• 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 |

Least Visual Psychedelic Substance

.Felix.

.Felix.

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
448
Location
USA
Hello PD!

Been a while since I have been here. So I am currently an undergrad in college and have been really interested in psychotherapy. With the recent findings on Psychedelics in the medical field I have grown very interested in pursuing a career where I can some day use these tools in certain therapeutic situations (if it must be known my real passion is helping individuals overcoming obstacles in their lives, with or without the assistance of medication... just an FYI). Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a recommendation for a Psychedelic substance that seems to not be very visually or physically stimulating but still alters ones cognition like many of these hallucinogens do? ALthough I know a substance like this doesnt exists, I believe a version of 2C-E without any visuals or body stimulation would be ideal in a therapeutic setting. Anyways, any information would be highly appreciated! THanks
 
Some of the least visual substances I've tried is; DiPT, 5-MeO-DALT, 5-MeO-DMT, TMA-6 - but none of them have any real profound therapeutic potential IMO and for 5-MeO-DMT bodyload can be very hard.

I would imagine especially 4-substitutted tryptamines and some of the more simple like DPT or DMT to be well suited for therapy. Maybe DMT/DPT with a MAOi.
Of course the 2C's are allso suited, but not to the same extend i believe.
 
I feel like MDMA would fit the bill best for what you're asking, although I know many don't consider it a psychedelic.

Do you not want visuals or a body load/high so it doesn't seem like they're just getting high? Those factors have never really inhibited the therapeutic value for me.
 
Maybe I could better answer if you say why visuals are something to avoid. I think they are a big part of accessing the far reaches of your psyche.
 
Why not a low dose of some of these compounds? Several of the psychedelics IMHO don't need to go into visual dosage to be potentially useful as a therapeutic aid. I'm thinking low-dose LSD and psilocybin (and by extension some related ones like 4-ACO-DMT) here.

If you aren't aware, MDMA is also being investigated for therapeutic potential (for PTSD in particular) and I kind of think that some of the related compounds (5-APB, 6-APB, methylone) have some potential here as well. Also, ketamine (and by extension, related compounds like MXE and DXM) is currently being investigated as a fast-acting anti-depressant that may be particularly useful for emergency treatment of suicidal patients.
 
morninggloryseed said:
Maybe I could better answer if you say why visuals are something to avoid. I think they are a big part of accessing the far reaches of your psyche.
Click to expand...
This.

Visuals are an intrinsic part of the psychedelic experience. These experiences aren't just a collection of unrelated effects, they are one consistent alteration across all aspects of the mind.

Like stated before, MDMA has therapeutic potential and is hardly visual. It is physically stimulating though. And it isn't as fully psychedelic as LSD or shrooms IMO.
 
Last edited:
Visual and auditory distortions like ripples and enhanced colors or flanging noise are much less menacing / freaky / scary than hallucinating entities or voices. I don't see any reason to avoid distortions except maybe for a fear of getting HPPD which also might be a bit of an overreaction IMO.

With mild phenethylamines like mild 2C-X compounds most of the visuals are distortions and nothing too crazy. Tryptamines on the other hand can be more adventurous so you may want to hold those off if that is not what you are looking for.

MiPT sounds like a non-visual non-hallucinatory psychedelic. Most likely I will be trying that for the first time this weekend.
 
A small dose of psychedelics like shrooms or LSD should be therapaeutic enough for the average Joe.. high doses for the explorer of mind
MDMA and Shrooms/LSD isn't even close, MDMA is pure feel good and you're in "ecstasy", positive thoughts stream through you.
Psychedelics make you loose track of time, powerfull insights, weird body sensations, thought loops, visuals - alot more "trippy"
MDMA just makes you happy, euphoric, energic and open - wich is perfect to releive anxiety and ignite your spirit : )
 
Personally, the most un-visual psychedelic drug I've experienced was 2C-B-FLY. Tripping, but not tripping, as one of my friends called it.

However, it was certainly much more emotionally and mentally challenging than its parent, 2C-B. Which would seem to me to be a good indicator of therapeutic efficacy - the hardest trips are the ones you learn most from, in my experience.
 
2002Tii said:
I feel like MDMA would fit the bill best for what you're asking, although I know many don't consider it a psychedelic.

Do you not want visuals or a body load/high so it doesn't seem like they're just getting high? Those factors have never really inhibited the therapeutic value for me.
Click to expand...

I do consider it a mild psychedelic. I have been keeping up with MAPS and much of the current studies on MDMA and PTSD.

morninggloryseed said:
Maybe I could better answer if you say why visuals are something to avoid. I think they are a big part of accessing the far reaches of your psyche.
Click to expand...

I guess visuals/body stimulation avoidance so there is no distraction or possibly a desire to use the substance for recreational purposes. So basically to take away the "FUN" of the experience? Make it more serious and therapeutic for people? Comments on this statement would be appreciated.
donvliet said:
This.

Visuals are an intrinsic part of the psychedelic experience. These experiences aren't just a collection of unrelated effects, they are one consistent alteration across all aspects of the mind.
Click to expand...

That is true... i do notice many of the most powerful and therapeutic substances have visuals/body high... it may just be the harmonistic synchrony of mind and body.



Solipsis said:
Visual and auditory distortions like ripples and enhanced colors or flanging noise are much less menacing / freaky / scary than hallucinating entities or voices. I don't see any reason to avoid distortions except maybe for a fear of getting HPPD which also might be a bit of an overreaction IMO.

With mild phenethylamines like mild 2C-X compounds most of the visuals are distortions and nothing too crazy. Tryptamines on the other hand can be more adventurous so you may want to hold those off if that is not what you are looking for.

MiPT sounds like a non-visual non-hallucinatory psychedelic. Most likely I will be trying that for the first time this weekend.
Click to expand...

Update us on that please! :)
 
MDMA is not a psychedelic, it is an empathogenic/euphoriant.

In terms of pure psychedelics I think DiPT would fit the bill. It's hardly visual except in massive doses, but it does have a very noticeable (as in, unavoidable) audio distortion component. And a very psychedelic headspace and body feeling.

Most psycehdelics can be taken at sub-visual doses and still be effective at least partly on a psychological level. With most of them you will notice very subtle visuals or at least brightening of your surroundings and minor fluctuations in physics at these doses. LSD can be taken at 40-60ug with little visual effect, but with a moderate to substantial change in headspace.
 
Low dose of lsd or tryptamines are the best candidate for your purpose, then.
Also, I think MDMA can play a big part in this.
 
imo mdma or ganja...there is probably others but what a question hey
 
Last edited:
Solipsis said:
Visual and auditory distortions like ripples and enhanced colors or flanging noise are much less menacing / freaky / scary than hallucinating entities or voices. I don't see any reason to avoid distortions except maybe for a fear of getting HPPD which also might be a bit of an overreaction IMO.

With mild phenethylamines like mild 2C-X compounds most of the visuals are distortions and nothing too crazy. Tryptamines on the other hand can be more adventurous so you may want to hold those off if that is not what you are looking for.

MiPT sounds like a non-visual non-hallucinatory psychedelic. Most likely I will be trying that for the first time this weekend.
Click to expand...

Please write a trip report. We don't have many of 'em for MiPT.
 
Maybe i'll try it too again, i think i have around 20 mg left, anyway i don't expect much from this little dose.
 
Last edited:
.Felix. said:
So basically to take away the "FUN" of the experience? Make it more serious and therapeutic for people? Comments on this statement would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

taking away the "fun" is easier with harder psychedelics than lighter one... they can really(really) dissolve the boundaries between conscious and unconscious, open up the workings of the brain&mind like a map before your very eyes... if only i had a therapist willing to guide me through a deep journey how much more work could be done in one session. it's best to have a guide for a deep trip but in todays world this isn't the most accepted of things...
 
blazR said:
Some of the least visual substances I've tried is; DiPT, 5-MeO-DALT, 5-MeO-DMT, TMA-6 - but none of them have any real profound therapeutic potential IMO and for 5-MeO-DMT bodyload can be very hard..
Click to expand...
I really do agree on DiPT (but certainly not 5-Meo-DMT, which can be very visual for me - even though it might be limited to "veils of pink" or "all-enshrouding whiteness of the void"). DiPT is the least visual psychedelic I've tried (very experienced user) and I'd repeat what you said about the lack of therapeutic potential. It's more of a exotic indulgence, a stamp in the stamp collection (at least for me - I know of other reports of people who found it very profound, in its own way)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top