The snake in the garden

I've just read Supernatural by Graham Hancock, a highly enjoyable and thought-provoking exploration of altered states of consciousness brought about by the ingestion of psychoactive chemicals. Previously, I had read only one other book by Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods. I enjoyed it for his lively writing style and boundless speculation, but I wasn't convinced by his arguments. Supernatural, however, is for the most part more firmly grounded, and I felt it to be a superior effort.

Hancock begins with a discussion of prehistoric cave paintings, which, he argues, can best be understood as a visual record of the shamans' hallucinatory experiences. To drive home this point, he compares the cave imagery with accounts of vision quests by contemporary shamans. He also went to the considerable trouble of ingesting some of these potions himself, usually under the watchful eye of an experienced shaman, and he reports seeing much of the same imagery. He recounts Rick Strassman's controlled experiments in which volunteers were injected with the psychotropic chemical DMT, which had effects similar to those of the concoctions consumed by the shamans. He goes on to relate these hallucinatory experiences to the considerable body of folklore pertaining to "little people" -- sprites, pixies, fairies, gnomes, leprechauns, and so forth -- and to the modern phenomenon of "alien abduction," which has much in common with the older legends.

In short, he makes a plausible case that altered states of consciousness -- often the result of ingesting psychedelic plants, but also occurring in other contexts -- can bring up images and narratives that remain strikingly consistent despite wide differences in culture. Snakes, for instance, show up repeatedly in these experiences, as do smallish nonhuman creatures with oddly shaped heads, whether they are construed as fairy folk or as extraterrestrial "grays."

Now, I've previously speculated that so-called alien abductions may be a subset of out-of-body experiences (an idea that, of course, is not original with me), so I have no problem with the idea that these bizarre adventures are, in some sense, hallucinatory. By "hallucinatory," I don't mean that the experience is necessarily unreal, but that it involves -- or may involve -- perceptions of another plane of reality, one that is ordinarily opaque to us but which can be accessed via a dramatic shift in consciousness. Hancock himself inclines in this direction.

What struck me about many of these experiences, as recounted by Hancock, by so-called alien abductees, by DMT research subjects, and by shamans, is how scary and nightmarish they tend to be. There are frequent encounters with bizarre, nonhuman beings who rarely project love, compassion, or empathy; more commonly, these beings are perceived as either coldly indifferent or actively hostile to human welfare. Cave paintings sometimes feature the motif of the "wounded man," apparently a shaman whose body has been pierced by multiple spears. This imagery is reflected in the hallucinogenic experiences themselves, which not infrequently subject the experiencer to torture, surgery, and vivisection. Both alien abductees and shamans report being cut open so their captors can insert small objects into their bodies. Other nightmarish elements of these experiences involve being beset by numerous inhuman creatures, being subjected to sexual congress with them, being carried off to a cave, laboratory, spaceship, etc., as well as the strange recurring motif of hybrid babies with human and nonhuman characteristics. Often these "changeling" babies are described as grotesque.

There is also repetitive imagery of humanoid figures with animal features, as seen in some prehistoric cave art. People who ingest psychoactive substances are prone to seeing creatures that are part human, part animal -- a man with the head of a bison, for instance. In some cases, the experiencer believes that he himself has been transformed temporarily into an animal or a half-human, half-animal hybrid.

When reading these accounts, I was reminded of similarly bizarre episodes described by Robert A. Monroe, who learned to initiate out-of-body experiences at will and eventually set up an institute to study the phenomenon. As I've written elsewhere, some of Monroe's alleged adventures are so fantastic and disturbing that they seem more like vivid nightmares than any kind of spiritual experience. I would characterize much of the material recounted by Hancock in Supernatural the same way. Though he talks about the important spiritual insights that practitioners of these extradimensional travels can attain, I didn't see much in the way of valuable life lessons in the experiences he describes. The only lesson would seem to be that reality is a deeply strange and deeply terrifying place, largely hostile to human beings and not very conducive to spiritual growth. The shamans themselves insist that their ancestors learned to use psychotropic plants by following recipes given to them by spirits during these vision quests. Even if this is true, it does not necessarily establish that the "spirits" meant well, or that the psychotropic plants are beneficial.

While I was thinking about this today, I happen to read an article by NDE researcher Michael Sabom about the religious implications of near-death experiences. The article, "Response to Gracia Fay Ellwood's 'Religious Experience, Religious Worldviews, and Near-Death Studies'," is included in the NDE papers uploaded by Markus Hesse at this location.  

Sabom, a committed Christian, draws a sharp distinction between spontaneous and deliberately initiated paranormal experiences. He believes that the former can give us insights into deep spiritual truths, while the latter are largely the realm of deceptive and malign entities. Thus he counsels against deliberate involvement with the paranormal. To some extent, this opinion simply reflects the view common among conservative Christians that mediums and psychics are trafficking with the devil, and perhaps it can be dismissed as a mere prejudice. Sabom, however, develops his argument somewhat further by giving specific examples of cases in which harmful effects arose from dabbling with the paranormal. And in fact, many such examples can be supplied. Included in his case histories is the above-mentioned Robert Monroe, whose OBEs were sometimes terrifying. Also included is author Whitley Strieber, who described the disorientation and helplessness he felt in his "abduction" experiences.

One case Sabom doesn't mention is that of Joe Fisher, author of The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts, whose involvement with a medium led him to believe he'd been targeted by malicious supernatural entities. Fisher became convinced that these demonic creatures were ruining his life. Although the circumstances of his death are ambiguous, it is widely believed that he committed suicide.

With such disturbing cases in mind, perhaps we should not be too quick to reject the idea that there is a qualitative distinction to be drawn between spontaneous and intentionally induced paranormal experiences. And yet any such hard-and-fast distinction would surely be too restrictive. There are, after all, many cases of a deliberately induced altered state of consciousness that have yielded powerful evidence for life after death, as well as uplifting spiritual messages. The trance mediumship of Leonora Piper or Gladys Osborne Leonard shows little sign of malign influences.

How, then, do we explain these different varieties of spiritual experiences? On the one hand, we have shamanic vision quests, alien abductions, DMT trips, deliberately induced OBEs, and the like, which frequently include nightmarish and grossly distorted, sometimes animalistic imagery, along with painful and traumatic experiences. On the other hand, we have NDEs, trance mediumship, deep meditation, spontaneous OBEs, and the like, which for the most part (and with some undeniable exceptions) consist of nonthreatening imagery and uplifting experiences or lessons.

I'm not sure there's any easy answer to this question. But possibly -- just possibly -- the way in which we arrive at an altered state of consciousness determines whether our resulting experience will be predominantly positive or negative. Possibly the ingestion of psychotropic drugs, which are used as a kind of shortcut to enlightenment, is counterproductive, and is more likely to lead us astray, by bringing on an experience that is troubling, not comforting; hellish, not heavenly; irrational, not lucid; traumatic, not blissful.

Perhaps there is no shortcut, and our attempt to find one only leads us down a blind alley or, worse, into a dark cellar. And perhaps people who've experienced so-called alien abductions or frightening OBEs have learned (even if unconsciously) the wrong way of altering their state of consciousness. To put it in spiritualistic terms, we might say that instead of "raising their vibrations," maybe they are "lowering their vibrations." Instead of "going toward the light," maybe they are going away from it.

If so, then there may be some merit to the idea that deliberately induced paranormal experiences are dangerous. No, not all of them, but those that are induced in the wrong way.

Reading Supernatural, I couldn't help thinking of the Garden of Eden. In this biblical story, Adam and Eve live unspoiled lives of simplicity and innocence. But then a snake enters the picture. (Remember that snakes figure prominently in the imagery of hallucinogenic experiences.) The snake offers Eve an apple. (Remember that ingestion of new and unknown substances is what brought about the hallucinogenic experiences.) Eve and then Adam eat the apple, and their eyes are opened to a new way of looking at the world. (Remember that shamans and others who experiment with these psychotropic substances believe they have gained important new insights.) But their newfound enlightenment doesn't benefit them. They are cast out from the garden (remember that gardens are among the most prominent "heavenly" locals in NDEs) and sentenced to a lifetime of pain and drudgery terminating in death.

There are many ways of interpreting this famous -- and famously ambiguous -- story. It may simply be an attack on the goddess religions that competed with early Judaism; the snake was a favorite symbol of these faiths. But suppose the origin of the story lies elsewhere. Suppose it reflects an intuition that the shamanic vision quests made possible by chemically altered states of consciousness can be dangerous. Suppose it is a warning against meddling with otherdimensional beings who, like the snake, can be highly seductive but do not have our best interests at heart.

