Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

En vous enregistrant, vous pourrez discuter de psychotropes, écrire vos meilleurs trip-reports et mieux connaitre la communauté

Je m'inscris!

can psychedelics help us see through propaganda?

zezt

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
25 Mai 2008
Messages
1 640
No, I am not saying we can do away with an unconscious :) There always HAS to be an unconscious as well as a conscious. You cant have one without the other. it is continuum-----it would be made to have to remember how to walk and do the million things you process unconsciously. So I dont mean that.
What I mean is to become aware of what the rich are doing with our unconsciousness. How they are manipulating it. So for example, if you are familiar with Edward Bernays. He is known as the 'father of spin' and his uncle was Sigmund Freud, and he used his uncle's theories of the unconscious to use in propaganda so as to make us do things without our knowing. An example would be showing --in an advert-- a car, and putting a pretty half naked girl on the car. Now why would anyone want to do that? Well there is the desire for sex, and to put this in the context of a car ad is the hooking of this unconscious desire so you associate having a car with fulfilling your sexual needs. You might be an ugly fat slob who has no chance with the girl they show but that doesn't matter IF they get results and hook your mind so you buy their product.

Another one he did. he was approached by the tobacco industry worried that not many women were smoking, and they wanted to expand their market. So Bernays arranged this big photoshoot in NYC where pseudo-suffragettes would march down the street in a real parade, and on cue they would reach under their coats and in their garters they had cigarettes and they all lit a ciggie up at the same time. Now this act had a lot of unconscious associations----The ciggie becomes the 'mini-penis', and the 'torch of liberation'---so, see what he was doing. He was unconsciously associating in the minds of masses of women-- in the age of them desiring liberation-- that smoking is a sign of liberation!! So see the sickness?---they become then addicted to cancer-inducing baccy but pretend to themselves they're liberated!

You see it now. Many women, especially young --watch how they pose with cigs in social places etc. I also use to have this feeling when I smoked them--this sense of rebelliousness. :oops: Especially when it was tokin.

(on an unrelated matter, why is Jung prejudiced according to you or the feminists? I am kind of fond of his writing and general thoughts on the psyche)

"“Jung thought that Germans, English, and Anglo-Americans were all part of the Germanic family tree. The Jews, in his view, had been civilized too long--uprooted from the soil. The Russians were polluted by too much Asian/Mongolian blood. Jung thought his kind of analysis will get (Aryan) people in touch with their roots, still latent inside them, and restore their wholeness.” The Enigmatic Origins of the Jung Cult

"Jung's Sexism
Jung's thought is not only pervaded with notions hard to separate from racism but it has a marked sexist component. Although, according to Jung, the unconscious of the male contains the anima archetype and the unconscious of the female the animus archetype, far from providing a basis for overcoming traditional constricting gender roles, these archetypes are a threat: Jung thought it important to keep these opposite-gender principles in check.
McGowan cites the following statements from Jung's "Woman in Europe" (1928; 170-71: "a man should live as a man, and a woman as a woman." According to Jung, a woman who pursues "a masculine calling" introduces into any discussion "a whole host of argumentative biases which always go a little beside the point in the most irritating way, and which, furthermore, always inject a little something into the problem that is not really there ... which can even grow into downright daemonic passion that irritates and disgusts men...[and] smother the charm and meaning of femininity...Such a development naturally ends in a deep, psychological division, in short, a neurosis." (McGowan, p. 100)

In Alan Watts book Psychotherapy East and West he says how Jung (like Freud) --influenced by racist 19th century Anthropology--believed 'the unconscious' be be potentially healing but also very dangerous unless mediated by his methods. Partly this idea was this idea that primitive man was very savage, and connected with the primal swamps etc, and Alan finds a comparison with the German Jung brought up in a Protestant culture with the Christian fear of the 'Devil' that is always lying in wait to devour his victims. So for Jung the sudden influx of 'unconscious contents' was exceedingly dangerous.
I have this book called Dreaming With Open Eyes, about modernist and shamnism art. The author says how 'surprisingly' Jung did not like much modern art because it was to similar to the artwork of his 'patients'.

