This is your brain on drugs

I realize that a single case doesn't prove much, but this horrifying and ghastly news story may help explain why I still look askance at hallucinogenic drugs, even if they do, in some cases, have mind-expanding properties.

In northern California an American "cage fighter" allegedly took some tea brewed from psychedelic mushrooms and then became convinced that his roommate was possessed by the devil. The results were not pretty.

Warning: extremely graphic content.

A more detailed and somewhat less sensationalistic account is found here.

I'm not saying that properly supervised experimentation with psychedelics in controlled circumstances is necessarily a bad idea, but clearly there are potentially grave dangers associated with casual use. Like, for instance, having your tongue cut out, your face ripped off, and your beating heart excised from your chest ...

The story does make me wonder if psychedelics played a role in the sacrifices conducted by Aztec priests. The extraction of the victim's heart was a notable feature of these rituals.

Comments

[Sandy]

There is a huge difference between medically supervised testing of psychedelics and a bunch of dummies getting stoned for kicks.

However one tries to have "experiences", through drugs, meditation or using electromagnetic stimulation, there has to be some respect for the whole process. It isn't just about instantly feeling good. Transformation isn't always an easy thing. Just ask NDErs.

[MatthewX78]

I think Psychedelics can amplify any experience. This guy was probably already a bit nuts and the psychedelics amplified that that part of himself.

I will say that I can do remote viewing and have an out of body experience 100's easier on pot than naturally. The only time I had a really lucid and visual O.B.E. was when I was 15 and high. I had no idea what an O.B.E. was so I thought I died and was scared &h!tless.

[Sam]

Yeah no doubt this guy already must have had some pretty bad mental problems that were exacerbated by the use of psychedelics. This is an extremely atypical reaction. Indeed it is a ghastly story, though.

[Kevin]

Wow, is that story disturbing.

When I was in college, I smoked pot several times. The first several experiences didn't result in much of anything. Then, the final three times I tried it, I had extremely powerful experiences. During the first of those final three times, I had an OBE where I exited the roof of my fraternity house and could see the shingles on the roof. I saw "beings of light" hovering in the air above me and then was filled with a great appreciation for life and for all things. I was also suddenly "aware" that all things were working toward perfection and that, despite whatever appearances to the contrary, all things were going to work out. I just remember being filled with joy to be alive and a great love and admiration for everything. It was as though I were seeing reality for what it was, as though it had been obscured from me before then. That feeling lasted maybe 24 hours.

Then, the final two times I tried it were horrible. I hallucinated, was overcome with paranoia, felt I was being erased. I couldn't control my thought processes. It was essentially a drug-induced panic attack with many elements of a psychotic break. I suppose the proper jargon would be a "brief psychotic episode." I saw helicopters chasing me in the air, ATVs racing down dirt roads toward me, at one point I lept into a bush and got scrapes all over me. I heard voices. The final experience was very similar in terms of the fear, but was devoid of the hallucinations and psychotic elements.

So many people have argued to me that the pot must have been laced with something, that it was something other than pot, or any other number of explanations. I know this isn't so, because there were MANY others who did it with me at the same time, who only got tired and ate a bunch of Doritos.

The variable that people do not take into account when trying drugs is that ANY substance interacts with the unique makeup of the individual taking it. Though we are all very similar in many respects, we also share many differences. NO drug is completely safe for all people. Pot is no exception. I wonder how *I* might react on mushroom tea. If pot could affect me the way it did, then I imagine I could have engaged in very similar actions as the cage fighter in this article.

It is a terrible atrocity that happened in this story. I feel horrible for everyone involved. What a tragedy.

[Sandy]

As a teenager, my parents warned me about pot, telling me that my aunt had had such a severe allergic reaction to it that she had to be rushed to a hospital in anaphylactic shock. I thought this was just a made up story to scare me and keep me from experimenting with drugs. I had little interest in trying pot anyway. I was attending art school and half my professors came to class stoned on various things. It seemed like something old people did to make themselves look silly. So I paid no attention to the warning from my parents.

I eventually ended up going to a party at university where people were smoking pot. I didn't even try it. Just being around it gave me hives and I had to be rushed to an emergency ward for a shot of benadryl. I think my boyfriend told the doctor I was reacting to red wine (which I'm just as allergic to) so we wouldn't get into trouble.

Drugs can react to different individuals in different ways. Many members of my family can't tolerate codeine or even aspirin very well. That's why people need to use appropriate cautions.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I realize that a single case doesn't prove much"

Exactly. The fact is, people WILL use mind-altering substances, as a glance at history and cultures around the world will show. It speaks to our need to "change our minds" and see ourselves and our world from a variety of perspectives.

However— the specific substances we use fall in and out of favor.

At this particular place and time, the "official" judgement is that psychedelics are to be outlawed because they are dangerous, whereas alcohol is legal because . . . . well, you'll have to remind me why alcohol is legal.

You can pick out one bizarre story like the one Michael linked to today. But wouldn't it be a lot easier to point to countless stories of people acting violently, to one degree or another, under the influence of alcohol? Or lives and bodies ruined from the effects of alcohol abuse?

[Mark Alexander]

I took about 100 heavy-duty LSD trips between the ages of 19-21. I was lucky because the source was a UC Davis chemist, so the drug was pure, not cut with strychnine and other contaminants.

Essentially, LSD opens the veil into the lower Astral plane so that you can leave your body and participate in Astral awareness. It does not give you access to the higher Causal, Mental, Etheric or Soul planes.

All that you believe or imagine manifests. You can look at a blank white wall and craft the most amazing experiences out of nothing. All of your senses can be manipulated and you can experience crossover (smelling colors, seeing music, tasting touches). Initially, people don't realize that they are creating their sensory reality. If they are afraid, everything becomes ominous. If they are joyful, all is joyful.

You can also be psychically aware and be a perfect driver. You can bring all your perceptions into perfect perception, drive down the road being a perfect driver, knowing what everyone will do.

This only can happen when you know how to take full accountability for and control of the experience. Reality reflects your consciousness in particular ways, requiring right discrimination.

Time is measured in centuries and experiences are beyond most people's imagination. Timothy Leary did a fairly good job of trying to describe what listening to music is like: "The first note is played, and you orbit around that note for a hundred years. And then the second note is played and you orbit around both notes for another hundred years, noting all of the harmonies and discords, and reflecting on the history of music."

But in the end, drugs are like spelunking. Yes, you can go down into the cave and see amazing things...in the cave...but you end up always being in the same cave and relying on others to provide the go-between drug to get you there.

After a while, you decide that there has to be something better, something more natural, something that does not depend on a drug, a way to get into these higher states naturally.

I looked and found something that has worked for me for over 35 years. I have direct personal experiences without drugs with higher worlds, past lives, and soul travel on planes beyond the mere Astral.

So far, so good. I just can't prove it to anyone. Which is fine since I gave up being one of Jehovah's Witnesses when I was 15 years old.

:-)

[F.D.]

"Essentially, LSD opens the veil into the lower Astral plane so that you can leave your body and participate in Astral awareness. It does not give you access to the higher Causal, Mental, Etheric or Soul planes."

I LOVE the irony that this is immediately followed with....

"All that you believe or imagine manifests."

:-)

[Bruce Siegel]

"I looked and found something that has worked for me for over 35 years."

Very interesting post, Mark. Would you care to say more about your current approach?

[Mark Alexander]

FD says: "I LOVE the irony that this is immediately followed with....

"All that you believe or imagine manifests."

This is what the Astral plane provides. If you don't have direct experience, see the movie What Dreams May Come. It's a fairly accurate representation.

[Mark Alexander]

Bruce, I'm a long-time member of Eckankar (eckankar.org)

It's the kind of thing that, if it's for you, you will know it. Nobody can talk you into it. You are expected to test it for yourself. For membership, you are required to undergo two years of formal study before choosing next steps. They want you to prove it's real before making any spiritual commitments.

They have some spiritual exercises you can try at home for direct personal experience. Try it and see if it works. You don't have to be a member to practice HU and other aspects of it.

After 35 years, all I can say is that it has delivered far more than I had a right to expect. Some challenging, some completely shocking and surprising (especially past lives...I used to want to know, and now I say, Only if I have to), but in the end, the amount of divine love in my life has increased beyond what I thought possible.

Oh, and in 1976, membership was $120 per. Today it's $130 per year. If money is their goal, they missed the memo. :-)

[Michael Prescott]

"you'll have to remind me why alcohol is legal."

I think one key difference between alcohol and psychedelics is that you can ingest a moderate amount of alcohol and not get drunk. Psychedelics don't seem to lend themselves to moderate or "social" use. Their whole purpose is to bring on hallucinations (however these are understood), while alcohol doesn't produce hallucinations except in the most extreme doses.

[Roger Knights]

Sounds more like "This is your brawn on drugs"!

[Tharpa]

It's too bad that stories like this may very well scare many people away from the profound learning experience that mushrooms and the like can provide. There's such an inherent bias against hallucinogenic substances for the very same reason that they are helpful to many: they challenge the ego and give a glimpse beyond many of its limitations.

I've said this before and I'll say it again- we as a species need to use every avenue of learning and fast track to evolution we can muster. This poor guy was obviously unstable; the mushrooms were no more responsible in this tragedy than a Ford pickup in a D.U.I. wreck.

Mushrooms and their like are not for everybody. But they're such a powerful and safe tool when used wisely that the bigger tragedy here is in the danger that they will continue to be tarred with an irrational taboo on a planet endangered by the very elements that the responsible use of hallucinogenics can themselves very well help remedy- alienation from our own souls, nature, and the beauty and power of our hearts.

[dmduncan]

Off topic: MP, There's a well made documentary on Netflix instant streaming called IOUSA. If you watch it, keep in mind that it was made before Obama took office. So some of those charts in the movie would actually look much worse NOW.

[Louise]

Hmm, Mark, if LSD opens a door only to the lower astral, that sounds like as good a reason as any not to touch it. Who wants to get off the train in a dodgy neighbourhood? ;)

[Bruce Siegel]

"I think one key difference between alcohol and psychedelics is that you can ingest a moderate amount of alcohol and not get drunk. Psychedelics don't seem to lend themselves to moderate or "social" use."

Clearly, whether you're taking alcohol or some sort of psychedelic, you need to know how much to ingest for the kind of experience you're looking for. And I don't see any evidence that drinkers are more responsible or disciplined than psychedelics users.

Some clues though, would be to look at how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year. And since we began this thread by discussing violence, did you ever hear of a "hallucinogenic brawl?"