Graham Hancock believes that ingestion of psychotropic substances expanded the consciousness of our prehistoric forebears and allowed them to begin the long march toward culture and civilization. He believes that these otherworldly journeys still have much to teach us, and that we should be opening the doors of perception to learn from the extradimensional beings who inhabit this other plane of reality.

Maybe so. Then again, maybe some doors shouldn't be opened.

Comments

[Paul]

I agree. I prefer my parapsychological research without the need for custom underwear.

[realpc]

"Rich people were often murdered by the state so the emperor could have an excuse to seize their property. This was a common practice."

You don't think that kind of thing happened in the 20th century? What about the communist revolutions?

" I find the whole subject rather depressing."

Of course that's my whole point -- you need your mythology to feel good about our society. I don't get depressed by the truth, so I have less need to believe what are at least partly a batch of lies.

"When the most serious health problem in a society is obesity, we must be doing something right. Previous generations were faced with the threat of starvation, not excess pounds.'

You really are over-generalizing. You have a very selective memory for history and other cultures.

[realpc]

" I find the whole subject rather depressing."

You select examples from history that support your idea of progress. You could easily find examples of 20th century cruelty, or of traditional societies that were more harmonious than ours.

You obviously have a need to see things a certain way, in order to avoid feeling depressed. I would rather try to see things they way they are.

[Ben]

"It's not all good, but there is a lot to be happy about and thankful for."

I'm pleased to note you're coming out of your pessimistic phase, MP!
;-)

[realpc]

" The complexity of cancer as a set of related diseases is incredible. Indeed, one has to respect it and even stand in awe at its ability to grow, evolve, and ultimately develop resistance to almost any treatment we can come up with. That’s not to say that the situation is hopeless, but it is an explanation as to why, nearly 40 years after Nixon’s war on cancer commenced, our progress against this foe has been incremental."

That statement was made today on a materialist science blog, by an oncologist. As you can see, he cannot truthfully say that cancer research has been successful.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4832#more-4832

He also says:

"Despite this record, I remain nonetheless optimistic and expect this situation to change within my lifetime."

So the record is bad, as even this devout materialist cancer researcher has to admit. He expects things to get better, but anyone can say that about anything.

But there are many other articles and books about the failure, or near failure, of the "war on cancer."

Gorski's excuse is that cancer is incredibly complex. Well sure, life and this universe are incredibly complex from our human perspective. in other words, they are beyond our understanding.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware of this, but the general public is not usually told. Great progress in fighting cancer is assumed.

[W Vogt]

"Killing is an instinct, a very important one.
Not all but a lot of -- men get a thrill from it.

"You really are over-generalizing
You have a very selective memory for history and other cultures."

I think the saying about people in glass houses applies here. I am not a trained psychologist, but from what I have read the only instincts human infants demonstrate are the fear of loud noises and the fear of falling.

[realpc]

" from what I have read the only instincts human infants demonstrate are the fear of loud noises and the fear of falling."

Just because you read it doesn't make it a fact. We evolved from other species, and all other species have complex instinctual patterns. Why would our species be the first to suddenly stop having them?

Psychologists have believed a lot of things that don't make much sense, and the idea that humans barely have any instincts is one of them.

And we don't have to use the word "instinct" anyway. It's obvious that there are inherited patterns, whatever you prefer to call them.

"I think the saying about people in glass houses applies here. "

No, there is a big difference between generalizing -- which we must do in order to make any point -- and over-generalizing.

MP selected examples to show that ancient cultures were much crueler than ours. He could easily have found examples to show the opposite.

But we can easily observe that a very large percent of our entertainment centers on violence and intense competition. I don't see anything wrong with that. And if a large number of people didn't enjoy that kind of entertainment, it would not be created.

Mothers can try to make their little boys play with dolls instead of guns. It won't make any difference. It won't stop them from naturally wanting to play with guns.

[Ben]

"MP selected examples to show that ancient cultures were much crueler than ours. He could easily have found examples to show the opposite."

Aren't you confusing individuals with cultures, realpc? At the top of organisations and in positions of power there are often sociopaths, but overall we now have welfare, democratic voting, social security, pensions, human rights, data protection, consumer rights, legal rights, trial by jury, health care (as of right in Europe), rights for women(!) and minorities which the Romans could hardly have have dreamt of.

True we also have evils (human nature is as it was), but the fact that so many rights are enshrined in legislation surely proves that civilisation has progressed?

[Stan]

RealPC - you simply dont' get it - YOU are overgeneralizing - and YOU are super sensitive about having anything you say - as if it were "law" questioned by those of us who think otherwise.

(from CANCER to any other sort of sillyness you've spouted here as if your opinion is FACT....and everyone else is selective in seeing things another way)

Above - you point to something you've READ on another forum or blog - and state it as FACT.

A moment later - what someone else read - is NOT fact - because as you say......"just because you read it, doesn't make it a fact."

The hypocrisy hurts my head....and I'm guessing I ain't the only one.

[Michael Prescott]

"MP selected examples to show that ancient cultures were much crueler than ours. He could easily have found examples to show the opposite."

Could I? Virtually all ancient societies practiced slavery, infanticide, torture, conscription, and horrific means of execution like crucifixion and impalement.

I think you have a chip on your shoulder, Realpc. You need less attitude, more gratitude for the wonderful modern world we live in. In many other societies throughout history you could have been a slave in the salt mines.

Anyway, you are rude, so I am going to ignore you now.

Ben, I like your points, though I would quibble when you confine "health care" to Europe. The US has health care, too -- it's just handled differently. No one is turned away from an ER, regardless of ability to pay. We don't have universal health insurance, but we do have de factor universal care.

I'm sort of emerging from my pessimistic phase, as you said, though I continue to think that our current policies are taking us in the wrong direction ...

[Michael Prescott]

Oops, meant to type "de facto," not "de factor." There are some mistakes SpellCheck can't catch!

[W Vogt]

"Just because you read it doesn't make it a fact. We evolved from other species, and all other species have complex instinctual patterns. Why would our species be the first to suddenly stop having them?"

Just what then are the specific instincts shown by our nearest relatives--chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans--at birth that are manifest early in life by humans. Please be factual.

[william]

“The US has health care, too -- it's just handled differently. No one is turned away from an ER, regardless of ability to pay”

Going to the er is not health care it is the last chance care and it is costing billions of dollars that could have been avoided with some level of universal health care process.

It is a national tragedy that we don’t have some at least minimal health care for all of our citizens as all other industrialized counties do. My friend just got stuck with a 95,000 hospital bill for pre existing conditions even through he was paying hundreds per month for health insurance but the insurance found a pre existing condition in his past. First they agreed to pay then with a research team they found this pre-existing conditions and even made the hospital pay them back after they had paid the hospital bill. Tragedy.

Insurance companies have employee teams to find ways to not to pay when a customer needs an expensive treatment. The insanity of that is self evident to most except Wall Street and CEO’s.

The other industrialized countries consider health care a right not a privilege like fire protection and police protection. And we are the so-called Christian nation. Don’t think so.

You cannot have private companies doing health care insurance, as they will find ways not to pay. Now they have come up with these new regulations that if you change jobs and have pre existing conditions your new insurance may not cover you for that pre-existing conditions.

And those that have pre existing conditions and need surgery go to er you say. Like most things in this life this atrocity will have to affect over 50% of Americans before anything is done. This is the role of experiences over time it develops our souls to be more empathetic. But oh the suffering for many in the meantime.

My friend now has to divorce his wife so she does not have to pay the 95,000 and counting for continual treatments for his treatments. Using the er room for health care is a sham at best. Any nation that can afford to have 720 military bases around the world and fight two wars approaching a trillion dollars per year and cannot afford health care for its citizens in is trouble morally and financially.

Now the strategy in afghan according to our latest general is to find the afghan jobs and win over the population. Of course we must continue to guard their poppy crops so we can keep our drug war alive and well over here.

Stick a fork in us we are done.

[Michael Prescott]

"The hypocrisy hurts my head....and I'm guessing I ain't the only one."

You ain't.

"Stick a fork in us we are done."

Time will tell. I remember a couple of years ago, William, you were pointing to the strength of the euro relative to the dollar as a sign that we were done. Now the euro is declining and the dollar is strengthening. These things tend to go in cycles.

All systems have strengths and weaknesses. The US health care system has obvious strengths but also obvious flaws. So do the alternative systems in social democracies. There are no easy answers.

[realpc]

"Virtually all ancient societies practiced slavery, infanticide, torture, conscription, and horrific means of execution like crucifixion and impalement."

