Anyone who DOESN'T see 'god' on his explorations?

[Forkbender]

These are great questions, and lead to a big discussion. I personally do not believe that people only live through their ID as psychonaut or anything - well I don't for one - similarly, the words we use, even if sometimes they are used in a specific context, they don't loose their other meanings, the historical and other weight of their use etc. So, if you start calling psychedelic phenomena, which are many, different and pretty complex on some occasions [or much simpler in others, in their wonderful quality], 'contacts' or characterise them as divine phenomena and this is becoming established in psychedelic communities, then it would be strange if noone objected to this, even just philosophically.

I agree. However, I think that the burden of proof lies with the person objecting.

So, to answer you question - I am not offended by ideas like religion and god, but I don't like them. I got reasons for this, it;s not just aesthetics. Philosophy through active living, but also as a 'battle of ideas' does not only talk about what annoys or offends the subject [the philosopher]. Philosophy means to love to know, to love wisdom.

There is a huge difference between loving to know and loving wisdom in my opinion. Any discussion about terms and reference is not a philosophical discussion in my opinion, it is just scholasticism, trying to define everything, constrict it within its own seperate box, which is against wisdom, which let's things be.

To speak about elimination of concepts like god or religion not only is an ancient philosophical matter, not only has very stable bases as an idea, but also extends to a totally diffent philosophies of life, and by that I mean the actual living, not only 'battle of ideas'. Eliminating such concepts through proper education and deeper understanding the values of our planet and nature can lead to a much more active and passionate living, a positive lust for life and joy, better communication and social life, ultimately a much more human-centred civilization - of course this 're-programming' is individual.

Reprogrammed people are programmed as well. Just because the program is better doesn't mean they are more free. The ideal of objectivity has replaced God in society for a lot of people. But it is still just an ideal. Joy comes from within, not from intellectual debate.

I am totally aware that some people are offended when these ideas are discussed, but I cannot help but feel that this is unavoidable and, in the bottom line, not so tragic or offensive after all. God is ultimately a personal idea - what I am trying to un-structure is not the personal god of each one, but 'god' and religion as a concept - I can't help it that some people take my general scorning of god too personally - I suppose it's unavoidable as I already said.

I don't take it personally, as I know you mean well. :wink: I do however think that any 'crusade' against religion is doomed to reinforce it. That's because it just puts more energy into this idea of religion as a dogmatic entity, which it is not about ultimately.

So, Forkbender, what is the difference between self and ego? [from your signature] I understand that everyone [regardless teh community] has some serious trouble against the concept of 'ego'. How would you define ego compared to self?

I came up with that when I was high, but what I was trying to convey is that people generally mistake experience for the object of experience, thereby attaching to what is happening to a specific body. If you are just conscious of what happens to you, you identify with the self, i.e. the supreme awareness, without the attachment to anything. Let it be. The ego is a constrained view of the self, harming itself through isolation. This is the basic message of any religion, regardless of their metaphysical or ethico-spiritual claims.

So... keep it coming! How do you connect the psychedelic experience with the notion of 'god' ? What happens as the dosage increases? If god = the real reality that is revealed and felt on these states, how come you name it 'god'? Is it that some are too stuck with shamanism practises that are indeed fascinating take on reality and life, but somewhat incompatible with this era or rationalism and computers?

Why call the ultimate truth god?

Coming up next - at psychonaut.com !!!!

LOL
Why call it God? Why not? :wink:
For me it is the only concept big enough to hold everything in it, as I experience some form of panpsychism/pantheism/panentheism.

My view on dose is that it matters but is not the sole cause of the experience, as some people tend to have these experiences without ingestion of psychedelics or on very low doses and others never have them. The chance of you having a mystical experience increases when you take a higher dose, but the chance of going bad increases as well. At some point this last part is however decreasing as the substance will so radically annihilate the ego that there is no resistance anymore. This is an heroic dose.

 

[GOD]

God or the devine is not an hallucination and has nothing to do with drug dose . The same goal has been reached throughout the ages and all across the world by people of all races in all countrys through hypnosis , meditation , drugs , lucid dreaming and near death experiences . = its not an hallucination and its open to all of us ................................... if we stop talking , if we stop trying to quantify and define it , if we look for it .

Jos , mentaly ill people are mentaly ill , are you saying that their mental illness is not mental illness , that it is reality ? That because a mentaly ill person believes in the devil that the devil exists ? Ultimate truth is ultimate not only personal . Reality is what is actualy there . Reality as humans define it is a concensus , the personal fantasys , twisted perceptions and beliefs of the mentaly ill are not .

Mutant ,

Self is that that percieves , that that is watching , ego is a function , a mechanism of your mind .

Explain red to a blind man , and then explain why we call it red .

There is non so blind as someone who wont see .

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink .

You can not explain the unexplainable but you can experience it .

Again if you read the first few Carlos Castaneda books and you might understand the futility of your method . And if you realy want to understand , stop talking about it and do it .

This is my last post on the subject . Whats the point of going round and round in circles , the blind leading the blind denying their blindness , of trying to explain something to someone who doesnt realy want to know , someone who is just trying to quantify and define the unexplainable , someone talking about talking about talking about something that they dont understand because they have not done the things they need to do to understand ?

 

[lol*fan]

@ GOD: it's strange, but everything you're throwing at mutant seems only applicable to yourself... please be a bit more gentle and non-judgemental to our new forum member. And could you maybe try to be a bit more open minded? People have been coming up with answers for ages, still there is not one answer everyone agrees on. Therefore, the attitude "I am right, you are wrong"--which is my perceived attitude of you towards mutant--is a bit pointless.

