Walsh IV-
I liked the reference to the patient who has problems and is asked to bring forth a rock to the shaman and asked during the ASC the visions he see's in the rock can heel himself. Also what was interesting was how the Eskimo shaman does his healing process with the belt. Also what I found to be different was that the shaman himself can seek answers to questions or probelms he faces while healing someone else. I don't know if I going along believing the theory about cancer and as soon as it's gone you don't think about it but the moment you do, it's back. I think the prayers and medicane do the healing! Also what I was stunned about is that the more popular a shaman becomes the more he can't devote the needed time to someone, my question is does he have helpers?
Hughes 6-
This chapter really related to me in more ways than one. As a little girl my father wanted me to play the panio and even though I did not want to he wanted me to. As Hughes states, "In this regard the desire to please the parent may be a major facotr in the artist's motavation." -80. Endless love is also considered and ASC because Tart said, " its a passionate absorption in the object of desire, to the exlusion of much else in the world, a combination of arousal, love, and total focus." -82. When you are in love there is nothing in the world that can stop you from loving that person and having feelings for them. I beleive that sex isn't everything because behind the lust must lie passion of love. In order to have sexual relationships you must love someone, not in most terms but people will say nah there just a person to have fun with but they don't like to show their emotions.
A blog for IHUM 300W where students are asked to express their thoughts and opinions on the weekly readings.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Pearce Ch. 5 & 6; Electronic Reserve (attempt)
Pearce has again filled up more pages than needed. I can recall turning to my girlfriend while reading this and saying, "He could have said all of this in one sentence and spared us the technical reasoning and mumbo-jumbo jargon." Basically I think that Pearce is telling us (again and again and again) that we have the possibility to do ANYTHING. I was immediately pulled back to a quote by John Lennon of the Beatles that goes, "I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?" Pearce is saying that if it's in your mind, it can exist outside of the mind if you really want it to - another Lennon quote goes with this when he said something along the lines of 'war is over, if you want it to'. If we are this "mirror" and everything else is the other "mirror", when we make a "move" or a change in thought or a progression of thought, the other "mirror" is going to experience that change - a collective consciousness. Though I find Pearce to talk in ramblings, I digg the fact that he discredits the idea of a "discovery" and rather calls it a "creation". This goes along nicely with the theme of our class that seems to be over casted by the all powerful altered states theme: creativity. All the things we experience are a result of someones creativity. All you have to do to be creative is "move" in your "mirror" even if it's only a slight "movement".
Because of my absence from class on Thursday I can only speculate to what the electronic reserve handouts were about (I could not find them on any electronic reserve). It seems that one of the topics was law enforcement. This is a topic I could go on for hours about naturally. I completely loathe the fact that certain drugs are illegal - the drugs that don't harm anyone like LSD, Mushrooms, Cannabis, Opium, and various psychedelic substances. I find it a bit ironic that these drugs are looked down upon so much while the mind-controlling pharmaceuticals are shoved down our throats daily. It's also wonderful that the drugs that really harm people such as Heroin, Crack, and Cocaine, are the ones that are being brought in an distributed by our govt. They are treated the same way as drugs that are on a completely different level. Personally I believe that if you want to do something, do it - why not? As I traveled back from the Dead reunion this afternoon I began to think that there are two types of people: ones that ask "why?" and ones that ask "why not?" We seem to only persecute the people who ask "why not?" This leads me to my other speculated topic of one of the handouts: a psychedelic society. I think that this is what Pearce wants us to live in. Not psychedelic in terms of drug use, but psychedelic in terms of the way we think "normally". In order to have "advancements" or to evolve, we have to live inside of our thoughts for some time. We have to get inside of our ideas and not care about the consequences. We have to ask "why not?"
Because of my absence from class on Thursday I can only speculate to what the electronic reserve handouts were about (I could not find them on any electronic reserve). It seems that one of the topics was law enforcement. This is a topic I could go on for hours about naturally. I completely loathe the fact that certain drugs are illegal - the drugs that don't harm anyone like LSD, Mushrooms, Cannabis, Opium, and various psychedelic substances. I find it a bit ironic that these drugs are looked down upon so much while the mind-controlling pharmaceuticals are shoved down our throats daily. It's also wonderful that the drugs that really harm people such as Heroin, Crack, and Cocaine, are the ones that are being brought in an distributed by our govt. They are treated the same way as drugs that are on a completely different level. Personally I believe that if you want to do something, do it - why not? As I traveled back from the Dead reunion this afternoon I began to think that there are two types of people: ones that ask "why?" and ones that ask "why not?" We seem to only persecute the people who ask "why not?" This leads me to my other speculated topic of one of the handouts: a psychedelic society. I think that this is what Pearce wants us to live in. Not psychedelic in terms of drug use, but psychedelic in terms of the way we think "normally". In order to have "advancements" or to evolve, we have to live inside of our thoughts for some time. We have to get inside of our ideas and not care about the consequences. We have to ask "why not?"
Law enforcement
I thought the Law enforcement article was very interesting and the write made some very compelling points. the writer argues that using psychedelic drugs used for religious purposes should be allowed in the U.S based on the first amendment. He states that there is a major difference between leisure drug use and religious drug use, in leisure use of drugs there is no control and there could also be selling, buying, and laundering. Drug usage in a religious setting is controlled in a sense that the religion giving these drugs to their congregation for a better spiritual experience knows how much of the drug should be given. The problem the writer has is law enforcement is cracking down on drug use and there busting up religious ceremonies because of the drugs. He understands that the law enforcement officers are trying to keep drugs off the streets and away from everybody, but especially children. Everybody should know my view on this but i will state it anyway. If the drugs are illegal I do not care of the drugs are used for a religious ceremony or not they are illegal in the U.S.A which means they should not be allowed.
The second of the electronic reserve readings had to do with another reality (I think) i have to admit i really had a hard time keeping up with this writer, she went from one place to another so quickly. I believe the general idea of this article is she says Americans should leave this reality create a new language and live in that reality (something like that) , so shes basically saying humans "should ban a belief system for a direct experience".
The second of the electronic reserve readings had to do with another reality (I think) i have to admit i really had a hard time keeping up with this writer, she went from one place to another so quickly. I believe the general idea of this article is she says Americans should leave this reality create a new language and live in that reality (something like that) , so shes basically saying humans "should ban a belief system for a direct experience".
Psychedics and Law Enforcement
For the psychedilic assignment I think he was saying that we all see things from each of our own point of view based on the lives we live and what we have seen in the world. We all live in our own perceived realities and sometimes see things in one dimension and not as whole.We choose to beleive only what we wanna believe and we remove or close out the possibility of objectivity and mind oppenness.
The second article which highlights sort of the war on drugs is interesting. Out of everythig else the government can chase after they choose to cracking down on drugs. This drugs if used correctly I don't think harm anyone. One has to ask themselves who brings the drugs into the country.? Its not the users but the people in charge just trying to make a buck out of its citizens and jail everybody up. The rockeffella drug sentencing of the 80s have wrecked a lot of lives. Particularly minorities who are given steep sentences just for using these recreational drugs. They are given the same sentences that a murderer and a rapist should be getting. So the drug banning benefits them and scrwes us over.
The second article which highlights sort of the war on drugs is interesting. Out of everythig else the government can chase after they choose to cracking down on drugs. This drugs if used correctly I don't think harm anyone. One has to ask themselves who brings the drugs into the country.? Its not the users but the people in charge just trying to make a buck out of its citizens and jail everybody up. The rockeffella drug sentencing of the 80s have wrecked a lot of lives. Particularly minorities who are given steep sentences just for using these recreational drugs. They are given the same sentences that a murderer and a rapist should be getting. So the drug banning benefits them and scrwes us over.
Pearce, McKenna, Sterling
Pearce and McKenna seem to agree on science being against us. Pearce quotes McKeller with, "The idea that scientific principles are parts of nature can seroiusly impede the progress of our knowledge" (86) while McKenna writes about science, "They have built into them the most naive and unexamined assumptions" (61). There seems to always be this science vs. religion theme in the world. I understand the opposing views---but can't it be that both are right? I happended to like the quote on page 81 by Pearce that "What a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is." That is, whatever you want to see or experience in any situation, you will see or experience. If you think you're going to have a great time at the party, then you will. On the other hand, I've been to parties (I use parties as an example because they're usually considered to be a good time) where I knew ahead of time that I probably wasn't going to enjoy myself---and I didn't. I think if I would have left myself open to the experience and maybe even tried to have a good time, then I would have. Another quote that I liked was, "Only a sustanied passionate belief could have leaped the logical gap between that "imagined," created within the mind's eye, imaged from possiblity in spite of the lack of sensory evidence, and the final answer, translated into reality through enormous expenditures of time, effort, group belief, money, and with even the passionate urgency of war to hasten its final birth" (93). This means that if you can think it, then it can be real. It is possible to manifest your thoughts into reality through strong belief despite the fact that you don't know all of the details and can't fill in all of the blanks. Also, Pearce writes about fire-walking which just blows my mind. I want to see this (first) and then I'd like to try it. If this isn't enough thought into 'reality' for you then I don't know what is. He went as far as to say that the fire-walkers and also the people with the hooks in their skin didn't have so much as a mark on their bodies where there should have been burns or puncture wounds. Amazing!
I think McKenna's piece is a call-to-action for us all to turn off our televisions and become more aware. I understand what he's saying but there's something about his sense of urgency that puts me off. It's as if he wants us all to follow what he's saying without any thought about it.
As an aspiring attorney, I suppose I should watch what I say about Sterling's article. It is interesting though that all 'drugs' are classified as 'drugs' which I think I pointed out in an earlier blog. I don't want to get into an argument about our Constitutional rights either but how can we say that one person is permitted (by law) to pray while another is not permitted (by law) to use peyote even though they both represent similar things to the individuals involved. This article reminded me of "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I can't remember exactly what he wrote but part of the book dealt with the CIA, FBI, (insert numerous other acronyms) and how we have this "war on drugs" yet there's evidence suggesting that our government is partly responsible for funding, growing, and shipping drugs into this country.
I think McKenna's piece is a call-to-action for us all to turn off our televisions and become more aware. I understand what he's saying but there's something about his sense of urgency that puts me off. It's as if he wants us all to follow what he's saying without any thought about it.
As an aspiring attorney, I suppose I should watch what I say about Sterling's article. It is interesting though that all 'drugs' are classified as 'drugs' which I think I pointed out in an earlier blog. I don't want to get into an argument about our Constitutional rights either but how can we say that one person is permitted (by law) to pray while another is not permitted (by law) to use peyote even though they both represent similar things to the individuals involved. This article reminded me of "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. I can't remember exactly what he wrote but part of the book dealt with the CIA, FBI, (insert numerous other acronyms) and how we have this "war on drugs" yet there's evidence suggesting that our government is partly responsible for funding, growing, and shipping drugs into this country.
