienced ego death numerous times (mainly from higher doses of dissociatives, but lsd/dmt/shrooms also a few times) and it can be the most pleasant, euphoric experience that you ever have; or it can be a tangible glimpse at what it is like to burn eternally in the hellfire.
I think that it's perfectly natural to freak out if you think that you're dying, it's just that generally if you're experiencing ego death you're far to messed up to worry about petty meat concerns like staying alive. My worst experience involved me thinking that I had died, but being aware that I still existed in some capacity, that I was now trapped eternally within my own personal limbo, trying to work out if this was purgatory or hell (and I'm not even religious). Not being able to work out where I was or why I was experiencing what I was experiencing, as well as believing that I could no longer die (having already died, thus in all likelihood, this is all I will experience for the rest of eternity- trapped in the moment that I died) caused quite a bit of anxiety.
I don't know if I'd call it a bad trip, other parts of it were exteremely euphoric and insightful, but it was a difficult experience.
I think that it's perfectly natural to freak out if you think that you're dying, it's just that generally if you're experiencing ego death you're far to messed up to worry about petty meat concerns like staying alive. My worst experience involved me thinking that I had died, but being aware that I still existed in some capacity, that I was now trapped eternally within my own personal limbo, trying to work out if this was purgatory or hell (and I'm not even religious). Not being able to work out where I was or why I was experiencing what I was experiencing, as well as believing that I could no longer die (having already died, thus in all likelihood, this is all I will experience for the rest of eternity- trapped in the moment that I died) caused quite a bit of anxiety.
I don't know if I'd call it a bad trip, other parts of it were exteremely euphoric and insightful, but it was a difficult experience.
Help?!?!
Bluelighter
A question like this simply won't work......because your asking the wrong person. Try asking yourself these questions as your answer to them is simply the only one that matters definitively at the end of the day, anyways.
Or are you just high on a psychedelic drug?
I think people started talking about "ego-death" or "reaching satori" back in the 60's when trippers realised if they started a conversation with "Last night I was high on a psychedelic drug man.." people thought they were fucking idiots. So they realised what you had to do to overcome prejudice was try and link it to something that normal people will understand - so you said "Last night I had an ego-death man.." or "last night I reached buddha-hood".
To me, "Last night I was high on a psychedelic drug" is perfectly acceptable. All the stuff about "feeling at one with everything" or "not being as aware of your thought processes as you normally are" can all be perfectly explained by the phrase "I was stoned out of my fucking head on psychedelics".
To me, it really is that simple. If you want to try and tie it to a figment of Freuds imagination 100 years ago then you can do - you can tie it to pretty much anything you want.
Last edited:
Not really - only since Tim Leary came up with the idea and started spreading it back in the 60's. Before that thousands of people had taken LSD and never made any connection with tripping and the "ego-death".
Of course once the "high priest of LSD" says something a lot of people are going to follow his words blindly.
!!4iV4HF9R34g
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,116
Psychonautics is not "tripping" and has been around for ages longer.
Additionally, Leary's crock work makes little rational sense to me.
I am not an oblivious new-age initiate, thanks much.
Additionally, Leary's crock work makes little rational sense to me.
I am not an oblivious new-age initiate, thanks much.
IamMe90
Bluelighter
The idea of ego loss and transcendence has been around since almost every major world religion but don't expect much subtlety from someone who refuses to understand the difference in meaning between colloquial "ego" and Freudian ego even after me posting a cited definition of the Freudian ego in this thread. How stubborn can you get?
MrGrunge
Bluelighter
Jeez, Ismene. For your own sake please stop talking before you say even more fundamentally incorrect things.
Well you're linking two completely things there - ego-loss and transcendence. They arn't the same thing. And then you're talking about them in relation to "world religions" where transcendence doesn't mean the same thing either. You've got to try and have some basic understanding of the terms you're using. The concept of "transcendence" in most world religions refers specifically to God - God is transcendent and beyond human understanding and rules.
But we're talking about psychedelic drugs so lets get back to that. I said it was Leary who came up with the idea of "ego-loss" on psychedelics in the 60's because he was familiar with Freuds psychology. Can you find anyone else talking about it in the decade before Leary?
Can you say what you think is "fundamentally incorrect"? You not agreeing with something doesn't make it "fundamentally incorrect" ok?
