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

The Big & Dandy Methoxetamine / MXE Thread - Part 16 - Sweet 16 mind-control machine

Status
Not open for further replies.
i.e) some like the powder better, some prefer crystalline.

You also might pose as more than one individual, and basically feed all the little druggies anything you want under any name and observe their responses, always keeping one identity safe.
I hope I said more than just that!

Yeah, there's lot's of ways to deceive people (some more work than others). I just meant to illustrate how an awareness of confirmation bias could be employed.
 
Oh yeah i hear what you're saying and totally agree. I was meaning to say an individual could hypothetically offer a powder vs a crystalline batch. Either they're the same and the powder is just the bottom of the bag, or one is cut, or they are two different substances.
 
Crystal versus powder has always been a poor debate. If you simply mishandle crystalline product you'll crush it into powder.....

Of course everyone wants pretty crystals, my friends were the same way, awed when they'd see my DMT the first day it was made beautiful snow white crystals, but after time of being an a container brushing against itself it'd turn into a finely milled still brilliantly white powder. They would always be like "this is the same stuff you showed me a week ago or a new extract.", I'd say "Nope take a blast and see.". They always came to the same conclusion...
 
I have in my own amateur way blind tested two different batches of MXE which i thought had different effects - These were both 'pre-uk-ban' batches: first batch - totally white (the best, euphoric and trippy); and third batch - beige colour (more sedating, less positive, but still 'ok')). I wrapped them up in as similar a way as i could, then mixed them up - the chosen wrap had the expected effects, confirmed when i opened the remaining wrap. I did this on two occasions. Now this isn't science by a long chalk, and sure i could have 'subconsciously' remembered the wraps (i picked with my eyes closed and didn't look at the other one till the end) - added to how obvious and consistent the difference in effects has been when i'm looking at the powder, i've 'proved' to myself (my bar isn't that high) that it's not entirely placebo/suggestion causing the perceived difference. (i wanted it to be placebo, cos then i could have made myself like the batch i consistently didn't seem to like as much)
 
Last edited:
No clue! I remember that batch, yellowish beige powder being sold as MXE. I could do a rail of that shit and it just made me feel weird.
 
Well it had most of the basic effects of mxe for me, but lacked euphoria and 'magic' - it still dissociated me to fuck, but wasn't as 'enjoyable' (i soon got used to it when the other stuff ran out).

I seem to remember a later batch looked like the white stuff with a bit of beige flecks in it, like they'd mixed them together (but erring towards the white side) - totally speculative.
 
Last edited:
Huge ass snowstorm. Time to get my shovel on. It's freezing balls and my balls have brought it to my attention that it has been a long while since they were tripping, and that boofing the firemost pure white mexxy crystals would be an ideal precursor to the task of shoveling those crystals of snow. I told them I have asked the universe, which is full of abundance, for just a taste of that magical mxe after months and months on end of mexxorexia. The universe has continued to provide what i need but not everything i want this holiday season. In its absence I am left with no choice but to work harder to achieve my goals, which mxe at times can really illuminate in an immediate way, but is ultimately at odds with. Gratification can be immediate, reaching ones potential is a process. I believe these very same thoughts, ideas, concepts could sensed as a barrage of epiphanies under the influence of mxe. In its absence the realizations do not feel nearly as immediate or magical. But does that make them any less valid, any less significant? Arriving at them naturally, it could be argued they are more so. I might not have all the things as I want, or any mxe to make the next hour or two shoveling my double driveway in the blistering cold less of a drag. But I am reminded to remind myself I should be grateful. I have a shovel, boots, hats gloves a warm jacket and some good tunes to listen to while doing it. Better yet I have a driveway at all and a car sitting in it which necessitates its shoveling. I must remain focused on my path. even when the route is not entirely clear I must keep progressing and moving in a forward direction. This takes a concerted effort and requires action. Thinking is not doing and it's too easy for nothing to get done. However tiny a step or seemingly inconsequential a task, its important. even if its shoveling your driveway and a path to your door. It simply needs to get done and if I don't do it today it will only makes things more difficult for me. No mxe. Say la vee. The universe has spoken. It told me to stop procrastinating and get my ass outside.
 