Religion and drugs
Fire walking is a very dangerous thing. I understand that some cultures do it to achieve their highest social status. This is a way for them to show their superiority above all others. How can one just randomly show up to the Kataragama affair and think that they will have achieved the proper state of being to be able to walk over fire unscathed? The people who do all the preparations properly are way more likely to survive. It takes 3 months to get your mind in the right place while Westerners try to butt right in at the end and take the front row to all the action and even try to participate. How can a total belief in a God give you the unquestioning power to be able to walk across fire, hold a scalding pot on your head, or be poked with needles and have nothing physically happen to you? These people would probably live forever because they can never get hurt. Does this make them shaman? They probably don’t have healing power but they certainly have supernatural powers. Pearce says that fire walking is an autistic power. How can an autistic power give you so much physical difference from the norm?
America is supposed to be the land of the free. I know that drugs are harmful and that the government wants to protect us but Sterling states that this land was founded by people who wanted the right to practice their own religion their own way. Why was that freedom taken away from us? The Native Americans have gotten congress to approve their right to use peyote in their spiritual rituals. If anything should be banned from Native Americans it should probably be gambling and drinking. Religion should have the right to use what they need when they need it. Religion and its practices, what ever they might be, have been around a whole lot longer then the laws of any country. People used to say what religious group they were from then they changed it to what country but their true loyalty lies with religion. They shouldn’t have to abide by what the government deems acceptable because they want to cut down on abusers. Just because they are illegal doesn’t mean that there are abusers out there.
America is supposed to be the land of the free. I know that drugs are harmful and that the government wants to protect us but Sterling states that this land was founded by people who wanted the right to practice their own religion their own way. Why was that freedom taken away from us? The Native Americans have gotten congress to approve their right to use peyote in their spiritual rituals. If anything should be banned from Native Americans it should probably be gambling and drinking. Religion should have the right to use what they need when they need it. Religion and its practices, what ever they might be, have been around a whole lot longer then the laws of any country. People used to say what religious group they were from then they changed it to what country but their true loyalty lies with religion. They shouldn’t have to abide by what the government deems acceptable because they want to cut down on abusers. Just because they are illegal doesn’t mean that there are abusers out there.
Pychedelic Society/Law Enforcements Against Entheogens and Pearce
The articles by Sterling and McKenna were very interesting starting with Sterling's article, at the beginning he paints such a beautiful picture on that sunny beach and the energy the waves create. How through our experience we know the energy of these waves but when additional energy applied we see the "wave in a new light". This is true with this article, how Sterling transposes the energy of the wave "exposing God at work in creation, as the Great Designer of the interplay of the forces of life, as the Cosmic Choreographer." (165) "Entheogens", coming from the word entheos meaning en+ theos = GOD. The Law is constantly working to fight and protect the young from all this greed. As if these riches (entheogens) were or are going to corrupt us or open our eyes to other world/realities. "...the greed becomes power-one of the great evil powers of our times." (166) I understand that some drugs if taken or ingested without knowledge can be harmful or even fatal but what about all these written and rewritten laws covering and making very little distinctions among "all drugs".
The Peyote drug which is used for rituals within the Huichol people of North Central Mexico since 1620 and the Spanish conquistadors banned it as diabolic and made it illegal. This drug was never used "recreationally" or as a "drug of abuse" it was used in religious practices. Fortunately this drug was and is allowed to be used under the extended and regulated protection to Indian religions. Unfortunately for the rest of , we have been controlled from any usage of entheogens. Lastly, Sterling talks about how now these drugs don't have a "haven" and many are being arrested for drug charges , without knowing the primary usage of this drug. Law enforcements protect the youth because it is hard to distinguish what is the harmful street drugs verses the usage of entheogens in spiritual practices.
McKenna touches on a very important concept "If God did not exist, man would invent him." (60) As humans we are in constant search for something that is out there...the unknown whether it is a god or a statue or other world. It does not suffice to know that we are but the continuously transformation of information. "We all create our own universe because we are all operating with our own private languages which are only very crudely translatable into any other person's language." (61) We had spoken of "Language" as one of the themes for the Huxley book and we gathered that if we took language ( as we know it) out of the picture there wouldn't be OUR own PRIVATE language but a vast of openings without barriers...no different interpretation or translation but just ONE understanding. Just like the "photons" he spoke about and how we all can see something and interpret it in all distinct and different ways from each other.
I really liked when McKenna quotes Ludwig von Bertalanfe; he goes to say that there's an "anti-humanist tendency in all systems" (62) and that people aren't machines but when given a situation we act like machines falling into patterns and hold this concept and belief very close as if it were to dissolve away or something. I think this is very true. We tend to hold on to things that are man made because they are the "norms"(what we know) but sometimes we forget about the little vague things that mean the most. In the end we will exit with nothing but our bones and flesh to be recycled back into where we came from.
The Peyote drug which is used for rituals within the Huichol people of North Central Mexico since 1620 and the Spanish conquistadors banned it as diabolic and made it illegal. This drug was never used "recreationally" or as a "drug of abuse" it was used in religious practices. Fortunately this drug was and is allowed to be used under the extended and regulated protection to Indian religions. Unfortunately for the rest of , we have been controlled from any usage of entheogens. Lastly, Sterling talks about how now these drugs don't have a "haven" and many are being arrested for drug charges , without knowing the primary usage of this drug. Law enforcements protect the youth because it is hard to distinguish what is the harmful street drugs verses the usage of entheogens in spiritual practices.
McKenna touches on a very important concept "If God did not exist, man would invent him." (60) As humans we are in constant search for something that is out there...the unknown whether it is a god or a statue or other world. It does not suffice to know that we are but the continuously transformation of information. "We all create our own universe because we are all operating with our own private languages which are only very crudely translatable into any other person's language." (61) We had spoken of "Language" as one of the themes for the Huxley book and we gathered that if we took language ( as we know it) out of the picture there wouldn't be OUR own PRIVATE language but a vast of openings without barriers...no different interpretation or translation but just ONE understanding. Just like the "photons" he spoke about and how we all can see something and interpret it in all distinct and different ways from each other.
I really liked when McKenna quotes Ludwig von Bertalanfe; he goes to say that there's an "anti-humanist tendency in all systems" (62) and that people aren't machines but when given a situation we act like machines falling into patterns and hold this concept and belief very close as if it were to dissolve away or something. I think this is very true. We tend to hold on to things that are man made because they are the "norms"(what we know) but sometimes we forget about the little vague things that mean the most. In the end we will exit with nothing but our bones and flesh to be recycled back into where we came from.
Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto...
"Modern science is characterized by its ever-increasing specialization, necessitated by the enormous amount of data, the complexity of techniques and of theoretical structures within every field. Thus science is split into innumerable disciplines continually generating new subdisciplines. In consequence, the physicist, the biologist, the psychologist and the social scientist are, so to speak, encapusulated in their private universes, and it is difficult to get word from one cocoon to the other..." - Ludwig Von Bertalanffy.
This is kind of where I began my thoughts on this blog, seeing as I was so moved by the other quote from Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. I find it suitable that we are delving into science, as it would be, but more so “true” science, i.e. the science of the mind (if there is such a thing). I love how Pearce points out the idea of the mind being the “mirror of the universe.” We have been talking in some of my communication classes about how television and movies are not reliable realities but interpretations of the real world. It all began with the idea that media is no longer a mirror but a medium that is actually doing the constructing (or distorting the reflection). If you think about it, no camera, or film can ever capture a real moment, even if it’s just you and the camera. It is capturing its moment, from its perspective, from its frame of reference, from its use of lighting, from its transcription onto film, etc, etc, etc. However, what I am getting at is how our minds truly can be the mirrors of the universe and although we cannot capture moments, as McKenna pointed out; we can use our minds for “the exteriorization of the soul, and the interiorization of the body.”
The mind in a way can never be understood by us, or captured for the sake of examination, it is truly “a fourth dimensional organ of the body.” The mind is a medium, not an object, and we must use it externalize the desires of our soul and internalize the actions of our bodies. As McKenna alludes, we need to drop these belief systems which originated at times where people needed something to believe in and concentrate on living in the moment. Everyone today is obsessed with capturing their life on film, or in pictures, as if looking at them sometime will recreate that time of life. It won’t. That type of thinking only reinforces the societal norms and pretenses. There needs to be an appreciation of the present and a departure from the past (and past beliefs) where in we are focused on a progression toward a society unhindered by its own constructs.
As far as the science is concerned, it seems to have become a business centered around “fact” and is only willing to discuss that which it can justify. The facts it presents follow a linear model and many of the realities in our world are not linear. Therein lies the problem and the inability of science to understand the world as a whole. We can no longer see the world as just pieces of a puzzle. These scientists are content analyzing their portion of the world without regarding the scale at which the world functions and the level at which human beings are capable of experiencing it.
(Oh and as far as Law Enforcement is concerned, some creeper caught me smoking on campus and took my name and id# down, so now i have to look over my shoulder everytime i light up, thanks PSU Security!)
This is kind of where I began my thoughts on this blog, seeing as I was so moved by the other quote from Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. I find it suitable that we are delving into science, as it would be, but more so “true” science, i.e. the science of the mind (if there is such a thing). I love how Pearce points out the idea of the mind being the “mirror of the universe.” We have been talking in some of my communication classes about how television and movies are not reliable realities but interpretations of the real world. It all began with the idea that media is no longer a mirror but a medium that is actually doing the constructing (or distorting the reflection). If you think about it, no camera, or film can ever capture a real moment, even if it’s just you and the camera. It is capturing its moment, from its perspective, from its frame of reference, from its use of lighting, from its transcription onto film, etc, etc, etc. However, what I am getting at is how our minds truly can be the mirrors of the universe and although we cannot capture moments, as McKenna pointed out; we can use our minds for “the exteriorization of the soul, and the interiorization of the body.”
The mind in a way can never be understood by us, or captured for the sake of examination, it is truly “a fourth dimensional organ of the body.” The mind is a medium, not an object, and we must use it externalize the desires of our soul and internalize the actions of our bodies. As McKenna alludes, we need to drop these belief systems which originated at times where people needed something to believe in and concentrate on living in the moment. Everyone today is obsessed with capturing their life on film, or in pictures, as if looking at them sometime will recreate that time of life. It won’t. That type of thinking only reinforces the societal norms and pretenses. There needs to be an appreciation of the present and a departure from the past (and past beliefs) where in we are focused on a progression toward a society unhindered by its own constructs.
