Paul Phillips

I'm sure you've read them but if not you would probably find

The Doors of Perception
and
Heaven and Hell

by
Aldous Huxley interesting.

Again, you probably know, but the former is where The Doors took thier name from.

(Reply) (Thread)

When I heard the lecture, I was surprised that she didn't mention how much her left brain offline experience was like meditation.

As for the comment you quote, it's an amusing example of someone who doesn't seem to get the "one with the universe" thing, no matter how many drugs they've taken.

(Reply) (Thread)

As for the comment you quote, it's an amusing example of someone who doesn't seem to get the "one with the universe" thing, no matter how many drugs they've taken.

Not sure which "one with the universe" thing you're in on, but the one I'm familiar with doesn't preclude having opinions.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Afaik, most one with the universe systems are big on compassion, not on shaming people about rather minor matters.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Compassion, it's great to apply it to ourselves as well as others. I think most people are a little too tough on themselves, I know I was anyway.

For perceiving others, speaking for myself...I find appreciation a better fit. With compassion mixed in there. It's amazing how differently people will interact with you when you do this. Genuinely, you can't fake it. They light up sometimes, they always treat you better, more friendly...because they feel better around you. It's like they realize they're "with" you and not there's you and then there's them.

I just started doing that a few weeks ago, it does take a bit to get used to and be able to maintain it during whatever may come up.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Dr. Jill is a very cool person. I know her and find her amazing.

(Reply) (Thread)

So what does that say about me? Illegality doesn't bother me quite so much, but rather, I worry about changing my frame of reference like that. I'm afraid of what could happen -- not safety-wise, but mentally -- and so have, apparently, missed out on the game all this while.

(Reply) (Thread)

I am impressed by your answer because very rarely are people who feel that way willing or able to articulate it unambiguously. I've heard lots of objections over the years but most of the time they're clumsily conceived wrappers around fear; fear of the unknown, or of not being in control.

Have you ever experienced a lasting change in your frame of reference that you wanted to undo? The thing about broadening your perspective is that you can't contrast before and after except from after. From before, it's like trying to watch a B&W TV set in color: out of reach.

Can you be more specific about what outcome(s) you're worried about?

(There are always people lurking who want to accuse me of downplaying the risks when it comes to drugs, so let me say: while the risks are actually much lower than many risks we assume daily without much concern, there are risks, both physical and mental.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, I'm not the guy you're responding to, but I have my own answer(s) if you're interested.

First and foremost, I met a lot of burnouts in college, and I don't want to end up like that. You know the type--eyes are always glassy, their thought processes are obviously muddled and semi-coherent at times, they end up not being able to hold down a meaningful job (most of them didn't actually make it through school) because their brains are basically broken. Now, these dudes probably took a lot more than just a few magic mushrooms. But how do I know which drugs did that to them, how much is too much, and where to draw the line? I have zero experience with illegal substances, so I haven't the first clue about what most of these drugs "really" do and what the real dangers are, especially after years of public school indoctrination that taught me one hit of LSD makes you clinically insane for life.

Second, the people I have met in my life that have espoused these "consciousness expanding" experiences have generally been people I don't want to be like. The aforementioned burnouts, or hippy new-age pagans (and here I am showing my biases, take that as you will), or people who are self-described "very spiritual" people (which I tend to take as code for "I want to be religious but I don't even have the balls to pick a particular religion"). It's extremely rare in my admittedly limited experience to find an intelligent, successful, well-adjusted, non-religious, rational and objective individual who has had these "consciousness expanding" experiences . And the few that I've read/heard about tend to not give too much credence to the idea that the things they experienced while under the influence were actually "real" in the sense that they actually had a revelation about the nature of the universe. Instead, it's understood that they took some psychoactive drugs, which by definition cause you to see and hear things that aren't there, and believe things that aren't real. It was cool, but it wasn't real.

Now that all being said, I've always been fascinated by psychoactive drugs and if they were not illegal in this country and were available at Walgreens I almost certainly would have tried them by now, just to see for myself. Illegality *is* an issue for me, not so much because I think those laws are valid (I don't) but because I just don't need the f'ing hassle of having to live like a criminal and be in fear of the police. In this respect it's just far easier for me to conform than it is to indulge my curiosity about these drugs.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

As for your second paragraph, your perceptions are from limited experience.

