Corpus

I hope the Deep Divers manage to come up for a breath of fresh air from the sea of slurry this guy is spouting. I for one will be glad to have my silicon deficiency corrected via intramuscular injection of 0.004mg of microchip. I communicate this to you from the bunker I took residence in back in 2012 after Mr McKenna convinced me./s

Agreed. One of the features of psychedelics is ones (egoic) sense of smartness prior to a thought-loop event has no conception of what "being" un-smart is, until mired within it. And that is utterly harrowing. Trip-sitters should always be close by/available if dosing high, regardless of how much psychedelic practise one has done particularly with the longer acting compounds.

And what if one does not have a meditation practice prior to the trip? The paradox of the thought-loop is that the attempt to keep a rein on things morphs into an autonomously functioning runaway train, spiralling into subjective madness. Taking up a meditative practise is often one of the lessons learned if one intends to trip again. Nevertheless, it is a valuable learning experience, IME.

Really good description. Such an experience has to be had to really grok the torment involved of perpetually being back in the same place, knowing that the same essential agony is to unfurl again...and again... I have had one similar experience and it changes how one "interacts" within the psychedelic space henceforth forever, which is very very instructive. It fulfils the criteria for an acute psychotic episode pretty well, and has IME/O bugger-all to do with any God realization but does beautifully demonstrate how ones thoughts only appear to be under your control, and "just surrender" becomes almost impossible to do without guidance from an experienced sitter, or other external source.

Dissociation comes in a variety of flavours; the salvia dissociation has an added dysphoric component for many users which is distinct from the dissociation provided by stuff like ketamine etc, and makes it a less sure-fire method for a "good time". To qualify as a disorder, a psychiatrist would want to see other "criteria being fulfilled" such as an adverse effect on several domains of functioning, or causing subjective distress. Assuming this is not the case then at times we all dissociate a little, and ultimately, if not disorderly, it is just another label.

You are right; some do getter lesser effects which are conceivable. However, linguistic imprecision aside, the overwhelming majority do get what I attempted to describe when vaporizing enough of a dose. In the same way that generally speaking, most DMT users get impressive visuals. Outliers always exist but their experience should be seen as that, out-lying, and is a poorer yardstick for discussing what the majority experience. Maybe vaporizing some 5 MeO DMT at an appropriate dose could teach you something.

I'm glad you benefitted from the trip. Something to consider- do you think having your mind "pre-loaded" with Baches work in the week prior to your experience influenced what you experienced? Psychedelics do affect ones suggestibility IMO/E. Can you comment more on what is new for you now, post-experience, in terms of pestilence, famine and rape? Is Jesus' crucifixion Truth or a story, and can we be sure either way? Your very last sentence suggests a keenness to get tripping again. That in itself is worth a good ponder.

I love that turn of phrase. Maybe add a version of this to the sites' disclaimer?

A good dose of 5 MeO DMT utterly abolishes the self in a way which is inconceivable. As the self re-assembles it immediately tries to conceptualise what has just occurred/been missed. Usually this is in line with ones deeply held assumptions but for some, it is in-line with their hopes leading to scripting of the experience. Like labelling it "God" or "infinite Consciousness". Applying no words to it is less off the mark.

Great vid. It lacked only one thing- the obligatory "ta-da!".

220 milligrams and you wouldn't be going anywhere, for days.

No contradiction. A) I wouldn't. Many people handle/stash their substances in ways/locations which could result in compression. B) Compressing it reduces the surface area exposed to degrading factors thereby increasing longevity (worth it if one has freebase and aims to keep it for a good length of time). Avoiding any chunks for consistency of dosing needs to be stressed more.

IME there is more to it than batch of substance. It also depends on storage and any conditions it has been exposed to. If its been in your back pocket in a baggie and you have sat on it, compaction will result. This is a slightly facetious example but it illustrates a point. Using a pill-press, it is possible to compress 500mg of 5 MeO DMT freebase into a pill-shape the size of a tablet of paracetamol. A tiny crumb shaved off from this can be over 15mg. Having seen this first-hand, I would always suggest finding a consistent way of calculating the dosage beyond visual inspection and using it every time.

Be aware that a 5mg pharmaceutical pill contains 5mg of the drug plus a load of fillers which bumps up the weight. So 5mg (or any mg) pill will weigh more. Microscoops are hit and miss depending on the compactness of your 5 MeO DMT. If using a scale such as the Gemini, which is pretty good if used with a couple of things in mind, educate yourself on the concept of "percentage errors". Such a scale will be more inaccurate at the lower doses (<10mg) but if you place a cigarette paper (small size=49-53mg) on the pan, note the weight and how it differs if at all between 3-5 weighings and use the average (mean) as the baseline weight of the paper ("X"mg), then add small amounts of 5 MeO onto the paper to get to the dose you want ie X+10mg if 10mg 5 MeO is the dose chosen.

^^ that is some epic honesty and high-level awareness on display. The ban-hammer is not waved often here, fortunately. The stuff presented/discussed here is a little too other-worldly when viewed through the lens most bear, and the key implications/notions/limitations of language can be a significant stumbling block. Such is how it is. A vid on "Language" might be a useful one to shoot, especially as the vids are composed of it.

Ibogaine is a different beast than the usual agents; its more of a confrontation with the self rather than an agent to abolish or transcend the self. Taking it to awaken is probably misguided, but to really plumb the depths of ones core "structure" its very effective. One needs to carefully consider ones motivation for undergoing the experience which is heavy duty and cathartic. The physical risks are also not be understated, and it requires more than just being physically fit. Certain bloodwork and an ECG are essential pre-requisites before embarking down this road safely.

