Thoughts on conscience, entities, ufos plus AYAHUASCA

[Tyger]

Another typical response by those who either cannot or are unwilling to substantiate their position:

There is plenty of "substantiation" provided - you just do not accept the context - or the premises - for the substantiation. You appear either unable (as in there is an intellectual inability) or unwilling (as in willfully ignoring).

Claim that doing so is a waste of your time

Is a reasonable comment given that you do not read and understand what is already written - a common experience with you.

and accuse the person asking for evidence of some bogus indiscretion.

What? What is a 'bogus' indiscretion?

There's no hijacking going on here.

Oh, but there is.

Everyone is free to comment,

Absolutely.

simply expecting everyone to agree with you isn't a reasonable position to take.

True enough - but that's not what you're doing. Recall that it is you, Randall, who chased several of us off a thread that you had started because we were 'derailing' the thread according to you. You made it clear that as the poster who started the thread you had a right to monitor the thread and decide what was 'politically correct' for the thread. Bold as brass you said that and so off a group of us went to post elsewhere. Now you want to have it be that you can derail this (and other) threads under 'freedom of speech'?

Counterpoint provides a balance that is needed if one is to "separate the signal from the noise".

If your 'counterpoint' was a genuine counterpoint, yes. But it's not. You disapprove of the very contention of taking the 'mind-altering' drug. Stating that once in the thread might be reasonable - even a couple of times - but you are on a crusade, far outside the parameters of the thread. Start your own thread, so that the OP can have 'their' thread proceed without derailment.

Faith in religion and/or drugs should be questioned.

So there we have your bias in spades. This is far away from having anything to do with faith or religion, Randall. If you are actually reading the text - and not having knee-jerk reactions to words and phrases like to a dog-whistle - you would know that the discussion about 'drugs' is all about research and nothing to do with religion or faith.

 

[Randall]

Dear posters

First of all: this thread is not to be hijacked by people who do not believe in other realities or had had spontaneous or drug induced altered states.
If you are against it, refrain from posting. It will make the thread unreadable and tiring.

Sorry but this is public forum. If you want to limit the discussion to people who agree with what is said, then there is always the option of starting a private conversation and inviting only those whom you think are worthy to participate. Otherwise, participation by responding to issues brought up by other posters does not constitute "hijacking".

Some of us have had experiences in our lives that make us doubt the all materialistic view of reality. Are they real? Well, not even scientists can agree about that, so there is plenty of room for searching and research.

After reading a lot about Ayahuasca, one way to summarise the induced state it brings is conscious dreaming.
But what is a dream? Another pandora box to open.
Brain discharge, unconscious thoughts peering through, spirit walkabouts, etc? There are many options out there.

I am one person. I am an individual. I have had my weird dream experiences. I have had conscious altered mind states. And this is my trip. I invited you to come along because I know we are all curious people, otherwise we would not bother to belong to a paranormal/UFO forum.

I am not an evangelist, and I do have a disdain for people that try to impose their beliefs on others.

Then let's not impose one's faith in any type of drug culture by limiting counterpoint that might dispute some of the claims or opinions.

If you have experiences to share in either side of the materialistic/spiritual spectrum, be welcome to post. That is for you @fastwalker! If you want to share your experiences, we will read them with respect for your courage to share them.

So, anyone that posts here should be non-judgemental and respectful for my choice.

So long as we're clear about the difference between what constitutes "judgement" and "judgemental". Providing rational counterpoint isn't being judgemental, it exercising one's ability to form sound opinions and make sensible decisions or reliable guesses ( the definition of judgement - Encarta ). If I were to offhandedly declare anyone with an opinion other than mine as a twit, that would be being judgemental. I've done no such thing here.

I am a strong person. I have my own ideas. I do not lead my life by other people's standards.

I respect someone who doesn't simply give into pier pressure and do what everyone else thinks is best for them, but at the same time I think it's important not to get invested in one's own beliefs to the point of dismissing valid counterpoint. I'm a truth seeker, not a mystic or a person who lives by faith. Therefore setting aside critical thinking when it comes to the claims made by others isn't something I do. Nor is it fair to expect it.

Have all a nice day. Take time time to appreciate our planet. It is beautiful. Enjoy the feeling that nature is able to give us. If you all could bring that state to everyday life in the rat race and concrete jungle we mostly dwell in, life would be much more pleasant. And there is even scientific proof for that! Check Rachel and Stephen Kaplan.