As to psychedelics not being conducive to social interaction, tell that to the people at a rave, or to the 400,000 people who were at Woodstock. I've heard rumors that there was a bit of LSD on the premises and that those hippies somehow found ways to enjoy each other's company. :o)

I think Tharpa made an insightful comment as to our current situation:"There's such an inherent bias against hallucinogenic substances for the very same reason that they are helpful to many: they challenge the ego and give a glimpse beyond many of its limitations".

And by extension, they're anti-consumerism. Because psychedelics often lead people to question their materialistic values, users are less likely to buy fancy cars and tooth-whiteners. Corporations don't like that. They'd rather have you drink.

"Bruce, I'm a long-time member of Eckankar (eckankar.org)"

Thanks, Mark. I've heard of that group before, and maybe this is a good time to look more closely at what they have to offer. My own meditation routine is getting a bit stale, methinks.

[Michael Prescott]

"Clearly, whether you're taking alcohol or some sort of psychedelic, you need to know how much to ingest for the kind of experience you're looking for. And I don't see any evidence that drinkers are more responsible or disciplined than psychedelics users."

But isn't the whole point of taking psychedelics to induce a hallucinatory experience? After all, you can have a single glass of wine or a single cocktail and feel only marginal effects. Most people drink socially just for a slight feeling of relaxation.

The sheer power of hallucinogens is what makes them different from a glass of beer. It's like the difference between owning a handgun and owning a howitzer. Handguns can cause a lot of harm, but they can also be used for legitimate purposes. A howitzer can be used only for massive destruction.

Or to take a different example, it's the difference between drinking coffee and taking amphetamines. Or between driving two miles per hour over the speed limit and driving forty miles per hour over the speed limit. It's a question of degree, in other words.

Thats why I don't think it's a good argument to say that other substances (alcohol, caffeine, etc.) have effects on the body too. In moderation, as most people use these products, the effects are inconsequential. But even a single small dose of a hallucinogen can cause devastating effects, as the linked articles indicate.

And while I know it will mark me as a philistine in some people's eyes, I have to say that I think it is best if psychedelics remain illegal. To my way of thinking, the dangers greatly outweigh any possible gains.

[Roger Knights]

Who knows but that even greater evils might be laid at the feet of such trusted home remedies as Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound? (Lizzie Borden's rampage, mayhap?)

The Native American Church hasn't cut out any hearts, AFAIK. Set and Setting accounts for the difference. Those could be socially controlled, if society were to grasp the nettle.

[Louise]

I agree with you, Michael.

[Bruce Siegel]

"But isn't the whole point of taking psychedelics to induce a hallucinatory experience?"

Not necessarily, Michael. Some of my most memorable experiences involved small doses, and were accompanied by either no hallucinations whatsoever, or just a trace at the very start, where I would see colored patterns.

Admittedly, plants, trees, clouds, and people often looked preternaturally beautiful. But my sense was not that I was hallucinating, but that I was finally seeing the world as it really is.

I've got a wonderful book to recommend. It's by Andrew Weil, written long before he became a famous healthy-lifestyle guru. The book is called The Natural Mind, and it does a marvelous job of putting drug use into its largest context. Quite simply, it's one of the sanest, most delightful books I've ever read on any subject.

And just in case you think it puts forth a one-sided, pro-drug, viewpoint, here's a quote from it:

"It is easy to see why authorities like college administrators get upset at the thought of young people turning on with chemicals; it is more interesting and much more important to try to understand why exponents of systems that value alteration of consciousness (like yoga and Buddhism) take similar positions."

I just went over to Amazon to see if it's still available, and found this great quote from one of the reviewers. I know you'll like the second half of this sentence, Michael, even if you don't care for the first!

"As Weil states in the book, contemporary society doesn't have a drug problem so much as it has a consciousness problem, one exacerbated by the increasing use of rational thought as the exclusively legitimate path to knowing and understanding ourselves as well as the world around us."

[Tharpa]

Hey Michael- respectfully, your argument is like wanting to make flying illegal. After all, one has no control, and when one of those babies comes down, it's messy! All the while never thinking twice driving around with all those texting fools at 80 MPH, and statistics be damned.

And actually, one can benefit from a low dose of mushrooms, it's not all or nothing as you state. But, most people don't drive 25 on the interstate. Maybe we should have a law to that effect!

To be intellectually consistent, you'd have to ban all drugs- even many that according to Johns Hopkins, have far less helpful effects, like SSRIs especially.

Hallucinogenics have been used safely and productively for thousands of years, and may even play a key part in our evolution (see Graham Hancock's 'Supernatural, a great read!)

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks for the recommendation, Bruce. I may look into it, but right now I still have Rick Strassman's book to read.

I know I would never take these chemicals myself. I didn't even enjoy my one experiment (in college) with marijuana. I didn't like the feeling that I had "lost control." And the idea of using harder drugs like cocaine or heroin has always produced a visceral negative reaction in me.

Maybe in a past life I was an opium fiend ...

[Michael Prescott]

"your argument is like wanting to make flying illegal"

Not at all. Flying is a good example that helps make my point. To fly a plane, you need a pilot's license and many hours of training. The bigger the plane, the more training is required. A commercial pilot's license is much harder to obtain than a license to pilot a single-engine plane.

The more potentially dangerous an activity, the more hurdles you must clear in order to pursue it. If ingestion of psychedelics is potentially very dangerous, then the hurdles will be considerable.

Society always involves a trade-off between individual freedom and community safety. I may think I have the freedom to build a nuclear bomb in my basement, but my neighbors are likely to disagree.

The libertarian/anarchist argument - that we can do whatever we want on our own property or with our bodies - ignores the fact that our behavior has an effect on other people. The social contract requires us to give up certain freedoms in order to live in a community. The more complex and crowded the community becomes, the more compromises we must make.

[Mark Alexander]

I was lucky in my LSD experiences in that I figured it out early on my own. Most people do not have that luxury. I do not advocate psychedelic use without proper training. I do not necessarily subscribe to the idea that I "needed" those experiences. I think I created much karma in the process.

As far as lower Astral goes, yes, it's best to have a knowing protector when you go. I was lucky that I had one, but I didn't know it. I suspect most people don't. And that can be dangerous. The lower Astral is full of..."interesting" characters, just like the lower places in our world.

[sonic]

Recently I got a call from a friend of mine who wanted me to help him. He had taken some LSD and was having a bad trip. I went to help him and was able to bring him into a more comfortable/normal state.
I have done this sort of thing too many times.
If the drugs were legal, it would be possible to ensure quality and license people/places as proper settings. This might produce fewer negative incidents.
On the other hand, legalization might increase availability and use in less appropriate situations. (Let's drop some acid and see how fast the car will go...)
One problem- magic mushrooms don't care about our laws- they grow where they grow (and peyote, San Pedro cactus...fill the bill too).
Regardless, I would agree that 'I'm not going to take that stuff' is a reasonable personal position.

[michael duggan]

Must we be too concerned that somebody who probably can't write his own name reacted badly?

I have had some pretty amazing experiences on drugs. They are safe as long as taken safely and in the company of close friends who watch out for each other. I didn't listen to the scare stories. 14 years or so later, I am still here and thankful for the experiences.

[dmduncan]

"The libertarian/anarchist argument - that we can do whatever we want on our own property or with our bodies - ignores the fact that our behavior has an effect on other people."

And to the extent that it does — like driving drunk — then the government has an interest in regulating or punishing that behavior as per the government's legitimate function to protect the public. And to the extent that what we do does NOT harm others then it's none of the government's business, or the neighbor's. Hence, it's not illegal to drink, but it's illegal to drink and then to drive.

People also drink before committing crimes or murdering others, but we don't blame the alcohol. Also, some people do things just as savage, if not as bizarre, while under the influence of nothing but their own twisted emotions.

There simply is NOT always some convenient thing to blame that we can invoke the government to stop to make us all "safer." This is a dangerous delusion.

Does anyone really want to increase the government's power to interfere in our lives based on the fears of a few people? Shouldn't there be some demonstrable hazard before we pass a law that will make us safe from the monster? And were this the standard — a standard of reasonableness in legislating — how many of our laws would be stricken down immediately based as they are on the horrendous misunderstanding of some issue by dimwitted ill informed politicians responding to the dangers of purely imaginary monsters some weepy moms on Capitol Hill are pressuring them to recognize?

Given the number of deeply disturbing trends I see, I will now err on the side of accepting more danger rather than government imposed safety.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[william]

“The more potentially dangerous an activity, the more hurdles you must clear in order to pursue it”

This is a good case for more effective government regulations of the drilling of oil wells. The deregulation craze that hit America 30 years ago is coming home to roost. I think what voters really want is effective government, which is lacking so they thought the private sector could do better. Well some things they can do better but ignorance is ignorance and it exists in government and the private sector alike. The culprit is always ignorance with few if any exceptions.

The purer the form of communism, socialism, capitalism, and libertarianism; the faster that nation’s self-destruction in wealth and moral values. Economic and political strategies must be aligned with what might be referred to as spiritual or universal laws of love and divine intelligence. The better the alignment the healthier the outcome.

How do we learn these laws or principles? Two ways? Through the wisdom of others, which is rare, as countries tend to make the same mistakes that others countries have made in history or we learn these lessons by our own suffering as a nation or as individuals. Most nations as do individuals choose suffering.

What would life be like as a soul or as a soul having a human experience without our unawareness of these laws or principles and we had perfect realization of all things? There would only be Isness not “individualized” souls. We owe our personalized identity with our perception of being separate from all others to our ignorance or better stated to our unawareness.

“The libertarian/anarchist argument - that we can do whatever we want on our own property or with our bodies - ignores the fact that our behavior has an effect on other people. The social contract requires us to give up certain freedoms in order to live in a community. The more complex and crowded the community becomes, the more compromises we must make.”

Because there are new souls coming onto the scene all the time those compromises can become very difficult to make. Wars are fought for many reasons; the most obvious is selfishness but also the inability to make those compromises, which might also may have their home in that selfishness. Now we might ask what is the origin of that selfishness?

“Given the number of deeply disturbing trends I see, I will now err on the side of accepting more danger rather than government imposed safety.”

This most likely is a statement that will made by many not living on the gulf coast and most of those people did not want government regulations in their state. This oil disaster may change their minds. Or not. Again voters want effective government, which they feel they see little of that out of Washington. Politicians are only a reflection of the voters; how is that for a scary thought.

[Bruce Siegel]

"Thanks, but no thanks."

Excellent DM. That all needed to be said and you said it well.

[dmduncan]

"This most likely is a statement that will made by many not living on the gulf coast and most of those people did not want government regulations in their state."

Excuse me? The government DOES have a legitimate role to protect people from real dangers such as the oil spill is.

But if there's oil seeping into marshes and destroying wildlife and sea based livelihoods, I certainly wouldn't be giving the government a kudos on a job well done!

