The Psychedelic Being

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Sorry to double post. I feel like I gotta talk about this.

In the book series by Philip Pullman called His Dark Materials, the theme is existence and metaphysics and dark matter and theology. During an exchange between the young protagonist Will and an angel called Balthamos, the angel explains, " he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. Matter loves matter. It seeks to know more about itself, and Dust is formed. The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of them all."

It is my humble opinion that the purpose and driving force behind life and existence is Consciousness. I believe in panexperientialism, and that the end goal is for the entirety of everything to be fully aware and conscious, resulting in a stagnation, then reset, boom! big bang and it starts over.Except that every time we start over, we haven't moved backwards, just start again from where we are. Like moving into Johto from Kanto... lololol.

 

[lastest]

The fact that you would even feel the need to point out something so insignificant in this argument is ample enough evidence that you don't understand what's really being said here..

Well considering you had just accused me of "chasing the American dream" I thought it was relevant to point out that I'm not an American, and furthermore that I'm a Marxist.

I'm not here to be right. There is no right in a debate like this, only what I think, and what you think. These two things happen to collide, you take this to mean that one of us is wrong... but you're the one that's wrong there. This thread is about your own personal beliefs, you can disagree with mine, but you can't take them away from me.

How could I have made it clearer in my last post and previous posts that I doubt my beliefs constantly and am prepared to admit I'm wrong? I've said it so many times. My argument with somaeye started because he claims to have a final and definite answer which cannot be disputed. He's the one saying that there is a definite right and wrong, not me. You then jumped in and start calling me names like "asshole" and I've been pretty rude back to you. That was wrong of me, I'm sorry, let's be friends.

somaeye, I cannot simply parse your post. The meaning of it utterly escapes me. I'm sure that this is due a failing on my part and not because your post is utter nonsense. I cannot get my head round the difference between Light and light and I've gone back through all the previous posts and given it a really good go. I tried to engage with the carbon metaphor but it just doesn't make things any clearer for me. I swear to you, I promise you on my life that I'm not pretending not understand in order to win an argument. I really, really don't understand. Will you please accept this?

EDIT:

The point was that you have seen the Inner Light and you didn't want to admit it because you were trying to win an argument.

Sorry, I tried to let that go, but it rankles too much. How dare you tell me what I have and haven't seen? How dare you tell me that I'm lying about my subjective experience of psychedelics? Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me that? I disagree with your beliefs but I accept that they are your beliefs - you won't do me the same courtesy. Several times in course of this debate you've accused me outright of being dishonest about what I've experienced and what I believe. And you (and others) wonder why I'm being so combative in my dealings with you. Well go figure.

 

[Folley]

We sure do! Thanks mate, I think you're awesome too!

lol



What may help you understand the idea of "Light" are the ideas behind Taoism/ying-yang


The ying balances the yang, you cannot have one without the other. The black represents Chaos and the white represents order... or think of it like Good and Evil, except black is not always evil.... more like the Light and the Dark. To have one without the other would result in an unbalanced world, and we wouldn't be able to function.

You can go into the light, or you can stay stuck in darkness.... by not choosing the first one, you directly choose the second though. Remember that.




I remember reading a science article of the "building blocks" of atoms or something like that. It was saying that there is a natural radiation of energy coming out of space... it concentrates in the center of the Earth, and is found everywhere. This energy is like photons that make up light, but MUCH more complex.... scientists still don't know much about it, but they know this seemingly "magical" energy is all around us.


Perhaps psychedelics just allow you to see that energy/photons/"Light" ?

 

[lastest]

Some of you guys really kick ass. I think you guys know who you are.

We sure do! Thanks mate, I think you're awesome too!

Too bad we can't get all these bright heads together and use them for something really cool.
Maybe that day is still coming..
Be ready for anything.

Ooh exciting! Maybe we could build a time machine - oh man that would be so sweet. Which period of history should we visit first? Ancient Egypt would be pretty fucking cool, am I right?

 

[lastest]

I remember reading a science article of the "building blocks" of atoms or something like that. It was saying that there is a natural radiation of energy coming out of space... it concentrates in the center of the Earth, and is found everywhere. This energy is like photons that make up light, but MUCH more complex.... scientists still don't know much about it, but they know this seemingly "magical" energy is all around us.

Well actually scientists have been working on this issue since the early twentieth century, and they have discovered an awful lot about it. Brain Cox and Jeff Forshaw's The Quantum Universe explains the standard model of particle physics (ie. the behaviour of the particles that are the building blocks of atoms) in a very accessible way, I highly recommend it. And this "energy" sounds a bit like the Boson particles that physicists have recently observed in their experiments at CERN. Or perhaps cosmic background radiation.

I'm afraid none of this gets me closer to an understanding of somaeye's conception of Light, but it's interesting stuff nevertheless.

It can't. Non-existence is a logical impossibility just like square circles.

Okay, but your original statement, central to your argument, is that "existence is the default state of being." What, then, do you see as the difference between the terms existence and being? If there is no distinction then the statement is "being is the default state of being" which is a tautology. Also, you tell webbykevin that "[w]e talk about existence here, not the state of something, so it doesn't count." But you do you use the word 'state' in your argument.

While I don't dispute that there may have always been something you seem to be saying that there has always been everything - but surely individual things do come into and go out of existence. Things 'come to be' and are destroyed, right?

 

[Shee-un]

Okay, but your original statement, central to your argument, is that "existence is the default state of being." What, then, do you see as the difference between the terms existence and being? If there is no distinction then the statement is "being is the default state of being" which is a tautology. Also, you tell webbykevin that "[w]e talk about existence here, not the state of something, so it doesn't count." But you do you use the word 'state' in your argument.

Sorry, English isn't my first language, so I confused the terms. Let's paraphrase: why is there something, rather than nothing? - because it is utterly impossible otherwise by the nature of reality we live in. Period. I know, this isn't the type of answer one gives for "why?" questions.
Which transition is more likely:

nothing->everything;

...->everything->everything->... (i.e. constantly changing whole)?

Also, individual things do not come into and go out of existence. It's an illusion of senses and scales of perception. Buddha has spotted that a long time ago. We take a relatively stable aspect of whole and term it "individual thing".

 

[lastest]

Sorry, English isn't my first language, so I confused the terms.

I wouldn't have guessed, your English is pretty great I must say. I wish I could speak any other language as well as you do English - or at all for that matter. That's one thing about us and the Americans, most of us can't be bothered to engage with other languages which is a bit shameful really.

I'll have to think a bit to prepare my counter argument, which is a testament to how well you argue. It is true after all that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred, and everything is fundamentally made of energy, so you might well have a point.

This is the kind of debate I like - a logical series of propositions. It's way off topic for the thread but I guess we'll let the mods worry about that.

 

[somaeye]

[....]

According to what you've said about your ingestion of Psychedelics, I assume you have seen "colors and patterns" with your eyes closed? Is that correct?

Those "colors and patterns" are the inner Light. If you have seen colors and patterns - then you have seen the inner Light. I wouldn't think that this is something that would be difficult to understand.

 

[somaeye]

I fundamentally disagree with this. If there is a god who created all that exists why would he ever create a devil? or why even devise a system of rules about how we carry on our short mundane lives?

It is my belief and understanding that the word "create", in this instance, doesn't mean "create" in the ordinary sense. God "creates" by giving beings awareness of what exists. They didn't "create" the devil - the devil is eternal. God shows us the existence of the devil. God is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

[kidklmx]

Sorry, English isn't my first language, so I confused the terms. Let's paraphrase: why is there something, rather than nothing? - because it is utterly impossible otherwise by the nature of reality we live in. Period. I know, this isn't the type of answer one gives for "why?" questions.