Is it the 'real deal' or is it maybe just that the heroic dose is so big, so enormous, so overwhelming that the brain cannot really help it , but create something conceivable, like 'voice of god', aliens, entities from another dimention etc? [just an hypothesis, I would be glad to know what you all think]

When experiencing new things, the human mind will always try to link it with something it knows, no? In my experience, the things I read and think about in the weeks or months prior to a trip heavily influence my interpretation of what I experience during that trip.

For example, when I was reading a lot about a certain view of existence which involved everyone having 'guiding spirits', I met my guiding spirit in a trip. Later on, when I wasn't so much into that theory anymore, I just communicated with 'various parts of my subconscious', as I interpreted it. In my last two trips however, I became this one energy that is all there is and I knew I create everything. Guess what? That's the theory I'm into these days.

Steve Pavlina has a great article on this, in which he explains how changing his belief system changed his reality several times: Take the red pill
I recommend you read it.

I call it What you believe is what you get, and it 's pretty much what I believe in, since I see how many believers in all kinds of belief systems experience what they believe in.

However, a lot of differently named and explained things in the various belief systems seem to essentially be the same phenomena. That leads me to the conclusion that there is a greater truth; one that explains all other explanations.

This insight has been very useful to me, by the way, since it helped me to accept that people stick with a belief system that works for them. When a christian friend of mine now enthusiastically talks about something, some spiritual experience with his 'lord', I can relate, because I understand the experience, even though I don't agree with the explanation. And then I'm just happy for him and share in his happiness 8)

 

[marc]

As an atheist I have never found "God". I've never found "Satan" either. What I did find was a state of happiness, but also I've found myself in a really bad state.

I do believe there is more in this life then the common things we see every day, but I don't think you can give it a name. I don't take things that happen in my life for granted, I do think these things happen for a reason. Let's just say I had to many occasions where I could not explain why things happened the way they went, but I was very convinced it was no coincidence. These things happened for a reason.

But hey, I don't need any substance to come to this conclusion, just common sense will do the trick. When you can archive this, some substances can only make this feeling stronger. It's called mind altering substances, the basics are all in your own brain !

Just enjoy life, embrace your loved ones and make your life the best you can, because life's to short to waste it !

 

[Guest]

Steve Pavlina has a great article on this, in which he explains how changing his belief system changed his reality several times: Take the red pill
I recommend you read it.

Thanks LOL! Awesome read
I've taken a sudden interest in NLP because of this article.
Sorry, a bit off-topic, but this is worth reading :thumbsup:

 

[Maru]

So, Forkbender, what is the difference between self and ego?

I had read a bunch of books speaking about that. Also listen to real people speaking about that.. and guess what, I did not have a clue, not a single one about what they said or wanted to share !
I was just wrong, I was just 'sitting in my ego' believing sometimes that I had some 'progress'... ah ! Nothing can be more wrong than an ego wanting to think he is something else, nothing is more 'egoic' :roll:
And no thinking could 'help' me, nor meditation, nor awesome lucid dreams.
Because all that, is still an ego play. Well, I do not mean that LD or meditation can not lead to interresting ego-free states, but it's quite easy to cheat with oneselves as long as the ego is 'in control' (in fact it is an illusion of control but that's a bit off-topic)

I was appealead to the psychedelic experience and mistakely tried a (subjectivly) heroic dose of something wich was definitivly 'too much' to keep in control.
And I had that first experience of 'loss of ego'. It was shitless scaring ! Certainly not what I may have had imagine and not something I would like to experiment again. And it felt so reassuring when my 'ego' came back, like wearing a good old jaket, quite worn but comfortable. I did not noticed when my ego went out but it becames obvious when it came back.
And later the same 'process' happened with another substance. The experience was totally different, but the ego-less state was the same ! Still shitless scaring. In fact even more scaring :shock:
But in that state there is NO DOUBT about the difference between 'the self' and 'the ego'.
One possible definition from the ego normal state (so subject to caution) :
It is someone who would think he is the costume that he is wearing.
What is the difference between a human and his costume ? Quite obvious to answer once you know you 'naked'. But some (most ?) people are so shy and prudish that they need a strong external force to remove the costume they wear since they are very young. Psychedelics can be that 'external' force...

 

[mutant]

There is a huge difference between loving to know and loving wisdom in my opinion. Any discussion about terms and reference is not a philosophical discussion in my opinion, it is just scholasticism, trying to define everything, constrict it within its own seperate box, which is against wisdom, which let's things be.

Forkbender, I was really trying to give the etymology of the word "philosophy" here, which is greek, actually, and thus trying to describe how I see philosophical arguement, for this is what we are doing now. It is in vein to try to always put words and concepts in boxes and frames and define them etc. and it might be more so in this dsicussion.

But just sometimes, for the sake of understanding each other, placing words in 'boxes' of similar concepts for a while or trying to re-establish the 'proper' use for each word doesn't harm if you keep your thoughts free.

Another point is that languague is one of those things that made us and makes us human. I like using language in a proper way, and sometimes, using words and wide terms loosely, and having to accept that everyone is using the same word to describe different things and at the end we all love each other and we are the same thing and reach the same conclusions is too flat for my tastes.

If you like, the way each one argues about this 'same thing' reveals a lot for the differences we have. Even if we are saying the same or similar things, the ways we approach it fascinates me and drives my interest in character analysis, the self, the ego. I don't see differences as things to divide us, on the contrary it's what makes life so interesting and lively for me - in the same state of mind, when I am talking to people I do have similarities and I share common interests and approaches, I don't get obessed to find the common things we have got, because I already know them. Some see the ultimate truth and worship it - I am studying how people perceive it! It fascinates me to see the billion different ways we can describe and approach the same thing, and even try to find out why is this, since it's the same thing.