It is also inaccurate. The people I know are the most well-adjusted, aware, and happiest I have ever met. Aware in ways you can't even imagine, you've locked yourself out of it.

I'm talking about structured consciousness exploration other than hallucinogens.

Usually they are spiritual and your code of meaning is caused by your complete lack of knowledge of what their experience is although it is perfectly understandable. Some of these things really can't be explained well, or at all...especially to someone who hasn't been there. Resistance to being open to the possibility wouldn't exactly help you to understand either.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Usually they are spiritual and your code of meaning is caused by your complete lack of knowledge of what their experience is although it is perfectly understandable. Some of these things really can't be explained well, or at all...especially to someone who hasn't been there. Resistance to being open to the possibility wouldn't exactly help you to understand either

You gotta understand, though, that this whole "It's spiritual, It can't be explained, you just have to experience it" jive is exactly, exactly the line I've been hearing my entire life from my Christian friends. It's a bunch of nonsense when they say it, how can you expect me to believe it's anything else coming from you?

I've been completely open with my biases. I don't believe in spirituality at all. The evidence as I see it points to me being a bag of meat inside which complex chemical reactions take place that give rise to consciousness. I don't pretend to understand how it works and I don't pretend to understand the brain any more than the average person. However, I'm fairly convinced that the workings are, in theory, knowable and that there is a vanishingly small chance that there is anything "spiritual" about it.

Again, I'm not denying that people have amazing, life changing experiences all the time, both in conjunction with mind-altering substances and without. I'm not even ruling out the idea that I would change my mind were I to have such an experience as the lady in the video did. All I've done is articulate the reasons I have not yet done anything about my own curiosity about hallucinogens and other mind-altering drugs. And frankly, I've offered evidence for Paul's main point in the process--I am one of those people who has denied himself a possibly mind expanding and enjoyable experience simply because of the ridiculous and puritanical laws of the country I live in. I am not at the moment willing to risk having my life ruined by a ridiculous drug arrest simply to indulge my curiosity. I'm not afraid of altering my worldview, I'm not afraid of changing my frame of reference, and I'm not afraid of being proved wrong. I'm simply afraid of the police. (To a lesser extent, I'm also afraid of not knowing the quality, purity, or dosage of what I'm getting from the black market. But again, this is just another thing that provides evidence for the point Paul was making.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"You gotta understand, though, that this whole "It's spiritual, It can't be explained, you just have to experience it" jive is exactly, exactly the line I've been hearing my entire life from my Christian friends. It's a bunch of nonsense when they say it, how can you expect me to believe it's anything else coming from you?"

I'm not asking you to understand it. I'm just saying there are experiences that are outside of your frame of reference so you have no way of making sense of them. That doesn't make it nonsense, just nonsense to you. Also perfectly fine and understandable, if I was you I'd think the same thing. Hell I used to be you a few months ago. Best thing to do is just keep an open mind and follow your curiosity if you have some about it. I'm not religious at all, I just like to explore what kind of different experiences I can have...so I check them out.

It's fun and satisfying with real benefits in the real world with yourself and with others. Like one time I was doing some meditation where I stop my thinking as much as I can and just concentrate on perceiving with all of my senses one by one and then altogether. Slowly blurring the perception of my body being separate from anything else. Just a part of everything else and perceiving it. I found whatever I came across I would understand it, but when I tried to think about that understanding or utilize it or go for something specific I would lose it.

Right after that experience I was outside getting my mail. I had walked up to the box to check it right as the Postman was delivering.
This was a guy who was a more than a bit curt as far as personality goes. I wanted to strike up a conversation while I was standing there and offered a few things that he didn't bite on. Then I thought about what I had done earlier and just let it be. I wanted it to happen but I stopped thinking about things to say. I just went into as close as I could get to the state I was in before and the next thing I know we're having a conversation that's going great. He waved to me twice when he left. Trust me, this was some extremely unusual behavior coming from this guy. How? Why? I don't know although I do have some working theories that I'll play with some more.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The top 5 reasons I don't do psychedelics..

5) I'd feel pretty silly scoring a dime bag at my age.

