Jacobsrw

No because the truth is not the psychedelic experience. The Truth is within what the psychedelic experience points to. Which is far beyond what any ordinary ego-mind could detect in its ordinary state of consciousness. Hence the power of psychedelics. Truth or consciousness, is independent of the thing in which is used to point to it. Although the Truth and the pointer directed toward truth are one, this collapse does not occur until the self collapses. Hence why a heightened experience is required. This can be equally experienced in long meditative states. But don’t merely take my word for it, as it I just heresay, I invite you to experience it yourself

Because some imaginations are so powerful they have the capacity to culminate higher states of consciousness. Psychedelics being one of them. However, psychedelics are not a binary lottery ticket to awakening. They merely illuminate the path in which one is required to walk through the awakening process. That individual still requires waking it. Dreams are no different. How can one become so frightened by a conceptual figment of their imagination such that it manipulates their everyday behaviour? Simply, because some dreams are so powerful they can alter states of consciousness. And further more, everyday life is no more real than the dream state, it just appears of more solidity. They are synonymous. Consciousness may imagine all things, but not all things are given equal weight in producing the awareness it has of its self.

Haha but you see I am always wrong, I can never accurately represent what speak of Oh nice. Marketing is still nonetheless important. Theres psychological economics which you may like too. Study of customer behaviour etc. Very interesting. Good to be open to learning. Although, I wouldn’t say I’m fully competent in that regard. I have more confidence of my knowledge in the area of philosophical science opposed to psychological science. This work here leads to me disagreeing with much of conventional psychology I could send you some articles I have on existential psychology and positive psychology. Believe I have them somwhere.

Sounds similar to subliminal reaction. I’ll look into it. Since I study psychology this will be of equal value. Thank you. It sounds more Jungian and Freudian than skinner. Skinner was more a physicalist in behaviourism. However, could be something there he provided on the matter. I’ll have an exploration it. good to hear Hahaha I can tell you’ve valued our shared conversations

Good point. Got lost in dialogue. My aim was to simply highlight the absurdity of this documentary and the deception it could perpetuate. Lost cause that was I feel ? @Galyna my apologies if I offended you.

In part that’s true. But not in how you may be assuming. Language and concept are secondary in this work, that doesn’t mean they have no utility in the relative domain of transcending the illusion of mind. If you assume the basis of a discussion on this forum is merely for entertainment value than you’ve completely missed the underlying purpose. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. You seem to be interpreting this at the level of mind. This has nothing to do with my views. Fundamentally, they are wrong in the end. What I am suggesting goes far beyond that. Awareness of this topic will be of no use if it is conceived of synonymous to mainstream entertainment that goes in one ear and out the other. Psychedelics will just be left to the way side or worse mindlessly abused. Your conception of this documentary appears to be “some awareness is better than none”. I don’t necessarily agree. If awareness for psychedelics is risen and it becomes just as abused as any other empty entertainment channel then the real value becomes nullified by the very fact it’s perceived as “entertainment”. Any experience on psychedelics will be reminiscent of a ego-trip. Just because one entertains an idea does not equate to them using it wisely. Can you elaborate? This made no sense to me.. I still see no equivalency but one you seem to be superimposing.

It didn’t demonise them it instead mocked them. It may as well of mocked them since every moron and his donkey will now be persuaded to mindlessly use them and incite the very sanctioned bans that restricted them to begin with. They were first banned for dangerous recreational use and those whom become deceived by this obfuscating view of them will only abuse them. Its far more serious than the money hungry corporates at Netflix could ever intuit.

If you haven’t taken them, what I said is likely to go straight over your head. Psychedelics are not for romanticising about fantastical phenomena. It’s about facilitating deep inner work. That documentary is merely even a documentary. It’s a typical reality show sit com using desirable public figures with no more sense on the matter than an inanimate rock. Also I don’t see it at all comical. That completely undermines the usability of a psychedelic. When done correctly, they will decimate everything idea you hold dear and purify ignorance. No laughing matter. Mindlessly conversing about an important topic is not the same as using it powerfully. People at this level understanding will be no closer to awakening than if they sit back eating chips on the couch. I disagree with your statement. That’s a false equivalency. Commercialisation is completely dependent on the manner in which it is done. One who chooses not to commercialise is not operating within the same medium.

What a bastardisation of this powerful medicine. It pretty much appears as a deluded sit com producing humour at the expense of a psychedelic. If anything this will create more ignorance in those already consumed by it and represent precisely what a psychedelic is not. This is what you call business co-opting any ego rampant opportunity to increase profit.

Has anyone read any of Ken Wilbers books? I’m pondering which one to start with. I was considering Integral Transformation but I also heard he has over 200 written books ? Suggestions?