You really think you know all about all ancient cultures? We know very little, only what was written down and happened to survive. But we do know something about primitive tribes from anthropology, and we know something about other social animals. Both cruelty and compassion have been found, to varying degrees, in all.

Our progressive "niceness" is probably very superficial and vacant compared to the intense love and loyalty felt in tribal traditional societies. Not that we should be more like them. Everything is a trade-off.

[Erich]

Things do seem to have degenerated a bit here.

I don't know how we got stuck on the topic of Rome. As far as I know, Rome was not a psychedelic shamanistic culture.

In the psychedelic traditional cultures I know of people are very polite to each other. They consider even animals to be their brothers and sisters. All life is to be treated with respect.

How we got to Rome was MP stating that the Bible was responsible for the improved social conditions that we enjoy today in defense of my saying that the Bible is pretty much uninspiring compared to psychedelic experience.

Then I said that, though modern conditions are indisputably improved in many ways, it is impossible to attribute those improvements to the Bible and that basic human instincts remain the same. This has little to do with psychedelics.

Stan, I find your comment suggesting that I have been addled by peyote use to be very offensive. You can disagree with me, but you don't need to be ignorantly insulting.

I have been in combat. I know. If you have not then, in addition to keeping quiet and showing some respect, you may want to educate yourself a little. There is nothing that approaches the real thing, but the current HBO series, "The Pacific" at least draws upon the memoirs of Marines who did serve in combat in the Pacific theater of action in WW2. You should watch it. The barbarity on both sides was horrendous. The last episode I watched (I think the most recent in the series) depicted a scene from Eugene Sledge's non-fiction memoirs where US Marines are taking gold teeth out of dead Japanese mouths as suveniers; only sometimes the Japanese weren't totally dead yet. The Marines cut the mouth open ear to ear with a Kabar knife and proceed to extract the teeth anyhow as the Japenese gurgled and thrashed. This is merely one example. And this sort of thing happens in all war. All war! Whatever noble justification the politicians give for it.

A little diahrea or vomit for a soul healing is a small price to pay. Look what people go through in chemotherapy for cancer that is mostly a long shot at cure. If one can't handle a little emesis because one thinks it's too "gross" or something, then one can't handle psychedelics. Stay away from them. In fact, in that case, I question whether or not one can even handle life.

I own and work a thoroughbred farm (horses for the race track) and I work a day job as an actuary. I'd love to quit the day sometime and hope I can soon. The difference between the city folks I work with 9 to 5 and the country folks I interact with is like night and day. The city folks pay other people to get the dirt and blood on their hands then they sit around thinking about how they are all sophisticated and superior.

Last fall, one of the fillies born that spring, a beautiful, finely bred creature that held so much promise and that I had befriended from the moment she came out of her dame, was running with her pasture mates, like she was born to do. One moment she was the very picture of elegance and freedom and the next she was down with a compound fracture that almost ripped the leg right off (she must have put a foot wrong). She was screaming in agony and flailing and I did the only thing I could. I put the muzzle of a pistol up close to her head and squeezed the trigger. Blood splattered back on me and ran out her nostrils like a river. Then, than beautiful creature lay a crumpled ruined still heap in the dirt; to run no more.

That is life on earth. And enlightment is knowing and facing with courage the both beauty and freedom of the running spirit and the agony of the crumpled lifeless tradgedy.

The psychedelic experience can make us one with both and, in doing so, one with the totallity.

And, yes, if you have too much of the ugly in you, if you're out of balance, you may have to barf or crap it out.

Or you can sit in your penthouse or some other insulated bubble and pretend you're above the blood and barf and dirt and crap and contemplate lofty utopias. Maybe that is the right thing to do. Honestly, I don't know.

I guess psychedelic users are really very different people from those who can't see any value in them. Not necessarily better; just a different type of soul.

I think things have become a little heated in this thread because there has been some judgemental behavior from the anti-psychedelic crowd.

[william]

“The US health care system has obvious strengths but also obvious flaws.”

600,000 Americans a year filing bankruptcy due to medical costs is not a flaw it is national tragedy unless of course you are one of those not filing bankruptcy for medical costs and view their suffering as a flaw. Ask those filling bankruptcy if they think it is a flaw?

Not being able to buy any health insurance due to a pre-existing conditions is not a flaw this is unknown in other industrialized nations. Ask those unable to purchase health insurance due to pre existing conditions if they think it is just a flaw in our system.

Ask the person on the street if they think a CEO of a health insurance company if their pay and bonuses of hundreds of millions dollars a year is a flaw.

It is an ideology that privatizations worked better for all organizations which is not correct. No other industrialized country has a for profits health insurance; it does not work for obvious reasons. Well obvious to those that are filing bankruptcy, have pre existing conditions, and those that cannot afford the insurance.

“Now the euro is declining and the dollar is strengthening.”

In the year 2000 the euro to the dollar was about one to one you may want to check it today Michael. Since 2008 the euro to the dollar has remained about the same one euro equals about 1.33 dollars.

I remember traveling Europe and getting more of their currency for a dollar not less. Can’t keep borrowing from a communist country and printing money like there is no tomorrow and not expect your dollar not to inflate. History shows us that time and time again.

“The euro recently rose to $1.3411 from $1.3377 late Friday. Earlier, the euro fell to an 11-month low of $1.3291”

Falling to an 11 month low of 1.32 is not exactly falling off the empire state building.

“Our progressive "niceness" is probably very superficial and vacant compared to the intense love and loyalty felt in tribal traditional societies”

I see the world’s nations learning over time not to kill one another. I think the difference is our weapons have become so powerful and destructive that more can be killed in a shorter period of time. Now we are advancing at a snails pace but the infinite does not appear to be in any hurry.

We are heading for some sort of world oneness of thought, which is understandable as we came from oneness. Change brings chaos and makes it appear things are getting worst. Besides what is chaos but learning opportunities.

I also suspect there are new souls arriving all the time and they have to go through their cycle of learning.

[Art]

from CANCER to any other sort of sillyness you've spouted here as if your opinion is FACT - Stan
-------------------------------------------

Wow! People really take these blogs and board serious don't they? They really get emotional about stuff they believe in. It's almost like they are experiencing "duality and separation" and the more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it will create? {grin!}

[Erich]

Art, maybe disagreement, even emotional charged disagreement, isn't separation at all. Maybe it's a mode of connectedness.

[Michael Prescott]

William, the euro's been declining relative to the dollar since November. See this chart:

http://alturl.com/ap4o

Where will it go from here? My guess (which is worth what you pay for it) is that the euro will continue to weaken. The linked article gives some arguments for this position. To me, the biggest factor is that the EU is in even worse shape than the US in terms of deficits and insolvency. Their vaunted social programs are breaking the bank. There really is no free lunch.

"If one can't handle a little emesis because one thinks it's too 'gross' or something, then one can't handle psychedelics. Stay away from them. In fact, in that case, I question whether or not one can even handle life."

Yes, it's certainly a sign of profound personal weakness if one would prefer not to spend twelve hours vomiting and defecating uncontrollably.

"Or you can sit in your penthouse or some other insulated bubble and pretend you're above the blood and barf and dirt and crap and contemplate lofty utopias.... I think things have become a little heated in this thread because there has been some judgemental behavior from the anti-psychedelic crowd."

Well, there's nothing judgmental about saying that people who disagree with you can't handle life and live in an ivory tower!

To make my position clear: From what I've read, these drugs sound dangerous and unpleasant, and I would not use them or recommend that others use them. But if some people want to experiment, that's their choice. In a properly controlled setting, such as a laboratory or a religious center run by an experienced shaman, there may be some value to such experimentation (though I'm skeptical that it will lead to "enlightenment" or other spiritual benefits). Fooling around with drugs this powerful in an unsupervised or poorly supervised setting is, in my opinion, a big mistake, which could have serious medical and psychological consequences.

Maybe something like Michael Persinger's "God helmet" will be developed to the point where people can have these psychedelic experiences without chemicals. That would be pretty cool.

[realpc]

"I think things have become a little heated in this thread because there has been some judgemental behavior from the anti-psychedelic crowd."

Erich,

No, things became heated because I expressed essentially all the same ideas you expressed and MP found it depressing, and then he found it rude. I have no opinion on psychedelics but I have some definite opinions on the subject of progress. I know that it's just one of our culture's myths that modern humans are the most, or the only, moral creatures.

I agreed with you many times, although you never acknowledged or agreed or disagreed with anything I said.

The original post was about psychedelics, but it also expressed some disdain for shamans and primitive people. I have tried to defend them because I know it is only a myth derived from our need to feel superior, to other animals and to primitives.