4) I simply don't have time to check out for 10 hours. What would I tell my kids?

3) I am completely and totally boring on pot. I get introverted and self absorbed. It's just kind of a waste. A serious form of mental masturbation. Coke, speed and alcohol make me think I'm clever when I'm really, really not. I always assumed that stronger drugs would just enhance those qualities in me.

2) I get addicted to things quite easily. I don't need any new addictions.

And the number one reason I don't do psychedelics is ...

1) Because whenever I listen to people describe their drug experiences they sound so shallow and stupid and silly that I say to myself, "I promise I will never be like that." Perhaps I have really shallow and stupid and silly friends. Or perhaps I "just don't get it". But this has always been my experience. I have never talked to someone who described a trip where I thought "Wow, that sounds really cool. I have to try that." Sure, there are written accounts, which can be pretty moving, but when I actually talk to these people and look them in the eye, I walk away saying "No. Not for me."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I apologize for being late in stating my opinion...

But my rationale for not using mind-altering substances is all about cost-benefit (or risk-reward). First, I am very fearful of some negative, health effect. Second, I don't enjoy altering my mental state, at least as thus far experience through alcohol.

My analogy... it's somewhat like corrective eye surgery. Sure, I don't like my contacts/glasses much, but I really really don't want to be blind. Ergo, I don't have the surgery because I don't want to risk (no matter how slight of a risk) going permanently blind. (yes, I know you've had eye surgery... my analogy was not accidentally selected). And with mind-altering drugs, I don't think that I'd enjoy the experience, so there's the risk with little perceived reward (I recognize that you have a valid argument about the fact that I cannot truly perceive the "reward").

By the way, I think it's cool that you are actually advocating drug use. Most arguments that I hear regarding drug use are of the "make it legal so that I can use it" variety.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Y'know, I've been afraid of a few things wrt drugs. Quite honestly, I'm afraid I'd like them rather a lot; addiction runs in the family, and I am quite cognizant of the fact that it's better if I just don't bother.

To be honest, I've never had any medicinally-induced state where my frame of reference has shifted enough to be very significant. I've never had any general anesthesia, and the closest I've come to being really "out of it" was when I took 5x dose of OTC sleeping pills on my most recent trans-Pacific flight (I hate being cramped into planes, and I can never seem to sleep; the hours just end up being interminable). While that recent experience was a little nifty in that I felt very detached and relaxed, it wasn't something that I would care to replicate on a regular basis.

To be clear: What am I afraid of? I'm less afraid of immediate physical risk, and more afraid of long-term addiction or desire. I'm quite afraid of losing control and not having clear, instant, unimpaired decision-making faculty.

In some senses this makes me sad because I've a lot of friends (hell, even my own wife) who have or still do use drugs recreationally and suffer no ill effects, and who very much enjoy optional pharmaceuticals. It's just not something I think I could reasonably handle.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I've changed my frame of reference many times over through becoming aware of what exactly is going on in my mind at any given moment and unraveling all the associations that go into having that perception. Then modifying, tweaking, and sometimes discarding them for something better...that's the active way.

The passive way I do it is with meditation coupled with brainwave entrainment and other times provocative music. Occasionally I'll use some Salvia Divinorum. Not while mediating, just enjoying the experience but as I'm typing this I'm thinking that this just made my list of cool things to do.

Both active and passive have added so much to my quality of life and happiness and ability to perceive things more accurately, comprehensively, and productively.

I've never had a negative "re-frame of reference."

Some have however so I know that is possible as well. Not only with hallucinogens, also with well meaning therapeutic interventions and the more passive ways I described. It's from uncovering stuff long hidden from consciousness. Fixable though and ultimately beneficial, hidden from consciousness doesn't mean it doesn't have a continuing effect on consciousness. It's like a little dictator that's pulling the strings behind the scenes and causing you to have different perceptions and then reactions to the world than you would have if it wasn't there or was resolved.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I was less thrilled with the woo-woo nature of the last few minutes. She practically demanded that the audience leave behind the tyranny of their shells. I'd much rather a) get in tune with my own private Lalaland, and then b) reconcile it with my evil individualistic lizard brain. Because it takes both halves to make a person.