Reprogrammed people are programmed as well. Just because the program is better doesn't mean they are more free. The ideal of objectivity has replaced God in society for a lot of people. But it is still just an ideal. Joy comes from within, not from intellectual debate.

+

I don't take it personally, as I know you mean well. :wink: I do however think that any 'crusade' against religion is doomed to reinforce it. That's because it just puts more energy into this idea of religion as a dogmatic entity, which it is not about ultimately.

Well, have in mind that the re-programming I am talking about doesn't happen in real life - fundamental structures of life and society as we know it cannot be undone, it's almost like something in theory - and of course the 'shamanistic' or naturalistic approach in religiousness is also difficult to be perceived by society.

I wanted to tell you another thing - I am not on a crusade or anything, I am not an idiot, I am not fighting religion. But you asked some things, and since I opened the thread I thought I ought to answer. In a way you asked me "But why a radical atheist, how come?" - which is a pretty normal question. I believe than some people do not need the concept of 'god' - I believe that the absence of god can induce an extraordinary freedom. Undoing god is not a battle against religion or god - being godless, for me, is living life to the maximum of its potential

If you are just conscious of what happens to you, you identify with the self, i.e. the supreme awareness, without the attachment to anything. Let it be. The ego is a constrained view of the self, harming itself through isolation.

Isolation is corroding us from both inside and outside. Modern civilization and even more, religions have forced humans to divide the body from the spirit. Nowdays, alienation and confusion is pushing this even further. The needs and wills separate us from the self as well. Ego as you describe it, is a result:

it's a bipedal thinking ape who is so confused that chooses and acts in ways almost totally alien to him. Why is self/ego to blame for anything? We are sick animals, sick because we cannot find ways to connect our alienated pieces. Actually, the ego is the only thing that can give power to some people to take their life back.

Hey, Marc, nice post, man

PS: @@GOD - Castaneda was a failure as an explorer, as an anthropologist, as a psychonaut. You claim to have the answers, and you shout it so loudly that, seriously man, you seem to be the one confused.

 

[Forkbender]

Forkbender, I was really trying to give the etymology of the word "philosophy" here, which is greek, actually, and thus trying to describe how I see philosophical arguement, for this is what we are doing now. It is in vein to try to always put words and concepts in boxes and frames and define them etc. and it might be more so in this dsicussion.

But philosophy means 'love of wisdom' and not 'loving to know', I just wanted to clarify that.

But just sometimes, for the sake of understanding each other, placing words in 'boxes' of similar concepts for a while or trying to re-establish the 'proper' use for each word doesn't harm if you keep your thoughts free.

I agree.

Another point is that languague is one of those things that made us and makes us human. I like using language in a proper way, and sometimes, using words and wide terms loosely, and having to accept that everyone is using the same word to describe different things and at the end we all love each other and we are the same thing and reach the same conclusions is too flat for my tastes.

I don't think it is as black-and-white as you put it here.

If you like, the way each one argues about this 'same thing' reveals a lot for the differences we have. Even if we are saying the same or similar things, the ways we approach it fascinates me and drives my interest in character analysis, the self, the ego. I don't see differences as things to divide us, on the contrary it's what makes life so interesting and lively for me - in the same state of mind, when I am talking to people I do have similarities and I share common interests and approaches, I don't get obessed to find the common things we have got, because I already know them. Some see the ultimate truth and worship it - I am studying how people perceive it! It fascinates me to see the billion different ways we can describe and approach the same thing, and even try to find out why is this, since it's the same thing.

Yes, I agree mostly with what you say, I just have one other proposition to add, which is that differentiation can only exist if there is primordial unity.

Well, have in mind that the re-programming I am talking about doesn't happen in real life - fundamental structures of life and society as we know it cannot be undone, it's almost like something in theory - and of course the 'shamanistic' or naturalistic approach in religiousness is also difficult to be perceived by society.

I wanted to tell you another thing - I am not on a crusade or anything, I am not an idiot, I am not fighting religion. But you asked some things, and since I opened the thread I thought I ought to answer. In a way you asked me "But why a radical atheist, how come?" - which is a pretty normal question. I believe than some people do not need the concept of 'god' - I believe that the absence of god can induce an extraordinary freedom. Undoing god is not a battle against religion or god - being godless, for me, is living life to the maximum of its potential

I'm not saying you personally are on a crusade, for the record.
I agree with most you say, except for the thing about the concept of 'god'. Some people (for example philosopher William James) argue that the ultimate goal of religion is to free people from their conditioning, which makes sense if you look into texts by mystics and saints about liberation, and that religion is trying to live life to the fullest. I can imagine that various examples from history and probably even current examples makes one think differently, but if you (not you personally) take an outsider's position to religion, you will not understand it, although you can pretend you do. The way to liberation is however a rocky one. Remember that for most people in this discussion, God is not someone who rules life and judges everything they say and do.

Isolation is corroding us from both inside and outside. Modern civilization and even more, religions have forced humans to divide the body from the spirit. Nowdays, alienation and confusion is pushing this even further. The needs and wills separate us from the self as well. Ego as you describe it, is a result:

it's a bipedal thinking ape who is so confused that chooses and acts in ways almost totally alien to him. Why is self/ego to blame for anything? We are sick animals, sick because we cannot find ways to connect our alienated pieces. Actually, the ego is the only thing that can give power to some people to take their life back.