This can be scientifically and mathematically proven too. These concepts are near to impossible/hard to grasp and I'm only scratching the theoretical surface at this point, thus I can't really explain it proper to you. Luckily, there is Lawrence Krauss who does it marvelously in one hour and 5 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Replying to your also: This is scientifically correct as well. Apart from energy not popping in and out of existence, matter is the same way: Individual protons and neutrons, are pulled together in the sun forming atoms, which is then beamed towards us with solar winds/supernovae, forming molecules, etc. Then when it is destroyed, it will eventually end up in the sun again repeating that cycle. It's lovely how buddhism can be translated to science

p.s This topic has gone extremely offtopic

 

[lastest]

According to what you've said about your ingestion of Psychedelics, I assume you have seen "colors and patterns" with your eyes closed? Is that correct?

Those "colors and patterns" are the inner Light. If you have seen colors and patterns - then you have seen the inner Light. I wouldn't think that this is something that would be difficult to understand.

I have seen colours and patterns while on psychedelics it is true. However, I reserve the right to make my own interpretation of what those colours and patterns are. You tell me that they are "inner Light" and this is the only possible explanation. I have my own ideas about what they are, and those ideas aren't the same as yours. Can we just agree to disagree, or will you stick to your line that I believe everything that you do but won't admit it out of bloody-mindedness?

It is my belief and understanding that the word "create", in this instance, doesn't mean "create" in the ordinary sense. God "creates" by giving beings awareness of what exists. They didn't "create" the devil - the devil is eternal. God shows us the existence of the devil. God is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I actually quite like that. I know I'm the last person you'd seek approval from, but I must give credit where credit is due...

 

[webbykevin]

I have seen colours and patterns while on psychedelics it is true. However, I reserve the right to make my own interpretation of what those colours and patterns are. You tell me that they are "inner Light" and this is the only possible explanation. I have my own ideas about what they are, and those ideas aren't the same as yours. Can we just agree to disagree, or will you stick to your line that I believe everything that you do but won't admit it out of bloody-mindedness?

I think they are just electrical pulses interpreted by the optic nerves and sent as raw data to the brain, what consciousness does to explain that phenomenon to itself is personal to each individual.

 

[Lost Ego]

I tried dmt and met the psychedelic being. He was just a man in a red suit with white hands and no head or neck.

I have a theory how this phenomenon of meeting a being works. I was thinking about the being i met and i decided that the being was dimitri himself, the personification of the drug. I further developed this theory when i took a high dose of mexxy and realized that all of the chemicals on the periodic table, everything that makes up the universe is spirit and the reason we can interact with these spirit particles is because spirit radiates outside of the particles, also because we too are spirit. I combined this idea with the psychedelic being and came to a conclusion. The drug is also spirit, albeit an alien spirit, a spirit that doesn't belong in your body like carbon and h2o does and that's why you experience the being as something external and not being part of you. The spirit of dmt isn't actually a man in a red suit, or some guy off an aztec calender or whatever you guys saw. Dimitri is spirit, just like us. How we percieve humans is not how our human spirits appear. Sure we are a reflection of the contents of our spirits but at the same time we could be percieved in a million different ways. How we see these chemical's personalitys is all relative. Just like if you met god, it's all depends on what you believe he is like, some may see a man in a white beard, some may see a ball of light, his true form however, the true form of any spirit, cannot be detected by another spirit, just the idea of that spirit can be manifested into our perception. It's true image does not exist however the spirit of it does exist. So when you take dmt, and it enters your brain, your brain is interacting with it on a spiritual level and can see it's image. I like to believe that the brain is a spiritual detector, that is it's purpose. Anyways i pretty much got my point across. If this post doesn't belong here i apologize

 

[lastest]

I think they are just electrical pulses interpreted by the optic nerves and sent as raw data to the brain, what consciousness does to explain that phenomenon to itself is personal to each individual.

Sounds eminently plausible. Well put too.

Anyways i pretty much got my point across. If this post doesn't belong here i apologize

On the contrary, I think you've made the first on-topic post in about six pages.

 

[somaeye]

I have seen colours and patterns while on psychedelics it is true. However, I reserve the right to make my own interpretation of what those colours and patterns are. You tell me that they are "inner Light" and this is the only possible explanation. I have my own ideas about what they are, and those ideas aren't the same as yours. Can we just agree to disagree, or will you stick to your line that I believe everything that you do but won't admit it out of bloody-mindedness?

This sounds like you're getting back to discussing whether or not the inner Light is actually physical light again - or the mechanism by which people see this - which doesn't really matter to me. I think you can see why people would call these "colors and patterns" the "inner Light".

And that gets to the point I was trying to make:

When St. Peter wrote: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart to bring the praises of God who called you out of the darkness into (Their) wonderful Light (1 Peter 2,9), or, when St. Paul wrote: The night is almost over, it will be daylight soon - let us give up all things we prefer to do under cover of dark; let us arm ourselves and appear in the Light. (Romans, 13, 12) -- they are talking about the inner Light.

I prefer to use the term "Light" rather than "colors and patterns" because this Light is coming from God (Psychedelics) and "colors and patterns" sounds not only disrespectful, but also not connected to the understanding that this Light is coming from (and is a part of) a Living Being.

 

[Shee-un]

I wouldn't have guessed, your English is pretty great I must say.

Thanks, I lived in the USA in my previous lifetife :D. Just PM me to avoid further off-topic.

 

[lastest]

This sounds like you're getting back to discussing whether or not the inner Light is actually physical light again - or the mechanism by which people see this - which doesn't really matter to me.

No, I just said that my idea of nature of the visuals that I see on psychedelics doesn't match up with yours. You say they are Light coming from God and I accept that is what you believe - good luck to you. But I don't believe in God, and I'm not about to start believing in God because of the visual phenenomena I experience while on psychedelic drugs. I'm sure there are lots of people that do believe in God that would disagree with your analysis as well. Bible verses will not convince me that I should believe what you believe, no matter how many of them you reproduce in your posts.

You seem to have a pathological inability to accept I have beliefs of my own that differ from yours. What is so hard to understand about that?

EDIT: You know, I decided I didn't believe in God when I was about thirteen. The idea that I'm just pretending not believe in him to troll you in this thread is completely absurd.

 

[webbykevin]

I prefer to use the term "Light" rather than "colors and patterns" because this Light is coming from God (Psychedelics) and "colors and patterns" sounds not only disrespectful, but also not connected to the understanding that this Light is coming from (and is a part of) a Living Being.

I think an introductory course in neuro-pharmacology would really help you.

 

[somaeye]

No, I just said that my idea of nature of the visuals that I see on psychedelics doesn't match up with yours. You say they are Light coming from God and I accept that is what you believe - good luck to you. But I don't believe in God, and I'm not about to start believing in God because of the visual phenenomena I experience while on psychedelic drugs. I'm sure there are lots of people that do believe in God that would disagree with your analysis as well. Bible verses will not convince me that I should believe what you believe, no matter how many of them you reproduce in your posts.

You seem to have a pathological inability to accept I have beliefs of my own that differ from yours. What is so hard to understand about that?

EDIT: You know, I decided I didn't believe in God when I was about thirteen. The idea that I'm just pretending not believe in him to troll you in this thread is completely absurd.

As a matter of fact, when I was 13 or 14 I was also an atheist.

The 1st thing I'm trying to get across is that I believe and understand that the people of the various Scriptures believed that Psychedelics are God (the "Father"). Whether you believe that Psychedelics are God (or in any god) or not is not the point.

 

[lastest]

As a matter of fact, when I was 13 or 14 I was also an atheist.

The 1st thing I'm trying to get across is that I believe and understand that the people of the various Scriptures believed that Psychedelics are God (the "Father"). Whether you believe that Psychedelics are God (or in any god) or not is not the point.

Like I said, I accept that is what you believe and understand I have no objection to the fact that you do. But you have blatantly and repeatedly accused me of falsifying my position in order to "win an argument." In this last post you seem to edging towards an admission that this is not the case. I would like you to go a little further and say that you accept that I have not been disingenuous. I fear an apology would be asking too much from you.