(Reply) (Thread)

I had sort of the same reaction. My initial reaction was "She had a weird experience while her brain was damaged, how does that relate to me at all?" She's telling me we can achieve world peace by freeing our right brains or something--it just struck me as the same message I've been hearing all my life from burnouts and TM practitioners and ex-hippies, a message I've so far rejected largely because of the messengers.

It was obviously a very moving experience for her, and it's an experience I would like to have as well (except for the brain damage part). But it was also clear she was not a functioning individual during that time. It seems pretty clear to me that the reason most of us are "held back" by our left brain from experiencing this kind of stuff all the time is because it's not, in the end, conducive to being a productive and functional individual. If it were advantageous for us to be able to turn off the regulator of the left brain at will and experience the "oneness of the universe" or whatever, we would have evolved to be able to do so. That it is, in fact, quite hard to do this for most people (requiring the use of certain chemicals, long training in meditation, or brain damaging strokes) tells me it wasn't a useful adaptation and so was not selected for naturally.

Is it maybe useful now? In an age where aggression, selfishness, and constant vigilance are not as valuable as they were in the pleistocene, that's an interesting and meaningful question. Being able to turn off the left brain for awhile and sense the interconnectedness of all things just might make us more peaceful and less self-centered, which would be good things in our modern world.

Thing is, I'm still not convinced there's any such thing. I don't doubt the experiences that others have related, and I might just change my mind if ever I had such an experience myself, but I'm just not convinced right now that it's not all just a trick of a malfunctioning brain. The fact that there is apparently an entire hemisphere of our brain that has evolved to keep us from experiencing this suggests to me that it is not a productive thing to be experiencing. A little bit of right-brain creativeness and imagination is great. A lot would appear to be counter productive.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"we would have evolved to be able to do so."

We might well be in the process of doing so. Who knows what we'll be thinking, and how, ten thousand years from now?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I've no doubt we'll be thinking many different things in 10k years, but not, or very little, as a consequence of natural evolution.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Could be. It depends on how recent a development the split left-brain/right-brain thing really is, I suppose. If this is something that appeared very early in pre-modern man, I'd bet on the "would have happened already if it was useful" outcome, as it seems that this wouldn't be that big of an adaptation--it only involves shutting off a part of what is already there, apparently.

If it appeared more recently, only in modern homo sapiens, then you could be right--it may be in the process of happening. In that case, I guess we'll see. Well, not us as in you and me--we'll presumably be long dead before it happens. But "us" as a species, anyway.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"It seems pretty clear to me that the reason most of us are "held back" by our left brain from experiencing this kind of stuff all the time is because it's not, in the end, conducive to being a productive and functional individual."

A lot of things are held back to protect us, sometimes they actually harm us instead in unintended ways. The end is not necessarily "conducive to being a productive and functional individual." Example, a woman who is raped who can't bring herself to get close to a man again the same way she could before or possibly even leave the house.

Perhaps it's made available to those who are ready for it. For the ones who aren't, better left untouched.

"That it is, in fact, quite hard to do this for most people (requiring the use of certain chemicals, long training in meditation, or brain damaging strokes) tells me it wasn't a useful adaptation and so was not selected for naturally."

Another way to look at it is that the training and time people devote to it indicates the desirability and usefulness of it. Our ability to do that has been selected for us, has it not?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Paul your post reminded me about a book by Andrew Weil entitled The Natural Mind which discussed taking the altered consciousness experiences that resulted from using recreational drugs to help a person later get into same altered states without drugs or naturally.

Years ago when I tried various recreational drugs I found this book rather intriguing. Now it appears he also has used this book (newer edition) to try and help people with drug addictions...

(Reply) (Thread)

Old hat to anyone who's taken drugs or studied Taoist philosophy (and I guess Buddhist too).

BTW, for those too scared to try or unable to get good drugs in your home country, you now have the option of buying magic mushrooms (active ingredient psilocybin) legally and openly in "smart shops" in the Netherlands. They are even nicely packaged and include complete instructions. My wife tried them for the first time a couple of months ago and had many of the same reactions/realizations as Dr. Taylor.

translates to the transcendent experience many people have after ingesting LSD, psilocybin, or ecstasy

Not sure that E makes that short list. Heightened perceptions, beauty in things you would normally consider mundane, and feelings of happiness certainly. But not the interconnectedness of all things bit which seemed key to her talk. You don't even get hallucinations. At least at the doses I've taken.

