• 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 |

Psychedelics as exopheromones?

Karcinogenious

Karcinogenious

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
104
So what does everybody think about the possibility that some naturally-occurring psychedelics may act as exopheromones? Perhaps it's the plant/fungi kingdom's way of keeping advanced life in line, a way of protecting itself from destruction. McKenna has talked about this before and that is what got me thinking about it. What if (and I am primarily referring to Psilocybin and Mescaline and possibly weed too, but only if it is incorporated as lifestyle) that is the ultimate purpose of psychedelics? Look at the Native Americans and the hippies of the sixties -- two groups of people who respect trees and nature more than any other group pretty much -- and psilocybin, mescaline (and weed at least for hippies) was a major part of their lifestyle. I know psychedelics do a lot, but one recurring feeling I always have on high doses of psychedelics, no matter what they may be, is the feeling that I am just a cog in the clockwork of the universe, just a grain of sand on the beach of the collective consciousness, etc, and I always feel more respectful and even in awe of nature for weeks after (at least after breakthrough DMT/Mushroom doses). I have thrown this idea around with my friends before and people always think it is a really interesting theory -- I really want to see what fellow bluelighters think.
 
Last edited:
You're using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. By your definition every other exogenous chemical stimulus that humans repond to would be classified as an exopheromone.

Wiki said:
A pheromone (from Greek φέρω phero "to bear" + hormone from Greek ὁρμή - "impetus") is a secreted or excreted chemical factor that triggers a social response in members of the same species.
Click to expand...

Note the species restriction. As far as I know humans do not signal to each other with psilocin, DMT, etc and never have (Okay okay, so you can argue that one person giving another a baggy of shrooms is a "pheromone", where do you draw the line? Are all property transactions actually "pheromones" being exchanged?)

No offense, McKenna was a bit of a nut. Psychedelics are not magical protective tools for keeping the universe in check, they are tools that modify the senses and emotions. In the end it's all just a big soup of organic chemicals anyway. Done in moderation, by responsible humans, they may indeed be beneficial to daily life, but I personally think it's going a bit far to say that Psilocybe spp. is shepherding us through the valley of darkness.

If anything, it's the other way round - humans like protecting endangered species. (Some humans).
 
lol yeah.. Some of the shit McKenna says is on point, a lot of it is wingnuttery to the max.
 
Yeah, nature doesn't play so friendly. When a mushroom wants another species to do its bidding, it does THIS
zombie-ants-midstory1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am aware of what exopheromone means I had to learn the definition 3 years ago in colllege biology I am just using the word McKenna used in his description when he explained this theory...all I am saying is I thought it was interesting, and I have had some very strong psychedelic experiences on mushrooms and mescaline and it seems like it is a little more than just sensory candy to me. This theory is a little crazy, but no one really can explain why psilocybin does what it does, it seems a little complex just to be a natural pesticide or something simple like that, it just seems like it goes deeper and ideas like this are cool to think about, even if it is just wishful thinking probably. I do understand that it's just a chemical that's similar to seretonin and it's fucking with my receptors in this way or that way, but that still leaves the question of why the fuck this complex mind altering chemical and so many like it are in so many plants, cacti, fungi, etc, spread worldwide. Ayahuasca is a sacrament in Africa, Peyote in the Americas, Mushrooms almost everywhere, these chemicals or plants that contains them have totally shifted the way whole cultures think at least at one time in the past and it seems like there is just a lot more to it than sensory and emotional manipulation.
 
I just showed that video to some people the other day haha, that Cordyceps fungus is fucking crazy. Imagine if it adapted to do that to humans, I am surprised m night shyamalan hasn't made a movie about that yet it would totally fit his style.
 
I guess I just read it in food of the gods a few years ago, I have read that book once or twice...college is a huge blur it is hard to keep track of when and where one learns what...I really think everyone is just getting caught up on semantics though, call it a interspecies chemical messenger or whatever...but thanks for letting me know that exopheromone isn't actually a word, I thought it was an actual term. And I just started this thread because this has been an interesting concept to throw around when I'm tripping or just smoking with friends, I am not saying I believe or don't, but I think there are probably a lot of people who might support it and I really want to hear from them especially.
 
You guys are a tough crowd though, I didn't come up with the theory and I had no part in the word choice either. I have just been on bluelight for a long time and read endless amounts of threads on here and really like this community, and I wanted to see what some people's take on this was. When I first read it I thout it was very interesting and sort of made sense in some ways, and I just wanted to hear some other people's thoughts.
 
while it is true that exopheromones isn't an accepted term, i think you guys may be miscuing its meaning. a pheromone is a relay of information chemically, like an ant can secrete a pheromone so ants of its species know what information it is trying to convey. what mckenna means by exopheromone is that a psylocibin containing mushroom is conveying its message chemically to a different[ species. the exo in his term is showing that it is one species to a totally different one, and although this term isnt accepted, i think it is mainlly due to a wide spread prejudice against psychadelics. they aren't meant to be mishandled, eaten and then trip out and tell your friends how "your face is so melting off right now dude". They are a tool, spiritual and biological which may could have aided in the evolution of consciousness from primates to today human.
 
^ who says?? That is some dogmatic shit you are spouting there! Psychedelics are for whatever they are used for. Melting faces, holding open doors, potpourri, or "splicing into your DNA and revealing the logos gosbhite yada yada" etc etc. What you use them for may not be what I use them for. (fwiw I use them primarily as mosquito repellant. Yup, when I'm tripping balls the skeeters stay away). They have no predetermined or exclusive use. Thatts the only dogma you will hear from me!
 
^well said!
i'm not sure psilocybin would make a great "exopheromone" because the "message" that it sends is so variable.
i mean, what good is a message if one person reads "jesus was a lizard-alien" while another person reads "I need to quit drinking so I can be a good parent"
 
^yes that is a much more fitting term. from what I can tell mckenna invented exopheromone some twenty years after kairomone entered the literature. that seems perfect to me.
 
sekio said:
A better term is kairomone, as mushrooms gain no benefit from being eaten by humans.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily... Such threats help stimulate evolution. For example, if a particular species of mushroom keeps getting eaten, it may begin to evolve defense mechanisms, like horrible taste/odor, poison/toxin, unappealing appearance, etc. In other words, it may actually benefit in the long term from being eaten during a certain period of its evolution.
 
I wouldn't call getting farmed and eaten on the regular a good "defence mechanism", but I see your point. From my POV the only being benefiting from eating shroomies is the human. It's totally possible to see it as an allomone or synomone too.

The real issue I have is that pheromones are species-specific. So calling psilocin (which ain't made by humans) a "pheromone" is grossly incorrect.
 
I would actually argue that the evolutionary function of psilocybin may be discouraging animal consumption by creating a surprising, unpleasant experience. Human beings have a penchant for all sorts of strange experiences that arguably would be unpleasant for most animals, and eating psychedelic mushrooms probably falls in this category. Another great example is tea, which is made out of plants that have evolved all sorts of bitter compounds to keep them from getting eaten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top