As far as the science is concerned, it seems to have become a business centered around “fact” and is only willing to discuss that which it can justify. The facts it presents follow a linear model and many of the realities in our world are not linear. Therein lies the problem and the inability of science to understand the world as a whole. We can no longer see the world as just pieces of a puzzle. These scientists are content analyzing their portion of the world without regarding the scale at which the world functions and the level at which human beings are capable of experiencing it.
(Oh and as far as Law Enforcement is concerned, some creeper caught me smoking on campus and took my name and id# down, so now i have to look over my shoulder everytime i light up, thanks PSU Security!)
McKenna writes about living with technology and how we as humans have become products of an assembly line where we become machines ourselves. The existential elements of his writing are standing outside our doorsteps waiting for us to come out and play.
We've become a society stuck on settling for ourselves. We often talk to people who, after reacting negatively to a situation, just shrug their shoulders, saying, "That's my nature." What? Since when did we become so lazy with ourselves that we find happiness in secluding our development? There is a cliche out there that states something about not knowing yourself until the day you die.
People settle for the problems within themselves and never try to learn from experiences or become stronger within themselves. They are often the one's, who when confronted with ideas outside of their everyday norm, become confused and uncomfortable.
The word faith pops up throughout our readings, and I feel that if such people have such a strong faith within themselves then why be so quick to jump down the throat of one that questions the way you feel. Shouldn't faith be indestructable to outside influence without one becoming so emotional and angry to these ideas. Is faith even a question of strength? Or are we looking at a battle between faith vs. beliefs. If faith is used as one's mask to hide fear, and a person becomes aggressive and defensive with anything arguing that faith, that person may be bursting into flames when walking across burning embers. (Foreshadowing... kind of)
(Segway First)
Faith is mentioned in Sterling's article. Certainly there is a big contradiction to our laws. However, Sterling doesn't really acknowledge that there are some idiots who abuse peyote and other spirtiual drugs for the purposes of just getting "messed up." They have no intentions of using the drug for spiritual reasons, and I find that the most unsettling point on these laws against entheogens. To use a drug for the purpose of just partying, in Sterling's case, would be sacrigelious, almost. He's talking about peyote use in rituals in a mature environment. Give me some peyote and I can find you five kids on campus that would take it without any knowledge of its origins. I could do it during our classtime today. It wouldn't take me any longer than using the restroom. In a similar situation, Penn State allows students to smoke in designated areas with places to discard your cigarette. However, people just stomp them out on the ground and walk away. Smoker's talk about "their rights," but when an area is willing to compromise, throwing a cigarette on the ground is probably the most stupid thing someone could do. The same goes for drug use, I believe.
(No segway)
I read "The Cosmic Egg" late last night. I like when reading all of Pearce's anecdotes about scientists, he suddenly smacks you awake with a quote of his own that sums up what you have just been reading for ten minutes.
"Each of us has an autistic openness for unlimited synthesis, but agreement on another's synthesis then limits our openness. It defines a specific area that can then no longer be open for us." Could this be where myths developed?
Question: Does the Humanities department put together courses that allow the students to make connections to all of their classes? Lance and I were discussing this conspiracy earlier today.
While reading Chapter 6, I kept thinking of a post that Wilbert had written a few weeks ago regarding the martial arts. He mentioned that when you see someone break a block of wood with their bare hands, you know that the discipline carries a whole lot of merit. I couldn't agree more with you, Wilbert. I think you should speak more often in class.
I spent my early childhood being severely sick with all kinds of breathing problems. My mom, who was running out of vacation time to take care of me, finally took me to the doctor, so he could put me on a presciption all winter long. Every so often my mom will say something about some other sickness that I don't recall having. My point is though, that my mother never treated me any different than my sister who was consistently healthy as a child. For instance, if I thought I was some strong man she encouraged me to think that way. She never babied me with some sickening sympathy that made me feel like a victim. I think she gave me some spiritual sense of myself that as time went on and I entered my later elementary school grades, I never missed a day of school. And even today, I do nothing beneficial to my health, but my doctor says I'm healthy.
Now I have to think of a closing that doesn't reference my childhood, or anything personal for that matter. Jenna gave me the idea to just post up a series of YouTube clips for my next blog. I'll write a subject and have a video connection for what I read without a written explanation.
That's still a pretty bad conclusion. Why am I so concerned with an ending today?
We've become a society stuck on settling for ourselves. We often talk to people who, after reacting negatively to a situation, just shrug their shoulders, saying, "That's my nature." What? Since when did we become so lazy with ourselves that we find happiness in secluding our development? There is a cliche out there that states something about not knowing yourself until the day you die.
People settle for the problems within themselves and never try to learn from experiences or become stronger within themselves. They are often the one's, who when confronted with ideas outside of their everyday norm, become confused and uncomfortable.
The word faith pops up throughout our readings, and I feel that if such people have such a strong faith within themselves then why be so quick to jump down the throat of one that questions the way you feel. Shouldn't faith be indestructable to outside influence without one becoming so emotional and angry to these ideas. Is faith even a question of strength? Or are we looking at a battle between faith vs. beliefs. If faith is used as one's mask to hide fear, and a person becomes aggressive and defensive with anything arguing that faith, that person may be bursting into flames when walking across burning embers. (Foreshadowing... kind of)
(Segway First)
Faith is mentioned in Sterling's article. Certainly there is a big contradiction to our laws. However, Sterling doesn't really acknowledge that there are some idiots who abuse peyote and other spirtiual drugs for the purposes of just getting "messed up." They have no intentions of using the drug for spiritual reasons, and I find that the most unsettling point on these laws against entheogens. To use a drug for the purpose of just partying, in Sterling's case, would be sacrigelious, almost. He's talking about peyote use in rituals in a mature environment. Give me some peyote and I can find you five kids on campus that would take it without any knowledge of its origins. I could do it during our classtime today. It wouldn't take me any longer than using the restroom. In a similar situation, Penn State allows students to smoke in designated areas with places to discard your cigarette. However, people just stomp them out on the ground and walk away. Smoker's talk about "their rights," but when an area is willing to compromise, throwing a cigarette on the ground is probably the most stupid thing someone could do. The same goes for drug use, I believe.
(No segway)
I read "The Cosmic Egg" late last night. I like when reading all of Pearce's anecdotes about scientists, he suddenly smacks you awake with a quote of his own that sums up what you have just been reading for ten minutes.
"Each of us has an autistic openness for unlimited synthesis, but agreement on another's synthesis then limits our openness. It defines a specific area that can then no longer be open for us." Could this be where myths developed?
Question: Does the Humanities department put together courses that allow the students to make connections to all of their classes? Lance and I were discussing this conspiracy earlier today.
While reading Chapter 6, I kept thinking of a post that Wilbert had written a few weeks ago regarding the martial arts. He mentioned that when you see someone break a block of wood with their bare hands, you know that the discipline carries a whole lot of merit. I couldn't agree more with you, Wilbert. I think you should speak more often in class.
I spent my early childhood being severely sick with all kinds of breathing problems. My mom, who was running out of vacation time to take care of me, finally took me to the doctor, so he could put me on a presciption all winter long. Every so often my mom will say something about some other sickness that I don't recall having. My point is though, that my mother never treated me any different than my sister who was consistently healthy as a child. For instance, if I thought I was some strong man she encouraged me to think that way. She never babied me with some sickening sympathy that made me feel like a victim. I think she gave me some spiritual sense of myself that as time went on and I entered my later elementary school grades, I never missed a day of school. And even today, I do nothing beneficial to my health, but my doctor says I'm healthy.
Now I have to think of a closing that doesn't reference my childhood, or anything personal for that matter. Jenna gave me the idea to just post up a series of YouTube clips for my next blog. I'll write a subject and have a video connection for what I read without a written explanation.
That's still a pretty bad conclusion. Why am I so concerned with an ending today?
Pearce ch.5-6
The 5th and 6th chapter of the book The Crack in the Cosmic Egg begins explaining how science is a creative art and how it’s a “joining of hands with all human endeavors, learning by its mistakes,” according to Sir Cyril Hinshelwood. Science is creative, but I would also say that all of science is not a creative work of art. Some things that science brings into existence are lethal and deadly. Imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have the weapons out in the world today or illegal drugs that science has created. There are many pros and cons. In one aspect, if we didn’t have scientific discoveries like medicine, more people would still be dieing of common sicknesses like pneumonia, colds, malaria, or even the flu. Things that are mostly controlled today by medicine that people didn’t have back then.
I don’t understand where Pearce went with this though. In one paragraph he says “ What a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is.” What does that mean? Did he crack his egg again when he wrote this? It’s a very broad “pulled out of no-where” statement. He begins his writer explanation hopping shortly after. I am taken to a different author every paragraph. People I’ve never heard of making exclamations about art, about atoms, protons, neutrons, planets, God and religion, Hindu’s, voodoo, sacrifices, and fire burning. A mary-go-round of writers who state without any support for how they came up with their conclusions. Writers such asTeilhard, Singer, Michael Polanyi, Jung, Descarte’s, Apropos, Popper, Warren Weaver, Whitehead, McKellar, Brunar, Claude Bernard, Paulim Gerald Feinberg, David Bohm, James B. Conant, Max Planck, Leonard Feinberg, Gilbert Grosvenor, Arnold Kreschmal, and Eric Neumann.
Throughout the two chapters, Pearce makes a touchdown on controversy. He begins by saying possible reasons or purpose for Hindu’s and other people getting themselves in a spiritual state and walk over fire. Not only that, but how people are being able to withstand being stabbed, have hooks jabbed into their back, and not suffering from any bleeding, or have marks/blisters at all.
I do believe there are certain people out in the world that can get themselves in a state of mind, so focused on a goal, that they can overcome physical pain and feelings. Take Lance Armstrong for existence. A celebrity and pro-athlete who has overcome testicular cancer and a brain tumor, given a 40% chance to live, and he does. Not only that, but he trains for the Tour De France, while undergoing chemotherapy and surgeries. This just proves how faith and spirituality can put you at supernatural strengths. I believe that it is a person’s faith, in God, and in themselves, that equips them to be invincible. As Pearce described the people walking over the fire, he said how some burned to death, some suffered devastating burns, while others walked multiple times across the fire without so much as a single burn on their clothing, standing and dancing in fire, that was burning well over a 1000 degrees. This observation Pearce made was interesting. He definitely should have spent more of his time researching these fire ceremonies that take place, instead of talking about the other unsupported subjects.