(Reply) (Thread)

You're right, let me clarify: LSD elicits the interconnectedness of all things. Ecstasy elicits the interconnectedness and fundamental similarities of all people - at least, it did for me. For a typical person, MDMA is much less threatening and much more usefully targetted than are hallucinogenics, so I'd feel remiss mentioning consciousness-expanding drugs without including it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

For a typical person, MDMA is much less threatening and much more usefully targetted than are hallucinogenics

Absolutely. Greatest drug ever invented. It's such a strange one for the anti-drug forces to demonize; no violence, not physically addicting, no after effects or side effects unless you take it in truly stupid doses. Maybe that's why they don't want it around, it's easier to be anti-recreational drug when the only legal rec drugs have none of these fine properties.

For those who haven't tried it, you don't need to head for a underground dance club to get the effects. Putting on your favorite music and looking out the window is amazing. Hell, taking a shower is amazing, a live fluid dynamics experiment. Taking a shower with someone else is simply offscale. It really helps you see the fundamental properties of things, including people things, and the beauty/elegance of those properties. But it's not scary or distorted, you see what's really there, just a lot more clearly than usual.

So try it if you get a chance. The worst that can happen is that you'll end up with something that's more speed than E. And that's not too bad either. You might now get any great insights, but you'll still have fun.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Because I get a depressed and lethargic after a night of heavy drinking, have suffered from depression in the past, I've always been hesitant to mess around with MDMA. Drugs that mess with seratonin freak me out. The last thing I would want to do would be have a "Down period" that would last more than a day or two.

Then again....http://thedea.org/docs/2006_de_Win22871_1.pdf

Having tried psilocybin and having a very positive experiences (granted the doses I took were small), I've been interested in trying some other things, but hesitant because of the desire to NOT have a horribly intense anxiety reaction to it, or liking it so much I wanted to do it a LOT. That idea with MDMA is a little jarring.

As per meditation, Paul, I have a copy of Daniel Goleman's "The Meditative Mind" which breaks a lot of the stuff down, though I haven't read it. I do know, however, that the most experience meditators usually aren't looking for a mystical or "transcendent" experience as simply the practice of being, awake and present and unfettered constant compartmentalization/conception of reality, and instead being present with a clear and uncolored "understanding" (put in quotes because there is nothing to learn--it is clear and apparent) of the way things are. Alan Watts comes to mind among others...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The talk is nice, but anyone who hasn't already had a similar experience should feel ashamed to categorize themselves as intellectuals


An intellectual must consider stepping into the unknown, regardless of potential cost, to be worthwhile? There is a risk-of-ruin, some unsavoury middle ground, and of course reward. Such logic, moreover, even if true, is a potential trap for the dillusional, wanton, mistaking the cause and effect relationship - or perhaps not, maybe, that this is the claim.

It also smacks of self justification - one could argue similarly, for anyone who has not sought enlightenment through meditation. The list I'm sure could be extended to a myriad of arts and pastimes: everyone loves their own bag.

(Reply) (Thread)

The way he phrased it was less than ideal. My agreement is with the root sentiment, which is that it's a crime that someone who STUDIES THE BRAIN would (by all appearances) only discover the existence of this feeling by nearly dying. It's a pretty well documented BRAIN thing. There's nothing wrong with being apprehensive about trying drugs, but there's something wrong with being entirely ignorant of this effect if you aspire to being informed about the brain.

You can indeed make the same argument about meditation and that's why I've tried it, without much luck unfortunately. If someday I do have awesome experiences via meditation, at least I won't be surprised.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm not sure that's his message, but I agree it is wrong in the way you descir , even if the decision not to will be right for some. Meditation must make for an attractive alternative. As it appears to have overtly positive impact on the brain. I believe meditation is supposed to increase the resting level of alpha waves, as well as post-meditation. EEG scans of monks were unparalled in that respect.