Chapter 3: The Feminist Critique of the Separated Self"“Keller's critique of Jungian psychology, in contrast, is considerably less generous. Although in Jung we find a psychology that is matrifocal in nature, as compared to Freud's patrifocal perspective, Jung's preoccupation with finding wholeness and achieving individuation also requires, Keller argues, a matricidal impulse.105”

“Referring to Jung's Symbols of Transformation, Keller indicates how Jung came to the conclusion that the achievement of psychological maturity requires the dismemberment of the mother, symbolized by dragons or serpents. This, she notes, is reminiscent of the foul deed performed by Marduk in the Enuma Elish. It is only through the slaughter of the "monster," known as woman, that the hero established the world. In psychological parlance, symbols of dragons and serpents refer to the unconscious. Thus the maturation of the warrior-identified self requires that ego-consciousness be freed from the grip of the "deadly" unconscious. "Deadly," writes Keller, "presumably because it prevents the emergence of conscious individuality."108”

I think with Jung you have to be careful. His ideas can be very attractive, but you need to be critical about them---thats what I try and do or they too can influence your unconscious, especially if they make you afraid of your 'own' depths!
 

IJesusChrist

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
22 Juil 2008
Messages
7 482
I'm still not quite seeing what exactly your true intentions for this post are;

using that as a hypothesis, how would we 'test' it according to the scientific demand (I hate all this shit, but am willing to contemplate it). Reason I hate this kind of approach is because it is mechanical. It is wrong. Stiff, rigid, conveyor-belt-like, crude. But that's just my opinion, and pisses sciency types off because science to them is a religion---for those in the Cult of Scientism it is the ONLY way to find the real truth

It's psychological statistics - all psychological testing done scientifically uses statistics and you need atleast 100 studies and little error / difference between them... Not easy when dealing with psychodelics...

I'll come back to this topic as I can see what you are getting at, but aren't sure what you really want out of the topic.
 

zezt

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
25 Mai 2008
Messages
1 640
IJesusChrist a dit:
I'm still not quite seeing what exactly your true intentions for this post are;

using that as a hypothesis, how would we 'test' it according to the scientific demand (I hate all this shit, but am willing to contemplate it). Reason I hate this kind of approach is because it is mechanical. It is wrong. Stiff, rigid, conveyor-belt-like, crude. But that's just my opinion, and pisses sciency types off because science to them is a religion---for those in the Cult of Scientism it is the ONLY way to find the real truth

It's psychological statistics - all psychological testing done scientifically uses statistics and you need atleast 100 studies and little error / difference between them... Not easy when dealing with psychodelics...

I'll come back to this topic as I can see what you are getting at, but aren't sure what you really want out of the topic.

Hmmmm. It is not my style---Statistics are not my style. I am not a psychologist, so why should I abide by their criteria of 'scientific' results so as to be lauded as being serious and authentic?

I would go about it this way--I would rather study the history of Psychology, and see what propaganda THEY have been involved with! See what I mean?

We aare looking at propaganda, right, and propaganda is riddled throughout the very system itself, and psychologists are trained and paid by this system. So we rather have to encourage an independent way of looking at propaganda and not depending on insitutions within the system to 'prove' whether we are 'right' or 'wrong' having done their 'tests'. Rather we must trust ourselves.

I am not sure how to link it, so please then Google 'Bias in Psychology'
 

zezt

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
25 Mai 2008
Messages
1 640
Which title for the proposed blog do you prefer:

Can psychedelic experience help us see through propaganda?

OR

How to see through propaganda on psychedelics!
 

VerusDeus

Sale drogué·e
Inscrit
6 Avr 2006
Messages
914
Thanks for the elaboration on Jung's racist/sexist bias. I still love him but yeah maybe he was a bit influenced by his time and such. I've heard claims of him being anti-semitic but those have also been debunked methinks. Anywho, I'll keep a vigilant eye when reading further into his works.

Definately the first title, even though I would still recommend not to make psychedelics such an emphasized element in your blog.

Peace
 

ararat

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
8 Juin 2006
Messages
3 374
I read two nice, spot-on paragraphs on science in "The Eye of the I" by David Hawkins and had to think of this topic, here goes:

Science had decided that unless something was definable and measurable ('Reality is measurement') it was unreal and imaginary. Thus, Science invalidated any serious study or inquiry into the human value of love, compassion, beauty, forgiveness, inspiration, faith, companionship, loyalty, gratitude, hope, and happiness - in other words, all that constitutes the actual core and reality of human existence and motivation.
Science is also unable to grasp the significance of the subtle and the intangible. It is, however, the best tool man has had thus far for evaluating and manipulating the physical world. That it has limits is not a defect but merely defines its range of usefulness. In fact, to know one's limits is a strength, not a weakness.
 

IJesusChrist

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
22 Juil 2008
Messages
7 482
Well, the reason psychology cannot be defined is we are so complex, so we have to use statistics. If you use statistics that doesn't make you a biased psychologist, it makes you a statitician...

If you wanted to look at the bias in psychology...

LOL

I don't think all of it could fit on the internet hahaha :lol:
 

zezt

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
25 Mai 2008
Messages
1 640
BananaPancake a dit:
I read two nice, spot-on paragraphs on science in "The Eye of the I" by David Hawkins and had to think of this topic, here goes:

Science had decided that unless something was definable and measurable ('Reality is measurement') it was unreal and imaginary. Thus, Science invalidated any serious study or inquiry into the human value of love, compassion, beauty, forgiveness, inspiration, faith, companionship, loyalty, gratitude, hope, and happiness - in other words, all that constitutes the actual core and reality of human existence and motivation.
Science is also unable to grasp the significance of the subtle and the intangible. It is, however, the best tool man has had thus far for evaluating and manipulating the physical world. That it has limits is not a defect but merely defines its range of usefulness. In fact, to know one's limits is a strength, not a weakness.

Thanks.

R.D.Laing said it this way:

"The main point of Laing's attack was that science, as it is practiced today, has no way of dealing with consciousness, or with experience, values, ethics, or anything referring to quality. "This situation derives from something that happened in European consciousness at the time of Galileo and Giordano Bruno", Laing began his argument. "These two men epitomize two paradigms - Bruno, who was tortured and burned for saying that there were infinite worlds; and Galileo, who said that the scientific method was to study this world as if there were no consciousness and no living creatures in it. Galileo made the statement that only quantifiable phenomena were admitted to the domain of science. Galileo said: "Whatever cannot be measured and quantified is not scientific"; and in post-Galilean science this came to mean: "What cannot be measured and quantified is not real." This has been the most profound corruption from the Greek view of nature as physis, which is alive, always in transformation, and not divorced from us. Galileo's programme offers us a dead world: Out go sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and along with them have since gone esthetic and ethical sensibility, values, quality, soul, consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse. Hardly anything has changed our world more during the past four hundred years than Galileo's audacious program. We had to destroy the world in theory before we could destroy it in practice."
(Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations With Remarkable People, Fritjof Capra, page 139)
 

zezt

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
25 Mai 2008
Messages
1 640
Time to bring this mofo back to life lol I found it because i am in process of doing a blog I am calling 'the myth of mental illness and the war on entheogens' and the subject is very daunting ...indeed.

Now, when you read various authors talk about propaganda they usually say something similar to this, from my experience anyhow:

"“Today’s propaganda almost never uses rational or logical arguments. It directly taps into a human’s most primal needs and instincts in order to generate an emotional and irrational response. If we always thought rationally, we probably wouldn’t buy 50% of what we own. Babies and children are constantly found in advertisements targeting women for a specific reason: studies have shown that images of children trigger in women an instinctual need to nurture, to care and to protect, ultimately leading to a sympathetic bias towards the advertisement.”

Now that seems to imply the superiority of rational thinking?

In my research up to now, I am seeing the rise of mechanistic thinking, begining in the 'modern era' with philosopher Rene Descartes claiming that animals are machines, and with that horrific belief he and his students would torture animals and dismiss their natural cries of pain and suffering as being the 'squeaks of a machine'!

Then in the 19th century happens another philosopher in Germany called Wilhelm Wundt who was the first psychologist (ie., there was psychology before--meaning the study of the 'psyche'/soul/mind--but not a psychologist). Wundt chooses to make a science out of psychology, and since you cannot measure the soul he literally takes the soul out of psychology calling it 'experimental psychology' and this entails claiming humans are animals, and thus 'machines'. And onyl their behaviour is closely watched and measured--not their soul or mind. See? So this is mechanistic philosophy in action. Now this 'philosophy' was very convenient for the rish exploiting the new machines of their up and coming Industrial Revolution, because now they could call their slaves machines--as cogs in their machine--and have the slaves actually believe this --which is not a science but a myth. And of course as people naturally are distressed about this State of affairs tthese distresses are classed as meaning that people suffering from them are defective machines who need 'treatment'--change their chemicals and so on. No love of care for the actual individual.