I don’t understand where Pearce went with this though. In one paragraph he says “ What a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is.” What does that mean? Did he crack his egg again when he wrote this? It’s a very broad “pulled out of no-where” statement. He begins his writer explanation hopping shortly after. I am taken to a different author every paragraph. People I’ve never heard of making exclamations about art, about atoms, protons, neutrons, planets, God and religion, Hindu’s, voodoo, sacrifices, and fire burning. A mary-go-round of writers who state without any support for how they came up with their conclusions. Writers such asTeilhard, Singer, Michael Polanyi, Jung, Descarte’s, Apropos, Popper, Warren Weaver, Whitehead, McKellar, Brunar, Claude Bernard, Paulim Gerald Feinberg, David Bohm, James B. Conant, Max Planck, Leonard Feinberg, Gilbert Grosvenor, Arnold Kreschmal, and Eric Neumann.
Throughout the two chapters, Pearce makes a touchdown on controversy. He begins by saying possible reasons or purpose for Hindu’s and other people getting themselves in a spiritual state and walk over fire. Not only that, but how people are being able to withstand being stabbed, have hooks jabbed into their back, and not suffering from any bleeding, or have marks/blisters at all.
I do believe there are certain people out in the world that can get themselves in a state of mind, so focused on a goal, that they can overcome physical pain and feelings. Take Lance Armstrong for existence. A celebrity and pro-athlete who has overcome testicular cancer and a brain tumor, given a 40% chance to live, and he does. Not only that, but he trains for the Tour De France, while undergoing chemotherapy and surgeries. This just proves how faith and spirituality can put you at supernatural strengths. I believe that it is a person’s faith, in God, and in themselves, that equips them to be invincible. As Pearce described the people walking over the fire, he said how some burned to death, some suffered devastating burns, while others walked multiple times across the fire without so much as a single burn on their clothing, standing and dancing in fire, that was burning well over a 1000 degrees. This observation Pearce made was interesting. He definitely should have spent more of his time researching these fire ceremonies that take place, instead of talking about the other unsupported subjects.
Drugs and Beliefs
In Psychedelic Society, I was intrigued with McKenna's beliefs on beliefs themselves. He says, "A psychedelic society would abandon belief systems for direct experience. This is I think much of the problem of the modern dilemma: direct experience has been discounted, and in its place all kinds of belief systems have been erected." This really goes along well with what my group pegged as the theme of Huxley's book, really living in the moment. McKenna claims that our beliefs are the very reason we don't live in the moment. He calls belief a "self-limiting function."
And when I think about it, I suppose belief is a self-limiting function. By believing one thing, you probably don't believe the opposite. For example, as in Pearce Ch. 6, if you believe fire burns, it's absolutely incredible to think that people can walk across fire and be unharmed. I was intrigued by this fire-burning chapter, because walking across fire seems an impossible feat and yet many do it and aren't harmed in the least. Pearce talks about people witnessing these fire-walking ceremonies and still not believing it. I guess a strong set of beliefs can cause us to completely disregard the incredible, even if we have tangible evidence or have seen it ourselves.
Also sticking with the living in the moment theme, McKenna says, "We must transcend the historical movement and become exemplars of humanity at the End of Time." I believe McKenna doesn't mean the End of Time like the end of the world but rather very literally the end of time. What I got from this statement was that we either live in the past, constantly attempting to learn from it, or we live in the future, always striving toward something not there yet, but we never live in the present. We never just "are", which is what I think Huxley challenged in his book.
McKenna talked about ridding ourselves of our beliefs so we are not inhibited by them. I thought about this as I read Law Enforcement Against Entheogens and when Sterling discussed religious tolerance I got a very visual image. I thought that maybe we need to get rid of our beliefs to make room for more and I imagined tapping the side of my head and having my beliefs fall out so that I could put more ideas in and form new beliefs. And although not quite so literally, I think that's what I do. My views of the world are always changing and especially as I struggle with my religious affiliations, I'm constantly revising my beliefs. In high school, I used to believe Jesus was the only way to Heaven and I was strongly convicted in that belief, but over the years, I've revised my belief to simply say that I don't know the way to Heaven.
I compare the revision of beliefs to the Constitution of the United States. We base our laws, court decisions, everything on the Constitution today, but according to Gore Vidal in Inventing A Nation, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams only pushed for the ratification of the Constitution with the hopes that they would later have the chance to improve it. My professor compared it to a student handing in a paper knowing it's not great, but hoping it will get an average grade. Jefferson and Adams knew a federal government was needed and the Articles just weren't doing it, so they supported the Constitution. And Benjamin Franklin supported the Constitution much for the same reason, but he was also very vocal about its faults. He in fact predicted the government corruption that exists in Washington today. Now we base everything on a half-assed development of our Founding Fathers, at least according to my interpretation of Vidal's book. But we make amendments as necessary and make new laws and overturn those new laws as necessary, because society and culture is constantly changing and to keep up, law must in turn change.
As McKenna says, "Our fundamental ontological conceptions of reality have to be remade." According to McKenna, to become a psychedelic society, we not only have to discard our belief systems, but was also have to redefine reality. Or maybe we should just get rid of a definition of reality. Discard the belief system that causes us to require a definition for everything.
I feel quite confident a psychedelic society as McKenna describes will never happen. Why? I think Pearce sums it up when he says in Ch. 6, "We are so heavily committed to our constructs that any suggestion of their relativeness fills us with anxiety." And at least in our society, anxiety is bad, change causes anxiety, so change must be bad. After all, isn't that why psychiatrist prescribe lorazepam and diazepam? I'm not saying anxiety is good, I'm just saying that certain levels of anxiety probably weren't meant to be doused with Valium.
Keeping in line with beliefs, Pearce says in Ch. 5, "Data can be found to bolster the conviction. The desire for conviction can produce its own data," which makes me think of Santa and the fly agaric mushrooms. As a class, we pretty much agreed that a lot of his supporting evidence was quite a stretch. Bursenos so believed that Santa was connected to the mushrooms that he forced his data to fit. I've certainly done this in the aforementioned half-assed papers and I think is an interesting not to end on that a belief can be so persuasive in our lives.
Our beliefs undoubtedly shape who we are and what we do, but do they close us off to the rest of the world?
Electronic reserve and pearce 5 and 6
Pearce 6: I can not go with this idea at all. This does not make any sense. How can you put a pot of boiling water on your head and not move an ince. The pot is scorching hot. I dont think i can believe in the whole Mohotty thing. They have 100 percent faith in their gods.......but no food or water, that is ridiculous. How is someone to live to worship these gods when they can not participate in the things neccessary to survive. I cant really agree or relate on this. Look forward to learning more though.
Pearce 5: In chapter 5, it says that a mans way of thinking is how their universe is ran. They only see what they want to see. Some men think they are always right based off of only what they know. I feel that people will never actually be able to determine how ones universe is supposed to be. There is an infinite amount of ways to do virtually anything so it will continue to be unknown.
Psychedelic: I really do not see the big deal about psychedelic drugs. It is ones responsibility to take them or not. If one person is high, it will seldomly affect someone else. I do not think these drugs should be illegal. Alcohol is legal and kills many people a year due to drunk driving. I would rater see alcohol be illegal before these drugs. Before people are so quick to judge, they should try these drugs, if not.....leave it alone!
Pearce 5: In chapter 5, it says that a mans way of thinking is how their universe is ran. They only see what they want to see. Some men think they are always right based off of only what they know. I feel that people will never actually be able to determine how ones universe is supposed to be. There is an infinite amount of ways to do virtually anything so it will continue to be unknown.
Psychedelic: I really do not see the big deal about psychedelic drugs. It is ones responsibility to take them or not. If one person is high, it will seldomly affect someone else. I do not think these drugs should be illegal. Alcohol is legal and kills many people a year due to drunk driving. I would rater see alcohol be illegal before these drugs. Before people are so quick to judge, they should try these drugs, if not.....leave it alone!
Drugs and religion and art
I found Psychedelic Society an interesting perspective on the world as a whole, and it tied in quite nicely with the conversation on language we began in class last Thursday. Terence McKenna was very adamant about breaking down language barriers, not in the sense of learning the same language, but to disregard language completely because the use of a spoken or written language convoluted the message. In a sense, his approach is very similar to what Huxley said about the painting of the chair; the painting is just a symbol of the chair, the artist's interpretation, and it will be interpreted by each and every viewer, and that painting will never be anything but a shadowy reflection of that chair.
Another thing I found interesting about McKenna's article was his belief that the Internet as a communication device is a feminine approach, not in an insulting sense, but that it is softer and more humanistic than the cold calculation of a more masculine engineering approach. With very little background knowledge myself, I seem to remember hearing that societies were begun as matriarchal (ie, Mother Earth) before organized religions became the power players and the societies became patriarchal. Is it possible that we are, in a sense, reverting again to a matriarchal society? If we feel that the masculine engineering approach was not effective, and if we feel that the more humanistic approach of communicating directly for each individual situation might be worth an attempt, then it sounds as if we are bringing the past full circle.
Sterling's opinions on religious persecution are understandable, but at the same time, I think it is easy to understand why law enforcement officials would use a blanket law. After all, it is far easier to persecute everyone who is using a certain substance that it is to determine who is using which substance for private use versus religious means. I do agree, as Sterling mentioned near the end of the article, that a more specific law to do just that would be the best option if lawmakers are going to insist on naming the drugs illegal.
On the other hand, illegal is illegal. Religious ceremony or not, is it fair to say that a drug is legal for one person but not for another? Sterling used the example of virgin sacrifice; he mentions that those leaders would be charged with murder, but so then would any citizen who murdered a virgin. He used a blanket example in his attempt to advocate favoritism. From what we learned in class -- that the natural substances are not physically harmful, that they are not addictive, that they are useful for altered experiences -- I do believe that the use of these drugs should be legal, but I would take it one step further than Sterling and say that they should be legal for all if for some.
Another thing I found interesting about McKenna's article was his belief that the Internet as a communication device is a feminine approach, not in an insulting sense, but that it is softer and more humanistic than the cold calculation of a more masculine engineering approach. With very little background knowledge myself, I seem to remember hearing that societies were begun as matriarchal (ie, Mother Earth) before organized religions became the power players and the societies became patriarchal. Is it possible that we are, in a sense, reverting again to a matriarchal society? If we feel that the masculine engineering approach was not effective, and if we feel that the more humanistic approach of communicating directly for each individual situation might be worth an attempt, then it sounds as if we are bringing the past full circle.
Sterling's opinions on religious persecution are understandable, but at the same time, I think it is easy to understand why law enforcement officials would use a blanket law. After all, it is far easier to persecute everyone who is using a certain substance that it is to determine who is using which substance for private use versus religious means. I do agree, as Sterling mentioned near the end of the article, that a more specific law to do just that would be the best option if lawmakers are going to insist on naming the drugs illegal.