Have you read Zen and the Brain? I'm guess you have. I've read but a few snippets from google, thus far. I've indulged lightly in meditation, and found it quite profound, though, I suspect, your backdrop of sensory experiences will be more contrasting. The version of meditaiton I've tried was Shikantanza - just sitting. To quote Austin, 'it is the way one listens knowing that a tiger lurks in the jubgle nearby'. I find it tough sustain, but certainly noticed myself much more alert, focussed afterwards.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Apologies for the quality.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The version of meditaiton I've tried was Shikantanza - just sitting. To quote Austin, 'it is the way one listens knowing that a tiger lurks in the jubgle nearby'.

You mean tense, scared, and full of adrenaline?? That doesn't sound relaxing at all. Is it supposed to be relaxing??

I find it tough sustain, but certainly noticed myself much more alert, focussed afterwards.

Yeah, I bet. If I sat around worrying about imaginary tigers lurking in the bushes, I'd probably feel alert and focused too--focused on running like hell away from the tiger!

Can you tell me what this is supposed to accomplish? My simplistic view of meditation is that it's supposed to relax and "center" you. This sounds like it'd wire you up and make you tense and scared!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

One thing, Shikantanza, incidentally, means just sitting, if that wasn't clear. Also, you're better of researching than listening to my rather uninformed comments.

The purpose of the analogy is, I believe, to communicate the dedicated functionality of the brain in the state. It wouldn't surprise me if the activity is similar to 'being in the zone'. The idea is that you simply listen to every noise, but that is the only activity, you don't use mental resources picturing what generates the noise, whether it's good or bad, you're just observing the noise, the exeperience, the moment. Needless to say it's very hard to hold for long, you brain tricks you in spite of your best efforts. You hear a motorbike, and soon James Dean will be there. You just have to keep refocussing. It isn't stressful at all, but can be tiring, and yes I certainly feel relaxed afterwards and calm. The goal, or one of them, is to achieve a state of mindfulness in the sense of being in the present. I would say I've had glimpses of it during meditation - but notably on two occasions when walking in the rain and doing the washing-up. I undertook it, though, primarily, to improve concentration and it did/does. After my first attempted it became very apparent how poor my concentration was and how beneficial such a dedicated mind capable of *listening* for long periods would be. It also struck me how profoundly rich the world is and that so much passes by unnoticed.

I've not tried other forms of meditation which focus on breathing, or repeating mantras, but I don't find the idea as appealing - I feel this form to be a challenge as soon as I start. And every time you meditate this way the world offers up a different rich tapestry - you (often) don't know what noise is coming next, and you must be in a state of readiness to capture it.

This is of course my subjective interpretation.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That's at least more sensible sounding than pretending a tiger is about to attack you. Thanks for the explanation!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazen

Simply to be present. That could be present and scared, present and happy, whatever. Just present.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I share your perspective on psychelics substances, but have only dabbled in a few drugs throughout my life. My fears run in line with this poster -"I worry about changing my frame of reference like that. I'm afraid of what could happen -- not safety-wise, but mentally..." Quite frankly, I'm pretty happy with my state of reference - and I'm not sure I want to change. Blissfully unaware is not such a bad place to be.

I have taken ecstacy a few times hardly for educational purposes :), but found it somewhat enlightening. Specifically in regards to how much the feeling of compassion, self-worth, and belonging comes as a result of chemicals funneled in your brain. It's nice to think we control our state of happiness to some degree, but we are all just minions of are seratonin apparently.

Would you be willing to give your opinion on which drugs should be tried and their level of intensity? It would be much appreciated.

(Reply) (Thread)

Goddamn hell yeah.

Paul, this is a great thread. It has made me realize how great the world is going to be in 20 years. It's awesome seeing folks from YOUR generation being able to express the same ideas that MY generation (I'm 22) really dig.

Briefly, on mushrooms, for those with little or no experience:
mushrooms are very different from your perspective of "people who do mushrooms" or big hippie communes or whatever. mushrooms are scary, eye-opening, funny, they can be pretty much anything, because they're YOU. If I had to describe the changes in sensory observations, I'd say that mushrooms don't let you ignore all of those things we usually ignore - like the constant hum of your modem, or funny ratio of the length of your palm to the length of your fingers. To describe their cognitive effects, they seem to make my mind go into overdrive and let it run any course of logic that comes up.

(Reply) (Thread)