When we take psychedelics you can see directly through this propaganda. But the propaganda is so all-pervasive that often on the 'come down' it can get you again, because this mechanistic philosophy has been drilled into us from very young in their enforced 'education' system. So I have often spoken to psychedelic experiencers who will claim that the experience is 'just a chemical ride' 'distorts reality' and they will also support mechanistic scientific theories. This at first shocked me very much, but it also caused me to look into the reasons for it.

One of the things the measuring mind does is kind of separate out terms and imagine they actually exist independently of each other as a reality. This has of course also beein done in orthodox religion---ie., 'light' and 'dark' 'good' and 'bad' 'front' and 'back' 'inside' and 'outside' 'life' and 'death' 'organism' and 'environment' 'rationality' and 'ecstasy', and so on. These seeming extremes are in reality polar-related, you can't have one without the other

So maybe how the propagandist does his sorcery is first divide us from one pole--in our case---well actually TWO poles, the rational/critical thinking and our ecstatic capacity. John Taylor Gatto talks about how 'education' dumbs us down so we cannot think critically, and but also emphasizes a trivialized intellectual capacity whicyh is mechanistic. usually creative subjects like art, and music are not as encouraged as more leftbrain subjects which are put through the mechanical testing system. meanwhile mass media takes over our imaginative capacities totally trying to fill it with all the proliferating channels now at its disposal--Hollywood films. which are propaganda of course, TV and the multi channels, adverts, the diversions of sports, corporate music videos, video games, theme parks, mobile phones, etc etc. Their driven profit based need to have us all gazing at their entertainment spectacle 24 hours 7 days a week. No time to just sit and wonder with one's own imagination.

What do you think so far? :)
 

ararat

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
8 Juin 2006
Messages
3 374
I feel quite tired and will go to sleep soon, so I won't write much, just the thing that I noticed most. from what you write, you make it sound like this mechanistic/division thinking has its source in propaganda, that the media invents and creates these modes of (un)consciousness in us. no question, they absolutely thrive on these modes, the substrate of the whole thing. the amount to which media and society reinforces these modes appears staggering. but the original source seems to lie somewhere else.
you can see many things we dislike about ourselves in documentations about mammals and other animals. including politics.
the root of duality lies in our animal nature. as animals, some things nurture us, and some seem detrimental to our health --> good/bad, nurturing/detrimental. the intellect helped us tremendously to survive (so far).

another thing that hit me, why did far eastern spirituality invent so many techniques and teachings to lower the grip of the ego? (which seems to me as the thing you believe that the propaganda creates in us)
to my understanding they didn't have much propaganda, maybe some obey the king stuff, but not quite the kind of thing you see when you turn on the TV - let alone the amount of it. so it follows that it must have existed before the advent of media and large scale propaganda.

so I would't equate propaganda and the ego. this may seem like hairsplitting, but I think otherwise it sounds too conspirative.


otherwise I really like what you wrote. keep it coming!
 

zezt

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
25 Mai 2008
Messages
1 640
BananaPancake a dit:
I feel quite tired and will go to sleep soon, so I won't write much, just the thing that I noticed most. from what you write, you make it sound like this mechanistic/division thinking has its source in propaganda, that the media invents and creates these modes of (un)consciousness in us. no question, they absolutely thrive on these modes, the substrate of the whole thing. the amount to which media and society reinforces these modes appears staggering. but the original source seems to lie somewhere else.
you can see many things we dislike about ourselves in documentations about mammals and other animals. including politics.
the root of duality lies in our animal nature. as animals, some things nurture us, and some seem detrimental to our health --> good/bad, nurturing/detrimental. the intellect helped us tremendously to survive (so far).

I think I understand what your saying/asking.
If your asking what the source is? As I am seeing it--let us look at the religion from which modern science emerges--it is the Abrahamic belief system which includes Judaism Christianity and Islam. I think it iwas mainly the Christian mythology out of which the likes of Copernicus and Galileo were born into. So it is important to try and understand where that belief system was at. It was all-pervasive. One HAD to follow the faith. it was an enforced dogma--set down mainly at the Council OF Nicea in the 4th century 'AD'.
It said that humans were born with 'Original Sin' "Original sin, sometimes called ancestral sin,[1] is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature," to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.[3]