On the other hand, illegal is illegal. Religious ceremony or not, is it fair to say that a drug is legal for one person but not for another? Sterling used the example of virgin sacrifice; he mentions that those leaders would be charged with murder, but so then would any citizen who murdered a virgin. He used a blanket example in his attempt to advocate favoritism. From what we learned in class -- that the natural substances are not physically harmful, that they are not addictive, that they are useful for altered experiences -- I do believe that the use of these drugs should be legal, but I would take it one step further than Sterling and say that they should be legal for all if for some.
Pearce (Chapter 5 and 6) & Electronic Reserves
Chapter 5
I think it is fascinating to think of our minds as a reflection of nature. Also, it's wild to think that there are so many things going on within each of our heads. Yet, we are like grains of sand on a beach in comparison to the entire world. We are even more minuscule when compared to the entire universe. Nevertheless, all things are tied together in a kind of cosmic symphony. It's nice to be a part of something greater, isn't it?
Chapter 6
The thing that stood out to me in Chapter 6 (besides all of the fire walking) was Voodoo. I believe in the power of Voodoo, not because I think that poking a little doll will actually make someone feel bad, but I believe in the power of suggestion. I believe Voodoo is very similar to the power of nocebos— the opposite of placebos. If a doctor tells his or her healthy patient that he or she is sick, the patient begins to manifest symptoms. In the most extreme cases, the patient is told that he or she has only 6 months to live and the patient dies. Voodoo is no different, but it requires strong belief from the victim to work. I find this quite fascinating. It illustrates the power of the human mind and the power of suggestion.
Law Enforcement
For the last six years, I have specialized in self defense instruction for law enforcement, military and special interest groups. I have trained members of the Carlisle Police Department, State Police, and Dickinson College Campus Police on a long term basis. I started focusing on members of law enforcement when I was an assistant instructor at one of the largest self defense schools in Pennsylvania. Eventually people started requesting me to teach them privately. That's how I became a private instructor. Anyway, on to Law Enforcement Against Entheogens.
Quite honestly, I despise drugs in all its forms. But the War on Drugs makes me sick. If this weren't an online forum/blog I would have a lot to say about the War on Drugs... and how much of a sham it is. From Bill Clinton and Barry Seal in Mean Arkansas to the Opium fields in Afghanistan... there is so much more to the story. Though, I think it is important to note that there are very honorable agents, with very honorable motives, who work for the DEA, FBI, BATF, and other agencies. They work tirelessly to get drugs off our streets... Unfortunately, their attempts are futile. While they work, a sea of drugs (and guns) is trucked, boated and flown in by money hungry individuals who could care less about the United States.
Okay, so now that I am done with my rant, lets focus on the focus on the reading... entheogens. The bottom line: no one should be persecuted for any reason, especially if they're not hurting anyone else. Yes, the Christian Missionaries were committing religious persecution... much as they have done throughout history. If Law Enforcement agents are putting people in jail for entheogen use, they should be ashamed of themselves, even if it's in the job description.
From my experience, most of the law enforcement people I have met or trained think busting people for hallucinogens and marijuana is a waste of time, especially if the "offenders" are not driving or putting anyone else's life in danger. There are far many more important crimes to worry about.
Psychedelic Society
The first page of this reading ties in with Pearce's rant about science. It seems that every civilization believes that they have figured out the cosmos.
When Pearce wrote, "Men get their egos tied up with their theories and their facts and fight one another for intellectual self-preservation." Maybe the same can be applied to societies. Perhaps civilizations have a collective egos. It's an ego that is wrapped up in the societies religion and experience. But in the end, it all comes down to a need for self-preservation. I suppose the question I am wrestling with in my own head is, are we wrong?
It is funny to think how scientific theories are produced, or better yet, how policies are established. It's even funnier (and sad) to see how quickly these theories can be undone. The real question is, who gets persecuted in the process?
This text, Psychedelic Society made a lot of sense. I agree, we are hindered by our own ideology. With the technology we have available to us, we have a rare opportunity to transcend that old way of thinking. We can come together, and launch ourselves into a new age of reason. Unfortunately, very few would go along with it willingly. I guess that is where mind control comes in. Change public perception and attitudes to such a degree that a universal change can take place.
The Internet, though it is an artificial form of unconscious, might be vital in the transformation process. For the first time in known history, the world is connected. We must take advantage of this. A new world order might be closer than we think.
I think it is fascinating to think of our minds as a reflection of nature. Also, it's wild to think that there are so many things going on within each of our heads. Yet, we are like grains of sand on a beach in comparison to the entire world. We are even more minuscule when compared to the entire universe. Nevertheless, all things are tied together in a kind of cosmic symphony. It's nice to be a part of something greater, isn't it?
Chapter 6
The thing that stood out to me in Chapter 6 (besides all of the fire walking) was Voodoo. I believe in the power of Voodoo, not because I think that poking a little doll will actually make someone feel bad, but I believe in the power of suggestion. I believe Voodoo is very similar to the power of nocebos— the opposite of placebos. If a doctor tells his or her healthy patient that he or she is sick, the patient begins to manifest symptoms. In the most extreme cases, the patient is told that he or she has only 6 months to live and the patient dies. Voodoo is no different, but it requires strong belief from the victim to work. I find this quite fascinating. It illustrates the power of the human mind and the power of suggestion.
Law Enforcement
For the last six years, I have specialized in self defense instruction for law enforcement, military and special interest groups. I have trained members of the Carlisle Police Department, State Police, and Dickinson College Campus Police on a long term basis. I started focusing on members of law enforcement when I was an assistant instructor at one of the largest self defense schools in Pennsylvania. Eventually people started requesting me to teach them privately. That's how I became a private instructor. Anyway, on to Law Enforcement Against Entheogens.
Quite honestly, I despise drugs in all its forms. But the War on Drugs makes me sick. If this weren't an online forum/blog I would have a lot to say about the War on Drugs... and how much of a sham it is. From Bill Clinton and Barry Seal in Mean Arkansas to the Opium fields in Afghanistan... there is so much more to the story. Though, I think it is important to note that there are very honorable agents, with very honorable motives, who work for the DEA, FBI, BATF, and other agencies. They work tirelessly to get drugs off our streets... Unfortunately, their attempts are futile. While they work, a sea of drugs (and guns) is trucked, boated and flown in by money hungry individuals who could care less about the United States.
Okay, so now that I am done with my rant, lets focus on the focus on the reading... entheogens. The bottom line: no one should be persecuted for any reason, especially if they're not hurting anyone else. Yes, the Christian Missionaries were committing religious persecution... much as they have done throughout history. If Law Enforcement agents are putting people in jail for entheogen use, they should be ashamed of themselves, even if it's in the job description.
From my experience, most of the law enforcement people I have met or trained think busting people for hallucinogens and marijuana is a waste of time, especially if the "offenders" are not driving or putting anyone else's life in danger. There are far many more important crimes to worry about.
Psychedelic Society
The first page of this reading ties in with Pearce's rant about science. It seems that every civilization believes that they have figured out the cosmos.
When Pearce wrote, "Men get their egos tied up with their theories and their facts and fight one another for intellectual self-preservation." Maybe the same can be applied to societies. Perhaps civilizations have a collective egos. It's an ego that is wrapped up in the societies religion and experience. But in the end, it all comes down to a need for self-preservation. I suppose the question I am wrestling with in my own head is, are we wrong?
It is funny to think how scientific theories are produced, or better yet, how policies are established. It's even funnier (and sad) to see how quickly these theories can be undone. The real question is, who gets persecuted in the process?
This text, Psychedelic Society made a lot of sense. I agree, we are hindered by our own ideology. With the technology we have available to us, we have a rare opportunity to transcend that old way of thinking. We can come together, and launch ourselves into a new age of reason. Unfortunately, very few would go along with it willingly. I guess that is where mind control comes in. Change public perception and attitudes to such a degree that a universal change can take place.
The Internet, though it is an artificial form of unconscious, might be vital in the transformation process. For the first time in known history, the world is connected. We must take advantage of this. A new world order might be closer than we think.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Blog number seven
Pearce Chapters 5&6
I like how this book is very philosophical. I also like how chapter 5 started with talking about science. Science is very important and definitely reveals the truth to many things in life. This book is filled with infinitely amazing quotes. Things that make you think and rethink. I like it a lot. I can feel my brain.Even if Pearce is using other people’s quotes to get his point across… the material he’s quoting is good stuff.
For instance, “Sir Cyril Hinshelwood spoke of science as a creative art, ‘joining hands with all human endeavors, learning by its mistakes.’” As well as referencing Singer in terms of him writing about the processes of the mind and how it seemed to reflect nature. “He felt that our minds were as much the products of evolution as were our bodies, an idea both Jung and Teilhard developed.”
I think about Darwin and Natural Selection. How the heritable favorable traits remain present for survival where the unfavorable inheritable traits become less common. I certainly believe we adapt to our environments. If biological adaptations occur then psychological ones must occur as well.
Another smart statement by Popper, “Every scientific statement must remain tentative forever.” I’m a firm believe that anything can happen and everything is subject to change. Nothing is definite. Nothing is solid or forever, neither can science. I think we can only be 99.9% sure of anything in this life.
“The scientific audience is won over to a new system by intellectual sympathy. A hostile audience may deliberately refuse to entertain novel conceptions for fear of being led to conclusions they abhor, rightly or wrongly.” That is well put. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
And for the fire walkers… yeah, I can see how these people walked across a bed of deep charcoal that produced the perfect conditions for fire walking. I’d be delirious too if for three months I was forced to remain abstinent, vegiterian, drinking only water, with constant sprinklings of holy water with continual religious instruction and prayer as well as meditating and communicating with god. Oh yes, and the rhythmic drums to produce a hypnotic like state, can’t forget that. I also think it’s kind of funny that of 80 people walking, 12 failed. I wonder what it would look like to watch someone fail at that. Yikes.
Really, fire walking is a mind over matter kind of deal.
Psychedelic Society
I like the point made “if you believe something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite; which means that a degree of your human freedom has been forfeited in the act of committing yourself to this belief.” I see so many people struggle with this.
On page 59, I really enjoy how he talks about getting rid of the concepts from previous decades and that we must transcend the historical moment and basically demonstrate humanity at the end of time. I also agree that the change that occurred biologically long ago is now operating in our culture. This text was also filled with good quotes. I think the Psychedelic society is more interesting and in depth than what’s first assumed.
Law Enforcement Against Entheogens: Is It Religious Persecution?
It really isn’t a question of religious persecution when Christian Missionaries were involved in the suppression of Peyote. If it’s used for religious purposes and not abused for the reasons as to why it’s banned in the first place, perhaps those who don’t understand the religious practices should butt out.
It’s just ignorant of the westerners to treat peyote the way it’s treated. I got annoyed reading this article a little.