The BP leak is a glaring and continuous reminder of government incompetence even in areas where it has a legitimate role to play.

Of course, BP WAS one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors, and if Obama didn't look too closely at what BP was doing because of that, it wouldn't really be surprising.

[Ally Eden]

I agree with Michael P.

Libertarian/Anarchist are really selfcentered individuals that remind me of a spoiled child. "I can do it because I can".

They are short minded and its all about me attitude. Others eagerly jump on their band wagon to flaunt their finger at the *law* Its ok for an individual to do cocain or hallucergenic drugs in the privacy of their homes because its their own privacy and no body,s business. Well I have news for them, THeir is a law against it called 'Concealment'. And to think that its ok for some and not others to break the law is right? Or fair? If there were enough of this kind of action don,t you think that breaks down the very security and reasons these laws are placed there for the well being of the society as a whole. I certainly wouldn,t want to live next door to any party who does drugs I don,t care how smart and in control they deem themselves to be. Mind altering drugs might be experimented on only in a lab with people who are trained to know the extent of the influence by observation as in full control of the situation, so as to research a conteractive withdrawel for the loonies who think they can cut it. eduated smartasses and all I include I stand by Michael,s sound mind and judgment on this one.

[william]

“how many of our laws would be stricken down immediately based as they are on the horrendous misunderstanding of some issue by dimwitted ill informed politicians responding to the dangers of purely imaginary monsters some weepy moms on Capitol Hill are pressuring them to recognize?”

Nothing sexist about this weepy moms statement right? Many of those so called weepy moms have lost children to drunk drivers so they created an organization for more regulations to try and stop drunk drivers. Since I have been hit three times by a drunk driver these laws are near and dear to me. Spend a year in a cast then see how you feel about the gov getting involved in regulations as to driving and drinking.

Your personal freedoms end when it harms others. Smoking used to be a hot topic for personal freedoms as those that smoked claimed they could smoke anywhere they wanted, as it was their constitutional right as an American to do so. It took more than 50% of Americans to not smoke before we saw nonsmoking laws start to come into effect.

This is the role of experiences it teaches us we are not separate beings but connected beings. And to wait for a hazard to occur and then regulate is like waiting for your child to get hit by a car for playing in the street then close the gate to your yard. And please don’t use the common sense excuse it does not exist contrary to popular opinion.

“Given the number of deeply disturbing trends I see, I will now err on the side of accepting more danger rather than government imposed safety.”

Bet most of the folks on the gulf felt this very same way only a few months ago.

This I will now err on the side of accepting more danger is because you have yet to be harmed by a danger that may have been prevented by some form of regulation. This reminds me of a friend that did not believe in gov run health care but got caught in a pre existing condition now he owes 95,000 dollars and the bill is climbing daily.

“The BP leak is a glaring and continuous reminder of government incompetence even in areas where it has a legitimate role to play.”

Then your concern is everyone’s concern about government incompetence but eliminating regulations and leaving it to the private sector will not solve the incompetence. The culprit is incompetence, which is based always ignorance. Government incompetence is a reflection of its voter’s competency. Until Americans and indeed all republics come to realize this little will improve in America.

That government incompetence (mentality) that did not regulate effectively is the same corporate incompetence (mentality) that caused the oil leak.

[Louise]

Well put, William. Same thing happens here in Australia - one minute people are whining about a "nanny state," next minute something horrible has happened to THEM instead of someone else, and they're screaming that "the government should have done something."

On the topic of drugs for opening the mind, seeing things "as they are," having spiritual experiences and so on - I have neither tried it nor read about it, so this is purely a gut reaction, but my feelings are that I simply wouldn't trust the veracity of such an experience. It's quite enough for me to sort the real communications I have from what might be my own passing thoughts. No way would I trust the results of taking something that messes with the brain. Makes me think of how people have too much to drink at a party and think they're being incredibly witty ... and then look back on it when they've sobered up ... oh dear! :)

[Tharpa]

Well, interesting mix of reactions here. Truth on all sides......... the question really boils down to who knows best? How do we find a good middle way between government/collective control and individual rights? There's no easy answer.

But those who feel hallucinogenics need to be made or kept illegal are arguing from ignorance- either that or they feel that anything that can be abused and made dangerous- pretty much everything- should be made illegal and government should be put in charge of our private lives.

A big problem is when 'gut reactions' are given legal teeth. This is where Gays are denied their civil rights, etc.

I say we use reason, not fear or superstition in the making of our laws. If a vetting from Johns Hopkins University isn't enough, nothing will be, and you're buying into a cliched fear of the unknown- strange considering the nature of this forum!

I can totally understand if you don't want to partake yourselves- but to deny others that right? I don't get it!

[dmduncan]

"Your personal freedoms end when it harms others."

Nobody has the freedom or the right to harm anyone else.

Should I repeat that again?

You are so used to thinking in platitudes that what a person is saying passes straight through your head, William.

"And to wait for a hazard to occur and then regulate is like waiting for your child to get hit by a car for playing in the street..."

Then according to that logic ALL alcohol consumption should be banned. Since we can't predict when a person is going to drive after drinking, then we have to preemptively ban ALL alcohol consumption to protect the public before more people get killed by drunk drivers.

Good luck selling that one, William.

And while we are at it, I object to factory smoke and automobile exhaust. I demand the government ban ALL fossil fuel burning engines on the same grounds that they are banning cigarette smoke. NOBODY has the right to drive their car if MY lungs are endangered by THEIR automobile exhaust.

"Bet most of the folks on the gulf felt this very same way only a few months ago."

Oh way to come back, William. We can all just go to sleep now safe in the belief that Cass Sunstein is just a swell guy who's misunderstood.

"Libertarian/Anarchist are really selfcentered individuals that remind me of a spoiled child. 'I can do it because I can'."

And you sound like an angry statist who wants to tell other people how they HAVE to live their lives when what they are doing is not harming you and is honestly none of your business.

Your argument that it's the law would have more merit if we didn't pass so many utterly stupid laws that law itself were not beginning to suffer from lack of credibility. Recall all the STATE SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION of Jim Crow please.

My personal values are conservative, but I am politically libertarian because I realize that a person's values are an intensely personal thing that he must come to by his own power and realizations to be genuine; you can't FORCE the "truth" on anyone, because what makes those values TRUE to him is a man's own realization of their truth, absent of which he's more like a machine repeating memorized lines given to him by someone else to speak; therefore, I don't think I have the right — and I CERTAINLY believe that YOU don't have the right, and that William, with his neo-fascist, Marcus Aurelius, One World Order spiritual beliefs, has the right — to tell other people what kinds of life they have to lead when that would do nothing but interfere with the liberty a person needs to make those discoveries for himself.

Using the government to enforce YOUR values on everyone else strikes me as supremely self centered.

We should NEVER grant powers to any administration that can be misused by the worst sort of person it is possible to elect.

You may agree with those measures when YOUR guy is in office. But some day he will be gone and someone you don't like will have those same powers, and then you will scream bloody murder when you see what he will do with them, and you will have nobody but yourself to blame for your myopia.

[Louise]

Don't worry, Tharpa, I wouldn't advocate gut reaction as a basis for legislation. I was speaking purely of my own feeling about using drugs (or alcohol, for that matter: I don't like the feeling even after just one glass of wine). I guess in one sense legalising the psychedelics would be useful, IF it meant control over their use. Seems it's the uncontrolled use by people who don't know what they can do or how to safely use them, that's the problem. Though that can be said of a host of things that are legal, of course ... and somehow I don't see education campaigns on this sort of thing being sponsored by any government.

[william]

“Makes me think of how people have too much to drink at a party and think they're being incredibly witty ... and then look back on it when they've sobered up ... oh dear! :)”

Oh yes those young years of our youth. Today it is much more revealing to the world to be the life of the party with all the video capability of cells phones, etc.

“next minute something horrible has happened to THEM instead of someone else, and they're screaming that "the government should have done something."

This appears to be a human phenomenon. We need to experience the injustice to come to understand the injustice. I think this is why several lives may be needed to experience those injustices to learn compassion, which is love and understanding revealed towards others. Experiences are not illusions as some claim but they are temporal and transient and time based. And of course these serial experiences over time teach us our oneness with all others. With variation of course.

“How do we find a good middle way between government/collective control and individual rights? There's no easy answer.”

No easy answer indeed but I suspect that as we learn more about these universal constants that exist in the universe like what we sow we reap and acquire better knowledge of the underlying reality of phenomena we may be able to find a more effective middle ground. The existing system where money is such a big influence on government and its decisions has revealed that is sub optimizes much of the government process.

From my point of view until we change the reelection system where money rules little will change as least at a federal level. How much more materialistic can a society get then to grant a corporation personhood status and money is the same as free speech.

From my point of view we spend too much time blaming individuals and not looking at the systems that creates such ineffective government and organizations. That was Dr. Deming’s main theme of his teachings, which unfortunately was misunderstood by most of the world. Also we tend to judge by appearances and miss the real meaning of the phenomena.

[F.D.]

Tharpa - I truly don't get it - the flying analogy really didn't make sense and wasn't a strong argument.....BUT - then, to your next comment - there are LOTS of people who feel that these types of drugs should be kept illegal for a whole host of reasons, including many who have used them and are NOT arguing from ignorance.....or lack of experience.

What is so difficult to understand about this? I truly don't get it..:-) Pot is one thing - and is a pretty benign "drug" that would NOT harm society to have freely available. But I've had plenty of experience with and around a whole smorgasbord of natural and synthetic hallucinegens.....and they clearly can be (and are) dangerous to a pretty distinct part of the population that tries them. I've seen lots of people have BAD trips on mushrooms - become super depressed - and require help....and shrooms are clearly one of the more benign plants. (cage fighting super killers notwithstanding..:-)

The PERFECT argument is that alchohol IS used in moderation by tens of millions very resposibly for some super light social lubrication.....and I don't think these sorts of drugs lend themselves to light use. (even though yes....as bruce said - certainly people will hold back a bit if they don't want a full on experience - but that's NOT the norm in what I've been around - people TRIP to trip....and the more vivid, mind altering the experience...the better)

As far as the alcohol analogy - I'd MUCH prefer to be at a party with a bunch of drunk fools....than a bunch of people tripping their rear ends off at this point in my life..:-) Because you WILL have some serious basket cases in every group who simply can't HANDLE it - and I think you WILL have far more carnage - psychologically - than someone who drinks 3 or 4 glasses of wine and acts an ass for a few hours. (and not 5 or 6 or 12 or LONGER.....depending on the drug used as well)

Quite simply - while I appreciate the experience of these sorts of drugs in my own past....to NOT see where they can be destructive to less healthy minds is not seeing, or acknowleging the full picture. (and I would NOT want some of the eggheads I see on a daily basis to be tripping at will.....legally or otherwise!)