I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Or anything for anyone for that matter. The ego/self distinction is the problem, not the cause. The division of mind/spirit and body is as old as history, it can probably even be defended that it caused history to occur (history as a linear development instead of a reoccurence of natural cycles). But you must remember that this division is necessary to understand yourself, to understand consciousness, because as we understand it, consciousness is consciousness of something, and this something has become the thing we identify with. I don't think that religion is purely a force that separates mind and body, but has as its ultimate goal and ideal a fusion of the two: God (spirit) in the flesh (matter), heaven on earth.

 

[mutant]

Remember that for most people in this discussion, God is not someone who rules life and judges everything they say and do.

Yeah, that's pretty obvious and I for the most part am not talking about the monotheist god.

[quote:2tbaf46y]Another point is that languague is one of those things that made us and makes us human. I like using language in a proper way, and sometimes, using words and wide terms loosely, and having to accept that everyone is using the same word to describe different things and at the end we all love each other and we are the same thing and reach the same conclusions is too flat for my tastes.

I don't think it is as black-and-white as you put it here. [/quote:2tbaf46y]

Of course it's not! I was just trying to make my point understood by stretching it a bit - besides I used the key word 'sometimes'

But you must remember that this division is necessary to understand yourself, to understand consciousness, because as we understand it, consciousness is consciousness of something, and this something has become the thing we identify with. I don't think that religion is purely a force that separates mind and body, but has as its ultimate goal and ideal a fusion of the two: God (spirit) in the flesh (matter), heaven on earth.

So, as you put it, it's only as if ego is one part of the self, the more rational part of it, which is somewhat alienated from the whole being [self], human, the "bipedal thiunking ape" or what?

You state "the ego/self distinction is the problem, not the cause" but, if we genereralise and start talking about the world and not us individually, how can you 'blame' [i know you didn't blame noone, the following questions are rhetorical] people who instinctively refer to the only obvious and tangible thing they have got [ego] in front of the paranoia, the contradiction they face every fucking day? How can you except anything but spiritual povererty, a false sense of the self and ego, a faked spirituality in the world we live in? And how can the good-spirited , all-loving "all-are-one" motto and mentality face the crude reality unharmed?

With all this in mind, and the speculation that we cannot really be like the natives of South America, because most of us cannot act otherwise but live and develop and kame te most in this rotten society, the admittance that we are all mutations of what societies makes us into and what we were supposed to be in the first place, I have to celebrate ego as the spirit of the machine which is called modern man, the only one left, the sole mechanism which can put the self back in the map. Don't get this wrong, don't call it a simple dimission, I call it rationalism, realism and, yes, it's got some cynicism and nihilism for spice.

I also have the greater respect for those who try to be the carriers of what humans were supposed to be in whatever form they exist noadays [and this exeeds the psychonaut thing], even somewhat idealistically or with a touch of naivety. I will always respect those who try to remain human against all odds, by all means, and even if I myself choose to accept my cyborg nature and wonder about what mankind is about to become as such, I will always love all authentic individuals around.

Well, my 'speech' kind of got off control, but what the heck? Let it be!

 

[Maru]

So, as you put it, it's only as if ego is one part of the self, the more rational part of it,

The ego is not 'a part' of the self. Can you consider a costume as a part of someone, or a car as a part of its driver ?

 

[????????]

Steve Pavlina has a great article on this, in which he explains how changing his belief system changed his reality several times: Take the red pill
I recommend you read it.

I call it What you believe is what you get, and it 's pretty much what I believe in, since I see how many believers in all kinds of belief systems experience what they believe in.

"In the province of the mind what one believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits. These limits are to be found experimentally and experientially. When so found, these limits turn out to be further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind there are no limits"

basically the maxim of Dr. Lilly. This is very true and I'm aware of its consequences in people and belief systems. I think people, myself included, have a very primordial need to explain themselves, their reality. I think each person creates their own concept of god. Maybe a byproduct of our curse/gift, self awareness. I think god discussions are ultimately pointless, although very fun indeed. I actively refuse to attach to a determinate belief system.

 

[Forkbender]

[quote:1gkewsju]Another point is that languague is one of those things that made us and makes us human. I like using language in a proper way, and sometimes, using words and wide terms loosely, and having to accept that everyone is using the same word to describe different things and at the end we all love each other and we are the same thing and reach the same conclusions is too flat for my tastes.

I don't think it is as black-and-white as you put it here.

Of course it's not! I was just trying to make my point understood by stretching it a bit - besides I used the key word 'sometimes' [/quote:1gkewsju]
LOL @ making your words more extreme for making your point. In that way you change your point instead of making it, which in my opinion is not a very good rhetorical technique. Dramatization is understandably human, but it doesn't serve a good discussion.

So, as you put it, it's only as if ego is one part of the self, the more rational part of it, which is somewhat alienated from the whole being [self], human, the "bipedal thiunking ape" or what?

I don't believe rationality works on the ego alone. Rationality stems from the Latin root Ratio, to divide, and is in fact that which separates between ego and self. And like Maru remarked: ego is not a part of self. Well, in some ways it is, but if you look at the whole picture, the ego works against the self most of the times, is an oppositional force to it.

You state "the ego/self distinction is the problem, not the cause" but, if we genereralise and start talking about the world and not us individually, how can you 'blame' [i know you didn't blame noone, the following questions are rhetorical] people who instinctively refer to the only obvious and tangible thing they have got [ego] in front of the paranoia, the contradiction they face every fucking day? How can you except anything but spiritual povererty, a false sense of the self and ego, a faked spirituality in the world we live in? And how can the good-spirited , all-loving "all-are-one" motto and mentality face the crude reality unharmed?