In my experience phenomenologically, the arylcyclohexylamines act as antennae within the system. The molecules makes for radios tuning into their local field of energy as they circulate through the medium, and our receptors pick up on that, and consciousness builds a form through all of the channels, quantum coherence and such. All the differently formed batches of MXE all have different tunings in this sense.

Not to be rude, but you actually believe that?
Here is a relevant quote by one of the more popular 'fringe' icons in the field of consciousness study:

"Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking inside a radio for the announcer." ~ Nassim Haramein

The highly subjective and speculative debate in this thread right now is getting us nowhere- we need a common language in order to proceed, i.e. science in a form that we can all relate to- ENERGY, so these metaphors of radios and antennae and such I think are necessary. Consciousness is fundamentally an interface of energy fields, so it only seems natural to me to tackle this debate of MXE's high variance of effects using the same kind of language.

So it's not about belief, it's about what I feel, as I said- note the word 'phenomenologically'. I know I'm not alone in what I feel, not after reading so many other people talk about the phenomenology of consciousness in terms of energy fields, waves, quantum mechanics etc. That is what creates the bridge between the subjective and the objective.
 
That was a nice little excerpt to break up the monotony of batch differentiation. I totally get where you're coming from. Thanks wil$on!
 
That's exactly it, vortech! Everything is energy and we must think in terms of it to get anywhere!
 
Here is a relevant quote by one of the more popular 'fringe' icons in the field of consciousness study:

"Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking inside a radio for the announcer." ~ Nassim Haramein

The highly subjective and speculative debate in this thread right now is getting us nowhere- we need a common language in order to proceed, i.e. science in a form that we can all relate to- ENERGY, so these metaphors of radios and antennae and such I think are necessary. Consciousness is fundamentally an interface of energy fields, so it only seems natural to me to tackle this debate of MXE's high variance of effects using the same kind of language.

So it's not about belief, it's about what I feel, as I said- note the word 'phenomenologically'. I know I'm not alone in what I feel, not after reading so many other people talk about the phenomenology of consciousness in terms of energy fields, waves, quantum mechanics etc. That is what creates the bridge between the subjective and the objective.
Sure... I can say without a doubt I can't relate to this though. I tend to believe in things in a more pharmacological level, not theory and metaphor.
 
Last edited:
Speaking on a pharmacological level doesn't quite work for many people, unless they are scientists or doctors. Furthermore, the ideas that are being expressed have little to do with brain chemistry and pharmacodymanics, and more to do with psychological experiences. That means that we have to speak in metaphors in order to compare subjective experience more accurately.

I don't see the problem with using the same basic outline for human consciousness that has been implemented across the world for thousands of years, the chakra system, which Leary so cleverly rewrote for the western mind as the 8 circuits of human consciousness. He even outlines each type of drug and which part of the consciousness they activate, relating directly to chakral energy rings.

Pretty much all the forerunners to modern psychology talk about this system in their own terminology. The Freudian ideas, metaphysics, John Lilly's human biocomputer paradigm. All psychologists are talking about the same thing and the color system makes it simple to understand, because humans have understood this shit for thousands of years or more, but it will never be completely defined, because there are no molecules involved.
 
A mix of fact and theory, yes... but modern science typically provides more clear cut answers than subjective metaphors that can't be seen, tested, nor proven.

In my experience phenomenologically, the arylcyclohexylamines act as antennae within the system. The molecules makes for radios tuning into their local field of energy as they circulate through the medium, and our receptors pick up on that, and consciousness builds a form through all of the channels, quantum coherence and such. All the differently formed batches of MXE all have different tunings in this sense.

If you honestly believe this explains MXE batches better than any way science would ever have the capability of doing so, all the power to you...I won't look at you any differently, but it sounds like typical MXE induced nonsense to me and we're all entitled to our own opinion :).
 
Last edited:
Excuse me, but since when is pharmacology and science as a whole pure theory? Mind explaining what your definition of fact is? Since you seem to think that all science is based on pure guesswork... in which case just about nothing science has ever done has been proven. Sounds like you just grasping at straws to argue with me tbh, in which case I give you a D-, good effort though ;). Now go smoke a joint and ponder about radio waves, though something tells me not even you believe what was said above... now I'll leave this thread be as this isn't gonna go anywhere whatsoever.
 
But, how can one decidedly believe or not believe something which cannot possibly be fully understood given the terms it was presented in?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top