I try to set that straight whenever I see it. Animals deserve much more respect than they get from us, and so do traditional and "primitive" people. Scientists who study tribal people, or who study other species, would tell you the same.

And I so often hear those fallacies about modern medicine that I can't help commenting. Modern medicine has solved some problems, created other problems, and failed to solve many. It is just a fact. I linked to that post by a cancer researcher as evidence.

Gorski always exaggerates the effectiveness of mainstream cancer treatments, but today we see him admitting things are not so wonderful after all. Cancer is so horribly complex. Yes, that's how things generally go in 20th and 21st century science -- the more you learn, the more mystifying it all appears.

I see a lot of utopianism in our society, and I have seen a lot of it here in this thread. William comes to mind, for example. I believe utopianism has its roots in desperation and despair. It is the opposite of the down-to-earth acceptance of life and nature that Erich learned from psychedelic experiences.

Utopianists actually hate the world as it is, as god created it. I can sympathize with that because our civilization has become terrifyingly complex and dangerous, thanks to technological progress. It's also over-crowded and filthy.

But is ever more cleverness going to cure the diseases that cleverness caused?

[realpc]

"you point to something you've READ on another forum or blog - and state it as FACT."

Stan,

I linked to a blog post by a cancer researcher, as evidence. I have read many of Gorski's posts and he is a devout materialist who seldom admits there are any serious limitations in mainstream medicine. But in that post, he finally admits things aren't going so well.

I have also said in other comments that there are articles all over the internet that anyone can read that say the same kind of thing.

People assume mainstream medicine is making great progress in all areas, but the progress is only in certain limited areas.

MP, like so many others, believes the medical industry's PR, that we are living longer healthier lives thanks to them. But the only real medical advances have been antibiotics, vaccines, painkillers, anesthesia, and surgical and diagnostic technology.

Our lives are longer, on average, mainly because infant mortality has been lowered from the normal high level set by nature, to near zero.

[Erich]

realpc, I thought I had given a nod to your perspective. Maybe I meant to, but then overlooked actually doing so. Any how, I'm with you.

Comparing shamanism to Rome is comparing apples to seaweed.

I'll say again, as far I know, shamanistic societies, hold a deep respect and reverence for all life; a respect and reverence far exceeded by that held by most people in our modern society.

In fact, I find that most people in modern society don't even know what this is to have respect for nature and all living things. They don't even have a frame of reference. They think because they recycle their junk that they are one with mother earth,
Of the few that do feel - and more importantly act as if - they have a kinship with all life, a suprising % have used psychedelics.

The christians slaughtered humans just as bad as the Romans. It is western in general society that has displayed the most massive soul sickness. When we are talking about psychedelics we are not talking about western society. So neither it's barbaric history nor recent advancements are relevant. Now we have learned to not publicly impale each other. Instead we light up villages half way around with willy peter and try to keep it out of the news. That's progress!!

"We have shot an astounding number of people"
--Gen. Stanley McChrystal

But hey, we are fat and comfortable and we have good teeth (if we can afford the copay) so we can chew more junk found while we stare at the tv in a pathetic attempt to distract ourselves from our ennui and angst in our climate controlled environments bought on credit and owned by some anonomous banker that is not only sucking off our income, but is now sucking off our taxes that were supposed to go to schools and healthcare (or was it more bullets and bombs).

So in tribal societies people may have died from diseases that we can cure today with our medical practice. There are worse things than physical death. I find it ironic that a site dedicated to spiritual issues like life after death would place such a heavy emphasis on the ability to prolong physical life.

There. Maybe I can win the most depressing award on this thread.

[realpc]

"And this sort of thing happens in all war. All war! Whatever noble justification the politicians give for it."

Erich,

I think that warriors have to learn that kind of insensitivity and cruelty in order to be effective killers. It's partly natural and partly learned, like anything. Warriors must be capable of extreme heroism and loyalty. They are acting more out of love for their homeland than hatred for the enemy.

I found the book Black Elk Speaks, for example, to be helpful in trying to understand the warrior mentality. He was a visionary medicine man, and a warrior, in the context of a "primitive" society. The story of his life was recorded just as the American Indian way of life was dying.

American Indian warriors could be very cruel, by our standards. But I think that was because they were trained to ignore pain, in themselves or in others. They called themselves "braves" for a good reason.

Now most us are just the opposite, The typical American runs to the doctor for pain killers at the slightest twinge of pain. We don't learn anything about toughness or bravery. We are taught to be soft instead.

Not that there is anything wrong with the soft feminine side. Of course, "primitive" females were pretty tough by our standards.

No we don't have to be tough or self-reliant because we are protected by missiles and fed by giant agribusiness.

But we don't need to always insist that we are better and our way is the best.

[Erich]

realpc,

Actually men at war act bravely and selflessly more out of love and respect for their companions; the guys in their unit. Thoughts of god and country quickly become secondary unless being interviewed publicly when staying on message becomes salient.

Hatred of the enemy does become a factor; especially when the enemy has killed a loved brother (friend in your unit).

Then there are a minority of psychos and thrill seekers that really do want to go out and have a chance to legally kill people.

War is brutal and dehumanizing. To participate you have to come to some level of acceptance that human life doesn't mean anything.

Something I've noticed lately, counter to the societal advancement hypothesis is that the term "warrior" is being used more and more to describe US troops. They used to be citizen soldiers fighting in defense of our nation; now they are warriors. This seems like an ugly portent to me.

Native Americans - or some - have a warrior culture where manhood was displayed by acts of bravery in battle. The bravest thing you could do was to touch your enemy without killing him. War to Native Americans, before the arrival of the white man, was more like a rough and boisterous sport. yes, people got killed, but it wasn't the sort whole sale slaughter for total domination that occurred in European/middle eastern cultures.

I think the Aztecs were an exception as they did de-populate neighboring non-Aztecs through violence and they waged war to gain slaves and sacrifical victims and, in all fairness, theirs was a culture that made use of psychedelics. So there is a counter example to our psychedelic hypothesis.

And yes, I agree that we are a nation of wimps. This has coincided with a move from rural to urban inhabitance as well as the proliferation of technology that provides safety and comfort and that alleviates the need to be "tough" to get the job done.

Maybe I'm just a masochist, but I think the old way builds character and the new way leaves us weak.

Yes, yes, work smarter, not harder. But where are the painful experiences that one has to physically and mentally toughen to get through? People seem to eschew them these days.

[realpc]

"But hey, we are fat and comfortable and we have good teeth (if we can afford the copay) so we can chew more junk found while we stare at the tv in a pathetic attempt to distract ourselves from our ennui and angst in our climate controlled environments bought on credit and owned by some anonomous banker that is not only sucking off our income, but is now sucking off our taxes that were supposed to go to schools and healthcare (or was it more bullets and bombs).

So in tribal societies people may have died from diseases that we can cure today with our medical practice. There are worse things than physical death. I find it ironic that a site dedicated to spiritual issues like life after death would place such a heavy emphasis on the ability to prolong physical life.

There. Maybe I can win the most depressing award on this thread."

Truth is not depressing. Not to me anyway. And you just said a whole lot of truth.

We don't have to worship modern society and progress and think it's all just wonderful in order to find meaning and happiness in our lives. We don't have to always be in step with the crowd.

So no, it is not depressing to try to face reality. It's probably much more depressing trying to constantly run away from it.

[Erich]

MP, "In a properly controlled setting, such as a laboratory or a religious center run by an experienced shaman, there may be some value to such experimentation (though I'm skeptical that it will lead to "enlightenment" or other spiritual benefits). Fooling around with drugs this powerful in an unsupervised or poorly supervised setting is, in my opinion, a big mistake, which could have serious medical and psychological consequences."

I agree totally.

"Maybe something like Michael Persinger's "God helmet" will be developed to the point where people can have these psychedelic experiences without chemicals. That would be pretty cool."

I know that, despite potential unpleasant side effects, the chemicals won't hurt me. They have a history of use going back thousands of years.

I would be afraid to use the "god helmet". Who knows what that thing could do to you long term. Seriously.

"Well, there's nothing judgmental about saying that people who disagree with you can't handle life and live in an ivory tower!"

I call 'em as I see 'em. I'm pretty sure that such a person couldn't handle my life. On the other hand, I don't think I could handle life as that person knows it to be. When I said I honestly don't know which is better, I was being, honest.

I know who I am and what my path is. Yours can be completely different. I don't understand it, but I'm open to the possibility that it is a good one.