The blame is indeed not to be put on those that identify with the ego, because it is in fact you and me who are doing the same thing. God or the self is unitary, not divided, not everybody has got his own self. So my self is your self is Hitler's self is the Pope's self is Buddha's self. Buddha nature if you want. So the self is clinging to the ego in a lot of human beings. That's not a bad thing, as human beings need the ego to transcend it. They need to accept suffering and hardship in order to understand and overcome it.

I have to celebrate ego as the spirit of the machine which is called modern man, the only one left, the sole mechanism which can put the self back in the map. Don't get this wrong, don't call it a simple dimission, I call it rationalism, realism and, yes, it's got some cynicism and nihilism for spice.

As I said before, this is indeed a necessary step, but the ego will never make you happy as the ego is, strangely enough, not self-serving(!). I think knowledge of the ego eventually leads to questioning the ego and knowledge of the self (which is wisdom).

Think about this: In one's own mind, one cannot even fathom the idea of being non-rational or non-realistic. Even the most vervent fundamentalist still thinks he is a rational realist, because his decisions make sense to him and are in harmony with his idea of reality. Cynicism can be helpful, but it can also make you unhappy, just like nihilism. Nihilism is asceticism misunderstood.

I also have the greater respect for those who try to be the carriers of what humans were supposed to be in whatever form they exist noadays [and this exeeds the psychonaut thing], even somewhat idealistically or with a touch of naivety. I will always respect those who try to remain human against all odds, by all means, and even if I myself choose to accept my cyborg nature and wonder about what mankind is about to become as such, I will always love all authentic individuals around.

Well, my 'speech' kind of got off control, but what the heck? Let it be!

I think I agree with what you said here, although my motives might be different than yours.

Great discussion, though!

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

For antichrist's sake, is there any psychonaut in here that doesn't seek god in his quests? Or someone who has had several experiences and didn't ever encounter god? doesn't some explorer exists that his experiences with psychoactives / psychdelics not only didn't reveal god, but helped explain the world and universe and this simple explanation didn't need a god and will never do?

I'm going to skip over the discussion and try to answer these questions for myself. I don't use the word God very often because it's such a vague concept. I certainly don't believe in a single person being God anymore.

Psychedelics generate visions that remind me of multiheaded Hindu gods, but I do not believe they exist anywhere beyond my experience of them. They exist in my mind, in my entheogen fueled imagination, and whatever I may encounter in my trips is all within me. The beings that may talk to me, I do not believe they exist beyond my experience of them. They are morphing and transforming all the time anyway. It's a dream world. And just like dreams are nurturing to our psyche, I believe encounters within the psychedelic realms are psychologically/spiritually nurturing, whether the visions make sense or not.

Aside from the hallucinations, psychedelics also help you experience a sense of unity with the flow of creation, and this sense may lead to thoughts like "I am God" or "we are all God", but again I prefer not to dwell on such thought. Why use the word God, which is so much associated with holy books, prophets, superstition and judgment?

I am consciousness, we are all consciousness, that's all we can know for certain. Whatever we witness is temporary. The only thing that's constant is awareness itself.

 

[Brugmansia]

http://www.galaxyphoto.com/high_res/hst_galaxy.JPG

Have been an eye-witness with physical presence.

 

[BrainEater]

caduceus that's true... consciousness stands kind of above the rest and therefore can remain constant...
Brugmansia thanks for those links...that's quite impressing... yehh the summarizing of the vid is good: "it shows us how small we are" ... infinitely small...but well hehe ... also we could claim being infinitely big (consider quarks etc... )... so wtf? :mrgreen:

Have been an eye-witness with physical presence.

what do you mean?

peace.

 

[mutant]

Well it's pretty obvious the word ego is a widely demonised word, as well as the words [and concepts of] egoism, selfishness, individualism. Egotism is somewhat related or seemingly relative, but actually a diffent thing, but for most people there seems to be no discrimination.

It is also more than obvious that psychedelic theists [it's the term I have made up to speak about the belief system or the results or anyway the reoccuring opinions and worldviews within the psychedelic community] have a somewhat allergy to the notion of ego and all related concepts, marked by an impressively reoccuring abolishment and scorning of everything positive in these concepts.

Unavoidably, you have to tell me what ego means for you, or what you think it means, and why is it it is NOT a part of the self. You said:

And like Maru remarked: ego is not a part of self. Well, in some ways it is, but if you look at the whole picture, the ego works against the self most of the times, is an oppositional force to it.

so, it's not part of the self - but in some ways it is {?!?} - well, it's pretty obvious that the word 'ego' , not unlike the word 'god', but in much less degree if you ask me, is a concept that doesn't not defy further explanations - so stop considering it something obvious and please explain what you understand of it. Moreover, if you look at the whole picture, then not only the ego, in any sense you want to perceive it, but also the 'self', 'god' and anything man can create / perceive / be, is no more than a little fart in some place in the universe - so it's pretty obvious to me that not only the the ego/self are not so separate after all [or at least not obviously so, until you tell what you imply by the word ego], but also that it all depends on the perspective [= the pill you will choose]. Also, why is it that the ego doesn't serve the self?? Doesn't it depend on what ego is on to and what choices it makes? Doesn't it all depend on whether the ego is flatulent so that nothing else in the self can evolve or if the ego indeed plays the role of a general that obviously is in charge but also cares about the rest of the self, the body, the psych, and might as well have a masterplan to lead the self to happiness and balance?

So, in my book, not only the ego is what makes the conscious choices, [aka chooses the pill colour] but it's the fundamental mechanism of the self. Without ego, the self-will, the personal perspective [almost mechanical in insects, instictive in higher primates, somewhat more conscious in humans], no animal would succeed in anything.