[Michael Prescott]

It's funny to read some of the angrier comments. I've posted a lot of unconventional, even far-out opinions on this blog, but in this case I think I've expressed a boringly conventional, mainstream point of view.

To reiterate:

Living in society requires certain compromises. We can't do everything we might like to do. One of the things our society strongly discourages is the use of certain very powerful mind-altering drugs for recreational purposes. I don't have a problem with this restriction.

From some of the responses, you'd think I had suggested implementing a police state! Get a grip, people. Chill.

I do think there's a place for carefully controlled experimentation with these substances, when supervised by professionals. I also think that other societies with different traditions and cultures probably can accommodate these substances more readily than our society can.

[william]

“And while we are at it, I object to factory smoke and automobile exhaust. I demand the government ban ALL fossil fuel burning engines on the same grounds that they are banning cigarette smoke. NOBODY has the right to drive their car if MY lungs are endangered by THEIR automobile exhaust.”

That argument was used over and over and over during the debate. But the one I thought most ignorant was: this is America and it is my constitutional right to smoke wherever I want.

They did not ban smoking they banned smoking in certain places. And they are passing laws to cut the fossil fuel emissions to protect our lungs and the environment.

“You are so used to thinking in platitudes that what a person is saying passes straight through your head, William.”

I agree many of my comments seem to most readers like platitudes. I have thought deeply about this. What are the prerequisites that one must have knowledge of before they don’t seem like platitudes. We have discovered several prerequisites for a reader to begin to connect the dots between suffering, ignorance, innocence, expressions, manifestation, and the meaning of creation.

One prerequisite we have discovered is that a reader must have knowledge of what the Buddha realized not discovered but that he realized 2500 years ago and that is the origin of suffering. Without knowledge of the Buddha’s realization many if not most of my comments would seem indeed as platitudes. Interesting to me at least that most but not all Buddhist monks confuse symptoms with the origin of suffering.

Example: most Buddhist monks state and write that the origin of suffering is attachment, craving, and grasping. These are symptoms of the Buddha’s realization. The Buddha never sought deeper than the origin of our suffering as his mission was to help those either reduce their suffering or eliminate it.

I personally feel that because Buddhists don’t seek deeper than what the Buddha taught they have failed to see the spiritual meaning and purpose of human life. This is why I believe one should never follow just one guru; I think it can limit one’s knowledge of many of these mysteries of life. But to each his or her own of course.

I suspect but don’t know that many of these mind-altering drugs are intended by some but not all to reduce their suffering.

[Roger Knights]

Two organized religious groups have been using ayahuasca safely, beneficially (onbalance), and publicly for decades in Brazil -- a large government study confirmed this and allowed their use to continue. This is occurring not just among natives in the jungle, it's among ordinary Brazilians. A US-based offshoot of one of these churches has been operating legally in the southwest for a couple (?) of years. Such supervised use is a workable model, as is that of the peyotist Native American Church. Supervised medical/ psychological use (both experimental and therapeutic) is another workable model.

But the too-free spirits of the 60's didn't want to be supervised, period, and the rest of society didn't want any use, period. The outcome has been unsupervised use with its many downsides, and zero supervised use, with its likely upsides.

[Tharpa]

How do we, as a society, decide on what we allow individuals to do with their own lives? We balance the pros and cons, and use reason as a guide. When it comes to some drugs, like cocaine, there really isn't much of an upside. Same with meth. Same with nicotine. But, even with such damanging drugs, that kill literally millions, prohibition doesn't work- this has been shown again and again.

So that's the first point. Prohibition doesn't work- it just creates a whole underclass of criminals. When these drugs are decriminalized, use stays flat at worst, but other gains are realized.

And those are the drugs without redeeming value.

When it comes to mushrooms, we have a major Johns Hopkins study pointing to the great benefits that can be found when used correctly. Just like so many legal, yet regulated, activities.

So, regulate, yes. With legalization you get information and guidance, you get a society that can then incorporate and learn.

So, it's simple. You either want to ban all drugs, including nicotine and alcohol, or you want to allow mushrooms to be regulated but legal. Mushrooms have a demonstrated and powerful upside as well!

Michael, your argument that other societies can accommodate such substances is an argument FOR legalization. It's like repressing free speech in China, saying that such a society can't accommodate it! Free speech, like ingesting a natural plant, is a human right. I have the right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of human happiness in the way that I see fit- within reason. The Johns Hopkins study, as well as the traditional use in sane societies of this plant, make a convincing argument for reason- and the track record of prohibition just adds to that argument.

Mushrooms have a tendency to challenge paradigms- such as a materialist/consumer paradigm- a major under-discussed (in this forum) reason they are saddled with extra taboo and fear, and relatively isolated negative reports are blown way out of proportion. Meanwhile, look at the statistics on tobacco.

Yes, you ARE advocating a police state, because that's who will come and drag you away to jail for exercising your basic human rights!

[dmduncan]

"From some of the responses, you'd think I had suggested implementing a police state! Get a grip, people. Chill."

It's not what you said, MP, but how the sentiment that we have to give up freedom when we're packed close together can, and is, being used as an excuse. Just say you're doing something for The Common Good and what limit is there to what you can accomplish? We are on the verge of being a new sort of police state already, thanks both to George Bush and now Barack Obama (and yes, others before them too) who, rather than dismantling the apparatus Bush created, is actually admiring the structure and building on top of it.

I turn on the MSM expecting to see coverage of some of the more bizarre things going on, and nothing. Dead silence. Crickets. The media is as incurious as they used to say George Bush was.

And while it is true that when you pack people closer together you may get more friction between people, i.e., if you share walls, your loud music at 3 am might be an issue for law enforcement, it is not true that the government has any right to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body if it doesn't harm others.

It's not a small issue, it's a big one. The same as the draft. What right does the government have to take you, as if you were government property, and force you to fight in a war that political and banking elites want, forcing you to give up your life for their personal interests?

We are not the property of the United States government.

Now I don't do drugs, so I'm not arguing for my own right to do them; but because governments rarely relinquish power once they get it, I feel it's vitally important to REGULATE the government and see to it that they don't get powers they can abuse and which they really don't need to have.

That and how about just making common sense laws informed by facts rather than personal impressions? Across the board, on all things.

[william]

“Yes, you ARE advocating a police state, because that's who will come and drag you away to jail for exercising your basic human rights!”

Michael P of all people being accused of advocating a police state that brought a smile to my face. Take away people’s drugs would be like taking away people’s religion so to speak.

Our prisons are overflowing with people sent to prison due to drug use crimes or the selling of drugs. Do we ever ask the meaning of the need for the use of drugs? Not why do people use drugs but the underlying reality of the need to use drugs. The answer to that question as to the meaning of a need for drugs; not the why of drug usage, I doubt that the meaning will be asked any time soon. Asking why will give us a million explanations asking the meaning will give us one.

Discovering that one answer will reveal a whole new world of reality concerning the creation and evolution of consciousness process.

This reminds me of our war on drugs. Our approach has been to stop the usage of drugs by stopping the availability of drugs. That approach has been a huge failure and created a very corrupt and violent outcome. Again we are dealing with symptoms not the origin or root cause.

You would think we would have learned that from our past history with our outlawing alcohol but we learn little from history; we learn more from our own personal and national suffering. How many prisons will we have to build before we ask the meaning rather than seek punishment to fix the drug problem?

This has been my point on suffering. This is why the Buddha and others have sought deeply into the origin of that suffering. The answer to that question was found over 2500 hundred years ago by a seeker that come to be known as the Buddha but the world has shown little interest in that answer. Why is that?

Instead we have long dialogs on our personal freedoms to use drugs, lock people up for using drugs, condemn people for drug usage, well the list is long as to our inability to ask a very simple but profound question. What is the meaning of drug usage?

Understanding is profoundly more difficult than blaming, culpability, punishment, and guilt.

I am not advocating that anyone becomes a Buddhist as I advocate no religion and Buddhism is a religion and has its share of dogma.

[william]

“That and how about just making common sense laws informed by facts rather than personal impressions? Across the board, on all things.”

Common sense is an oxy Moran and facts are as rare as a white crow.

Now you are not alone in believing that common sense is a reality. There is only one reality and until we see ourselves as blameless expressions of that reality; then personal, national, and societal problems will increase in proportion to our lack of knowledge of that reality. Ouch that may indeed be difficult to even ponder.

[Paul]

'Oxymoron' professor.

[dmduncan]

Who's this oxy Moran fella?

And I don't believe for a second that MP advocates or desires a police state. That is not how I interpreted his remarks.

[Erich]

Just to pile on MP......one instance does not an argument make. This is the sort of tactic I expect from Kieth Augustine.......

Far more people are killed, proportionally, by prescription medicine - even when taken as prescribed - than by psychedelics.

Now Louise or someone will say that at least prescription drugs have a benefit that outweighs the risk. Some of us would say the same of psychedelics. This a judgement and value call that, in this land of the free/home of the brave, should be left up to each individual to make.

Yes, Woodstock is an excellent anecdotal counter example to one twisted fool with some kind of obvious warrior complex that allowed his latent criminal insanity to manifest while under the influence of psychedelics. This guy could have been set off by anything and probably would have been. It happened to be psychedelics this time and now that gets turned into a morality play.

There are also stories of people going psycho as a result of meditation. Do we rule that out now too?

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/MaryGarden.html

I recall someone killed someone else in San Fran in the '70's and blamed it on eating too many twinkies (the so called "Twinkie Defense"). Do we outlaw twinkie consumption? And what of the countless deaths resulting from bad diets? Of course not. These choices are still considered free will despite negative personal consequences and negative externalities to society.

It's really all about thought control and a demand for conformity by the powers that be. First they came for the psychedelic users and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a psychedelic user. Then they came for the meditators......then they came for the people that speak to spirits.....

[Michael Prescott]

"I don't believe for a second that MP advocates or desires a police state. That is not how I interpreted his remarks."

I know you don't, dmduncan. I was exaggerating for humorous effect.

I find the whole discussion amusing. It reminds me of my days in L.A., when my libertarian friends would insist, quite heatedly, that a society that allows public ownership of the roads is on a slippery slope to becoming Nazi Germany.

The whole "slippery slope" argument is, I think, pretty weak. In any society there will be lines drawn, often somewhat arbitrarily. The exact delineation will change depending on public sentiment, the ideology of the party in power, and other circumstances. The conventions and regulations that govern our lives bear more resemblance to the common law than to any meticulously worked-out legal or moral theory. They develop and change over time, mostly on a pragmatic basis.

That's why purely logical arguments have little force in this area. No one can give a strictly logical explanation of why the speed limit on a certain street should be 25, as opposed to 20 or 30. But it has to be something, and 25 works as a consensus choice. Why should the drinking age be 21, as opposed to 20 or 22? There's no good reason, really, but there has to be some cutoff, and 21 is the one that's been adopted (for now). Why should some mind-altering chemicals be legal while others aren't? It's a somewhat arbitrary decision, since there is a gray area of chemicals that could be legalized (like marijuana) or criminalized (as alcohol was, during Prohibition). Again, it comes down to a social consensus. Until that consensus changes, if it ever does, there will be no major changes in the law.

People -- especially intellectuals -- overestimate how large a role logical reasoning plays in society. Most of our rules are derived from custom and "common sense," neither of which obeys the precepts of syllogistic reasoning. And given what a mess intellectuals tend to make of things when they do get into power, it's probably just as well that they have less influence than they'd like.

[william]

“And given what a mess intellectuals tend to make of things when they do get into power, it's probably just as well that they have less influence than they'd like.”

Intellectualism is a great threat to any society as it is based in positive ignorance. Positive ignorance can be defined as thinking we know when we do not have understanding. There is a profound difference between intellectual knowledge and understanding.

This is why we hear some people state that this professor is very intelligent but does not have common sense. No they are not that intelligent but they do have great intellectual ability. Intelligence in the realm of divine understanding and divine understanding is rare very rare.

Divine understanding is in the realm of seeing the underlying reality of phenomena. A soul’s ability to see this underlying realty probably means they no longer have to reincarnate on this planet unless they are on a mission to help others.

I just heard on NPR today that they are suspecting that there is a huge difference in comprehension between reading a written book and reading this as an e-book on the Internet. Knowledge is commonplace and can be attained by most who seek but understanding comes through a realization and realizations are rare. This is why divine understanding meaning intelligence is rare.

“Oxymoron' professor.”

Tell that to my spell check. That’s it you are concerned about a misspelled word. That is the very definition of intellectualism. Please read above about the difference between knowledge and understanding.

Actually these types of comments like all comments do not come into my experience uninvited. My own intellectualism invites them in so for that I am thankful.

[Erich]

MP, "The whole "slippery slope" argument is, I think, pretty weak. In any society there will be lines drawn, often somewhat arbitrarily."

Of course there will be. However, you seem to be advocating just caving in and doing what the powers that be tell you to. I find this un-American.

The whole idea of democracy depends on social tension; people making their demands known and insistinting they be acted on; sometimes even if people get hurt or killed in the process.

It's always seemed so weird to me that we celebrate the founding fathers of this country who took up arms and started a revolution because they didn't want to pay taxes or otherwise remain beholden to the king of England. Yet we speak so negatively of currently social revolutionaries. We celebrate men (and now women) who go into harm's way to kill and be killed, ostensibly, for values like freedom, but we denounce anyone who, here at home, goes against the flow.

History shows that the slippery slope is real. I just can't agree with anyone who thinks that as long as they follow the rules and act "good" they are safe from government persecution. As you note, the rules change and what's "good" today may not be tomorrow.

It wasn't that long ago that folks working in sweat shops, including children, took to the streets and rioted for their rights. After much death, injury and destruction, working folks were able to achieve union organization and reasonable working conditions.

The USA is a nation for mavericks. Herd followers should go elsewhere.

[Louise]

William, why so touchy about the oxy Moran thing? It was funny and so was the response. Never trust spellcheckers! Their vocabularies are ridiculously small.

[Ally Eden]

Michael P

Its the higher area of the mind, that you are exercising and I understand you perfectly, you are seeing into the future like looking over a huge puzzle game that needs to be completed. I like the way you think and quite agree with your analysis of whats to come, comparing it to the present and pastin our ever evolving society,
which is not a blind automatic response to certain social situations and we as a society are not simply the reflection of cultural patterns but their author.. and the responsibility falls to each of us a *future* of each generation after generations.

[dmduncan]

"People -- especially intellectuals -- overestimate how large a role logical reasoning plays in society."

I certainly don't underestimate it. On the issue of illegal immigration, for instance, there's very little reasoning to be found. Just watch the news about Greece if you want to see how operable great masses of people can be without even the slightest whiff of reason in their midst.

But if people ARE to find some way to get along, there is no better ground to meet on than the common ground of reasonable dialogue, and fair laws that apply to everyone equally. When those break down, bad things can happen in proportion to the importance of the issues.

It has nothing to do with syllogistic reasoning.

And yes, many laws ARE arbitrary. That's my gripe.

There's nothing arbitrary about the Bill of Rights. It was all carefully thought out. Someday we may actually get around to obeying it and we'll discover how well it all works.

Stupid laws make the law look bad and the legislators look incompetent, and unable to think their way out of a paper bag. We can't expect these dolts to EARN their money and sweat their pea brains for a few minutes extra to get over the MOUNTAINOUS puzzle of figuring out what a good drinking age should be? Is that just TOO much for them to do? Poor babies!

Hmm, how about the same age at which a person is eligible to DIE for his country? What's the greater tragedy? That a young Marine may end up drunk hugging a tree or that he might get his legs blown off while sober by an IED? How can you compassionately "protect" him from the harm of a minor embarrassment while making him available to loss of limb, life, or the complete shattering of his mind?

We SHOULD expect and demand that our laws be intelligent and workable. This isn't the machinations of intellectuals, it's something anybody who's affected by those laws should be able to see the importance of.

Here's a very recent story which I clipped and saved:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_go_co/us_too_many_crimes

"Stupid" is my charitable assessment. It could be intentional, too.

And the slippery slope argument is actually a FALLACY, not an argument FOR something as, in the example you cited, an argument your friends were making that we are sliding towards NAZIsm by government ownership of public roads.

In any case, there's a world of authoritarian possibilities available to the imagination; we needn't rehash the past exactly. Just look at Singapore for another example, which was covered in a recent issue of National Geographic. We are going to create something new that you won't see coming. That's my prediction.

This is America, damnit! We don't get outdone by anybody on anything!

[Tharpa]

Nice posts, DM......... you say what I tripped too many times to say. As elegantly. You put the Fucking A in smrt.

Michael. Dude. I don't think you want a police state. Who does, besides the Police. A few bad cops anyway. But your thinking is a little rough here, IMO. Put the 'I' in prnciple. Take Firm Stan to the 'd'. Either that, or confess that you want all drugs (just for starters) to be illegal. And you know what they say-

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! ;}

[william]

“William, why so touchy about the oxy Moran thing? It was funny and so was the response. Never trust spellcheckers! Their vocabularies are ridiculously small.”

It was the professor part that was the intention not the spelling part. Besides maybe you did not read the part where these experiences do not come into our lives uninvited. What I always hope for is dialog on the comments not the spelling. It is the comments that I can learn from both negative and positive of course a negative comment is an oxy Moran. Sorry my idea of humor.

You see negative comments in the realm of divine intelligence do not exist as what is deemed as negatives are just positives in disguise.

Besides spelling is becoming a non-issue with twitter coming onto the scene. I am always amazed at the miscommunication that exists in written and even verbal form. I have experienced telegraphic communication and after experiencing that level of communication this pales in comparison.

I tied to use this as an example of intellectualism but alas failed again. I don’t think spellcheckers vocabularies are ridiculously small I think their level of understanding is small and is in the realm of intellectualism, which was my point that I failed to make again. But glad you enjoyed the humor of it.

[Louise]

William, I'm afraid you're just coming across as being too precious with all this. Of course if you ramble on about intellectualism and so on, and Deep Knowledge and the like, then people are going to LAUGH when a damn-fool spelling error crops up in the middle of it. It's human nature, which, whatever you like to go on about, is ordinary, earthly, and something you'd best get used to. My best friend and I make daft typos all the time when we're doing messages - which are hardly the considered posts one would expect here - and we get a good laugh out of correcting ourselves or joking about each other's typos. Lighten up, man.

And if you think spelling is becoming a non-issue, try getting something full of misspellings published (and I do not mean self-published) and see how far you get. It'll hit the slush pile faster than you can say oxymoron.

Spellcheckers don't, I think, have "understanding" of anything. I know the vocabulary in Word or Open Office is too damn small, that's for sure.

[Michael Prescott]

DMDuncan, you seem to adhere to what Thomas Sowell calls "the unconstrained vision" of human nature. I'm a "constrained vision" guy. See Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" for an overview. To put it another way, I like the common law, with all its rough edges and inconsistencies, much better than any comprehensive "rational" system, because the common law was built from the bottom up, and the intellectual systems are imposed from the top down.

Erich, rugged individualism did help build this country, but so did cooperation, compromise, and community spirit - attitudes we need even more of in our increasingly interconnected society.

Tharpa, the issue of drug legalization, like most issues, is not all-or-nothing. It's perfectly reasonable to say that some psychoactive substances should be widely available, some should be restricted, and some should be banned. Beware of people who think in terms of absolutes. Life is more complicated than any abstract theory or "principle," and there are exceptions to most rules.

[Tharpa]

Michael- I think there's a lot of necessary grey between the constrained and unconstrained vision- but I think the greatness of this country was that it began with a strong top-down, unconstrained vision, by those who had the genius to see in terms of the universal- or some semblance thereof. This was the birth and greatness of modernism, a secular society by and large.

Some rights are inaliabe; for instance slavery was wrong then and now and forever. The bottom-up aspect of the law is what allowed it at the time- but the top-down aspect was a breakthrough that finally stamped out it and institutionalized racism in the South. We need to fight to uphold those principles.

So, some things should be thought of in absolutes, such as slavery. And what I choose to do with my own body in the pursuit of 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is also in that category and to say otherwise is un-american in the best sense of the phrase.

Of course that's just the way I see it.

If top down runs the risk of 'elitism and intellectualism, then bottom up runs the risk of 'ignorance and populist superstition'. I'll take my chances with the former.

Both bottom up and top down systems are both 'imposed' on society, not just top down. I don't care where it comes from- I just want a system of laws that respect the rights of the individual. It's the bottom up crowd that claim this as a 'christian nation'......I could go on.

As for the pragmatic bottom line: prohibition doesn't work. Is that bottom up enough for you, cause if yes, I'll say 'bottoms up!'.

[Michael Prescott]

"I think the greatness of this country was that it began with a strong top-down, unconstrained vision"

I'm not sure you know what Thomas Sowell means by that term. It has to do with the question of whether human beings are perfectible ("the unconstrained vision") or not perfectible ("the constrained vision").

I share the constrained vision of human nature. I don't believe in the perfectibility of man, or in utopias. I think the Founding Fathers were pragmatic enough to agree. Their idealism was tempered by practicality, born of a deep knowledge of history and of man's inhumanity to man.

[Erich]

"I don't believe in the perfectibility of man, or in utopias."

But you think legislation is the answer?

Most laws, excepting the Bill of Rights, regardless of the original intent, have one primary consequence and that is the transfer of power and wealth to those making making the laws. The losers still buy into the law making process precisely because they stupidly need to think that utopia can be legislated.

The reality is, however, that no law can keep us safe; not from terrorists, not from crazy neighbors, not from psycho predators, not from Wall St bankers nor from slick car salesmen.

Generally, we make it through each and every day because there is a higher degree of decency in most people than we are given credit for. We don't kill our offensive neighbor because there is a law prohibiting it, but because, when it comes down to it, cathartic fantasies aside, we really don't want to do it. We know it is wrong.

Other than that, the police don't keep you safe. They just blast the sirens and come draw a line around your dead body, smoke cigarettes, drink cofee and eat sugary confectionaries, pop steroids, and, in between extra-marital affairs, slap around some potential suspects and then go off and steal drug dealers' money when the opportunity arises and/or when the local vice shakedowns aren't enough to pay their bills.

But, if you don't pay the local fees and taxes, they'll throw you right in jail or help the bank throw you out of your house if you don't pay the mortgage.

40 years into the war on drugs and, guess what, there are still drugs in every highschool. 10 years into the war on terrorism and, yep, there are still terrorists. All that has changed is that the military industrial complex has grown fatter as has the law enforcement and prison systems. And civil rights/Bill of Rights have been eroded.

What a sane society would teach is that people are not perfect and shit happens. Sometimes an idiot takes an overdose of psychedelics, freaks out on some bizarreness in his undeveloped head and kills someone. Sometimes an normally diligent person doesn't pay attention while driving and runs a red light and kills someone. Sometimes a doctor doesn't pay attention and cuts the wrong leg off. Sometimes your own body has a reaction to a certain food like a peanut, or an insect stings you and you go into anaphalactic shock. Sometimes the wind gusts while you are up on a ladder and it falls over and you break your neck......Some day we will die. Grow up. Get used to it. Nothing and no one can keep you or your loved ones safe from that reality. In the meanwhile, enjoy freedom and be as happy as you can, while you can.

But that wouldn't sell. Enter the think tank spin philosphers and their sponsors; the grey suited grifters.

[william]

“William, I'm afraid you're just coming across as being too precious with all this. Of course if you ramble on about intellectualism and so on, and Deep Knowledge and the like”

This is good feedback and I am always thankful for any feedback. I knew this would be no easy task. I worked for a Japanese consulting organization owned by a man that wrote a book that challenged the world business paradigm and his book taught how to conduct their business organization and achieve daily process improvements. That book is now used worldwide and became a best seller but not before he experienced much rejection.

Spending time dialoging with him taught me much about rejection. He was the most compassionate human I have ever known. I now cherish those times I was allowed to learn from this intelligent and humble person. Rejection can be our greatest teacher.

When I awakened (with much help) to this new awareness of reality I knew much of this discovery would be resisted and even rejected but to be truthful it has been rejected much more than I anticipated. Of course it is not always what we say but how we say it. I am fortunate and extremely grateful to have a former editor of a journal and a published author of three spiritual books helping me with this enormous challenge.

This rejection is interesting as the discovery is very good news extremely good news for humanity. But the human paradigm of blameworthy, culpability, and taking responsibility for our unawareness is extremely dominant. We humans take to sin and guilt like a duck takes to water. The world’s religions mainstay is sin and guilt.

Hopefully the day will come when this knowledge will move from ramble on status to knowledge that people will see as a needed change in the world paradigm. The challenges confronting humanity have never been greater.

[Louise]

Speaking from an editorial (albeit amateur editor!) point of view, I think what you need to do, William, is think about how your writing is going to be received by other people. However good or important your message (and I am not commenting on that at all, here) it won't make a blind bit of difference if it comes across that you're doing the old ivory-tower bit. Nor will it help if you won't get down to specifics when people want to know what you're talking about, or keep implying that your audience (ie. everyone else) is wallowing in terrible behaviour. Because, to me, your writing here certainly gives the impression that you have a pretty poor opinion, not just of the crappier human behaviours but of earthly human life in general. I don't think that's going to win you a wide audience, unless you want to go the hellfire-preacher route, which somehow I don't see being your thing! :)

I don't know if this will help with the sort of work you want to do, but I will say you've got a much better chance of communicating if you allow some emotion into it. Heading off into the rareified ether of intellectualism is NOT going to do you a lot of good, as far as reaching a wider audience goes. It's anything but engaging, speaking from a totally not-into-philosophy standpoint. I have some reason to say that the emotional, the feelings of the matter, are important, because in all my writing (which has a small but reasonably diverse readership on a members-only writing website) the feedback I get is that it's conveying the time and place and the feelings of the moment, that gets people's attention and makes them say "I felt like I was there with you." Different type of writing - mine's a partly contemplative diary and a fair chunk of Louis's contributions - but it's still spiritual matters that plenty of people don't believe in, so there's a "connect" with yours in that sense. Certainly I've had a few people say their beliefs are changing simply from reading my experiences, which is a delight and not at all what I'm trying to do. I am not big-noting here at all, and I hope it doesn't come across that way; I'm trying to show some of the useful feedback I've had and hope it might be of some use to you too.

Cheers,
Louise

[Ben]

Surely this interesting discussion on drugs and what made America great must also consider “addiction” and “oil” –particularly in view of what is happening at the moment?

Petroleum
I can’t think straight, my love, I’m so slew-skulled,
Though you’re long dead, you’re more to me than life,
I must delve deep into the underworld,
Beyond where Orpheus sought his hapless wife
To bring you back, no matter what the cost,
For when deprived of you, I start to shake,
I shiver in the dark and I feel lost;
I know that you alone can ease my ache.
I’ll take you as you come, refined or crude,
I want you woven in the clothes I wear,
I want to swallow you with all my food,
I want to breathe you in the very air,
I am intoxicated, through and through,
And if I could, I’d fill the seas with you.

[Zerdini]

This is good feedback and I am always thankful for any feedback. I knew this would be no easy task. I worked for a Japanese consulting organization owned by a man that wrote a book that challenged the world business paradigm and his book taught how to conduct their business organization and achieve daily process improvements. That book is now used worldwide and became a best seller but not before he experienced much rejection.

William, it would be far simpler if you explained that you get all your ideas from W. Edwards Deming (October 14, 1900 – December 20, 1993) who was an American statistician, professor, author, lecturer and consultant. That would be better than pretending you’ve discovered something which us mere mortals have missed.

Deming is widely credited with improving production in the United States during the Cold War, although he is perhaps best known for his work in Japan.

The Deming System of Profound Knowledge:

"The prevailing style of management must undergo transformation. A system cannot understand itself. The transformation requires a view from outside. The aim of this chapter is to provide an outside view—a lens—that I call a system of profound knowledge. It provides a map of theory by which to understand the organizations that we work in.

"The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.

"Once the individual understands the system of profound knowledge, he will apply its principles in every kind of relationship with other people. He will have a basis for judgment of his own decisions and for transformation of the organizations that he belongs to. The individual, once transformed, will:
• Set an example;
• Be a good listener, but will not compromise;
• Continually teach other people; and
• Help people to pull away from their current practices and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past."

Deming advocated that all managers need to have what he called a System of Profound Knowledge, consisting of four parts:
1. Appreciation of a system: understanding the overall processes involving suppliers, producers, and customers (or recipients) of goods and services (explained below);
2. Knowledge of variation: the range and causes of variation in quality, and use of statistical sampling in measurements;
3. Theory of knowledge: the concepts explaining knowledge and the limits of what can be known;
4. Knowledge of psychology: concepts of human nature.

His books are available from Amazon which we can read and then form our own views rather than have you thrust it upon us as something you have discovered.

Are you a "good listener but will not compromise"?

[Louise]

The bit about "being a good listener but will not compromise" sounds contradictory to me. I mean ... if this wunderkind manager is such a good listener, doesn't that mean s/he should actually absorb and understand what's being said? Doesn't it mean that if the speaker has something to contribute, regardless of whether it contradicts the manager's ideas, it should be used? And isn't that inherently a compromise, of finding a best course for both parties? I don't like the implication that the manager (and what the heck IS this "profound knowledge" they're supposed to have?) is some sort of demigod. I've meet too many idiot managers who think they are anyway! It hardly matters if a manager is a good listener if they are too damn stubborn to do what anyone else wants. And "continually teach other people" - how about the humility of LEARNING FROM other people? This is all starting to sound manipulative and egotistical, under the cover of being oh so wise - bloody patriarchal, if you ask me. There, there, little workers, Boss knows best! ;)

And as you said, Zerdini, this is about the workplace. It's not about anything else, so yes, William, you'd better get onto those specifics I mentioned earlier if you're going to convince anyone you've spiritual learning to share.

[Michael Prescott]

So I take it, Erich, that in your view we should disband the police, stop trying to prevent terrorism, and legalize all drugs?

That's the utopianism of the libertarian-anarchist position. I think it's simply unrealistic.

A more mature view, in my opinion, is that the police, Homeland Security, and drug laws are not perfect, because nothing is perfect in this world, but they are still better than nothing. All of them could be improved, but let's not toss out the baby with the bathwater.

One of the best maxims I know is, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Meaning that in the futile quest for perfection, we often lose sight of the good things we already have.

Actually I think the wisest comment on this thread (better than any of mine) is Roger Knights', which I reproduce below.

----

Two organized religious groups have been using ayahuasca safely, beneficially (on balance), and publicly for decades in Brazil -- a large government study confirmed this and allowed their use to continue. This is occurring not just among natives in the jungle, it's among ordinary Brazilians. A US-based offshoot of one of these churches has been operating legally in the southwest for a couple (?) of years. Such supervised use is a workable model, as is that of the peyotist Native American Church. Supervised medical/ psychological use (both experimental and therapeutic) is another workable model.

But the too-free spirits of the 60's didn't want to be supervised, period, and the rest of society didn't want any use, period. The outcome has been unsupervised use with its many downsides, and zero supervised use, with its likely upsides. - Roger Knights

[Trev. :(]

I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news and apologies if you already knew(I haven't looked in on the blog for a few days).... but Pam Reynolds... died for good on Saturday of heart failure. She was only fifty three. God bless her. I thought you might like to know as her NDE has been the subject of much speculation on this blog.

Sadly, I don't think it's a hoax.

On the positive side, I'm sure she's very happy where she is.

[Tharpa]

As you are, Michael, I'm suspicious of any Utopian attempts at perfection. Life is by necessity messy and full of soul-testing challenges. Color me a pragmatist- but we should strive to do our best and not settle for mediocrity and err, if we must, on the side of freedom for individuals, even at some cost.