I think I am beginning to see the essential difference between us and we come to a different conclusion on this topic. You are a man of this century and this culture (no doubt the urban subset) and, as such, you are very in tune to technology and other examples of our societies production and our more generally all of the social norms and modes of speach, etc.

I am a guy who visits an urban setting because I need the money and I hate having to do it. I have the education and intelligence to pull it off, but it's not me. Where I live and what I like to do could be a hundred years ago or more; perhaps much more. In the summer I walk through horse pastures barefoot. I have little use for our societal structures. I use a computer and even do complex math on it ;-) using various software applications, but that's all BS to me. I don't need the police (don't even like them) and we don't have much of a fire department to speak of anyhow.

If we experienced a huge calamity in which our society was wiped out I would simply ride horses around and hunt and fish and chop wood for fire, sing and dance and play instruments for entertainment, pick mushrooms and brew my own beer. My life wouldn't change all that much.

Sure, some day I would get sick with something that I couldn't cure myself and then I'd die and move onto the next world. No big deal.

So I have less appreciation for what modern society has to offer and I value characteristics that have no relevance in what I am imaging is your world.

On the other hand, I do value truth above all else and I believe that should hold currency whether one lives in a penthouse or a teepee. So that can be common ground.

[Art]

Art, maybe disagreement, even emotional charged disagreement, isn't separation at all. Maybe it's a mode of connectedness.
- Erich
--------------------------------------------

Teaching the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate, something it can't learn in heaven due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness commented on so often in NDEs.

"I suddenly just relaxed completely and allowed "myself" to dissolve (?) open up (?) merge (?) into the "oneness" that surrounded me." - excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE, http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html

The answer to "why we are here" is simple. We come here to become unassimilated and the way we do that is by experiencing separation. From the moment we are born and separate from our mothers and our umbilical cord is cut till the day we die and our deaths become a lesson in separation to the loved ones we leave behind life is one big long lesson over and over again in what it means and how it feels to be separate. I think it's as simple as that.

[Stan]

"If we experienced a huge calamity in which our society was wiped out I would simply ride horses around and hunt and fish and chop wood for fire, sing and dance and play instruments for entertainment, pick mushrooms and brew my own beer. My life wouldn't change all that much."

Speaking solely for myself, Erich.....I would last about 2 days if the world collapsed on itself and I was forced to hunt and fish and chop wood to survive. I'd be much more likely to be the guy in the corner of of the tribe - sucking my thumb and curled up in the fetal position - while thinking long and hard about asking you for a beer...:-)

I happen to disagree with alot of your thoughts in the thread above - but certainly respect your resourcefullness - and point of view.

There is actually a pretty interesting school of thought - I believe called "Spiral Dynamics" - which sort of theorizes about our innate abilities to survive and "regress" to survive in difficult circumstances - or a change in resources, etc. (I saw one of the main authors of the theory speak, Don Beck - at a Ken Wilber/Integral theory event a few years ago....and it's probably something you'd enjoy reading.

(he actually used the 911 catastrophe as a pretty good illustration - in the hours after the towers came down and manhattan was under emotional seige - how "primal" needs started to manifest in some panicked pockets - and the very same thing after Hurricaine Katrina, of course.....as well - having the vast majority of my family in NYC - I can attest to lots of this as true)

:-)

[dmduncan]

"The christians slaughtered humans just as bad as the Romans."

That is false. You might as well say that truthful people tell as many lies as liars. Your definition of what constitutes a Christian — as apparently someone who calls himself a Christian — may satisfy you. It doesn't me.

If you mean to say that human beings who call themselves Christian have killed lots of people, that is one thing. But then please don't confuse Christianity as the cause of those deaths, or treat all religions as equally pernicious, however de rigueur it is to single out Christianity for special condemnation.

It is not Christianity which spread across the globe by the sword, leaving heads in its wake upon the recommendation of its founder. That distinction belongs to Islam.

Islam was busy cutting off heads. Christ healed the severed ear of the guard sent to arrest him, cut off by one of his own disciples.

You will find no example in the life of Christ that allows you to kill other people in imitation of Jesus. But you CAN do that for Muhammad.

It is difficult to follow Christ's example. This is true. And when we fail to do so, we fail as men who would rather kill and be wrathful than follow it.

Now add lying to your crimes, that you do your crimes in the name of God, and does that make it an example of Christ that you have said it? Does it make you a Christian to ignore Christ's teachings and kill, even though you call yourself a Christian? Are the homosexual pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood doing Jesus' good work? You judge the teachings of Jesus by the worst failings of those who say they follow him?

You can call yourself anything you want. You can even go through some mechanical motions, and fulfill some obligations, gain some credentials that make you seem a spokesman for his teachings — and then do nothing but subvert them by totally contradictory actions.

It doesn't fool me. I am surprised that it fools anyone such that they would try to blame the teachings of Christ for any of it, when the truth is that such things happen only by ignoring those teachings.

They happen because we are HUMANS, not because we are CHRISTIANS. If there were no Christianity, we would find some other reason to justify what we do.

[Tommy]

I cant believe it took you this long to comment on DMT Michael. Its extremely interesting stuff. Ive read the book and its a good one.

[Tommy]

Also be sure to read more about Ayahuasca. Many people have been cured from disease by drinking Ayahuasca. It may show them some scary imagery but it usually has a purpose in doing so.

[michael duggan]

Readers might find this website highly interesting:
http://www.brainwaving.com/

Lots of consciousness, expanded mind (psi) and psychedelic research. It is maintained by (among others) parapsychologist David Luke, a well respected researcher and lecturer based here in the UK. It has a political bias towards legalisation of drugs (a point I subscribe to) especially psychelics.

[Bruce Siegel]

"If we experienced a huge calamity in which our society was wiped out I would simply ride horses around and hunt and fish and chop wood for fire, sing and dance and play instruments for entertainment, pick mushrooms and brew my own beer. My life wouldn't change all that much."

Hey Erich‚ I like you! And, I have to say, envy you. What you described above is a wonderful position to be in. Few of us, I would venture to say, are able to feel that kind of security.

"Our progressive "niceness" is probably very superficial and vacant compared to the intense love and loyalty felt in tribal traditional societies."

Well said, realpc. One day I'd like to write a book, or at least an essay, on the myth of progress. Sure, progress happens in some respects—it's one of the things that makes life on this plane interesting. Growing a skill, or a garden, or even, perhaps, inventing something that makes life different, if not necessarily better.

I like to bring up vacuum cleaners in this regard. They were supposed to make life easier, but what actually happened—our standards for cleanliness increased! So we work just as hard because we now know what "real" cleanliness is.

I think we take for granted that progress exists in areas where it simply doesn't: is an adult a perfected child? Or have certain qualities of joy and spontaneity been forever lost?

Is a man more evolved than a guppy? How is it possible to know this without knowing what it FEELS like to be a guppy? Maybe the ecstasy experienced by your average guppy is completely unimaginable to a human. (Except, of course, to a child.)

[Michael Prescott]

"If we experienced a huge calamity in which our society was wiped out I would simply ride horses around and hunt and fish and chop wood for fire, sing and dance and play instruments for entertainment, pick mushrooms and brew my own beer. My life wouldn't change all that much."

It wouldn't change that much ... until hordes of starving suburbanites armed with handguns descended on your farm in a desperate quest for food.

We're all in this together, folks.

[Bruce Siegel]

Michael, thank you for discussing Hancock's book. I know the drift of the discussion hasn't exactly overjoyed you, but it's attracted—for my taste—a wonderful group and a marvelous conversation.

You and I have been at each other's throats at times—particularly in politically-slanted discussions—but I have great respect for your honest grappling with ideas that are not always comfortable to you.

I've seen you change your views, in some ways, as have I, and your willingness to do that is, in part, what keeps me coming back here.

Then, too, I have to admit that I enjoy playing devil's advocate. And you and I are different enough for me to have plenty of opportunity to do that here!

Yes—whatever it says about my psychological health, I do enjoy trying to get someone to see things "my way". And even as I write that, I realize what a silly notion it is.

Because if you agreed with me about everything, I'd no doubt be looking for another blog. :o)

[dmduncan]

"It wouldn't change that much ... until hordes of starving suburbanites armed with handguns descended on your farm in a desperate quest for food."

And if you don't have canned soup or Ramen noodles to share, guess whose going on the rotisserie?

[dmduncan]

Totally off topic, but I have to say: Firefly is available as instant streaming on Netflix.

I watched the whole series, and I loved it. I think it's Whedon's best work, and I love the strong libertarian theme of the show's premise.

[Cyrus]

Firefly was a great series so naturally Fox cancelled it

[Michael Prescott]

Finally something we can all agree on! I loved Firefly.