The gist of Kaplan's work is about carefully engineered balance, which is a far cry from simply letting nature have its way. I live in Canada, and if you really want to appreciate the benefits of the concrete jungle, come and hang out up here when it's -35 degrees in the middle of a winter storm. Trust me, you don't want that "feeling that nature is able to give us" for very long. Nature has it's wonders and it's beauty. I've experienced it. But it's also harsh and dispassionate. In fact it would seem that the latter is the rule and not the exception, and if you go out wandering in nature unprepared for that, you'll soon discover it's not all lollipops and rainbows.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

-Your responses come across as being extremely pompous and dismissive, as if you know the answer to everything, which you've clearly demonstrated that you don't. In fact, you're not really clued into the arguments surrounding entheogens or psychedelics, and have never taken any yourself so cannot speak from experience. I also get the strong impression that you revel in nitpicking points that other posters make, especially if it doesn't agree with your worldview. I'm not interested in getting into a long drawn out argument with you over this fascinating issue because I don't have the time to school you on this topic. It's a shame such an interesting thread was hijacked by you in this manner. With that I bid you farewell.

Randall, you really are coming across "extremely pompous and dismissive." Why don't you give it a rest already? Your opinion had been noted and by continuing to bludgeon us with your misinformed thinking, you are coming across like an ass. Just my opinion....

 

[Gene Steinberg]

To cut to the chase, Randall, I don't want to give you an enforced timeout. I'd rather you just dial it back a bit for a while. Can do?

 

[Nathaniel]

I think we need to define what a drug actually is. How do we do this? If a drug is defined as a substance that causes a psychological or a physiological effect then we would have to agree that foods too are a drug, or that music is a drug, or that life itself is a drug. If we don't agree with this, then what is a drug?

The word drug is a broad term and typically conjures up ideas of people recklessly seeking some kind of 'buzz' or 'high'. Whilst this is true of some substances I don't believe this to be the case with entheogens, or plant medicines. The vast majority of people interested in entheogens ingest them for purposes of healing or because they are seeking greater truths and insights about this construct we call reality. The experiences they induce rise far above a simple 'buzz' or 'high'.
There is also absolutely no solid evidence to support claims that entheogens such as ayahuasca, psilocybin or cannabis (amongst others) are addictive, or that they destroy brain cells. In fact, in some cases, with regards to the 'destruction of brain cells', quite the opposite has been put forward.

I firmly believe that plant based entheogens are natures tools, given to us in order to expand our awareness of reality, to help raise our consciousness, to give us a kick up the backside. There are many ways to do this but most take a lot of dedication and time. With entheogens you can have an extremely powerful experience within a couple of hours, an experience that could change your perception of reality, your perspective on life, forever.
Once you are familiar with the level of awareness induced by a psychedelic experience it is much easier to reach a similar level of consciousness via another method, for example meditation. At least this is my own experience.

Speaking of experiences. This is not one of my own but of the late comedian Bill Hicks, who ate a healthy dose of psilocybin mushrooms with a couple of friends. He reported that at one point during his experience he was taken inside a spacecraft wherein it was explained to him by 'entities' of some kind that death does not exist and that we are all one. (An extremely common theme). Afterwards Bill and his friends were discussing their 'trips' and were amazed to find that they had had exactly the same experience.
Some will say that the visual aspect of a psychedelic experience such as this is an hallucination, or the imagination. If this is true then what is an hallucination? What is the imagination? The imagination is too often dismissed and yet everything you see before you came from it.

I'd like to say to Ufology that your lack of experience with any of the entheogens mentioned in this thread renders your input invalid whether you accept that or not.
It is akin to joining an in depth discussion on a movie you have never seen. Until you've had the experience of watching the movie any opinion you have on it holds little to no weight whatsoever.

Also, although I suspect you would be the first to admit this, I think your comments about the Shamanic culture being primitive are extremely arrogant and narrow minded. Primitive in relation to what exactly? Our own super advanced culture?


'...psychedelics are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope, he goes away and works on what he has seen' - Alan Watts

 

[Randall]

Randall, you really are coming across "extremely pompous and dismissive." Why don't you give it a rest already? Your opinion had been noted and by continuing to bludgeon us with your misinformed thinking, you are coming across like an ass. Just my opinion....

You're comment does not address the issues, and your impression of my position as "pompous and dismissive" is unsubstantiated. The reality is that I've provided valid counterpoint, usually with examples, and it has been intended not merely to help provide balance, but delivered with genuine concern for the well being of those who might be persuaded by the pro-drug culture rhetoric to become involved in it. Therefore in the future, please try to address the issues rather than attacking the poster ( me ). If other people can continue to express their pro-drug culture opinions, then there is no fair reason why I ( or anyone else ) shouldn't be able to continue to respond to those posts, and if you think I'm misinformed, then please pick a single example and let's discuss it. Perhaps it will lead to a more productive exchange than getting into personality bashing and attempting to shut me down.