If you consider Peter Ralstons' path to his enlightenments then his stance makes perfect sense. A penchant for contemplation, exposure at a formative age to Far Eastern traditions and disciplines, a degree of instability of tenure (ie moving around quite a bit) were all formative for him. For others, including Carlos Castenada (if his books are believed), their upbringing solidifies thought patterns which require a more "aggressive" approach to crack the solidity and open up new possibilities. An important thing to note is that in The Teachings of Don Juan the 3 drugs used were psilocybin (P Mexicana), mescaline via Peyote and tropane alkaloids via Datura species (?Inoxia/Stramonium). The latter is more deliriant than psychedelic when compared to the other two.

Dementia, medically-speaking, is not a single monolithic entity and can have many different aetiologies, signs and symptoms. Add into the mix ones pre-morbid "sense of self" and the different ways the dementing processes erode this and you have a very broad spectrum of symptomatology.

Great question/pointer! 5mg vaporized freebase is a "betwixt and between" dosage, and is still pretty impressive and potentially unsettling. Another 3-5mg and the questions cease.

Re Culadasa (and Leo too)- make a distinction between the bathwater and the baby in it. There is value in both of the materials they provide and to make a definition of perfection, apply it and then a-judge by the definition will mean one misses out on some incredibly useful stuff.

People love childish, stupid talk, and struggle with honesty because it doesn't sit well with self-interest usually. And honesty is a flexible notion depending on ones self-interest. That's politics folks!

You are not obliged to believe him. He is a politician after all. Political power involves assessing and juggling many considerations and inevitably involves paying lip-service to worthy notions selectively, following up with force when self/national interests (as perceived) are involved, and there is no divine code of conduct which is ever followed "because it is right". Dirty business. Re Saudi Arabia- I am no geo-political expert but considerations which are pertinent, as I see it, include: What happens if the Royal family falls? As the epicentre of Islam, is democracy going to follow? Not immediately. How would this strengthen Iran? How would Israels interests be affected? How would the clerics react to "mischief in the land" when considered from the position of the Sunnah? Who would the people listen to with their present level of thinking? Could instability in The Land of The Two Mosques be a clarion-call for a new and "clearly unavoidable" jihad? How would oil supplies be affected with consequences more globally? If the UK supported US interference in Saudi Arabia, what consequences for London, where much Saudi wealth is invested? Would the UK still find customers there for its weapons, a big part of the UK economy? Would Turkey think its a good or bad thing, with the Caucasus on its doorstep, a place where "many a staunch defender of Islam" ("jihadist") has been born? How would this affect Russia, with impeders to its interests in the area, and an antsy Caucasus possibly playing up? I am sure there are other factors, but these suggest its a convoluted juggling act being a politician.

Good point. Let us examine what Cameron said. He is a politician so probably lying scum, but lets overlook that and take him at his word.

Libya, I think, is an interesting case. We need to put it into (at least) a couple of contexts to perhaps expand our understanding. The longer-standing context should include the USA's memory of its humiliation (subjectively felt) over the downing of the Pan Am flight late in 1988; the lust for revenge lingered and was not satiated by the subsequent bombs it dropped on Libya not too soon after the event. The more immediate context (relative to the time of Obamas enthusiasm for hitting Libya) was the wishful hopefulness that existed at the time in terms of the Arab Spring. Gadaffi was apparently going to send his troops into the town of Benghazi, which he claimed was full of Al Qaida-affiliated militants, to take back control and suppress this de-stabilizing force who were promoting insurrection/rebellion in the nation. To really understand how Gadaffi felt about Islamism (as its termed now) and his own political beliefs one should perhaps read "The Green Book" which he wrote outlining his politics. He was no lover of marked religious adherence, regarded it as threatening and had little qualms about keeping a close eye (and occasionally a tight fist) on those with a more religious outlook than his own. Relative to his position, Benghazi was militant but note- only relative to his own views. Ironically Benghazi did attract proper Jihadists from places such as Tunisia and Morocco, and this led in the ensuing years to the rise of ISIS affiliates and the bombings in these countries. Obama, Cameron and the French leader at the time believed that deposing the guy would lead to a democratic successful nation emerging, with the leaders instilled there, as a debt of gratitude, looking favourably on oil contracts being granted to concerned parties, and this gullible idea that its good to have democracy and it also pays well (potentially) prevented clear thinking and a more accurate assessment which would have considered the geography and tribal culture more carefully. Such thinking also played a part in the adventures in Iraq and the same poor analysis led to immanent effects for anyone minded to look. Politics is a dirty business, and it takes people with appropriately dirty characteristics to even want to ascend to political power. Obama achieved this power suggesting he has enough dirty characteristics, and focus of intent. Situations always unfold in unknown ways and these dirty characteristics may not be as successfully deployed in the presence of this unfolding.

There is a lot of wisdom in this post. There is a massive web of causality at work here, extending geographically and temporally, and a valid beginning point is impossible to identify. Kind of turtles all the way down ie Why drone strikes? Because Al Qaeda. Why Al Qaeda? Because Iraq sanctions/ Israel/ US bases in the Arabian Peninsula/ Russian-Afghan War. Why each of these? Infinite regress. Blaming Obama misses this point. The only part of Leos post I would highlight which merits some further thought is "When you are put in charge...".(4th paragraph). Obama devoted years and much effort to securing this position ie sought it out and he would have been largely aware of what it entails. Altruism, narcissism, lofty idealism and a blindness to real-politik? Who can say. Those who aspire to lead powerful nations will have a mix of both positive and less positive attributes, and it is the balance of these which can have a big impact on how high they rise, along with how well they reveal/misrepresent these to a populace who tend to be emotionally and selfishly driven.