Joss Whedon needs to give up on broadcast TV and do a show for cable, where his quirky sensibilities will finally find a big enough audience.

[ten out of ten]

dmduncan,
I haven't been contributing, only reading other peoples comments, but that was an excellent post on Christianity. Excellent.

[Erich]

Hey Bruce "Hey Erich‚ I like you!" thanks and I like everyone here, even if I disagree with some of them some of time. This includes our host, who I too appreciate for his consistent open minded taking on of difficult topics (though I think he is suffering a bit of a conceptual block regarding psychedelic use).

Although a comment sometimes rubs me the wrong way, any perceived offensiveness is always minor. The level of discourse and civility here is vastly superior to what one generally finds on the internet

Stan, "There is actually a pretty interesting school of thought - I believe called "Spiral Dynamics" - which sort of theorizes about our innate abilities to survive and "regress" to survive in difficult circumstances - or a change in resources, etc."

Not familiar with the theory per se, but I don't doubt that what you're saying is true.

dmduncan, I think you are engaging in the "no true Scottsman" fallacy. If someone has been exposed to christianity all their lives, reads the bible, goes to church, prays to the god of the bible and proclames themselves to be christian, then I would say that they are christians.

Or we could ask how the message of christianity is so weak that after all of the exposure it would fail to penetrate peoples consciouncess to the point where they continue to do horrendous acts that are diamettrically opposed to the religion.

Either way, I am unimpressed by the influence of christianity on Europeans.

I think psychedelics have a more profound and lasting positive impact on people than institutionalized religions.

MP, "It wouldn't change that much ... until hordes of starving suburbanites armed with handguns descended on your farm in a desperate quest for food."

I was sort assuming that they'd be dead; killed in the calamity.
No matter. I've got bigger guns and so do my neighbors ;-)

[rick49]

This has been an eclectic, interesting thread. I look forward to continuing conversations with some very intelligent people. I resonate with Erich and Bruce's posts regarding psychedelics. And as one of the last draftees of the Vietnam era, I find Erich's comments that most acts of courage in combat are acts of love, not necessarily bravery per se, is true in my experience. In retrospect, a courageous act may appear brave but in most cases it was made out of love and sacrifice for his fellow grunts. Rage in combat, on the other hand, tends to get a man killed. The rage of combat is often experienced and reenacted psychologically in the perpetrator-victim-rescuer dynamics often seen in combat situations.We love seeing "our boys" rescuing children from a village that they just decimated after they have been ambushed and decimated themselves.
That dynamic is as alive today as it was 10,000 or 2,000 years ago---unfortunately.

Erich,
I do believe that there is a difference between people who understand the benefits of psychedelics and those that fear them and do not understand them. The former is not necessarily better than the latter, just different. How? Probably too long to post.

[Tharpa]

I'm surprised that no-one's discussed Johns Hopkins University's vetting of 'shrooms....Michael, have you checked this out? If so, what's your reaction? Does it mollify your dread? Anyway, you don't puke on mushrooms. And, again, any small risk is greatly overwhelmed by our deep need to shift paradigms, now.........

...........but that leads me to another question. Is it the province of the physical realms to evolve, it's destiny or charter per chance? Or is this pretty much the way it's 'meant' to be- messy, hard, separative? Do souls need the hard times found a-plenty here? Or is the suffering of this world unnecessary and thereby tragic? Is this world a type of 'fall', or is it a 'school' that- if the soul's agenda be known- wouldn't change a whit?

Most of the 'transcendent' style religion/paths, including Buddhism and much of Christianity, tend to see this world as fallen or mistaken in some profound sense, in the case of Christianity through original sin, and in Buddhism through mere ignorance.

But suppose this world is akin to a 'boot camp' for a soul's initiation? Some classes easy, some a total heartbreaking bitch, but all of it needed?

So, is Earth, fundementally, a Tragedy, or is is a School? Logically, I think those are the only two choices, and I'm starting to think School after a lifetime of Tragedy.........

[Art]

I vote School, and I think the bad things happen for a reason. The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory it creates. It may have to be the way it is to overcome the physics of the other side. Otherwise we may lose our sense of "separateness" if we don't experience lots of it here. (and I also think that because of those feelings of oneness and connectedness in Heaven that "all knowledge" may be shared on the other side.) Another words we don't live for just ourselves but for every soul that has ever, or will ever, live.

excerpt from Randy Gehling's (age 10) NDE:
"That was really cool! I kind of felt as though my body exploded - in a nice way - and became a million different atoms - and each single atom could think its own thoughts and have its own feelings. All at once I seemed to feel like I was a boy, a girl, a dog, a cat, a fish. Then I felt like I was an old man, an old woman - and then a little tiny baby."
http://near-death.com/experiences/animals04.html

[Michael Prescott]

"Michael, have you checked this out?"

No, I'm not aware of the Hopkins study, but if I get the time, I'll look into it.

"So, is Earth, fundamentally, a Tragedy, or is is a School?"

Charles Tart, the parapsychologist, has compared Earth to boot camp. It's a grueling ordeal in many ways, yet it builds character and makes you stronger. You're not supposed to enjoy boot camp, but neither is it a tragedy. It's a school of sorts, but a tough one that tests you on many levels.

I always thought that was a pretty good analogy.

[Bruce Siegel]

"So, is Earth, fundementally, a Tragedy, or is it a School?"

I like to think of it this way. We forget ourselves here. We lose track of who and what we really are. And the joy of remembering our true nature (when we die, or take a sacred substance, or at other moments) is so mind-blowingly wonderful, it makes the forgetting worthwhile.

[Michael Prescott]

I took a look at the press release describing the 2206 Johns Hopkins mushroom study. It contains a lot of interesting info. Excerpts:

====

All of the study’s authors caution about substantial risks of taking psilocybin under conditions not appropriately supervised. “Even in this study, where we greatly controlled conditions to minimize adverse effects, about a third of subjects reported significant fear, with some also reporting transient feelings of paranoia,” says [Dr. Roland] Griffiths. “Under unmonitored conditions, it’s not hard to imagine those emotions escalating to panic and dangerous behavior.”

The researchers’ message isn’t just that psilocybin can produce mystical experiences. “I had a healthy skepticism going into this,” says Griffiths, “and that finding alone was a surprise.” But, as important, he says, “is that, under very defined conditions, with careful preparation, you can safely and fairly reliably occasion what’s called a primary mystical experience that may lead to positive changes in a person. It’s an early step in what we hope will be a large body of scientific work that will ultimately help people.”...

In the study, more than 60 percent of subjects described the effects of psilocybin in ways that met criteria for a “full mystical experience” as measured by established psychological scales. One third said the experience was the single most spiritually significant of their lifetimes; and more than two-thirds rated it among their five most meaningful and spiritually significant. Griffiths says subjects liken it to the importance of the birth of their first child or the death of a parent.

Two months later, 79 percent of subjects reported moderately or greatly increased well-being or life satisfaction compared with those given a placebo at the same test session. A majority said their mood, attitudes and behaviors had changed for the better. Structured interviews with family members, friends and co-workers generally confirmed the subjects’ remarks....

Psychological tests and subjects’ own reports showed no harm to study participants, though some admitted extreme anxiety or other unpleasant effects in the hours following the psilocybin capsule. The drug has not been observed to be addictive or physically toxic in animal studies or human populations....

Source: http://alturl.com/hnu6

======

A follow-up stud showed that the beneficial effects lasted more than a year. Excerpts from a 2008 Hopkins press release:

=======

Writing in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, the Johns Hopkins
researchers note that most of the 36 volunteer subjects given psilocybin, under controlled conditions in a Hopkins study published in 2006, continued to say 14 months later that the experience increased their sense of well-being or life satisfaction.

"Most of the volunteers looked back on their experience up to 14 months later and rated it as the most, or one of the five most, personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives," says lead investigator Roland Griffiths, Ph.D. ...

"This is a truly remarkable finding," Griffiths says. "Rarely in psychological research do we see such persistently positive reports from a single event in the laboratory. This gives credence to the
claims that the mystical-type experiences some people have during hallucinogen sessions may help patients suffering from cancer-related anxiety or depression and may serve as a potential treatment for drug
dependence. We're eager to move ahead with that research."

Griffiths also notes that, "while some of our subjects reported strong fear or anxiety for a portion of their day-long psilocybin sessions, none reported any lingering harmful effects, and we didn't
observe any clinical evidence of harm."

The research team cautions that if hallucinogens are used in less well-supervised settings, the possible fear or anxiety responses could lead to harmful behaviors.