BTW, I've been reading NDE stories on
http://www.nderf.org/Exceptional%20Accounts.htm

When it comes to our beliefs about reality, there's personal experience, one. Two, there's the beliefs we just figure as true in a theoretical sense. Intuition perhaps, or simply our conditioning. Then there's the source of other people's own direct experiences, told in their own voice, their stories. I love reading that site!

[Zerdini]

It was the professor part that was the intention not the spelling part. Besides maybe you did not read the part where these experiences do not come into our lives uninvited.

Instead of relying on a spellchecker why not learn to spell correctly?

If you set yourself up as a know-it-all why be surprised that you are called 'professor'?

Maybe you are a professor. Or not.

[Erich]

MP, "So I take it, Erich, that in your view we should disband the police, stop trying to prevent terrorism......."

No. Not really. I just think the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of "we got to do something, anything" direction. The kinetic energy is fear.

I'm no libertarian. I believe in paying taxes for the common good. Nor am I an anarchist. It's just that I think we have too many laws and that they are mostly made for the wrong reasons. Ditto taxes. The system has become thoroughly corrupt; not just an acceptable little bit corrupt.

I would rather disband those agencies that live with them in their current corrupt form. Ideally, I would like to clean them up and make them work the way they were intended (or at least much closer to the intention).

We've been fighting two wars now for years and expending much blood and treasure and political capital in the process with no real gain to be shown from it all and no real plan for a resolution. Where are the protests?

Oil leaks out in the Gulf of Mexico, bankers rob us blind, destroy their organizations, and then take our tax dollars and pick up where they left off. Again, where are the protests?

We have the largest proportion of our population imprisoned in the world with a substantial percent of prisoners in for drug offenses. Where are the protests? The people of some states vote in favor of cannabis legalization and the federal government steps in and takes that right away. Where are the protests?

I could go on.........

I am concerned with the position that you seem to hold because I feel that you are advocating complacency in the face of some terriblely unacceptable (from a true American point of view) circumstances.

[Tharpa]

Well said, Erich! Totally right on.

[Sandy]

On the positive side, I'm sure she's very happy where she is.

That was my first thought when you mentioned Pam Reynolds' passing. This life is important and special. I don't think you can have an NDE and not understand that much. But I still miss the NDE place. When it is my time to go back, I hope whoever I leave behind will take some comfort in the fact that I'll be happy. I'll finally get to go home.

[Trev. :(]

Thanks,Sandy
It probably doesn't mean much to most people but after studying her NDE for years, I felt as if I somehow knew her. Silly, I know.

[Paul]

Well put Louise. An interesting reaction indeed.

[Paul]

@Trev
I don't think your reaction is silly. It is a common response when we are moved by a person but have never met them personally. At least you seem to understand the nature of the relationship unlike some.

[Trev. :(]

Thankyou, Paul.
She was only fifty three(no great age, really) and has several children, not all grown up. I feel sorry for them, most.

[Sandy]

Trev, that's not silly. We make connections in all sorts of ways. I think it is really important to honor those connections however they come about. You seem to be doing that, which isn't silly at all.

[dmduncan]

"To put it another way, I like the common law, with all its rough edges and inconsistencies, much better than any comprehensive 'rational' system,"

Actually, "comprehensive" is not on my mind. I don't think like Ayn Rand. What's on my mind is improving things where improvement is possible. Being fair and consistent where it is possible. I'm not a progressive. I don't believe in utopias or even that human nature is this malleable thing that the central planners can and ought to change, which is probably why I loved Firefly and Serenity so much, because it dealt with those issues.

But does anybody really think that it's a GOOD idea to craft a major piece of legislation, 2000 pages long, which nobody has read? It's absurd. It's like picking a wife, while blind folded, from a mail order catalog. And this passes for acceptable behavior!!!

It's not utopian to DEMAND more than that.

The Constitution has been violated in the past so that property could be stolen and so that people could be killed and silenced — by the government!

That isn't a lie or exaggeration, it's the actual history of American Indians' relationship to the government. What happened in the Black Hills? What happened on the Trail of Tears? YOUR only saving grace, and mine, is that we don't stand between the government and something it wants while holding up a copy of the Constitution, because if we did we'd both be rolled over.

What happened in the 70's to the native inhabitants of Diego Garcia when the government wanted to use that little island — their HOME — as a military base? Guess who won? And that was in the 70's!

It's inexcusable. Now folks in far off cities who don't see the horrors that we can do, and have done, who can turn the newspaper over to avoid the headline they don't want to know about, may think everything works just fine, but ask those who experienced first hand what it's like when the government simply treats you like insignificant meat, and you will get a very different story.

FDR actually put American citizens into camps! Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans. That's FDR, hero of the left, who did that.

Also, I would like to inform folks that there are many kinds of libertarian. It would be most unfair to call libertarians utopians.

For example, Ron Paul is a libertarian republican. He's not a utopian. He's a Constitutionist, in the same pragmatic mold as the Founding Fathers. He believes, as I do, that when actually FOLLOWED, the Constitution we have already SOLVES many of the severe problems we are facing today, from monetary policy to foreign policy to domestic policy.

[dmduncan]

And look, we don't put cops on the street to END crime, we put them there to CONTROL it.

[william]

Zerdini I did not work for Deming I worked for a Japanese organization owed by a Japanese owner. If for a moment you could get past your bruised ego you might become a better reader yourself and actually learn something.

Whatever I did to bruise your ego, which was meant to be a compliment way back when I hope you will accept my apology.

As far as quoting Deming from the Internet to prove some point you would do well to study his teachings. Start with the article the germ theory presented by Dr. Tribus in England and then made into an article. I never ever claimed that Deming’s teachings were my discovery. Again your bruised ego will misread again and again and again.

The fact is I wrote Deming a personal letter when I had my one and only realization in my life about the validity of his teachings. His profound knowledge on understanding variation for effective leadership is little understood by the world and I suspect also by Zerdini. But I would love to dialog with you off line or here on his teachings, as with most “guru’s” teachings the world little understood them.

His teachings on the understanding of variation as it applies to effective leadership are the very best in the world. I do thank you for quoting him on this website as someone may find them interesting and beneficial. Or not.

Can you not see any attacks on others is an attack on self. This is the very heart of spiritual knowledge and understanding. I.e. spiritual oneness of all becomes what we sow we reap. So simple for any spiritual seeker to learn I am surprised you cannot see that or have a longing to learn this spiritual reality.

You are able to see what I sow I reap, and this blog is proof I do reap, but unable to see this with your own actions. This unawareness of our actions is a common error throughout the world even by most spiritual seekers.

“And as you said, Zerdini, this is about the workplace. It's not about anything else,”

Oh Louise the workplace obeys the laws of spiritual reality as all is in the realm of spiritual reality. Spiritual laws apply to the workplace, in church, raising your children, every aspect of life. Now in my next post I will give you some specifics Louise if you are willing to give me just one moment of your time. Zerdini may want to try this also.

[william]

Louise if you are interested would you try this; it will only take a moment of your time or anyone reading this is welcome to try this exercise.

During meditation or as you are waking up from a nap or a nights sleep please try just for a moment looking through the eyes of infinite awareness at “your” manifestations we call humans. Do you see these manifested Beings as innocent expressions of self that lack perfect awareness and therefore error in their choices?

Or do you see these manifestations of self due to the actions of their free will as blameworthy, culpable, sinful, and therefore guilty.

If one is able just for a moment to see these expressions we know as human beings as innocent then this is the beginning stages of being able to answer the question what is the meaning of our unawareness or stated another way what is the origin of our ignorance.

If one sees that the actions of our free will makes us blameworthy, culpable, sinful even evil and therefore guilty then this is the world paradigm. This system of beliefs even exists on the other side in these lower dimensions but interesting if one is able to communicate with spirit in these higher dimensions this belief in free will as it is taught does not exist.

Louise I am sincerely interested in your response. It is extremely difficult to see this innocence. I fail daily in that endeavor.

Also thanks for the input you recently posted on my writing: we have been for some time in the process of putting a feminine touch on these writings.

[Paul]

LMAO this is the most patronising piece I have seen so far - and that's saying something

[william]

Gee Paul I actually thought someone might want to try that experiment just for a moment. It may or may not lead them to some thought or even insights that they never have had before. Or not.

In my own ignorance I should have known better. That is the power of the paradigm effect as Paul won’t even try something even if it takes a moment that is outside his existing paradigm; maybe it could have been stated better forget who wrote it, that in my mind is of least importance to any seeker.

As one of my spiritual teachers stated if you share your pearls with unreceptive minds they shall demean them. The challenge of any seeker becomes every body thinks they have pearls to share. I hope this spiritual teacher is getting a good laugh on the other side at my own ignorance.

At least this spiritual teacher sees my ignorance having its origin in my original and therefore eternal innocence. That is the essence of his teachings, which was and is rejected by most of the world. But not all.

[Louise]

Ain't it just, Paul? "Feminine touch," oy vey! I think William is of the "only opens his mouth to change feet" type!

William, all that talk about innocence and error, and then using the extreme terms of culpability, blameworthiness and so on, sound to me like a great way of avoiding personal responsibility for one's actions. And if you live in this world, in a society, that is an important part of being an adult, of being mature. I don't go with the wimpy line about "everyone is doing their best" that gets trotted out at times (not on this blog). It sounds like a great way of excusing the inexcusable.

Nor do I think that Spirit really expects perfection, or everyone who's here to get all ambitious and start trying to get to whatever the upper levels are. Makes it sound like a real antipathy to this world - which I get, in many ways, from your writing all the time. It's a bit like what Michael quoted before in a different context, about "perfect being the enemy of good".

I don't get myself into a tangle about the infinite, or have ideas that there's something so inherently lowly and awful about being an individual, earthly being, that it has to be done away with. Nor do I go along with the Buddhist business of suffering being so uppermost in their minds. That sounds as much a reflection of the society that produced it, as anything.

Individuality is what souls are about, as far as I'm concerned. The connection and love in Spirit don't mean one suddenly becomes assimilated (shades of the Borg!). And I think that's arrant nonsense about free will not existing in the higher dimensions. Lose free will and you end up with a tyrannical deity at some point. That's not the Creator I've ever heard of from Spirit.

There's nothing in what you preach that has any ring of truth or importance for me; the more I hear the less impressed I am. I have someone I love and trust who lives in Spirit and whose life and communications pretty much contradict all your ideas, as do MY experiences in Spirit. And I'm going to take a leaf out of your demigod manager's book and not compromise on this one. :)

Oh, and spare me any "bruised ego" or other lines like you habitually throw at Zerdini. They're getting old.

