RC users: Why do you do it?

[fastandbulbous]

How the hell did I get into all this, and why do I think what Timothy Leary, Aldous Huxley, and Terrence McKenna say is so very applicable to my reality?

Well in my opinion, Leary was an egotistical idiot who fucked it up for an awful lot of people & McKenna ended up a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Despite some of his shortcomings, I still have time for Huxley's ideas as he advocated a measured, responsible attitude to psychedelic use that I feel is still valid in this day & age

 

[swilow]

I absolutely agree that you have to be the change you want to see. I can tell you from life experience, you cannot change anyone but yourself, and most people cannot do that.

All you can do is try- in fact, the whole point of actual physical existence could be said to be an attempt to break away from our animal nature and rise 'above' it. That said, psychedelics change people, so does reading the works of Dickens. Either way. Different strokes....

As far as hope, well I never abandon hope. As far as optimism for the future, I wish I could share that. One thing that has come with age - I'm brutally realistic now.

In what sense are you realistic? If you believe that the human race has largely failed, then that would be largely true. If you look at the global situtaion from another perspective, you could say that we are merely instruments of an evolving planet. Our 'intelligence' and dexterity has allowed us to mold nature, just as she molded us. It appears that nature may be attempting to 'mold' us off the planet. I don't have a huge amount of hope for humans; but Earth- she will go on. Unless a massive unlikely change occurrs, humaity appears physically doomed. Planet Earth is purging. The hope that I hold is that we don't destroy too much before we go down That said, in my experiences with spiritualism, I think there is a non-physical escape from this reality that may be making itself present. Devastation of the physical plane is just one example.

And unfortunately, especially where the environment is concerned, what I see is not real change but rather artificial change. People only seem willing to go green to the extent that it does not inconvenience them. People don't seem to be willing to give up all their shit - the real problem. Just the opposite. We are ever increasing both the diversity and the amount of material goods that people think they "need". Invention is the Mother of Necessity. I really don't need a phone that takes pictures, a widescreen home theater system, all this other stuff that people can't seem to live without.

To give up "all your shit" would be akin to dropping out- you appear to be idealistic, but have seen those ideals trampled, and are now cynical which I understand. No-one needs anything like what they think; but society will collapse if they go How to counteract that? I'm all for the destruction of old worthless monuments to nothingness personally, so the idea of society imploding isn't unwelcome.

Instead of learning to do more with less, we have evolved this kind of bullshit feel-good local pseudo-eco-consciousness. "Think globally, act locally". Right. It's more like "Think locally, fuck globally". The West has adopted nothing more than a policy of "NIMBY" - Not In My Back Yard. It's OK to continue unchecked consumption at an appalling pace. As long as my neighborhood is nice and clean who gives a fuck about some shithole Third World country.

Well, nothings ever occurred on earth quickly, except this appaling destruction of the planet; human conciousness as a whole is quite rigid; except for the trappings, nothing much is really different to a thousand years ago. By saying that I mean that it begins with a trickle, the change in peoples thinking, and it is happening now, (I think, in earthly space/time terms now is as much the sixties as it is today)- the only problem is whther this "trickle" has enough time to build up momentum and become a flood.

Most people don't seem willing to act locally by just plain giving up even a little. I ride the metro as much as I can. But I don't see a bunch of environmentally conscious kids doing the same - they are all driving around in their cars. All I see are business types who park their gas guzzling SUVs in the station lots so they don't have to pay parking in the city, and low income types who have no alternative to mass transit.

Your right in saying you won't see lot of environmentally concious kids- products of their lineage really. I don't see a lot of older people that r environmentally concious- just cynicism. Which is NOT realism.



"Only human beings have come to a point where they no longer know why they exist. They don't use their brains and they have forgotten the secret knowledge of their bodies, their senses, and their dreams. They don't use the knowledge the spirit has put in every one of them; they are not even aware of this, and so they stumble along blindly on the road to nowhere- a paved highway wich they themselves bulldoze and make smooth so they can get fatser to the big, empty hole which they'll find at the end, waiting to swallow them up. Its a quick comfortable superhighway, but I know where it leads to. I've seen it. I've been there in my visions and it makes me shudder to think about it"

- Lame Deer, Lakota shaman

 

[swilow]

I was very interested in sex, drugs, music, fish-keeping, birds, sex, drugs, music in my 20s

.

 

[retired_chemist]

I don't think that pointing out one of the fundamental problems with Western society, US society especially, today is out of control acquisition of material goods is exactly being cynical as opposed to realistic. It is a real problem as far as I can see.