Source: http://alturl.com/n65t

=====

Also relevant to this discussion is William James' experiment with nitrous oxide, which he recounts here:

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/jnitrous.html

In another article James famously wrote, "I myself made some observations on ... nitrous oxide intoxication, and reported them in print. One conclusion was forced upon my mind at that time, and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different."

[Bruce Siegel]

Thanks for posting that, Michael! (And thank you, Tharpa, for bringing it up.) I read that article a while back, but had forgotten how truly impressive it is. I hope you read The Holotropic Mind because, in my view, he helps us to understand the how and the why of results like that.

[Michael Prescott]

I just made the comment into a separate post. (Why let all that work go to waste?)

I am reading "The Holotropic Mind" right now. I have some reservations about Grof's claim that his patients were actually recalling their time in the womb and their own births. He says they supplied verifiable details, but offers no documented cases. I have to wonder how carefully he checked out these claims. Still, the technique is interesting, and it seems to have afforded real relief from severe psychological problems for some patients.

[Stan]

A question I would have, is......do these experiences, which seem to emulate the power and significance of an NDE or other exceptional altered state we've discussed here at lenghth...negate a bit the value of some of the life changes and perspective shifts exhibited by many who've had an NDE.

Or OBE - or glimmer of something greater than this. (ordinary existence)

I say they may.....if brain states can be so deeply tied to life long changes in attitude - it may diminsh a bit, in my view, the power of some of the great mystical ones we attribute having an otherwordly quality.

I read the Sue Blackmore article - for example - last night on the blog link here shared by someone (a very interesting blog on plants/et al and spiritual transformation) and I couldn't help come away thinking she made some pretty cogent arguments that the DRUGS held the magic - not something altogether outside of ourselves.

FWIW - I've had my share of expereince with hallucinogens - not of the type or intention that some of the more adamant commenters here have shared - but as a college student - just experimenting - and can still remember - almost 20 years later - a few of the more magical moments. (one of which was, while watching a commercial - being scared to death that Count Chocula, was in fact a real vampire - in my room - and hoping that Boo Berry would not let him get to me..:-)

MDMA I've also had experience with as well - and it's hard to describe the love and connection you feel for other people - while under it's grasp. But I guess...to me - they all felt like DRUGGIE experiences - and contrived in retrospect - and maybe not spiritual or transcendent - simply because I realized this was me - and this was my brain on drugs - and not really much more than a whole lot of irresponsible fun at the time..:-)

(I understand others disagree)

[Art]

Stan, that connectedness and oneness thing is the "real" reality and the "separation" we experience in this physical life is the "unreal" reality. The majority of people have got it ass-backwards.

So what the drugs do is allow us to contact or make a connection with what is real. Have you read The Holographic Universe or read any of the online articles about it? It was a mind-blowing life altering experience for me.

This so called physical universe is actually just a holographic projection from someplace else, similar to the holodeck on Star Trek. Which means that everything that is "here" must be "there." The main difference between the physics of this side and the other side is that on the other side time and space do not exist. All the information is contained within the hologram and on the other side whatever we focus our attention on is what we will experience. We will feel like we are literally everywhere in the Universe at once. The other side is the holographic film from which this side derives it's reality. Or as the Eastern religions say, this side is Maya, an illusion, just a very temporary place we come to spend a brief amount of time to learn a few simple lessons, and then merge back into the Implicate Spiritual Universe. We are only here for a little while.

[Louise]

Very interesting, Stan. I haven't, and wouldn't, touch drugs, so can't truly make the comparison, but my feeling from reading your post is - yes, why fake it? I wouldn't trust an experience prompted by drugs. I'd rather my mind was (relatively, lol) clear and just let Spirit get through in its own time and way.

Ditto to what you said about others disagreeing, and I hope this doesn't come across as putting down anyone's experiences using whatever sort of drugs; horses for courses, it's just something I wouldn't trust.

[dmduncan]

"dmduncan, I think you are engaging in the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. If someone has been exposed to christianity all their lives, reads the bible, goes to church, prays to the god of the bible and proclames themselves to be christian, then I would say that they are christians."

No.

There is no such thing as a “true” Scotsman, and no behavioral guide that you must conform to, to call yourself one. Consequently, it is arbitrary to define the true Scotsmen as the ones whose behavior you approve of because you are a proud Scotsman who tolerates no ill thought of his own kin.

But Christianity is a series of beliefs that you can either conform or fail to conform to in your actions, and there is such a thing as a true Christian, or a better or worse Christian — however you put it doesn’t matter, so long as you understand that Jesus’ example is the lesson of Christianity.

It's not hard to learn what Jesus did to decide whether you are following or ignoring his examples. The measure is not what somnambulistic motions you go through — or how many people go through them with you while claiming to follow Christ — but how closely yours and their behavior reflects Christ's own examples.

“Or we could ask how the message of christianity is so weak that after all of the exposure it would fail to penetrate peoples consciouncess to the point where they continue to do horrendous acts that are diamettrically opposed to the religion.”

The message of Christianity is not weak, but strong. That’s why it’s still around after 2000 years, and despite overwhelming attempts, right now even, to obfuscate the message by whole schools of red herring. If by "weak" you mean that the message has no power to coerce one against one’s own determination to do wrong, that is correct. To do right must be your choice or it is an action without meaning, a rote piece of behavior.

We must decide, and in that freedom is opportunity. There is none without it.

[Stan]

Right, Louise - that's sort of where I fall as well.

For example - my sister is a relatively prominent psychiatrist in NYC. MDMA - has a pretty well documented history for helping people deal with trauma - grief - intimacy issues, etc.

She has not (or at least admitted to me:-) having tried it - but I have - and we've discussed some of the research into using it as a vehicle for healing.

(as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure some of the best research for this emanated from a few collegues of her's, and while it was controversial at the time - had facilitated the conversation between us)

I remember spending very emotionally intimate time with people I didn't know very well....and having very loving, very blissful experiences. (and a lot of fun to boot!)

But it simply always felt like the drugs. I never had a sense that there was a transformation or shift in my conciousness that was permanent or my wiring was somehow different.

The FEELINGS were all real at the time - and they were great experiences - but when I think back to them - I think - man those were good drugs!

Mushrooms and the like were different for me - but again - still in retrospect - feel trippy - and not transcendent or transformed as a result.

I guess I fall into the camp that believes - insofar as the NDE - I want to know why - how - what - who - I want all of the fact about what sort of played a role in the experience. (much like many here)

As soon as you introduce the idea of an outside influence in THOSE cases, or many other paranormal style experience.....lots of people here run for the hills with the skeptics. (and I'm jogging with them)

So when it comes to THESE experiences - I'm of the same mindset - it's a WOW that was cool sort of thing - but like Persingers god helmet - if it's got an earthly orgin, I tend to discount the ethereal elements of it altogether. I DO believe that these substances can have amazing theraputic benefits - and if you want to define spiritual in that regard - i.e. - healing - whole - and happy - they are spiritual experiences.

But they are brain based in my view - and that's not where I find the most intrigue in this arena. (hence - give me more Zerdini..:_)!)

[realpc]

"I read the Sue Blackmore article - for example - last night on the blog link here shared by someone (a very interesting blog on plants/et al and spiritual transformation) and I couldn't help come away thinking she made some pretty cogent arguments that the DRUGS held the magic - not something altogether outside of ourselves."

No one has ever even begun to explain how drugs influence the mind. Susan Blackmore simply makes things up that agree with materialist ideology. She is merely a spokesperson for an ideological group.

They decided that in order to be scientific, you have to be a materialist. They start with the belief system, and then try to squeeze the facts to fit.

I have never seen a convincing argument by Susan Blackmore. How could she possibly describe how putting chemicals into the brain creates altered states of consciousness and hallucinations?

Materialists say that would be the simplest explanation. But what is simple about and "explanation" that doesn't even try to explain?

There are coherent, scientific non-materialist theories that are much simpler and more plausible.

[dmduncan]

MP, I don't watch much TV because I just don't expect that anything I see on it is going to be that good, so when I started watching Firefly a couple weeks ago I was surprised at how excellent it was, and I was heartbroken that such a great show with such great characters and great dialogue and stories barely made it a season on network TV.

And the chemistry between that whole set of actors was fantastic. Such good fortune to get that cast into the roles of those characters.

Joss Whedon is now on Twitter, but he apparently doesn't Twitter much. I am not, er, was not, on Twitter. I was so impressed with Firefly that I signed up exclusively to tell him what I thought of that show. I thought he should know.