Let me make this more specific: people tend to think "he is an egoist, he only thinks of himself", but think of revolutionaries/leftwind/activists: it's out of egoism they want to be better than animals, to protect the weak, to have a society of equality. Look at you, the concious and more loving ones of the community: it's out of egoism you want and maybe have archieved to abolish the worst part of the egoist insticts and choose the 'Z pill'.

Because of course there are 'negative' parts of egoism - if you are extreme at your egoism, cynicism, nihilism, you are either a racist piece of shit [egotism is a term that serves this a lot better] or, if you are an extreme egoist you might propably pay the toll of being so - people will act to you in exchange for what you are.

I am looking forward to your ideas - some quotes + comments follow

PS:

LOL @ making your words more extreme for making your point. In that way you change your point instead of making it, which in my opinion is not a very good rhetorical technique. Dramatization is understandably human, but it doesn't serve a good discussion.

exactly! Well, I disagree, you don't change the point by exaggerating it, also it's not rhetorical - actually quite the opposite, by exaggerating you usually force your debater to answer in a 'forced' and exaggerating way as well. Of course the techinque might not be the best when talking with people that have seen 'god' [not beeing ironic, really] but in general I works - not without some risks, afo course. But all in all, if you master it, it's pretty good technique, it has brought very good results to me

God or the self is unitary, not divided, not everybody has got his own self. So my self is your self is Hitler's self is the Pope's self is Buddha's self. Buddha nature if you want.

I think I totally disagree with that. We are the same animals, same species, you, me, Hitler, but not one thing.

Cynicism can be helpful, but it can also make you unhappy, just like nihilism. Nihilism is asceticism misunderstood

Cynicism is healthy realism misunderstood as well! Sure, it can make you unhappy, it can make you crazy as well, I think... I am quite sure psychedelic revelations can make you crazy or unhappy as well....

[quote:20i9niht]I also have the greater respect for those who try to be the carriers of what humans were supposed to be in whatever form they exist noadays [and this exeeds the psychonaut thing], even somewhat idealistically or with a touch of naivety. I will always respect those who try to remain human against all odds, by all means, and even if I myself choose to accept my cyborg nature and wonder about what mankind is about to become as such, I will always love all authentic individuals around.

I think I agree with what you said here, although my motives might be different than yours. [/quote:20i9niht]

Interesting, write more about it if you want. What do you assume is our difference in motives?

Keep it up, nice discussion

PS2: Great asnwers/comments by CaduceusMercurius, as well. Thank you man!

 

[Forkbender]

Unavoidably, you have to tell me what ego means for you, or what you think it means, and why is it it is NOT a part of the self. You said:

And like Maru remarked: ego is not a part of self. Well, in some ways it is, but if you look at the whole picture, the ego works against the self most of the times, is an oppositional force to it.

so, it's not part of the self - but in some ways it is {?!?} - well, it's pretty obvious that the word 'ego' , not unlike the word 'god', but in much less degree if you ask me, is a concept that doesn't not defy further explanations - so stop considering it something obvious and please explain what you understand of it.

To me, ego is the inclination to take care of yourself rather than others. I use it in very loose terms, because I think that ego plays a role on a lot of different scales; I am egoistic if I download a movie I would have normally watched in the cinema. We as Dutch people together are egoistic because we do not open our borders and act like we deserve better than any third world country, no matter the price. We as humans are egoistic in the sense that we take care of ourselves instead of cooperating with the world. And so on.

Also, why is it that the ego doesn't serve the self?? Doesn't it depend on what ego is on to and what choices it makes? Doesn't it all depend on whether the ego is flatulent so that nothing else in the self can evolve or if the ego indeed plays the role of a general that obviously is in charge but also cares about the rest of the self, the body, the psych, and might as well have a masterplan to lead the self to happiness and balance?

In my view ego is the cause of unhappiness and imbalance. The self is continuous bliss and awareness. The ego has of course positive aspects, since it makes you think that you as a tiny 'fart of the universe' can mean something. It increases your certainty about your self in a way, but only indirectly, because if you keep identifying with the ego, you will only see that which you lack.

Well, I disagree, you don't change the point by exaggerating it, also it's not rhetorical - actually quite the opposite, by exaggerating you usually force your debater to answer in a 'forced' and exaggerating way as well. Of course the techinque might not be the best when talking with people that have seen 'god' [not beeing ironic, really] but in general I works - not without some risks, afo course. But all in all, if you master it, it's pretty good technique, it has brought very good results to me

Dude, what you are describing is pure rhetoric (=convincing your opponent by making him say stupid things), eventhough you claim it is not.

I think I totally disagree with that. We are the same animals, same species, you, me, Hitler, but not one thing.

Thingness is not a property of the self, but of the ego. A thing requires something external to the thing, which cannot be the case with the self, as it is formless and all-pervading.

Cynicism is healthy realism misunderstood as well! Sure, it can make you unhappy, it can make you crazy as well, I think... I am quite sure psychedelic revelations can make you crazy or unhappy as well....

I agree.

Interesting, write more about it if you want. What do you assume is our difference in motives?

This is pure guessing, but I think that the motive I have for appreciating reality is because of the many aspects of its underlying unity, whereas you appreciate it because of its apparent diversity, which to you seem to defy an underlying unity. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Brugmansia]

*Looks around* *Offers everyone some blotters*

 

[mutant]

Your short but decided interpretation for ego and egoism is not bad - only it can't only be the taking care of oneself rather than others part, but it's propably more of a point of view/ starting point/ central point thing. Other than that, I believe it's healthy, perfectly natural and ultimately beneficial for the self - whatever the controversy and slander these concepts [ego, egoism, individualism] have been undergone, there is no way that someone can claim they are inborn 'negative' or 'evil-spirited'. Nature functions this way, not endless love and unity, but struggle and benefit. Cynical way to describe life, but it's really the way it is - also I never said being an egoist in the extreme is something to be proud of. It's just a matter of ethics [and of another discussion actually]. [[[*more in the 3rd paragraph]]]

In my view ego is the cause of unhappiness and imbalance. The self is continuous bliss and awareness. The ego has of course positive aspects, since it makes you think that you as a tiny 'fart of the universe' can mean something. It increases your certainty about your self in a way, but only indirectly, because if you keep identifying with the ego, you will only see that which you lack.