Whatever the government deems “illegal” is banned yet pharmaceutical companies produce how many drugs with how many absurd side effects where some result in death? Chris Rock sums up the way the government acts towards drugs in his stand up from Never Scared in 2004 perfectly. He makes some valid points... Watch the clip!
Beware, this video contains some profanity.
I like how this book is very philosophical. I also like how chapter 5 started with talking about science. Science is very important and definitely reveals the truth to many things in life. This book is filled with infinitely amazing quotes. Things that make you think and rethink. I like it a lot. I can feel my brain.Even if Pearce is using other people’s quotes to get his point across… the material he’s quoting is good stuff.
For instance, “Sir Cyril Hinshelwood spoke of science as a creative art, ‘joining hands with all human endeavors, learning by its mistakes.’” As well as referencing Singer in terms of him writing about the processes of the mind and how it seemed to reflect nature. “He felt that our minds were as much the products of evolution as were our bodies, an idea both Jung and Teilhard developed.”
I think about Darwin and Natural Selection. How the heritable favorable traits remain present for survival where the unfavorable inheritable traits become less common. I certainly believe we adapt to our environments. If biological adaptations occur then psychological ones must occur as well.
Another smart statement by Popper, “Every scientific statement must remain tentative forever.” I’m a firm believe that anything can happen and everything is subject to change. Nothing is definite. Nothing is solid or forever, neither can science. I think we can only be 99.9% sure of anything in this life.
“The scientific audience is won over to a new system by intellectual sympathy. A hostile audience may deliberately refuse to entertain novel conceptions for fear of being led to conclusions they abhor, rightly or wrongly.” That is well put. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
And for the fire walkers… yeah, I can see how these people walked across a bed of deep charcoal that produced the perfect conditions for fire walking. I’d be delirious too if for three months I was forced to remain abstinent, vegiterian, drinking only water, with constant sprinklings of holy water with continual religious instruction and prayer as well as meditating and communicating with god. Oh yes, and the rhythmic drums to produce a hypnotic like state, can’t forget that. I also think it’s kind of funny that of 80 people walking, 12 failed. I wonder what it would look like to watch someone fail at that. Yikes.
Really, fire walking is a mind over matter kind of deal.
Psychedelic Society
I like the point made “if you believe something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite; which means that a degree of your human freedom has been forfeited in the act of committing yourself to this belief.” I see so many people struggle with this.
On page 59, I really enjoy how he talks about getting rid of the concepts from previous decades and that we must transcend the historical moment and basically demonstrate humanity at the end of time. I also agree that the change that occurred biologically long ago is now operating in our culture. This text was also filled with good quotes. I think the Psychedelic society is more interesting and in depth than what’s first assumed.
Law Enforcement Against Entheogens: Is It Religious Persecution?
It really isn’t a question of religious persecution when Christian Missionaries were involved in the suppression of Peyote. If it’s used for religious purposes and not abused for the reasons as to why it’s banned in the first place, perhaps those who don’t understand the religious practices should butt out.
It’s just ignorant of the westerners to treat peyote the way it’s treated. I got annoyed reading this article a little.
Whatever the government deems “illegal” is banned yet pharmaceutical companies produce how many drugs with how many absurd side effects where some result in death? Chris Rock sums up the way the government acts towards drugs in his stand up from Never Scared in 2004 perfectly. He makes some valid points... Watch the clip!
Beware, this video contains some profanity.
Mystery of Being
In the article Psychedelic Society one of the initial points made by McKenna is the idea that “our beliefs have grown obsolete and should be put aside.” I first thought well that’s silly and I decided to look up the definition of belief. Merriam-Webster dictionary says that belief is 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. After reflecting on this, I concluded that McKenna may be on to something… It is not that we shouldn’t believe in something, but we need to consider varying points of view so we are not hindered by our ideology.
Further on in the article he talks about the “ontological conceptions of reality and the notion that they have to be remade.” My question is “Who decides?” Society can agree on very few things, how could we decide on a new order of reality? As I continued to read, McKenna’s statement became clearer the idea that we should take responsibility of ourselves and actions seemed to be the underlying message. . Each one of us needs to let go of the thoughts and ideas that may be holding us captive to a particular ideologies.
As we, within ourselves, begin to reconstruct our thoughts, we need to consider science (the state of knowing). McKenna writes “Science can be demolished in thirty seconds.” This may be true however; I believe that science and experience are both necessary elements to transform ourselves. McKenna further describes that no transformation of society can be done without psychedelics – Really?
Bad Boys – Bad Boys
I really enjoyed the Law Enforcement article! Because of the infiltration of man-made drugs into our society I think it has forced the hand of lawmakers and drug officials. I am not saying that is right or wrong, I am on the fence. Sterling reverences that our religious tolerance is often limited - I agree. That is true of all religions. We can’t have society member sacrificing people in mall parking lots but, faiths should have the freedom to practice even if that involves entheogens. However, the no one would agree where to draw the line. People would, as some do now, use religion to contrive some twisted form of worship in order to have experience an altered state.
Yikes that’s hot!
Both articles and the Pearce reading discuss the voyage of discovery. Pearce said that “every scientific statement must remain tentative forever.” I agree, but we need a starting point in order to continue on our voyage of discovery.
I loved the story about the discovery of the planet Neptune and Bodes’s Law of 1772 – how cool is that?
I think it is a positive step that we are looking for cracks in “truths” only then will we grow and learn the meaningful patterns in reality.
The concept of fire walking a fascinating! Why are some individuals unharmed and others brought to the cusp of death and others cruise through the fire unscathed? Much like Pearce, I must believe in fire walking because I cannot reason it out. . .
Further on in the article he talks about the “ontological conceptions of reality and the notion that they have to be remade.” My question is “Who decides?” Society can agree on very few things, how could we decide on a new order of reality? As I continued to read, McKenna’s statement became clearer the idea that we should take responsibility of ourselves and actions seemed to be the underlying message. . Each one of us needs to let go of the thoughts and ideas that may be holding us captive to a particular ideologies.
As we, within ourselves, begin to reconstruct our thoughts, we need to consider science (the state of knowing). McKenna writes “Science can be demolished in thirty seconds.” This may be true however; I believe that science and experience are both necessary elements to transform ourselves. McKenna further describes that no transformation of society can be done without psychedelics – Really?
Bad Boys – Bad Boys
I really enjoyed the Law Enforcement article! Because of the infiltration of man-made drugs into our society I think it has forced the hand of lawmakers and drug officials. I am not saying that is right or wrong, I am on the fence. Sterling reverences that our religious tolerance is often limited - I agree. That is true of all religions. We can’t have society member sacrificing people in mall parking lots but, faiths should have the freedom to practice even if that involves entheogens. However, the no one would agree where to draw the line. People would, as some do now, use religion to contrive some twisted form of worship in order to have experience an altered state.
Yikes that’s hot!
Both articles and the Pearce reading discuss the voyage of discovery. Pearce said that “every scientific statement must remain tentative forever.” I agree, but we need a starting point in order to continue on our voyage of discovery.
I loved the story about the discovery of the planet Neptune and Bodes’s Law of 1772 – how cool is that?
I think it is a positive step that we are looking for cracks in “truths” only then will we grow and learn the meaningful patterns in reality.
The concept of fire walking a fascinating! Why are some individuals unharmed and others brought to the cusp of death and others cruise through the fire unscathed? Much like Pearce, I must believe in fire walking because I cannot reason it out. . .
Week 8
Psychedelic Society
Notions like those expressed by Terence McKenna exemplify wishful thinking, and involve concepts that only have their place in the hypothetical. While the end of McKenna's ideal is noteworthy, his means for accomplishing it are not. He states quite conclusively that "No reconstruction of society can be done without psychedelics because we have drifted so long without them (McKenna 63)." I don't think the premise of his argument warrants such an extreme conclusion. Also, his remarks that "Whether you buy into my own peculiar, apocalyptarian transformative vision involving 2012, or whether you can just tell by looking around you that shit may soon hit the fan...(McKenna 62)", really gave me pause. If McKenna seriously subscribes to the belief that either the world will end in 2012 or a large scale spiritual revivalism must take place, then I wish to detract the slightly complimentary words I used earlier.
Entheogens and Law Enforcement
Sterling's claim that American laws prohibiting the possession or use of psychedelic drugs is religious persecution is preposterous. Furthermore, his assertion that the nature of the oppressive legislation (and its enforcement thereof) against entheogens in contemporary America parallels that of the Spanish Inquisition or is comparable to the persecution of Pilgrims in the 17 Century is outright laughable.
In Employment Division v. Smith two gentlemen, one Native American and one white man, were randomly drug tested at their work ( a drug rehabilitation clinic) and subsequently fired for the trace amount of drugs in their system. The two men, who acknowledged that the ingestion of psychedelic drugs was illegal in the state of Oregon, proceeded to file for unemployment compensation. However, more relevantly, Sterling seems to omit that Oregon's Appellate and Supreme Court ruled in Smith's favor, acknowledging the Free Exercise Clause infringement, until the Supreme Court finally overturned their ruling. Also, the state of Oregon did not file criminal charges against these gentlemen during or after the ruling. Moreover, a recent case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal 546 U.S. 418 (2006), upheld the religious right of a branch of a Brazilian church to ingest Hoasca, a psychedelic tea, falling back on their prior "compelling interest" criteria established in Sherbert v. Verner in 1963. It is interesting to note that the hallucinogenic properties in Hoasca, the sacramental tea used in the UDV religious practices, happens to be listed under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. In this case, however, the State failed to establish a "compelling interest" in disallowing the substance from being used for religious purposes, therefore, the UDV were granted the right to take Hoasca.
Notions like those expressed by Terence McKenna exemplify wishful thinking, and involve concepts that only have their place in the hypothetical. While the end of McKenna's ideal is noteworthy, his means for accomplishing it are not. He states quite conclusively that "No reconstruction of society can be done without psychedelics because we have drifted so long without them (McKenna 63)." I don't think the premise of his argument warrants such an extreme conclusion. Also, his remarks that "Whether you buy into my own peculiar, apocalyptarian transformative vision involving 2012, or whether you can just tell by looking around you that shit may soon hit the fan...(McKenna 62)", really gave me pause. If McKenna seriously subscribes to the belief that either the world will end in 2012 or a large scale spiritual revivalism must take place, then I wish to detract the slightly complimentary words I used earlier.
Entheogens and Law Enforcement
Sterling's claim that American laws prohibiting the possession or use of psychedelic drugs is religious persecution is preposterous. Furthermore, his assertion that the nature of the oppressive legislation (and its enforcement thereof) against entheogens in contemporary America parallels that of the Spanish Inquisition or is comparable to the persecution of Pilgrims in the 17 Century is outright laughable.