If people were willing to be satisfied with less, society would not have to collapse. The opposite. If we (in the US at least) were content with less, we could all pay more for the things we need, and a few things we want. Instead of off-shoring our manufacturing sector we could keep those jobs at home - pay more for our workers and pay more for responsible manufacturing practices. Reduce the trade deficits and support a more diverse, more robust traditional local economy. The service economy is a soft economy - if it collapses and there is no hard sector economy to build back on, you're fucked.

If we were not so glutted with oil, we could afford to pay more for less oil and send a lot less money to countries that use that wealth and political leverage against our own interests. If people used common sense and made a basic adult, responsible decision of "Hey, just because a bank will write me the mortgage does not mean I need , much less can realistically afford, this kind of house" we would not be facing an impending banking crisis. If people would learn you can carry credit cards and not carry credit card debt ... etc etc.

There is a lotta stuff in this thread I've seen before, but not much new. Sorry, that is my reality. Not to pick on anybody in particular, just a recent post comes to mind. If anyone really thinks that people that don't speak the same language are supplying you with research chemicals because they are motivated by wanting to promote the "psychedelic revolution" sorry if it makes me seem cynical but *realistically* I gotta say that is just some flowery bullshit that is not even remotely a reflection of any sort of reality.

If you feel like the world is better off without us, promote anarchy. At least it's better than base consumerism. I'd rather people learn to live more responsibly and productively myself. Is that cynical?

 

[FreedomOfTheMind]

"Despite some of his shortcomings, I still have time for Huxley's ideas as he advocated a measured, responsible attitude to psychedelic use that I feel is still valid in this day & age"

what do you think were his shortcomings?

 

[swilow]

^I didn't really like Huxleys view that psychedelics should be kept for the elite-intellectuals, artists etc....

Retired chemist (I almost called you RC ) I take all your points and I understand as well as I can. As to anarchy, I'm far more aligned to that philosophy then any other- but not really though, I just go on doing me things. Psychedelics can't change anything that can't be changed anyway.

 

[kong]

Psychedelics can show what needs to be changed which can be overwhelmingly frustrating if one comes to the conclusion that little if any is fine as is.

Ignorance is bliss, but knowing is far to tempting.

I say that with a grain of salt, loud music and large white walls take up a great deal of my attention when tripping. Tends to throw things in a more positive light.

I take psychedelics because I enjoy having the analytical portion of my brain over clocked allowing me to manipulate an infinite amount of variables from completely unrelated concepts. The different drugs give different perspectives from which to experience this. Just as looking at the world from a strictly sober perspective would be incomplete, looking through it from sober + (only lsd) or (only xxxxxx) would be incomplete. I don't need to try everything, and won't get to, but different experiences have been worthwhile for me.

 

[not_broken_420]

I personally just love exploring new compounds..when I come across anything I haven't tried, I just really want to know what it's about. Hence the fact that recently I've tried DMT and 2c-i. I just love investigating new things I haven't tried.

 

[Xorkoth]

I find that the more psychedelics I experience, the more angles I have on the psychedelic state so to speak, and the more I understand it and can relate everything together to further what I get from them. I also find it much easier to describe them all when I have more points of reference, and writing about my experiences it part of the reason I do this anyway.

 

[fastandbulbous]

^I didn't really like Huxleys view that psychedelics should be kept for the elite-intellectuals, artists etc....

Yep that's one of them, but his idea that people like engineers, scientists and others of an empirical bent could benefit greatly from exposure to psychedelics is pretty obvious to me, especially as I've known a lot of people with that sort of mindset who should be open mindedb but actually were very narrow minded & closed off to some novel ideas

 

[B9]

Why do RCs...coz for , just to see, why not ?

Choose any one of three for a valid answer.

 

[swilow]

Yeah, given the chance I'd eat as many as I could simply because. Of the memebrs of this board I would have used the least of RC drugs- DPT or DET, 2ci, 2c-t-21, 5-mEO-dmt, AMT, 5-meo-AMT (badbadbad) and I may have forgotten some- but except for the 5-meo-DMT and 2ci, of which I have sampled many times, all were once/twice offs. I can't even confirm if it WAS DPT i had, and thats a little chemical thats been calling to me for awhile. Too bad I live in a country of ignorant fuckwads.

 

[dbailey11]

Well this is rather pretentious to admit, but it's kind of a kick to tell people about all these drug experiences with drugs they will most likely never get to try or have even heard of.

 

[willow_]

It is nice to get clean pure chemicals not some trash from the street that was made in a 3rd world barn with kerosene and cut with crap.

 

[delta_9]

^RC vendors can screw up orders just as easily as a street dealer can sell you some bunk shit
IMO this whole idea that vendors are somehow "safer" or "more reliable" is nonsense.