I have to say you didn't argue on the negative claims you made about ego-based self [ego as a cause of unhappiness] - only declared them. And, by the way, what's the problem in seeing / realising what you lack? I mean, it might not be the best moment of your life realising your deficits, but I certainly wouldn't see it as something to avoid by any means. I think it depends on the individual how far he should go on this road... Kind of like with psychedelics, actually

I will also have to say everyone's self is driven by the ego, whatever you say, even if you don't recognise and accept it. [it's pretty obvious psychedelic theists develop a dismissal for ego-based stuff] Everyone's actions are centered around his own ego, whether the ego is tending to be consciously autonomous or consciously devoted to the 'universal' self.

You say consciousness is universal or united in one, the whole, I say it's definately ego based. Even humanitarians, 'good' people, people who think first about all the others and last about themselves, even them do so because of egoism, because by doing so, by satisfying their fellow people needs first, they feel good themselves and their ego is satisfied.

[don't forget to take your humour with you while reading below]

I would really like to hear why 'ego' is something you believe should be fought away - or is it because you feel it so you need to bash it? And, is it really dead in you, or you disabled it so it's powerless?

One way it could be otherwise for me to conceive is some other way round, which I cannot really associate with, but I WILL try to IMAGINE. This could propably go like this: after some huge event in one's life, psychedelic induced or otherwise, some unknown force takes over the self [it eliminates the ego / ego-death] and assigns it to the universal will / consciousness. No intention to be dramatic here, but the idea of people ruled by some universal force and not by their individual egos seems not so appealing to me. The good part is that this force seems to be rather kind, nature loving and open-minded. The bad part is belief, utopist naivety and the fact that it reminds me of a 'dictatorship of love'. LOL

And it's not really about who's right and who's wrong, I hope you know that by now, I'd just love to hear more thoughts / analysis about the nature of the ego-less self. How does it take it's decisions? How does it decides it has to feed its body? LOL I am being sarcastic again. You get the point. I haven't brought this arguement so far before in oter forums I perticipate. If I am getting tiring, let me know, I will understand...

[quote:23mmpxfw]
Well, I disagree, you don't change the point by exaggerating it, also it's not rhetorical - actually quite the opposite, by exaggerating you usually force your debater to answer in a 'forced' and exaggerating way as well. Of course the techinque might not be the best when talking with people that have seen 'god' [not beeing ironic, really] but in general I works - not without some risks, afo course. But all in all, if you master it, it's pretty good technique, it has brought very good results to me Wink

Dude, what you are describing is pure rhetoric (=convincing your opponent by making him say stupid things), eventhough you claim it is not. [/quote:23mmpxfw]

Actually by rhetoric I was referring to the 'rhetoric question' or a 'rhetoric point' [=a question or point for which no answer is expected as the answer is implied by the question or point], not 'rhetoric' as arguing in general, so in the above mentioned meaning my point was not rhetoric - it aimed for an answer.

Huhhhh, argueing for me is not about 'convincing the opponent' [opponent????] by making him say stupid things [even though it might be considered as a minor 'victotry' in the same sense the debater is an 'opponent']. There's no harm, only charm in expressing oneself with a bit of intensity. The technique goes like this: by exaggerating a bit your point, you force the debater to respond in an exaggerated way - this doesn't make you any better, because you still have to regress and to express the initial point without exaggeration this time, more clearly, and the debater then responds to it in a more subtle way. Yes, it's a bit tricky. What does the technique archieves? Speeding up the procces, making the argument more interesting, forcing the debaters to be more expressive, putting a good-meant tension in the arguement. Like I said, it doesn't work so well with all people, but it still does the trick many times.

This is pure guessing, but I think that the motive I have for appreciating reality is because of the many aspects of its underlying unity, whereas you appreciate it because of its apparent diversity, which to you seem to defy an underlying unity. What are your thoughts on this?

The million dollar quote!!! You're absolutely right. You couldn't put it a lot more better than this.

Trying to unfold this a bit more, though, one might see that it's not so antithetical as it initially seems - that is our two different takes on why reality is so interesting.

First, many times the 'truth' has two different sides - they seem antithetical but sometimes, together they make the whole.

Second, you say unity. I understand that unity you say as man-made concept, as a somewhat choice, a romantic take of seeing the world like this. I think I can see what makes you say that, though. I see billions of similarities, similar structures, links, linkings. Everything is connected with infinite other things. Structural similarities, functional similarities, I see the motifs, I see the 'masterplan', I see living beings having a distict way of functioning and archieving happiness - yet I see no 'unity'. I mean, I can undestand why one would guess that all these shit would have come from the same 'creator' since they follow the same motifs - still I see no unity. As a cynicist I see war, opposition, struggle, and benefit. As far as humans are concerned? I see billions of egos, I see small egos and I see huge egos, and I see LOTS of selfishness and some humanitarianism, mostly theoretical, I see love and I see hatred - still all these things don't prevent me from seeing the harmony of all. I think you call the harmony unity, because you are optimists. I deny the unity, because I am a cynicist.