In Employment Division v. Smith two gentlemen, one Native American and one white man, were randomly drug tested at their work ( a drug rehabilitation clinic) and subsequently fired for the trace amount of drugs in their system. The two men, who acknowledged that the ingestion of psychedelic drugs was illegal in the state of Oregon, proceeded to file for unemployment compensation. However, more relevantly, Sterling seems to omit that Oregon's Appellate and Supreme Court ruled in Smith's favor, acknowledging the Free Exercise Clause infringement, until the Supreme Court finally overturned their ruling. Also, the state of Oregon did not file criminal charges against these gentlemen during or after the ruling. Moreover, a recent case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal 546 U.S. 418 (2006), upheld the religious right of a branch of a Brazilian church to ingest Hoasca, a psychedelic tea, falling back on their prior "compelling interest" criteria established in Sherbert v. Verner in 1963. It is interesting to note that the hallucinogenic properties in Hoasca, the sacramental tea used in the UDV religious practices, happens to be listed under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. In this case, however, the State failed to establish a "compelling interest" in disallowing the substance from being used for religious purposes, therefore, the UDV were granted the right to take Hoasca.
Electronic Reserve; Pearce Chapters 5 and 6
Psychedelic Society
I thought it was interesting that the author mentioned that it was pointless to have beliefs. I guess I am blinded because I like having a belief system, rather than a direct experience. I don't think there is anything wrong with our society or our scientific approaches. McKenna wrote, "Our ability to destroy ourselves is the mirror image of our ability to save ourselves." I think that is a little risky, especially because I think everything is perfectly fine the way it is. Yes humans do act somewhat like machines, but why is that bad? Each person is unique and views the world differently, but isn't that individual uniqueness similar to a personal direct psychedelic experience? Everyone has his or her own experience and reality, and the ideas are always changing from person to person. What is the point of pschedelics?
Law Enforcement
I do not think that drugs, such as entheogens, that are used for religious purposes should be illegal. In fact, I don't think any drugs should be made illegal, unless they are extremely harmful to a person. I think when drugs are made illegal, then people are more curious, and thrive on doing them. This article seems to show that not all drugs are harmful. I don't think society should make everything illegal, for the simple fact that they are trying to protect everyone.
Pearce Chapter 5
It is interesting that this chapter says that a man's mind is a mirror of the universe. I guess it shows that each person sees themselves and the universe differently. A lot of people are wrong, but they don't want to admit that they are wrong. Science is the explanation of the universe, but often the theories are wrong. For example, people once believed that the earth was flat. Now we believe it is round. Will it be square some day? I feel humans are a long way away from having definite truths and laws about the whole universe. Also, David Bohm believes, "...that all things are interconnected and influenced by contingencies with all other things, traceable to so remote an interrelation that they may be considered chance for all practical purposes." I'm not sure I completely understand this quote, but I do believe that everything is interconnected. I feel like understanding the universe is like trying to put together a puzzle, with an infinite number of pieces.
Pearce Chapter 6
Well this is crazy. I don't understand how a woman could carry a red-hot pot on her head and not show any signs of scorching. I can't believe the whole story of Mohotty. I mean it just seems impossible, to me. He had total faith in his gods? I never had a religious experience, but I still don't understand how it could be that powerful. This Mohotty does not sound human. No drink or drugs??? I believe in mind over body, but only to a certain extent. I don't even know what else to say. This whole idea is mind boggling to me.
I thought it was interesting that the author mentioned that it was pointless to have beliefs. I guess I am blinded because I like having a belief system, rather than a direct experience. I don't think there is anything wrong with our society or our scientific approaches. McKenna wrote, "Our ability to destroy ourselves is the mirror image of our ability to save ourselves." I think that is a little risky, especially because I think everything is perfectly fine the way it is. Yes humans do act somewhat like machines, but why is that bad? Each person is unique and views the world differently, but isn't that individual uniqueness similar to a personal direct psychedelic experience? Everyone has his or her own experience and reality, and the ideas are always changing from person to person. What is the point of pschedelics?
Law Enforcement
I do not think that drugs, such as entheogens, that are used for religious purposes should be illegal. In fact, I don't think any drugs should be made illegal, unless they are extremely harmful to a person. I think when drugs are made illegal, then people are more curious, and thrive on doing them. This article seems to show that not all drugs are harmful. I don't think society should make everything illegal, for the simple fact that they are trying to protect everyone.
Pearce Chapter 5
It is interesting that this chapter says that a man's mind is a mirror of the universe. I guess it shows that each person sees themselves and the universe differently. A lot of people are wrong, but they don't want to admit that they are wrong. Science is the explanation of the universe, but often the theories are wrong. For example, people once believed that the earth was flat. Now we believe it is round. Will it be square some day? I feel humans are a long way away from having definite truths and laws about the whole universe. Also, David Bohm believes, "...that all things are interconnected and influenced by contingencies with all other things, traceable to so remote an interrelation that they may be considered chance for all practical purposes." I'm not sure I completely understand this quote, but I do believe that everything is interconnected. I feel like understanding the universe is like trying to put together a puzzle, with an infinite number of pieces.
Pearce Chapter 6
Well this is crazy. I don't understand how a woman could carry a red-hot pot on her head and not show any signs of scorching. I can't believe the whole story of Mohotty. I mean it just seems impossible, to me. He had total faith in his gods? I never had a religious experience, but I still don't understand how it could be that powerful. This Mohotty does not sound human. No drink or drugs??? I believe in mind over body, but only to a certain extent. I don't even know what else to say. This whole idea is mind boggling to me.
Try as I might, I can't really link all of this together. In reading "Psychedelic Society", McKenna states that we can't have a society go this long without psychedelics, that they are necessary to having meaning and direction. He tells us that we need to embrace direct experience, which is what a psychedelic would do. Well, I can kind of see his point in that, but do we really need psychedelics to experience the world? I don't know. How do I know that the world experienced while on a psychedelic is the "real thing"? It might just be a different thing, not more or less real, or more or less right. I have to question an article from a guy who (I'm guessing, based on his allusion) believes there will be an apocalyptic event in 2012. I can't remember the details of that cult, but I do remember thinking that they were a whacked out bunch.
In "Law Enforcement Against Entheogens", I can, for the most part, see Sterling's point. If a nature is producing something, and a group of people is using it basically as-is for religious purposes only, it seems as though making it legal ought not to be an issue. Making it illegal only entices people to want to use it. If it were legal, and used only in the intended setting, we (not 'we' as a whole, but 'we' as in our class) probably wouldn't even know about it. At the beginning of the article, though, he lumped LSD in with the peyote and the mushrooms. LSD is not a naturally occuring substance in nature, so I don't think it should be considered in this light. Again, though, I am not one who thinks that we need drugs, natural or synthesized, to have religion, but that's mostly because the religion to which I subscribe doesn't require that of me.
Pearce's chapters were chock-full of stuff. Lots of it went over my head, hit the wall, and slid down into a pile. I'm going through said pile, looking for meaning. He starts off by referencing Eddington, saying, "He felt that man's mind must be made a 'mirror of the universe'." (p.81) He talks a lot about how everything that there is to be known already exists, but we have to go about finding it. Pearce says, "...recognize that man's mind is a mirror of a universe that mirror's man's mind." (p. 82) That seems like it ought to be a really great point, but I struggle with truly grasping it. Is it that we observe the universe around us, but we shape that view of the universe simply by our observation and our thoughts about it? I do like how he talks about science actually being born out of religion, and the thinking that God is rational so we can rationalize everything in His creation. How funny, considering the fact that science and religion have been at odds for centuries, and it will get worse before it gets better.
Pearce talks about how things are only true because people believe them to be true. He talks about how egotistical and arrogant scientists can be regarding their theories, but they have to be that way, or no one would ever believe them. They need belief in their theories in order for their theories to really exist. He also talks about Max Planck, who wrote that when an experiment produced results that were contradictory to what the experimenter theorized, it wasn't a bad thing. Rather, it allowed the experimenter to fine-tune his theory. (p.96) He went on to discuss how we thought that quasars didn't exist, but then we found those. Then we thought that the energy from it was unsurpassed. Then, pulsars were discovered.
Pearce then talked about fire-walking, and how the people who practiced this did it. He spoke of their entry into what seemed like an altered state, and how they came through unharmed. He later referenced an Indian Fakir (p.106) who told a professor that all he had to do was hold his (the Fakir's) hand and he could cross the coals. They cited other examples where all it took was the belief that something COULD be done, for it TO be done. I wonder if I can believe that my blog WILL get written, and somehow that will make it so???? =)
In "Law Enforcement Against Entheogens", I can, for the most part, see Sterling's point. If a nature is producing something, and a group of people is using it basically as-is for religious purposes only, it seems as though making it legal ought not to be an issue. Making it illegal only entices people to want to use it. If it were legal, and used only in the intended setting, we (not 'we' as a whole, but 'we' as in our class) probably wouldn't even know about it. At the beginning of the article, though, he lumped LSD in with the peyote and the mushrooms. LSD is not a naturally occuring substance in nature, so I don't think it should be considered in this light. Again, though, I am not one who thinks that we need drugs, natural or synthesized, to have religion, but that's mostly because the religion to which I subscribe doesn't require that of me.
Pearce's chapters were chock-full of stuff. Lots of it went over my head, hit the wall, and slid down into a pile. I'm going through said pile, looking for meaning. He starts off by referencing Eddington, saying, "He felt that man's mind must be made a 'mirror of the universe'." (p.81) He talks a lot about how everything that there is to be known already exists, but we have to go about finding it. Pearce says, "...recognize that man's mind is a mirror of a universe that mirror's man's mind." (p. 82) That seems like it ought to be a really great point, but I struggle with truly grasping it. Is it that we observe the universe around us, but we shape that view of the universe simply by our observation and our thoughts about it? I do like how he talks about science actually being born out of religion, and the thinking that God is rational so we can rationalize everything in His creation. How funny, considering the fact that science and religion have been at odds for centuries, and it will get worse before it gets better.
Pearce talks about how things are only true because people believe them to be true. He talks about how egotistical and arrogant scientists can be regarding their theories, but they have to be that way, or no one would ever believe them. They need belief in their theories in order for their theories to really exist. He also talks about Max Planck, who wrote that when an experiment produced results that were contradictory to what the experimenter theorized, it wasn't a bad thing. Rather, it allowed the experimenter to fine-tune his theory. (p.96) He went on to discuss how we thought that quasars didn't exist, but then we found those. Then we thought that the energy from it was unsurpassed. Then, pulsars were discovered.
Pearce then talked about fire-walking, and how the people who practiced this did it. He spoke of their entry into what seemed like an altered state, and how they came through unharmed. He later referenced an Indian Fakir (p.106) who told a professor that all he had to do was hold his (the Fakir's) hand and he could cross the coals. They cited other examples where all it took was the belief that something COULD be done, for it TO be done. I wonder if I can believe that my blog WILL get written, and somehow that will make it so???? =)
4D minds, spiritual energies, and fire-walking...
Psychedelic Society - McKenna offers a 'to-the-point' description of what exactly he deems such a society to be: those which abandon their beliefs in order to allow the direct experience to guide and influence them. This makes sense - by discrediting everything, there cannot be any bias. Your belief can be renewed in what what this new perception grants. His suggestion of the mind being a fourth dimensional organ was interesting. Certainly we know we all have minds, but they are not something tangible. Because of this we might never fully know what its capabilities are or aren't. There are times during conscious or altered states where we are 'tuned in' and can appreciate the capacity of thoughts that emerge. I believe McKenna is trying to illustrate the importance of this tuning in and using our minds to their fullest extent without the 'extra baggage' that usually gets absorbed. He states, "half the time you think you are thinking you are actually listening; that ideas are remarkably slippery creatures that are very difficult to trace to their origin". (If I only had a dollar every time I lost my train of thought!) I thought his comments on language really touched what our class discussion revolved around last week; "We all create our own universe because we are all operating with our own private languages which are only very crudely translatable into any other person's language. How many times, just within this class in group discussions, have we found ourselves stuck trying to explain our thoughts - we know what we want to mean and are thinking, but have a difficult time construing it. If we are able to spit it out, sometimes it can be mistaken or interpreted quite differently than intended. Lastly for this read, McKenna states, "We can claim this higher level of freedom by the simple act of paying attention to being". If you would now ask me what the theme of Huxley's Doors is I'd repeat this quote.
Sterling's essay was interesting regarding the battle between religious practices and drug enforcement policies. I think that this controversy will continue to manifest itself - even though we are a country offering freedom, that freedom is certainly controlled. Worship who or what you want, just do it according to what the government dictates is safe and practical. In a humorous twist on this persecution of Native Americans' worship, Sterling suggests we acknowledge and learn from their teachings and practices as significant and historical much like we do to their Thanksgiving Day contributions. To segue this reading into Pearce's, Pearce makes the statement, "Laws there will be, and only the breaking of them will be through that crack-forming procedure". Peyote IS this culture's 'crack-forming procedure'.
Pearce's comment on how we perceive things reminded me yet again of Huxley. Pearce explains, "what a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is". Much like Huxley's comment on our perceptions driven by "who influenced whom to say what when?". Are these biased perceptions what is being reflected on our mirrored minds? This ties in with Polanyi's metanoia; we are all, perhaps, given abilities to construct ideas and thoughts in unlimited ways, but because of interaction and networking with others' ideas and their thought processes, are own personal thought processes are hindered. It's almost as if when presented with a new idea by someone else, we are unknowingly adorned with blinders that confine our ability to perceive that same thought in a new way. (This makes more sense in my head than what it does typed out onto this keyboard, so my apologies if this makes no sense!) As for the fire-walking and hook-hanging, it was interesting to learn that once it was found that people who participated in such events could not only survive these but sometimes come away unharmed there was a new acceptance and notion of 'reality-potential' and such practices continued and grew. I can't help to think (in my westernized mind that is full of bias, blinders, and skepticism) that such dangerous practices that could potentially result in severe injury or death would receive such receptive audience participation simply because there were a few incidences that left the participants unscathed....what about the several others who WERE injured, disfigured or died?
Sterling's essay was interesting regarding the battle between religious practices and drug enforcement policies. I think that this controversy will continue to manifest itself - even though we are a country offering freedom, that freedom is certainly controlled. Worship who or what you want, just do it according to what the government dictates is safe and practical. In a humorous twist on this persecution of Native Americans' worship, Sterling suggests we acknowledge and learn from their teachings and practices as significant and historical much like we do to their Thanksgiving Day contributions. To segue this reading into Pearce's, Pearce makes the statement, "Laws there will be, and only the breaking of them will be through that crack-forming procedure". Peyote IS this culture's 'crack-forming procedure'.
Pearce's comment on how we perceive things reminded me yet again of Huxley. Pearce explains, "what a thing is is to an unknowable extent determined by or influenced by what we think it is". Much like Huxley's comment on our perceptions driven by "who influenced whom to say what when?". Are these biased perceptions what is being reflected on our mirrored minds? This ties in with Polanyi's metanoia; we are all, perhaps, given abilities to construct ideas and thoughts in unlimited ways, but because of interaction and networking with others' ideas and their thought processes, are own personal thought processes are hindered. It's almost as if when presented with a new idea by someone else, we are unknowingly adorned with blinders that confine our ability to perceive that same thought in a new way. (This makes more sense in my head than what it does typed out onto this keyboard, so my apologies if this makes no sense!) As for the fire-walking and hook-hanging, it was interesting to learn that once it was found that people who participated in such events could not only survive these but sometimes come away unharmed there was a new acceptance and notion of 'reality-potential' and such practices continued and grew. I can't help to think (in my westernized mind that is full of bias, blinders, and skepticism) that such dangerous practices that could potentially result in severe injury or death would receive such receptive audience participation simply because there were a few incidences that left the participants unscathed....what about the several others who WERE injured, disfigured or died?
Law Enforcement, Psyc. Societies
Law Enforcement Against Entheogens
This is a tough one, because I understand what the author is saying, that there are certain ways to change our bodies chemistry to allow for a devine expierence that involve crugs. It is crappy that the drugs used souly for religious purposes were outlawed along with the drugs that people used for fixes and are addictive. At the same time, though, they do have to make all mind altering drugs illegal because anyone could use the excuse that it is for religion(even when they are just doing it to get high.) Drugs have a lot of bad affects on our society.. "Having seen the guns of crack dealers, the skid rows where the junkies shuffle, the hospitals where inconsolable babies cry..." Unfortunately, the religious leaders who were using peyote as a means in thier ceremonies, have to be affected, because it is a mind altering drug. I am sure that everyone who uses peyote is not doing it for religious purposes...and then how do you define a religious purpose? I am sure someone desperate enough could make somthing up.
Psycodelic Societies
The statement, "When you believe something, you automatically preclude yourself from believing its opposite; which means that a degree of your human freedom has been forfeitedin in the act of committing yourself to this belief." This is pretty good..it has a huge point. Also..I agree that no reconstruction of scoeity can be done with the use of psycadelics because we have gone so long witout them. My generation has been raised(for the most part) to believe that 'drugs are bad' there is no gray area.
This is a tough one, because I understand what the author is saying, that there are certain ways to change our bodies chemistry to allow for a devine expierence that involve crugs. It is crappy that the drugs used souly for religious purposes were outlawed along with the drugs that people used for fixes and are addictive. At the same time, though, they do have to make all mind altering drugs illegal because anyone could use the excuse that it is for religion(even when they are just doing it to get high.) Drugs have a lot of bad affects on our society.. "Having seen the guns of crack dealers, the skid rows where the junkies shuffle, the hospitals where inconsolable babies cry..." Unfortunately, the religious leaders who were using peyote as a means in thier ceremonies, have to be affected, because it is a mind altering drug. I am sure that everyone who uses peyote is not doing it for religious purposes...and then how do you define a religious purpose? I am sure someone desperate enough could make somthing up.
Psycodelic Societies
The statement, "When you believe something, you automatically preclude yourself from believing its opposite; which means that a degree of your human freedom has been forfeitedin in the act of committing yourself to this belief." This is pretty good..it has a huge point. Also..I agree that no reconstruction of scoeity can be done with the use of psycadelics because we have gone so long witout them. My generation has been raised(for the most part) to believe that 'drugs are bad' there is no gray area.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Huxley
Huxley: The Doors of Perception
What a hek of a read. It took me a week to try to finish this book and do this blog. I didn't particularly like it because it was too hard to follow. I don't understand this drug. Where was this author heading with this drug mescalin and what is so special about it. To me he was just blabbing on about nothing substiantial. Probably the worst reading yet. He completely lost me.What does he mean by such quote that "each person is capable of remembering all that has happened to him and of percieving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe"?
What a hek of a read. It took me a week to try to finish this book and do this blog. I didn't particularly like it because it was too hard to follow. I don't understand this drug. Where was this author heading with this drug mescalin and what is so special about it. To me he was just blabbing on about nothing substiantial. Probably the worst reading yet. He completely lost me.What does he mean by such quote that "each person is capable of remembering all that has happened to him and of percieving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe"?
Psychedelic Society/ Law Enforcement
Psychedelic
I would have to agree with McKenna when he states, " Our ability to destroy ourselves is the mirror image of our ability to save ourselves." Because, the shamans as he describes use psychedelic drugs to help them guide themselves to the truth, and finding the truth sometime comes with harming yourself (by doing drugs) to find the state of mind you seek. I think that the "new language" he describes is the truth one will find in a psychedelic stage. I must agree with this statement, " The salvation of your immortal soul may depend on what you do with the opportunity life places before you." I believe this because you have the right to salvation through God, you have the choice to live by God and be rewarded in Heaven or go against God, and remain in hell. I believe we create our own universe because each one of use is unique in our own ways and has the power to do what we want.
Law Enforcement
I think this passage has great inspiration for the Native American Indian/ Church. They discussed that Peyote was being used in an un mannorly way to help people find the peace and security that they seeked through their religion. I think that if your religion has you worshiping through these psychedelic drugs then by all means you must use them but do not abuse them to the extent of death. I am not permitting the useage of drugs but each culture is its own culture. I do believe that if you are not of these groups and just join them to be able to use the drugs because their religion its allowed to is un called for.
I would have to agree with McKenna when he states, " Our ability to destroy ourselves is the mirror image of our ability to save ourselves." Because, the shamans as he describes use psychedelic drugs to help them guide themselves to the truth, and finding the truth sometime comes with harming yourself (by doing drugs) to find the state of mind you seek. I think that the "new language" he describes is the truth one will find in a psychedelic stage. I must agree with this statement, " The salvation of your immortal soul may depend on what you do with the opportunity life places before you." I believe this because you have the right to salvation through God, you have the choice to live by God and be rewarded in Heaven or go against God, and remain in hell. I believe we create our own universe because each one of use is unique in our own ways and has the power to do what we want.
Law Enforcement
I think this passage has great inspiration for the Native American Indian/ Church. They discussed that Peyote was being used in an un mannorly way to help people find the peace and security that they seeked through their religion. I think that if your religion has you worshiping through these psychedelic drugs then by all means you must use them but do not abuse them to the extent of death. I am not permitting the useage of drugs but each culture is its own culture. I do believe that if you are not of these groups and just join them to be able to use the drugs because their religion its allowed to is un called for.