 

[willow_]

It never a guaranteed thing but labs in china are usually better the a Mexican jungle lab. And usually stuff from vendors only go though a couple of hands not dozens. But I agree it still a gamble, every time I get some thing new it scares me until I try it. Did the label the 2C-I with DOC by mistake?

 

[delta_9]

Did they label the 2C-I with DOC by mistake?

That's exactly what scares me. It seems to me like a street dealer is much less likely to make this mistake...if only because he's much less likely to actually have both substances.

 

[MDPVagrant]

From the POV of non-psychedelic RC's (which is perfectly valid, as there are some) -- they've very simply cheaper and safer/easier to get than street drugs, and generally offer an "almost as good" experience. Aside from curiosity-seeking, that's about it.

 

[cognosis]

***I've had my share of life experiences thus far and recognize I'm still growing and learning. I don't have it all figured out. I do know though there are things I know I know, things I know I don't know, and things I don't know I don't know.

First of all, as far as "evolving" goes there is no evidence to suggest that consumption of psychedelics causes any kind of genetic change that can be passed down the line. You are mixing together that concepts of altering body/mind. Altering your mind is not altering the genetics you have available to pass doiwn to your children.

Sorry, the comparison of ingesting psychedelics opening some kind of new chapter in human evolution just does not wash. The fact that our brain mass increased by a few hundred grams because we started eating meat does not validate the notion that consuming psychedelics is going to similarly alter the course of human evolution.

~You’re right. It doesn’t prove anything in the context of genes and transmittable traits; although, a person is constituted by a whole lot of more than their chromos. There are these factors, Liike: culture, the environment/epigenetics that are equally determining factors in constituting a person. But, like I said: changes in diet DO cause changes in organisms. Historically that’s proven and I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe it’s happening now. Don’t you think eating all the processed foods that are around today is having an effect on the body? Plus, I don't think you really realize what the consequences, in terms of cognitive capacity, that brain growth facilitated for H habilis.

#Scientifically, psychedelics are the best tools to study the mind with as you’re investigating with something tangible --whereas the psychodynamic models of Freud, Jung and other contemp psychology fails miserably to investigate what’s really going on because it’s just descriptive metaphor that doesn’t relate to anything physio/chemical and situated in specif socio-historic contexts. Psychedelics are by far the best method to directly engage with unconscious activity; and, IMO, the whole idea behind ++++ exps is to traverse the boundaries of “normal” ego/personal development. The whole transpersonal peak “I became nothing/everything” experiences that lead us to the development of transpersonal mind_states where identity is reconstituted in a larger schema.

It really is about trajectory, and to alter the human trajectory at this stage in our development is tantamount to altering the human social trajectory. And this is why I see nothing new on the horizon. The truth of the matter is that while from your perspective the psychedelic lifestyle and mentality may be prevalent, that is because you immerse yourself in that lifestyle and associate with other people who do the same. On a global scale, the numbers are still small. "Everyone" is not doing it. It fails again for the same reason it has failed before. The psychedelic movement just does not have enough force and momentum to really even nudge, much less knock the human trajectory into a different orbit.

Why I see something new on the horizon is people have begun to stop using the *either/or|true/false|good/bad|us/them* binary paradigms and are creating worldviews that are polyvocal and open-ended. I see what’s happening now,even if just in terms of the digital revolution is so joyfully upon us , is the manifestation of a new era in the same way that the development of Christianity represents the marking of the common era. The entire intellectual development in the West has been based up until this point on platonic/judeo-xian ethos. The psychedelic movement on its own isn’t going to change things no. You’re right there too, because using drugs is only one point of departure and one aspect of the experiences of living. +You’re not going to get everybody in the world to start taking drugs. I’m not talking about how psychedelics are going to change the world. I’m talking about how psychedelics are part of the change (diversity based on variation instead of polarities) that’s happening in the world.


\\Sidenote//
The problem with consumer culture --not just consumer youth culture because you're just being ageist if you think 18-25YOs are the only ones doing it and (+it seems like you're almost jealous) -is irresponsibility. Granted, the younger you are the less likely you are to recycle, but then I don't think it's effective anymore to make generalized statements about any given demographic.
Compare: saying plastics are an environmental problem and we shouldn't use them Vs. Plastics are remarkable and innovated our modern world in insurmountable ways, but the strategy we have with dealing with plastics isn't very ecofriendly. Consumer culture is designed to be be thrown away, but the problem is a lot of the materials that we're throwing away don't go away for a minute or two.

 

[cognosis]

Why do people do piperazines?