 

[Randall]

To cut to the chase, Randall, I don't want to give you an enforced timeout. I'd rather you just dial it back a bit for a while. Can do?

Can you explain your reasoning this time, or am I simply expected to capitulate to your demands and listen to you two trash me in the preamble to the next show?

 

[manxman]

Randal this lad puts it sweetly, take away the message, please.
altho he get's it wrong with 'meaningless' he correct's with ''little weight'' lastly.

Also, I'd like to say to Ufology that your lack of experience with any of the entheogens mentioned in this thread renders your input invalid, meaningless, whether you accept that or not.
It is akin to joining an in depth discussion on a movie you have never seen. Until you've had the experience of watching the movie any opinion you have on it holds little to no weight whatsoever.

 

[Randall]

Also, I'd like to say to Ufology that your lack of experience with any of the entheogens mentioned in this thread renders your input invalid, meaningless, whether you accept that or not.
It is akin to joining an in depth discussion on a movie you have never seen. Until you've had the experience of watching the movie any opinion you have on it holds little to no weight whatsoever.

Also, although I have a suspicion you would be the first to admit this, I think your comments about the Shamanic culture being primitive to be extremely arrogant and narrow minded. Primitive in relation to what exactly? Our own super advanced culture?

I would like to respond to your post, but I've been told by Gene & Chris ( here & here ) to "give it a rest" and to "dial it back" or be censored, most probably by an "enforced timeout" ( being banned ). It's really too bad that the Paracast has come to this. My response to Chris is here. My response to Gene is here.

 

[Randall]

Randal this lad puts it sweetly, take away the message, please.
altho he get's it wrong with 'meaningless' he correct's with ''little weight'' lastly.

Also, I'd like to say to Ufology that your lack of experience with any of the entheogens mentioned in this thread renders your input invalid, meaningless, whether you accept that or not.
It is akin to joining an in depth discussion on a movie you have never seen. Until you've had the experience of watching the movie any opinion you have on it holds little to no weight whatsoever.

See the post above ( here ).

 

[manxman]

No Randal, you have lost them this time.

I know the motive driving you is the connection to drugs and ufology, and the opportunity it offers ufology critic's to ridicule, ya cant win them all, these experiencee's are going to discuss their experience's, they not interested in the politic's of ufology that drive you, not here and not now anyway.

 

[Randall]

No Randal, you have lost them this time.

I know the motive driving you is the connection to drugs and ufology, and the opportunity it offers ufology critic's to ridicule, ya cant win them all.

See the post above ( here ).

 

[Nathaniel]

Manxman, you're right. Perhaps 'meaningless' was the wrong choice of word and for that I apologise.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Can you explain your reasoning this time, or am I simply expected to capitulate to your demands and listen to you two trash me in the preamble to the next show?

Randall, talking about you on next week's show is the farthest thing from my mind. I have other things to talk about. Remember, this is not about you. It's about the fact that you are upsetting other members, and that needs to stop. Remember, this is not a public auditorium; it's a private forum, and I have the keys. So take a breather and take it easy.

And the rest of you here: The issues please. Let's not talk personal about a member's posts and posting posture.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

You're comment does not address the issues, and your impression of my position as "pompous and dismissive" is unsubstantiated.

The quote was not mine, it was someone else who was echoing several other folks.

The reality is that I've provided valid counterpoint, usually with examples, and it has been intended not merely to help provide balance, but delivered with genuine concern for the well being of those who might be persuaded by the pro-drug culture rhetoric to become involved in it. Therefore in the future, please try to address the issues rather than attacking the poster ( me ).

Randall, many of us are tired of your broken record, arrogant approach to a subject you obviously know nothing about. Don't have have something better to do than put your ignorance on display?

If other people can continue to express their pro-drug culture opinions, then there is no fair reason why I ( or anyone else ) shouldn't be able to continue to respond to those posts, and if you think I'm misinformed, then please pick a single example and let's discuss it. Perhaps it will lead to a more productive exchange than getting into personality bashing and attempting to shut me down.

Several of us have already tried numerous times to express our informed opinions w/ supportive data. You have not expressed any desire whatsoever to have an intelligent dialog and you have become more and more dismissive, arrogant and insulting. You get back what you put out. Whenever a subject comes up that you don't like or agree with, this is your knee-jerk reaction. The Ted Roe thread is simply the latest other example. YOU don't know everything and your opinion of yourself is grossly over-inflated when you choose to disagree. Your badgering, relentless style does not help to express your opinion, it makes others become more firmly entrenched in their opinions to spite you. At times, it appears you actually enjoy and relish baiting people—ignoring their pointed questions—in your passive aggressive manner, and over&over&over professing your peculiar brand of assumed intellectual pomposity while deflecting other's rational thinking whenever it suits your fancy. You obviously love the sound of your fevered fingers on your keyboard!

 

[Randall]

The quote was not mine, it was someone else who was echoing several other folks.

Randall, many of us are tired of your broken record, arrogant approach to a subject you obviously know nothing about. Don't have have something better to do than put your ignorance on display?

Several of us have already tried numerous times to express our informed opinions w/ supportive data. You have not expressed any desire whatsoever to have an intelligent dialog, you have become more and more dismissive, arrogant and insulting. You get back what you put out. Whenever a subject comes up that you don't like or agree with, this is your knee-jerk reaction. The Ted Roe thread is simply the latest other example. YOU don't know everything and your opinion of yourself is grossly over-inflated when you choose to disagree. You badgering, relentless style does not help to express your opinion, it makes others become more firmly entrenched in their opinions. At times, it appears you actually enjoy and relish baiting people, ignoring their pointed questions in your passive aggressive manner, and over&over&over professing your peculiar brand of assumed intellectual pomposity while deflecting other's rational thinking whenever it suits your fancy. You come across like a frustrating and frustrated au contrarian who obviously loves the sound of your fevered fingers on your keyboard!

Again: See this post ( here ), and this post ( here ).

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Again: See this post ( here ), and this post ( here ).

No Randall, I will not continue engaging with you on this subject. In your mind, I am a drug addled apologist for your imagined (and paranoia-fueled) drug-based "UFO cults," so why would I want to continue feeding your evangelical fervor?

 

[Randall]

Randall, talking about you on next week's show is the farthest thing from my mind. I have other things to talk about. Remember, this is not about you. It's about the fact that you are upsetting other members, and that needs to stop. Remember, this is not a public auditorium; it's a private forum, and I have the keys. So take a breather and take it easy.

Take it easy? I'm not the one who sounds upset. I invite you to pick any specific post and explain why it's unreasonable. Perhaps I can learn something from that kind of exchange. But simply attacking me rather than the content and threatening to censor me again will garner no respect whether you "hold the keys" or not, and BTW after you censored me last time there were clear references to me on the live show ( or so it seemed ), so I'm glad you won't be bringing it up again without providing me with an opportunity to discuss the issues in person.

And the rest of you here: The issues please. Let's not talk personal about a member's posts and posting posture.

Thank you.

 

[Randall]

No Randall, I will not continue engaging with you on this subject. In your mind, I am a drug addled apologist for your imagined (and paranoia-fueled) drug-based "UFO cults."

OK. Those are some very specific issues. I can work with them. First of all, what you assume to be going on in my mind is not the case. I have a great amount of respect for you as a field investigator and writer. I have purchased and recommended your books to others. In fact your latest book is still featured on the USI homepage. I have also invited you to be part of a private discussion because I believe, from my interaction with you in the past, that your experience and opinions on these issues would provide valuable counterpoint to my less experienced, analytical, and reserved approach. Personally, I'm getting the feeling that because of that approach I've become the focal point for a lot of the pent-up hostility that you and other pro-drug culture people have as a result of the harsh authoritarian and unfair criminalization and stigmatization many users have had to endure. I'm not one of those people. I simply don't feel the way about you that you're saying I do.

 

[Ufocurious]

Ufology

I never thought that I would come to this point.
We asked you nicely.
You didn't stop.
I don't care about what you think anymore because you showed that if one does not agree with you you will keep going forever.
Sorry, but in my country if one there is a saying:
Quando um nao quer, dois nao brigam.
When one does not want, two don't fight.
I didn't want to argue with you, and I stated clearly in our private conversation.
I don't want to argue publicly either.
I just don't want to argue.
Each of us are entitled to our opinions, and we deserve respect from the ones that disagree with us if we don't feel like arguing at all.
I stopped reading your posts days ago.
Now it is time for you to move on.
I am the OP and don't want pointless arguments anymore.
If you can't do that, I have asked Goggs Mackay to erase your posts.
This is a public forum, and I would like people to feel welcoming even if they disagree, or want to show another point of view. But it seems you have a duracell battery that keeps on going even after we acknowledge your point of view. And that is not fair to the rest of us.

have a nice day