IamMe90
Bluelighter
The buddhist religion doesn't have a God, but they still believe in transcending the self and accompanying desires. Please don't tell me I'm "misunderstanding terms" when you're clearly misunderstanding Freudian ego and refusing to acknowledge the definition I posted in this thread, cited, which proves that you don't know anything about Freudian psychoanalysis. The term "transcendence" in most world religions does refer to God, but it also refers to transcending the self in order to be unified and one with God. Now, I myself don't believe in any of this, but these two terms are DEFINITELY linked - transcending physical reality and the self in order to be one with the ultimate end - God - is definitely the goal of many religions. in this sense, these two terms are totally related.
Again, if you read what Freudian ego means, it is supposed to be the part of the brain that mediates the id and superego - clearly, this is bullshit, but again has nothing to do with a sense of self, a sense of individuality - things which you and I clearly possess.
Buddhism.
DwayneHoover
Bluelighter
What people mean when they talk ego-loss on psychedelics has zero to do with Freud, they simply mean "loss of sense of self." They only call it "ego loss" as verbal shorthand.
"Sense of self" is a very basic concept that of course we all possess... its a very basic blatantly obvious part of our psychology. Psychedelics can give you an experience where that is destroyed, in which you "forget who you are." Clearly, obviously. Duh. It's very simple really.
The concept of "sense of self" did not originate with Freud. Ismene is just throwing out all the obfuscating arguments about Freud/Leary/etc pretending that "ego loss" refers ONLY to Freudian crap and not the more general meaning because his goal here is apparently to prove how "right" he is. He is addicted to being "right."
"Sense of self" is a very basic concept that of course we all possess... its a very basic blatantly obvious part of our psychology. Psychedelics can give you an experience where that is destroyed, in which you "forget who you are." Clearly, obviously. Duh. It's very simple really.
The concept of "sense of self" did not originate with Freud. Ismene is just throwing out all the obfuscating arguments about Freud/Leary/etc pretending that "ego loss" refers ONLY to Freudian crap and not the more general meaning because his goal here is apparently to prove how "right" he is. He is addicted to being "right."
Last edited:
!!4iV4HF9R34g
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,116
Ismene, I speak literally. My words carry no implications or context, only that which they are defined as within the English language.
In the first place, tangential relations between near words in a sentence do not necessarily implicate a link.
Ego-loss and transcendence are separate concepts, though they relate to each other in certain aspects.
The link, if any, was that many of Leary's concepts have been around for longer than himself.
In fact, his teaching are rejuvenations of ancient Tibetan books; this is how his books were advertised.
Secondly, transcendence simply means existing beyond the material experience. This can be achieved in many ways, some of which are not positive, and many of which have absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Regarding your last point, the conception of a term to describe something does not often coincide with the term of existence for the concept itself.
That is, while Leary may have coined the term Ego-Loss (which I'm not sure of), this does not mean that Ego-Loss did not exist before Leary.
Oh, and something is fundamental when it is both self-evident and constantly repeatable.
In the first place, tangential relations between near words in a sentence do not necessarily implicate a link.
Ego-loss and transcendence are separate concepts, though they relate to each other in certain aspects.
The link, if any, was that many of Leary's concepts have been around for longer than himself.
In fact, his teaching are rejuvenations of ancient Tibetan books; this is how his books were advertised.
Secondly, transcendence simply means existing beyond the material experience. This can be achieved in many ways, some of which are not positive, and many of which have absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Regarding your last point, the conception of a term to describe something does not often coincide with the term of existence for the concept itself.
That is, while Leary may have coined the term Ego-Loss (which I'm not sure of), this does not mean that Ego-Loss did not exist before Leary.
Oh, and something is fundamental when it is both self-evident and constantly repeatable.
Well you said "many of the worlds religions" not Buddhism.
The term "transcendence" in most world religions does refer to God
Right.
but it also refers to transcending the self in order to be unified and one with God.
I think you're confusing the two - Buddhists talk of "transcending the self" but they don't talk of being "unified and one with God" because as you pointed out Buddhists don't have a God.
but again has nothing to do with a sense of self, a sense of individuality - things which you and I clearly possess
I agree with you on this. We all have a sense of who we are. The bit I'm not agreeing you with is that when we take psychedelics the resulting feeling is somehow linked to Freuds 100 year old discredited theories.
Buddhism.
Too lazy to just say Buddhism. Buddhism isn't the same thing as being high on psychedelic drugs. If you had been studying Buddhism for 70 years and came to me and said "I've studied Buddhism all my life, 500 mics of acid won't bother me in the slightest". I'd tell you that you were utterly fucking clueless.
!!4iV4HF9R34g
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,116
Buddhism is included in the broad category "many of the world's religions".
Buddhists, simply, believe that Existence is god.
In this context, Buddhists strive to be one with Existence (god) through every aspect of their lives.
Freud was a crackpot theorist with no basis in legitimate science; he has no place in this discussion. That has been stated many times.
Buddhists are affected by psychedelic drugs.
Buddhists, simply, believe that Existence is god.
In this context, Buddhists strive to be one with Existence (god) through every aspect of their lives.
Freud was a crackpot theorist with no basis in legitimate science; he has no place in this discussion. That has been stated many times.
Buddhists are affected by psychedelic drugs.
Ok.
Ego-loss and transcendence are separate concepts, though they relate to each other in certain aspects.
Well, most things relate to each other if you really want them to. As John Lennon said once "ANTHING fits if you're tripping off on some trip. ANYTHING FITS". I've read a book recently saying Christianity is based completely on Muscaria mushrooms. Christ himself was the mushroom - it all relates if you really want to believe it.
The link, if any, was that many of Leary's concepts have been around for longer than himself.
In fact, his teaching are rejuvenations of ancient Tibetan books; this is how his books were advertised
True but Leary is putting a different spin on the teachings isn't he. He's saying when a Tibetan monk says something it means the same thing as tripping on acid.
Secondly, transcendence simply means existing beyond the material experience
Well there's quite a few different meanings to transcendence - particularly when you look at it from a religious perspective which is what IamMe was suggesting.
this does not mean that Ego-Loss did not exist before Leary.
Was it? I'm not sure. "Ego-death" seems to be something Leary came up with as a term for tripping on acid.
The trouble is many other religions don't see it the same way. If you went to a fundamentalist Christian, muslim etc and said "I'm transcendent just like God" you would be bullwhipped till your flesh hung off you in great strips and then burned alive.
he has no place in this discussion.
The trouble is Learys whole theory of "ego-death" is based on his interpretation of Freud. It's hard to talk about "ego-death" without mentioning Freud isn't it?
Buddhists are affected by psychedelic drugs.
They're very dismissive of psychedelics tho - I was reading "Zig zag zen" and pretty much all the buddhists say taking psychedelics is absolutely fuck-all like Buddhism.
!!4iV4HF9R34g
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,116
Your logic is not basic. You expound too much on topics that are not being discussed.
Of course anyone can make anything relate IN THEIR MIND.
However, this has nothing to do with fundamental connections and legitimate links.
LEARY IS A CRACKPOT!
His works were targeted at ignorant masses entranced by the "magic and mystery" of psychedelics and Eastern philosophy.
Furthermore, I stated that my meanings of words are direct definitions from Merriam-Webster.
And I'm 100% sure. Ego-death has nothing to do with tripping on acid, and can only be achieved by the inability of the perception model to function.
Of course anyone can make anything relate IN THEIR MIND.
However, this has nothing to do with fundamental connections and legitimate links.
LEARY IS A CRACKPOT!
His works were targeted at ignorant masses entranced by the "magic and mystery" of psychedelics and Eastern philosophy.
Furthermore, I stated that my meanings of words are direct definitions from Merriam-Webster.
And I'm 100% sure. Ego-death has nothing to do with tripping on acid, and can only be achieved by the inability of the perception model to function.
Last edited:
!!4iV4HF9R34g
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,116
Oh my god.. I can't even discuss anything with you. It's like talking to a fucking wall.
I regularly visit places of worship and discuss my views.
Some people are obstinate like you, while many are open to legitimate discussion.
Leary and Freud are both fucking idiots, and they are not necessary in a discussion about Ego-Loss/Death.
Buddhists reject psychedelics based on their idea that these drugs are only shortcuts, and that they don't last.
Personally, I believe that every method of psychonautic exploration is only that, the method.
The true value comes from the application of the experience and application of thought.
I regularly visit places of worship and discuss my views.
Some people are obstinate like you, while many are open to legitimate discussion.
Leary and Freud are both fucking idiots, and they are not necessary in a discussion about Ego-Loss/Death.
Buddhists reject psychedelics based on their idea that these drugs are only shortcuts, and that they don't last.
Personally, I believe that every method of psychonautic exploration is only that, the method.
The true value comes from the application of the experience and application of thought.
Last edited: