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

Can an ego dissolving dose be a bad trip?

Haha, I know. And I don't mean to insult you. I apologize for letting my frustration out like that.
I sometimes get a little vehement regarding my thought system, logic, and words (being my three passions ha).
Also, I don't mean that all of Leary's work is bull. There are a few valid applications and tips and many of his processes seem to work for people.
I just believe that he was misguided by the illusions; that he focused too much (like most other psychedelic figures) on the experience itself.
Freud though, he's pretty much complete bullshit haha haha. (:
 
lol this is still going. For the purpose of this discussion, ego will be defined as 'the sense of self' and ego-loss will be defined as the 'loss (lack) of the sense of self'. If we have to we can also define sense of self as that which separates us, or defines us from others, the individual difference. No Freud involved, no Timothy Leary.

Transcendence involves 'going beyond' or above. In this case we can define transcendence as going beyond the self. We are talking about transcending the ego, when this occurs we have ego-loss. Even in a religious context I think this is an acceptable definition. Now we have clear and defined terms without the use of Leary/Freud.

Given the above definitions, Ismene, your arguments are not valid.

1. ego-loss is not a term used to brag/boast about a psychedelic experience. Ego-loss refers to a specific state that can occur with/without drugs. Ego-loss cannot be equated to 'i'm high on a psychedelic drug'. In the state of ego-loss there is no sense of self, therefore no sense that you are high on a psychedelic.

2. Leary/Freud have nothing to do with this concept. You can think of ego-loss and not involve Leary or Freud. Since ego-loss does not necessarily involve drugs, it does not necessarily involve Leary, and since you claim Leary is employing Freud's definition of ego, ego-loss as defined in this discussion does not involve Freud. (this has also been mentioned numerous times in this discussion)

3. Transcendence and ego-loss are not entirely separate things, even in a religious context. Transcending the self, going beyond the self, is also going beyond the sense of self, which we have defined as ego-loss.


With that being said, Ismene, i must congratulate you on what should be considered the next generation of trolling. Despite numerous arguments directly refuting your claims, you press on, not only bringing in Freud but also tying in Timothy Leary and using a quote by John Lennon. The John Lennon quote was impressive in itself, it was entirely ironic and I didn't get it at first. I'm sure you are having a good laugh about this and quite frankly you deserve it.
 
Ismene said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you PLEASE STOP BEING SO EVASIVE and just take a LOOK at the cited definition of Freud's ego I told you about and tell me how that has ANYTHING to do with what people consider psychedelic ego death?

I think the the reason that so many people are getting mad at you, Ismene, is that you aren't swapping opinions, you keep completely ignoring what we are saying and literally rehash the exact same thing, over and over. You aren't responding to us, you aren't participating in an exchange, you are simply putting out your opinion and disagreeing with anyone who dissents without posting anything substantive.
 
If you accept mentally that you are dieing it is enlightening and everything will work out on it's own. If you are struggeling, you will be in Fight-or-Flight mode which pretty much sucks and really fucks up following trips in my experience. It's your choice. Ego deaths can change life and your attitude to it.
 
Okay, I really believe it's summed up very accurately on the first page (many times), but I'd also like to add that the function of the term death in "Ego-Death" is accurate due to the fact that what you are experiencing is not usually death, but loss.
The only instance in which Ego-Death would be accurate, however, would be in that of one's model of perception (Ego) being incapable of performing it's task; this would mean physical death (in keeping with modern knowledge that perception is only resultant of physical processes and conscious thought and experience).
I actually agree with Ismene that semantics and form are important for clarification and legitimacy.
 
Ismene said:
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.
Click to expand...


And regarding this:

These statements are in poor keeping with your adamance regarding proper phrasing.

The phrase "I was high on psychedelics." absolutely does not explain the rapid expansion and delineation of neurological cognitive processes, and it will never describe the individual and subjective experiences and manifestations of these functions.
 
Nomenclature politics becoming a dust-ball for fighting within.
lol, you guys are nerds...;) i am too though, i just chose to observe this one from the outside.

2 cents: regardless of the cultural connotation of the terms 'ego loss' and 'ego death', there is an experience to be had, which, once experienced, one tends to describe in such terms. Even if leary never said ego death, and freud never said ego, i believe people would still come up with another phrase which is representative of such experience. A SEMANTICALLY-CONFUSED NOMENCLATURE whirlwinds i tell ya.

i love you guys though, analyzing to the fucking bone. that's my style too :D
 
OP:
i think it's hard to really assess good or bad at that point. some people would call the experience of losing track of themselves terrifying in retrospect, even if they saw themselves surrounded by angels and love during the experience of ego-loss. others, may have 'touched the void' and seen the abyss, but still found it desirable in retrospect. I think part of the ego-dissolution experience is the forfeit of one's assessment in the moment, more like a 3rd person dream (right??). when one comes back and says whether or not they enjoyed the experience their ego has returned, and thusly integrated the experience into a tidy little ego-representation packed into a pretty little box called 'how I feel about, and how i describe in words what just happened to me'....and that boxed-up retrospective ego-summary is never fully accurate in portraying the 'filter-less' experience of reality.
 
I agree, concepts and feelings are absent in true Ego-Loss.
Reflecting on this experience, it is possible to recognize defining characteristics, however the experience itself does not carry any connotation.
 
agreeance...nice change of pace for this thread :D

and so the re-unification of our varying world-views begins
ha
 
i want ismene to agree too..!!
i'll formulate my expressions in whichever of the plethora of variations which will get him to say 'i guess' ;)
 
Sad fact is, there's been lots of consensus in this thread; it's just been overshadowed by the blatant fallacy of Ismene's arguments.
I think we've all been attempting to affect even a cursory understanding in his mind, but to little avail.
 
RobotRipping said:
Ego-loss refers to a specific state that can occur with/without drugs.
Click to expand...

Says who? Where do you hear of "ego-loss" in anything other than psychedelic drugs? Don't say "Buddhism".

Despite numerous arguments directly refuting your claims

Can you give me one of these arguments?

The John Lennon quote was impressive in itself, it was entirely ironic

No it wasn't ironic. He was speaking to a deluded guy who was trying to make bizzarre connections between reality and his imagination. I'm trying to do the same to you.

I'm sure you are having a good laugh about this

No, it's getting very boring trying to explain it over and over again to be honest.
 
IamMe90 said:
Can you PLEASE STOP BEING SO EVASIVE
Click to expand...

Can you address just one of the points I made to your last post? Start with your claim that "Buddhism" talks about "ego-death" just like psychedelic drugs.

Then address the others.
 
thoughtsUnThought said:
i want ismene to agree too..!!
i'll formulate my expressions in whichever of the plethora of variations which will get him to say 'i guess' ;)
Click to expand...

I did agree in the past - I used to be just like you. "I achieved ego-death the other night!". I used to blindly accept all the talk of "ego" and "ego-death" and "it's all just like the Buddhists dude". But when you do a bit more reading on the subject you find it all falls apart and you're just using words with no meaning to describe being high on pyschedelic drugs.

The ultimate example of where all this bullshit leads you is the famous "Ram Dass gave a religious guy 900 mics of acid and he just sat there with no effect". "Cos, like, taking acid is like, the exact same state that being a religious master cos he has like no ego dude". When I first read that I was sat there going "Wow, like AMAZING!! What are the implications of this stunning fact!!!".

Then I thought about it a bit more and finally came to the conclusion "what a load of bullshit". I know it's not a popular argument I'm expressing but one day when you're a bit older you might understand.
 
haha, i was just pokin fun...lol, i can see where you are coming from friend. :) a bit straw-mannin of the psychedelic culture, but i feel ya lol.

i wasn't postin against you before, i just said that the nomenclature is the point of confusion, whether that's you and the other poster's confusion...or the term-confusion of the people who originally got stoned and said those comments.

we have though, ismene, however been on opposite sides of other debates in the past. i love your solidity lol, sometimes arrogance, but solidity none-the-less. you've helped me to learn more 'neutrally acceptable' means of expressing my ideas...it takes a magic touch to get a science-minded person to agree to something of mystical value...a magic touch, and a very specific linguistic arrangement.

cheers to intelligible debate, makes us all wiser. :D
 
Holy freaking cow, Ismene, you are by far the most obstinate and irrational troll I've ever seen.
Honestly, your subtlety and practice in this art is impeccable. It's a freaking marvel, I swear.

I very much hope that this is deliberate...

I, for one, will no longer participate in the brazen ignorance.
 
thoughtsUnThought said:
haha, i was just pokin fun...lol, i can see where you are coming from friend. :)
Click to expand...

It's all been thought about - this isn't something I came up with overnight. It's the path from having blind faith in ego-death and "taking acid makes you a zen master instantly - they're exactly the same" into a more considered use of language.

Nice to meet someone who can disagree and not take it personally tho :) I always find it funny these guys who claim to have "ego-death" and be instant zen masters start hysterically calling you names when you won't agree with them. Kinda puts their ideas in a true perspective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top