Anytime. I watched this video not because I felt compelled to but because I wanted to squander my ignorance which was earlier criticised. However, I still found the interview relatively empty. It was probing into areas wherein science has been for eons with no success. Not because science is useless but because when it come to the fundamental essence of reality (which is consciousness) science is incompetent. It’s simply just becomes a bed time story to entertain the mind. Consciousness is beyond the wits of Hoffman and any other scientists that came before him. He proposed some nice theories and presented himself very well, humble indeed, I like him. Nevertheless, I feel he will hit the very same inevitable ceiling many before him have also. Which is, consciousness is primary and nothing precedes it. Meaning, nothing can explain it because whatever aims to is but a finite limitation within it. Dont get too caught up in relying on theories and concepts. In the end, they become insolubly redundant and irrelevant. Explore reality directly. This is the only way to understand it at the core.

Thank you for the very friendly pointer, much appreciated. I will continue to explore more deeply ?

Go directly to reality itself and find out. Self-inquiry, psychedelics and contemplation.

Likely very true. However, without the experience I cannot agree or disagree with you. I will forsee entertaining my ignorance.

Agreed. This does nothing for one who is completely deluded however. One can understand they exist and it’s source but operating from this place is a completely different story. @Someone here Fundamentally, this is true. As I stated earlier. A concept is not the same as the very thing attempts to represent. Actuality is very different that the descriptions used to describe it. A model of reality is not the same as the actuality of reality. Research Jack Derrida and you will see how his theory of Deconstruction completely decimates materialism and science.

Really this is the only real meaningful way to approach the such a complex issue. That’s true. However, we must still invite others to entertain these ideas otherwise the protests they conduct will be mindless and damaging beyond the awareness they operate. One must be aware of the implications that underpin their intentions as well as the actions that follow it.

Not to incite debate, however, I would suggest that the conception of love/absence of love could be simultaneously equated to the conception of truth/untrue. Of course no one on here will entertain this idea but really it’s all synonymous formulations. Truth is what IS but what is untrue is also what IS, just superceded by the truth it rests within. For something to be untrue, it must be true in order to be stated untrue - Kurt Godel. In others words, love is a conceptual duality just as is truth, two polar opposites to a duality must invariably equal each other. Since a whole comes from the composition of that which rests within it. The only difference is that truth appears to be more of a useful pointer than love. Not sure where I sit here. Nevertheless, all I’ll say is that existence is beyond duality and that what one uses to explain it is fundamentally arbitrary. Of course. I was not at all trying to discredit what you shared. I in part agree, I just cannot validate either side of this argument since I have no experience to validate them. That’s what I feel semantics points out. That all our linguistic meanings and descriptions are redundant so we must be careful in the hierarchies we erect.

There is no Leo Leo I think may be open to the idea that awakening can be induced.... Hence his heavy involvement with 5-MEO for awakening. I definitely am not open to it. Go awaken then tell me if you still maintain a belief that enlightenment can be induced The whole “process” of awakening dissolves becoming no more real than a bed time story.

I feel it may just be a semantic differentiation. Ultimate Love to some, appears synonymous with the felt equanimity of nothing, that’s how Leo refers to it anyhow. The predisposed dualistic human love is far different than spiritual love. I feel that’s what is being distinguished in this dialogue. The duality you pointed out is merely a symptom of mind: love and absence of love. The universal love supposedly supersedes this duality. For me personally I cannot validate whether or not the ontological basis of reality is love. I can, however, validate that the basis of existence is incommunicable via language. Regardless of the word used to convey it, the experience is far more ascendent than words could ever convey.

First off, enlightenment is not substance dependent. The psychedelic experience is a state and a highly integrated one at that. However, it’s temporary and provides the insights one may require for enlightenment but is in-equivalent to awakening itself. Secondly, science does not even understand a psychedelic experience let alone the varying degrees of them. All science can do is map arbitrary neurological activity and link this to ones “altered state”. This is completely void of any real value. Im open to science having the capacity to possibly induce an imitative psychedelic experience. However, I do not at all see them inducing enlightenment. Enlightenment is not something you induce it is the opposite of inducement. It’s the disappearance of all self propagating phenomena. This is far beyond the depths of science in my view. Science is way too premature to even consider this.

It’s contextual. Depends on the nature of the protest, where it’s done, who does it, how long it lasts, organisers behind it, it’s disruption, the time of day it is done, the present social political climate and so forth. Many variables are involved and influence the effectiveness of a protest. They can be positive but also damaging. I suggest you critically revise all possible variables in a given protest and weigh against one another to produce a meaningful answer.

Interesting. I’ll have to look into it. What’s the fundamental purpose of it though? A conceptual map for physics? Won’t this just be another cereal box on the isle?

Exactly. It should radiate to all regardless in whom receives it. Otherwise its conditional and and contorted, distributed via selection. Also on the opposite end, reliant on others ie. attachment, is nothing but a limited conditional love. Unconditional pure love, is love that transcends the need of needing to have it to begin with.

@Saba So I watched the fair majority of this interview with an open mind, since you appeared to detest views in opposition to it who had not. I have some points to share that may be of interest. Buckle up, it’s a long one. First off, usually I find value in Tom Bilyue’s content and his take on rudimentary self-development, but here he just hindered the progression of this conversation. Tom is clearly a naive realist who believes in a dualistic material objective reality. The way he used this paradigm I feel created many problems throughout. On the other hand, hats of to Hoffman, as he seems to have some interesting points that may supersede his conventional predecessors. Some of which, I disagree with but some I do not. Nonetheless, they are still worthy to note. Since no one has taken the time to mention the main points he covered I will do so here. (1) Hoffman claims his Mathematical theory proves: “An organism that sees reality as it is, in whole or in part, is never more fit than an organism that is of equal complexity and sees none of reality”. Basically reality is independent of the organism in which perceives it. This is interesting and leads to what he further stipulates. In part, it seems he may be inferring the assumption of duality. (2) Hoffman believes in an subjective relativism in which is projected through an interface he calls “the social network”. This is interesting and far more comprehensive than simulation theory. Although it’s cumbersome what he reasons the core of this to be. Since the network is assumed as an inextricable reflection of ones own experience it’s as if he believes this subjective relativism creates objectivism. This seems stray away from consciousness as the primacy and leans toward an emergent materialism. (2) conscious agents inform experience and experience is a vast field of sensory perceptions that are fundamental. Here I feel there is an assumed duality in his proposition of consciousness. Hoffman states sensory experience is fundamental (just what that means is left to the imagination since Tom interrupts). However, it appears he assumes that sensory experience is a central domain of experience and so too are the are conscious agents through which the experience is known. He does pluralises “conscious agents” and assigns them to the social network conception. This is an advanced perspective but appears to assume a subjective consciousness which perceives experience. I feel this undermines the distortion of mind. Whereby, experience appears subjective through the lens mind but is actually just a derivative of the one consciousness ie. no subjectivity. (3) Truth is independent and is very different than survival. The probability that survival equates to an accurate perception is reported as 0. In other words, the patterns of survival contort reality to suit a fitness pay off. This is sophisticated conception of survival I feel. Not sure about the mathematics however. Hoffman equates survival as a relative activity dependent on a subjects make. In other words, survival is not absolute. Yet I feel here he is relies too heavily on mathematics, assuming it a valid criterion of measure for survival behaviour. (4) time is an illusion. Hoffman explains time as an illusion and suggests it is merely a projection of the a virtual reality headset. This I feel is quite accurate. He provides a fairly solid position on the illusion of space and time. Stating it as a fiction created in the headset purely for purposes of utility. Although, one flaw I came I across in this contention, was that he argued logic and reason as fundamental measures of this truth. I feel he saw past the futility of mathematics and logic in this sense. He equated time and space to be falsifiable through logic and reason, rather than the underling experience used to induct that process. (5) reality is infinite. He goes on to state reality is infinite and suggests this is supported by Godels Incompleteness Theorem. I agree here, but raise concern in his formulation of infinity. He suggests infinity exists but only through the lens of the headset. Meanwhile, consciousness is just more a subsequence of reality. I feel he has infinity backward here. Hoffman appears to be provocative in the conventional scientific field. I like his presentation style, persona and mannerism when approaching science. He is extremely humble and seems to have humility in doing so. But it must be noted that his conceptions of science are conceptually derived, which in no way suggests consciousness can be mathematically represented. Which is what he argues he is working on. This will be a never ending endeavour. Consciousness is the fundamental phenomenon of reality. It cannot be quantified because whatever is used to quantify it is by definition a subset within it, thus, invariably becomes redundant in its explanatory power. The truth precedes anything that attempts to explain it and cannot be explained by anything proceeds in following to it. Godels Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates this, ironically. If you take a self referential computation and use it to falsify itself, it equally must have to be true in order to be falsified. However, the computation cannot be proven since new computations inevitably derive as a result of the falsification process. Therefore, mathematics is inherently futile in proving phenomena and could not be extended to consciousness. Since the computation used to explain consciousness would just be a further extension of new and necessary computations that are unexplainable. It would go on forever. Just like the word “tree” does not represent the actuality of a tree. A computation could not represent the actuality of consciousness. Irrespective of this, Hoffman appears he could be an important figure in science. He made some good points which may be a step in the right direction. Who knows, though. A far majority of the scientific community remains heavily deluded so it would be stretch to see it go very far any time soon.

Pretty much. The problem remains the same. Explaining the actuality of something requires whatever tools are comprehensive enough in order to explain it. Science cannot do this, it’s tools are in comprehensive, just as any tool is. It’s that simple man. No conceptual framework can explain a psychedelic experience for what it is. For that, you must enter it yourself. This is my view anyhow. Food for thought: The very point of a thing can not be what is being used to convey it. In other words, what is used to explain a thing becomes irrelevant to thing itself. The word “tree” does not represent what a tree is. This what they call a tautology.