And being a cynicist doesn't necessarily make you unhappy, in the same sense that being an optimist doesn't necessarily make you happy and being a pessimist doesn't necessarily make you unhappy.

TBC

*Looks around* *Offers everyone some blotters*

Can I have 3gr of P.cubensis instead of my blotters? 8)

PS:

[quote:23mmpxfw]I think I totally disagree with that. We are the same animals, same species, you, me, Hitler, but not one thing.

Thingness is not a property of the self, but of the ego. A thing requires something external to the thing, which cannot be the case with the self, as it is formless and all-pervading. [/quote:23mmpxfw]
Wow, I can't follow this. "Thingness" ? Is it because I 'defiled' the essence of 'self' with my materialistic word 'things' ? I just meant it as 'stuff'.

 

[Forkbender]

Your short but decided interpretation for ego and egoism is not bad - only it can't only be the taking care of oneself rather than others part, but it's propably more of a point of view/ starting point/ central point thing. Other than that, I believe it's healthy, perfectly natural and ultimately beneficial for the self - whatever the controversy and slander these concepts [ego, egoism, individualism] have been undergone, there is no way that someone can claim they are inborn 'negative' or 'evil-spirited'. Nature functions this way, not endless love and unity, but struggle and benefit. Cynical way to describe life, but it's really the way it is - also I never said being an egoist in the extreme is something to be proud of. It's just a matter of ethics [and of another discussion actually]. [[[*more in the 3rd paragraph]]]

The centeredness is indeed implied in taking care of oneself rather than others. This seems logical to me. However, I'm not saying that ego has only negative properties, but it does make one unhappy if one identifies with it too much.

I have to say you didn't argue on the negative claims you made about ego-based self [ego as a cause of unhappiness] - only declared them. And, by the way, what's the problem in seeing / realising what you lack? I mean, it might not be the best moment of your life realising your deficits, but I certainly wouldn't see it as something to avoid by any means. I think it depends on the individual how far he should go on this road... Kind of like with psychedelics, actually

The lack exists because you identify with the part instead of the whole. The part cannot sustain itself without harming other parts which will make the part unhappy with itself because somewhere it knows that it is dependent on the whole. Once you identify with the whole, you will not lack love or consciousness or happiness or whatever.

I will also have to say everyone's self is driven by the ego, whatever you say, even if you don't recognise and accept it. [it's pretty obvious psychedelic theists develop a dismissal for ego-based stuff] Everyone's actions are centered around his own ego, whether the ego is tending to be consciously autonomous or consciously devoted to the 'universal' self.

I disagree. First off, everyone's self is singular not plural. Second, the mechanism works the other way around: the self drives the ego, because it is the ego which is searching in many ways for the self, only finding it when it stops searching.

You say consciousness is universal or united in one, the whole, I say it's definately ego based. Even humanitarians, 'good' people, people who think first about all the others and last about themselves, even them do so because of egoism, because by doing so, by satisfying their fellow people needs first, they feel good themselves and their ego is satisfied.

So they do something altruistic to satisfy their ego? Why would they not do something egoistic to do that? That would be a whole lot easier and since egoism coexists with laziness in most people, truly egoistic people would not help others to satisfy their own ego.

I would really like to hear why 'ego' is something you believe should be fought away - or is it because you feel it so you need to bash it? And, is it really dead in you, or you disabled it so it's powerless?

I don't believe that it should be fought, because fighting it is just turning the ego against itself, which is kind of futile. I think it is easier to let it be, don't fight it and don't identify with it. It may seem like a struggle from the outside, which is precisely the struggle in nature you talked about before, but it is in fact the attempt to let te ego be without identifying with it.

One way it could be otherwise for me to conceive is some other way round, which I cannot really associate with, but I WILL try to IMAGINE. This could propably go like this: after some huge event in one's life, psychedelic induced or otherwise, some unknown force takes over the self [it eliminates the ego / ego-death] and assigns it to the universal will / consciousness. No intention to be dramatic here, but the idea of people ruled by some universal force and not by their individual egos seems not so appealing to me. The good part is that this force seems to be rather kind, nature loving and open-minded. The bad part is belief, utopist naivety and the fact that it reminds me of a 'dictatorship of love'. LOL

Well, it's not like that at all. What happens at that moment is that you stop identifying with some small piece and starts to identify with the whole, you ARE the universal force, everything is and you are everything.

And it's not really about who's right and who's wrong, I hope you know that by now, I'd just love to hear more thoughts / analysis about the nature of the ego-less self. How does it take it's decisions? How does it decides it has to feed its body? LOL I am being sarcastic again. You get the point. I haven't brought this arguement so far before in oter forums I perticipate. If I am getting tiring, let me know, I will understand...

The only decision is whether you follow love or whether you see love as something different than what you are.

Speeding up the procces, making the argument more interesting, forcing the debaters to be more expressive, putting a good-meant tension in the arguement. Like I said, it doesn't work so well with all people, but it still does the trick many times.

Interesting method.

The million dollar quote!!! You're absolutely right. You couldn't put it a lot more better than this.

Thanks.

I think you call the harmony unity, because you are optimists. I deny the unity, because I am a cynicist.

And being a cynicist doesn't necessarily make you unhappy, in the same sense that being an optimist doesn't necessarily make you happy and being a pessimist doesn't necessarily make you unhappy.

Right! Just as seeking happiness doesn't make you happy.

Wow, I can't follow this. "Thingness" ? Is it because I 'defiled' the essence of 'self' with my materialistic word 'things' ? I just meant it as 'stuff'.

The self is prematerial, "things" necessarily require an object and a subject, which is a false dichotomy in my opinion, since the self is undivided.

These posts are getting long, hope we don't scare of all the others. :wink: