Ah, time. Gotta love it when you have it. I think I've reached my quota on starting new topics. But, I will hope to see you offer your advice on resolving the issue of communicating abstract concepts like ones awakening into intelligibility.

The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life. — Janus

How far from natural and normal can we go and still come to credible conclusions? Are the posts I write all wrong because I'm usually typing them while high on caffeine?

Oh wow. My first post and this is where I find myself. Now that is a question.

If I were to answer that statement, and not be in a state of mania...

I’d tell you that I am truth and you can search with all the means of man but you shall not find me, not unless it is shall be your destiny. If it is your destiny then you shall not merely find me, but join me. And together we shall share in all that is beauty. I shall learn from you, you from me, us from the others and then at the end of our sermons we shall all laugh at our own foolishness.

And If I was in a state of mania I’d probably believe that.

How far from natural and normal can we go and still come to credible conclusions? — Jake

Good question. Do I really want to be enlightened? Maybe I just settle with being just "me", whatever that is.

How far from natural and normal can we go and still come to credible conclusions? Are the posts I write all wrong because I'm usually typing them while high on caffeine? — Jake

Whatever insights caffeine may yield are not "far from natural and normal" since its use is so widespread. However it might be induced, an altered state is an altered state; i.e. an extra-ordinary or abnormal state. Now, the question as to whether such states yield any reliable metaphysical knowledge may equally be asked about so-called 'normal' states; that is lower (as opposed to higher) or unaltered states. The thing is that question is rarely asked because no one thinks that normal states tell us anything about the metaphysical or transcendent, in addition to what they might tell us about the empirical.

However it might be induced, an altered state is an altered state; i.e. an extra-ordinary or abnormal state. — Janus

But, those aren't natural. In my experience dreams are incredibly psychedelic if you compare them with induced altered states from various drugs.

I don't think any rigorous distinction between what is natural and what is not is justifiable.

Some researchers believe that DMT (which is produced endogenously) is active in the brain during the dream phase of sleep. If this is so, then it should be no surprise that dreams are psychedelic.

Some researchers believe that DMT (which is produced endogenously) is active in the brain during the dream phase of sleep. If this is so, then it should be no surprise that dreams are psychedelic. — Janus

That's about as psychedelic as I'm willing to go. Heh.

Yeah, well when it comes to dreaming that requires no decision on your part; in fact you have little choice in the matter. Your only option would be to take some other drug to suppress your dreams, or at least your awareness and/or memory of them. :grin:

Yeah, well that requires no decision on your part; in fact you have little choice in the matter. Your only option would be to take some other drug to suppress your dreams, or at least your awareness and/or memory of them. :grin: — Janus

Haha, THC is one drug that suppresses dreams. Just pointing that out.

Not entirely for me, and even then only the memory of them I think.

Not entirely for me, and even then only the memory of them I think. — Janus

You seem to be the kind of person that wants the experience the highest of highs and lowest of lows in life. Is my caricature of you accurate?

Not so interested in the "lowest of lows" but then sometimes highs and lows are a package deal.

I too was enamored with drugs for a good portion of my life. But, then I realized that they aren't conducive to being happy. What keeps you interested in their supposed utility? I'm sure something can be said about ones attachment to them and detriment to attaining lasting happiness.

I wouldn't say I am "attached to" (read 'addicted to') drugs. I would probably take psychedelics about once or twice a year. It's about creative exploration for me.

I rarely drink alcohol (I just have a couple drinks on some social occasions). I don't smoke tobacco or weed. I do eat some (not tobacco) though (helps me sleep).

The utility is not "supposed" but experientially demonstrated.

One or Two doses a year is more than enough for me. I then have to endure a few months of dysfunction before normality resumes. The growth is worth the instability. I’ve found chakra exploration entirely fascinating but again once or twice a year is enough.

That's surprising; I don't recall experiencing any dysfunction; except maybe with MDMA (and then only for one or two days). Immediately after Psilocybin, on the other hand, I usually feel cleansed and more relaxed than usual, even though (and maybe because) the trip itself is obviously much more challenging than MDMA.

I'm not sure what you mean to refer to by "chakra exploration".

I’m bi-polar, SP and all other kinds of modern explanations of altered states of experience and existence. I’m super sensitive to anything that stimulates. I mean MJ or Meditation not DMT or real Mind altering stuff, explored when I was a teenager but couldn’t now. I live in a crazy world of beauty where everything is music and truth. That’s why I digged the op. Pathless land etc.

:cool:

I think it's great to be sensitive! Welcome!

The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life. — Janus

Nothing can deliver objective knowledge to humans, nothing at all. The question really is what sorts of knowledge do you place value upon? Not all knowledge is scientific fact....

Truth is like a big messy poo. Something you have to do alone, you have to clean up your own mess when you're done, no one is going to want to look at it... but if you hold it in, then you'll become increasingly full of shit.

Love it

love it

Me too. In my humble and meaningless opinion; Even on the worst days, it’s better to be on vacation in hell than be stuck in purgatory without a passport.

Nothing can deliver objective knowledge to humans, nothing at all. The question really is what sorts of knowledge do you place value upon? Not all knowledge is scientific fact.... — Pattern-chaser

Yes, there is 'knowing that' (not all of which is scientific knowledge in the narrow sense). Then there is 'knowing how', the skills involved in using and working with things. Incorporating both there is the more primal knowing of familiarity, knowing in the Biblical sense, the poetic sense, the knowing of others and ourselves and the natural and human-made worlds and so on.

Sounds about right! :grin:

I’m new to the forum so apologies if I have screwed up reposting the relevant quote.

To answer “nothing can...objective knowledge.”

That statement could only be credible if you were to comprehensively deny the possibility of the unknown and predicate the statement upon those terms.

Maybe I’ve misinterpreted your message or the parameter of the discussion. Apologies if so.

could someone please tell me
How to reply with quote?

Highlight the text you want to quote and you'll notice a quote bar pop up next to it. Click on that and the portion highlighted will be quoted in the response box.

Highlight the text you want to quote and you'll notice a quote bar pop up next to it. Click on that and the portion highlighted will be quoted in the response box. — Wallows

Thanks :smile: