Elongating That Peak Experience?

[Ron Away]

@ UFOLOGY: That's ALL you have to say about about an almost two hour lecture filled w/ countless points of compelling information ranging across the whole spectrum of McKenna's work i.e., the role of language in human development, Glossolalia, shamanic abilities, problems w/ conventional thinking re: the physics and location of memory, the possible hidden role of genetic programming in the location of human memory; the development and history of theoretical consciousness study; the role of the ego in the development of internal mind dialog; the logos; the connection between UFOs and the experiencer in what may be a co-creative process etc etc etc etc et??? Dude, you are REALLY shut down and calcified in your thinking and I actually feel sorry for you! My definition of aging includes the following... As soon as we stop allowing ourselves to wonder, to ponder the great mysteries from new and different directions and we stop asking questions that may have answers that we don't like or are not expecting, THAT'S when we get old and start to intellectually (and physically) die. Sad. I honestly feel sorry for you. And I'll stand by my opinions of your manner, method and mode of thinking. I ask again nicely: Please don't suck the air out of my threads that deal w/ psychedelic studies and theories around ethnotheogens. And thankfully, again Randell, I rest my case...

I watched the lecture on the Roswell slides that lasted too long and my only reply to that was "its a mummy".I can't speak for Randall but I require solid evidence before I believe anything.That's the way my mind works.I don't think he was trying to derail your thread.He hardly posts these days.I find what you suggest to be fascinating and I'm going to look deeper into it.However as I have no intention of taking any drugs this may be a pointless endeavour.
I'm very much a paranormal novice and I respect people such as yourself.Don't get pissed off so much because many people aren't as far down the track as you.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...Don't get pissed off so much because many people aren't as far down the track as you.

I'm not pissed off, I'm irritated. FWIW: I like Randell and his 'sober,' approach to ufology, however, when it comes to questions of consciousness, entheogen, psychedelic studies, he locks up, closes his mind and retreats into knee-jerk conservative scientism. I get irritated when I have conversations w/ born-again Christians when they wave their Bibles and refuse to think outside their reality view box. This has been going on between us for years and I'm tired of his sucking the air out of my threads on the subject. Sure, ALL experience is subjective, but that doesn't mean that we should retreat to a place of plugged ear "nah-nah-nah-nah' subjective non-objectivism. I have spent years carefully exploring this realm. Randall has not. How can he explain the following event? I was in a pitch dark cabin in the woods w/ a group of friends. We were 'faced' on heroic doses of 'shrooms. I mean faced! I did an experiment where I wrote out in in the air, in cursive, in the dark, with a lit cigarette, 'can you read this.' Everyone could easily read what I wrote because the words appeared to hang in the air in front of us. We were out of sight of the main group—standing inside the cabin, btw. Two people (who had left several minutes earlier to go get something out of the car) walked back into the pitch dark about 20 to 30 seconds after I had written in the air and both of them stopped short and exclaimed "YES! I can read it!" I'm not making this up! Sure, it was a subjective experience, but how can you explain this scientifically? You CAN'T! I could give other examples of inexplicable phenomenal events that I have experienced on psychedelics. My first UFO sighting (multiple objects)was while several of us were tripping on a psychedelics. I saw them first and would not have noticed them if I hadn't been high. There were others who were not tripping, and they shared the sighting experience w/ those of us who were, so you can't simply dismiss the 'subjective experience' and blame the drugs—it was a real event. What's my point?

Just because something doesn't conform to your expected/simplistic view of reality, doesn't make it unreal, or not possible. We must be careful and NOT assume anything just because some scientist, priest, rabbi, minister or guru says it can't be so.

 

[Ron Away]

I'm not pissed off, I'm irritated. FWIW: I like Randell and his 'sober,' approach to ufology, however, when it comes to questions of consciousness, entheogen, psychedelic studies, he locks up, closes his mind and retreats into knee-jerk conservative scientism. I get irritated when I have conversations w/ born-again Christians when they wave their Bibles and refuse to think outside their reality view box. This has been going on between us for years and I'm tired of his sucking the air out of my threads on the subject. Sure, ALL experience is subjective, but that doesn't mean that we should retreat to a place of plugged ear "nah-nah-nah-nah' subjective non-objectivism. I have spent years carefully exploring this realm. Randall has not. How can he explain the following event? I was in a pitch dark cabin in the woods w/ a group of friends. We were face on heroic doses of 'shrooms. I mean faced! I did an experiment where I wrote out in in the air, in cursive, in the dark, with a lit cigarette, 'can you read this.' Everyone could easily read what I wrote because the words appeared to hang in the air in front of us. We were out of sight of the main group—standing inside the cabin, btw. Two people (who had left several minutes earlier to go get something out of the car) walked back into the pitch dark about 20 to 30 seconds after I had written in the air and both of them stopped short and exclaimed "YES! I can read it!" I'm not making this up! Sure, it was a subjective experience, but how can you explain this scientifically? You CAN'T! I could give other examples of inexplicable phenomenal events that I have experienced on psychedelics. My first UFO sighting (multiple objects)was while several of us were tripping on a psychedelics. I saw them first and would not have noticed them if I hadn't been high. There were others who were not tripping, and they shared the sighting experience w/ those of us who were, so you can't simply dismiss the 'subjective experience' and blame the drugs—it was a real event. What's my point?