Those who uphold this doctrine look to the teaching of Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 for its scriptural base,[2] and see it as perhaps implied in an Old Testament passage Psalm 51:5"
The whole myth of the 'fall of man' comes from their 'creation myth' from the Book of Genesis where because Adam and Eve were disobedient to 'God' that this brought the fall of Nature, and death, and suffering, and being cast out of paradise etc. Now I am saying that all this is propaganda also! That the underlying mythological propaganda which supports mechanistic thinking which came with the scientific age stems from this creation myth, because this was the myth drilled into the generations, and people still believe it now.
because nature was seen as fallen, any entheogenic communal spiritual ritual with nature was considered by this belief system to be diabolical, because they believed that it was the 'Devil' who stalked the natural world trying to seduce souls away from the 'good spirit in the sky God'. So this is dualism also, right? You were tested in this life, and it was a choice between everlasting hell, eternal heaven, or purgatory which was like a limbo state between heaven and hell.

I am seeing this as some of the earliest propaganda because the writers and artists of this myth would use writing to undermine images that far anceintly and for other peoples had been sacred. For example the Tree and Fruit and Serpent. All these were more anciently connected with the Goddess, entheogenic awareness, Enlightenment whereby the experiencer gains ecstatic celebratory insight into their interfusion with the eternal cycles of nature. But what the propagandists did was keep those images but use writing --which was fairly quite a new and elitist technology--to undermine the images so as to make people fear them! So on one level the images brought forth primal emotional awareness, but their text denigrated these feelings. is this not the same of how advertizers will use imagery and degrade it towards profit-motive consumerism, and harmful exploitative disinfo?
You seem to suggest duality is rooted in animal nature? I dont think so. More so it is rooted in us being made to be ashamed of our animal nature, and our very connection with other species and the natural world. Understanding that good and bad are polar related doesn't get rid of good and bad. I still will retreat from freezing (bad) water and be comfortable with warm (good) but that is not the same as imginaing you can only ever HAVE cold as against warm and vice versa.

another thing that hit me, why did far eastern spirituality invent so many techniques and teachings to lower the grip of the ego? (which seems to me as the thing you believe that the propaganda creates in us)
to my understanding they didn't have much propaganda, maybe some obey the king stuff, but not quite the kind of thing you see when you turn on the TV - let alone the amount of it. so it follows that it must have existed before the advent of media and large scale propaganda.

so I would't equate propaganda and the ego. this may seem like hairsplitting, but I think otherwise it sounds too conspirative.


otherwise I really like what you wrote. keep it coming!

Well with Eastern mythology you get duality masquerading as nonduality. So for example they gave out the idea of 'Oneness' and the 'many' without realizing they have already created a duality be that supposition, This 'Oneness' then becomes a higher abstraction which people then seek as a goal, and denigrate the 'many' which they see is a trap for finding this idealist 'One'.
Also it was in India we got the caste system which devided people into group with the 'untouchables' Sudra at the bottom, and the Brahmins at the top.
Unlike the western religious monotheistic myth of the abstract 'God' who is the goal, in the Eastern are lots of 'gods'--ie., gurus that are supposed to be--because of good 'karma'--closest to the source, and they would pretend they were egoless. But I dont believe any of it.

So what is ego? I would define it as 'I like, I dont like' ie., what we think we are--our persona/mask. Now some peoples ego are very restrictive--eg a racist who hates black people, or white people, or the Irish, or Jews, etc. He identifies with that, and believe the Nazi propaganda, and makes it. Buit is it possible to not have an ego? No! because we are all unique, and distinctive which is the joy and diversity of life. Look at dogs--all have their own characters--is it ego? Ego is just a word. I would say it is far cooler to just try and question, and be interested and not care if someone says you have an ego unless you are a complete closedminded shit LOL :lol:
 

ararat

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
8 Juin 2006
Messages
3 374
zezt a dit:
Well with Eastern mythology you get duality masquerading as nonduality. So for example they gave out the idea of 'Oneness' and the 'many' without realizing they have already created a duality be that supposition, This 'Oneness' then becomes a higher abstraction which people then seek as a goal, and denigrate the 'many' which they see is a trap for finding this idealist 'One'.
Also it was in India we got the caste system which devided people into group with the 'untouchables' Sudra at the bottom, and the Brahmins at the top.
Unlike the western religious monotheistic myth of the abstract 'God' who is the goal, in the Eastern are lots of 'gods'--ie., gurus that are supposed to be--because of good 'karma'--closest to the source, and they would pretend they were egoless. But I dont believe any of it.

So what is ego? I would define it as 'I like, I dont like' ie., what we think we are--our persona/mask. Now some peoples ego are very restrictive--eg a racist who hates black people, or white people, or the Irish, or Jews, etc. He identifies with that, and believe the Nazi propaganda, and makes it. Buit is it possible to not have an ego? No! because we are all unique, and distinctive which is the joy and diversity of life. Look at dogs--all have their own characters--is it ego? Ego is just a word. I would say it is far cooler to just try and question, and be interested and not care if someone says you have an ego unless you are a complete closedminded shit LOL :lol:
I pretty much agree with you, but still harbor some doubt on the source of duality. your point about feeling ashamed for our animal nature makes perfect sense, but so does the idea of nurturing/detrimental. I can well imagine that both act(ed) as factors. at some point humans apparently grew afraid of their nature, thus deeming it detrimental.

language acts as a trap when talking about matters such as those. I don't think you are sold duality under the disguise of nonduality, you tap into the trap yourself. of course you can find a counterpart to "oneness"! the concept has flaws in itself, to talk about something you need something to contrast it to, and that which "oneness" tries to communicate has no counterpart. "the tao that can be given a name is not the eternal tao".

But is it possible to not have an ego? No! because we are all unique, and distinctive which is the joy and diversity of life.
I like that one :) I still feel inclined to split hairs; it's not possible not to have an ego because such a thing does not exist!
 

Schwanke668

Alpiniste Kundalini
Inscrit
25 Déc 2010
Messages
692
BananaPancake a dit:
what exactly do you mean by propaganda? maybe this will spark the kind of discussion you want to see.


talking with dogmatic materialists can be utterly tiring. I don't know what you mean by "Is science propaganda?", but I'll agree with you and say that science can act the same way as a religion, the belief in the scientific method replaces the belief in god. this appears especially true in the case of the crowd around richard dawkins.

YAY!!! SOMEONE HAS FINALLY SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!

I'm sure there are others but this is the FIRST time I have seen someone other then myself call science similar to religion and how they relate at a psychological level.

I dont knock scientists or science in general I just knock the scientisits that go all hoo haha over religion and bad mouth religion when they dont realize they are doing just what you said. Its just as bad as when a 'fundamentalist Christian' says Science is evil because it tries to prove there is no god as when a 'fundamentalist Scientist' if you will says Christianity is evil because it tries to disprove science.'

There are waaaayyyyy more religions out there then people want to admit and the main streamers tend to turn the more popular religions into 'acceptable propaganda dogma'.

Look at how long the catholic church had control over the spirituality of europe. That was all 'religion' (as opposed to faith). Sure there were some Christians that had it right but there were also lots and lots and lots that had it wrong.

I see the same in science. There are lots of scientists that have really solid well founded well organized beliefs in science that are based on knowledge, logic, reason and faith in the unknown and then there are the fanatics that go off half cocked and try and prove things based purely on logic and reason and try to stamp out the humanity of the soul from all of their 'beliefs'.

Anyone who is trying to 'understand reality' needs to have a solid balance of both 'religion' and 'faith'. That is the religion is the definition of the 'system' and how it 'operates' and the 'faith' is the acceptance that there are always exceptions to the rule of the religion and we cant know everything about everything about the religion.

Whether or not your religion is science or Christianty or your faith is the unknown or Jesus either way as long as you have a balance you will work things out in the end. Its when we get too one sided in either direction that we get in trouble.

As for propaganda. I think psychedelics allow us a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger access to the ability to see the difference between religion and faith and gives us the ability to willfully choose which one of each to believe in instead of being subconsciosly programmed by them.

For example some people turn bodily health into a religion. They say that you need to treat your body perfectly and that above all else you have to eat right and sleep right and exercise right. They get obsessed over muscle tone and wierd concoctions of foods that affect the metabolism. Thats all well and good but like Jesus said in the bible about the sabbath. The body was made to serve man, not the other way around. We shouldnt deify our bodies at the sacrifice of say, staying up late to be with our kids, or eating a piece of pie your wife cooked for you for your birthday because its 'not healthy'.

This all having been said the TV programs us into believing that certain things are important when they arent and then we deify those parts of our life and try to do them perfectly according to someone else's list of rules.

I think of the last Die Hard movie about the Fire Sale where the bad guy tries to crash the entire US system, wallstreet, police, fire, rescue, 911, air traffic control, everything. Wont say why but the 'good kid' which is the hacker goes on a rant to Bruce Willis's character about how radio and tv and mass media are all about scaring you into believing that you need this or that to keep yourself safe. As funny as that was a scenario to hear it said in serious way its also true but most people are too blind to see it. Watch tv for a day and try and find the numbers of times that commercials talk about you might have this problem and need this medication, or your computer might get hit by this virus you need this protection, or your identity might be stolen by this hacker, you need this insurance, your house might flood you need flood insurance, it might get broken into you need an alarm. They are almost ALL about telling you you need something because something bad might happen to you.

Psychedelics allow you to draw connections between things that are harder to see without them because your mind is cluttered going in 1000 different directions at once where as with psychedelics you can obsess over something on purpose and take notes.

Exercise for the reader: Make a big sign that says "Is this making me paranoid?" and put it above your tv then drop a bunch of something psychedelic and watch tv. You mind will pair the thoughts paranoia and tv so readily you will CLEARLY see how often the tv is trying to make you paranoid.

Just my babbly opinion hehe.
 

zezt

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
25 Mai 2008
Messages
1 640
BananaPancake a dit:
I pretty much agree with you, but still harbor some doubt on the source of duality. your point about feeling ashamed for our animal nature makes perfect sense, but so does the idea of nurturing/detrimental. I can well imagine that both act(ed) as factors. at some point humans apparently grew afraid of their nature, thus deeming it detrimental.

I think it was the rise of 'thinking', the intellect, 'reason', which becomes identified with itself and then objectifies its body, believing itself to be separate, or alien to it, and thoughts and feelings 'it' considers animalistic and inferior it associates with animals and nature and believes this a trap, and that is the roots of it I reckon.

language acts as a trap when talking about matters such as those. I don't think you are sold duality under the disguise of nonduality, you tap into the trap yourself. of course you can find a counterpart to "oneness"! the concept has flaws in itself, to talk about something you need something to contrast it to, and that which "oneness" tries to communicate has no counterpart. "the tao that can be given a name is not the eternal tao".

But I dont see what is being said in the Tao Te Ching to be the same as what is being said in Advaita Vedanta. In the former it is trying to convey that you cannot HAVE 'oneness' without 'diversity', the two imply each other, whereas in the latter, belief systems stemming from Eastern idealism is the hope and goal of merging with a 'oneness' and escaping birth and death, the cycles of nature.
Language is a trap because as I think I mentioned above when you say 'light' and 'dark', 'life' and 'death', 'front' and 'back', 'inside' and 'outside' etc there is a tendency to believe these separated out abstracts have a dependent reality. Hence you have beliefs which believe you can ONLY have 'light'. or ONLY 'life', or ONLY 'death' not realizing they are confusing terminology with reality.


I like that one :) I still feel inclined to split hairs; it's not possible not to have an ego because such a thing does not exist!

Well maybe 'it' doesn't because 'ego' is only a term that has different definitions but surely see know that people have their likes a dislikes dont we? How would you define ego then?
 

ophiuchus

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
14 Nov 2006
Messages
4 530
one thing that i noticed in taoism, that was always made abundantly clear that i saw, was that, yes, they describe the ultimate reality by making reference to nonduality, but they only use this instead of "oneness" because it is less confusing for demonstrating reasons, ie they use oneness and manyness as a formal duality, and then use nonduality, as a third party in the same scenario. this as you have noticed, (and as they have pointed out as well) is that even though you can get an idea of what they mean by this, nonduality still clearly has an opposite, hence "the tao that can be known is not eternal tao"

they already covered those bases :lol:
 

Schwanke668

Alpiniste Kundalini
Inscrit
25 Déc 2010
Messages
692
Allusion a dit:
one thing that i noticed in taoism, that was always made abundantly clear that i saw, was that, yes, they describe the ultimate reality by making reference to nonduality, but they only use this instead of "oneness" because it is less confusing for demonstrating reasons, ie they use oneness and manyness as a formal duality, and then use nonduality, as a third party in the same scenario. this as you have noticed, (and as they have pointed out as well) is that even though you can get an idea of what they mean by this, nonduality still clearly has an opposite, hence "the tao that can be known is not eternal tao"

they already covered those bases :lol:

Its like trying to understand the infinite. You can only aproxomate infinity, you can never achieve it. You can only search for the solution but you can never find it.

In our search for Tao or God or what/whomever the ultimate 'answer' is always beyond our grasp at a human level.

A difference though that I suggest to those seeking the impossible is that God is a God of impossibilities and can provide for you a step into infinity that you cannot achieve by pure human endevors.

Its like the idea of going from point A to point B by going half way between where you are now and point B. Eternally you will forever get what is half of whats left closer but you will never reach point B. God in his impossiblity can provide the last step that allows you to go "the whole way" with only "half a step" and neither violate the rule of half nor transform you into God but merely give you the ability to act in a manor similar to God's impossiblity.

I have experienced the infinite, pure oneness, pure perfection, pure joy, the pure of many things. But I can describe none of these nor can I claim that I have experienced them 'on my own'. I can only claim that God enabled me to experience an impossiblity that has forever changed my life and left me somewhat less human then I once was and somewhat more godly then I really wanted to be.

To achieve the impossibly is to leave behind the possible and being human is possible and being God is impossible. Like the scripture "If I am sane it is for the sake of man. If I am crazy it is for the sake of God." The closer we get to God/infinite/pure(x) the more we leave our humanity behind and the more humanity itsself makes less and less sense.

I believe that psychedelics open up the mind to the impossible, showing purity, truth, holiness, glory, freedom, oneness. But I believe that every time we delve into the psychedelic and come back with anything we take to heart it becomes that much easier to delve again and that much harder to come back. We are eternally changed by the impossiblity of the freedom of the infinite truth hidden within the psychedelic experience and these changes slowly strip away our human blinders and transform us into a new creature that is less and less human each time because the definition of our humanity is our blindness to the world around us and beyond us.
 

zezt

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
25 Mai 2008
Messages
1 640
That is my experience. I am aware that anciently there was the mythological and ritualistic understanding that god can become you. That~~~eating the god~plant is when 'you' become enthused/inspired/possessed by some experience far vaster than what you think you are--ie, John Doe, or Mary Smith or foreign names ;). So let's say the god~plant was named Dionysos. Now this mythical god had many names--he was known as 'the god of many names'--and one of his names was god of nature. Now this is of course coming from a mythological understanding that nature is sacred, and thus when you eat the entheogen you become that--which could be said to be more than the individual human. You re~member, rather, who you are

Now when mystical schools come about which are more philosophically inclined, like Orphism, is when nature becomes to be seen as a trap and impure, so the quest becomes for 'purification', and the believers of this belief system would use the entheogens and/or ritual in that way, that interpretation! They seek escape from the 'human' and to become 'God' or their goal is a 'spiritual realm' far away from the human body and nature with its cycles. And of course this idea is cognate with Eastern idealism and also influenced Christianity and Islam. In the secualr world it becomes Transhumanism whereby 'Man' believes he has become 'God' via his knowledge and technology and so is going to 'put nature right' and conquer aging and death, and 'upgrade' the human!
 

Schwanke668

Alpiniste Kundalini
Inscrit
25 Déc 2010
Messages
692
Ahh but see the mistake that all who take this path make is to seek to 'become God'. Its when we seek to 'become God' that we fail. We are to become 'like God' not 'become God'.

Becoming God is like trying to be your mechanic to fix your car when you have absolutely no experience fixing cars. If you try to become God without having been God before. (And we are all born human and not as God) then when we attempt to 'be God' we foul it up. Hence why so many people end up in mental assylum's thinking they 'are Jesus'.

However when we aspire to be 'like God' then we aspire to 'learn from the mechanic' and discern different skills of the mechanic and in the end over an infinite period of time be able to fix and rebuild cars.

Its like I always say. Every 'religion' (even Christianity) has a grain of truth to it except that it fails at the point of still being a 'religion'. So even things such as mystical religions or transhumanism or so forth are still religions because they attempt to show you how to 'become God'. God is a seperate person. We do not try to become our mother or become our father. We aspire to become LIKE our mother or LIKE our father.

And I say even Christianity because many Christians view the bible as a book that teaches them to 'be like Christ' when in actuality they are treating the book in a way that teaches them to 'be Christ' (judgemental). The only way to 'be like God' is to know Him and to learn from Him.

I do believe that God sometimes reveals himself as a different entity other then Christ but I find that that is only the case when the person who is searching for him is so caught up in a 'religion' other then Christianity that they would never accept him in the form of Christ. As such I think he sometimes reveals himself as other 'gods', leads the person closer to a better understanding of him, then reveals himself in his natural form as Christ. As always this is just my opinion but to not express it would be to be dishonest.
 
Haut