If anyone else wants to express their appreciation:

http://twitter.com/josswhedon

[Michael Prescott]

Unfortunately I can't recall where I found this, but somewhere I read a comparison between drug-induced (or drug-facilitated) "enlightenment" experiences and spontaneous "enlightenment" experiences. A certain person had undergone both, at different times, and was able to compare and contrast. As I recall, he said that the spontaneous experience was far more real and life-changing, and that the psychedelic experience was more artificial, though still powerful.

Wish I could remember the source, but I have no idea what it was. It may have been a discussion of Bucke's theory of cosmic consciousness.

[Michael Prescott]

Okay, here we go. This is a first-person comparison of both types of experience:

http://alturl.com/yosz

I'm not sure if this is what I read or not, but it addresses the issue anyway.

[Michael Prescott]

DMDuncan, I'm glad you like Firefly. Fox really screwed up with that series. Originally they didn't even air the two-hour pilot, because they didn't like it. That pilot, which finally aired after the series had been officially canceled, was two of the best hours of TV I've ever seen.

I've been a Whedon fan since the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" series. Especially in its first three seasons, that show was a remarkable mix of smart writing, fun characters, a strong ensemble cast, and interesting themes. It lost some steam in its sixth and seventh seasons but was very watchable right up to the end.

Even "Dollhouse," Whedon's latest show, had its moments, though it never completely worked for me. The only Whedon production I haven't gotten into is his musical-comedy Webcast starring Neil Patrick Harris. It was a hit, but from what little I've seen of it, I just don't get it.

[dmduncan]

"A certain person had undergone both, at different times, and was able to compare and contrast. As I recall, he said that the spontaneous experience was far more real and life-changing, and that the psychedelic experience was more artificial, though still powerful."

Makes sense. If your so called "enlightenment is a temporary effect produced by a drug, then the enlightenment should wear off with the drug, vs. being the persistent effect of a lived in state of mind independent of the use of a drug.

We might even view the rogue use of psychedelics, outside the value of their ritual use in tribal contexts, as another way in which the desire for instant gratification also reaches for instant "spirituality."

It's easier than meditating under a tree for 40 days, that's for sure.

[dmduncan]

"DMDuncan, I'm glad you like Firefly. Fox really screwed up with that series."

Hell yeah they did. I didn't know that about the pilot! I watched the entire series in sequence, starting with the pilot, and finishing with Serenity, which was brilliant.

I had seen Serenity in theaters without ever seeing an episode of Firefly. Seeing it again AFTER watching the series and understanding all the characters and their back stories made Serenity much more powerful the second time around.

I also liked Buffy, but not as much as Firefly. I caught Buffy when I could, and enjoyed it when I did. Firefly I just can't rave highly enough about.

As for Dollhouse. I finally got around to watching an episode on fox.com via the internet. I enjoyed it, but I should have been tipped off by the title, "Epitaph," that the first episode I was watching was actually the series finale! Doh! Does it pay to watch it from the beginning now?

I wish Whedon would shoot for getting Firefly back in action, on cable or syfy, if need be. The premise and ensemble of that show is too good to forget about. One season and a movie isn't enough.

[Greg]

Hi MP,

One occasion of mediumship which certainly seemed malign was the case of Indridi Indridason. I think Haraldsson's article on the case is floating around the 'net somewhere.

On the 'difficulties' of psychedelics. Certainly, I think there are psychological dangers attached to usage of psychedelics, and people need to be very wary. On the other hand, avoiding them just because they are a 'harsh' experience is akin to avoiding work because it is harsh. Sometimes, you have to suffer to learn (a point which you echoed in this thread when quoting Tart on Earth being 'bootcamp'). Shamans are ripped apart and then reassembled - this is a good metaphor for the psychedelic experience. You have to be willing (and psychologically able) to have many of your beliefs about yourself (often the ego-centric ones) shattered, and then rebuild yourself.

Salvia divinorum has completely squashed my ego and provided one of the most terrifying experiences of my life - but I've also had one of the more profound learning experiences of my life under its effect. I also appreciate much more how people with psychological illness live.

DMT hasn't provided much of a learning experience for me, apart from the eyes-wide-open awe of glimpsing either an alternate reality, the actual reality, or an amazingly realistic hallucination of reality. ;)

Mushrooms have shown me how jaded my eyes have become over time. Under the effects of shrooms I have been able to notice the pure wonder of the world. I spent 3 hours in nature almost crying at the beauty of a flower.

[Tharpa]

Anyone, at any level or stage of development, can go into an altered state of consciousness, including very 'high' ones.

But states are temporary, and prone to be interpreted by the stage of the experiencer. For example, a person at a mythic/membership stage of development in a high altered state might have a vision of Oneness as Jesus, and believe that image to be the 'only way'..........

Whereas stages are permanent........ once you've seen through fundamentalism, you don't go back, just like you don't start believing in Santa Claus again.

Psychedelics can't get you to a higher stage, but can point out their existence to some extent.

Check out Spiral Dynamics for more of this kind of thing...

[dmduncan]

"I spent 3 hours in nature almost crying at the beauty of a flower."

I hope that's not on YouTube.

[Louise]

"But it simply always felt like the drugs. I never had a sense that there was a transformation or shift in my conciousness that was permanent or my wiring was somehow different."

Stan, that just put me in mind of what I felt like the few times I had enough alcohol - we're talking two or three glasses of Spatlese Lexia here - to behave differently. I didn't like it one little bit. Oh, sure, laughing and being silly at a party is all very well, but even at the time I could feel I am not behaving normally, I am not fully in control of myself. Now that sounds like I'm a control freak, which isn't the case, but surrendering my self-control to a substance like that was, especially in retrospect, creepy. The thought of doing it with something as powerful as psychotropic drugs ... brrr, no thanks.

Anyway I'm lucky enough to have learned how to let Spirit contact me, or at least, the few residents of it I really want to hear from. And I doubt I could channel his writing coherently if I was tripping on anything other than the excitement of hearing his words! :)

[Zerdini]

Why does one need psychotropic drugs when alcohol can induce an altered state of consciousness?

[Erich]

Zerdini, there is no comparison between psychedelics and alcohol; no similarity at all.

[Zerdini]

Erich, maybe not for you but alcohol can cause vomiting, diarrhoea and other unpleasant side-effects. Others can become happy, others aggressive, others just sleepy.

I'm not advocating alcohol neither am I advocating mushrooms. To each his own.

[Sandy]

For me, even small amounts of alcohol can have a really big effect. Everybody is different. In my case, I have problems with pk even more than usual if I drink. The last time I just had a glass of beer, the lights in my hotel room kept flickering and there were loud tapping noises coming from the walls. It makes talking to ghosts really difficult too. I can still see them but I can't communicate very well. Mind you, I can't communicate very well with living people when I drink either.

[Paul]

Sandy you should know that mixing your spirits is bad for you :)

[rickpetes]

Interesting, is somewhat repetetive. I agree to varying degrees w/ several of you. I don't feel the need to address the many points and counterpoints presented in this thread. I will offer a 'strawman' on what nirvana, experiencing oneness with the universe, is.

Nirvana/Oneness is the mind acheiving the state of quantum superposition - that point where it is pure potential - hence everything. The mind becomes as a qubit, all 'potential' - to be/experience/know everything, until it expereinces quantum wave collapse, at which point it is reduced to a single experiential reality.

Whether psychotropic drugs can knock your mind/consciouness into a state of quantum superposition is an open question which I continue to explore.

As for the very real hellish trips? Who the hell "promised you a rose garden" of an experience?

If you acheive a state of quantum superposition, all experiences will be there by definition. Short of that, you would be experiencing an 'aspect' of the infinite and not the infinite. Those aspects can cut either way.

[Louise]

Paul - Argh! :D

[Sandy]

Paul, after I read your comment I laughed so hard a light bulb went poof in here. Now I have to go change it before my husband starts to complain about the "#$%@# lights" again.

[Louise]

LOL Sandy! Sounds like you need a sort of lead helmet thingy to protect the room!

[Paul]

lol - apologies to all :)

[Sandy]

Lovely idea, Louise, but my husband already thinks things are a bit nuts around here. I don't think Hubby would be amused if he came home to find me wearing a tin foil hat.

[Erich]

Zerdini, "Erich, maybe not for you but alcohol can cause vomiting, diarrhoea and other unpleasant side-effects. Others can become happy, others aggressive, others just sleepy."

Oh, I've over done it once or twice in my day and experienced all of the above.

But geez talk about focussing on the negative.

[Louise]

Sandy, the look on your husband's face if he walked in and you had a helmet on, would probably be priceless! :D