Just because something doesn't conform to your expected/simplistic view of reality, doesn't make it unreal, or not possible. We must be careful and NOT assume anything just because some scientist, priest, rabbi, minister or guru says it can't be so.

I completely believe you.As I've said on other threads some people like yourself attract or are more sensitive to the things we label paranormal.Sadly for me I'm as attractive to the paranormal as a t bone steak is to a vegetarian.I always enjoy hearing your experiences even if it does leave me a little envious.

 

[Ron Away]

 

[Randall]

@ UFOLOGY: That's ALL you have to say about about an almost two hour lecture filled w/ countless points of compelling information ranging across the whole spectrum of McKenna's work

As I said, it's not really fair to respond to my previous posts with a voluminous amount of information from another person that doesn't address the points I made, but at least I am listening to the content, and at least I am responding to specific points, and at least I am acknowledging there is other content is there that can be discussed if we can take it in bite sized pieces. One cannot be expected to take it all in at once and write something on every single point in a single post.

Perhaps it might help if you could assist in locating the info on the 1978 meteorite he talks about. At present I have my doubts that he is giving the audience accurate information about that, and if he doesn't have that right, and doesn't have his info on UFOs straight, how can we rely on his other info, let alone believe his other claims of an even more contentious nature that are based on the admitted use of hallucinogens?

i.e., the role of language in human development, Glossolalia, shamanic abilities, problems w/ conventional thinking re: the physics and location of memory, the possible hidden role of genetic programming in the location of human memory; the development and history of theoretical consciousness study; the role of the ego in the development of internal mind dialog; the logos; the connection between UFOs and the experiencer in what may be a co-creative process etc etc etc etc et???

I'm just trying to take specific issues a few at a time. I didn't say he was uninteresting, but I don't simply believe every claim or theory a person makes. One of the first things I do when considering a person's claims or theories is to try to verify them in some way via cross referencing and that includes considering skeptical points as well. That is most certainly a reasonable and responsible thing to do.

Dude, you are REALLY shut down and calcified in your thinking and I actually feel sorry for you!

I did kindly and respectfully ask that you address the issues raised rather than make personal comments. However I would respond by saying that if I were "shut down" I would neither be listening to the audio nor reviewing it for accuracy, nor participating in this discussion. Just because I approach it differently than you and try to separate what is accurate and coherent from what isn't doesn't mean I am "shut down" or "calcified". It does mean that my search for the truth is not based on blind faith or conclusions that are poorly substantiated, either factually or rationally.

My definition of aging includes the following... As soon as we stop allowing ourselves to wonder, to ponder the great mysteries from new and different directions and we stop asking questions that may have answers that we don't like or are not expecting, THAT'S when we get old and start to intellectually (and physically) die. Sad.

I think you have part of that right. It's fine to ponder. It's the quality of the pondering that makes the difference. If one begins their pondering from a belief that is poorly substantiated or makes little sense because they haven't taken the time to consider whether or not the claims involved are true or even likely to be true, then they risk building their beliefs on inaccurate and poorly pondered information. If one were to feel sorry for anyone, it would be those who have formulated their beliefs on bad information, blind faith, and fear of the truth.

I honestly feel sorry for you. And I'll stand by my opinions of your manner, method and mode of thinking. I ask again nicely: Please don't suck the air out of my threads that deal w/ psychedelic studies and theories around ethnotheogens. And thankfully, again Randell, I rest my case...

If you want some life breathed into your discussions, I suggest that you start addressing the points made on the issues themselves instead of engaging in critiques of your participant's character, and if it bothers you that I question the claims made and try to verify the accuracy of the information presented rather than becoming a pupil dilated believer, well I guess that's just something you'll have to contend with. And BTW, my name is Randall, with an "a" as in "all" and I'm all just fine with who I am . Your feelings of sadness and pity are probably based on conclusions you've arrived at without questioning your assumptions or verifying the accuracy of the information ... LOL.

 

[Randall]

I have spent years carefully exploring this realm. Randall has not. How can he explain the following event? I was in a pitch dark cabin in the woods w/ a group of friends. We were 'faced' on heroic doses of 'shrooms. I mean faced! I did an experiment where I wrote out in in the air, in cursive, in the dark, with a lit cigarette, 'can you read this.' Everyone could easily read what I wrote because the words appeared to hang in the air in front of us. We were out of sight of the main group—standing inside the cabin, btw. Two people (who had left several minutes earlier to go get something out of the car) walked back into the pitch dark about 20 to 30 seconds after I had written in the air and both of them stopped short and exclaimed "YES! I can read it!" I'm not making this up! Sure, it was a subjective experience, but how can you explain this scientifically? You CAN'T!

I don't claim to be able to explain everything. I do believe strange things happen that we don't have an immediate explanation for. I also believe that when people don't have an immediate explanation for things, they sometimes jump to unsubstantiated conclusions, so what I do is consider possibilities against a backdrop of known information and rational thinking in an attempt to determine which conclusion or claim or theory is the most reasonable among the available choices. In this way, we have good reason to believe we are probably moving in the right direction with respect to the truth.

Turning to your example, perhaps one might suggest some sort of telepathy ( as was suggested in the audio ). Or maybe it was as mundane as some firefly following the heated contours of the air. I don't know. Perhaps telepathic communication is possible. Maybe it works differently than we assume and isn't really pure "mind to mind" communication. Either way, there are many anecdotal accounts and I've experienced what I believed to be the phenomenon myself while not under the influence of psychedelics. Whatever the case, there's some sort of rational explanation for the experience. Logically there has to be. We just don't know what that is yet.

Other ideas to consider: You said you traced the word in the air with a lit cigarette. I'm assuming that the heated tip was the light source. So one might theorize that one of the effects of the drug is to produce extended afterimages, which can be attributed to the workings of the visual perceptual system rather than assuming that time itself has slowed down. But that doesn't explain how those who came in from outside were also able to see the word. The obvious thing to ask is whether or not those who came in after the word had been written were asked if they could see it before they said anything?

If someone said, "Hey dudes do you see the glowing word hanging in the air there?" the power of suggestion combined with hallucinogenics could explain how they imagined the word being there, and there's no way to verify that what they saw was actually identical to what the rest of you saw. But here's one thing to consider that might help to determine how likely it is that what the others saw was the same as the rest of you.

Consider which way were you facing when you traced the word in the air? Was it directly in front of you as if you were writing on an invisible chalkboard, a flat plane? Now think back and try to recall the location of the door relative to that plane. If the others simply walked in and exclaimed that they could see the word without any prompting, are you sure that that plane upon which the words were written was properly angled to their position? If you had written it parallel to the door, then the word would have been on an edge and illegible, in which case they would not have been seeing the same thing as the rest of you. They would have had to move into position to see it. Did you even think of any of these things?

Another contentious possibility, but less so than telepathy, is the possibility that the increased neural connections that psychedelics facilitate result not only in hallucinations, but also a sort of hypersensory perception. Our senses are already pretty good without any enhancement. For example I have small fluorescent lamps in my room and when I turn them off, for some extended period I can see them still faintly glowing. Similarly, in the dark, the burner on the electric stove that seems black under normal light and not glowing at a lower temperature can be seen faintly glowing red.

Some animals can sense heat sources at some distance and you traced the word with a heat source. So maybe in addition to the afterimage, in the complete dark, as unlikely as it seems, your friends with their hypersensory stimulation were able to visually detect the heated smoke path in the air. Or perhaps the smoke path itself was illuminated from some other light source not visible to you from your position. These are a bit far out there, but at least they are rational scientifically testable theories.

Or another less contentious take on the hypersensory aspect is that while still outside, your friends subconsciously detected the low volume audio of the conversation going on about the experience, and upon entering the cabin, their minds responded with an appropriate hallucination. Of the above possibilities I'd say that this is the most likely. More so than telepathy or fireflies or time dilation. But I'm not saying that it is the definitive answer either. What it does seem to be however, is the most reasonable and rational so far in this discussion. So saying "You CAN'T?" at least offer some sort a scientific or rational explanation simply isn't true and is giving up without even trying.

What do you think is the most reasonable explanation? Why?

I could give other examples of inexplicable phenomenal events that I have experienced on psychedelics. My first UFO sighting (multiple objects)was while several of us were tripping on a psychedelics. I saw them first and would not have noticed them if I hadn't been high. There were others who were not tripping, and they shared the sighting experience w/ those of us who were, so you can't simply dismiss the 'subjective experience' and blame the drugs—it was a real event. What's my point?

Just because something doesn't conform to your expected/simplistic view of reality, doesn't make it unreal, or not possible. We must be careful and NOT assume anything just because some scientist, priest, rabbi, minister or guru says it can't be so.

That's certainly a fair statement, and I might even point out that McKenna might be considered somewhat of a "guru" among the psyhconaut community. So I see no reason why he ( or anyone else including me ) should be excluded from the application of critical thinking when it comes to our search for the truth.

 

[Randall]

I completely believe you ( Speaking about Chris' experience ). As I've said on other threads some people like yourself attract or are more sensitive to the things we label paranormal. Sadly for me I'm as attractive to the paranormal as a t bone steak is to a vegetarian. I always enjoy hearing your experiences even if it does leave me a little envious.

I too believe Chris has had interesting experiences. What I don't believe is that a scientific or rational explanation cannot be formulated that might account for them. Contentious though they may be, I came up with at least one for his experience above. Although something I never considered in light of your cartoon posting is the possibility that his whole cabin experience itself was some kind of hallucination ... LOL. I knew a guy who did some LSD and he said the whole space around him changed and all that remained was the sidewalk extending off into the distance, so he followed it and at some point he snapped back into reality to find that he was standing in the middle of a four lane highway and almost got hit by a semi.

So sure, there might be some interesting experiences to be had, but discerning reality from hallucination, illusion, or misperceptions is IMO very important when attempting to determine the nature of a UFO report, and we simply cannot assign the same reliability to reports based on hallucinations as we can to reports based on unimpaired credible witnesses, radar reports, and if we're really lucky someday, some sort of scientifically valid material evidence.

 

[Sand]

While I think these experiences can be far more profound than "the bio-equivalent of special visual effects”, I have no fixed opinion on whether these experiences open up the consciousness to realms beyond the internal functioning of the brain. But I would love to see further studies of the types described in the article that started this thread, with elongated DMT periods.

Here are what a couple of the participants in the University of New Mexico’s study on DMT have to say.

Susan Blumenthal, one of the test subjects who received doses of DMT. Elsewhere Susan has said that her DMT experiences during the study were, along with the three births of her children, the most profound experiences of her life.

Dr David Nichols, a scientist who participated in the study

 

[Randall]

... While I think these experiences can be far more profound than "the bio-equivalent of special visual effects”, I have no fixed opinion on whether these experiences open up the consciousness to realms beyond the internal functioning of the brain ...

For some reason I'm not seeing the videos. I think this video is one of them but I'm not entirely sure .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=orqYNrJJJFA.

On the comment that the experiences are the bio-equivalent of special visual effects: Although that is undoubtedly the case, that doesn't mean that the experiences aren't profound to the experiencer, and with good reason. The brain is the most powerful processor known and the effects produced are applied to all five senses plus our cognitive and emotional abilities and then manifested directly in one's consciousness. Therefore these special effects are going to seem real and be more spectacular and unlike anything else we've experienced. So it's little wonder that experiencers find them to be profound.

But that doesn't mean that what is being experienced, be they angels or places where souls wait to be born or the voice of God are the result of perceptions of those things as objectively independent things and not simply a grand mind movie. In the end these experiences still boil down to processing altered by chemistry, and therefore the experiences are subjective in nature, which means that any claim that objective reality beyond the experiencer is also affected by the subjective experience is very unlikely, as are claims that such experiences are evidence of alternate universes and afterlives.

Again, that isn't to say that powerful personal insights cannot be gained, only that hallucinations aren't exactly the most reliable evidence for claims about the objective reality of fantastical things.

 

[Sand]

For some reason I'm not seeing the videos. I think this video is one of them but I'm not entirely sure .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=orqYNrJJJFA.

Yes, I’m having the same problem with embedded videos when viewing the Forum on Chrome. I can see the videos with Firefox. But since yesterday I’ve not been able to see any of the videos embedded in the Forum when using Google Chrome. I was going to ask Gene about this.

The two videos I posted above are:

Susan Blumenthal
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkLsZ9tT28

Dr David Nichols
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyJnhRUymGY

The video you cited was actually the other one I was referring to.

Gene, do you have any idea what is causing the problem with videos?