[Sandy]

Wow, Louise! That was harsh. I don't think anyone here has all the answers. You don't believe in reincarnation, for instance, but Ian Stevenson's work certainly makes a good case for it. Your experiences are very different from my own, but that doesn't make them invalid. Just different.

[Louise]

Precisely, Sandy. Nobody here has the all the answers, indeed. I'm learning the answers I need for myself, I'm not saying you or William or anyone needs to take the same route, or will come to the same conclusions. But I'm heartily weary of William's "wisdom from on high" manner, which doesn't help his cause one bit.

[Sandy]

Louise, you were quick to tell William just how he should write in order to please you, instead of just letting him be. Kind of like you were quick to say you didn't believe in ghosts that were interested in the internet, and yet you expect all of your experiences to be treated respectfully. I just find that this seems a bit one sided. You very forcefully express your opinions on how others should behave but seem to weary quickly if someone else has a difference of opinion.

[Louise]

Sandy, telling William to write "to please me" was NOT my intent, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. It won't matter to me because I won't be reading his book anyway, lol. I was speaking from the experience of being a writer and working on a writing site, and this is the sort of advice that is given and received there. It's not the content in that respect, it's the style. I was trying to point out, from an editorial point of view, how he could better communicate with a broader readership, because if you look at many of the responses to him here - not just mine - you'll see that he's missed the mark at times.

[Louise]

PS it wasn't "quick to tell," Sandy, I've read plenty of William's posts and it was more like a brewing reaction! :)

[Sandy]

Louise, I'm not always thrilled with your style of writing either. ;)

[Michael Prescott]

Louise wrote, "Individuality is what souls are about, as far as I'm concerned."

You might enjoy The Risen, by August Goforth and Timothy Gray. (Gray is deceased, and the book ostensibly consists, in part, of his channeled communications.) A major theme of the book is that individuality is what souls are about.

Personally I don't know what it's all about!

Very sorry to hear about Pam Reynolds. I had seen her interviewed in video, so I feel as if I knew her, to some small extent.

William's style of expression seems to irk some people, but I thought his suggestion about a meditative exercise was meant to be helpful. I have done similar exercises myself.

His reference to the "feminine touch" struck me as chivalrous, not insulting. In general, women really are better at communicating their feelings than men are.

Regarding the New Age trope "everyone is doing the best they can," there are times when I see it that way and times when I don't. But if I had grown up in the same circumstances, with the same parents, the same influences, the same traumas, the same brain chemistry as the "bad" people in the world, isn't it likely that I would be one of those people myself? After all, no one starts out wanting to be bad. It's learned behavior, based on what appears necessary for survival.

On the other hand, there may be part of us that transcends all those influences and can resist our worst impulses, if we pay heed to it.

I'm not sure. I suspect human behavior is a combination of determinism and free will, but I also suspect that determinism plays a larger role than we might wish.

[william]

“William, all that talk about innocence and error, and then using the extreme terms of culpability, blameworthiness and so on, sound to me like a great way of avoiding personal responsibility for one's actions. And if you live in this world, in a society, that is an important part of being an adult, of being mature”

Ok the first prerequisite is that the culprit of sin, evil, and most suffering is always ignorance. Now that does not mean we are not responsible for our choices and our actions. I know this sounds like a contradiction but there is a difference between being responsible for our choices and actions and taking personal responsibility for our ignorance. Our choices and actions have consequences; some call this karma, some state what we sow we reap. I personally prefer what we sow we reap easier to understand.

We are not victims of ignorance but we do succumb to ignorance for a variety of reasons usually misguided desires. What is a mature adult? Adults succumb to ignorance as much or more than children. This is not an easy paradigm shift as it challenges the world’s paradigm of taking personal responsibility and absolute free will, which if we look deep what they really mean is that personal responsibility, means we are culpable and blameworthy.

The closer we draw to God the greater the free will. Free will has limitations. Those limitations being our level of unawareness. Or stated another way our level of divine intelligence.

The teachings that came to me were that God does not create souls that are blameworthy or culpable; God creates innocent souls. Then I had to ask myself over and over then where does all this sin and evil in the world come from if we are truly innocent at least in God’s eyes. That is what these teachings have revealed to me only as a messenger and a poor one at that.

Where did that ignorance originate? If the culprit is ignorance or better unawareness; they had an origin. Most of the world believes this ignorance comes from society but ask yourself from where did society learn this ignorance. If one states no this sin and evil comes from man’s selfishness well that selfishness has an origin. I.e. ignorance of our perfect reality.

Always a better question than asking why is there ignorance but asking the meaning of our unawareness; the answer to that question will reveal to a seeker the origin of our unawareness as innocence. But we have discovered there are many prerequisites before anyone is willing to even ask that question.

There are phenomena and there is an underlying reality to those phenomena. Phenomena must be dealt with even if it means prison for some to keep a society stable and secure. When the Hitler’s of the world come on to the scene there has to be wars. At his spiritual level Hitler is innocent but his choices and actions were evil and he and others like him must be death with.

As a society if we can come to have knowledge of that underlying reality of that phenomena we can better deal with the phenomena of sin and evil, corruption, the mentality behind oil leaks, divorces, suffering, etc. How many prisons will we have to build before we see that our existing response is not working? I.e. it may be time for a new paradigm.

This feedback is very beneficial to me as a spiritual seeker and for my personal journey. Please don’t kill the messenger as we used to say in the world of consulting.

[Louise]

"Louise, I'm not always thrilled with your style of writing either. ;)"

LOL fair enough, too, Sandy!

[Paul]

Gee William, I tend to consider where the advice is coming from before I try things out. Otherwise I might as well go out and buy every freaky book on the subject on the market (and there are many) and try all those things out to see if I get some form of enlightenment.

As far as consulting is concerned if the messenger turns up with platitudes and a smug grin he should expect a less-than-positive response.

I do not question your motivation for your suggestion. Unfortunately the suggestion turns up, as it often seems to with you, complete with its usual garland of what appears to me to be meaningless patronising waffle delivered with the authority of your 'deeply meaningful spiritual experiences' which are apparently either ineffable or so personal they cannot be discussed.

@Sandy - if there are things you don't like about Louise's style why not be specific - there is no point in saying there are things you don't like without giving the person an opportunity to consider how they can improve it. Although there are things Louise describes, especially regarding her partner, that I find difficult to accept, her manner appears to me to be open and she seems perfectly happy to respond to criticism without having a go at other people or telling them they are ignorant and patting them on the head.

[Zerdini]

Zerdini I did not work for Deming I worked for a Japanese organization owed by a Japanese owner.

Strange then that you should write: "I worked for a Japanese consulting organization owned by a man that wrote a book that challenged the world business paradigm and his book taught how to conduct their business organization and achieve daily process improvements. That book is now used worldwide and became a best seller but not before he experienced much rejection.

If for a moment you could get past your bruised ego you might become a better reader yourself and actually learn something.

I do not have a 'bruised ego' - that exists solely in your imagination.

As far as quoting Deming from the Internet to prove some point you would do well to study his teachings.

What makes you think I haven't studied his teachings?

It is interesting to me that when people cannot answer simple questions in a reasonable manner they invariably resort to ad hominem attacks on the author.

You are a good example of that, William.

I never ever claimed that Deming’s teachings were my discovery. Again your bruised ego will misread again and again and again.

William wrote: "My only realization came with Dr. Deming’s teachings as the relationship of ignorance and the relative phenomenal world."

His profound knowledge on understanding variation for effective leadership is little understood by the world and I suspect also by Zerdini.

See my previous posts regarding his 'profound knowledge'. Your suspicions about my understanding are incorrect and, I suspect, the world's understanding too.

I do thank you for quoting him on this website as someone may find them interesting and beneficial. Or not.

Indeed some may find them beneficial. Or not.

They may have been beneficial in the 1980's but not necessarily today. Or not.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: "Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs".

Last time you claimed not to understand what it meant so I suggest you study the meaning.

The following is attributed to Mark Twain but may not be authentic nevertheless I think you will grasp the meaning:

""When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

You are able to see what I sow I reap, and this blog is proof I do reap, but unable to see this with your own actions. This unawareness of our actions is a common error throughout the world even by most spiritual seekers.

How banal and pretentious of you, William.

[Louise]

Thanks, Paul! :)

[Zerdini]

Ok the first prerequisite is that the culprit of sin, evil, and most suffering is always ignorance. Now that does not mean we are not responsible for our choices and our actions. I know this sounds like a contradiction but there is a difference between being responsible for our choices and actions and taking personal responsibility for our ignorance. Our choices and actions have consequences; some call this karma, some state what we sow we reap. I personally prefer what we sow we reap easier to understand.

Our thoughts create actions and our actions produce consequences - that is what spirit teachers call personal responsibility.

We may call it "As ye sow so shall ye reap", "what you give out you get back" or even "what goes round comes round" - a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

The first quote comes from the Bible to which we could also add another Biblical quote:
“As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.”

The closer we draw to God the greater the free will. Free will has limitations. Those limitations being our level of unawareness. Or stated another way our level of divine intelligence.

Ok William, to really discuss this we need to know what you understand by God.

If freewill has limitations and the closer we draw to God the greater the freewill that means the greater the limitations (our level of divine imtelligence). Somehow your thinking has become unintelligible.

At his spiritual level Hitler is innocent but his choices and actions were evil and he and others like him must be death with.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Please explain.

This feedback is very beneficial to me as a spiritual seeker and for my personal journey.

Glad to hear that, William, but, by the same token, don't attack the respondent but deal with the subject and the questions raised instead.

[Sandy]

Paul, I hadn't planned on elaborating on my own brewing annoyance at Louise, but if you insist, here it goes.

Louise is my worst nightmare. Someone quick to dismiss other's experiences and dispute scientific evidence with gut reactions rather than logic while at the same time putting forward some very fanciful sounding experiences of her own. In other words, she comes across as a flake.

People who have anomalous experiences are often characterized as being nuts. She strikes me as reinforcing the idea that people who see ghosts are less than rational. And yes, I take that personally. I hate the fact that just admitting I have anomalous experiences tends to puts me in a category populated by delusional people and even outright frauds.

I know my own experiences are questionable. That's why I've done what I could to try and obtain some kind of evidence for them. I also understand that not everyone is able to find a parapsychologist willing to work with them. And not everyone wants to be subjected to study in a lab.

Maybe if Louise wasn't as critical of others it wouldn't bother me so much. I'd just roll my eyes when she talked about Louis and be done with it. (I'm sure many people roll their eyes when I mention my experiences.)

I guess that's been brewing for a while, and I apologize. The tone on this blog has been rather combative lately. I don't wish to keep adding to the negative tone.